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!

If you are not one of the posters who has ever -

unilaterally decided an unknown on the internet is financially vulnerable based on her working status
told a SAHM she is useless / lazy
told a SAHM her children will not respect her (unlike yours)
told a SAHM her husband secretly despises her
told a SAHM her husband is no doubt having an affair
told a SAHM that she will never work again
told as SAHM she is a scourge on society
made an original and hilarious quip about the 1950s
told a SAHM she is thick
told a SAHM she has no plan for old age
told a SAHM she is essentially a prostitute
told a SAHM she does not understand her situation (but you do)
unilaterally declared who is and who is not SAHM and who is unemployed because this really matters
told a SAHM to get a job so she has something to talk about
oh, and self-respect

(all unsolicited "advice"naturally - purely driven by concern for fellow women and based on 'evidence' of other MN threads (but only the ones from the real proper financially vulnerable SAHMs).

If you have never said any of these things - this thread is not about you. Scroll on by.

If you have said any of the above, you know who you are.

To me it’s always having the means to support myself if necessary
I see a lot of couples where they start off equal but little by little that changes and one of them becomes financially dependent on the other
Each to their own but it’s not for me

I don;t sneer at anyone OP I have no right to, For the record I suppose I live off my husband in the fact that I don;t work,don;t want to anymore,don;t have to so I am not going to!Our marriage has always been strong enough to support each other and the home and kids and everything else included. I supported team us when we had bugger all,we did it together,we did whatever was needed over the years both happily and grudgingly at times but it was done.Now its different,My husbands earning power is way more than mine and he loves his job and he has seen how much I have contributed over the years to the team effort and he feels glad we are in a position where I can finally have a choice. I dont owe him he doesnt owe me ..it works for us.if I needed to take up the slack again I would but right now and for the forseeable I don;t.

Well if those were the only people you wanted to engage with the thread, you'd have done better putting that list in your OP, rather than making a thread telling people to stop advising women on their potential financial vulnerability.
You would have saved people who wouldn't dream of saying those things from coming on here to explain why they might offer that advice.

I have said nothing about my financial status except that I if I say I was not financially vulnerable, that should be enough.

Not talking about myself, but isn't it obvious why some women may never need to return to work? They may have investment portfolios in their names (often more tax efficient); they have a property portfolio built up with their DH over many years), they live in very expensive properties mortgage free or even multiple homes - in short, families like this have their money working for them. It's about wealth not 'his salary' at a certain point. Families like this might not be posting about financial troubles on MN, but they exist and are very much in evidence in certain areas. Even if you just take London, how many houses are worth 4 / 5 million upwards? Tens of thousands maybe? What about the £10 million upwards homes? Never mind a SAHM, these type of people have nannies and staff!

As I said earlier, there will be concentrations of SAHMs at either end of the economic spectrum - those who can't afford to work and those who don't need to. There will be other cases of families with inheritances perhaps, or those have children with additional needs or expats. Or just those who, having weighed up all options, prioritise having a SAHM because it feels right for them. This is an open forum on the internet. You never know who you are talking to, so always best not to assume anything.

@Hatsoff5
Ok last one.
You hit the nail on the head. I think SAHM forget it's a choice they are making and whilst it must be hectic. Working mums too look after kids and work. From this point here it goes down hill... working mums still do the house chores and the laundry. Sorry but there's no sympathy from me but it's nothing against SAHM though.

These are your words replying to a pp on this thread.
I replied to your word on your post, not veering off but giving an example of a different situation as far as I'm aware that's allowed on MN whether you decide it's on topic or not. You mentioned above chores and laundry, nothing to do with the hallowed topic!

I don't know why you and others won't accept the facts if your vulnerable you are exactly that...
I can't speak for others but I don't know why you think I don't accept it. I haven't posted anything to suggest that that is my view. I have posted before on other threads that I am not financially vulnerable that doesn't mean I think the same for everybody.
My argument on this thread is that SAHM who are vulnerable in the main know they are vulnerable and don't need it pointing out to them on every SAHM thread.

isn't it obvious why some women may never need to return to work?

Yes but it's irrelevant. If someone's on here who is entirely financially reliant on her partner, or whose situation will be affected if she is, who cares that some women are completely independent via passive income?

Of course we don't know who we are talking to, which is why it was pointless asking us so indignantly earlier if we imagined that you would ever be in a sisituation where you were dependent on "allowances". We have no idea who you are, so how should we know? Some women do, and they often end up on here.

You don't seem to care at all about how badly many women get fucked over. The only thing that matters is that we know YOU never ever could be. We now know that, you can exclude yourself from any future posts advising women on how to protect themselves. Job done.

Honestly, OP, if you want to end the terrible stereotype that is recognising that most people require an active income stream of some description to stay afloat...tell it to the SAHMs we get on here every day who are in a terrible or very precarious financial situation, despite all your indignant exposition about how you would never be in their shoes. Wouldn't that be more helpful?

The thread is talking about SAHM threads in general on AIBU which nearly always take a certain time and direction. Not attitudes towards me specifically. I can't keep explaining this. As stated in the OP, why assume a woman who is SAH is, by default, going to be more financially vulnerable than someone who works part time or full time? It's all about the wider context. This should hardly need pointing out.

Fine if a SAHM actually posts about being financially vulnerable. But if she, despite 'advice' claims she's in in that score, take her word for it, in the same way as you would anyone else. That's it.

tone not time.

I do agree op , essentially.

But when you truly love someone who cares.

These things only usually come to play in divorce.

Unfortunately my mil contradicts my own feelings about it.
She feels she has worked hard and is superior, as a sham, she will refer to basic every day activities as major work she has to do.
She days her and her dh ,fil worked extremely hard to get ahead.

