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!

@SilenceIsNotAvailable

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?

It depends on the job. My husband and I couldn't both do the same job as me at 100% and share care of our 1 child.

There’s a HUGE difference between being “financially independent” as an individual and being able to financially support children.

I have always earned and worked enough to live on as a single person.
I don’t think I should ever be expected to financially support my children single handed and not should anyone unless they donor conceive or adopt as a single person. Society should expect fathers to support half the full cost of raising their own children.

I don’t personally know any women who weren’t fully financially independent before having children, that doesn’t mean I’d expect them to raise a family single handed without financial contribution from a father.

Of course there are variations in living costs, but £60kpa is (or should be) ample to live on, even in the SE
Nursery fees for one child in SE, for a very basic local nursery, are easily 40% of that income. Nursery fees for two will be 80%. Now please show me how to house, feed, pay bills and commute on £700 / month that is left over.

From what I've seen on MN, women are being encouraged to be economically active in their own right rather than FI. To be FI would be the pinnacle of that, which is more difficult for most women after having children in a number of ways.

Life is not usually a linear road. Priorities change. Setting off at the start with the intention and expectation of being FI is a good thing, and I encourage our dds to be so, and they are bright and I have no doubt they will do their best. The strength in starting off with that view is that it focuses drive and hopefully allows choice in the future of how to live their own lives. More importantly, I want them to find something they love - that may not be a well enumerated career.
They also appreciate the simple pleasures of life and I hope they will aim for a quality of life rather than quantity.

It is fairly impossible for everyone in the workforce to actually be FI. I don't see the quality of jobs, even quality careers that are available to all our young people, and living costs have gone up hugely. Many couples who work f/t can barely achieve FI.

I would say, it's important to instill a good set of values in our children, and encourage and support them to do their best. I would also encourage them to be married or at least civil-partner-shipped before having children, if they choose to do so.

@reallyreallyborednow

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.

With two nursery aged children as a single parent, ie the situation described earlie4, not relying on government top-ups or contributions from the father? I dare to say it is a hyperbole.

@forinborin

Of course there are variations in living costs, but £60kpa is (or should be) ample to live on, even in the SE Nursery fees for one child in SE, for a very basic local nursery, are easily 40% of that income. Nursery fees for two will be 80%. Now please show me how to house, feed, pay bills and commute on £700 / month that is left over.

Its about £50 a day for a basic nursery where I am in SE. About 18.5k pa. I think there is a discount for siblings but alot of places I looked at were about 10%. Take home on 60k is just shy of 40.5k but not taking into account pension contributions. So yes, unless childcare vouchers or something pre tax paying for nursery, you are looking easily at 40% of take home income getting on for 50% just for one child. If renting instead of a mortgage, a small 3 bed terrace will set you back anything from about 1k to 1.5k a month, so another 12k to 18k a year. So taking top range costs thats now 36.5k from take home pay gone on mortgage and one child at nursery full time. So that leaves 4k. For the year. £333.33 a month for food and bills.

So yes, if one income of £60k in the south east it would be difficult. Its nursery and renting that will do it. If you have family to help with kids and have a mortgage on lower ££ per month than renting then it obviously goes further.

Gone on rent I mean :D mortgages on similar property generally cheaper

I agree agree it is HARD to be financially independent but I do t think many posters make it out that it’s easy. It means sacrifice and careful decisions in life (when to have children, how many, how long you can be out of the workforce and if that will impact earning potential, assessing saving and ensuring enough to provide family with safety and security). My mother (in her 70’s) had it drummed into her from an early age that financial independence wasn’t an aspiration but a necessity and it became true. My DF got I’ll young and couldn’t work so my mother provided for the whole family (4 kids) and it was tough! But meant we all understood the importance of this. I am financially independent and worked hard to be so. I again don’t think it should be an aspiration but a necessity - especially if you plan on having a family.

