or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Stay at Home Parents › sahp- do you consider yourself a feminist?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

sahp- do you consider yourself a feminist? - Page 7

post #121 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkpmomtoboys
You have misinterpreted the rules of the SAHM Board. I can say all I want that I feel a child is best off with a stay at home parent. That does not objectively denigrate WOH parents. You may be offended and feel denigrated because of some choices that you are struggling with, but that is not what the rule addresses.
Similar posts have been deleted when reported. The only difference here is the post wasn't reported (they often aren't because no one likes to cause trouble).

I have a pm from Cynthia about what is OK and not OK to post in this forum.

I am not struggling with my choice to be a sahm. It is the kind of mom I want to be. Nonetheless, it is not the only way to be a wonderful mother whose kids are getting the best childhood possible.
post #122 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by thismama
This page of this thread is painful to read.

SAH mothering is valid and valuable. WOH mothering is also valid and valuable.

I am pro increasing possibilities for women to return to the workforce. I am in favour of increasing the number of highly paid jobs available after time spent raising children, and I am in favour of ensuring a number of options for women in the workforce, such as part time work, full time work, job sharing. I am in favour of legislating that employers must provide flexibility and enough paid days away to meet family obligations such as sick children. I also support increasing the supplement for working families, or providing one where it does not exist.

I am also in favour of increasing welfare payments and lowering eligibility requirements, so women can choose to stay home with our children without starving or facing being cut off every other month. I am in favour of increasing child tax credits from the government, and of creating a climate where mothering full time is viewed as work.

Then maybe mamas could decide what is best for our families at an individual level, no?

Personally, I have been off with my kid for 2.5 years. That was best for her and I. I also don't exactly consider myself "non-functioning" because I get the dole to do it.

Next month I am going to school part time, and she will be in daycare. I also think that is best for my family. I am getting bored and boring as a SAHM. I need to do something for ME again, seperate from her. And she is getting to the point where she is looking for opportunities for independence, to explore the world without me mediating it for her all the time.

I know myself, and my kid. I get to decide.

I agree that the early years of childhood are important and sacred ones in a child's development. I also think mamas know best what we and our kids need. That's why what is really important is that mamas get to make our OWN decisions, based on the best interests of our families, and not because we cannot afford to WOH, or to SAH.

How about let's not rip into each other because our decisions may be different?
As always, thank you for a post I can nod my head a million times while reading.
post #123 of 131
I'm sorry that you haven't read any of the really interesting feminist literature that supports this philosophy. To paraphrase it for you, it goes something like this: I do not desire equality for that is accepting the current paradigm that the goal is to be like a man. I am not like a man. I am worthy separate from that which is male."

My point was in response to post #101, in which mommymine said that she "is not equal." I'm not sure what paradigm you're trying to separate from -- you don't want the vote? you don't want equal opportunities for education? you don't want equal pay for equal work? These are the issues I raised when mommymine claimed she wasn't equal. Besides how sad is it that being able to support oneself and one's children economically means being "male" to you -- sounds like something that should apply to being both male and female to me.

"I'm not sure what responsibility you are getting at...the reason many of us SAHP are women is because a) breastfeeding is an incredibly important parenting act that has far reaching implications that only women can do and b) for many of us when we made a decision as a family that one parent would stay home or work less than full time, it was the parent whose salary could support the family who did not stay home.
I choose to be part of my family and to have it configured in this way at this time. It sucks that our decision as a family for me to be the stay home parent leaves me financially vulnerable later as an individual. The idea of giving the SAH parent half the social security credit for income the family earns in that time seems extremely fair to me."

There are several areas where women are not yet subject to equal responsibility -- for example, if the draft was reinstated, it would likely be all-male and women would have all the benefits of citizenship, without all the responsibilities. It is also culturally acceptable for women to put themselves in a position where they are not able to support, if necessary, either themselves or their children. What would we call men who acted that way?

In all these discussions -- I find it interesting that people emphasize that the mother is left economically vulnerable by being SAH, while not also acknowledging that the children are also left more economically vulnerable in case of death, disability or divorce in families that SAH. Being SAH means not just gambling with your own economic future, but also with the economic future of your kids. Maybe you've got good odds (in other words, a good husband) but I see a lot of women ignoring this issue when deciding to SAH.

