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!

I get frustrated when MNers claim to be financially independent but all they're saying is that they make enough money that if everything went tits up, they would be okay --- as often they have savings amassed through the benefit of being in a high-salaried couple

That's true for many men too though.

Also the narrative is often women only work because they need the money or to maintain financial independence. Some of us like our jobs & our good at them.

are

Your point is very confused. Just because most women are not financially independent, doesn’t mean we should stop advocating for it, in fact is a reason TO advocate for it.

@sst1234

Your point is very confused. Just because most women are not financially independent, doesn’t mean we should stop advocating for it, in fact is a reason TO advocate for it.

Exactly!

@WishingHopingThinkingPraying

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.

Exactly this.

We should aspire to better for our daughters, not look at how many women are financially dependent right now and remark that 'oh well it's easier to rely on a man, so heigh ho, we should leave it as it is'.

Shame on you OP - do a bit more research into domestic violence and financial dependence. Anyone who grew up a household like I did will be adamant that women must be financial independent.

I have certainly taught my own daughter to be a hard working, independent woman. Anything less would be an insult to her intelligence.

@Waferbiscuit

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!

The seduction of financial dependence is having an easier life and I can see why women go down this route instead. So many women my age are having a much much easier time than me working part-time or not at all and they seem very happy! Telling them to WORKWORKWORK didn't work, did it?

So you just expect men to work hard all their life so women can have an easier life?

Having a full time job and supporting myself is just called being an adult in my world. I certainly don’t expect anyone to take pity on me!

My very strong advice to my daughter would be never be dependent on a man. In practice, many women find that when they have children childcare is so expensive that they cannot automatically return to work, and so begins a period where women have career gaps, are forced to work part time, or are in lower paid jobs. On top of this, there is pressure from older age groups (often when women are vulnerable), not to return to work, and that women will"miss out" if they do not spend time with their children. The answers for me are in better and cheaper childcare provision, legislation which genuinely ensures that men and women have shared but equal paternity leave (so men provide as much early years childcare as women), and in society's view changing so we are not seen as the default care giver. This goes for children and for our elders as well. In my age group being a SAHM worked really well for a number of people, but for others in my direct friendship group it can be used as a tool of abuse. One of my friends is married to a wealthy insurance broker. Last week he told her off in public for spending twenty quid on a bikini. She just sucked it up, frightened of what might happen if he does not want the relationship any more. Others found themselves very marginalised when their husbands decided they wanted out of a relationship (often for a younger woman), and then had to rebuild careers. In summary I think the advice stands. Never be dependent in my view.

In practice, many women find that when they have children childcare is so expensive that they cannot automatically return to work

I think that’s an issue where the woman looks at childcare as “her” expense, eg I’d only have £200 left after childcare so it’s not worth going back to work. Childcare should be seen as a household expense in the same way a mortgage is - no one says “I’ll only have X left after paying the mortgage, it’s not worth going to work”. The cost is a joint one and comes with having children.

The worth in going back to work is that both parents keep their hand in, have equal opportunity for career progression and have equal responsibility for parenting. Deciding it’s not worth going back sets the path to the woman being the default parent, being financially dependent and all that goes with it.

I’ve no idea what you’re talking about or how you came to the staggering conclusion that the majority of women aren’t financially independent when quoting stats showing at least three quarters are working

OP seems to be bitter that a few of her colleagues have “won” the marriage lottery and so can afford to work part time comfortably. She conveniently forgets the many women who have lost out hugely by being wholly dependent on a man to pay the bills. As adults, we should all strive to be able to support ourselves. Doesn’t mean it’s not difficult at times especially when kids are young and childcare costs are high but the alternative is “man as a financial plan” which is inherently risky.

This!

OP, you mention lifestyle. Many of the women I work with are living well on state benefits, either exclusively or topping up lower paid work. Infinitely better off than living in an abusive relationship with a well remunerated spouse.

👏👏👏

And this!

Also the narrative is often women only work because they need the money or to maintain financial independence. Some of us like our jobs & our good at them.

👏👏👏

I would rather live off the state in a low paid job than have continued to be a SAHM being abused at every angle by my repulsive, nasty bustard of an ex.

I would always tell any daughter or niece or friend’s daughter to never, ever, ever put herself in a position where she is financially dependent on a man. Any man. Ever.

And if this means having children later, or fewer of them, or both, or not at all, so be it. This is 100% a price worth paying for financial independence.

There's a saying that's something like 'Perfect is the enemy of good' that applies here. We'll never reach a stage where all women are financially independent any more than we'll reach a stage of zero carbon emissions. But every bit we chip away at the current position is a good thing.
I could possibly support me and the dc on my part time salary if we moved and made some changes or I could use the skills and qualifications I've maintained through my part time work to get a much better salary.

