Is choosing to be a SAHM a feminist decision?

[user1471506568]

Ok so I'm a SAHM and would also strongly identify as a radical feminist although admittedly I still am learning about all of this. I understand that liberal feminism is more about the individual as opposed to the class movement so under that philosophy being a SAHM is an acceptable feminist decision but I'm confused about the rad fem stance.

I can see how from a financial perspective being a SAHM is a bit of a backward step for feminism, but this is such a narrow view and I don't think money is the only measure of worth . In fact it strikes me as an extremely patriarchal measure where the balance will always be tipped to men earning more due to women having children.

I would be really interested in people's views on this. Can I be a radical feminist and a SAHM or am I letting down the class movement?

NB: Please don't take this as negative judgement of any working mothers as I respect everyone's decision to do what's best for them.

By implication WOHP dont then have those skills

How can it imply this? It can only imply this if you think we don't care for our children in the evenings, nights, mornings, weekends, when they are sick, on holidays. Do you think stay at home parents lose those kills when the kids are at school?

There is no difference in the skills, it's simply the amount of time spent doing it. Implying parents who work don't care for their kids ain't a pretty one.

If you refuse to cannot see that the majority of SAHP being women and the majority of CEOs being men is a problem for feminism then I'm amazed.

Of course I recognise this is a problem for feminism.

However to solve this problem do you think it is a really good idea to stigmatise the role of SAHP and the women who do it? To minimise any skills and knowledge involved in this role and render them entirely irrelevant in the workplace. This completely alienates a whole sector of women from all types of feminism.

Women who WOH complain that SAHM work against the feminist cause as they make women's working life more difficult as they have to compete with 'facilitated men'. However this would seem somewhat hypocritical if women who WOH perpetuate exploitation of women in the workplace by paying into the exploitative care and service industries in order to look after their own families. Or if they ignore or dismiss the reasons why women find themselves having an extended period spent as a SAHP or the skills and knowledge they may acquire in the process.

Grumpy So equality means being the same? We should have equal numbers of female and male SAHPs to be equal? Is this just in the SAH role or across all occupations? In the beauty industry, in the military, in midwifery?

Just because it's an undervalued role in society, it doesn't mean that as feminists we should be desperate to disown it or try to add value to it through making men take up the role. It really is just so depressing that the only way that women will see their own traditional roles valued is if they are to some extent taken over by men. Why can't we fight for female dominated roles to be given the value they deserve irrespective of whether men want to do them or not?

However this would seem somewhat hypocritical if women who WOH perpetuate exploitation of women in the workplace by paying into the exploitative care and service industries in order to look after their own families.

So is your position that nobody should use childcare? All families should have a SAHP? That’s quite a radical position to take.

Bluntness -I know that !!!

So yes, if you're the one home, doing the school runs, making sure the kids are fed, that he doesn't need to take a day off when they are sick, or during school holidays or inset days, you are 100 percent giving that man a workplace advantage over thr working mother in terms of career progression , whether it's your intention or not.

Well, if being a rad fem involves your husband doing stuff around the house, I'm probably the most rad fem of all of you in that respect. Cancer treatment

liltingleaf it is interesting that you think that the way for women to WOH is for them to exploit other women. Why do you think that this would be easier than having a SAHD?

So is your position that nobody should use childcare? All families should have a SAHP? That’s quite a radical position to take.

No. Just don't pretend that working in a high status role is categorically the most radically feminist thing you can do as a woman.

OP, you said in your OP that you strongly identify as a radical feminist. Did you look at RF analysis on SAHMs before making this statement? What did you find?

Why do you think that this would be easier than having a SAHD?

I didn't say that. I said that 'if' they pay into the exploitative service and care industries in order to look after their own families it is somewhat hypocritical claiming to be rad fem.

Just don't pretend that working in a high status role is categorically the most radically feminist thing you can do as a woman

Oh yes I see. I don’t so that’s ok.

I don’t agree that sending my son to nursery two days a week is exploitative of the women (and one token man!) who work there.

splendide, are the nursery staff well paid for their work, in your opinion?

Bluntness No doubt that is valued in the family unit, but it gives that man an unfair advantage over nearly all working mothers. There is really no discussion to be had on that. It simply does. And that's why mothers struggle often in the workplace and fathers don't. Because mothers usually don't have a partner at home managing all the child care and enabling them to work all the hours required like their Male counterparts do all too often

Well I think your point isn't about working mothers struggling to compete with men with SAHM partners but all working parents (both male and female) without SAHPs struggling to compete not only with these facilitated men but also anybody without young children or caring responsibilities.

