SAHM as a Feminist Choice

I have lunch with a group of feminist friends every other day (college)

One of the things that came up today was that several of my friends agree that women need to be valued as women, not because they are changing to be more like men. I took this as meaning it's okay to be feminist while wearing makeup or a dress, which I agree with. They went on to say that it meant that women needed to be valued as mothers. That they need to be valued as mothers even if they chose not to work. Chose not to work was in this tone of contempt and "well why would you have to do that"

I don't agree with this viewpoint. Choosing to stay at home while someone else earns for you, while it certainly is a choice, it's not one that gives you much power. It means the person staying at home is totally dependent on the one working at a job. Isn't the idea of feminism to give people equal power? I was pretty sure that is what the idea was, but a lot of what I hear from others sounds more like pandering to parents than anything else. I guess, for some reason, I think of SAHMs as either someone being financially able to do that or otherwise as that mythical, nonexistent "golden age" in the 1950s that the radical conservatives I grew up with hold up as the ideal.

Also, I don't agree with "valuing with women as mothers." I'd much rather a woman be valued as a person instead of their reproductive ability. I feel like reducing a woman to a mother is just going backwards and making it easier for people to decide things for women, eg "You can't do that because you are going to be a mothurrrrrr one day." or any of the bullshit bingos that are aimed at the childfree. I'm pretty sure that mothers are rather highly valued at the moment.

I'd really appreciate this board's points of view on this conversation. While these people are really nice and are definitely my friends, sometimes I feel that I can't quite express what I think around them because they will be attributing the fact that I don't agree with them to the fact that I was raised by horrible people. Also, sorry my typing is so formal. I speak incredibly formally in general, though I am trying to work on that. I know that it reads weird.

Quote
seamstress
I'd much rather a woman be valued as a person instead of their reproductive ability. I feel like reducing a woman to a mother is just going backwards and making it easier for people to decide things for women, eg "You can't do that because you are going to be a mothurrrrrr one day." or any of the bullshit bingos that are aimed at the childfree. I'm pretty sure that mothers are rather highly valued at the moment.

I wrote a blog post for a feminist website about the same thing. I do not want to be valued because I have a uterus. I want to be valued for who I am as a person.

Being a SAHM is not an option for all women, lets face it. Not all women can afford it. Some people prefer to divide the labour in their home that way, and it does work for some people. However, I find those it does tend to work for don't always have terribly conventional values, have different views around money (ie are less materialistic) and always keep half an eye on when they might need to return to the workforce, ie doing volunteer work, learning/studying, participating in the community, etc. I have a couple of wonderfully unconventional friends who are, or have been, SAHMs, but crucially, that was never their entire identity, and they never expected to be financially supported for the rest of their lives because they are now a Holy Moo.

Oh yeah, and they actually spent time raising and educating their kids, rather than playing Farmville all day and writing moo blogs.

I still wouldn't necessarily call being a SAHM a feminist choice. It's a precarious choice, not having your own income, unless you have savings of your own or an independent income from somewhere other than your partner.

By the way, I don't think you sound overly formal. I like proper sentences and grammar, and good use of the English language, and a lot of us around here do! Nothing wrong with it whatsoever, there is far too much txt spk around these days. I've often felt I have to dumb myself down and not use big words or complicated sentences because people will think I'm some kind of snob - I was always criticised for using big words in school, "that's a big word for a little girl" and I think it stayed with me.

Feminism is about women having equal power and equal voice, and in a lot of SAHM situations the mom does give up at least some of that.

The couples I've seen where it's worked kept a careful eye on power dynamics and respect. The one couple I know where it seemed to work best arranged a trade-off...she stayed home as long as paid leave permitted, and then he stayed home for a while when she went back to work, then they both returned to work. So I guess that wasn't a true SAH model, because it was with an eye on them both working before the kid was old enough for school.

Lately I have noticed some odd logic about defining feminism and choices. The definition these days seems to be that if it's a decision a woman freely makes of her own will, it's a feminist choice. To me that seems like a complete and utter failure in logic. It seems that society just laps that stuff up, though. I've gotten into it with other women about that very thing.

