It's not the traditional roles that are the problem but the way society assigns value to them

[Bumpitybumper]

I watch a family on YouTube (JHouse Vlogs) that are Mormon and have setup that on paper seems incredibly traditional and incompatible with modern feminism. He is a partner in a law firm and edits the videos they upload (big source of revenue) whilst she is a SAHM that home educates her 5 kids and takes responsibility for domestic things like meal planning, laundry etc.

However whenever I watch their videos I am absolutely overwhelmed not only by the amount of mutual respect that the parents have for each other and their respective roles, but also how equal and fair the power dynamic seems to be. They clearly have a healthy relationship where issues are discussed, important decisions are made together and they support each other wherever they can.

So although I wouldn't describe their setup as a traditionally feminist one, I think they have achieved a lot of what feminism is trying to achieve in terms of gaining equality for men and women. Obviously in the context of wider society then a lot of the issues around the wife's lack of financial independence etc would rear their ugly head but I really think most of these issues derive from the fact that society overvalues the role of the WOHP and undervalues the role of the SAHP in a way that this family doesn't. If proper financial protection was put in place for the SAHP then I don't see why her role should be viewed as less feminist option than if she chose to WOH? Does anyone else agree or do you think the traditional role she has adopted is intrinsically inferior to his?

Tradition implies expectation, and roles implies a package or bundle of behaviours and tasks.
so yes, traditional roles are a problem in that they bundle tasks and behaviours and EXPECT that burden to be assumed by one sex, not the other.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a family adopting a set up that works for them.

There is something very wrong with the expectation that one sex SHOULD assume a role.

@BarrackerBarmer
I agree that traditional roles shouldn't be forced on people because of their sex however, I think that any family that wanted to adopt traditional roles would be seen as regressive and many would question the feminist credentials of a woman in this kind of set up. I think a woman taking on a traditional role can still be a feminist as I don't view it as inferior role if you see what I mean?

I wonder whether there would have been any genuine choice to have a different balance of responsibilities in their relationship though? Could she have been the main earner lawyer and he raise the kid if they had wanted to?

I have been a SAHM and I loved it, it was wonderful to be with my kids in their early childhood. I do agree to an extent that part of the "problem" with society is that roles taken by women are devalued. I am proud that I gestated and fed and raisrd my babies and wish that society valued this as much as it valued my partner's work outside the home.

However, I am sure that the choice we made for me to be a SAHM was not made totally freely. There were many influences which meant it was me, not my partner who took on the main caring role. And that is in the context of a relationship and family background and social group with a relatively high level of sex equality.

I don't know a lot about mormons but I suspect there would be significant social pressure to take on traditional roles.

So while I don't doubt that it is possible to have a great relationship in which both are satisfied with their traditional roles, that doesn't mean everyone can or should do the same.

I was definitely still a feminist when a SAHM. If anything it radicalised me even more than I had been.

@Ofew
Maybe the choice wasn't a completely free one in this scenario but I would argue that very few people are in the position to make totally free choices. Finances, childcare responsibilities, lack of family support etc all play a role in what we decide to do with our lives.

I would of course rather people weren't forced into traditional roles if they didn't want to assume them, however I do think there is nothing wrong with the traditional roles per second and they have been rather stigmatised. I think sometimes the assumption is that the only route to equality is through both partners working out of the home. This family challenges that in my view.

However, I am sure that the choice we made for me to be a SAHM was not made totally freely.

Absolutely. Firstly, as the person gestating and coping with the consequences to my body, and in wanting to breastfeed for as long as possible. Secondly, although both of us were committed to being a SAHP (and TBF dh is more domestically-minded than I am), it would not have been possible for dh to SAH without totally screwing up our future lives.

There was no such thing as paternity leave. Dh managed to negotiate 2w unpaid leave for each child.

7y of childbearing, then another 5y until all were at school - would either of us have been able to bounce to-and-fro between SAH and WOH for 12y without wrecking our careers?

