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!

Op no one is saying sahm are financially vulnerable on the whole when in the relationship, although there are many pockets of that. Abuse creeps in. Lack of respect. It’s predominant if the relationship ends. For whatever reason. Or if something happens to the earning partner.

bottom line is you’re not entitled to your husbands earnings. They give you what they give you and pay what they pay for you through choice. And it’s a choice they can cease any time they wish.

No. The higher earner is paying towards the care of their child while they are at work and unable to care for them themselves.
The lower earner is doing the same.

I also think a lot of women don't have a valid on paper choice. Sometimes their earnings don't cover childcare, or their job isn't conjucive to a child/school routine to make it affordable. It's basically not worth the hassle for the extra money sometimes. I'm sure there are some families have made the decisions based in the economy of it in the short term.

This is also due to the fact that more caring and low paid work is done by women still, so it will be the mother who takes the career hit.

"Statistically the overwhelming majority of sahms are financially vulnerable."

Do you have evidence for this? Or is it just something you have decided?

What is this overwhelming majority?

Regardless, when an individual SAHM posts about her situation, she is not a statistic. She is an individual, like anyone else. She may well be posting because she is worried about finances. But if she is not, then she is not. You can't insist that know her situation better than her because 'overwhelming majorities' and 'statistics.' This is ridiculous . Would you do this to anyone else. Would you tell a woman working that she must be financially vulnerable because 'statistics.' And then, if she she doesn't conform to your ideas about what she should be, tell her she doesn't care about the position of women in general? No you would not. So ehu is it reasonable to talk to SAHM as if the same and don't know their own minds or understand their own lives?

Good grief.

So it's a greater good thing rather than aimed at an individual?
I find it frustrating that when it's accepted that the system is misogynistic (and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise) women are often berated by other women for being a product of the system.
Pointing out the pitfalls isn't going to change the system.
If a woman is on a low wage, the household can't afford childcare then there's a good chance it will be her that gives up work to look after the children. don't think many women in that situation will be unaware that they have taken a risk with their financial position.

Statistically the overwhelming majority of sahms are financially vulnerable."Do you have evidence for this? Or is it just something you have decided?

Oh for fuck's sake. Starting to think this can't be real.

Pointing out the pitfalls isn't going to change the system

yes it is. Change happens when people are educated.

@Liz1tummypain You think it's ok that men earn more than women?!

If, say, you had two children, boy and girl, would you think it's fair the boy should earn more, just by virtue of being a boy?

Honestly, that blows my mind

It's not educating when everyone is already aware of the situation.

I didn’t say it’s ok that men earn more than women. There are laws against employers paying men more than women because it is sexist and wrong.

But men tend to choose jobs where their earnings are more than the jobs that women choose. Whether due to taking more risk, longer hours, worse conditions, whatever the reasons, men take more of those jobs. And that’s their choice .

I think being a SAHP you ARE financially vulnerable, not just you but your whole family, inherently because two incomes will always be better able to weather shocks than 1. I would not feel financially vulnerable if I wasn’t working because DH was even remotely likely to screw me over (and I live in a community property state so everything we own is joint by law) but because our family would be reliant on one income. If something happened and I did have to support either myself or some some combination of our family and I’d been out of work for a while, it WOULD be harder for me to get back into work and my salary would be lower. We’d be likely to have lower savings making it harder to cushion any financial shocks. I don’t think it’s a problem to be a SAHP but if we’d made that choice, we’d definitely feel like we needed to live much more conservatively to ensure we could weather a financial storm.

As I work with peoples finances, I do see plenty of women that if divorcing would be totally fine…. as long as their very rich partner doesn't turn nasty. Court cases can take YEARS. Court orders get defied - look in the press. I know that as most of my clients are exceptional in terms of assets and income, this is generally quite rare. Unless you control assets, you are vulnerable regardless of how much money there is.

I do also see people that wouldn’t be ‘OK’, but i would still see them as vulnerable if divorcing. They usually pin their future on their husband… to me that’s a risk.

people often don’t see the risks as they’ve not experienced it. As my friend a Family Law barrister said ‘never give up your own job’.

