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!

‘Well I am doing exactly that. I'm not going to state my income but I'm in my early 30s and worked very long hours...’

If you are not going to state your income, what on earth is the point of your post? We are not going to know if it is good advice to tell women to become financially independent if nobody actually knows what salary would be required to gain financial independence!

@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. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

@LibertyMole

‘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.

🤣🤣🤣 This is ridiculous.

@LibertyMole

‘Something that is achievable by most people doesn’t mean everyone is going to achieve it.’

I don’t think it is achievable that our economy can work on most people earning 60 grand. I don’t understand why you do think this is possible.

It is within the top 10% of salaries.

The poster was posting about costs in London I believe, where both average salaries and living costs are higher. The tax system doesn't differentiate for that so Londonders/ anyone in the SE commuter belt has an even harder time. I don't think the poster was implying £60k is required no matter where you live. Obviously in many places it's easier even though salaries are lower, because the cost of living is SO much cheaper proportionately that it outweighs the extra salary from working in London.

@LibertyMole

‘Well I am doing exactly that. I'm not going to state my income but I'm in my early 30s and worked very long hours...’

If you are not going to state your income, what on earth is the point of your post? We are not going to know if it is good advice to tell women to become financially independent if nobody actually knows what salary would be required to gain financial independence!

Because the salary required will be completely dependent on where in the country one lives, so a nominal figure it utterly meaningless. What is meaningful is that many women are doing it as many on this thread have told you already.

Why is it ridiculous?

If a woman wants to have their own biological child, there are very many men with varying degrees of interest in engagement with the life of the child who will get you pregnant so you can have a baby.

If you are a man and you want a baby that is biologically yours and a family life, the only way to get one is to find a woman who wants to have your baby, and women in contemporary society almost never get pregnant and have a baby unless they really want to be heavily involved in that child’s life. Women don’t just go around giving men their newborns on a whim in the way men will hand over sperm. As a father you are therefore dependent on a mother in a way that mothers never are on fathers.

That is the actual basis of all of men’s attempts to control women. It is about control of fertility and sexual jealousy.

Well of course some women are able to be financially independent. Pretty much nobody is disputing that.

But if, for example, a teacher, social worker or police officer doesn’t earn enough to be financially independent, telling our daughters they should grow up to be financially independent (the thread topic) is far more dubious advice.

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

@Atalantea - since you asked 60k doesn't get you that far in the SE. After tax (and some pension contributions) it's 3k/month to cover mortgage, childcare/aftercare and everything else. It's the equivalent of a couple each making 24k pa full time. Check thesalarycalculator.co.uk if you don't believe me.

It may also be worth considering that wealthy men aren’t interested in marrying financially independent women, and have a lot of interest in marrying young women (who are usually less well off). So that route is never going to disappear as an option.

Those salaries sound correct Wafer.

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 interesting but not really what I was suggesting in my OP - I was really thinking of women who were financially independent now or ready to be. In essence MOST women with std ability are pretty much capable of being financially independent if they have access to training/skills development and time. So I'm not sure if 'capability' is a useful criteria.

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

It does depend in london. When I lived there i managed on 35k, and didn’t feel like we were skint.

@LibertyMole

Why is it ridiculous?

If a woman wants to have their own biological child, there are very many men with varying degrees of interest in engagement with the life of the child who will get you pregnant so you can have a baby.

If you are a man and you want a baby that is biologically yours and a family life, the only way to get one is to find a woman who wants to have your baby, and women in contemporary society almost never get pregnant and have a baby unless they really want to be heavily involved in that child’s life. Women don’t just go around giving men their newborns on a whim in the way men will hand over sperm. As a father you are therefore dependent on a mother in a way that mothers never are on fathers.

That is the actual basis of all of men’s attempts to control women. It is about control of fertility and sexual jealousy.

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. In all planned pregnancies the mother and father both want a child equally. In some cases (like mine) it is the man that persuades the woman to have a family. Maybe we move in very different circles with different cultural norms but I recognise none of what you are saying. You seem to have internalised many sexist assumptions about relationships.

Inequalities exist. Part of my work is attempting to fight those. But this idea that women are poor helpless beings with no agency to get an education and career prior to having children is false. The idea that we can't provide for our children is false as many have told you in this thread already. The idea that we're somehow incapable of parenting and working and saving for a pension simultaneously is nonsense.

