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!

And jobs that might need more physical strength are not more valuable than those that require other forms of strength.

But OP it’s taken you 300 ish posts of very fervent indignation to establish that? We get it, you are heard.
The point was established fairly early on and you’ve continued to labour on. I don’t know how you have the energy for this much outrage - it’s almost stressful to read

Well don't read it then?

But fair point and god knows why I'm still here.

@Thepeopleversuswork

I agree to an extent, but the other factor you've forgotten to include which also perpetuates this set up, is women choosing to give up their jobs and support their husband's careers to their own financial detriment. Regardless of what you think of being a SAHP, and women's right to choose to do just that, there is not doubt that women choosing that route has a negative impact on gender equality in the work place.

Also, I disagree with your last point. There is no reason that a woman can't birth and breastfeed a child and work.

I remember one very wise thing I read on MN. Someone said it's OK if living off one wage works for you, but you have to have rock solid marriage. I couldn't agree more. I would never live off man's wage if we weren't married, if house was only in his name, insurance would only cover him etc. Otherwise, fine by me. Actually this is kind of our plan for the near future if we are lucky to have children in our life.

@Liz1tummypain You might not believe it but there is so much evidence and so many statistics showing the opposite. Gender bias definitely exists, illegal or not. In big companies too.

There is no reason that a woman can't birth and breastfeed a child and work.

Indeed, they're always pumping in the office America and they can buy contraptions to express while they're driving, since they have to go back after six weeks. This is in no way an attempt to force mothers out of work indirectly. They are allowed to express at work, what more do the snowflakes want?

Birth and breastfeeding are complete non events that make no difference to a woman's body or life. Piece of piss.

This is a good point too. If you are going to do it, make sure you are married so you have some legal protections. The amount of women who think they have an automatic legal right under the (essentially non-existant) concept of "common law wife" is staggering.

Well obviously not. But women are in the UK entitled to a year's maternity. Most women have recovered from childbirth at that point and not many babies at still exclusively BF at a year, so pumping etc is not necessary.

I say this as someone who BF both my babies till they were gone 2, and worked more or less full time from I went back from maternity leave.

@Thepeopleversuswork

Interesting comments

I would just add

More societal pressure on men to make money, money seen as inherent to status

Very true, I would say this pressure comes in both directions from both men and women. Many men see their status within their peer group as enhanced if they are perceived to be 'successful'. Many women, also view a man who has a stable, high earning career as a desirable trait when looking for a partner. When boys are still at school taking A levels they are more likely to be picking STEM subjects that that get them onto degrees with high earning potential. Look at any university and the demographics of the computing and engineering courses compared to humanities.

Sexism in the workplace means that men tend to get promoted more quickly and paid more than women

I think there is a bit more nuance to this just 'sexism'. Mainly driven by the 'status' aspect above men are way more likely to pursue and apply for promotions. Men are way more likely to work overtime, change jobs, take on a longer commute, and work longer core hours if means a pay rise and a promotion rather then siloing themselves within an organisation waiting to be offered a step up. Men are way more likely to ask for a pay rise (whether it is deserved or not). When applying for a new job that has a pay range advertised, men almost always pitch themselves at the top end, even if their experience and qualifications do not marry up with the higher paid bracket.

An anecdotal observation, I work in oil and gas/renewables, while there is still not parity insofar as equal representation of men and women the industry it has come a long way from when I started out. From a personal observations throughout my career I have seen women (younger grads) are way less likely to take on overseas assignments that are crucial to career development. Working offshore, or in some fabrication yard in west Africa is a bit of a rite of passage in the industry, you get to work a few years along side some seasoned professionals and see up close the design solutions you have been working on in the home office being being built and installed at site. The work can be dirty and challenging but you gain an awful lot of vital experience as well as earning quite a bit extra for working in a 'hardship location'. Part of the graduate training programmes includes this site experience element and despite plenty of encouragement I have repeatedly seen these young women turn these opportunities down despite being made fully aware of them as part of the grad selection process, we can't force them to go so they stay in the home office. Often the excuses for not going are, well, a bit weak (pet cat, boyfriend, don't want to get dirty, will miss friends and family etc). Come promotion time they are at a considerable disadvantage compared to the folk who have a couple of years 'hard' experience under their belts. Chatting to industry colleagues it is a common theme across different organisations. How do you resolve the issue of getting more women into leadership roles if they are handicapping themselves during their early training and development?

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

Agree, there also needs to be a wholesale change in attitude by employers that frowns upon men who wish to take full maternity leave or the workplace early due to a child related issues (it is expected that women down tools and go home to fix whatever the issue is).

I think women who have children with a man, stay home to look after them so not working outside of home or building up their own pension and especially if they allow their partners to put house in his sole name are stupidly putting themselves into a very vulnerable position. Similarly single Mums who refuse to claim child support from Dads too stupid for words. I don't think less of women staying home to look after preschool children. I did it myself for 18 months with each of my 3 children. But I was married and DH agreed with 18 months home with each child. I went back to work when each child 18 months.

I've never ever seen anyone sneer on here, but a lot of us are older and wiser.
Love doth not butter any parsnips.

A woman who loves with a man, has his children,
Climbs off the career ladder to be a sham without being married IS absolutely in a shot load of trouble if the relationship goes south.

Also to my own bitter experience even if you are married and the man is Self-employed, you are absolutely fucked.