Lastly, your style doesn't seem overly formal. You seem articulate, thoughtful, and tactful.

I feel like feminism and the feminist movement was aimed at creating and maintaining the opportunity for women to participate in society on an equal footing with men. The right to vote, equal pay for equal work, the ability to get the same education as a man without doing anything more or less than the man are examples of those equal opportunities.

A woman can still be a woman, with the feminine trappings inherent to our gender such as dress and grooming, bearing children, etc., and still participate in those opportunities if she chooses to. By being a SAHM, the woman is choosing not to exercise her rights. Those opportunities don't go away, but if you are on the bench your ability to play the game is eroded, which DOES take away your power. The same thing would happen to a SAHDuh.

The idea is that SAHMoos are contributing and utilizing their opportunity to participate by raising up the kyds, but it's not really the same thing, is it? Moos who work are also raising up their kyds. I don't think it's a feminist choice to stay at home, that's the DEFAULT setting. The feminist CHOICE is to participate! Women will always be valued as loaf incubators, but true feminism values women for all the other contributions we can make to society.

I think that you could tell your friends that feminism is about everything BUT having kids. It's the choice to be something more than the biology.

Quote
yummynotmummy
Being a SAHM is not an option for all women, lets face it. Not all women can afford it. Some people prefer to divide the labour in their home that way, and it does work for some people. However, I find those it does tend to work for don't always have terribly conventional values, have different views around money (ie are less materialistic) and always keep half an eye on when they might need to return to the workforce, ie doing volunteer work, learning/studying, participating in the community, etc.

I understand that not all mothers have to option to be SAHMs, and I agree that it is very important to be mindful of the dynamics within the family and also make sure that the SAHM is still employable with up-to-date skills (not convincing a toddler to eat broccoli) just in case something less-than ideal happens.

Quote
starbelly
By being a SAHM, the woman is choosing not to exercise her rights. Those opportunities don't go away, but if you are on the bench your ability to play the game is eroded, which DOES take away your power. The same thing would happen to a SAHDuh.

I guess this is why I have such a strong opinion and take issue with the idea of choosing to be a SAHM/ holding the SAHM up on a pedestal. I am working towards becoming independent from my parents who totally have no boundaries and it's a very unpleasant situation. I never want to put myself in a position where I would have to be so fiancially dependent on another person again. I see giving up that power as very unwise and something that should be avoided. Even in a normal, healthy situation, shit CAN happen, and the SAHM may need to suddenly support the family by getting a job.

Quote
starbelly
The idea is that SAHMoos are contributing and utilizing their opportunity to participate by raising up the kyds, but it's not really the same thing, is it? Moos who work are also raising up their kyds. I don't think it's a feminist choice to stay at home, that's the DEFAULT setting. The feminist CHOICE is to participate! Women will always be valued as loaf incubators, but true feminism values women for all the other contributions we can make to society.

Yes! This rings true to me.

Quote
randomcfchick
Lately I have noticed some odd logic about defining feminism and choices. The definition these days seems to be that if it's a decision a woman freely makes of her own will, it's a feminist choice. To me that seems like a complete and utter failure in logic. It seems that society just laps that stuff up, though. I've gotten into it with other women about that very thing.

I haven't been around long enough to notice this myself, but it makes a lot of sense. Once I have a bit of free time, I'm going to try and find some feminist works from various eras just so that I can get some perspective. I read a lot of blogs and articles I've found online, but I'd like to read more.

Secondly, I feel that these last two quotes kind of go together rather nicely. Having kyds is the more socially excepted route (I don't want to put easier), and people would like to ...justify their choice? I don't think I've quite got the language to put this thought together, but I think that
there is some sort of a connection.

Thank you for the encouragement on my writing style! I speak almost exactly like this, maybe with a few more short and simple words when I am particularly frustrated with language in general, and it contributes to me standing out in an odd way because most people my age at college use slang that I never picked up and generally different words than I do. :redface

Being a SHAM is not a feminist choice. A woman ties herself to a man using kyds, and becomes completely dependent on him for everything. A roof over her head. Food in her mouth. Heat, electric and phone. How on Earth is this feminist?

She wants to sit at home on her fat ass all day, playing house, and wants to be called a feminist? Bah. She's a femooonist.

