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!

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

Cosmo5 the situation you describe is still relying on a man though

In theory (if married) you can rely on half the value of the assets but in reality he still has all the power and you have all the responsibilities

He still has the capacity to earn mega bucks after you spilt whilst you have much less ability especially as he will not suddenly spark up an interest in child care. Spousal maintenance is apparently very limited these days. The court expects you to go back to work.

Whilst you are still married your lives are surely going to hugely diverge if he is working all the hours God sends flying around the world having his ego massaged and you are home clearing up the kitchen and it's in that situation that lots of them somehow wind up shagging their secretaries or colleagues on business trips.

I don't think many high earning terribly important men like that have a lot of respect for the role their wives have played. The attitude of society generally is that the guy has earned it and it's his and she should be so lucky if he gives her any of it.

It only makes sense to marry a guy like that if you do not have much interest in or prospect of making your own money. If that's the case then I guess it could be a smart move (cf Kate M) but if you give up your own career to support his then it makes you very vulnerable and I do think that's more trust than I could ever see myself giving to any man.

Exactly: to put it very bluntly (sorry) it is a very silly idea unless you are either so thick or so lazy that you couldn't manage to develop a career where you can provide for yourself if needed and be a wife/ mother/ both.

When I was at uni I found that almost all the interesting intelligent ambitious men I met there did not want to marry a woman just as intelligent and successful as them. They did not fancy the competition. They have mostly married people willing to play second fiddle which I was not. I guess you could probably say I have done a role reversed version of the same thing but I like to think I have been a bit fairer about it. It's not possible to have 2 people with children firing 100% in high flying careers and the traditional solution is that the wife steps aside and sacrifices her earning power. Sadly she is often not repaid with the loyalty and respect that deserves

The thing that gives me hope is that I think that might have changed. I see a lot of young men in good careers these days who are working part time and doing 50:50 shared parenting with their wives. It would have been unheard of even 10 years ago but now loads of my male junior Drs are working LTFT once they have kids rather than forcing their wife to do it all. I have a lot of respect for that and I hope it becomes absolutely the norm.

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

Not sure which century you've turned up from but hello! 👋

Just a small update: girls are outperforming boys in all levels of education now in most developed countries. You should perhaps consider advising her to pick a partner who considers her an equal (if indeed she wants one) and NOT to get married as she then might lose a large share of her assets.

This blanket assumption that women must earn less than men is so offensive, and not true any more. Please do not bring up your daughter to believe this sexist nonsense.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

When I was at uni I found that almost all the interesting intelligent ambitious men I met there did not want to marry a woman just as intelligent and successful as them. They did not fancy the competition. They have mostly married people willing to play second fiddle which I was not. I guess you could probably say I have done a role reversed version of the same thing but I like to think I have been a bit fairer about it. It's not possible to have 2 people with children firing 100% in high flying careers and the traditional solution is that the wife steps aside and sacrifices her earning power. Sadly she is often not repaid with the loyalty and respect that deserves

The thing that gives me hope is that I think that might have changed. I see a lot of young men in good careers these days who are working part time and doing 50:50 shared parenting with their wives. It would have been unheard of even 10 years ago but now loads of my male junior Drs are working LTFT once they have kids rather than forcing their wife to do it all. I have a lot of respect for that and I hope it becomes absolutely the norm.

That is good. I think lots of us are raising daughters now who would never put up with the kind of misogyny discussed - and inherent - in many of the posts on this thread.

I am genuinely really very surprised that so many women really think this way. No wonder little pressure is made to make progress on equality at a national level, politically, if so many women still seem prepared to accept this as normal.

It's not possible to have 2 people with children firing 100% in high flying careers and the traditional solution is that the wife steps aside and sacrifices her earning power. Sadly she is often not repaid with the loyalty and respect that deserves

Indeed all to often the solution is that one keeps their 100% focus on their career and the other drops back, instead of both giving 80% and flying a bit less high. Having children involves sacrifice, ideally made equally by both partners.

She won't likely be believing that men necessarily have to earn more than women because she very well knows that I earn twice as much as her dad

I said that IF she decides to be a SAHP in a relationship with a higher earning man I would advise her only to do so if they are married. I think that's just common sense.
I don't at all exclude that she might be the higher earner or decide not to have kids or be in a same sex partnership or whatever else.