Of course there are variations in living costs, but £60kpa is (or should be) ample to live on, even in the SE
Nursery fees for one child in SE, for a very basic local nursery, are easily 40% of that income. Nursery fees for two will be 80%. Now please show me how to house, feed, pay bills and commute on £700 / month that is left over

Thing is, most women calculate the nursery costs, realise they will eat most of their salary, and think the financially economical thing to do is to give up work and provide childcare yourself.

They don’t seem to factor in lost pensions, earning power long term, and the fact that unless you plan a lot of kids, nursery is temporary.

I changed my mortgage to interest only, used savings, and generally tightened up for the 3-5 years. Once past the nursery stage you suddenly then find you are much better off financially than if you’d given up work.

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.’

I think it's depressing that you want to advocate women being reliant on a partners income rather than addressing the inequalities that put women in precarious financial situations in the first place

@museumum - this is how i feel too. I find it odd that financial independence means for women to have to support themselves and their children entirely without in put from the father. I know some households are better off without the father but absolving all men from financial responsibility for their own children seems a bit much.

I always earned more than my XH and worked full time for most of my working life after my DC were born. When I found out he was having affairs I kicked him out and several of my friends said it made them realise how many more options I had than them because if my financial independence.

You are right though that I am in a minority. I cannot think of another of my friends who earns more than her partner. I do have more options and I've had more adventures than most. I have a good pension and am looking forward to stopping work too.

‘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?’

Because most career options don’t pay well enough to offer complete financial independence to a mother. And I don’t want my daughter to think that I don’t think it is good enough to just be a teacher or a police officer.

And both my son and daughter do have a safety net of their marriage breaks down and their spouse refuses to help support the kids. Me. I am the safety net. I am not going to leave my daughter to struggle with domestic, including financial, abuse from a current or former partner. I will help her with the kids.

Its about £50 a day for a basic nursery where I am in SE. About 18.5k pa

How does £50 per day equate to £18.5k per annum? Surely, you don't pay for places 7 days per week?

Also, unless you have your children exceptionally close together and take very little maternity leave, it's unlikely that many families would have to pay two full sets of nursery fees simultaneously for any extended period, as the free 15 hours would kick in when the oldest child is three.

I was in the north-east the other week and you can quite easily buy a house for 200k-£300k. The difference is shocking. It’s all very well if you live up there, or probably many areas of the U.K, to be talking about “financial independence” because sure, an average salary would get you onto the property ladder fairly easily. There was a huge house advertised for £700k - but that’s the price of a one, possibly two-bed flat in many parts of London. You could be earning over £100k and still not feel financially independent whatsoever because you can’t even get a mortgage. These things are all relative and you can’t always “just move out of London” because that’s where your job is and anyway, you don’t want to. “Financial independence” takes careful planning; sound investment and a degree of luck, to be honest and this takes time. This applies whether you are a SAHM and married; married and both working or single. It’s not as simple as, “I earn £x salary and I’m financially independent now.” It could be gone in a second.

@paralysedbyinertia

Its about £50 a day for a basic nursery where I am in SE. About 18.5k pa

How does £50 per day equate to £18.5k per annum? Surely, you don't pay for places 7 days per week?

Also, unless you have your children exceptionally close together and take very little maternity leave, it's unlikely that many families would have to pay two full sets of nursery fees simultaneously for any extended period, as the free 15 hours would kick in when the oldest child is three.

15 (or even 30) free hours don't lead to a massive reduction in fees, in practice it is much, much lower. Nurseries around here simultaneously increase the fees for non-free hours massively - one local nursery charged £20 per child for half hour "lunchtime supervision" which wasn't covered by free sessions. You weren't compelled to take it, you were free to work around, ie take the child off the nursery for that half hour. When 30 free hours kicked in for my oldest, for example, I got about £400 overall discount (from ~£1800 to ~£1400 per month). I can understand the nursery too, I think free hours are reimbursed to them at something like £4/hour - which is below the break even point for many.

I am not going to leave my daughter to struggle with domestic, including financial, abuse from a current or former partner. I will help her with the kids

What about your son? Does he not get any help with kids or at risk of DA? Or are you assuming his ex will have main care and he won’t need help and support?

