AIBU Mumsnetters are being disingenuous about the need for women to be financially independent

[Waferbiscuit]

MNers regularly stress the importance of being financially independent and any post about SAHMs usually has lots of cautions about being financially reliant on a partner. A recent post about marrying into money had virtually ever poster stating that telling our daughters to marry into money is a horrible idea and that the key thing we should be doing is teaching our daughters to be financially independent.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4234513-to-thin-k-women-still-teach-their-daughters?pg=2&&reverse=1

This is all good in principle, but it feels very disingenuous, almost like virtue signalling, because in reality only a minority of women are financially independent/support themselves financially.

Look at the stats (ONS 2019/2020):
• 29% of women of working age (16-64) are economically inactive! Only 71% are in some form of work. (Of course some of these will be students, but not all)
• Of women with dependent children, only 36% work full time, 37% work part time and the rest don’t work at all. For those working part-time unless you’re on a very high income you wouldn’t be making enough to support your family and will be contributing a lesser amount to the family.
• Anecdotally I’m in my 50s and I’ve seen so many women my age dropping out of the workforce or moving to very limited part-time. They can do this not because they’ve amassed huge savings over their career, but because they have a partner making a lot more money than them.

My question is why do we pretend to value financial independence for women when the majority of women are not. Most women don’t make enough money to support themselves on their own, they rely on someone else’s income to maintain their lives, and the vast majority of women with children wouldn’t be able to raise their family on their income alone.

I sound like I’m being critical but I’m not – this is reality for women: the gender pay gap and time off having children means they make less than men, having children makes it harder to work FT, and we live in an economy where you need two incomes to survive.

So why can’t we just be honest and tell our daughters ‘Yes, it’s good to have a job and an income, but if you want a good lifestyle you need to have a partner working to support you. And if you have children you will probably not make enough money to support your family solo, you will end up being reliant on someone else, so please be aware of the risks.’ Why BS about being financially independent when only a small percentage of women are – or can be?

My POV on this is that I’ve been single most of my life and aside from 7 years with someone, I have had to live and raise children on my one salary. So I do fall into the financial independent category, but it’s been a slog and frankly a lot of women are having a much easier time than me by being financially dependent!

@LibertyMole

‘Why would you be happy to be paid as a new graduate though confused If you had years of prior experience then surely you would be comparing yourself with women who hadnt left the workforce? Thats where the gap will be? In terms of pay, pension, leave you wont make it up?’

Because I want to do interesting, fulfilling work that matches my aptitude and ability and allows me a decent standard of living and independence as a single person, as well as offering progression opportunities.

I am not comparing myself to people with years of experience I haven’t got because we are not the same.

I just don’t want to be written off as a person not suitable for a career, when I have over twenty years of working ahead, just because someone else is sick of work and wants to retire at 50 because they have already been in work for 30 years.

Ok Whats stopping you then ?

I personally am happy to have carried on working, got a decent pension and to be working for fun rather than money.
Different choices we get to make as adults

Nothing is stopping me ShellingPeas.

That is the point. Being a SAHM is not the career suicide that is often claimed on MN.

Why would you be happy to be paid as a new graduate though confused
If you had years of prior experience then surely you would be comparing yourself with women who hadnt left the workforce?
Thats where the gap will be?
In terms of pay, pension, leave you wont make it up?'

This is often true of anyone who retrains. You often start on a lower salary. This isn't specific to a sahm

If you are able to or want to return to the same or similar field you don't necessarily have to start again. For example for the job I just got there were candidates with a mixture of experience. As I have prior experience in the profession I was offered the pay band that I left on before. Despite my employment gap. Employers can see past a few years out of the workplace for caring reasons in many cases. As I stated before for some professions this will be harder.

@LibertyMole

Nothing is stopping me ShellingPeas.

That is the point. Being a SAHM is not the career suicide that is often claimed on MN.

Jolly good!! Someone is stopping you but actually no one is I have no idea what you are on about !

@Sweak

*Why would you be happy to be paid as a new graduate though confused If you had years of prior experience then surely you would be comparing yourself with women who hadnt left the workforce? Thats where the gap will be? In terms of pay, pension, leave you wont make it up?'*

This is often true of anyone who retrains. You often start on a lower salary. This isn't specific to a sahm

If you are able to or want to return to the same or similar field you don't necessarily have to start again. For example for the job I just got there were candidates with a mixture of experience. As I have prior experience in the profession I was offered the pay band that I left on before. Despite my employment gap. Employers can see past a few years out of the workplace for caring reasons in many cases. As I stated before for some professions this will be harder.