But it's his large salary? As a sham I think she did the bare minimum!

I don’t think the super wealthy women you are describing are particularly common. I also don’t think they would describe themselves as Stay At Home mums!!

you clearly either live in a very wealthy privileged bubble, or spend a lot of time watching TV shows about the super wealthy.

its just not representative of 95% of the population.

No sneering here, I worked many years before my husband (8 years older), bought my own house which we used to buy our house, and brought a large inheritance into the marriage. I work part time at a non profit and don’t bring in enough to pay for much. With so I contributed, after investing I’ve brought in a LOT.

Sorry for all the typos. I meant to say, if a SAHM tells you she is ok in that score (financially), then just take her word for it, as you would anyone else's.

Whst is the point on a thread by a SAHM who is not asking for financial advice, to keep on giving it regardless? I'm not talking about me. I'm telling about the way people pile on to SAHM threads with unsolicited advice not remotely asked for by the poster. Then, when she tells them she is not financially vulnerable, she is berated for not understanding the plight of other women!

Too tired, very true.

"its just not representative of 95% of the population."

Did I say it was? Does it need to be?

SAHMs are not representative of the majority of the population anyway. The majority of families these days are two income families.

SAHM families are in the minority, but where they exist, it will be in the situations I've described and generally, there will be a higher occurrence of SAHMs at either end of the economic spectrum and also in certain areas. Some will be financially vulnerable. Some will not. Don't assume unless they tell you. Christ on a bike, how hard can this be?

@MrsBwced because I care when women are fucked over by an inherently misogynistic system that enables and supports men’s careers and financial stability and leaves women vulnerable. And when women themselves argue vociferously for this when other women are just trying to ensure others are protected….it’s a bit annoying to be honest.

How many times do you need to ask the same question? How many times do you need people to answer. Because unless you’ve married someone incredibly wealthy and had a long marriage then unless you’re independently wealthy in your own right then you’re vulnerable. Every single time.

most sahm are not in this category. The top one percent of earners in the uk only earn 160k. Not enough to keep the ex financially secure when split. Particularly now that courts like clean breaks.

you seem to have an issue but are failing to make logical arguments other than keeping repeating the majority of sahms are financially secure if a split pccurs

statistically this is impossible. If you compare the number of stay at home mums v the amount of wealthy for life or high earners. Statistically the overwhelming majority are vulnerable.

I think the problem is your message should don’t comment on peoples finances unless they ask. And then an observation that you have noticed this more when women say they are SAHMs.

but then you quite aggressively and defensively started to argue about SAHMs being independently wealthy and not requiring an income. That is a different argument - and it’s probably wrong for the majority of SAHMs.

this is clearly something you have gotten yourself extremely worked up about. I haven’t seen the posts you referred to - but they sound rude and patronising.

so stick to the message of not giving unsolicited financial advice. Muddying it with financially independent one precenters changed the debate and people will naturally challenger you.

"you seem to have an issue but are failing to make logical arguments other than keeping repeating the majority of sahms are financially secure if a split pccurs"

No, I'm not saying that at all.

The word I have repeatedly used is SOME.

Some SAHMs will be financially secure. Some will not.

Just like women who are in paid work. Some will be more financially secure than others for a whole host of reasons.

I can't keep repeating the obvious.

I don't know who's sneering. But it is no question that many sahms are indeed financially vulnerable, particularly if unmarried. Even if married, if they have no income or up-to-date skills, they could be in difficulty if they found themselves needing to house and support themselves following a divorce. I'm also not sure how many sahms contribute to a pension.

I’d agree with this. There is clearly a signficant issue here. Statistically the overwhelming majority of sahms are financially vulnerable. No one is sneering at anyone. They are pointing out the huge risks of not being financially independent or able to support yourself independently. That’s not sneering.

now sure a tiny tiny percentage won’t be, they will be independently wealthy or married to someone in the top 0.02 percent of the population or whatever. 20 percent of mothers are financially inactive. For many reasons. But it’s a tiny proportion that it’s because they ar e independently wealthy or set for life.

I really don’t understand why you keep arguing like it’s a significant portion when every single person knows that’s not true.

You're worried about people thinking a SAHM might be vulnerable when she's actually loaded, we're worried about women getting fucked over as they do every day.

You do you...

I think it's just preparation for many.
For some that's saying - ok, I have a family to support, I will keep my career going so that if anything were to ever happen to DH/our partnership I could financially support the family.
For others that's saying - ok, I have a family to support, I will be a SAHM but take steps to ensure if anything were to ever happen to my DH/our partnership I have the best chance of being able to financially support the family.
Couples that work/earn unequally aren't necessarily 'dependent', they both have jobs that have financial value that could in theory be capitalised on if necessary.
However if you are a SAHM with no financial cushion/protection, you are more vulnerable and you may be depending on the arrangement with a partner remaining static.
It just comes down to vulnerabilities, majority of cases you are more financially vulnerable (especially over the long term) if you don't work.
I'd need to know that I could stand on my own two feet and support myself and my children financially and childcare wise if I had to. Working allows me that, SAHM parenting doesn't.
No sneering or judgement, just a personal priority based on some facts.

For couples who pool money, if childcare costs are higher than the one of the parent's wages then affectively the higher wage earner is 'paying' for the other to work, but you never see the same sort of sneery comments about that. Lots of SAHM bashing and hate around.

(To be clear, there are good reasons to want your partner to pay for you to work - e.g. if it preserves your earning potential do you gain in the long run, or you think you'd struggle to get back into work if they died, or if you don't trust them to always pool money. But there are situations where it just doesn't make financial sense for the lower earner to work as opposed to looking after children themselves).