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.

OP I agree with you 100%. Those who fail to value SAHM work are buying into the lie that capitalist patriarchy has always told us, that only monetised man’s work is of value and worth reporting on.

Of course it makes it tricky for SAHMs because they are missing out on career advancement not to mention intellectual stimulation but this is because the current nature of capitalism has changed the working model from the old one of men and women working side by side in a home business where production was compatible with childcare, thereby enabling mothers to engage productively and care for their children at the same time.

To the system we have today where childcare and production are separated forcing mothers to choose between work or home.

It is entirely natural to want to look after your children. It is one of the many things women have evolved to do. And it’s a good job they have else we’d all be dead. The problem is making sure we don’t lose out on the other stuff too.

No, you're right op, you didn't say that, my apologies, in fact your post was very balanced.

I suspect deep down I'm quite a radical feminist. So I believe that women who have the option and ability to work but chose to stay home and raise the kids are really just perpetuating the myth that men are supreme in socirety, very few men would even consider it as a voluntary choice.

I simply hate the thought process that in some way it's a woman's role, or it's woman's work and I won't support that view. I don't see it as a feminist choice that if you can work you don't. I understand that's controversial, but that's i suspect where I'm at.

"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 work in childcare. I earn just above minimum wage. My supervisor earns £1.00 more per hour than me. We work 16 hours a week. The only childcare workers that can get full time hours are the ones who work in day nursery’s, and they are all on minimum wage (again the supervisor will earn only slightly more). I’m in Northern Ireland though, not sure if wages are different in the rest of the UK.

It’s shit. I do my job because I love working with children and families. Do I feel valued by society, no not at all. If I could go back in time, I would not choose to work in childcare. The money and prospects are crap. None of us feel respected by society. Considering the training we do and the amount of responsibility we have, we should be earning a lot more than minimum wage. But it is ‘women’s work’ and I can’t see that opinion changing anytime soon. Once my youngest DD starts school I will look to retrain in another field.

So not answering the OPs question, but just giving my 2 cents on whether childcare workers are valued.

The ability to claim to be able to support yourself independently is hugely dependent on your salary and the local economy.

The highest salary I earned was just over fifty grand a year - working full time in a senior teaching leadership role. But I was still ‘supported’ by my spouse because we lived in inner London. In London I was nobody economically; move to the north-east and I would be a high earner.

Feminism is geographically and economically contingent perhaps?

I also raise an eyebrow when MNers describe themselves as independent/feminist/reliant on no one when it is clear from the description of their job that they probably are the recipients of tax credits. This is a good thing for children, of course, but it doesn’t remove some of the structural inequality within society.

when the joint combined salary will cover childcare the implication is that if you can afford it then childcare should be used.

You see and this is going to be a tetchy one, I don’t believe “childcare” is as invested in my children, 2 of whom have additional needs, as their parents are. The notion of valuing other women, because childcare is almost always other underpaid and undervalued women, to spend the lions share of waking hours influencing and guiding my children, strikes me as an entirely capitalist idea and not particularly feminist either imho.

We are in the absolute minority situation that I as the higher earner and DH who has a longstanding client list and endless ability to foot between roles has been able to go PT and take over the SAHP role. This should facilitate me to pontificate over other people’s lives all I want from a rad feminist perspective but I’d rather not because I know not everyone can have our set up. So I’d rather

accept that others have different live circumstances and my own feminist focus is on a much more part time working week for all split between men and women. Change the entire structure of the working week to allow parents to easily split parenting and working outside the home rather than one parent at home, one working. This would also facilitate other caring roles to be done by families who want that.

Someone mentioned above that mothers form more of a bond with children and hence feel strongly that they would prefer to stay at home (I paraphrase). I think this is doing fathers a disservice. Most men I know would, if given the real choice, prefer to spend more time at home with their children too. Probably not 100% of their time though. It is rare that I feel sorry for men but I think when it comes to SAH options men still have very few, and society expects them to work full time regardless of children.
Those wives of working men who commented tnat their husbands can only do their big jobs with the support of a facilitator at home, frankly I think this is bollox. If you withdrew your 24x7 domestic support, guess what, they would cope, they would juggle, they would leave the office slightly earlier and set a healthier tone for all their staff. Productivity might even improve (God knows the UK is not known for its productivity despite the long working hours). Try it, you might be surprised, they won’t get fired and they might even get kudos for demonstrating their “diversity and inclusivity”.

It doesn't matter what side of it you are coming from, working or being a stay at home parent, we all all victims of a patriarchal capitalist society. This is because working practices demand the job, career advancement is the top priority, sole focus, over family.

However why do we earn money? Personally I think to afford myself, my spouse and my children a good quality of life. So I can support other members of my family and friends too.

There is no choice which is more feminist or radically feminist. Wage slave or unpaid stay at home parent. Because as long as working practices are not conducive to family life we are all exploited. Yes, it is possible to do both but it is bloody hard. It is not particularly desirable. Something has got to give.

they would cope, they would juggle, they would leave the office slightly earlier and set a healthier tone for all their staff. Productivity might even improve (God knows the UK is not known for its productivity despite the long working hours). Try it, you might be surprised, they won’t get fired and they might even get kudos for demonstrating their “diversity and inclusivity”.

This wouldn't necessarily happen. They just would be competing against single people, others with family members who stay at home to care for young children or those with adult children.

What we need is tighter legalisation to ensure working practices are family friendly.

