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.

These women at home with the kids through choice, by default are giving working fathers an advantage over most working mothers

It puts working fathers on a level playing field with people without kids. Remove the working father from the equation and the working mother would still be disadvantaged against others, male and female.

Also I still maintain that the problem is corporate culture and lack of opportunity for life-work balance. DH doesn't want to work as much as he does. He'd love to do the school run etc but his employer demands a higher level of commitment from an employee who wants to advance. Any employee who can't make that commitment for whatever reason, whether because they're a mum or something else, will not be promoted to a top level job.

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?

Firstly I can categorically and unequivocally state that no child care I ever used was somone who was exploited, felt exploited and they would have either laughed in your face or been deeply offended had you suggested such a thing. There are some very qualified and well paid child care professionals out there. Stop being so offensive and stating it's all women who are exploited who do this role.

And I specifically stated women who can work and chose not to. In my view women, or men, who stay home with children with additional needs are doing a fantastic and very difficult job and are not in the same category, you do them also a huge and offensive disservice by lumping them in the same category as women who can but chose not to when their kids have no additional needs.

I get you want to make a counter argument, but think before you post, as you're simply being offensive to women who chose to work in child care and offensive to women who have children with additional needs that require them to be there.

You do them also a huge and offensive disservice by lumping them in the same category as women who can but chose not to when their kids have no additional needs.

I speak from experience as a woman whose D.C. had additional needs. I was lumped in the same category. I did not want to explain my reasons for being a SAHP every where I went. So the lumping in inevitably happens amongst those who would judge this role. The solution is not to be so judgemental.

I have worked in childcare also. I think I would know if what I say is offensive to the sector of people I work amongst and belong to. What qualifies you to comment what would offend childcare workers, Bluntness?

Maybe you should re-read my posts...

I don't need to reread them lilting. Once was enough, I can assure you of that.

To accuse a qualified and experienced professional of being exploited when they work through choice in their chosen field is of course offensive. Don't play dumb.

And whomever lumped you in with women who chose not to work wasn't me, I've been very very clear that my reference was with women who could but simply chose not to. I do not view women with children with additional needs in this bracket.

As said, it's fine to feel defensive and want to put up a counter argument, I'm good with that and will respond to you, if you're right I will say so.

But before you do a third time, at least think it through and come up with something decent. Not all childcare professionals are exploited, and clearly women with children with additional needs was not what I was referring too. Both are bullshit counter arguments.

Make the third one worth both our effort.

I'm good with that and will respond to you, if you're right I will say so.

Think a lot of yourself, don't you?

To accuse a qualified and experienced professional of being exploited when they work through choice in their chosen field is of course offensive. Don't play dumb.

I take it you don't read a lot of the teaching threads on here...

And whomever lumped you in with women who chose not to work wasn't me, I've been very very clear that my reference was with women who could but simply chose not to. I do not view women with children with additional needs in this bracket.

A lot of times people are not going to tell you their reasons and motivations. Neither is choice clear cut. I chose to care for my D.C. with additional needs. I was best placed to do this. I have a background in education. My role was incompatible with taking on paid employment. Did I choose my role as a SAHP?

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?

What a ridiculous and offensive comment. I agree with Bluntness.

Equally offensive is putting the blame on SAHMs for presenteeism within the workplace.

liltingleaf what do you think radical feminism is about?

Bluntness 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

Yes I agree with this definition but I just simply can't accept that women giving up what I consider a natural desire to be at home to raise their families in order to compete with men for money is in anyway dismantling the patriarchy. Of course women with children that want to WOH should be able to do this on a level playing field to men but I simply cannot accept that to achieve this all women must be forced to fall in line with patriarchal capitalist ideals. Who has decided what roles get renumerated in our society and by how much? Men. Who have assigned social capital to roles? Men. It's no coincidence that the roles women tend to do have little or no payment and social standing Is this because they are intrinsically inferior roles with less value or BECAUSE women tend to do them and therefore the patriarchy must ensure that they are not given the status of stereotypical male roles? Why should an teacher be paid less than an IT consultant? Why should a cleaner be paid less than a bin man? I guess a key difference in our philosophies is I don't necessarily think we should be looking to emulate men and takeover all the roles currently valued in society but instead be forcing a radical reordering of society where women's industries and vocations are properly valued alongside men's and the SAH role is given the importance and validity I believe it deserves. To me this is rad feminism as it fundamentally rejects the patriarchy.

Also regarding your point about disadvantaging working women through being a SAHM.I would echo what other posters have said about it being the working culture that does that more so than women choosing to be SAHMs. This culture will exist for as long as there are employees without caring responsibilities willing to gain a competitive advantage through utilising their additional available time to work. If you eradicated all SAHMs would it then be fair? Of course it wouldn't. The families with wider support networks would utilise them, those with money would buy in help and ultimately it would be those with neither of those things that fall behind (probably still single mothers in lowly paid jobs). The culture needs to change rather than laying the blame on women choosing to be at home with their kids.

"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?"