We have worry & concern. I would advise any woman whatsoever not to do it as fervently as I could. That's not sneering it's wisdom.

I do agree with this. Its the white elephant in these discussions isn't it? That being a SAHM is self perpetuating.
From the girls growing up believing the norm is for mum to be at home while dad earns the money; to the men having advantage in the workplace as they dont have to divert attention from their job to worry about the domestics which are being taken care of for them; to the lack of women role models in the workplace as capable women restrict their talents and skills to their own home.
This is by no means a comment on individual women's choices, but all of these things contribute to women's position in the workplace, and the reason why it 'makes financial sense' for women's careers not to be prioritised within the family. And so the cycle continues.

But maybe some women are sah because woh is not made at all easy when both parents do it? Childcare is expensive, it's not consistent in quality or choice. Businesses don't routinely have crèches or flexible working options. There's a cultural expectation to work until the job is done, rather than having set hours with the expectation that works stops at 5.30. Schools phone up mums every time a child do much as sniffles - no more school nurses or sick rooms like we used to have in school.
It makes parents very dependent on back up from family, which not everyone has.
Is or any wonder that people who aren't passionate about their jobs or in immediate need of the income, choose an easier life. A life which allows them to see more of their kids and reduce household stress?

I am friends with a couple, they have a baby and live together.

She is a SAHM but, they are not married nor is her name on the mortgage deeds. I do think my female friend has put herself at risk but I wont say anything, it is her choice.

Not just marriage and life insurance.
You need IMO to have complete transparency and equality with regard to finances. I have assets in my name only as DH wanted me to feel as secure as possible.
It's essential for both parties to be completely happy with the arrangement and things need to be reviewed as time goes on. Things have cropped up that we'd never have imagined at the start of this.

@MrsBwced

Oh if we're doing anecdotes,

I've got a friend who desperately wants to get divorced but can't afford a house and childcare on her own, so they are living miserably together. They both work full time but overstretched on the house and don't want to downgrade or leave school catchment.

I've got another friend who split with her husband. She was a SAHM, he worked two minimum wage jobs. She moved into rented accommodation, got a place at university, got a council house and is about to start a job. She's really happy.

But you have made the scenario from the second woman sound like a plot for a romcom. She left her husband and she lived happily ever after.

In reality, she is going to be 10s of 1000 of £££ in debt after uni, with no guarantee of any job or career related to it (millions of post grads who are single, childless and in their 20s can barely find jobs wiping peoples arses these days, so why will she be any different?!) Also, she now has to work full time to keep herself and her children, and won't have her DH's income as well as her own, and how incredibly fortunate for her to have bagged a council house just like that when people wait many many years. And even so, she will still be paying for everything on one wage. So I can't see anecdote No 2 is any better off than anecdote No 1. I wouldn't want to be either one tbh.

Of course - it's a choice that will have both pros and cons. But that choice comes with financial vulnerability.

Also, why does it have to be the mum who does it?

@WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps
First of all my post was replying to another posters delightful anecdote about a 'friend'. I wasn't posting them as an instruction manual.
My friend in question has a job related to the degree and studied in a field she's had previous experience in. Yes she'll have debt but so does anyone who goes to university. No surprise to me a single mum with three children, two with additional needs in a two bed house gets a council house.
As for the fact she'll have to pay for everything on one wage isn't that what most people are arguing for as a reason not to be a SAHM that we should all be able and willing to do that so when our husbands cheat we can support ourselves. You're making it sound like a bad idea, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

What confuses me..

There's a very common narrative on here.. woman gives up career, DH becomes becomes high earner. But the majority of people aren't high earners, and never will be. Not everyone has a 'career'. So how does that make any sense as a general model?

2 people earning 20K each take home £300 more than one person earning 40K. The disparity gets bigger as salaries increase (up to a grand for 2 30K salaries vs one 60K). People in higher earning fields also generally have more flexibility as they get more senior, in 2022.

How many actually sacrificing earning potential? How many just find it easier and were never really good at work anyway? How many are borderline? How many have a useless DH problem, rather than an actual household stress problem?

As a higher earning woman I'd have to earn quite frankly a shit ton to fairly reimburse a long-term SAHD. With equal spending money, topping up their pension. 2 of us, on a 'average' salary both taking the hit is more stable in the long-term.

@OooErr It's a good point. Two earners is also loads better for family financial security.

I think as a long term lifestyle it makes the whole family vulnerable. Redundancy or ill health can strike any of us and it seems risky to me to have the family security resting on one person when it could be shared. If there is independent wealth (rare) or the SAHP is confident of their ability to jump into a job as and when necessary to take up the slack, fair enough, but realistically that's not the case for most.

I don’t actually sneer at anyone for anything

I agree with your post . Women, or at least a significant number , appreciate there is a bit of a safety net when they are in relationships and this frequently influences their choice of work/ career.

Also wanted to point out that if education correlates with earnings then men are more likely to be in trouble since women out-perform men in colleges and universities in almost all developed countries now. If we’re going to show any concern about their education then it should be for men.

sorry for not choosing the correct user’s post to quote- I struggle with the app on my phone.

I think you make some very good points OP. SAHMs do get a very hard time on this website and I've read some seriously insulting and hurtful comments over the years. Every circumstance is different and there are certainly some women who shouldn't be sahms and are naive to the risks, but most I know are either independently wealthy or through marriage and are certainly financially savvy enough to know exactly what they're doing.