Living off a man!!!

[iabr]

If you are among the posters on here who always sneer at SAHMs for 'living off the husband,' do you also -

• sneer at women who work PT and therefore earn less than their husbands - so are, by definition, also 'living off the husband" to a greater or lesser extent?

• sneer at women who work full-time, but still earn significantly less than the husband, so the house and other expenses are largely funded by his higher income anyway?

• sneer at any woman who has a dual income lifestyle that she couldn't maintain on her own salary / wealth?

I really don't want to get into endless personal anecdotes of - "Well I earn £x and DH earns £x..." This is about the issue of 'financial independence' within families per se. - ie . recognising that it's accrued family wealth that determines financial independence and it's not necessarily always as simple as who earns what. A SAHM may well have greater financial independence than a woman on a high salary, depending on that family's underlying financial circumstances.

So AIBU to say to MN - Stop telling SAHMs they are 'financially vulnerable' - unless you know the details of their unique financial family circumstances!

Who sneers at SAHMs?

Has something hit a nerve op?

Am sahm. I think the vulnerability comes into it if the couple aren't married and the woman is living in a house owned solely by her dp, and has sacrificed earning potential/career progression to care for the children - if she splits with her dp she really can ge up shit creek. It's amazing how many men will happily allow a woman to take all the risks and offer her no security!

'Living off a man' as a general concept is just an excuse for some posters to be bitchy. Contributing to a family isn't only measured in £££. Although being a sahm often does save a lot of money in childcare so is a direct contribution in that sense.

I don't think it's sneering. It's usually just expressing comcern that so many women end up in a precarious financial situation. I've been a SAHM briefly and have worked part time for years and earned peanuts compared with my husband. I don't take offence when people point out that it's a risk. Regardless of the individual circumstances, nobody knows what's around the corner.

I believe it if this is what you've seen and I know there are women who earn good wages and some who support the men in the relationship. On the whole though I think it is the norm for men to earn more than women and I don't have an issue with it, nor with any woman for choosing to be supported financially in this way.

If we can leave aside the issue of careers suffering by being out of the workplace while raising kids, I think most women are agents fully capable of deciding how to live their lives and negotiate with their employers and partners who is going to be the main bread winner.

I don't think it's sneering. It's usually just expressing comcern that so many women end up in a precarious financial situation. I've been a SAHM briefly and have worked part time

Absolutely this.

I don’t sneer at anyone. But some women take risks that I personally would find unacceptable.

In all your examples, the woman presumably has marketable skills and experience that mean she could support herself to some extent in a serious situation, although she would have to sacrifice the lifestyle she had as part of a couple.

But if you’ve been out of the workforce for a long time, or were never in it, you’re much more vulnerable.

I'm commenting on a definite trend of patronising unpleasantness I've seen about SAHMs on this forum on recent months. I'm sure it's been going on much longer.

It's irrelevant as to whether I am a SAHM or not. It struck me as very strange that women - on a site called MUMS net - are criticised for being "only mums."

I get the concern thing Fairislefandango, but sadly, it's often just blatant nastiness on here.

Anyway, if a poster is genuinely concerned about another poster's financial vulnerability (including a SAHM), why not ASK them, rather then TELL them?

To adapt another MN saying, "When someone tells you what they are - LISTEN. "

🤔

It's irrelevant as to whether I am a SAHM or not. It struck me as very strange that women - on a site called MUMS net - are criticised for being "only mums."

I’ve never seen (in twenty years on here) anyone sneering at posters for being “only mums”.

I have seen women speaking from bitter experience warning other women not to make themselves financially vulnerable. Have you not seen the dozens of threads a month there are in Relationships where women cannot afford to leave a terrible relationship?

Well I wouldn't sneer at any of them.
But your first 2 scenarios are quite different from your third. The first two, like being a SAHM, mean the man is subsiding the woman. The third means they have pooled resources as equals.

Accrued family wealth: if that wealth is under the control of the husband, and he is the only one with visibility and knowledge of what is happening with it, then you are still vulnerable.

