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.

Not*

Sorry should have proofread. Stay at home mums eh

Also there are a lot of people taking things personally here. Like it’s a personal attack on particular women. It’s not, it’s called class analysis.

Like when someone says ‘90% of murders that happen worldwide are committed by men’, this isn’t saying ‘all men are murderers’.

I think on an individual level it's perfectly possible to be a SAHM and a feminist.

I think the problems arise when you take a step back and see that the vast majority of SAHP are women. I don't think that environment is very conducive to feminism, for all sorts of reasons mentioned already on this thread.

There was a thread on here earlier from a high-powered career woman asking how to improve work/life balance, we were many posts in before anyone suggested that maybe her husband could take a step back from his job. It was quite interesting but also sad.

Having said that, I'm afraid I personally wouldn't take a decision on whether to work/SAH based on if I feel it would help to advance the feminist cause. And I wouldn't ask my DH too either. So it's maybe a bit much to expect it from anyone else!!

The radical question is WHY; and if women are choosing life at home instead of persuing those careers (despite girls consistent outperforming boys at school then onto university), just WHY?!

Because if you do this from within a good relationship with your partner, you really are your own 'boss'. You have pretty good autonomy over how and when tasks are completed and how you prioritise. It also can be pretty fulfilling nurturing children, cooking, gardening and decorating. You can exercise your own creativity. You get chance to spend your day inside or outside and at different locations.

I know that, I am one.

But this is class analysis, not talking about the few privileged to have it good and be creative and whatnot.

Regarding 'class analysis' it is also easier for the working parent too. No one likes 'juggling'. It is much easier to specialise and put your focus into one role. Workplaces are not really conducive to being very flexible and family friendly. Childcare is not flexible, parents have to take unpaid leave if their child is sick or nursery holidays conflict with their own. Until these things change it is always easier for one parent to stay at home. Until there is more equality in the workplace that person will most often probably be a woman.

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

We were talking about SAHMs and their choice to either work or not work. If they do not work, no money is paid to childcare (yes of course there will be some exceptions) and if they do work, then that money goes to childcare whether it comes out of the joint account or not. If we were talkiing about SAHP I would have said "working parents".

And it's great for your son and his partner that they could afford very well-paid nannies but most people clearly can't and don't do this, and thus childcare is done by low-paid workers or unpaid family members, the majority of whom are women. Because childcare is not a valued job in monetary terms, whether it's the parent, the nursery, the childminder or the grandparent doing it. If it were, you'd have more men doing it.

"Every boss I've ever had has been a white man with a SAH wife"

My DH is the boss and I'm the SAH wife. He doesn't want to devote long hours - he has to. He'd love to have more family time but his job is too demanding and he can't take a step back because we need his salary. I'd love to not be SAHM but I have to because DH works and I can't match his salary. I agree that working parents can't compete, but the situation is a result of corporate expectations - one parent working long hours while the other parent has to be SAH is just a side effect of that. Most top level jobs are simply not compatible with parenting.

"childcare is not a valued job in monetary terms"

I disagree. It is valued, but the market will only sustain a certain price before a lot of customers are priced out. People have to make a profit by going out to work. Well paid childminders would have few customers who could afford to pay them.

I’m bemused by all the women on here who actually had a choice of whether to be at home or not!
I was widowed with two babies still in nappies, and had to work full time to support them, plus do all the housework, gardening, diy, shopping and decorating, plus drive the minder a 20 mile round trip to the station whenever I got home too late for her to catch the only bus from our village that was in time for her train connection.
It’s perfectly possible to be both breadwinner and homemaker- I don’t see why people think it has to be either/or.
Even if my DH hadn’t died, I couldn’t have stomached being at home, dependent on his salary like a child, with no income of my own, quite apart from the years of non pension provision that would have entailed.
I think sahm’s are taking a huge risk on their future finances and employment prospects, if their partners walk out. It doesn’t seem a very feminist or “empowered” choice to me, although of course they’re absolutely entitled to make it.

Are you a SAHM because it works out better for your family circumstances/quality of life/because it suits your skills best or is it because you are the female or mother in your relationship?

I couldn’t have stomached being at home, dependent on his salary like a child

Nice

From my understanding of radical feminism, it's to do with structural oppression rather than the choices any of us individually make.

We're all just muddling through, trying to get the best out of life given our circumstances. The important thing is to think about why -

Why are these the choices we have been given?

Why are we always somehow in the wrong whether we stay at home or go out to work?

Why is it financially unviable for a woman to spend her time bringing up her own children?

Why is childcare so unaffordable?

Why are childcare workers so low paid?

Why does having a job mean seeing so little of our children?

Why do the lowest paid workers have the most awkward childcare to arrange?

Could it be that the sums don't add up because our entire economy has simply failed to factor in childcare as work?

Why would that be?

(haven't RTFT btw)

TheShania I was responding to Bluntness' position, I suppose. I should have made that more clear.

We're both SAHPs and we both question all of those things. And this work gives me time tons of autonomy etc. By Bluntness' definition there are no circumstances where a woman can be a SAHP and be radfem in that, if they're a SAHP by choice (if it's by necessity then you're off the hook). I'm pointing out that that absorbs the patriarchal prejudice towards SAHParenting and care work in general. Yes, I want more of us to work in STEM areas, but I'd like nursing to attract the kind of salary it really deserves, I'd like care work to be given it's true due - not necessarily money, but recognition would be something - and if feminists can't manage that, who will? I'm not a feminist to be a pseudo man, I'm questioning our ideas about what gender roles should be in the first place, and our notions of what work should be valued more.

