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!

financial independence has become a trope, and is something out of the reach of many women? I'm not talking about professionals on MN who make 200k a year in their part-time consultancy roles. I'm talking about everyday people who have to rely on a partner to have some semblance of lifestyle

If dh upped and left and refused to pay maintenance then I'd be lying to say our lifestyle wouldn't suffer - it would, we'd have just lost a FT income.

But its possible for plenty of 'normal' women to be financially independent imo. I bring in £1800 a month...totally average salary. £2000 a month with CB. I imagine that if this was a sole income, I'd also get a few hundred a month in UC.

When considering all of our outgoings - my income alone would be enough to keep me and 3dc in our current home, a large 3 bed in a lovely area, and to live carefully.

Sure there'd be less I could save and fewer holidays - but it would be enough.

That's not by chance. I've always worked full time and always made sure that I could, if needed do it on my own (or for that matter, could dh). We bought a smaller house than we could have technically afforded, refused to get into unnecessary debt etc. I could have been a SAHM, it certainly would have made life a fair bit easier for several years and dh would have been happy if I'd wanted to - but I didn't.

It just makes sense for both of us to limit our outgoings to be covered by one salary where we can as we want a good amount of disposable income - but as a woman, I've always had it in the back of my mind 'what if he left'.

The women I know who are in a precarious position are those that are SAHMs or those that give up a career or secure full time job but find a pin money job working evenings as they 'don't need to work full time now'.

There are lots of things people still do, even though it would be wise not to do.

I mean, I retrained a cultivated a new career of my own, in tech where the pay is high and jobs are plentiful. Plenty of women my age do also. I doubt you'll see much of this in the over-50s bracket, but pop down here to the 30s and you'll see women working, owning property, keeping their finances safe and secure and not handing over the keys to men.

Discourage entry into low-paid jobs. Discourage 'finding a man to buy you things'. Ensure they're fully aware of the risks of a man withdrawing all financial support from you, which can, will and does happen every single day. Sure, some women will continue to make these choices likely because they lack access to the higher-paid jobs. But those who can access them will hopefully reconsider chucking it all in.

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

Surely the point here is if you pursue a career, take minimum time out for child rearing, share home responsibilities with a partner etc etc then most women, like most men, would be able to support themselves.

Thousands of single parents raise their children alone. Not all are eligible for Tax Credits or Universal Credit. With maintenace, many families mange perfectly well.

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!

And until this thread I had naively assumed that most people saw working hard simply as part of adulthood.

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

Because most people aspire to higher for their children (sons or daughters) than depending on another adult?

I think it’s fine to encourage “financial independence” where possible, but just not necessarily at the expense of your health, wellbeing and family relationships. It’s ok to admit that women are different to men in some (important) ways and, as such, may want something different out of life - eg. the option to become a SAHM or not define themselves by men’s rules. There is no blueprint for life and not should there be. You can be “financially independent” as a SAHM if you happen to be married to a wealthy man. Even if you divorce, you will walk away with far more than you could ever have hoped to have earned “independently.” This may not be the MN line, but it’s true.

I work part time. I earn 80-90k. Lots of people (not just women) in my firm work a 4 day week and are very able to support themselves/a family.

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

This attitude is a large part to of the problem. Childcare is a shared cost. If the woman is a low earner she can work 2.5 days per week, and either her partner works the other 2.5 days, or he works 5 days but pays for 2.5 days of childcare. Or both work full-time and split the cost, either equally or in proportion to their income. If a couple make a joint decision that the woman should give up work entirely, then they both need to ensure that the woman isn't penalised. That means the man needs to pay the NI contributions and pension contributions for the wife. In practice it only makes sense for one to give up work completely if there is a huge disparity in income such that in the event of a divorce the man would have to pay a large amount of maintenance. Obviously being married is essential.

In my view the best option is for people to set up their career before having children and for both parents to reduce their hours slightly during the early years. Irrespective of whether one earns more.

