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!

@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.

The free hours (30 not 15 wasn’t it?) meant we only paid £2500 a month in childcare fees for our two it was helpful but not exactly a game changer!

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?

@MarieIVanArkleStinks - I'm not determined to put women back in their box and as you can see from my OP I'm one of those women that has paid my way my whole life including now raising two children on my own with no support and working FT. I absolutely endorse complete financial independence for women. Frankly I'd love a world where women didn't need men at all and men were no longer enabled! Hey ho.

What I'm flagging up is the slight hypocrisy I see where women 'talk the talk' but don't walk the walk. When I look around me - at colleagues and friends - most of them rely on a partner for the bulk of their hhld income, most of them are in roles that make less, many of them have made a decision to be more rather than less financially dependent. And sure, I suppose if they wanted to they could increase their hours to contribute more, but their plan seems to be one of reliance and they seem pretty happy about it.

So I wanted to start a conversation about this and say that there seems to be a disconnect between what we are telling women to do and how they are choosing to live their lives.

@Atalantea why do you keep razzing me about my budgeting?

I'm glad you survive on less hhld income but I'm a single parent which means I spend a fortune on afterschool care/morning care and summer clubs. Combined with the fact that my job is in one of the most expensive towns in the SE and I need to live centrally so I'm close to school and work (the golden triangle of school, work and home) as I have no one else to call on in case of an emergency.

I don't get any benefits and I'm still paying off years of daycare (which cost 1200-1500/month) - doing what everyone on this post says you need to do, which is continuing to work FT and just taking the hit of daycare costs. Happy?

There's no getting away from biological reality. A child has 2 parents. The normal way of things is not for a child to be raised by one person alone. Even if you do decide to have a baby alone by DI or adoption having a really good support network will always be emphasised.
Having a baby puts a person into a position of being more vulnerable and relying on other people more.
I would say that if you want to be completely free and independent then probably don't have children.
If you choose to have a child with a person you choose to entwine yourself life with theirs and not to be independent from them. If you have a child together it's hard to sever all connection for all time however hard you try.

OP Maybe for your friends it's just worked out well. They chose interdependence with a good partner who treats them fairly and respectfully so they don't need to be maximising their independence at all times.
Hopefully though they have the option to manage things themselves if they need to through husbands death, ill health, desertion or infidelity

The position that Mumsnet advises against (through collective bitter experience) is of excessively trusting that your partner will support you and having no plan B should that not be the case.

So your friends might be walking the walk in fact by having a Plan B eg by keeping a career albeit part time so they can step back up, having independent assets or savings, getting married before having children if they are the lower earner.

They have the freedom to chose to be more interdependent and in a good relationship that isn't necessary a bad thing. It's not having the freedom to leave if things go sour that is being warned against. In particular the common scenario of having a child and becoming a SAHM or part time worker without the protection of being married leaving you open to being left with few rights.

@Waferbiscuit because you are the one banging on about Mumsnetters are being disingenuous about the need for women to be financially independent

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!

The one salary of 60k that most people can't achieve, and you're saying that it is not enough. Most people could live very comfortably on £60k, plus your maintenance, plus your flat rental income, are your diamond shoes tight as well?

I think i read you had a flat you rented out - apologies if thats incorrect

@MarieIVanArkleStinks
Good post on the employment statistics. To add to it, I think in U.K. women are on average year 55% of university students compared to 45% being men. So that would also skew % men working to be higher than % women working.

What I'm flagging up is the slight hypocrisy I see where women 'talk the talk' but don't walk the walk. When I look around me - at colleagues and friends - most of them rely on a partner for the bulk of their hhld income, most of them are in roles that make less, many of them have made a decision to be more rather than less financially dependent. And sure, I suppose if they wanted to they could increase their hours to contribute more, but their plan seems to be one of reliance and they seem pretty happy about it.

This is a pretty good point (but I think different from your OP which seemed to suggest we should tell our daughters to marry for money if they want a good quality of life).

Happy to say I am walking the walk! I think the aim is have a choice. Maybe the women you describe have all chosen freely but yes it is an interesting discussion to have.

And when I say choice I’m not talking about men forcing women to make certain decisions, I’m talking about the societal pressures/ expectations making women make certain decisions.

@FloconDeNeige

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 cannot speak for all Europe; I have close friends in Germany and one of Scandinavian countries, and relatives in Spain; all children in those families attend daycare / pre-schools, fees seem to be in the region of few hundred, not thousands (and yes, they complain about it).

@Waferbiscuit

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?

