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.

Radical feminism is absolutely not about choice and as I said on my first or second post on this thread, part of radfem analysis is to recognise that such "free choice" is actually not free under patriarchy

What would posters propose as a method of valuing child rearing?

@Catinthebath I think we could start by ensuring those people who do it professionally are paid better and in line with other responsible and specialised careers, the same as others in caring professions should be.

I don't think I would support a choice to be a SAHP for any length of time. But it would be up to the individual person to make that decision. I don't want to have to support another person's decision in their own life. I would disapprove because I would see the disadvantages. But it would be their choice. I am fed up of SAHP's parents seeking approval from the rest of society. And this need to be valued. If their own families value them that's enough.

Also I think someone can BE any type of feminist they want. As a rad fem would recognise your choices are not made in a vacuum. You would not try to claim SAHM was some kind of feminist role.

See, I don't care about being financially dependant on my dh. Surely the nature of relationships is that both people depend on each other? What I do care about is where that might leave me if we split. I know people don't like hearing it, but he has enjoyed the benefits of me being a sahp, so if that was properly recognised and the money split 50/50 on divorce, the decision to sah would no longer be seen as something which had no value or that makes women vulnerable.

Bluntness, if you are away with work and you had small dc, the fact is that someone would have to be at home looking after them. Lots of families earn well, but not enough for nannies, which is what you'd need, if there was no parent at home. Everyone's life if facilitated by other people.

Why is it assumed that parenting isn't equal just because there's a sahp

There were a couple of excellent threads a while back on the concept of "the facilitated man" and how much easier this whole entitlement and expectation makes men's lives (as a whole).

Sorry bit off topic

As a rad fem would recognise your choices are not made in a vacuum. You would not try to claim SAHM was some kind of feminist role.

But what if you were in the position of being able to choose not to be a SAHM just as easily as choosing to be one, but simply you would rather stay at home? So despite believing it to be less desirable you're happy to take advantage of the current patriarchal norm when it aligns with your wishes?

Although I guess the only person who would know whether or not that was what they were doing would be that person themselves. And I suppose whether or not they considered themselves sufficiently feminist would come down to how badly they didn't want to be a hypocritical one.

Why is it assumed that parenting isn't equal just because there's a sahp
confused
That is probably because of the experience of the vast majority of the people on the planet. Just a guess.

The trouble is women are not thinking about the years to come. Especially if they haven't married their partner. Now with the retirement age higher there will be women forced to take jobs well into their sixties because they have no pension or very little pension. And state financial provision for single people under retirement age without dependants is quite poor. And their high earning partner will enjoy the benefits of a good pension. Being a SAHP has consequences.

I wanna, of course. And I did go away when my daughter was very small, my husband stayed home, just as I stayed home when he was away over night. We worked it jointly and equally.

At the beginning he was in the armed forces, and away for months on end, and I had a childminder during the,day and I was home every night when he was away.. When he came out and got a job on civvy sheet, I had more flexibility and we worked it so one of us was always home. When we had the occassional crunch, and it was rare one of us couldn't move it, mine took precedence as the higher earner.

Rat what other responsible and specialised careers do you see child rearing being in line with?

I don't see why SAHM necessarily has anything to do with feminism? I stay at home because the salary I earned prior to being a mum wouldn't cover the cost of childcare. DH earns more so it makes sense that he works. It's a financial decision not based on feminism in the slightest. I'm actually better qualified than DH but wasn't as lucky in the job market. We'd both like to switch places if we could! Equally some women can't afford not to work if they can earn a decent salary after childcare and they need the money.

Choosing to work or stay at home is different. The point being you're free to choose what matters to you most, and both choices are equally valuable. Most women aren't free to choose though!