I suppose I think that men who marry a higher earning partner are less likely to be sexist arseholes than those unwilling to do that but I suppose you do need to beware the cocklodger.

If DH and I divorced then he would probably come off with more than he 'deserved' Despite being the higher earner I have worked part time when the kids were small because it was practically easier for me to achieve (he is self employed) I have probably contributed more time and more money overall but he has done a lot more school pickups and sick days because his work is more flexible and it's been a godsend in lockdown. Our contributions are not so out of whack that I resent it.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

She won't likely be believing that men necessarily have to earn more than women because she very well knows that I earn twice as much as her dad

I said that IF she decides to be a SAHP in a relationship with a higher earning man I would advise her only to do so if they are married. I think that's just common sense.
I don't at all exclude that she might be the higher earner or decide not to have kids or be in a same sex partnership or whatever else.

I suppose I think that men who marry a higher earning partner are less likely to be sexist arseholes than those unwilling to do that but I suppose you do need to beware the cocklodger.

If DH and I divorced then he would probably come off with more than he 'deserved' Despite being the higher earner I have worked part time when the kids were small because it was practically easier for me to achieve (he is self employed) I have probably contributed more time and more money overall but he has done a lot more school pickups and sick days because his work is more flexible and it's been a godsend in lockdown. Our contributions are not so out of whack that I resent it.

This sounds like a healthy situation for everyone, exactly how pooling resources should be: everyone benefits. It's the extremely unbalanced situations that some have described on this thread that I'd be advising both my daughter and my son against, as they rarely have a happy ending for anybody involved.

It's not possible to have 2 people with children firing 100% in high flying careers and the traditional solution is that the wife steps aside and sacrifices her earning power.

I disagree. It is possible to continue a career and have plenty of time for a family life, even as a single parent, provided you pick a career and role within that which is flexible and reasonably lucrative and work to get to that point prior to having children.

The idea that it's an impossibility for couples to manage to juggle working and both having time at home, when some of us do the whole lot on our own with no issues, it absurd to me. And rather insulting. How do you think single parents manage if it's so impossible for you in a couple when between you you have double the tim to either spend at work or at home?

*time

What bollocks.

I guess as you say it depends on the particular role

As a single parent you can pick your role
As part of a couple you can't necessarily pick what the other person chooses to do
You have arranged your career to work with childcare and all power to you for doing that but many men refuse to compromise and except their wives to pick things up.

I think DH and I probably could continue our moderately successful and lucrative careers with little hindrance from being parents even if we didn't have one another to support but if I wanted to be eg a top clinical academic then that would involve a lot more odd hours giving lectures and travelling away to conferences which is hard unless you have someone else to pick up the reins at home.
All the eminent clinical academics I know or know of either don't have children or have a SAHP backing them up.

Most times that you hear people on Mumsnet saying that their DH can't do more childcare it's due to international travel or very long hours. I am not always sure that either of those are quite as necessary in this remote working day and age as people seem to claim but there probably are careers that are incompatible with lone parenthood.

On a lower level you'll find a lot of couples in nursing work opposite shifts to save on childcare but if you want a promotion to a nursing management post that's 9-5 and that holds a lot of people back as they tell me they can't/ won't be able to change their childcare. Trying to encourage my deputy ward manager to go for a promotion she is well capable of just now but she won't do it because of childcare. Her DH of course already has a management role.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

I guess as you say it depends on the particular role

As a single parent you can pick your role
As part of a couple you can't necessarily pick what the other person chooses to do
You have arranged your career to work with childcare and all power to you for doing that but many men refuse to compromise and except their wives to pick things up.

I think DH and I probably could continue our moderately successful and lucrative careers with little hindrance from being parents even if we didn't have one another to support but if I wanted to be eg a top clinical academic then that would involve a lot more odd hours giving lectures and travelling away to conferences which is hard unless you have someone else to pick up the reins at home.
All the eminent clinical academics I know or know of either don't have children or have a SAHP backing them up.

Most times that you hear people on Mumsnet saying that their DH can't do more childcare it's due to international travel or very long hours. I am not always sure that either of those are quite as necessary in this remote working day and age as people seem to claim but there probably are careers that are incompatible with lone parenthood.