If that's what works for her in her relationship, then fine. But then she can't complain about a DAMNED THING because hubby is paying her way.

I forgot to mention that I don't get why moos should be valued for opting out of life and being SHAMoos? They took the easy way out. Their life is nothing but drudgery, but even a cat can raise kittens, and a damned sight better than these moos raise their pwecious dumplings!

Leslie Bennetts, in her book The Feminine Mistake, made it clear for all time that SAHMhood is as UN-feminist a choice as you can make (and as she divorced shortly after publishing the book, she is ironic proof that even egalitarian marriages can fail).

By the way, I'm a retired book editor for several university presses, and I purred when I read your lucid, jargon-free prose. Please honor us with more.

I don't have to agree with it, but feminism was in fact about choice. One of the choices is to be a SAHM. I don't agree with it, the state shouldn't pay for it but I have no more right to tell a woman not leaching off welfare to go to work.

Preface: I have no problems with prostsition and I think it should by 100% legal in every way. If that is the skill you (woman OR man) want to use to obtain food and shelter, I won't look down on you.

That being said being a stay-home- anything is prostitution, PERIOD!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If you can't feed your baby, then don't have a baby. And don't think maybe, if you can't feed your baby."
- The wisdom of the late Michael Jackson
"The mother of the year should be a sterilized woman with two adopted children." - Paul Ehrlich

Responsibility is what it's about. Adults are expected to ACT like adults. They work to earn a living and take care of themselves. As women now give that ability, they have no excuse to be lazy moochers. I do not respect SAHMs because I do not respect moochers.

Feminism means equality. That means equal responsibilities and expectations as well.

Rule #1 of Feminism: Don't "should" on other women.

These tards want to be valued for THEIR life choices...to live a backwards lifestyle while still donning the badge of feminist. You can't have it both ways, sows. Sounds like some serious projecting to me. They're hyper-aware of their submissive position in the modern world so they claim that self-sufficient women aren't feminists. Mmmkay. Whatever you need to tell yourself to make it through the day.

It's not just being submissive, it's being dependant. It's being free of responsibility with sow one else taking care of all the adult stuff for them. These people would rather live as overgrown children than do the work of establishing their adult lives. Refusing to grow up and take basic responsibly for themselves. It's little different from continuing to live in mom's basement. But because it's "traditional" and because criticism of pronatalim is taboo, people pretend differently.

Now, short-term breaks from work are fine, when they're earned and even and, TEMPORARY! If my boyfriend gets a defense contractor job overseas, he'll work that job for a few years, pay off the house, and then stop working to be a full-time student. As far as I'm concerned, he earns that by paying the bills ahead of time and them it will be my turn (I work and will continue to, but defense contracting will earn more, so the bills will be unbalanced for that time.)It's not he just doesn't feel like working or wants to claim that working somehow "isn't worth it," and expecting me to carry his ass.

I kinda think, if it's a private arrangement and doesn't involve somebody other than the couple concerned supporting that choice to stay home and raise brats, then they are free to divide labour in their family any way they wish. Some couples both work part time and share the childcare. Some men stay home, like my dad did - he was doing a PhD anyway so it made sense. But nobody got, or asked for, any handouts.

That said, just because a woman makes a choice, not every choice made by a woman is a feminist one. That's a common misinterpretation of feminism these days.

There is nothing at all feminist about choosing to become a welfare moo. Nothing whatsoever.

Quote
learnernotlurker
Leslie Bennetts, in her book The Feminine Mistake, made it clear for all time that SAHMhood is as UN-feminist a choice as you can make (and as she divorced shortly after publishing the book, she is ironic proof that even egalitarian marriages can fail).

By the way, I'm a retired book editor for several university presses, and I purred when I read your lucid, jargon-free prose. Please honor us with more.

Reading this thread made me think of her book, too. I had read it a few years ago and have posted about it a few times since then. Thanks for mentioning it and doing my dirty work LOL!