This is exactly what happened with dh’s parents,btw. Helped their dd with everything, but not their son. Did more for his ex tbh.

I see you POV OP, but agree things have changed so much since and are still changing. I’m sure I read somewhere that women under 25 earn more than men under 25. So maybe social stereotypes will persist for a while but it will stop making economic sense for it to be the women to cut down in hours etc after having children.

It’s perfectly possible for women to be the equal/ main earner and I would never tell a daughter to expect to be the lower earner just because she’s female.

‘What about your son? Does he not get any help with kids or at risk of DA? Or are you assuming his ex will have main care and he won’t need help and support?’

Don’t be so ridiculous. I referred to my daughter because this is a thread about daughters.

@forinborin

Count yourselves lucky that there are any free hours at all! Here in Switzerland there aren’t and for 2 kids in full-time crèche where I am it was £5,500 per month. Childcare might be expensive in the UK but it’s extortionate here. Not that it’s a race to the bottom, but it needs an overhaul across most of the Western world.

DD1 is a financially independent single parent of a toddler. And thank god she didn't give up her job. Her DH died unexpectedly - not much in savings and no assets. Life is certainly not easy for her but she is coping admirably and my GC is an absolute joy.

It's not always divorce/separation that leaves women vulnerable.

[quote FloconDeNeige]@forinborin

Count yourselves lucky that there are any free hours at all! Here in Switzerland there aren’t and for 2 kids in full-time crèche where I am it was £5,500 per month. Childcare might be expensive in the UK but it’s extortionate here. Not that it’s a race to the bottom, but it needs an overhaul across most of the Western world.[/quote]
I think Switzerland is only the other exception in Europe with respect to the nursery fees being so high. In the majority of countries it is quite affordable.
I have a friend in Switzerland, also a single mother using childcare, and I was surprised that she was able to receive tax relief on many of expenses as a parent.

No, I don’t think that’s true; they are relatively high in many places. I’ve lived in various countries for 14 years (3 different ones in Europe) and have many friends around the continent (DH is also French). Everyone complains about the cost of childcare.

I was brought up in a family where the women had always worked, even if only part time, because they had no alternative - my grandfather was disabled after an illness so my grandmother had to work instead, my mother worked so they could afford to pay the mortgage. Childcare was shared with family friends and neighbours who all worked too but varyng hours. It never occurred to me that it was unusual for women to work.

My parents pushed for me to take an entrance exam for a selective independent school and I got an assisted place. It was always assumed that even though I was a daughter, I would be an independent woman with a career. When I had DS at 21, I took 3 months off and went back to work full time, following the example of the women in my life. It is second nature to me to work hard and "slog", as you put it. It never occurred to me that due to having ovaries I should be taking it easy and leaving it all to DH. Just as well really because being widowed in my 30s was bloody difficult but the one thing I've not had to worry about is money, I earn more than enough to support myself and DS, even through the pandemic. I would have been screwed if I hadn't always worked and built up the career I have.

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)

These statistics don't bear out your argument. 71% is actually a high number. Start to number-crunch those stats for the same period and a different argument emerges. Comparable statistics for the same period in relation to employment (source again ONS):

for all people [...] estimated at 76.1%, the highest since comparable records began in 1971.

for men was estimated at 80.5%; it has not been higher since December 1990 to February 1991.

for women was estimated at 71.8%, the highest since comparable records began in 1971.

So, no. The overwhelming majority of women are not financially dependent upon a man.

No, maintaining a full-time professional career is not as impossible as its naysayers would seem to like others believe (I'd question why so).

The student demographic is only one of a series of others, including people with illnesses and disabilities, to account for a small differential in the percentage of men and women who are economically inactive.

From what I see, it's the OP whose take on these matters appears disingenuous. The phrase 'virtue signalling' is usually a good indication.

Why are some women so determined to put other women back in their box? We are no longer given our marching orders and leaving gifts (cookbook) the moment we walk up the aisle on our father's arm and take another man's name. Times have moved on.