I think currently there is less understanding from employers that men also have childcare responsibilities, and that needs to change.

June, what makes you think you would keep your home if you got divorced? It is a joint asset of your marriage.

I work part time. I earn 80-90k. Lots of people (not just women) in my firm work a 4 day week and are very able to support themselves/a family

Well you are lucky but in a small minority. I guess the question is whether it can be achieved by an average earner (£25 ish). I am not sure it's realistic to think a family with 2 pre school children can be supported on one average wage, without needing state top ups.

We have a joint income of £30,000 which is fine, but obviously there is a lot more tax taken off if it was earned by one person. And they would need to pay full time child care which two part time parents don't.

I was brought up to expect that the best thing that could happen to me was to find a man, get married and have babies. I did just that and have ended up being desperately unhappy. I thought it was the be all and end all to be married, I was so smug and got married so young. Turns out now I wish more than anything I had a decent career that could support me on my own, that I'd lived my life before getting married. I've taken way too much shit in my marriage. I wish way more focus had been put on being independent, I thought I needed a man to "look after" me. I'm only in my 30s.

I think that one of the reasons why two incomes are seen as essential is that people have higher expectations of standard of living. Bigger house, new furniture, cars, holidays, phones and gadgets, child care. My mother and grandmother worked part time because they did 100% of child care and were essentially dependent but had much less in the way of material goods.
It's very hard to be independant and raise your own children.

I'm financially independent, I earn more than my husband and have a small child. I refused any other situation. I can only speak from my own experience and I would never choose to be financially dependent on anyone.
I think there will be a lot of women here who advocate financial independence for the same reasons I do and also a lot of women who advocate financial independence because they've experienced what it's like to not have that.

My son goes to nursery one day a week, I don't see that as being to his detriment.

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

Because it's simply not true! Women can earn enough to fund their own lifestyle. You can obviously live better on two incomes than one, but that applies equally to men. If you have children then a partner is obviously desirable to do that, and children do result in reduced earnings and extra costs - but that again applies equally to men and women.
Most young women would probably hope to be in a couple when they raise their children anyway. The point is that they should take on the extra costs of children equally and consider their position should the relationship end.

I do think that girls should be advised to steer clear of low paid jobs such as childcare workers, veterinary nursing etc. Not everyone can have a well paid career but for those who do have choices to make at age 16 or 18, salary should be an important consideration

June, what makes you think you would keep your home if you got divorced? It is a joint asset of your marriage

I'm pretty confident that dh would want the dc to stay here - so I meant that I would be able to cover the mortgage if dh moved out. If it had to be sold, my income, savings and 50% of the equity is enough that I could buy similar. Or rent similar, if I had to.

[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]
Why would one parent need to give up their whole career just for the sake of an expensive couple of years?

In many cases it's possible to have a career break for the preschool years. That doesn't necessarily mean 'giving up your whole career'. Of course in some professions a few years out might cause big issues. But for many stay at home parents it's possible to pause your career. That of course may mean not returning initially to the same level, but quite dramatic to say 'giving up your whole career'.

For example I'm about to return to my career after 4 years at home. It's not at the same level, but that's more by my choice as I don't want additional pressure, but I think I would have given up the additional responsibility even if I did work over the last four years. By being a sahm for 4 years I didn't 'give up my whole career'...I'm sure plenty of other sahp haven't either.

I will absolutely be encouraging my DD to be able to support herself independently
Just because few women are achieving this now it doesn't mean it has to stay that way in future generations

The ideal, in my view, is 2 partners contributing equally to marriage and child rearing. Either both working and both caring or if one is working and the other doing childcare then it should be equally possible for that to be the woman or the man. If you are a SAHM then that is fine as long as it is not a choice you were forced into, you are married and your partner respects you and values your contribution.