In addition -- why is it 95% of the time that the woman's salary is "supplemental"? Frequently, I think the answer is that women choose to make it so. Rather than thinking -- I want to have 4 kids, so let me get a college degree and a career/trade education that will ensure that I can actually support the kids I want, they seek out careers/majors in areas that aren't sufficient to support that lifestyle and rely on others to make sure the basics of living: food, shelter, medical care are taken care of.

"a part-time job...doesn't penalize me for the time I've taken off."

Why shouldn't an employer recognize that your skills may not be up-to-date? If I take 3 years off work to sail around the world, shouldn't my future employers be able to acknowledge that in my starting position? Why should you be placed at the same level with people who have been working all along and have gained additional skills and experience over that time. How is that fair to the people who have been working all along?
post #124 of 131
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama
These are the issues I raised when mommymine claimed she wasn't equal.
I meant I am not the same. And I am not the same. Women and men are different. We have different skills that we tend to excell at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama
There are several areas where women are not yet subject to equal responsibility -- for example, if the draft was reinstated, it would likely be all-male and women would have all the benefits of citizenship, without all the responsibilities.
now I agree with you that isn't treating men and women as the same. But then I already said I don't think we are the same. I think we are different. But to say that we don't have responsibility- now that is just silly! Who kept the home front going during ww2? It was the women silly! WE DID IT! We had a responsibility and we fulfilled it. We did it differently but we did it. Just becuase my dh and I don't do the same tasks in my home doesn't make either of us any more or less responsible. Lately he has been doing the laundry more than me, but I have been more responsible for dishs.

Do you really not get that men and women are actually different and have different strengths and skills?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama
In all these discussions -- I find it interesting that people emphasize that the mother is left economically vulnerable by being SAH, while not also acknowledging that the children are also left more economically vulnerable in case of death, disability or divorce in families that SAH. Being SAH means not just gambling with your own economic future, but also with the economic future of your kids. Maybe you've got good odds (in other words, a good husband) but I see a lot of women ignoring this issue when deciding to SAH.
this is a good point. I have made a calculated risk. Of course every day you put your kids in a daycare you make a calculated risk too don't you? I mean you are gambling that things are as good as they look to you. I don't for a second think that any mother thinks the daycare she choose was criminally bad but we see the stories. So tell me why is my risk more than that risk? In fact I must admit I feel more empowered to effect the risk in my home and to assess it than I would the risk at daycare. For example I can tell you at this moment the strength of my marriage and I know precisly how safe my kids are. I am educated. I know I could find a job and I have thought out my exit strategy if it would be needed. I don't feel really all that vulnerable but it is a calculated risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama
In addition -- why is it 95% of the time that the woman's salary is "supplemental"?
becuase we often choose to work less hours. Why do you think that you could have four kids and not need to have SOMEONE who was taking a slow track to care for them? Even if they are in daycare full time you gotta have someone who makes pick up each day at 6pm and drop off at 8am so right there your workday is limited. I am sorry you don't think anyone should sacrafice anything for any kids but I disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama
"a part-time job...doesn't penalize me for the time I've taken off."

Why shouldn't an employer recognize that your skills may not be up-to-date? If I take 3 years off work to sail around the world, shouldn't my future employers be able to acknowledge that in my starting position? Why should you be placed at the same level with people who have been working all along and have gained additional skills and experience over that time. How is that fair to the people who have been working all along?
Well I agree with you there 100%.
post #125 of 131
I purposely phrased myself this way:

Quote:
I've had an extremely hard time finding a part-time job compatible with my family life that uses my degrees and doesn't penalize me for the time I've taken off. I'm not talking about getting the same wages as someone who has worked without a break but just having my resume not be seen as having a black mark for the gap on it. We need to work on less discrimination for those who have families and chose to be primary caregivers while their children were young, and help them get high-paying jobs when they attempt to return to the work force.
However it got quoted as this:

Quote:
"a part-time job...doesn't penalize me for the time I've taken off."
with this commentary:

Quote:
Why shouldn't an employer recognize that your skills may not be up-to-date? If I take 3 years off work to sail around the world, shouldn't my future employers be able to acknowledge that in my starting position? Why should you be placed at the same level with people who have been working all along and have gained additional skills and experience over that time. How is that fair to the people who have been working all along?
That is a valid point that does not correspond to what I said AT ALL.

I understand that some people are very proud of working full time through their children's early years and they may have a completely fulfilling (paid) career to show for it. I made a choice to instead be my kids' primary caregiver and I don't expect to jump back in to the workforce and be treated as if I didn't. However, I DO have a B.A. and M.S. that don't just expire and when I send out the number of resumes I've sent out, I would like to at least get called for an interview to explain how I have kept up and even expanded my skills.