Yes, this is my experience too. I work with women and have seen countless cases where women are much financially worse off than they expected to be. There is a huge difference between generous loving 'hubby' and a man who has lost interest because he's moved on, perhaps has a new family in mind, has convinced himself he worked for it so he won't be 'taken to the cleaners', or is simply putting his own interests first as people do when they no longer care for the person.
Most men savvy enough to earn high incomes know how to protect and hide their assets, and however capable and careful the woman, she often knows as much as she is told.
Clearly there are ways women can protect themselves as much as possible, but in reality, a lot don't know what that entails.
It would be more helpful for those taking offense at the idea SAHMs are vulnerable to share those strategies so that their own security is a reality for more women.

I was a SAHM to my eldest for the first three years of her life - my dh was a high earner and it was easier than trying to make childcare work / a decision made for our family. It was great to be able to spend that time with my dd but then my marriage ended. I was lucky - I had a good previous career and contacts that let me get back into it since it hadn’t been too long a break plus my ex dh was decent / we had enough assets to make it not an immediate shock financially.

Had I been out of the workplace longer I’d have been stuffed. When I had my second dd with current dh I went back to work at a year so I didn’t have to face that worry. Which when he had an affair made me feel so much better that I could choose whether to continue the marriage or not knowing it was a real choice as I’d be fine financially on my own.

Ive seen friends struggle when their relationships broke up after being SAHMs and I’ve told both my dds to never ever do it.

it’s not that it’s not lovely to be at home and a valuable thing to raise your children but it comes at an, IMO, high risk.

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

A sahm with no income is completely dependant on her oh's goodwill to hand money over. That's just fact.

If the oh suddenly said, two days before payday 'right I'm off, met a new bird, see ya' then the other partner with dc and no shopping in is fucked. If rent is due in two days, you're fucked. You apply for UC or whatever, have to wait for the first payment, struggle through... then you're in the far more difficult situation of trying to find a job after x years out of the workplace. Your pension is lower as you've not been contributing.

If DH fucked off tomorrow I'd be in an awkward position, sure. Our lives are built around two incomes, there's no denying that - I'd have to make some serious adjustments sharpish.

But I have my salary coming in. I'd apply for UC as a top up/help with childcare and hopefully get a small amount extra, but I would have enough money to stay in our house and cover the bills and food (just!) without any immediate panic.

It's not just about financial vulnerability either. It's about economic vulnerability. I have 3 dc, have always worked. I've gone part time when each dc was small then bumped hours back up (in the same job) when they go FT...and I pay far more from the family pot into my pension than DH to make up for these 3 hits of maternity/part time. DH knows that and fully agrees - if he didn't, that would be a red flag. My CV is up to date and I'd be in a good position to look for a better pair role in my sector should the need arise. Much harder to do with a gap of x years behind you.

I don't 'sneer' at SAHMs...but unless they have an established career that's easy to step back into and independent wealth or savings, I do think they're crazy.

@Liz1tummypain

But men tend to choose jobs where their earnings are more than the jobs that women choose. Whether due to taking more risk, longer hours, worse conditions, whatever the reasons, men take more of those jobs. And that’s their choice.

But this "choice" doesn't happen in a political or cultural vacuum. Men tend to take more of these jobs, you're correct. But not because they are genetically more disposed to them. They take them for a variety of reasons:

• More societal pressure on men to make money, money seen as inherent to status
• Historically men tended to be better educated than women (though not true any more) and education tends to correlate with earnings
• Sexism in the workplace means that men tend to get promoted more quickly and paid more than women
• And then when you get into the business of child-bearing and the early years of having children its a whole world of pain: women are often limited in their ability to work in these early years for physical reasons (breastfeeding etc) but this is when the heavy duty sexism kicks in at work

Pretending that this is just a magical accident or a disposition towards higher-paid work is to ignore the fact that there are structural reasons why its harder for women to work as hard or earn as much that that most of these reasons are determined by the way men have set society up.

Even as a sahm I do agree that it is risky. But working entails making other sacrifices - if I had stayed in ft work I definitely would have had fewer children. But I didn't want fewer children.
And due to the nature of our jobs, I would still have done more house and childcare stuff that dh. I don't want to do all that and hold down a full on job.
Life isn't perfect. People lose marriages and careers. Few people have everything they want. But we all do what seems best at the time and that which gives us most of what we value.

I don't the mind posters pointing out financial risks and ways to mitigate them as much as possible - this is useful information to have out there for women.

