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!

“ Are you seriously saying that any woman should be able to fund their own life, regardless of salary/skills?”

This thread is blowing my mind! OP, in your 50s you are a decade younger than my mum, and she would never have dreamed of implying making my own financial way in the world is optional!!

Aside from the biological factors of pregnancy and childbirth (which newsflash women do not have to undertake and are declining to undertake in increasing numbers) what possible good reason could there be for a woman NOT to be able to fund her own life?

The mind (as my mill-working, night school attending, MA-achieving Yorkshire grandmother would have said) boggles

@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.

No. She is not "liable" for it nor should she be. But again, unless women come together en masse to refuse to vote for any party that doesn't force men to pay 50% of childrearint costs through the taxation system, on pain of imprisonment if not paid, this will not change. It's bonkers that you can be imprisoned for not paying a TV licence but child maintenance is largely optional and, even if the current law is complied with, is a pittance.

We can decide to demand this, as women. Why is it not happening? No Government can get elected without votes from women.

I think you're confusing what needs to happen to change national policy with personal decisions. If national policy remains as it is because so few women can be bothered to stand up and fight for it to change, I'll absolutely be advising my daughter not to have children until she knows she can provide for them independently if needed. Based on her own childhood and how it would have been if I'd not done the same, I hope she will listen.

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

And yet we have a CMS that is appallingly in favour of men, with children shafted.
Very few men pay 50% and many go to great lengths to conceal income.

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.

The obvious social solution is to only have a child with a partner who is going to stay with you at least until the children are school age. And have a benefits system to support those for whom that doesn't work out, along with mandatory child maintenance payments from.the other parent.

The other option is to have subsidised childcare. Which we do have to an extent as low earners can get free childcare from age 2. And everyone else from age 3. Only 30 hours but it's a big help.

It is not realistic to expect everyone to take home £3500 a month, which is what would approximately be required to pay ft nursery for 2 children and pay for housing and bills. (In the north)

But for me financial independence is more about contributing equally and having the potential to make my own choices, rather than being able to pay for the same lifestyle I have now. If I had no children I could easily earn double and have half the costs.

I will be telling her that she should be able to support herself and her half of her family's costs.

A lovely idealism. And as I said women should be fighting for something closer to this. But how many absent fathers do you know of that pay 50% of the cost of raising their children? If she follows your advice she may end up in a very vulnerable situation, as things stand legally.

@likeshellingpeas I'm quick to jump as MN continually stereotypes sahms as women trapped by men. Or women too stupid to understand the financial implications of not working (like pensions). Or unemployable.

Thank you for clarifying your comment. I'm pleased you weren't generalising.

@likeshellingpeas

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

And yet we have a CMS that is appallingly in favour of men, with children shafted.
Very few men pay 50% and many go to great lengths to conceal income.

Yes that's very true too

[quote Sweak]@likeshellingpeas I'm quick to jump as MN continually stereotypes sahms as women trapped by men. Or women too stupid to understand the financial implications of not working (like pensions). Or unemployable.

Thank you for clarifying your comment. I'm pleased you weren't generalising.[/quote]
I actually said " in awful relationships"

Not everyone on MN thinks that and actually its twice on this thread alone that ex/SAHM have perpetuated it!

Can you imagine how careful men would be regarding contraception if they had to pay 50% of the actual costs of raising their DC in relationship break ups @Sweak
😂
I agree that this is the issue here.
Women should not have to shoulder the whole coat and men should not be able to manipulate/ withold without punishment.
However looking at the morals of our own dear PM 🙄 I doubt anything will change soon.

@likeshellingpeas

Can you imagine how careful men would be regarding contraception if they had to pay 50% of the actual costs of raising their DC in relationship break ups *@Sweak* 😂 I agree that this is the issue here. Women should not have to shoulder the whole coat and men should not be able to manipulate/ withold without punishment. However looking at the morals of our own dear PM 🙄 I doubt anything will change soon.

Ha! Indeed. What's he up to now, 3 wives and won't say how many children? He exemplifies the issue. Yes presumably quite a large number of women voted for his party with him as the leader. Twice. The mind boggles.

The problem with the MN “women need to be financially independent” mantra is that, all to often, it is concomitant with lower expectations of men. Some women seems to have interpreted “financial independence” as having totally separate finances in a marriage and that they should have no expectations that their husband should financially provide for his wife and children at all

This is just misogyny of a different sort. I have brought my boys up to know that if they ever want children, it is likely and perfectly normal that their wife will want to be at home with the baby for a given period and they need to factor this in. If they are not prepared to financially provide for this eventuality, then they have no business having children. Yes, you can do shared parental leave etc etc and it’s all well and good if that actually works out, but the fact is, as the childbearing sex, women’s earning potential will inevitably be harder hit than men’s once children come along. Especially if there are several children. It’s ridiculous to pretend the impact in men and women will ever be the same, physically or emotionally, because it won’t and this does women a disservice. So yes, obviously women should be encouraged to do whatever they want to do career-wise, but similarly, they should fully expect their husbands to support them if and when needed and men should step up more and not be allowed to get away with anything less.

Indeed. What's he up to now, 3 wives and won't say how many children? He exemplifies the issue. Yes presumably quite a large number of women voted for his party with him as the leader. Twice. The mind boggles.

Grim

Some women seems to have interpreted “financial independence” as having totally separate finances in a marriage and that they should have no expectations that their husband should financially provide for his wife and children at all

Ive never heard of any woman saying this on MN or in RL.

Can you imagine a scenario where a female PM (or politician) wouldn’t even admit to how many children she has? The press would have a field day and nobody would ever let it drop. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

@SnackSizeRaisin

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.

If men didn't want children too the human race would not exist by now.

@likeshellingpeas I have re-read your comment and I now see I jumped the gun there. I apologise.