I'm a SAHM and a staunch feminist. It helps that Dh is also a big feminist and cooks/cleans and I'll do outside work (tree stuff, farm chores etc.)

Ds just sees the both of us working a fuck ton. I don't think he'll think a second thought about women's or men's work.

Just read Bluntness' comments.

Living off my husband? Get to fuck. I work until the skin is literally coming off my fingers. A large amount of what we eat is grown by me. I fell and chop up trees to heat our house. I (kindly) raise animals we can eat. I'm teaching ds how to be self sufficient along with how to be a kind person and a feminist.

Raising children has no worth for you? That's sad.

Babdoc, you're a judgemental ass too.

My DH (who is definitely not a radical feminist) is of the clear view that child rearing has to be made more attractive, both through society and government support and then more men will want to do it. So basically it is seen as a bit of a shitty dull job of little value and therefore men don't want it.

"Are you a SAHM because..."

All of those reasons. I'm the mother, I carried my child, I make milk and my baby recognises my smell and my voice. I'm better at parenting, perhaps partly due to biology and hormones. And DH earns more, perhaps due to societal expectations.

@PencilsInSpace Childcare workers are poorly paid and yet childcare is still unaffordable for many? Because workers have to significantly out-earn childminders (factoring in tax, transport, lunches, etc) to make it worth working. Unfortunately many workers are just as poorly paid as childminders, making childcare unaffordable. Greater tax breaks for childcare would allow more parents to work.

Trailing spouse currently not working due to this. I am living off DH's money and he is living off my time. He couldn't have taken this overseas job without me giving up my job. He couldn't travel around the world and work as much as he needs to without knowing I would always be there for DC. I need his money to pay the bills and he needs my time to earn the money in the first place.

Being a SAHM is the the most female feminine feminist thing you can do. Be proud of that and let no one tell you otherwise.

Does this mean only exited women can talk about the dangers of prostitution? Or that only FGM survivors can promote information on the sickening genital violence inflicted on women around the world?

I didn't say she couldn't talk about it, she can talk about it all day long, but in no planet will her views carry more weight than the women who have experienced prostitution or FGM. Just like the op v the working mother.

No matter how many stay at home mums on this thread , who are there purely through choice, shout about how valid their opinion is on the complexity of being a working mum and raising kids. I will always take the opinion that the woman who has done it is the one whose opinion carries the most weight and the opinion I want to hear.

It doesn't bother me all the shouting about how radically feminist they are on the subject of working mothers, whilst then only talking about how the fact they personally stay home and wish validation, with the only opinion cast on the working mother is we don't raise our own kids. Very feminist.

What bothers me is the sexist shite being spoken, things like, women value low paid work, it's women's work to raise the kids...is it fuck.

And my personal favourite, that when I said I was at a work event and going to a dinner, someone assumed I'd be in a cocktail dress. Cos yeah, that's what we do, if we are women in a professional environment, we don cocktails dresses and be decorative. Whilst standing accused by non working women of not raising our own children.

Bluntness - you write:
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.

Whilst I accept you are entitled to your views please do not keep stating that I made reference to the value my DH places on the SAH role. I have quite clearly stated that this was not what I was writing about nor what I am concerned with so please don't intentionally misrepresent me.

The definitions you included where radfem represents ' a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts' to me does seem compatible with choosing to be a SAHM. The idea that the SAH role has such a low value from a social and economic perspective comes from the patriarchy in full force. Biologically women are the ones who get pregnant, give birth and breastfeed etc and I do think that this causes a bond to develop between mother and child that can create an urge in the woman to want to stay at home and raise their children. If you completely demean and devalue the SAH role then by default you are demeaning those women that have the urge to stay at home with their children from a social and economic perspective.

At the heart of this issue I think is that once children arrive, the status quo between men and women and the notion of independence in any respect in a couple becomes much trickier. Yes we could all just put our babies into childcare the second they are born and go straight back to our careers to maintain our earning power but I do think this would ultimately be a bad thing for women and children. So most women take some time out be it through ML or being a SAHM however society at large tends to view this time as unproductive and worthless as it isn't compensated well financially. This is where I think it's radfem to be a SAHM as it's rejecting that notion that the patriarchy has drilled into us and making a statement that we still think that being at home is a worthwhile and valid thing to do.

Op, I continue to disagree with you,

Firstly most women don't take "time out" past maternity leave, in fact stay at home mums is the overwhelming minority, less than 20 percent, and we are not talking about women who take " time out" we are talking about stay at home parents and whether they are rad fem on the subject of working mothers, I maintain no.

As for your husband, as much as you wish to back track, it was indeed your first defence, when I said you were not rad fem on this isolated issue you immediately responded with "but my husband values me".

I specifically stated you could be rad fem about being home, I stated you were not on the subject of working.

Although you state your husband values you, nearly every single time you post it's about value of your role as a stay at home parent, the validation you need, yet I have never disputed this, not once, I simply stated you were not a rad fem on the subject of working mothers, you were a liberal.

Bluntness - please quote me directly where I say emphatically 'but my husband values me'. I accept my initial response was a bit ambiguous hence I provided clarity in my follow up post. I just find it bizarre that I repeatedly tell you that this isn't part of my thinking and not at all what I meant but you just insist it is. It's almost as if you want me to have responded this so you can discount anything else I say.

I am not seeking validation for my role. I am simply trying to point out that our perception of the SAHM role and its value is shaped by the patriarchy and that it isn't necessarily an anti feminist decision but we have maybe been conditioned to think it is.