Women who forget not everyone has access to money from men

[windygallows]

With 34.5% of the population aged over 16 in England ‘single and not cohabiting’ (2015 stats), it’s clear that a significant number of women in the UK, many parents, are single and having to fend for themselves/live on one income.

Yet I'm amazed at the number of women who forget that not every woman has access to a second income from a partner. In fact the privilege of having access to another’s (usually a man’s) income is often naturalized and many women are, or become, totally oblivious to this privilege.

For example just this last week I experienced:

• A woman at work going on and on about the importance of her life/work balance and suggesting I drop my hours to have similar. She works just 2 days/week and seems to forget that such a setup is an absolute privilege, thanks to a husband who works FT.

• Another woman I know who is on quite a low salary bragging about her 3 luxury holidays per year, again thanks to the income from an IT Director husband. She thought she'd give me travel tips in case I wanted to go to the same 5star holiday.

There are a million reasons why women might have to rely on men’s income but I don’t think I ABU in asking women to recognize that their lifestyle and having access to men’s money isn’t the NORM for up to 1/3 of women, who are having to get by on their own accord and lack the same privilege or financial flexibility.

I would agree with you if your thread title was from a partner rather than a man, as the comments have shown it can go either way.

I am married now but I remember years ago when I was single, my best friend moved into a lovely little flat with her boyfriend and kept insisting I should do the same (I was living with parents, so was she before). She just ignored how much easier it was for her because she had a partner to split the costs with. I think this the sort of situation you mean.

It is also disingenuous to pretend that being able to be a SAHM isn’t a privilege - yes of course it must be difficult at times and it is work but having the option to do so without worrying about finances is something many women can only dream of.

A bigger pool of money = more choices.

This seems a really weird way to say 'some people don't have as much money as other people'?

I outearn my husband. We've leapfrogged each other through the years, and always contributed 50:50. We can afford more by combining our incomes, sure. Our household bills wouldn't halve if one of us left.

My brother is perennially single (he's a woman hater, and women weirdly don't seem to look for that), and moans about not being able to afford things. But he offsets his living costs by taking lodgers now and then, and he actually has a fairly nice 2 bed house in a good neighbourhood.

It is also disingenuous to pretend that being able to be a SAHM isn’t a privilege - yes of course it must be difficult at times and it is work but having the option to do so without worrying about finances is something many women can only dream of.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I was a SAHM for a couple of years, then DH was a SAHD for another couple of years when I went back to work. We were pretty skint but cut our cloth accordingly. We both felt very lucky to be in a position to do that.

Can't decide if you are being deliberately goady, or just ignorant with your mass generalisations
Yes, YABU.

Yes, it can be annoying when people have a lack of social awareness that everyone's circumstances are different.
Some people are wealthier than others - shock
This isn't because they "have access to money from men" in so many (possibly an overwhelming majority of) cases.
All kinds of things come in to play - like they might earn more. They might have fewer / smaller outgoings. They might choose to scrimp and save on some things to be able to afford others. They might have had considerable help buying property from parents or other relations. They might have had a massive insurance payout - including from a loved one dying. They might have had an inheritance. They might have been lucky in terms of when they bought property. They might have had a huge redundancy payout. The list goes on. Oh, and of courser their partner living with them could cost them money - in terms of loss of some benefits.... or partner being in training or not earning for a number of other reasons. Or - her's a novel idea for you - their partner could be a woman

It is also disingenuous to pretend that being able to be a SAHM isn’t a privilege

since when?

It's easy to go back to work when you have the finance to handle childcare, commute and have help around. I don't know one single woman (or man for that matters) who is working without some kind of family help around. The ones without don't work - unless they have a very comfortable salary. There are enough threads about posters showing that they can't afford to work and lose their benefits.

I wouldn't go to work if I was on minimum wage, it wouldn't any make sense financially in my position, and I am not the only one. I would also really struggle if I didn't have someone to pick up my kids on inset days, election days and so on.

It is also disingenuous to pretend that being able to be a SAHM isn’t a privilege.

This is another failure to understand others' circumstances. Some women are SAHM because they can't earn enough to make it worth paying childcare costs. I'd hardly call that privileged.

But the other side of the coin is that we have independence and self respect. You can’t buy those. It’s annoying but you really can’t let stuff like this get to you

Me and DP are interdependent and it's not solely about money. We also respect each other. I'm better off financially with him around and see nothing whatsoever wrong with that. It's our relationship. Women don't all turn into birdbrains just because a man is around you know.

You sound bitter OP. If you think it's a privilege to cohabit with a high earning man then go and find yourself one.

I suggest be honest and say I'm glad you enjoyed your holiday but your 5* star hotel tips are not of any interest to me as I am not planning any 5* star holidays. Then change the subject.

If she insists that you simply must consider a 5 star hotel because they are so great then tell her straight up that this is not affordable for you at the moment.

There is no shame in being unable to afford a holiday. There is however shame in bragging about and showing off your wealth to others who have less.

@windygallows Gonna channel Sophia from the Golden Girls here....................Picture it. Circa 1998 Not a lifetime ago and well after 1975 sex discrimination laws came in ...........1998 23 years later both DH and i were signing on for a period . During one signing i was pulled aside to sign a declaration saying that i would consider part time work.