And yes the real issue is CMS. Someone mentioned why aren't women (as half the electorate) making more of this...I wonder if it's the "I'm alright jack" stuff.

Perhaps the issue is also the cabinet...largely men. Obviously we had May as a recent PM but bogged down by Brexit.

Unless you're trying to suggest that the majority of children result from unplanned pregnancies? The figures do not bear this out.

likeshellingpeas - I have. There are loads if women on here who think the height of independence is to live on your own salary while the H lives on his. Often she will have no idea how much he earns and she genuinely believes he is entitled to this financial privacy.

Even when she is on maternity leave, she is living off “her” savings. Or maybe the child benefit or whatever, but she can’t ask the H for anything in top because that’s “his” money and she’s too independent to ask him for anything.

[quote Sweak]@likeshellingpeas I have re-read your comment and I now see I jumped the gun there. I apologise.

And yes the real issue is CMS. Someone mentioned why aren't women (as half the electorate) making more of this...I wonder if it's the "I'm alright jack" stuff.

Perhaps the issue is also the cabinet...largely men. Obviously we had May as a recent PM but bogged down by Brexit.[/quote]
Ha! If your best hopes for women in power are May or the likes of Priti Patel, then no, they will not be implementing any policies to help women.

Women choose to vote for parties with these sexist views that will never reform the tax system of CMS law or support women in any way. Why? When I was married I knew "the for the grace of God I go..." (athiest btw, just a colloquialism!). Is it so hard for women in relationships to understand this may be in their interests one day, or the interests of their daughters or grandaughters? Or just women in general?

To be it is madness.

@SilenceIsNotAvailable

Unless you're trying to suggest that the majority of children result from unplanned pregnancies? The figures do not bear this out.

Its 50%

@cosmo5

likeshellingpeas - I have. There are loads if women on here who think the height of independence is to live on your own salary while the H lives on his. Often she will have no idea how much he earns and she genuinely believes he is entitled to this financial privacy.

Even when she is on maternity leave, she is living off “her” savings. Or maybe the child benefit or whatever, but she can’t ask the H for anything in top because that’s “his” money and she’s too independent to ask him for anything.

This is nonsense. I suspect that very few married couples operate like that, particularly during maternity leaves etc. I've never seen a post of that nature. And that isn't what this thread is about, at all. It's about being capable of financial independence for you and your DC, should the need arise.

[quote Sweak]@likeshellingpeas I have re-read your comment and I now see I jumped the gun there. I apologise.

And yes the real issue is CMS. Someone mentioned why aren't women (as half the electorate) making more of this...I wonder if it's the "I'm alright jack" stuff.

Perhaps the issue is also the cabinet...largely men. Obviously we had May as a recent PM but bogged down by Brexit.[/quote]
No worries @Sweak

I do think its partly complacency and partly lack of political interest in this issue.
Its infuriating
The Tories stance against single mothers is appalling as is the media derision and yet many ( not all) men arent even providing for their children on a basic level
Grrrrr

@cosmo5

The problem with the MN “women need to be financially independent” mantra is that, all to often, it is concomitant with lower expectations of men. Some women seems to have interpreted “financial independence” as having totally separate finances in a marriage and that they should have no expectations that their husband should financially provide for his wife and children at all

This is just misogyny of a different sort. I have brought my boys up to know that if they ever want children, it is likely and perfectly normal that their wife will want to be at home with the baby for a given period and they need to factor this in. If they are not prepared to financially provide for this eventuality, then they have no business having children. Yes, you can do shared parental leave etc etc and it’s all well and good if that actually works out, but the fact is, as the childbearing sex, women’s earning potential will inevitably be harder hit than men’s once children come along. Especially if there are several children. It’s ridiculous to pretend the impact in men and women will ever be the same, physically or emotionally, because it won’t and this does women a disservice. So yes, obviously women should be encouraged to do whatever they want to do career-wise, but similarly, they should fully expect their husbands to support them if and when needed and men should step up more and not be allowed to get away with anything less.

Absolutely this.

If men paid their way women with kids wouldn't be having such a hard time.

Patriarchy has played women - often now they are having to work out of the home on top of all or most of the traditional unpaid domestic labour.

@likeshellingpeas nope. 45% of pregnancies are unplanned according the the UK stats and only 33% of births.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-reproductive-health-and-pregnancy-planning/health-matters-reproductive-health-and-pregnancy-planning

Much too high still I'll grant you, but not the norm by any means. And don't forget the unplanned prrgnancies include those within a happy and stable home where the child is very much wanted and well looked after, just a bit of a surprise given a failure of contraception etc.

It’s still good advice.

I think it would be disingenuous to deny that not working because you’re married to being married to an extremely wealthy, kind and loyal man in excellent, bulletproof health with a totally recession-proof source of income is likely to give a better quality of life than working full time till you drop. But I think very few people who would advise women to be financially independent would deny that.

Because, for starters, not every woman can marry a wealthy man. There aren’t enough of them out there. So ‘marry a rich man’ is pretty shit life advice from a purely statistical point of view.

And if you do marry a wealthy man - he could lose his job, he could develop a gambling addiction and go bankrupt, he could get cancer or have a heart attack, he could die in an accident, he could turn out to be abusive, or he could up sticks and leave you for a younger model. Among many other things. And if you have some degree of financial independence (not necessarily total, but some) you’ll be able to weather those storms much better than if you don’t.

And it may be a cliche, but those women you think have such nice lives - you don’t know what’s going on behind close doors. My mum was one such woman. You’d have thought her very happy with an excellent quality of life. My dad was actually a violent alcoholic who beat her and screwed anything going. And she felt she didn’t have any choice but to put up with it. Personally I’d rather work full time my entire life than endure what she did.