I agree OP.
When I look at the women I know aged 20-40 those who live with a partner, have kids and a job are seen as very successful. Over someone who for example,is single,living at home with parents/renting etc.
Yet many of these so called successful women would not have been able to have the option of working less, having the homes they do etc without their husbands high wage.
For example, a couple I know were like this. She worked 3 days a week, husband paid the mortgage and was a super high earner. When they divorced, she ended up in a dingy flat with her daughter as that's all she could afford and had to start shopping at lower end clothes stores/ stop with getting her nails done etc.

@LemonSherbetFancies

I agree OP. When I look at the women I know aged 20-40 those who live with a partner, have kids and a job are seen as very successful. Over someone who for example,is single,living at home with parents/renting etc. Yet many of these so called successful women would not have been able to have the option of working less, having the homes they do etc without their husbands high wage. For example, a couple I know were like this. She worked 3 days a week, husband paid the mortgage and was a super high earner. When they divorced, she ended up in a dingy flat with her daughter as that's all she could afford and had to start shopping at lower end clothes stores/ stop with getting her nails done etc.

So surely that's an argument for encouraging more women to strive for financial independence, rather than telling them to marry a high-earning partner. I don't understand your logic.

Yes. I just feel many women feel they are financially independent but in reality, it's their husbands wages keeping them in that position so it is disingenuous to say otherwise.
I know before anyone says anything that women can be the higher earner in a relationship too but for all the women I know, if their relationships failed they would either be back in the family home or renting

My DM worked PT, I saw how she struggled & there seemed to be a power inbalance with my DF

At a young age, I realised that I didn't want that life for myself

I am financially independent
I work FT
I've paid into pensions
I have savings & investments
I have more control & freedom

We all make choices, I have made the right choice for myself

@LemonSherbetFancies

Yes. I just feel many women feel they are financially independent but in reality, it's their husbands wages keeping them in that position so it is disingenuous to say otherwise. I know before anyone says anything that women can be the higher earner in a relationship too but for all the women I know, if their relationships failed they would either be back in the family home or renting

Speak for yourself. I earn several multiples of my DH's salary. The loss of his earnings would make no difference to my lifestyle if we split.

My DSis is in a similar situation.

I hope that people are not passing on these negative views about women's earning potential to their daughters. The cycle of dependence will be endlessly perpetuated if people keep buying into to the idea that a woman can't possibly have a good lifestyle without a man to support her. How depressing.

Which is why I said in my post that is isn't always the case that men are the highest earners. In my circle it is but in others I know it is not.

@LemonSherbetFancies

Yes. I just feel many women feel they are financially independent but in reality, it's their husbands wages keeping them in that position so it is disingenuous to say otherwise. I know before anyone says anything that women can be the higher earner in a relationship too but for all the women I know, if their relationships failed they would either be back in the family home or renting

I think have really misunderstood what financial independence is. It is being financially stable without the need for a partner to pay for your lifestyle. By definition your first sentences make no sense at all.

We should all be encouraging our children (sons and daughters) to be able to provide for themselves financially and teaching them never to get themselves into a situation where they are financially dependent upon a partner.

I don't fundamentally disagree, because I see it trotted out so often on MN in different ways about how hard it is to live on a single salary, as if that is a norm we should take for granted.

The reality is that for the majority of human history, 99.999999% of humans have depended on a minimum of one other person, whether that person is providing money, or hunting, or cooking or keeping the house/cave nice. Including children contributing to the household from a young age.

It's a very abnormal idea that we go entirely solo - and that isn't a dig at singles.

What I do think is that ideas of romance muddy the waters. It may sound dull, buy I think that financial compatibility is one of the huge parts of the success of my relationship.

I do wonder when posters advise leaving a partner who is well-meaning but irritating. I don't mean situations where there is abuse involved. Can an individual be 'happier' , in a rosier future situation, when struggling to pay bills, which have been set, many deduce, at a 'couples' affordability quota?
In the 1960s, one salary was often enough to pay utilities and mortgage and to run a family car. Core expenses seem to have risen in line with the trend for women to work longer hours outside the home. This seems especially true with rent and mortgage payments.

So when the advice is given to work and to be independent, I sometimes wonder if this means, ' when you can get a very well-paid job'. Of course, being financially independent enough to manage child-care alone is a great aspiration, if you can do it. But how many can?

The big problem is summer holidays and when children are ill. These times are hard for a single parent to manage. In my view, the smoothest scenario as a lone parent would be to have a full-time nanny and less stress. Private schools with their established breakfast and after-school clubs also create a stable arrangement for the day. Big salaries are needed to fund such a way of life. Is it actually that easy to get yourself into the high-earning bracket? Best to study hard at school, I guess, but to gain desirable workplace skills after divorce, is hard. At those times, the age of your children and how many you have must make a big difference. Also, the variable, of how well you can keep things amicable and cooperative with the ex.