On a lower level you'll find a lot of couples in nursing work opposite shifts to save on childcare but if you want a promotion to a nursing management post that's 9-5 and that holds a lot of people back as they tell me they can't/ won't be able to change their childcare. Trying to encourage my deputy ward manager to go for a promotion she is well capable of just now but she won't do it because of childcare. Her DH of course already has a management role.

Of course there are careers incompatible with being a lone parent! Or a decent parent within a couple.

That's exactly why people need to spend time prior to having children finding careers within their field that enable them to continue in the career and have sufficient time for their family. BOTH parents.

I am amazed women agree to have children with men without sorting this out in advance with them so that things can be shared fairly. Yes, certain roles will not be practical for either parent while children are young. That is a sacrifice that both parents need to make for a few years, if they wish to have children.

As a single parent you can pick your role. As part of a couple you can't necessarily pick what the other person chooses to do.

As an aside, this wind the most disingenuous and silly comment on the internet today. 🏆 Congratulations!!

Also 🎻😭 my heart bleeds for your horrible struggles having two of you to do the same stuff that many of us do alone. It must be so hard for you.

I'm not sure what I have said that upsets you so much

I already told you that I have no need of your pity and am not asking for any. I am not struggling at all in any way. DH and I rub along quite happily both being moderately successful in our fairly equal relationship. Sorry if that is pushing your buttons somehow

I was trying to explain that this is not the case for all the people all of the time.
Women who are clearly less clever and organised than you do wind up having children with men who refuse to compromise their career ambitions. I hope it doesn't happen to my DD but it's quite a common tale on here and IRL. Sufficiently common that I am surprised it amazes you.

I don't even think that your comparison with being a single parent is particularly valid. By definition you have no-one to push stuff off onto so you have to do a great job at your job and at parenting. If you had a partner who was willing (even grudgingly) to pick up all the slack at home you could get away with being less organised and careful and just bin off all the parenting on them which lots of men do lots of the time. I have to admit I do this a bit to DH. If I know I can stay late at the office and he will do bedtime then that's easier for me than getting home on time and finishing my work later after kids are in bed. That's the kind of shitty choice you can be tempted to make when you have a partner and the only thing that stops me doing it more is that I care about him and the kids and I actually want to see them. If I cared a bit less about my family and more about my career I could easily take advantage of him more and say it was essential. I reckon loads of men do that.

Long story short it is probably easier to be a crappy parent within a couple than a crappy lone parent. As a lone parent you are forced to make better work life balance choices. As a parent in a couple you can force the other person into picking up your crap if you hold the power and you are so inclined.

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

Me at present and I'm perfect happy this way. I have my own money it's just less than his and it's our business.

The 'you must be financially independent' folk are just having a dig at SAHM's as they place no value on another woman unless she's working outside the home.

In a relationship you're interdependent in several ways, it's not all about money even though money is the obsession it seems.

@SilenceIsNotAvailable

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

Not sure which century you've turned up from but hello! 👋

Just a small update: girls are outperforming boys in all levels of education now in most developed countries. You should perhaps consider advising her to pick a partner who considers her an equal (if indeed she wants one) and NOT to get married as she then might lose a large share of her assets.

This blanket assumption that women must earn less than men is so offensive, and not true any more. Please do not bring up your daughter to believe this sexist nonsense.

We very much still have a gender pay gap. You say blanket assumption, I say entirely accurate summation of modern life backed by clear widespread data on pay.

Of course women can be bankers, but my post last night was just trying to describe a (relatively common) scenario which explains why women who SAH for a long time may not feel they have taken a massive financial risk.

Many jobs are not that high earning or on a fixed earning scale. To the pp who advises only dating / marrying men who earn the same as you , well, of course, life just doesn’t happen like that.