@MarieIVanArkleStinks - I'm not determined to put women back in their box and as you can see from my OP I'm one of those women that has paid my way my whole life including now raising two children on my own with no support and working FT. I absolutely endorse complete financial independence for women. Frankly I'd love a world where women didn't need men at all and men were no longer enabled! Hey ho.

What I'm flagging up is the slight hypocrisy I see where women 'talk the talk' but don't walk the walk. When I look around me - at colleagues and friends - most of them rely on a partner for the bulk of their hhld income, most of them are in roles that make less, many of them have made a decision to be more rather than less financially dependent. And sure, I suppose if they wanted to they could increase their hours to contribute more, but their plan seems to be one of reliance and they seem pretty happy about it.

So I wanted to start a conversation about this and say that there seems to be a disconnect between what we are telling women to do and how they are choosing to live their lives.

They are happier about it because it is easier for many... until it goes wrong. Then it’s anything but easier. At the very least Mumsnet says get married if you want to be financially dependent, and it also says if you’re with a man and he wants you to have babies together, it shouldn’t be you running through your savings to shoulder both half the financial weight and all the family weight. It says fine drop your hours but it’s very useful to keep your hand in with work so it’s there waiting for you. Fwiw I walk the walk. Our family life would be simpler albeit with less money if I worked less but that’s not me. My husband is welcome to look for lower hours and take on the household family load.

Personally, I'd like child-rearing to be given a financial status. It is an essential job, and if a parent chooses not to do it, it has to be outsourced, often at a cost. If it was law that any parent performing childcare was entitled to a set financial percentage of the other parent's income in the event of separation (regardless of marriage) I think a lot more families would have conversations about continued career progression for both parties and those continuing to stay in the SAHP role would benefit from the wider societal acknowledgement that childcare in a capitalist economy has a value. This in itself would help women's rights and stop giving power (both economic and social) to those who choose to define value based on what benefits them.

Sadly, we do not have that yet, so women maintaining economic status is a defence mechanism. It's not just abuse or affairs that can leave people alone and high and dry. Death and illness can too.

@Resilience
It would be nice to have a law like that, but I wonder if it would be enforceable? And if so at what cost? CMS exists and is a legal process with force of law and the courts behind it, but in practice it is not very enforceable. A non resident parent can simply leave the country. Or hide income. Passing a law that really just means higher CMS, wouldn’t result it in being actually enforced in practice or reality.

Secondly, while I’d like a law like that, it would encourage a higher birth rate and I don’t think environmentally it is in best interest of the planet to have higher birth rates. Capitalism, women’s reproductive rights and technological advancement have resulted in developed countries birth rates falling below replacement level. As more countries develop, their birth rates are also dropping such that the UN and WHO currently project we are on track as a planet to have our population stabilise in the next century, and perhaps even decline a few billion. I would not want anything we change to put the planet back on the track for ever increasing population growth as that is a greater existential threat even than climate change.

PlanDeRaccordement

I was thinking more along the lines that if men genuinely believed they'd be held fully accountable for children both financially and practically, they'd be far less inclined to father children unless they really wanted them and had thought long and hard about it. Contraceptive use would go up so hopefully birth rates would stay the same or even reduce.

Different topic, although related, but if a resident parent doesn't meet their child's needs they can be prosecuted for neglect. I'd like to see non payment of maintenance considered similar. When fathering children has the same potential for financial impact on men as it does women, we'll see far fewer women living in poverty as a result of parenthood.

I hope.

[quote Waferbiscuit]@Bathsandnaps how do you define financial independence? I'm assuming paying for all living expenses on your own?

Many of my female peers could survive on their own but they are in their 50s on professional salaries. However I don't know if the majority of women can pay for themselves - or if they did their lifestyle would be very poor.[/quote]
It's not an 'either/or' of being totally dependent or totally independent.

There is a huge spectrum between being high earning, not having any money worries and not needing anyone for anything (hard but attainable for some) and totally dependent (unmarried, with kids, not working, no access to family funds, no financial knowledge or understanding, limited skills that could build a career etc...)

Of course it would be pointless feedback to tell someone on the latter end of the extreme that they 'should' be on the former end.

But that's not what I think we are generally trying to do.

It is definitely in women's best interests to increase their awareness and nudge them towards the more independent and/or better protected end of the scale. Actions to nudge could include:

1. Self educating about finances
2. Maintaining and building skills
3. Being married before sacrificing your earning power
4. Insisting on access to and knowledge of family finances
5. Smart budgeting/ investing with whatever you have
6. Making decisions about your finances, career and earning power with an awareness that things may go wrong in your relationship.
7. Consider delaying children until achieving certain skills or earning power
8. Different approaches to handling maternity leave and working/non working decisions while you have children
9. Care with keeping control of your own earnings and assets....

