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!

@Lavender201 I'm not dismissing part-time working women but most women work part-time through their children's lives and the amount doesn't change dramatically.

If you look at figures for women with children age16-18, still only 42.7% work FT, 31.5% still work part-time and the remainder still don't work at all. Women aren't returning to work FT in droves once their children are in school.

I’m married and working part time, I would be able to support myself and my kids if everything went tits up, still working part time. I watched my mum stay in an abusive marriage because she couldn’t leave and support our family, I’d never be in that position and will encourage both my kids to maintain the ability to be financially independent. For me that means

1 getting a job and building a career before having kids - so that you have options. My part time salary is more than many full time salaries, I worked to be in that position knowing I could drop hours and still have a good income

2 not over stretching financially, live within your means, better to have a smaller house, older car and have wiggle room in your budget if possible

3 if you’re going to have kids, get married - the financial protection it brings is important once kids come along

4 don’t prioritise the career of the higher earner, both of you adjust your working hours and take a smaller hit on each of your careers rather than one power ahead while the other keeps the home fires burning

I don’t think there’s anything disingenuous about that advice, nor does it disadvantage the woman when children come along. Too many threads here about the mans job being very important so he can’t possibly take time off to cover childcare, support his partner in her working life, can’t pull his weight around the house. Women all too often leave themselves financially vulnerable and expect/accept that as they way it is. Challenging that thinking is important.

Being financially independent doesn’t necessarily mean work, work, work but it does mean challenging the idea that he takes priority.

@YellowFish12

Part of the point I'm trying to make is that actually being financially independent is HARD, it usually means working FT for your whole career, never taking your foot off the gas and it is a slog!

Huh? So women should opt out of ‘the slog’ and get a man to slog away instead? Fucks sake.

Surely, working full-time shouldn't be seen as 'hard' - it's what billions of people have to do.

I understand it may be hard if you have DC and their father doesn't do his share of parenting, so you are effectively the full-time parent and a full-time worker, but this kind of attitude from fathers shouldn't be accepted.

Statistics hide a lot though. How many men are financially inactive? How many women are not through choice?

I work part time, but I'm a high earner (yes, I know that MN has lots of those). My DH is also a high earner but only earns slightly more than me. I also know that my employer would take me fulltime at drop of a hat. I could absolutely support myself if I ever needed to, and my career choices have been based around round this as I know what happens to dependent women and children on divorce through bitter experience of my parents' divorce. My solo lifestyle wouldn't be as nice as my current one, but we would be comfortable if anything happened.

*Part of the point I'm trying to make is that actually being financially independent is HARD, it usually means working FT for your whole career, never taking your foot off the gas and it is a slog!

Huh? So women should opt out of ‘the slog’ and get a man to slog away instead? Fucks sake.*

@YellowFish12 - I'm just saying that we shouldn't do something because it's difficult, but it is a lot easier for women to rely on someone else and it's no surprise and human nature for people to make the easier choice, you know 'the one that works for them' (famous MN statement!)

I think you are being unreasonable. I currently work part time so I guess I’m not financially independent at the moment as I have a 9 month old daughter. But it would be very easy for me to go back to full time at work if I needed to. I also have enlighten savings that if my partner was to walk out the door I would be ok.

I’ve worked hard in my life to make sure I am financially independent. From study and career choices I’ve valued this.

A man is not a financial plan

@SmokeyDevil You don't need both parents to be working really. One could become a sahp and be the childcare so you don't have that cost. What we need to change the view of is that the parent needs to be the woman.

What a sweeping generalisation. Many families DO need two incomes to stay afloat, depending on cost of living where they live.

Besides, childcare is only an expense for two years per child really - one year mat leave, then it’s two years of nursery/childminder fees with a 20% tax discount from government, then you get your 30 free hours at 3. School at four. Why would one parent need to give up their whole career just for the sake of an expensive couple of years?