I made sure to ask DH whether he had been made to sign this declaration and i asked him this every time he signed on after that. Nope . He didnt

So its also assumed by the benefits system.

We did both get jobs after that...............mine was the main breadwinning wage.

YANBU. Except that, in most cases they have not forgotten at all - they are comfortably aware of being more financially secure, and they enjoy chewing this fact over with you.

I normally just humour it, as I am very happy with my own situation.

Being interdependent sounds horrific. I honestly don’t understand why people don’t prioritise being able to financially manage alone (if they are able to) and THEN start thinking about relationships. It’s utterly foolish to put yourself in a position where you can’t afford your outgoings if your spouse left. And that goes for men and women, but unfortunately it’s still largely women who do this ‘because it makes sense’ for them to be the one to make all the sacrifices when children come along. Does it? Until equal numbers of men and women are giving up their careers because it ‘makes sense’ then it’s not a free choice and it isn’t equality.

I don't really understand your complaint.
Yes there are people better off than you but you know what, you are better off than a lot of other people too.
People have different problems, you my feel they are bragging - but maybe they are just sharing and you have taken it in a negative way.
Would it be ok for me to be offended about you talking about your job if I was one of the millions who didnt have one???

Dodgeball - surely many women are financially independent before they get into their long-term relationship and also once they are in their ltr. It's having children that causes the problem!

I went part time when my eldest child was born 13 years ago and am still part time now. I might go back to being ft when my youngest starts secondary, but actually I don't really want to. However, I work in a sector that's got big staff shortages, so I could walk into a ft job any time.

dodge

Of course it's equality and free choice. Couples are free to decide who works within their relationship, what's best for their career and family.
Both need to look to their partner for support and are dependant on each other, it's up to them how to prioritise their careers between them both.

dodge how many middle aged women do you know who have never supported themselves?
The usual progression is the other way. Starts off independent, gets married still on level playing field, dc- then one person steps back their earning. This person is often the woman but not exclusively so.
Once you have dc it cannot all be about you, often it has to be about them. What is in their best interests.

I think making your own money and being responsible for yourself is something to be proud of. I agree op, that some women are quite thoughtless when it comes to finances and simply expect someone else to provide. Not all of course but some.

I am a single parent who entirely supports myself and my dds. I’m proud of that and rightly so.

I’m being told by other posters that women who make this kind of economic ‘choice’ are stupid/naive/will end up in impoverished old age. As if women have no agency to assess what makes economic sense in a family context. I’m perfectly capable of doing that
Youre projecting, nobody said that. But it is naive to trust another to protect your financial future: we must all do that for ourselves no matter how rich the husband.

The OP is really, really sexist because it makes the assumption that women who do not have partners are poor.

Many women alone may be wealthy in their own right, widowed or have a decent divorce payment or no mortgage.

I think the OP is also sexist because she assumes the men must be paying for these things not savings or investments from the women.

These woman would be worse if they assumed every single woman was in poverty so discussion of holidays etc shouldn’t happen in front of them

men are quite expensive to keep to be honest. Mine eats 50% of the food budget, has expensive gadgets, runs a bigger car than necessary, has expensive hobbies, has an expensive commute, seems to need a lot of washing of clothes each day and so on.

But it is naive to trust another to protect your financial future: we must all do that for ourselves no matter how rich the husband.

that's a nice theory, but a) nothing wrong with prioritising other things like your children first
b) it's ridiculously unfair to only apply that to women, and usually SAHM. People in this country famously have next to no saving and very little, if anything at all, in term of pensions. The argument is usually that people can't afford it, bladibla - might be true for some, but for many it's just a question of priorities. Turning it against women is not fair.

men are quite expensive to keep to be honest.

and they start young!

I think everything in our society is priced for 2 people living together.
My sister lives alone and finds it very hard. She is single with no children.

We are a 1 income family, im a sahm and we have 2 children. We have the same income as my sister but it had to pay for 4 of us and only 1 of her.
Not everyone is like who you are describing. Your acquaintances are people who have husbands earning large amounts allowing them to be "ladies of leisure" but i don't really think that's the norm. I'm certainly not a lady of leisure, not a penny is spent on me, my clothes get holes and I mend them, never go to hairdressers etc

I don't actually get the point of your post OP. You've spoken to a couple of shallow people. You're single and have to work FT. That's presumably your choice. You sound a little bitter towards people who are married. I'm a SAHM, my DH works, we have a joint account and separate accounts. I certainly don't see it as me 'having access' to his money.

My point is that society is structured in such a way that is usually (but not always) is women who take the hit when they have children, and it shouldn’t be that way, and personally I find it disappointing that more women don’t actively fight against that. I think more of the younger generations are doing - for instance none of my friends in long term relationships want to marry or combine finances.

On a tangential point, I’ve always wondered about when people talk about the protection of marriage - if you marry someone financially abusive who doesn’t give the lower earner/SAHP money or access to money, how do you physically compel them to hand over money on a daily basis? How do you actually access it without a lengthy and expensive court battle? Where is the protection element for people who can’t afford to leave because their spouse withholds money from them?