10. Having difficult but important discussions with your partner about these things

Etc etc....

Talking about these things so more women are making more conscious decisions and are less vulnerable is a great thing.

So I wanted to start a conversation about this and say that there seems to be a disconnect between what we are telling women to do and how they are choosing to live their lives.

I agree that there is a disconnect between what many people say is best for women and how they actually choose to live their lives. And I think it’s because of a cultural taboo that is uncomfortable to talk about because it often results in attack.

It’s fair enough to point out that there is a financial risk if you choose to downscale your job/career to stay at home with children either full or part time. It is certainly a sacrifice to do so and make yourself at least partially dependent on your husband.

However, there is a second side to the story: it is also a sacrifice if you chase independence in the form of career/money/power. The time you spend in that endeavour takes away time from your family, home, marriage, and even time for yourself.

There isn’t a perfect solution to this problem. All you can do is weigh up the the pros and cons for your particular situation and decide on a path that suits your priorities. Women do that, but I think the ones that choose less outside work/more home are quiet about their choices due to the taboo.

@Resilience
Agree. If consequences of becoming a parent were the same for men and women, then men would have gotten round to developing more methods of male contraception because now they only have condoms or sterilisation (vasectomy) whereas women have birth control pills, implants, injections, coils, hysterectomy, female condom, morning after pill, and so on.

@Atalantea why do you keep going on about my income which has little to no bearing on this conversation.
I don't have rental income and more importantly I don't have 'diamond shoes,' FFS!

To have genuine choices most women need partners that are capable and willing to support the family, and either have or be capable of financial independence

To have a great lifestyle most people inc. men need to be in a two-income household

It's convenient in many ways for society to encourage you to believe this but no, it's not necessarily true. Yes I agree many people won't manage it, but it's entirely possible to get yourself into that situation even after a shit start in life. It's hard, very hard, but can be done.

[quote Waferbiscuit]@Atalantea why do you keep going on about my income which has little to no bearing on this conversation.
I don't have rental income and more importantly I don't have 'diamond shoes,' FFS![/quote]
Your income is key to the conversation you started.

You say that you think a single income is not enough to support your family solo, and you have struggled- but your salary is 60k, you get 800 a month from your ex. Compared to many, that is a lot of money, even in the SE. You say that 80% of your income is on nursery fees. That's very short term, and you can get assistance (free child care hours, etc) and it's so short term, you could if needed cut back on your pension, adjust your mortgage, a nanny share, you could even cut your hours if
lots of options that you have.

And if you have children you will probably not make enough money to support your family solo

@Atalantea are you going back and reading through my old threads? That's so weird and stalkerish, just to make a point that you're better at budgeting than me?

I explained earlier that I have a huge amount of daycare debt that I am paying off as quite significant costs associated with being a single parent such as extended morning/after care and thousands of pounds/year in summer clubs.

Anyway my salary doesn't have a huge amount of bearing on the argument.

Totally creepy.

How does your salary not have relevance on a thread you started saying 1 salary is enough?

@Atalantea

How does your salary not have relevance on a thread you started saying 1 salary is enough?

Edit not enough

My question is why do we pretend to value financial independence for women when the majority of women are not

We don't pretend to value financial independence. We do -- or at least I do value it. Hugely.

Your logic is warped. The fact that a majority of women are not totally financially independent doesn't mean it isn't a good aspiration. Historically very few women were and that's changing in the right direction but it won't change overnight. But that doesn't mean we're not pushing in the right direction. As someone else pointed out upthread its partly a generational thing. Women in their 20s and 30s are more likely to be independent than those in their 60s and 70s and a good thing too.

Besides, even if full financial independence isn't attainable there are many many good reasons for partial financial independence: a part time job which allows you to contribute financially to the household, pay some money into a pension and have a safety net in the event that your marriage breaks down is far, far better than being wholly reliant on another person or on the state, surely?

Its one thing to be realistic and acknowledge that full financial independence may not be possible for all women. But arguing that we shouldn't encourage it at all is a very negative message to send.

I think the term financially independent is a bit of a red herring really if you are in a relationship/ married, live together, DC together etc

Neither DH or I would have bought our house independently of each other.
Having independent finances available would be a better term for those who have commited to pooling resources in a relationship to ensure their protection.
So own bank account with money or savings in own name
Access to joint account
Own pension
Ability to earn own money.( not necessarily in a job currently)
DH and I arent financially independent of each other .
We own a house together, pool salary but both have our own savings and pensions.
We have equal access to a joint account.
However if needed I could split, split everything and buy a property ( smaller) in my own name.
I have my own salary and pension.