I didnt say you had to start again, not at all. But you wont have 5 years of career progression,pay, pension, increments, AL increments and other accrued benefits for example if you took 5 years out. This is where the issue lies and why women are financially penalised for parenting where men are not.

Being financially independent doesn’t mean ‘if your DH left tomorrow, you should be able to carry everything on as normal as if nothing happened’ But it does mean if you’re in a part time role for convenience, you are able to up your hours to full time and be able to survive.*

@GappyValley I understand what you're saying but for many women moving from 2 to 4 days/week won't give them enough to means they won't survive.

I think the issue is how we define 'financial independence' - I define it as being able to fully care for myself (and my children if that pertains) without support from anyone else. Others on this thread seem to be defining it as 'financial nous' and 'making enough money to make some kind of financial contribution even if it's not enough to survive on.'

Sorry that was muddled @GappyValley - I meant 'won't give them enough to survive'!

‘In London I can tell you the absolute bare minimum - £75K when the children are pre-school, can drop to £65K once both in school. This is without pensions, holidays etc - just covering the basics plus childcare.’

Thanks Forin. It isn’t realistic that most Londoners are going to earn those figures alone.

‘Jolly good!!
Someone is stopping you but actually no one is confused
I have no idea what you are on about !’

I am really not sure what is happening here. You seem to have jumped into the middle of a conversation about SAHMs and now think people are arguing against you, but nobody is.

We’re talking about how people on MN make out that being a SAHM destroys careers rather than simply delaying them. We’re not asking for parity with women who have had no career break.

Nobody is arguing against your point.

When I’ve supported that we should teach our daughters to be financially independent, it hasn’t been a directive to be financially independent your whole entire life. It’s been more ensure you always have the capability to be financially independent so that, if you need to be, you can. (This is of course is only relating to able-bodied and able-minded women, a certain % are or will become too disabled to be financially independent. This % increases with age too, so keep in mind that the % you are seeing not economically active includes disabled women).

You may be lucky and as well as being fully able, you also have a well off partner that is loving and devoted so you don’t work while you have young children, or you retire early, whatever, but the key is to be able to be financially independent if needed Say if your partner became abusive, or permanently disabled.

So the goal isn’t to have 100% of women aged 16-64 beingfinancially independent, but 100% of women aged 16-64 capable of being financially independent.

I think the issue is how we define 'financial independence' - I define it as being able to fully care for myself (and my children if that pertains) without support from anyone else. Others on this thread seem to be defining it as 'financial nous' and 'making enough money to make some kind of financial contribution even if it's not enough to survive on.'

Both are correct. Your definition is the potential, or capability to be fully independent. The other definition is how you maintain that capability while raising a young family, which is by working part time, even if it is very little or even unpaid volunteering.

‘So the goal isn’t to have 100% of women aged 16-64 beingfinancially independent, but 100% of women aged 16-64 capable of being financially independent.’

Yes, absolutely.

@PlanDeRaccordement

When I’ve supported that we should teach our daughters to be financially independent, it hasn’t been a directive to be financially independent your whole entire life. It’s been more ensure you always have the capability to be financially independent so that, if you need to be, you can. (This is of course is only relating to able-bodied and able-minded women, a certain % are or will become too disabled to be financially independent. This % increases with age too, so keep in mind that the % you are seeing not economically active includes disabled women).

You may be lucky and as well as being fully able, you also have a well off partner that is loving and devoted so you don’t work while you have young children, or you retire early, whatever, but the key is to be able to be financially independent if needed Say if your partner became abusive, or permanently disabled.

So the goal isn’t to have 100% of women aged 16-64 beingfinancially independent, but 100% of women aged 16-64 capable of being financially independent.

This is a really good point.

It isn’t realistic that most Londoners are going to earn those figures alone.

But that’s equally true for men as it is for women. However, I don’t see the OP arguing for us to tell our sons that they will need to rely on a partner, only our daughters. It’s so regressive and sexist.

@likeshellingpeas
This is where the issue lies and why women are financially penalised for parenting where men are not.