When we were discussing our options, I was the higher earner. But it was obvious that dh had the higher earning-potential. Not because of his sex, but because of his profession. I only earned more than him because the years he had spent in professional training, I had spent in employment. It would have been sheer idiocy to sacrifice his career. So we sacrificed mine.

Does dh feel he missed out on being a SAHP? Yes, very much so. But he is a hard-nosed realist.

Does he support me in my choices as a SAHM and in my choices to work part-time and when to return to paid work? Yes. Because he values all my contributions to our household, not just £££.

Do we regret our choices? No, because we managed to find a middle road that gave us what we wanted: provided our dc with a SAHParent, and the comfort not to need to worry about grocery bills etc.

Are we fulfilling sexist stereotypes? Yes. Does it matter? No.

Stereotypes come about for a reason. Nothing wrong with stereotypes, as long as they are not imposed.

When we were discussing our options, I was the higher earner. But it was obvious that dh had the higher earning-potential. Not because of his sex, but because of his profession. I only earned more than him because the years he had spent in professional training, I had spent in employment. It would have been sheer idiocy to sacrifice his career. So we sacrificed mine

The number of times I read permutations on that ... for some reason it is almost always logical to sacrifice hercareer and almost never his.

When one party is a highly-qualified chartered professional, and the other party is an office administrator, it is completely logical.

Had I been passionate about my office admin career, the compromise would have been different.

I wasn't commenting on your situation - just that each time I hear the reasoning for why hiscareer wasn't sacrificed and hers was it is almost always the 'most obvious' or 'logical' solution to sacrifice hers, no matter what the circumstances.

For us it was simple biology. I earned more, but my working would have meant working, pumping, and sleep deprivation from night feedings plus sleeping on a work schedule not babies schedule. That made it an easy choice for us. I think it is disingenuous and sexist to ignore the physical realities of the first couple of years of caring for a baby

I’m back at work now and I still earn more.

I would love to see a paid family leave system that had to be split between partners. It would be social engineering at its finest because both men and women would step out of the workforce.

I am a SAHM. Have been for 10 years. Chose to do it. It works for us. I had a very nice career. My husband works full time. We share the things that need to be done for us to run our life together- so I manage the kids, most of the house most of chores- he works long hours but will always help out at weekend or when he is home. I don’t feel undervalued by my partner and I don’t feel I need more independence. I would consider myself a feminist and instil those values in the kids also. Does society undervalue me- not sure- I get lots of questions about why I don’t work when I meet people. Do I care if they think I should do something else? No. What they do is up to them, what I do is up to me.

I think the videos highlight to me that society views the SAHP role as a secondary/supportive role for WOHP but in that family it works the other way. Their life is so family focussed (probably partially because of their religion I imagine), her role is really pivotal whilst his WOH job is something he does to support the family financially. He is still a devoted father and works hard inside the home too Ithink it resonates with me as it's a similar perspective to one I hold but I've rarely seen in RL or in the media.

I think the videos highlight to me that society views the SAHP role as a secondary/supportive role for WOHP but in that family it works the other way.

I do agree with this. I’m the WOHP and DH is a SAHP and I feel like the supportive role. It’s all about our home and child and that’s the focus. My wages pay for it all but my focus is my family not my job.

Yes I agree
“I think the videos highlight to me that society views the SAHP role as a secondary/supportive role for WOHP but in that family it works the other way”
I feel like I am viewed that way also sometimes. As a support for my husbands career. It doesn’t bother me now- it used to when I was younger. Would it be daft to suggest some sort of provision of weekday 10-2 jobs? It’s something my friends an I have talked about before now.

Sorry meant to add I am wary of arguments that say there’s nothing wrong with gender roles we just need to value female ones more highly.

I know where it’s coming from and I agree with the sentiment to a large extent. However I don’t think it’s ok for men to be doing all the politics and industry and women all the nurturing, regardless of how you stack up the two roles.

I also have a general problem with the idea that one person does all the home stuff and the other all the earning. I support a radical redesign of the work place to allow greater work life balance.