@Bumpitybumper we have already had this debate and I think the only significant difference between our views is that you believe there is some inherent biological difference between men and women that means women have some sort of natural desire to stay at home with kids / do caring professions etc. This is the sort of reductive stereotype that has allowed men to justify unequal treatment of women in the workplace for many years.
Yes I believe having equal numbers of sahd would be a good thing for women. I don't think men are naturally less good at child rearing (beyond obviously the breastfeeding period etc). I think saying that women should simply value our traditional roles under patriarchy better is actually undermining the feminist cause.
Going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

Grumpy - Yep I think our difference in approach had been established. Just out of interest, do you think that men and women have any innate propensity towards certain types of roles (e.g. military etc) or do you think it's all down to socialisation?

Not being goady. Genuine question to understand your position.

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

Well conforming to 1950s gender stereotypes certainly is less feminist than doing this! If you are a ceo with SAH husband at least you are showing people that it's possible for things to be different and for women to do other things than SAH or lie paid work (in the absence of dismantling capitalism and long hours culture which we all agree makes the need for sahp greater)

@Bumpitybumper Yes i believe it's mostly socialisation (including military etc) except for periods when there are significant hormonal changes happening eg immediately post birth.

I'm not denying the physical differences between men and women eg size, bone density, strength, however. Just that this difference doesn't cause women to automatically be less interested in non traditionally female work.

Oops earlier post should say low paid work

Grumpy Thanks for response. I think this is at the core of the debate. A nature v nurture thing I suppose.

Is anyone aware of any decent studies that have been done on this kind of thing? Reluctant to just Google as I tend to always get loads of blog/DM articles and I'm not sure that I have enough background knowledge to be able to distinguish an unbiased, scientifically sound study from one that's been done with an ulterior motive.

"I don't necessarily think we should be looking to emulate men and takeover all the roles currently valued in society but instead be forcing a radical reordering of society where women's industries and vocations are properly valued"

1- even if this were achievable would you not want your daughter to have more options outside the traditionally female sphere? This approach would not get rid of stereotypes or combat the female / Male socialisation problems or encourage women into politics or business where they could have more influence on our society, where men currently hold most of the power

2 - the fastest way to ensure we value these roles ( in the absence of a revolution) is to formally attach more economic value to them AND for more men to do them

3 - if men don't have to do any of the traditionally female roles ( just pay more tax to subsidise them) then I fear that this will simply widen the divide between the sexes and cause more discrimination against women rather than empathy and respect for what women do

"The culture needs to change rather than laying the blame on women choosing to be at home with their kids."

Yes and more men going part time / SAH for a period is a way to change that culture. As Dione said, employers' attitudes would have to change - currently it's too easy for them to disregard women but "parents" / potential parents is a much bigger % of workers.

"employer demands a higher level of commitment from an employee who wants to advance. Any employee who can't make that commitment for whatever reason, whether because they're a mum or something else, will not be promoted to a top level job."

@Bellamuerte you're right but let's say that suddenly working fathers AND working mothers are facing career disadvantages and discrimination... I bet society would give more of a shit! And we'd have a better chance of policies that actually change corporate culture.

Grumpy of course I don't think that women should only be able to access female dominated industries and we should be better represented in politics and in senior positions in businesses. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that some industries are undervalued because women have traditionally dominated them. Yes we could all rush to enter the better paid and respected male dominated industries or we could fight for better recognition of traditional female work. In reality I would probably like to see a bit of both, but I think until the latter is done properly then we will still be dancing to the patriarchy's tune.

I know what you're saying about trying to shortcut a way to add value to these roles through getting men to do them but you can't literally force men to take on roles they don't want to do. Even if in a nanny state this was possible, this would soon build up a heck of a lot more resentment than them paying more etc for women's work. To get men to want to take on these roles you have to make them more attractive and comparable to traditional male roles and not stigmatised by society.

"there are several examples on this thread, my own included, where being a SAHM has not created a facilitated partner. "

The exception that proves the rule. Also I mentioned upthread about earning power and the slippery slope of facilitation which is all too easy to fall into despite the best intentions

Unfortunately sahd are less likely to facilitate wohm in the same way - due to socialisation - women who work still tend to do more domestic chores. In general. That's kind of another discussion but it's a hard one to combat.

Just to be clear I DO think we should be better represented in senior positions and in politics

@Bumpitybumper "you can't literally force men to take on roles they don't want to do"

I'm not suggesting nanny state etc. But if more women took on senior roles in business and politics it would simply be more normal for their partners to be the secondary earner. So my method would be to do everything to help girls and women achieve career success and not drop out, while at the same time making sure there are the right kind of positive reward policies in place (eg properly paid paternity leave such as in Sweden) to reduce the barriers to men taking on that responsibility

I really worry that for example the government paying sahms as a policy would reduce opportunities and choice for women and simply mean we are even less represented in work outside the home. It wouldn't mean men rush to do the job. But if you had more higher earning women in work then suddenly it's not such a clear cut decision anymore about who stays home.