I agree this is a problem but there are several examples on this thread, my own included, where being a SAHM has not created a facilitated partner. Yes there are undeniably some advantages to having a parent around during the working day when your kid gets ill etc but a lot of people have wider support networks such as grandparents that can help with these kinds of things. Are these women defined as 'facilitated' women because they have this support? I think 'facilitated' man implies a much larger amount of support which isn't necessarily provided by a SAHP

I've never paid for childcare. And I'm not a radfem. So no hypocrisy from me. I did work in Early Years Education looking after other people's children. I do not and did not at the time consider myself exploited as I was paid a decent wage and had excellent professional development paid for by my employers.

Good for you Dione. I'm not sure everybody who works in childcare has had the same experience, though.

I don’t think nursery workers earn enough, no. I also think teachers are hugely underpaid.

I don’t think that means when I send my son to school in 18 months that I am exploiting them. Most SAHMs send their 3 year olds to preschool same as me so I don’t see that it’s relevant.

DIone - I have read a few articles and blogs online and to be honest found it quite confusing as there didn't seem to be anything definitive hence my post. I am still quite new to the whole thing so this thread has really helped me understand different perspectives.

I don’t think that means when I send my son to school in 18 months that I am exploiting them. Most SAHMs send their 3 year olds to preschool same as me so I don’t see that it’s relevant.

But do you believe by paying for childcare which pays the workers badly you are not contributing to childcare worker's exploitation? Or that because SAHMs also do this your contribution towards this is negated?

Equally, my cancer diagnosis has meant I am certainly not a career facilitator. Does this count as a rad fem attribute?

Bumpity, sure, if someone has an extended family member doing all the school runs, doing all the sick days, cooking the kids meals, covering all holidays, etc. Sure I'd agree they were facilitated in their career.

I do actually understand why folks do what's right for them and their families. I simply take exception to Any woman who can work and chooses not to, trying to then call herself a rad fem. rad fem is wanting patriarchy and any sniff of it removed from our society. It's working for the greater benefit of women to enable that.

These women at home with the kids through choice, by default are giving working fathers an advantage over most working mothers and are doing the opposite of rad fem, they are enabling and progressing a patriarchal society by their very actions.

For every single woman who choses to stay home and look after the kids, there is a corresponding father with a corresponding advantage in the workplace.

So when he gets his next promotion and you're celebrating. Spare a passingthought for the working mother, who couldn't compete with him, because she did have to do the school run, she did suddenly have to take days off when they were sick.

And recognise exactly what you did.

But do you believe by paying for childcare which pays the workers badly you are not contributing to childcare worker's exploitation? Or that because SAHMs also do this your contribution towards this is negated?

Yes to the first question - I don’t believe that by sending my child to pre-school that I am contributing to exploitation. So I don’t think there’s anything to negate.

It is another interesting thread of discussion though. I don’t think boycotting services provided by poorly paid people is the best way to effect change in those wages. I could be wrong on this though. In fact maybe I am wrong here as I do take that approach to clothes - I don’t buy cheap clothes made in sweat shops. It really is hard in real life, I certainly don’t have the answers.

My preference if I was in charge of everything would be a radical uplift in the minimum wage. But I’m not refusing to shop in supermarkets in the meantime! I’m just not perfectly ethical!

Spare a passingthought for the working mother, who couldn't compete with him, because she did have to do the school run, she did suddenly have to take days off when they were sick.

And recognise exactly what you did.

Equally, can you spare a passing thought, for every exploited woman employed in those services you have payed for, in order for your own family to be looked after?

Also can you spare a passing thought for making SAHM's who care and advocate for their children with additional needs more difficult when you dismiss them as perpetuating the patriarchy?

It really is hard in real life, I certainly don’t have the answers.

Now, that, I do agree with.

These women at home with the kids through choice, by default are giving working fathers an advantage over most working mothers and are doing the opposite of rad fem, they are enabling and progressing a patriarchal society by their very actions.

Those there through circumstances will often want to view it as their own choice, in order not to feel utterly powerless. So that they can accept and own the work they do. Powerlessness is utterly demoralising. By attaching stigma to those there by choice you add to their difficulty.

*So when he gets his next promotion and you're celebrating. Spare a passingthought for the working mother, who couldn't compete with him, because she did have to do the school run, she did suddenly have to take days off when they were sick.

And recognise exactly what you did.*

I think it works the other way round as well. Here's my experience, anyway. I didn't go back to work because I couldn't get the flexibility I wanted. And one of the reasons I couldn't get the flexibility I wanted was because one woman on my team had had that flexibility when she came back from maternity leave......and abused it royally. She wanted to be paid for four days a week, while actually working a lot less than she was meant to and in fact caring for her child when she was supposed to be working from home. The result? No more flexible working as a company wide edict. My DH had a pretty similar experience with a woman he employed. He had the best of intentions at the start and came away pretty cynical about the whole experience. He wouldn't employ anyone on a flexible basis again either. It's not all one way....

Yes I consider it a feminist decision.