Quote
yummynotmummy
I kinda think, if it's a private arrangement and doesn't involve somebody other than the couple concerned supporting that choice to stay home and raise brats, then they are free to divide labour in their family any way they wish. Some couples both work part time and share the childcare. Some men stay home, like my dad did - he was doing a PhD anyway so it made sense. But nobody got, or asked for, any handouts.

That said, just because a woman makes a choice, not every choice made by a woman is a feminist one. That's a common misinterpretation of feminism these days.

There is nothing at all feminist about choosing to become a welfare moo. Nothing whatsoever.

The bolded I agree with. But I will only accord a modicum of respect if the SAHperson creates a safety net for their self, either in agreement with the partner that a certain amount of $ is set aside or if the SAHperson has saved an amount of money from their own earnings that they don't touch for any reason. AND if the working person has a life insurance policy. There has to be a return-to-work plan as well.

What I have read, on other message boards, is that 99.999% of the time, this is a fly by the seat of your pants arrangement. A couple has a kid, daycare is researched as an after thought. Once the moo realizes how expensive it is, she declares "it will cost nearly all I earn for day care!" and *pfffft* she stops working. Most of the time, the partner is said to be agreeable to it, but I have to wonder how much of the agreement is just giving in to whining.

There is something of a safety net in later years. In the US, Social Security is awarded to non-working spouses, but that's a pittance to survive on.

The SAH arrangement is so tenuous, and as others have noted, a surrender of power, that I can hardly wrap my brain around it. Some of us here are old enough to have been raised by a mother who did that simply as a matter of social expectation. I know very few of my contemporaries who can say that it worked out well for their mother in her later years. I don't know how these moos think it will be different for them if they follow the same pattern. They might yammer that it is a feminist stance, but that won't accord them any protection in case of divorce or the early death of their partner.

Edited for being a poorly thought statement that might have been offensive to some members here, and was kindly pointed out via PM.

Quote
Dorisan
The SAH arrangement is so tenuous, and as others have noted, a surrender of power, that I can hardly wrap my brain around it. Some of us here are old enough to have been raised by a mother who did that simply as a matter of social expectation. I know very few of my contemporaries who can say that it worked out well for their mother in her later years. I don't know how theses moos think it will be different for them if they follow the same pattern. They might yammer that it is a feminist stance, but that won't accord them any protection in case of divorce or the early death of their partner.

My parents, although of the "Greatest Generation" where SAHMhood was indeed the social expectation, were absolutely *ferocious* about me acquiring sufficient marketable skills that I could put a roof over my own head and food on my own table. And these were the days before Women's Lib took hold in the public conciousness. I wasn't allowed to take a second year of Drama in high school, instead being (more or less forcibly) enrolled in Typing.

Why? My parents knew no fewer than *five* women who were forced by their husband's death or incapacitation to go into the work force with no skills to sell, and a slew of children to support. They were terrified that it would happen to me. I am *so* grateful to my folks for having this kind of foresight; it saved me from a life of hell.

Of course, there was a downside to it (seen from my parents' perspective): instead of putting up with male bullshit in my two marriages, I just bailed. Why? Because I could - I had marketable skills to sell and the ability to put that roof over my own head and that food on my own table. So when it began to get piled high and deep, I just packed my traps and left. Never regretted it, either.

I never understand why moos whine so much about the cost of childcare. It's not like they don't know this before they spawn.

Skyeyes, my parents were adamant about the same things - having Marketable skills and being self sufficient. My mum never wanted to be a SAHM, having seen her mother in two unhappy marriages - my grandfather was a serial philanderer who had a secret other family, and divorced her when he decided to marry the other one, and her second husband was an alcoholic and gambler who died early and penniless. If it hadn't been for the generous alimony from her first husband, who was loaded, she would have been screwed indeed.

I think financially independent women do put up with much less bullshit in relationships, for the simple reason that we can get out if we need or want to.

Quote
yummynotmummy

That said, just because a woman makes a choice, not every choice made by a woman is a feminist one. That's a common misinterpretation of feminism these days.

Exactly. The "feminism is about having choices" argument is often used to justify a woman staying completely out of the work force and spending a couple decades at home. Staying home for that long is abdicating so much of your autonomy, power, and agency. It's deciding to ignore decades of progress. Choice it is, but feminist it isn't.

