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.

I think everyone claiming to be rad fem does this. Patriarchy is so deeply ingrained within our society it is impossible not to be affected by it. Just by entering the world of work collides with the patriarchal capitalist economy. Just by conforming to what it means to be a 'good candidate' in employment terms does this when done in the context of patriarchal capitalism. Until this is acknowledged radical feminism will achieve little

I actually think you have a point. You sound like a liberal feminist to me. I’m also a lib fem, mostly because I don’t see the radical stance working in practical terms

Navigator what a narrow view of feminism. You do realise women can get involved with feminist issues outside the workplace? Were the suffragettes all in employment? I am making a difference inside and outside my own four walls thank you very much . Making assumptions about this just proves you've been influenced by the damaging SAHM stereotypes.

Constantly, as I said upthread, I don't assign labels to myself, in terms of feminism. I understand and don't disagree with rad fem aims however how people, claiming to be rad fem say these aims should be achieved and some of the rhetoric surrounding this, I evidently clash with.

Of course the suffragettes weren’t all in employment: employment options for women then were far more limited!

I'm not blaming sahms. I'm hoping to change the structures that force most women to do that or go part time while men continue to hold all the power, senior jobs, money and influence

I think I partly do blame the ones who proactively chose it when they don't have to. I find this thread has me examining my own belief system. When a woman choses not to work, when she easily can, and she enables her husbands career by doing so, then for me, yes she is part of the problem, she is prolonging and enabling a patriarchal society. Intentionally or otherwise.

As said before, I suspect I am more of a rad fem than I had understood. If I look back over my adult life, my actions throughout my life have never supported a patriachy or any one who does so. For me, I am an equal. Potentially this was due to an abusive father.

Examples.

I have always worked and never considered quitting to stay home and,subsequently enabling my husband. I could have done so. The thought didn't even occur to me.
I had one child partially because I understood having two might force me into a situation where I couldn't work so easily and force me to stay home.
I work in a heavily male dominated stem industry and have been promoted several times over men as a working mother, been quoted as seen as a "role model" by the younger women entering it now.
I ensured my husband did 50 percent of the child care. It was never up for discussion.
I never gave a father an advantage in the workplace because he could be there.
I actively fought for females to be promoted and as one Male boss stated "bodily stood in front of them"to enable change.
I always made/make allowances for the women who had to get back for the kids and promote (d) on merit only.
I taught my daughter if you want it you work for it and you don't ever marry for it or take it from a man. From a very, very early age.
I led by example in this.
I paid for her to be privately educated throughout because I wanted her to have every opportunity and taught her she could be whatever she chose. She's just finishing her law degree.
I maintained full financial independence throughout my adult life inc having seperate bank accounts as well as a joint one with my husband.
As a min I always contributed 50 percent financially . And upwards of 70 percent for a long time now.
My objective in seperate accounts, as i stated to my husband, when I was a younger woman, was i wished to know that if I ever had to pick up my daughter and go I could. I was and am with my husband through choice and love, not financial necessity.

Although I have looser friends who were stay at home mums, I have always avoided the subject with them and I displayed a lack of interest in the school mums who didn't work. Because I was disinterested. My close friendship circle is women who have a similar belief system to myself.

Even simple things. Like I may change my car. I've organised a test drive on Monday for a new vehicle. I will go alone. I will make the decision myself. I will negotiate it myself and pay for it myself. I will not seek advice from my husband or his help on this. I never have. I don't need a man to hold my hand.

So yes, I think deep down, if you can go to work, and you chose not to because you want to "raise"your kids, and in doing so, you ensure your husbands career is not hindered by dealing with school runs, holidays or sick days, I do see you as someone who is prolonging and enabling a patriarchal society. And as I said at the very start of this thread which caused a bun fight, I probably wouldn't wish to hear your opinions on the complexity of being a working mother.

I work in a (public sector) field where there seem to be relatively few fathers with SAHWs, which I suspect could be because our wages are low relative to some “comparable” private sector roles. Often the fathers need to leave by 5pm to collect DC from childcare, take time off if DC are sick etc. IMO this is quite good in terms of equality/diversity in our workplace.

Much as I agree with bluntness that sometimes a SAHM is assisting in making it harder for other women in the workplace, given that many SAHMs are SAHM precisely because of the complexity of being a working mother, it will never be anything other than nonsensical to automatically not want to hear their opinions.

Fair enough if someone has no idea and is just ignorantly yarning on. That happens. But there are thousands and thousands of women who lose their jobs because of discrimination based on their status as mothers, and not all of them are able to get back in even if they want to. They know from very bitter experience just how hard it can be at the sharp end! They possibly know more than me in fact, because although I've experienced discrimination because of being a mother, I've been able to maintain the flexible career that is the goal for so many. A SAHM in that scenario could well be more qualified to speak than I am.

So yes, I think deep down, if you can go to work, and you chose not to because you want to "raise"your kids, and in doing so, you ensure your husbands career is not hindered by dealing with school runs, holidays or sick days, I do see you as someone who is prolonging and enabling a patriarchal society. And as I said at the very start of this thread which caused a bun fight, I probably wouldn't wish to hear your opinions on the complexity of being a working mother.

I think this is evident and not particularly 'deep down'.

I had one child partially because I understood having two might force me into a situation where I couldn't work so easily and force me to stay home.

You were lucky there wasn't any additional or medical needs thrown into the mix. Your own or your child's. A lot of families necessarily have a SAHP because their family's needs are not so easily catered to through corporate services which can be bought in. Due to our capitalist patriarchy this SAHP is most often a woman.

Choice is an extremely moot point. We don't make our choices outside of any context. Outside factors certainly affect our choices but the choices our still our's - in that we can agree to them and own and have autonomy over the work involved.