What I don't want for my DD is for her not to have any options. I want her to have the ability to support herself even if she chooses not to and not to be forced into a SAHP role or forced to go PT and do all the wife work because of a perceived lack of earning power or to be left bringing up a child alone with no financial or practical support as so many women are.

I am bringing her up to understand feminism, patriarchy and the pressures on women that constrain our choices in the hope she can find a man who will treat her fairly and equally. I am also bringing up my DS to understand these things and his position of privilege. I would be very proud if he took SPL and/ or worked PT to contribute to his child's upbringing. I would be more pleased with that than if he earned a high salary but left the home front to his wife.

I believe a certain Serena Joy took your argument and turned it into a book and political philosophy

Who needs freedom to (work, earn money, have any autonomy in your life) when you can have dreedom from (work)?!

My dc is 9 and we've always spoken about how if she wants nice things/ house she needs to work hard for it. Women can absolutely achieve financial independence. I have. Dh and I have never had joint accounts. I earn more than him working 3 days a week term time only (approx 50K). I have a good pension, ISA's etc. We relocated last year and are now mortgage free. (Age 37). If dh walked away I could support my family and I'm so grateful for that. Within my friendship group most of the women are higher earners. They may not be able to maintain their current lifestyle on their own but would probably need to downsize etc. They could still support their family though.

[quote Waferbiscuit]@GappyValley I agree with you but I feel we ARE being disingenuous saying to women BE FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT, WORK WORK WORK when it is almost impossible not to rely on someone financially. And many women are having a better quality of life NOT WORKWORKWORKing.[/quote]
Rubbish!!!

Everyone (male or female) should be able to support themselves. You should be able to rely on your own earning power and not depend on a partner. Sure its nice when you have a supportive partner, but things change.

I'm the parent that went out to work, but we worth worked in the early years. If I had daughters I would be teaching them to build their own careers first

‘I'm pretty confident that dh would want the dc to stay here - so I meant that I would be able to cover the mortgage if dh moved out. If it had to be sold, my income, savings and 50% of the equity is enough that I could buy similar. Or rent similar, if I had to.’

But if your DH allows you to stay, you are not financially independent. You are living on someone else’s assets.

@SnackSizeRaisin

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

This attitude is a large part to of the problem. Childcare is a shared cost. If the woman is a low earner she can work 2.5 days per week, and either her partner works the other 2.5 days, or he works 5 days but pays for 2.5 days of childcare. Or both work full-time and split the cost, either equally or in proportion to their income. If a couple make a joint decision that the woman should give up work entirely, then they both need to ensure that the woman isn't penalised. That means the man needs to pay the NI contributions and pension contributions for the wife. In practice it only makes sense for one to give up work completely if there is a huge disparity in income such that in the event of a divorce the man would have to pay a large amount of maintenance. Obviously being married is essential.

In my view the best option is for people to set up their career before having children and for both parents to reduce their hours slightly during the early years. Irrespective of whether one earns more.

I think currently there is less understanding from employers that men also have childcare responsibilities, and that needs to change.

In many cases though, especially for low earners (both partners) it's not viable to make a overall loss as a family. It's not always as simple as sharing the childcare costs between you.

Also just to note that if you claim child benefit your NI credits are covered until youngest is 12 if you don't work, so for that the earning partner doesn't need to top it up (I think it's the case even if you don't actually claim the money as higher earners, but I'm not 100 percent on that)

@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?

Everything is hard. Life is hard! So what? We should say oh don't bother then, it's hard

The average person cannot cover two lots of nursery fees out of their wage.

Almost everyone with young kids is either financially dependent on a partner for childcare or money, or financially dependent on the state, or both.

Most women who are genuinely entirely independent of a partner are single mothers in housing association properties, who are frequently in low paid jobs.

I don't understand this mentality at all. Of course women should want to be able to provide for themselves if needed, surely that's part of being an adult? I am raising two children alone and am perfectly capable of providing before them, I made sure I progressed my career enough to do so before having children, even though I was married at the time. And it's a good job that I did!