We are going deep now rat... how does the person know that's what they want? Why do they want that? Is it just coincidence that the vast majority of women "PREFER" to take the sah or pt role? Most women take their husband's name on marriage.. just because they really want to / his name is nicer, if the threads on here are to be believed!
My point is that even if you make a "free choice" from a position of relative privilege - you could have made the other choice - you're still influenced by a ton of societal factors. And yes I think I would feel hypocritical as a feminist if I chose to stay at home given my own (privileged) personal situation.

It seems to me that working mothers are often mainly relying on low paid or unpaid women (childcare workers and grannies)

I worked full time from when my son was 2 months old. My son's working parents paid a very good salary to various trained nannies.

I don't know why you assume it is "working mothers" exclusively who are paying for child care.

As you might imagine the decision I made to work was not because of it being the feminist thing to do but on a practical level there can't be anything much more empowering than having complete financial independence.

Assigned, yes I have one child through choice

Yes me too. A very definite mututal decision which neither of us ever swithered on.

Assuming that, as some posters are arguing, you can't be a SAHM by choice and a rad fem, I have this question... if you go to work but (as in my case) pay another woman to look after your children, can you be a rad fem?

@Bellamuerte you and the vast majority of women who give up work because "it just makes sense". Why do you earn less than your husband? Why do most women earn less than theirs? Is that an equal society? Men keep the earning power and financial independence- then it continues to "make sense"? Look beyond your own situation to the bigger picture. That's why it is absolutely relevant to feminism

"I think we could start by ensuring those people who do it professionally are paid better"

Surely that would just mean fewer women being able to work because they can't afford childcare?

I think my earnings were less because I went into teaching. I was never going to earn what dh, in the private sector, had the potential to earn. The only way to get anywhere near would have been to go into senior management, but the down side to that is less teaching time.

@LorelaiVictoriaGilmore that's interesting and raises the question of fair pay for childcare work. I think you can be yes. The woman you are employing is paid and working. As long as it's not exploitative, what is wrong with it? If you are asking whether you can also be a socialist - that's a different question.

@Bellamuerte not if you make government subsidise child care & force men to pay half of it (I mean shift the expectation that the cost is the women's responsibility and that if it's more than her salary she needs to stay home which is short sighted and damaging)

Definitions

Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.

Liberal feminism is an individualistic form of feminist theory, which focuses on women's ability to maintain their equality through their own actions and choices

I maintain the op is not a radical feminist on this specific matter. She is a liberal one. Supported by her Immediate come back to me (which she later excused) as saying that her husband valued her. She is saying she has maintained her equality even though she is financially inactive and dependent on him. This is absolutely not radical feminism. It's liberal.

I’ve been an FT WOH parent, a SAHP and most things in between over the years.

It doesn’t matter a jot in terms of feminism.
I have had jobs in my younger days where I was paid well to use my skills and talents to prop up the oppressive status quo and negatively impact women and children.

Those times at work trouble me as a feminist. Taking time to educate and guide my children does not feel at all problematic.

I will say though that DH and I have both spent time being FT SAHP and FT WOHP.

I’d probably feel differently, personally, if I’d always been at home with the DCs with DH as our sole financial support.
I have been lucky enough to have a career that paid enough to make my employment viable.

I have friends, who were earning less than their partners when DCs arrived, who never really got back into work. I don’t consider them retrogressive.

Much of society is set up to support the outdated notion of a FT employee, whose silent partner manages every other aspect of home, family and social life.
I only escaped that trap as I was earning much more than DH when DS1 came along. My equally able friends weren’t lucky enough to be in that position.

Also, the work of looking after children, elderly relatives and other societal input carried by women is woefully unappreciated.

To put it in perspective, If SAHMs (i’m Purposely leaving dads out here for clarity, sorry lads ) held a national strike day, the nation would grind to a halt and people would die.

Radical feminists should be equally exercised about the complete lack of pay for work by many women, as much as we rightly are by the gender gap.

Jobs that are valued by men currently attract the biggest financial awards.

Jobs that are valued by women are either badly paid or expected for free.