Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
lattitudes
Published Letters: 41 Editor's Choice: 10
what in the world do SAHMs want from us?
Okay, I just asked it. But here's the reason why: feminism has made sure that women can enter the workforce mostly on their own terms, that women can leave bad marriages (although as some complain, no longer with fat alimony payments... sigh), that they should not have to face abuse or harrassment either at home or at work, that they can vote, that they can control their own reproduction, that there's at least some societal pressure on men to help with housework & childrearing *even when they're also the sole breadwinners*, and yet it's never enough. Feminism is and has always been primarily a movement promoting economic & political (which are mostly the same these days), as well as professional & educational, empowerment for women. You can certainly be a SAHM and a feminist, but a lack of meaningful activity in the aforementioned areas does tend to make it hard for feminism to address whatever your concerns might be, under the circumstances. And those of us who are not SAH have diminished power because of your absence. We can agitate for professional equality, but many businesses know perfectly well that if they hire ten men & ten women, eager & well-qualified 27-year-olds, what their retention rate will likely be in five years or so, and they act accordingly.
In an individual household, a couple can negotiate terms in which all contributions to the family unit are equal, etc., but in the outside world there's nothing even remotely equivalent, and for good reason. Feminism cannot overthrow capitalism entirely, especially when our effective (meaning, as I said, those with economic/political clout) numbers diminish as women decide to opt out of the system. There's basically no incentive for anyone participating in the system to change it, because the people who are most interested in change have already decided to opt out, and those who would like change but have stayed behind now have less negotiating power.
So I think we're really at an impasse. I'd love for employment to be flexible enough for both men & women for real progress to occur (first step, universal health care), but we have neither a critical mass of women nor adequate support from men to make that a reality. The women still out there aren't able to transform the world enough to lure you back into the workplace; there aren't enough of us with serious clout. If you just want an attagirl for staying home, here-- and take a pat on the back too. But the truth is that where you are right now really isn't our business any more (outside of actual abuses), and I'm honestly not sure what else feminism is supposed to be offering you at this point, since we've basically done all we can to make home life at least a bit less unpleasant for women. And on days when this particular debate is at the forefront, I often think that feminism should basically pack it in, because we seem to have reached the limits of what women as a group are willing to do for equality.
And this is a serious question, not a snarky one. Do we honestly think that feminism came into being only to make sure women could all be happy as individuals? Is there a corresponding movement promoting men's happiness?
Maybe I'm a second-waver at heart, my age notwithstanding, but I'd say the answer is no. There are responsibilities that go with rights, and sometimes they don't make everyone happy. Am I saying that all women should immediately get jobs for the cause?- no (I certainly don't want anyone to start howling), but the fact is that in focusing on the personal, political relevance is necessarily diminished. And when enough women eschew public activities & financial independence, the women who don't still lose some significance, because they are seen as an anomaly, or of little import.
Only a few people here seem to be discussing the harsh economic realities that go with these choices; yes, you may be incredibly "privileged" to leave the workforce for years on end, but economically speaking, you're still dependent on your spouse, with all of the uncertainty that entails. Like I mentioned earlier, agreeing that both traditionally-defined roles are equal is certainly nice, but when and if the outside world has a say in the matter, it's simply not so. You want to leave the workforce, fine, but then the workplace will most likely leave you too.
I think feminism always assumed that women would be happier acting in a broader, more far-reaching context than home & school activities allowed... maybe it was a bad assumption, and once most women were able to get educations, jobs (up to a point), and a bit more emotional/social leverage, that was enough.
that most feminists wouldn't be interested in you, either, your education, credentials, and finances notwithstanding. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I'm not for the faint of heart or the inert of mind, and there are enough engaging & egalitarian men out there for us to make do, I think.
A gracious demurral, and while I suspect we would still have little to discuss in real life, I still appreciate your respect for the audience here. Best of luck to you.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