Er no. The only way that I am not bothered by a woman staying home is if she is Eleanor Roosevelt or something like that because then she hss to do a lot of work to help her husband in terms of making his job doable.

Quote
mistress rotwang
Er no. The only way that I am not bothered by a woman staying home is if she is Eleanor Roosevelt or something like that because then she hss to do a lot of work to help her husband in terms of making his job doable.

Tangent: Blanche Wiesen Cook is in the process of writing an extremely well-detailed, if exhaustive, biographical series on Eleanor. So far, two volumes: 1884 - 1933 and 1933 - 1938. The second book covers those 5 years in almost 700 pages. Like I said - exhaustive. I'm reading it in small chunks.

Once the kids were older, and after finding out about Lucy Mercer, Eleanor pretty much developed her own life, ambitions and causes toward which she devoted her energy. Franklin had his mommy (gawd, his mother hung on to him like a tick - check out the body language in the picture), his female assistants like Missy Lehand and his right hand, Louis Howe, to help him in the realm of politics.

Eleanor is given much credit for propelling Franklin away from the invalid status that his mother tried to foist on him, but she also very much became her own person. Even into developing ambiguous relationships with a number of lesbian friends and an alleged romantic one with her bodyguard Earl Miller. She even had her own personal retreat - Val-Kill.

Eleanor followed the same path as most upper class women of her day in keeping close to home and rearing the children (with the aid of nannies and nurses); being an adoring wife and putting up with a bitch of a MIL; but once the emotional break happened between her and Franklin, she took the reins of her own life and said "buh-bye" to the expectations foisted on her by her position and time.

If there is a woman who personifies feminism, it's Eleanor Roosevelt.

I concur with the recommendation of Cook's biography; Cook has been researching and publishing on Eleanor Roosevelt for decades. While we're waiting for the magisterial work to be completed, I recommend PBS's/American Experience's DVD "Eleanor Roosevelt": it's comprehensive and accessible, showing us ER's heroic political, professional, and personal growth.

I don't think it's a Feminist choice because it relies on the Patriarchal idea of a "Family Wage" for Male Breadwinners. It can't be done without it.

And this is not democratic because the Non Childed subsidize such inflated wages.

All people should be paid the same wage for the same job. If you want to spend more - YOU figure out how to earn more!

And praising the SAHM choice is an indirect endorsement of "Family Wages".

Praise choice - yes. But when this starts to get *promoted* - underlying this is a promotion for a return to Patriarchy.

Which is why they're trying to spin Feminism into FeMOOnism.

My belief is that they want women out of the work force so they will *breed more*. It could be from nostalgia, basic sexism, I'm sure there's many angles to all this various 'spin' as well as all the Pro Breeding Propaganda out there.

They 'keep women down' in the work world also - for this reason. Make it unattractive to them and they're more apt to quit and breed. And then make daycare etc. difficult, once returning to a sucky low paying job - and she's apt to go for another kid. At which point daycare costs eclipse her salary so she may as well stay home. And then - she might have one or two more future consumers. I mean baybees. She's apt to consume more too out of boredom. And now that she's disconnected from earning, - It's always easier to spend someone else's money. As well as all the Spending Propaganda out there *aimed at* Breeders! It's for THE KIDS! Who are also trained early to be voracious consumers.

Just remember - 70% of the US economy is consumer spending. Breed More Consumers! DON'T WORK! It sucks, anyway, Amirite Ladies? - because we made sure it would suck for you - I mean - Doncha just LURVE THEM consuming units BAYBEEEZ!!!

Feminism IS about choice. Choosing to clone up with the Patriarchal Borg - is a choice too, but is not very Feminist. And hurts others indirectly. Breeding pulls resources from others, whether it's a Family Wage for Duh, or tax breaks for breeding, or more consumption of dwindling resources, or soldiers to work the Military Industrial Complex (they've made consumption out of too many consumers! you can now make money off of blowing up the excess people!), - It does pull resources from others and contributes little beyond more consumption. Because chances are most offspring are just going to do the same / NOT anything noteworthy.

Just because you *want* something - that doesn't make it a "Feminist Choice". Choice is *one thing*. What that choice is - is another.