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.

Lilting its about the qualifications required in certain levels. My gardener, cleaner and any child care professionals I used are and were paid well above minimum wage. They would be offended if you suggested they were exploited.

You need to stop accusing every single women who posts of exploiting people. It's really offensive given you don't even ask the question, you simply throw out the accusation.

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

The same reason bar work, waitressing, retail etc etc is paid poorly. They are not highly skilled occupations and there are lots of people in society available to do the work.

You might as well argue I’m exploiting poorly paid workers every time I do my weekly shop.

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

You could be me. Child raising and domestic issues if not covered by paid help were equally shared with my husband.Those who were paid were not "expolited" - unless of course you come from the Marxist approsch that all paid work is exploitation (which is absurd)

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

Yes to all three. My daughter to be fair isn't a girly girl, she didn't play with dolls and she watched a balanced mix. I have visited Dubai but for work and on my own for ten days. I agreed recently with a friend when she said she was heavy. ( she's five or six stone over weight) And now she's pissed with me. However I also concluded the sentence saying she was very pretty and looked fine. Weight tends not to be something I do comment on to be honest.

And as for luck, yes I agree there is an element of that.

You need to stop accusing every single women who posts of exploiting people. It's really offensive given you don't even ask the question, you simply throw out the accusation.

You've admitted yourself you make assumptions concerning SAHMs. Here:

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.

If I were one of these 'losers' I think the very obvious vibes you were giving out would prevent me sharing anything about my life and opinions with you never mind my own and my family's confidential information. You cannot think it is ok to act as personal 'gatekeeper' for who gets involved in radical feminist change.

Lilting its about the qualifications required in certain levels. My gardener, cleaner and any child care professionals I used are and were paid well above minimum wage. They would be offended if you suggested they were exploited.

No, it is not entirely about qualifications. HCPs are highly qualified, highly responsible but badly remunerated compared to posts requiring similar levels of education in other fields. Ditto teachers.

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.

To be honest though that does not have to be the case. A lot of women have bought into the notion that only they can go to battle on behalf of their child with a disability as “warrior mums”. We have 2 kids with AN and the same way my husband is well capable of running a business, he is well capable of advocating for his disabled children.

For me it is all about men stepping up to the plate. Women made radical changes to society in the last 50 years. It is now the turn of men to step into the breech. Some women need to let go to facilitate this but IME it is more that men need to get up of their arse and demand
More flexible working.
More time off for family emergencies.
Take on the mental load.
Do more domestic labour.
Less presenteeism in the workplace.

I actually know loads of men doing this. Then I know loads who dont. That need to be unacceptable.

No, it is not entirely about qualifications. HCPs are highly qualified, highly responsible but badly remunerated compared to posts requiring similar levels of education in other fields

We aren’t talking about HCPs. We are talking about people in occupations that allow parents to outsource childcare and housework.

Woah, why are you calling these women losers. That's appalling, I may not be interested in their views of wish to spend time with them but calling them losers is plunging new depths. 😱

In addition, clearly, rightly or wrongly, You also wouldn't get thr opportunity to share anything private with me. As for gatekeeper, I will have my opinions, as will you. If you wish to think of yourself as rad fem, do so. It's my choice on whether I agree with you.

Stop being offensive and lay your arguments and thoughts out cohesively, don't accuse people of being exploitative before asking the question, don't call women losers. Just calm down.

If I were one of these 'losers"

Bluntness was, I am sure, making a distinction between "close friends" and 'not close friends"

looser friends
I presumed that Bluntness meant people I was less friendly with, not losers. Does it really mean losers?

X post

No of course it doesn't mean losers. That's an appalling interpretation.

To be honest though that does not have to be the case. A lot of women have bought into the notion that only they can go to battle on behalf of their child with a disability as “warrior mums”. We have 2 kids with AN and the same way my husband is well capable of running a business, he is well capable of advocating for his disabled children.

As I have said, context matters. Myself, coming from a background in education, whereas my DH didn't I was the best placed of the two of us to advocate for my D.C. I had more background knowledge on child development and how this could impact learning. I had taken a career break. My field of work was less lucrative than his although we are educated to the same level. Yes, I took on the lions share of advocation, yes this facilitated or rather preserved my DH's career to some extent. Forgive us to do what we could to protect the one income we had coming in

Of course it didn't mean "losers". It was obvious what Bluntness meant.

Oh, sorry. That was a rather unfortunate misreading of 'looser'. I

don't call women losers

I wasn't. I though you had, Bluntness.

Forgive us to do what we could to protect the one income we had coming in

No one is judging you on staying home to look after you family.

Can I ask you to stop judging me for “exploiting” my children’s child carers.

You can see how the misreading happened in the context of you saying this in the same breath, though, Bluntness:

I displayed a lack of interest in the school mums who didn't work.

Can I ask you to stop judging me for “exploiting” my children’s child carers.

I am not judging you, personally, cold. I don't know your children's carers.

Lilting I will say it one last time. I do not include parents with kids with additional needs. You need to stop lashing out.

Yes I have nothing in common with women who don't work where I know the family situation. I chose not to spend time with them and am disinterested. Is it right, no, but I am being honest, this does not in any shape nor form mean I think they are losers. What a horrific thought process

We aren’t talking about HCPs.

Could be, if you are taking about buying in care for families with members that have some additional medical needs.

You can see how the misreading happened in the context of you saying this in the same breath, though, Bluntness:

I displayed a lack of interest in the school mums who didn't work

No , not really.Bluntness is quite a forceful poster but she has not posted anything which would make me think she would use such a pejorative term.

What a horrific thought process

I agree. I'm pleased you think so.

No , not really.Bluntness is quite a forceful poster but she has not posted anything which would make me think she would use such a pejorative term.

I think it is highly likely that you think this way because you come from similar backgrounds. Nothing she said pushes your buttons in the same way. You have your own biases in the same way I have my own.

What a horrific thought process

I'll tell you what is though your iterations that every woman who pays for childcare or domestic help is exploiting them. Aside from it being nonsense I see you focus on "women"

Is it just me who exploited our domestic help? It was a joint decision by me and my husband.