Most families (that I know) make it work with a mix of part time working and childcare during the two years of having infant children. It’s not worth giving up your whole career for.

Obviously I do agree that dads make just as good SAHP as mums, and views around this still need to be changed somewhat.

Statistics hide a lot though. How many men are financially inactive?

@WutheringTights - ONS says 92.3% of men with dependent children are in employment (Full time 84.3%, Part-time 5.4%). 2.3% of men are unemployed and 5.4% are economically inactive (but of those only 1.8% claim to be inactive as they are looking after the family home).

All but one of my female friends has financial independence - either in a relationship or single. The ones in a relationship could cover all expenses if their marriages failed.

It's always been really important to me to be financially independent so that I never have to stay in a relationship that I don't want.

[quote Waferbiscuit]@Lavender201 I'm not dismissing part-time working women but most women work part-time through their children's lives and the amount doesn't change dramatically.

If you look at figures for women with children age16-18, still only 42.7% work FT, 31.5% still work part-time and the remainder still don't work at all. Women aren't returning to work FT in droves once their children are in school.[/quote]
But they could, if they needed to. They are still working and could increase their hours if finances demanded - whether that's family finances or they became a single parent.
"Part time" can also mean 4 days a week, which is what I and most of my part time friends work.

@Waferbiscuit But p/t could be 30 hours so you can fit in the school run or tto it doesn't necessarily mean 2 days a wk.

@Waferbiscuit unlike @WutheringTights I work ft for a very modest salary but I still know everything is OK. I certainly wouldn't swap this for a bigger nicer house that I have fewer rights to, or that I'd have to fight hard to walk away with my share.

It's not just the cold hard balance sheet of what if anything you walk away with. It just feels good to know you've got this. Whether 'this' is a really nice house or 'this' is a basic safe place to live but you're funding the household alone.

@Lavender201 - agree that part-time can sometimes mean it's possible to increase your hours to FT (but not always).

Sadly the stats are a bit blunt, so it's impossible to tell if part-time means 1 day/month or 4 days/week as you note.

I will note that part time often means 3 or 4 days compressed. Around 26-32 hours in my circles.

What's important is teaching your children to choose a partner that sees family and domestic life as a joint responsibility and not to prioritise one's career over the others.

I think covid has been good for some working mothers. Not all. But somebody I know has since she got out of the office spent her evenings working and she's doing brilliantly because of the whole work from home thing. Now with covid easing (??????????) that precedent is set.

You are being sooooo unreasonable
Just because that's how it is for the majority doesn't mean it's good enough. It's not good enough for me or my daughter's. I'd say it's not good enough for any woman but seeing how many women on this thread are accepting things as they are doesn't inspire hope.

Do you have the percentage of men (16-64) in work? I suspect it's not a huge difference to women. From ages 16-19 most regardless of sex are still in some form of education and 50+ there will be many who can afford to take early retirement. If you were to look at the figures from age 25-50 I imagine it would paint a very different picture.

You keep saying that financial independence is where you ARE paying all living costs on your own, this I disagree with, when MNers are advising not to be financially independent they don't mean that women should pay for everything even in a partnership they simply mean make sure you leave yourself with options to disentangle from a partner if/when you need/want to.

I am financially independent in that I do pay all of my living costs at the moment, and have been since 2016 when I left my H, I was able to do this because whilst I had gone part time when the children were young my job was still a decent salary for the hours I worked and had the option to increase hours when I wanted/needed to.

I have been in a relationship for the past 2.5yrs but my partner set up his own business (trade) when he moved in with me as he needed self employment for flexibility to see his children (long distance away) so I supported us both at first while he built his business, then covid hit and he wasn't allowed to work and couldn't claim SEISS as he was newly self employed. If I hadn't been financially independent and savvy with money we're be up shit creek right now. He is now back to work and we are saving for a larger house so our finances are becoming intertwined, and when we have the bigger house we will both be financially dependent on each other but able to downsize should we need to disentagle again. That is financial independence.