Women married to very rich men sometimes find that when they divorce all that wealth has apparently disappeared.

One of the Barclay brothers (own the Ritz and the Telegraph) is currently in big trouble for not paying his ex wife the divorce settlement she won because he has put his money is a complex series of offshore trusts.

Ok, his ex wife is still not going hungry but it goes to show you are always vulnerable if someone else earns and controls all the family wealth.

It's painfully clear you are a SAHM

I’ve never seen (in twenty years on here) anyone sneering at posters for being “only mums”.

I have seen women speaking from bitter experience warning other women not to make themselves financially vulnerable. Have you not seen the dozens of threads a month there are in Relationships where women cannot afford to leave a terrible relationship?

^Yy to all this.

I was a SAHM and I lost out on wages and pension. The wages I can live with, but I wish I’d known to get him to pay my pension for me. If I’d read that on here I would have done it.

YABU and very goady. Are you just bored and spoiling for a fight?

There have been a fair few threads of late where being a SAHM is almost sneered at.

I'd be worried about financial vulnerability in non married SAHM relationships but I was a SAHM for a few years.
Went back to work pert time to fit in with children and now "sponge " off my husband after 32 years by not working and living of his pension.
And yes, I've been told I'm "sponging."

I've got my own money and three pensions to come at different stages.

The trouble with being aSAHM is that you'll always face criticism due to... well... jealousy.

Sorry if that sticks in anyone's craw.

The first two, like being a SAHM, mean the man is subsiding the woman. The third means they have pooled resources as equals

I think this is kind of what the OP means. Neither of the women in the first two scenarios are less than equal partners - their contributions to childcare does have a value to the family as a whole. That may be financial, in that it saves a lot of money in nursery fees or it might be in 'quality of life' terms.
I think there is a tendency to see any contribution which isn't the direct generation of cash as 'less'.

Yes, GCAcademic, but the women who report not being able to leave horrendous relationships are, more often than not, working! This is my point.

You could be working but the partner or H has got you into massive debt. Or you've got yourself into massive debt. Or he earned far more than her and had bought the house, paying school fees et etc - a life she has become accustomed to but can't afford on her own. Maybe she has to move far away because she can't afford rent in that area? This kids of thing.

My point is - JOB does not always mean FINANCIAL SECURITY.

I'm sure lots of people look at me and think I live entirely off DH...what most won't know is that when we met I owned my own property and the deposit for the house we bought together all came from me...so yeah sometimes things are more complicated

Something has clearly hit a nerve.

I don't sneer. But equally, I will never understand why women put themselves in vulnerable situations that mean their life circumstances and that of their children are reliant to a great extent on the whims of a man.

It's their choice, however.

No, but not having a job almost always means a lack of financial security.

People operate by the law of averages, if you work you are less vulnerable than not, by the law of averages. Yes there might be a small % of women who own their own homes outright, have a dead first husband with lots of inheritance and can then stay at home while their husbands work, but the majority won't fall into this category.

It struck me as very strange that women - on a site called MUMS net - are criticised for being "only mums."

In the same way that Confused.com isn't only for confused people Mumsnet isn't only for "mums".

I’m a sahm. Do you even frequent on mumsnet?

Sahm do make themselves vulnerable to an extent. Let’s not kid ourselves. That’s why it’s important to make sure you’re married and have assets in your name. There are different versions of sahm and it’s all about legal protection should shit hit the fan. And yes keeping your toes in the water, keeping skills up should you need to work. I’m glad there is a forum that exists that tells women realities so they can make informed choices rather than paint a fantasy. I don’t see what’s so offensive. If my daughter decided to become a sahm rather than give her lecture about the pros and cons I’ll send her over to the relationships board and let her decide. I went into it quite naively even though I know I’m better off than many so I made sure all loose ends were tied. Thanks to mumsnet.

I feel like you’re a misogynist cousin of mine that doesn’t like society telling women to get their ducks in a row.

I don't sneer at any women doing her best and what is the best for her family at any given time.