It is all about planning when to have children and putting in the work to create a stable home and financial situation beforehand.

Yes that may be jointly funded, but if a woman knows that in a worst case scenario of her partner dying/ running off/ becoming unemployed or severely ill she can still provide for her family - surely making sure that is the case before having a child is just being an adult and taking responsibility for your decisions.

How could someone responsible bring an innocent baby into the world out of choice (appreciate there are other circumstances where it isn't a choice) if they know that child's future is so precarious and their basic welfare needs hang by a thread? Baffling attitude, IMO.

Being able to work work work is a very helpful skill. I think it gives you more options. That is not to say that it is necessarily the optimum thing to do in every situation, but it is good to think about when making decisions about if/when to go part time or pausing career. It’s a bit like insurance - you might not end up needing it, but it would be silly not to consider it for important stuff. There are other people apart from a partner who may be able to help out - parents, siblings (though like partners, these can be problematic too). I’m from immigrant family and often joint effort from multiple parties can help make a better life for the next generation.

I was financially independent before having my DTs. Hit me like a ton of bricks when they were born that I was unable to support the three of us should my marriage breakdown. I’ve spent a lot of time regretting past (terrible!) decisions that’ve led me to this point.

I fully intend to do everything I can to make sure that my dc know about finances and setting things up so they have choice, and my DD in particular can never be trapped as a sahm if she doesn’t want to be one.

I’m perfectly happy in my marriage, I just hate being dependent upon DH, and knowing that I couldn’t give the kids the lifestyle we have on my own. Or anything remotely close to it!

I wish I’d known when I was younger and had taken steps to being if not completely independent, closer to it than fully reliant on a man. Just never occurred to me.

‘I'm sorry but this is nonsense. In all planned pregnancies the mother and father both want a child equally.’

They may want the child to exist but that doesn’t mean both have an equal interest in the child’s life. Loads of men are not particularly interested in the children they bring into the world, and will quite happily impregnable multiple women and not bother with the kids. Women not bothering with kids after the birth is very rare.

If you are unaware of this you must be very sheltered.

‘ But this idea that women are poor helpless beings with no agency to get an education and career prior to having children is false. The idea that we can't provide for our children is false as many have told you in this thread already. The idea that we're somehow incapable of parenting and working and saving for a pension simultaneously is nonsense.’

Literally nobody on this thread is suggesting mothers can’t work, be educated or have a career.

I am asking how much someone would have to earn to pay childcare full time for two kids, without state or partner support, and cover their other costs.

If an average teacher or police officer can’t do that, we need other social solutions rather than telling young women just to go for financial independence.

In all planned pregnancies the mother and father both want a child equally.

How can you possibly know that? Anyway you are definitely wrong. It's true to say that in all planned pregnancies both parents agree to have a child. But I think it's far more common that the woman is the main driver than the man. They would have to be as it's women who make the huge physical sacrifice of going through pregnancy and birth. Plenty of men I know (including my own partner) would have been equally happy not to have children.

@LibertyMole

Why is it ridiculous?

If a woman wants to have their own biological child, there are very many men with varying degrees of interest in engagement with the life of the child who will get you pregnant so you can have a baby.

If you are a man and you want a baby that is biologically yours and a family life, the only way to get one is to find a woman who wants to have your baby, and women in contemporary society almost never get pregnant and have a baby unless they really want to be heavily involved in that child’s life. Women don’t just go around giving men their newborns on a whim in the way men will hand over sperm. As a father you are therefore dependent on a mother in a way that mothers never are on fathers.

That is the actual basis of all of men’s attempts to control women. It is about control of fertility and sexual jealousy.

I think its the other way round. Very few men are that interested in hands on parenting of children. They would rather be at work . They disappear from their childrens lives and I dont see them falling over to provide properly if they can get away with the minimum. Women who give up work become reliant on men and are stuck in awful relationships as a result. Men control and abuse women due to low self esteem. It gives them feelings of power and control and they feel entitled to behave badly as a result.