This is a bit disingenuous, it’s not women being financially penalised for parenting compared to men, but rather stay at home parents being penalised compared to working parents. SAHDs face exact same pay gap and loss of income and progression as do SAHMs. It only results in a gender pay gap disadvantaging women because there are far more SAHMs than SAHDs.

If being financially independent is just being able to fully provide for yourself then it's a low bar and something that surely any adult without a serious disability (and in fact many who do have one can do it) should be aiming for

As I said before it really is only if it's yourself AND a number of dependent children that it becomes harder and that would usually be because their other parent is not pulling their weight and paying their full half contribution. Even if they've left you they should be doing that.

(I would also assume that financially independent would include claiming any state benefits that you were entitled to but perhaps you meant it should exclude that because if you include benefits then really everyone can provide for themselves and their children at some very basic level whether they have any capacity to work or not)

@LibertyMole

‘In London I can tell you the absolute bare minimum - £75K when the children are pre-school, can drop to £65K once both in school. This is without pensions, holidays etc - just covering the basics plus childcare.’

Thanks Forin. It isn’t realistic that most Londoners are going to earn those figures alone.

The senior PAs in my company are earning that

About half of them are single mums, many work flexibly, one worked her way up from a £25k receptionist job

Our marketing, finance and HR teams are all on more than that

Wouldn’t it be great if the message was ‘it’s entirely possible to earn that sort of salary without needing to be a lawyer who works 70 hrs a week, or a city trader selling their soul. Yes it requires hard work but it’s completely achievable to nearly any woman and so it should be’

Benefits is a good point, it is a sign of a good civilisation to have a basic income or safety net to support unemployed or underemployed temporarily. I would not see it as financially independent myself, but too many nations now literally allow companies to pay a starving wage, and then top up with benefits. Which isn’t the fault of the people. This makes being financially independent much harder because you can work 60hrs a week and still need benefits to survive.

@Waferbiscuit

Because it's simply not true! Women can earn enough to fund their own lifestyle

@SnackSizeRaisin - Are you seriously saying that any woman should be able to fund their own life, regardless of salary/skills? Because realistically only women in the top 20% salaries can afford to so that. I'm on 60k as a single parent living of 2 in the South East and it is hard for me to get by on that salary. How is someone on 30k or 20k supposed to do the same?

Financial independence is impossible for many women so whether they work 2 days/week, 4 days/week or not at all they are probably still going to rely on another person to pay the hhld bills therefore they really aren't independent at all.

How is it hard for you on 60k? Maybe that's your issue. Do you have other debts?

Gappy, because our current economy won’t work if most people earn 65 grand, so it isn’t achievable by most people.

Are you proposing that cleaners get paid 65 grand, or that only childless people become cleaners?

But it really isnt. Do you not notice the hundreds of retail staff, admin staff etc around you in london.

Council jobs local to me include family support workers, emotional literacy workers for schools, pastoral workers for schools, etc all under 25k. Similarly a lot of nhs admin jobs are under 25k.

Realistically most people will not earn 75k.
Most teachers, social workers, OTs,police etc cant come anywhere near that. Then look at the half that dont go to uni.

I think some people forget how the other half live...

Its a bit like when they wanted all schools to be above average 😉

I’m 43 and have never been supported by the government or another person since turning 17.

This is really not a fantasy. It’s perfectly normal to be able to support oneself. I would be very concerned if I were unable to do so, and very disappointed in myself if my only option were to seek a higher earning man to use as a meal ticket.

I’m not really sure what WORKWORKWORK is.

‘But that’s equally true for men as it is for women. However, I don’t see the OP arguing for us to tell our sons that they will need to rely on a partner, only our daughters. It’s so regressive and sexist.’

Men know that it is pretty much impossible to have a family (other than through the complexities of adoption) without becoming dependent on a woman who wants children. They don’t really need to be told.

Apologises if this is twice. I think my reply got lost

but you wont have 5 years of career progression,pay, pension, increments, AL increments and other accrued benefits for example if you took 5 years out.
This is where the issue lies and why women are financially penalised for parenting where men are not.

I accept I don't have those benefits. It was a trade off I made for longer at home with my children whilst they were young. I don't feel it's a penalty as it was a choice...I can't have my cake and eat it.

Its only really a penalty if you have had that choice taken from you by being forced to give up work. Which could be for many reasons.