It does not further feminism in any way, never mind radically, not to acknowledge this. It actually puts it back in terms of stigmatising, demoralising, infantising, victimising women and alienating them from any kind of feminism, in some cases.

I understand and don't disagree with rad fem aims however how people, claiming to be rad fem say these aims should be achieved and some of the rhetoric surrounding this, I evidently clash with

I get where you are coming from I don’t like some of the rad fem rhetoric either. I think it takes choices away from people and it often simply isn’t practical.
I just don’t know why you are so adamant that being a sahp is a rad fem position. It isn’t, it’s a lib fem one - and that’s fine.

Does anyone know the history of the second wave of feminism quite well?
How were Marylin French et al supporting themselves financially when doing the protests, Miss World demo etc? In the Women’s Room Myra seems to have some kind of student funding, or perhaps alimony from her husband? Just curious.

To me it seems that there are very few entirely self-supporting people, including men. It often seems to be one of:

Living costs shared with a spouse or partner

A higher earning spouse

State subsidy such as tax credits

Family money in the background

I admire those who are, though!

Given that we SAHMs are , according to this thread, skillless, lazy irrelevant losers, I don't quite understand the drive to get them into work. I mean, they don't really seem like they would make good employees, would they? And they might well prop up patriarchal stereotypes of the inferiority of women as they have no useful skills, do they?

Surely, you would rather us stupid incompetents not clutter up your workplaces?

I work in a (public sector) field where there seem to be relatively few fathers with SAHWs, which I suspect could be because our wages are low relative to some “comparable” private sector roles. Often the fathers need to leave by 5pm to collect DC from childcare, take time off if DC are sick etc. IMO this is quite good in terms of equality/diversity in our workplace.

So perhaps Marxist feminism in relation to radical feminism is worth a look? It is no accident that some of the least feminist or family friendly working practices occur within private corporate environments.

I just don’t know why you are so adamant that being a sahp is a rad fem position

I'm not. I just think it is as rad fem, or more, than a woman working in a high status post for a corporate industry which exploits women and who has to buy into exploitative care and service industries.

t will never be anything other than nonsensical to automatically not want to hear their opinions

I actually agree with you, I didn't say it was right, as said, I think this thread has shown me I do have very radical feminist beliefs indeed, probably due to having an abusive father making me determined and possibly blinkered , but if I perceive anything to be enabling Male superiority over women, I turn away. I have no time. I didn't say it was right, I was simply being honest that that's how I react. I am maybe even worse than I make out, because when I meet the wives who don't work of my male colleagues, and I know the family situation, I am smiley polite and walk away. I don't invest any more time with them than I need to to not cause offence..

Lilting, I agree with you, life throws us many curve balls and for me, a woman who stays home with children with additional needs is not someone who can easily work and choses not to. I've stated numerous times now I do not include these parents in the box of ones who simply chose not to work. I have a colleague who has a disabled child. Heavily autistic. I spend a lot of time talking to his non working wife. Somewhere in my head I see her as different.

exploitative care and service industries

My friend pays her cleaner £20 an hour, she’s not exploited.

The childcare’s I use are not exploited.

I just don’t know why you are so adamant that being a sahp is a rad fem position -I'm not*

My mistake, I’ve clearly misread your posts.

Lilting, I agree with you, life throws us many curve balls and for me, a woman who stays home with children with additional needs is not someone who can easily work and choses not to. I've stated numerous times now I do not include these parents in the box of ones who simply chose not to work. I have a colleague who has a disabled child. Heavily autistic. I spend a lot of time talking to his non working wife. Somewhere in my head I see her as different.

Sadly, the thing is that before you find this out, it would be very easy to make assumptions. I am absolutely certain people have made assumptions about me in the past. As I said previously, I don't feel like disclosing mine and my family's confidential medical information and the impact on our lives to everyone I meet, every where I go. I own the choices I make and proactively seek autonomy, on my own terms, because not to do so would make my life much worse.

Lilting, yiu need to stop with the whole exploitive thing. I also as stated have never used exploited care workers. Many are well paid professionals. You have to stop accusing everyone of that and ask the question. It's not ok.

exploitative care and service industries

My friend pays her cleaner £20 an hour, she’s not exploited.

The childcare’s I use are not exploited

Good for you. This is not the case, across the board, though.

Sadly, the thing is that before you find this out, it would be very easy to make assumptions

I don't disagree. Hence where I commented where I know the family situation,

Many are well paid professional

But many are not. Read some of the education and care workers threads on here.

Good for you. This is not the case, across the board, though

But conversely it's also not the case they are exploited across the board as you are randomly accusing everyone.

But care work, cleaning and work in education are some of the lowest paid fields in our economic climate (compared to the responsibility/training involved).

Good for you. This is not the case, across the board, though

It’s not fair for you to suggest that all women (or indeed people) outsourcing childcare / cleaning / gardening - are exploiting people. Most people in childcare / cleaning homes / gardening etc are not exploited .

Most people in childcare / cleaning homes / gardening etc are not exploited .

Why are a large proportion of these sectors paying minimum wage or low wage in comparison to training and education involved for the more senior roles.

Bluntness genuinely, that ia really great to hear.

But has your DC ever watched a Disney Princess cartoon? Have you ever visited Dubai? Have you ever, even accidentally, fat-shamed a woman?

We live in the society we live in. These things may not be as serious or life-affirming a choice as being a SAHP but they still support the capitalist patriarchy. We all do it. It is inescapable.

There is also a huge element of luck. Luck (and hard work) that you are intelligent, educated and healthy enough to work in STEM. Luck (and good choices) that your partner does do 50%. If he was not feeding the kids or routinely picked them up from daycare pissed, you would not have the model you do. Luck that he's alive. Luck (and merit) that you were promoted to be able to afford private education.