OP I agree with you 100%. Those who fail to value SAHM work are buying into the lie that capitalist patriarchy has always told us, that only monetised man’s work is of value and worth reporting on

I think my taxes are worth as much as my partners (he’s a bloke).
I’m just not sure what the alternative is to the capitalist society. At the moment the system is sort of (ish) working. If you earn well you fund your own childcare, if you earn less you get tax credits.
I just can’t envisage a system where the state pays you a full time wage to look after your own kids.

Wage slave or unpaid stay at home parent. Because as long as working practices are not conducive to family life we are all exploited. Yes, it is possible to do both but it is bloody hard. It is not particularly desirable. Something has got to give

The wage slave reference is about annoying. But I do agree with you. We have a long hours culture. I certainly struggle juggling long hours and two small kids.

To be honest I don't see how choosing to be a SAHM is upping the value of childcare within society. If anything it's devaluing it by saying something that is done by qualified childcare providers can also be done by basically anyone who just happens to have a child. And not even for any direct pay.

saying something that is done by qualified childcare providers can also be done by basically anyone who just happens to have a child. And not even for any direct pay.

This statement devalues parents and the parental bond. By implying we need 'qualified' people to rear our children for us. Sounds a bit state controlly to me...

" I don’t believe “childcare” is as invested in my children, 2 of whom have additional needs, as their parents are."

This is by far the main reason I wouldn't go back to work even if we could afford childcare. Even the best childminder won't love my DC or provide the same level of one-on-one attention.

Rat - it can be seen to up the value of childcare as we are deeming it an activity that's worth the career sacrifice so therefore is very worthwhile. As a society we tend to outsource the more menial jobs such as cleaning, gardening etc and you could argue that the patriarchy lumps childcare in with that kind of work.

" 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"

This is the kind of sexist bull shit that really annoys me. Justify your decision all you like but don't try to tell me that women are "just wired" to be sahms rather than have careers

"Justify your decision all you like but don't try to tell me that women are "just wired" to be sahms rather than have careers"

This is exactly the truth though. Only a few weeks ago there was some research published showing that pregnancy hormones rewire the brain to respond better to social cues. And when my baby cries my boobs leak milk. That's biology for you!

This statement devalues parents and the parental bond. By implying we need 'qualified' people to rear our children for us. Sounds a bit state controlly to me...

it can be seen to up the value of childcare as we are deeming it an activity that's worth the career sacrifice so therefore is very worthwhile

I don't think it does devalue the bond really, although I can't see who exactly should value the "bond" other than the family themselves? Society should surely value the work, not the bond?

And I can see how the value is upped within an individual family unit by choosing to give up work to do it, but I can't see it upped in society. I mean where does that leave people who choose it as their careers?

Like if everyone decides doing their own electrics is a really valuable job to them personally and an easy one that anyone can do, and everyone gives up work to do their own electrics. Where does that leave all the electricians? How does that leave society thinking about the work that electricians do?

Grumpy squirrel why is that statement sexist? I would think it was just biological fact replicated across many other species where the female tends to be primary carer to their offspring. Note I didn't say that all women should want to be SAHMs or indeed be one. It's more that this urge does exist in some women and to completely ignore it just seems to be willfully ignoring a factor that influences the whole SAHM issue. Also, I'm not saying the father doesn't have a strong bond in many cases, of course they do but they don't carry the child and are not subject to all the associated hormones that will have an impact.

Bella for how long in a woman's life are you going to consign her to being a slave to that biological function though?

Maternity leave's a year; that's long enough to make use of those leaking boobs, no? That's not being a SAHM. Should employers be forgiven for not encouraging us back after that point because pregnancy changed our brains and made us better suited to staying at home??

Society should surely value the work, not the bond?

Why is work more important than bonds to society? Bonding is important in nurturing and allowing people to feel secure and confident. Which in turn allows them to be creative and productive.

Bonding is an important part of the infrastructure which provides the optimum environment for production.

Maternity leave's a year; that's long enough to make use of those leaking boobs, no?

A large number of people breastfeed beyond a year. It was more like two years, in my own case.

I know lilting, me too. Just saying that there's a limit to how long we should paint women as being beholden to having had a child, and that she needs to be able to choose her way out of being viewed as "changed" by it.

So yeah, pregnancy and birth did something to me, but when I choose to go back to work I'm choosing to tell society to stop seeing me that way and to go back to seeing me in my professional capacity. Although in my home life I may still continue to breastfeed or whatever.

At a year my baby still very much relied on being breastfed.

Bumble, I think my dh would get fired, if he couldn't do the job for which he was hired. Where do you leave the kids if you have to go to China for a week? Who picks them up from school if you are with clients on the other side of the country. It's not as simple as saying 'leave work earlier, you are not doing anything productive during long hours anyway'.
Anyway, I know what would happen - the person whose job does allow them to leave at a reasonable time would do most of the childcare, as well as their own job. I used to teach, which on the face of it is conducive to family life and one parent having a less 'regular' job. In reality though, it means teaching all day, doing all the house/child care until they go to bed, then doing all the planning/marking for work.
Bugger that. I elect not to. Dh and I both have a much more chilled life, this way. I like being a sahp. Dh would like it too and if I had his earning ability, I'd swap and give him a turn. I don't feel hard done by. My only issue is how vulnerable women are posy divorce. The solution to that is for society to ensure that men are forced to recognise how much they have benefitted too and how much harder their lives would be if they truly had to do 50% of all childcare and therefore share the earnings fairly, post divorce.

Society only values what it pays for. If we want men to recognise child care work, then they have to be forced to acknowledge its value to them. Not having to organise your life around childminder pick ups etc is a big advantage in the workplace, so make sure men are forced to see its value in monetary terms and you will end the disparity.