I have a real problem with our society if because I chose not to put my kids in daycare while they were young, I am now unable to get anything much over minimum wage now that they are school-aged.

I think telling women that if they EVER take any time off for caregiving that they are financially worthless and irresponsible is completely mysogynistic.
post #126 of 131
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil'M
I think telling women that if they EVER take any time off for caregiving that they are financially worthless and irresponsible is completely mysogynistic.
And I agree with you too!
post #127 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama
Besides how sad is it that being able to support oneself and one's children economically means being "male" to you -- sounds like something that should apply to being both male and female to me.
Of course it should apply to both genders, but that's not the same as demanding "equality". If we're defining "equality" so narrowly then yes, I agree with you. I thought we were talking about the bigger picture and the more esoteric points inherent in arguing for equality. My bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama
It is also culturally acceptable for women to put themselves in a position where they are not able to support, if necessary, either themselves or their children. What would we call men who acted that way?
I particularly like how you've blamed the woman and not the societal norms that women are fighting against. Way to blame the victim

Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama
In all these discussions -- I find it interesting that people emphasize that the mother is left economically vulnerable by being SAH, while not also acknowledging that the children are also left more economically vulnerable in case of death, disability or divorce in families that SAH. Being SAH means not just gambling with your own economic future, but also with the economic future of your kids. Maybe you've got good odds (in other words, a good husband)
I've got good odds because I have a law degree and membership in the California Bar. But thanks for assuming I'm reliant on my husband. I really like it when someone refers to the 1950's housewife handbook. Betty Friedan would have loved the irony, though I'm not sure you meant it ironically...


Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama
In addition -- why is it 95% of the time that the woman's salary is "supplemental"? Frequently, I think the answer is that women choose to make it so. Rather than thinking -- I want to have 4 kids, so let me get a college degree and a career/trade education that will ensure that I can actually support the kids I want, they seek out careers/majors in areas that aren't sufficient to support that lifestyle and rely on others to make sure the basics of living: food, shelter, medical care are taken care of.
Ooh I haven't heard this one in awhile. Isn't it called going to college to get your Mrs. Degree? I know a lot of stay at home moms--they are scientists, lawyers, doctors, physical therapists, graphic designers.... Not an Mrs. Degree among them, sorry.

Life is all about risks. I chose risks that favor my children and I'm proud of that.
post #128 of 131
jkpmomtoboys
post #129 of 131
yep,deffo,If feminism means better choices for women that is! i loathe the way i am treated by some other women(so called fems)and plenty others who belittle me cos i'm sahp,as if i'm such a loser for being there for my kids,demeaned and devalued,mundane housewife syndrome, surely this is a major fem issue equal and synonymous with the right to go to work,for some its a necessity to work, it's not very feminist to put bringing up kids beneath having a 'good' job,and i don't mean women should stay at home rather than have a job, i have to work crappy jobs for crap money part-time so i can treat my kids to stuff others take for granted,and attend college courses,i take my homeschooler to work,my job options are not going to be varied or well paid. I am not at home as often as that I guess, some of these women i know have well-paid jobs and husbands who work from home!changing times?or changing gender roles? and lucky them,there is so much more to it all,i'm a single parent on low income but for me personally i'd rather spend time with my family than have material possessions or further my career,tho i completely agree a woman should well be able to do these things if she chooses but unfortunately employers are not often parent friendly,school hols,sick leave etc never mind quality time with your family, so the high earners don't get to see their kids much,but quite often neither do us low earners,you would really have to be in quite a financially privileged position to not feel that womens rights are still overlooked in their most basic forms. With the amount of single mother's,divorce etc economic stability for women is still a major fem issue.
seems like a class thing to me the way certain 'feminist' thinking relates more to capitalism and careerism rather than bettering womans lives. If that was the case then why am I having to clean these womens houses so i can buy my kids toys?
post #130 of 131
i'm definately a feminist.

to me, feminism is about discovering your authentic self and having both the courage and opportunity to live that.

for me, being a SAH parent (future) is an authentic expression of who i am. it happens to fall into 'traditional' gender roles--but i like it and i'm happy!
post #131 of 131
Do I believe in the radical notion that women are people?

That would be a yes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Stay at Home Parents
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Stay at Home Parents › sahp- do you consider yourself a feminist?