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.

Oh sorry, Lass, I see that post was not aimed at me

It was aimed at you. You hypocritically quoted with approval the comment We need to change the rhetoric and involve men in "female "roles not bash other women for doing something different to us

The vast majority of your posts have done nothing except bash other women for doing something different.

I seriously impressed but don’t try and pretend you and your family haven’t benefited from capitalism.

I never have claimed that. My claim is critiquing people, with regard to radical feminism, on their employment status or lack of it is futile. Employment status says very little about how radically feminist someone might or might not be.

You hypocritically quoted with approval the comment We need to change the rhetoric and involve men in "female "roles not bash other women for doing something different to us

It is not hypocritical. It is something I truly believe. I even made the very same point early on in this thread before Quite made it. I critiqued, with reference to the rad fem perspective, some aspects of working outside the home relevant to some women who do this.

ConstantlyI seriously impressed but don’t try and pretend you and your family haven’t benefited from capitalism.

But if we didn't live in a capitalist society, you do realise that there would still be assets and resources it's just the distribution would be different. So you can't say if Lilting would have had more or less resources to utilise to become self sufficient without knowing the other system.

My point probably wasn't that clear but was basically we can't say how much anyone has profited from capitalism without knowing the alternative system. Not everyone will be better off in a capitalist society and vice versa

It is not hypocritical. It is something I truly believe

It is hypocritical as your main contribution to this thread has been bashing other women. And your comments are deeply sexist.

I critiqued, with reference to the rad fem perspective, some aspects of working outside the home relevant to some women who do this

Splendid bit of backtracking there combined with further sexism.

Even if one allows as a given that women employing domestic care are exploiting other women why does this apply only to women?

And your criticisms of these "exploitative women" had nothing to do with whether or not they are "rad fem". I am not a rad fem. I employed nannies et al.

It is hypocritical as your main contribution to this thread has been bashing other women. And your comments are deeply sexist.

According to you. I would level the same criticisms at men who buy into exploitative service and care industries. However the subject of the thread is concerning the choices women make.

I made this point on this thread on Tuesday,

Women need to support each other, accept and respect women who have made different life choices. Not criticise them in order to vindicate the different choices they have made.

It is something I have always believed and it seems to be holding true here.

But if we didn't live in a capitalist society, you do realise that there would still be assets and resources it's just the distribution would be different. So you can't say if Lilting would have had more or less resources to utilise to become self sufficient without knowing the other system

leaf lives a life where one wage supports solar panels and battery’s. The only people I know with solar panels and the ability to buy battery’s are pretty well off.

I’m going to guess based on past posts that the income in leafs household is quite a bit higher than the national average (I could be wrong but that is my guess).
Therefore leaf and her family have benefitted from this capitalist society.

Most family’s don’t have the option of growing their own veg, buying a solar panel and a battery because the don’t have the money.

My point was that leaf only has the ability to try and live her life in a Marxist way because she has benefitted from capitalism in a way that most have not - she’s doing better than average.
So if she’s doing better than average now she would get less resources if incomes were distributed evenly.

'Most family’s don’t have the option of growing their own veg, buying a solar panel and a battery because the don’t have the money. ' Constantly I'm not sure any of these things are so expensive that the average family household couldn't afford them if they prioritised them. Remember too that the mean average income could rise under a different system due to the redistribution wealth concentrated at the top of the capitalist society.

I am not really arguing that Marxism is the way to go. More pointing out that the current system has winners and losers and an alternative would not necessarily be worse for most. As women as a class are currently the losers it is relevant to consider alternative models that place an emphasis on different roles and skills rather than just accepting the status quo abd shouting down anyone with a different view

leaf lives a life where one wage supports solar panels and battery’s. The only people I know with solar panels and the ability to buy battery’s are pretty well off.

Solar panels, yes, batteries, no not yet but the price of them is coming down. We've not got a great deal of income, particularly. We survive on one middle income salary. I was surprised at the Channel 5 documentary, 'Rich House Poor House', that our disposable income was very similar to the people from the 'Poor House' group. However we are not poor as we have an asset in our property. I don't consider us wealthy or impoverished.

Women need to support each other, accept and respect women who have made different life choices. Not criticise them in order to vindicate the different choices they have made

It is something I have always believed and it seems to be holding true here

I don't know you can keep a straight face and write that. Your posts have done almost nothing other than criticise women's choices.

My point was that leaf only has the ability to try and live her life in a Marxist way because she has benefitted from capitalism in a way that most have not - she’s doing better than average.

I'm not trying to live in a Marxist way, merely pointed out ways in which I do not contribute to the patriarchal capitalist society. Doing better than average? Out of the workplace for over ten years and now been diagnosed with cancer? My future career and retirement prospects are not looking very enviable at the moment.

I don't know you can keep a straight face and write that.

Easily because it is true.

Your posts have done almost nothing other than criticise women's choices.

Your posts have done very little other than criticising my own, Lass.

Obviously this discussion has moved on a bit from the OP's post but the way I see it the OP wants to continue with her comfortable choices but rebadge them as radical feminism.

If she's not doing anything to change the system, taking $ from men, and doesn't appear to be pursuing any activism to change things then I can't see how she can call herself a 'radical feminist'. Does she even know what rad fem is? Honestly, I think Andrea Dworkin would be rolling over in her grave...

I'm not sure any of these things are so expensive that the average family household couldn't afford them if they prioritised them

They cost thousands

We've not got a great deal of income, particularly. We survive on one middle income salary

My impression was wrong apologies. Seriously impressed you can buy a house, run that household on one average salary and save up for solar panels.

The only people I know with solar panels and the ability to buy battery’s are pretty well off.

People could have solar panels installed for free at the time our's were installed.

*Seriously impressed you can buy a house, run that household on one average salary and save up for solar panels.

Doing better than average? Out of the workplace for over ten years

Are you actually being serious. You’ve spent the whole thread telling us not to be disparaging towards sahp. And now you’re saying being out of the workforce for 10 years means you are doing worse than average.

Sorry pressed post too soon.

Seriously impressed you can buy a house, run that household on one average salary and save up for solar panels.

House prices were a lot cheaper when we bought our house. Mortgages were easier to come by. A relocation grant funded our initial deposit on our first house.

now you’re saying being out of the workforce for 10 years means you are doing worse than average.

In terms of future prospects / choices, yes. Coupled with the cancer. That has the potential to muck a lot up. However my D.C. has benefitted and is doing very well, above average, despite having some additional needs.

I am sorry about your diagnosis

You’ve spent the whole thread telling us not to be disparaging towards sahp.

Is it right to be disparaging towards people who have made sacrifices in some areas in order to benefit them in others?

In terms of future prospects / choices, yes

Which is pretty much what everyone said 5 pages ago.

And saying so isn’t disparaging is it?