In my social circle I only know of 2 women who are SAHM, one of which was mortgage free in a large property before having her first child and the other moved from south east to Scotland so is also very very close to mortgage free due to the huge difference in housing costs.

In fact most of the women in my circle earn the same or more than their husbands.

Don’t understand what points you’re trying to make.

[quote Waferbiscuit]@Lavender201 I'm not dismissing part-time working women but most women work part-time through their children's lives and the amount doesn't change dramatically.

If you look at figures for women with children age16-18, still only 42.7% work FT, 31.5% still work part-time and the remainder still don't work at all. Women aren't returning to work FT in droves once their children are in school.[/quote]
Women with children aged 16-18 will be 43-53 themselves. So maybe women from THAT generation didn’t return to work in droves.

Time will tell how the younger generation of women now organise their working life. But I’m telling you that from my experience as a working mother in her 20s, women do keep their career, and part time doesn’t mean economically inactive.

I work in a largely female sector and I don’t know a single woman who didn’t return to work after mat leave/who has given up work for children. It would be very very very unusual. However I know men and women who have dropped down to 4 days during the baby/toddler years.

I agree op, I loved the life of being a sahm, but then I saw my dhs's salary as half mine, and we both still do, now I am working

I'm a financially independent working hard single parent and it's sucks! I'd much rather be a lady who lunches with a nice high earning partner 😀
Trouble is if they are abusive of go off with someone else you are in the shit.

No, you would be perpetuating the situation we have now. I was never told this, I always expected to work full time and support myself. I do work ft, had maternity leave plus one year which was fully funded by a voluntary redundancy package. I earn the same as my husband.

We should be teaching dc to aim to support themselves rather than raising dependents. We are working to undo a long history of patriarchy, even in living history -60s to 80s for example the world for working women was very different, it takes more than 30 years to change ingrained mindsets, at the company I work for they are aiming for 30% senior leadership to be women, it should be 50%, there is a long way to go, your suggestion is a backward step.

I've been p/t for 6 yrs. Within those yrs I've worked 2 days, 4 days, compressed hours etc, tto, all sorts of different patterns. Some parts of the yr I work f/t or 6 days a wk because it's yr end.

Flexi hours help too, it doesn't matter if I pay an invoice at 10pm on a fri night.

Your OP uses phrasing that implies that you think that the status quo for mothers and work/earnings is women’s fault. (Eg ‘most women don’t make enough money to support themselves on their own’ ‘rely on someone else’s income to maintain their lives’.)

[quote Lavender201]**@SmokeyDevil* You don't need both parents to be working really. One could become a sahp and be the childcare so you don't have that cost. What we need to change the view of is that the parent needs to be the woman.*

What a sweeping generalisation. Many families DO need two incomes to stay afloat, depending on cost of living where they live.

Besides, childcare is only an expense for two years per child really - one year mat leave, then it’s two years of nursery/childminder fees with a 20% tax discount from government, then you get your 30 free hours at 3. School at four. Why would one parent need to give up their whole career just for the sake of an expensive couple of years?

Most families (that I know) make it work with a mix of part time working and childcare during the two years of having infant children. It’s not worth giving up your whole career for.

Obviously I do agree that dads make just as good SAHP as mums, and views around this still need to be changed somewhat.[/quote]
I don't think you've understood my comment or maybe I didn't explain it well enough. Not everyone does need both parents to be in work to cover childcare. Sometimes one income will work. Sometimes it won't. I never said that no one needs two incomes to survive. Sometimes you're actually sadly better off not having both parents in work because of how bloody expensive childcare can be. It would be better to have both in work really, but not always feasible. My parents both had to work full time to cover bills. My partner and I could do that too, but it wouldn't make us financially better off and I'd prefer not having to come home to a messy house every day that needs a ton of work. If we can cover both sides, it makes it easier.