Women who give up work become reliant on men and are stuck in awful relationships as a result.
@likeshellingpeas

That's a huge generalisation and really insulting. As a SAHM I'm not in an awful relationship. Nor am I "stuck" as I could leave given a) I've got a profession so can pick up work if needed even if just in a temporary capacity if there was urgency b) I own half the house c) I have savings

I hope you were just typing quickly and it was an error to generalise

@LibertyMole

‘I'm sorry but this is nonsense. In all planned pregnancies the mother and father both want a child equally.’

They may want the child to exist but that doesn’t mean both have an equal interest in the child’s life. Loads of men are not particularly interested in the children they bring into the world, and will quite happily impregnable multiple women and not bother with the kids. Women not bothering with kids after the birth is very rare.

If you are unaware of this you must be very sheltered.

Of course I'm aware of that. But a) young women need to be taught to avoid such men, and b) if they have ensured they are capable of prividing for their children independently then the impact of this - when it does happen out of the blue with no warning signs - will be far less for both the woman and her children.

The solutions already exist

1. The woman can be financially independent if the absent parent contributes fairly in time and/ or money to the raising of his child. If it's a 50:50 arrangement then I would argue that's as independent as anyone can be with a child

1. If (as so often) this doesn't happen she can nonetheless be independent with the assistance of state benefits which are there for that purpose

I will not be telling my daughter that she needs to have the earning capacity to singlehandedly support a family without recourse to either the father or to state aid as that would cut off the majority of career options and in itself be a sexist expectation that she needs to be 100% liable for the cost of raining a family when the father should in fact be 50% responsible

I will be telling her that she should be able to support herself and her half of her family's costs. I will be telling her that in my view it is dangerous to be wholly reliant on a man and that if you are then for the love of God make him marry you first. I will be telling her not to marry a sexist man who thinks that all childcare and domestic tasks are unimportant and are women's work.

@Sweak

Women who give up work become reliant on men and are stuck in awful relationships as a result. *@likeshellingpeas*

That's a huge generalisation and really insulting. As a SAHM I'm not in an awful relationship. Nor am I "stuck" as I could leave given a) I've got a profession so can pick up work if needed even if just in a temporary capacity if there was urgency b) I own half the house c) I have savings

I hope you were just typing quickly and it was an error to generalise

I meant women in abusive relationships not all SAHM If they are reliant financially they cant leave. You are always so quick to jump!

@Waferbiscuit

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

@Atalantea - since you asked 60k doesn't get you that far in the SE. After tax (and some pension contributions) it's 3k/month to cover mortgage, childcare/aftercare and everything else. It's the equivalent of a couple each making 24k pa full time. Check thesalarycalculator.co.uk if you don't believe me.

That is a problem with the tax system discriminating against single parents which I posted about on another thread this week. It's disgraceful thata couple receive 2 x tax free allowances and a single parent 1, a couple can earn a combined salary of £90k and get full child benefit but a single parent on £60k gets nothing, a couple can earn £199k and still get tax free childcare and 30 hrs free childcare but a single parent loses this when their household income is £100k - despite the couple being able to share childcare and hours at work! Those things are massively unfair and make things much harder than they should be, but women would need to stand together to create the political will to change that discrimination.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

The solutions already exist

1. The woman can be financially independent if the absent parent contributes fairly in time and/ or money to the raising of his child. If it's a 50:50 arrangement then I would argue that's as independent as anyone can be with a child

1. If (as so often) this doesn't happen she can nonetheless be independent with the assistance of state benefits which are there for that purpose

I will not be telling my daughter that she needs to have the earning capacity to singlehandedly support a family without recourse to either the father or to state aid as that would cut off the majority of career options and in itself be a sexist expectation that she needs to be 100% liable for the cost of raining a family when the father should in fact be 50% responsible

I will be telling her that she should be able to support herself and her half of her family's costs. I will be telling her that in my view it is dangerous to be wholly reliant on a man and that if you are then for the love of God make him marry you first. I will be telling her not to marry a sexist man who thinks that all childcare and domestic tasks are unimportant and are women's work.

will not be telling my daughter that she needs to have the earning capacity to singlehandedly support a family without recourse to either the father or to state aid as that would cut off the majority of career options and in itself be a sexist expectation that she needs to be 100% liable for the cost of raining a family when the father should in fact be 50% responsible

Really important point that hasn't been mentioned yet. Sort of blows up the whole thread really...