Supposing, for instance, you were a nurse. That salary will afford a certain lifestyle and nothing wrong with that. But if you have a DH whose salary is not fixed by the state and he is a businessman who, over the years, makes a lot of money, for instance, then your lifestyle and that if your children will obviously adapt to that. Many men don’t need their wives to work because there is no point if the money seems negligible. Especially if you have several children, it seems pointless to be working all year for the type of money he may make in an hour. It is what it is. But it’s not really losing your “financial independence” because you know that I’d it were to all end tomorrow, you would leave the marriage with a lot more wealth and assets than you walked in with or you could ever have earned yourself (eg because your home has no mortgage and is worth millions; or there are other assets which have come about over the years; or maybe your DC have trust funds they would never otherwise have had). I’m just trying to show how, in some cases, you can become more financially independent within a marriage, even by giving up your job. I don’t think this is something women should plan for, I’m not saying that. Im just saying that an average salary may not feel like “financial independence” in the context of such a relationship.

Even if women are bankers they are roughly paid a good 30% less on average. Which we know as we have detailed data on the gender pay gap.

The idea of 'financial independence' is a weird one on MN. It seems to be weaponised by posters that want to shame and frighten women (specifically SAHMs), but it is seldom used against other people that have made choices that have limited their ability to support themselves financially.

Many families where both parents work FT are not financially independent in the true sense as they still rely heavily on the state to top up their earnings. They arguably could have chosen different careers, worked harder in school, retrained etc to increase their earning potential and thus become financially independent. Is this realistic though? Are there enough high paying career positions to facilitate this and who will do the low paid, but important roles that society depends on?

We also have people living in expensive areas of the UK that won't ever be financially independent because of the high cost of housing. They may be highly qualified professionals earning a decent wage but need some assistance to live in the area that they serve. Should they move away to make sure they're independent and if so, who will then run the vital services in these high cost areas?

Lots of other things can affect how financially independent/vulnerable you are too. How many children you have (they all cost money and ultimately restrict your ability to work). Your standard of living, if you live very frugally then you need to earn less to support that lifestyle etc. How you choose to manage and invest your money, having life insurance and a pension may prove vital.

So if there are lots of variables at play then why the focus and pearl clutching about SAHPs? I would suggest it's misogyny. All of the other things I've listed in the post are more relevant to both men and women and therefore it's more acceptable to make choices in these areas that limit your financial independence. Being a SAHM is what women do and is therefore judged more harshly.

Surely dependence/independence is a scale?

Yes, tbh I think the OP is based on a misunderstanding of what most MNers mean when they encourage financial independence. I think they really mean 'Keep your hand in, don't put yourself in a position where you are unable to get back into work if your relationship fails'.

I have tried to get my head around your point but can’t OP. Succeeding in my career and being financially independent is one of the main aspects of my life that gives me a good sense of self worth. All my interactions with men have sadly done the opposite as a general rule. I also lived through a period where my Father left my Mother for 3 years as a child, when money just evaporated, and witnessed my Mother struggle enormously. I would never ever allow myself to be dependent on someone else financially for that reason. Working hard is a slog sometimes but I also find it very rewarding. I will instil my values in my DD too. The thought of her not forging her own way in life and not having the means to fully support herself is frightening to me. So many relationships are toxic and hard to leave. Adding financial dependence into the mix, can leave a person even more vulnerable.

@lazylinguist

Surely dependence/independence is a scale?

Yes, tbh I think the OP is based on a misunderstanding of what most MNers mean when they encourage financial independence. I think they really mean 'Keep your hand in, don't put yourself in a position where you are unable to get back into work if your relationship fails'.

I think this is more or less right.

And the other key message is to think about your choices, in the medium and long term too.

Stopping work because childcare is expensive, rather than accepting that your household bills go up temporarily whilst DC are very small, can be a financially ruinous decision when you look at its long term impact. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make that decision, but to say it makes good financial sense just shows that you aren't planning ahead.

If you want to be. A SAHM because that's how you see your family life, fine do it. But own the choice, and don't pretend it's good for either individual or family finances

Typically the very highly paid bankers, lawyers etc marry women with equal potential so it’s not an inevitability that her salary becomes negligible as he works his way up. It is if his career is always prioritised etc etc, and that’s the issue.

@LibertyMole

‘How can you think so little of them, that you don’t want them to be autonomous independent beings?’

Because I live in the real world where the majority of individuals in the U.K. cannot afford to be a financially independent and have children.

And I think Uber drivers, cleaners and retail sales workers should still have children.

Yes... but why does this mean you need to encourage dependence? Why not strive for independence as far possible? Why limit them to/assume they will have career options that pay little?