I think that while the devaluation of traditional female work is definitely a problem, the bigger problem for me is that this is exactly how men end up in a vastly stronger position than their female partners. Women do not get paid to have children and raise their families, even though it is necessary for society to continue and it takes an incredible amount of time, effort, and money to do so. Men who do the financial supporting end up with a very lopsided earning potential compared to their wives, and as a result the woman is crippled if anything in the relationship goes south. Money = Power. If men make the money, then men get the power.

Women shoulder all the risk of childbearing, and traditionally their male partners are supposed to be the middlemen who bring in the resources which allows the family to survive. Unfortunately, if a middleman decides he wants to screw you over, he is in a great position to do so. And if you have children to care for but a low earning potential on your own, then there is little you can do about it.

TL;DR - The lack of respect given to mothers/SAHP is a big issue, but it is not the crux of the matter.

Forgot to add: I think that while the devaluation of traditional female work is definitely a problem, the bigger problem for me is that this is exactly how men end up in a vastly stronger position than their female partners and women as a class

He is still a devoted father and works hard inside the home too

Didn't you say he edited the videos & uploaded them. Oh dear, I feel a massive wave of cynicism washing over me.....

Unfortunately, if a middleman decides he wants to screw you over, he is in a great position to do so. And if you have children to care for but a low earning potential on your own, then there is little you can do about it.

And that is the HUGE flaw in the system. The stereotype may work well, but it is entirely dependent on the man's character.

On the devaluing of "women's work" >>

It's not the type of work but the value put on women and what they do

There is this thing where jobs go from male to female dominated they lose prestige / respect and salary goes down
And vice versa
A study a while ago looked at gender pay gap and even after they adjusted for everything there was a stubborn gap that they could only put down to "this is how much less generally women's work is seen to be worth"

When a man does "women's work" he gets gold stars plaudits and praise.

Really women and what we do is undervalued. IMO.

I think people should arrange their family lives as they see fit. Would their religion have allowed this couple to do it the other way around though? If not, then there will be other women (and men) who are not totally loving it.

When a man does "women's work" he gets gold stars plaudits and praise.

Absolutely. Men are "good" for "helping" with laundry, "great dads" for cherry picking the fun parts - like going to the park - of having kids and "thoughtful" and "lovely" for remembering their nearest and dearest's birthdays.

Unfortunately the same is true in the world of work, too. Men are massively over-represented in senior nursing posts.

WRT SAHP / WOHP: I do think there is a tendency to assign a lot of worth to a person's "career", especially on MN where high earners and professionals seem more common than in day-to-day life. Most of our friends (I'm very late 20s, midlands-based) earn c. £20-25k per annum and have fairly ok-but-mundane jobs that don't especially inspire them, define them, or raise any interest whatsoever at a dinner party - perhaps working in a shop, for the NHS or in mid-level admin work, so one out of the couple going part time or having a few years out is really common. My friends who are much higher earners have found it a lot more of dilemma - there's more of an awareness that they'll never get back in at the level they were at, or part-time requests are outright refused as they're too important to go part-time.

I also think when you scratch the surface, many SAHPs are not entirely SAH / family orientated - for example I describe myself as a SAHM but work one day a week and do fairly high-level voluntary work (with accredited training and regular supervision); another SAHM friend studies in the evenings, a SAHD I know is actually retired and another SAHM is a dinner lady. My DH's dad who he had always assumed was a SAHD actually worked nights as a security guard. I guess it is human nature to want to define ourselves and put ourselves on one side of the fence or another.

Can I just ask with all due respect if SAHMs worry about their lack of financial independence?

I described myself as a SAHM (actually, I didn't - I described myself as a FTM, but that was frowned upon here) because my focus was on being available for the dc. I did some volunteering, I did some paid stuff, I did some studying, but that was all secondary to my main focus. Much of it was necessary for my mental well-being, so I wasn't sacrificing my own needs to those of the family, and some I have continued doing since returning to the world of paid employment.