I do object to being called boring (as if all jobs are interesting and bring employed renders a person automatically better company), or told I'm sponging or 'living off a man'. My sah has benefited my husband too. If it didn't, he wouldn't have been willing for me to do it and so I wouldn't have done it! I also don't appreciate being told my dh or dc won't respect me - I've been married 23 years now, oldest child is 25 and I've yet to see any lack of respect. And why would they lack respect - I've gone my best for all of them, they are loved and they've had a non knackered wife and mother with plenty of time for them. Fair play to the women who do both but it isn't for me!

All that said, sometimes I do miss my job - there were bits I liked. But I'm not sure if I really miss the job or the fact that it has social currency in a way that sah doesn't. It would be nice not to feel judged.
Maybe I've just been on MN too long and it's not representative of how people think irl. Idk.

You don’t need statistics to prove the that being an unemployed adult is putting yourself in a vulnerable position @iabr . Again, I’m not talking about middle or upper class (which is roughly about 30% of the British society).

@ImAvingOops

I think the charge that people who don’t work are automatically boring or are not respected by their husbands is idiotic.it’s self evidently untrue and nasty.

But it cuts both ways. There’s not a day that goes by without someone tipping up on a thread like this and asking working mums “why did you bother having children just to outsource them?”. Which is not only offensive but mind-bogglingly stupid.

Sadly there’s a long history of this sort of cat-calling on these threads on both sides.

But the OPs take on this is very one-sided.

Yes, I do agree that saying those things to a wohm is also mean and unnecessary. No one says it to a father, either. Just as they'd never say to a sahd that he's a sponger or boring or a prostitute. He'd get a bloody medal for looking after his own kids.

I’m not pretending it’s a magical accident. But I am saying the past is the past. Women in the west have as much access to education as men. I’m not sure there is solid evidence men are promoted above women. I agree when children are in the picture, women are then often at a disadvantage because of the expectation that they will be responsible for child rearing. I accept this is an inequality. Its not fair and it doesn’t seem to be changing. I don’t know the solution to this.

Its illegal to pay men more than women for the same job and although there are still legal cases alleging it, on the whole I don’t believe it is applied by many employers. Certainly not in larger companies.

My main point though is that women frequently choose a job with lower earnings than men would choose. For whatever their reasons. And our physical abilities will always play a part. You don’t see women dashing into burning buildings in the number that you see men doing it because we know we aren’t capable of lifting and carrying any injured adults out again. Yes there are women in the services, but there will never be as many women soldiers as there will be male soldiers because our bodies are at a biological disadvantage to mens’.

All I am asking is that when a SAHM posts, people actually hear her out in terms of what she is asking, rather than just projecting and assuming she needs to be educated.

As MrsBwced says, it's not educating when everybody is already aware of the situation!

As I have repeatedly said, if a SAHM is asking or indicating a willingness to engage with your financial advice or anecdotes then by all means give these.

But please don't assume ALL SAHMs need 'educating'. Please resist from turning their threads (which are often about something else entirely) into some kind of public service announcement or a discussion about structural inequality! This is can be very frustrating and patronising for the person posting.

Some SAHMs will be financially vulnerable. This is obvious. Where have I argured otherwise? But some will be not be. Don't assume. Don't derail their threads with unsolicited advice or anecdotes about why you yourself are not a SAHM! And definitely refrain from the snide comments about their husbands, being brain dead or losing self-respect. That's all I'm asking.

None if this means I do not recognise that being a SAHM can put you in a vulnerable position. No shit Sherlock! But just understand the context before you wade in with assumptions. That's all.

You're being a bit arse backwards in the 'men choose high paid roles' thing.
Jobs that more men choose are also more highly paid because men do them.
Jobs that more women choose are also more poorly paid because women do them.
Eg. Soft skills aren't valued. Caring can take as much skill and hard work and long hours as labouring, if not more. But it's not valued as highly monetarily, because it's traditionally female. Traditonally female characteristics/strengths are undervalued.
You talk about carrying someone out of a burning building like that is more valuable than say, those that provide early years childcare. And besides that's a small part of fire and rescue.
Even in industries where women and men are paid the same for the same roles, you often get disproportionately more men at the top, earning more. This has nothing to do with women's choice of job/industry, as they're overrepresented in the early stages, and a lot to do with structural obstacles within the work place.
Women don't choose poorly paid work, there's nothing on the second X chromosome that gives us a preference for being poorer than men.