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!

I wouldn't recommend it as a model either, for the reasons listed above. But it's swings and roundabouts really, as to whether it's a good idea for individual families. So much is about personal circumstances - the jobs that you do or are available where you live, house prices, schools, family support, quality and availability of childcare, attitudes towards money and pooling of resources.
For myself it's come with both pluses and minuses. Would I choose differently if I had my time again? Idk - depends what day you ask me. I've missed a lot from a work perspective but gained a lot from a family one. I know and accept the risks. If the shit hit the fan I'd have to rtw, at a much lower earning point but I with the benefit of having done what I wanted previously.

The 'lady of leisure' SAHM is certainly very different from the woman who gives up work because of childcare costs, and ends up staying there for decades. Vs the woman who could have had a career but gave it up.

When I worked in finance, in certain circles there were a considerable number of wives who didn't work. Children all had nannies, or sent off to boarding school. Most of them did various things for charities, presumably that helped raise their husbands' profile but they're not reflective of the average SAHM.

I assume you move in very wealthy circles. The proportion of adults in the UK who are so wealthy that they don’t need to work is very small.

of course they exist - but I would suggest that the majority of SAHMs do not have millions in cash and assets. They have taken a risk in sacrificing their own financial dependence and are relying on their partner to support them.

most I know are either independently wealthy or through marriage and are certainly financially savvy enough to know exactly what they're doing.

That's great for your personal social circle.

Yeah being independently wealthy through marriage doesn’t make you independently wealthy!

You’re going to be entitled to significant assets if you split up though. Divorce is v. different when there’s millions to be divided.

Divorce is v. different when there’s millions to be divided

true, but that is a fairly small proportion of people.

This thread has made me chuckle. Moaning about people perceiving SAHMs to be boring and have limited interests of conversation (I don't think they do btw - many of my friends are SAHMs)... followed by an extremely boring rant on a very limited topic and repeating the same points (and attempted self-aggrandizement) ad infinitum. Yawn.

I don't think millions compensates for a shattered self esteem and not knowing what to do with yourself after years of unemployment. It would be daunting to most.

@Hatsoff5 You're assuming that SAHP's do absolutely nothing with their time though, the long term ones I know are very involved with charities, serve on boards, local government, etc. One lawyer I know stayed at home for several years, but she's working again now, her connections helped her find a new job. Another long term SAHP I know has just led a community campaign to buy some land to build a new city park, raising $9 million!

I know not every SAHP is like this, but I don't think they're all lacking in self-esteem!

It sounds like you either live in the upper east side of Manhattan- or read a lot of books based there. The ladies you are describing aren’t your typical stay at home mums - they must only be about 1% of SAHMs.

they have nannies and cleaners and trust funds.

There is weird trend on this thread to glamorise SAHMs and this wealthy group of high achieving ladies who will be fine with or without a man. That will be case for a small number but he vast majority of the population is not this lucky.

@Mellowyellow222 I wish! This was in response to @Hatsoff5 ’s comment about wealthy SAHP’s who get divorced:

I don't think millions compensates for a shattered self esteem and not knowing what to do with yourself after years of unemployment. It would be daunting to most.

The poster seems to assume that SAHP’s do nothing with their time, it’s just not my experience of those I know. Perhaps it’s just that I’m attracted to people who get things done so they’re the ones I’m friends with. 🤷

The thing is you and others are unwilling to see wider SAHM in general. Despite your unrealistic circle or personal circumstances. It doesn't change the facts... your circle is the minority don't you see?

Clearly not. I didn't assume SAHM do nothing but the majority of the population can't afford not to work sorry to burst your bubble..

It sounds like The housewives shows ffs 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@Hatsoff5 Yoy do t seem willing to recognize that SAHP’s can’t be stereotyped though, that they reflect the entire population, from the wealthy to those on a low income.
You seem determined to characterize them as people with lie self-esteem and for example.

I only know a few SAHP’s, ranging from wealthy to those married to teachers and civil servants. They’re not exclusively women. Low self-esteem and poor networks to help them find employment simply aren’t common characteristics among them.

Sorry if that doesn’t fit your stereotype and narrative.

Sorry about the typos!

I don't think millions compensates for a shattered self esteem and not knowing what to do with yourself after years of unemployment.

Do you realise how absurd this statement would sound to most people, given how the majority of households with whatever domestic setup are currently struggling with living costs?

Having millions means you can do pretty much whatever you want.

Money = choices

If you aren't being goady then you need a reality check.

Most people would love to never have to work again and have the "problem" of working out what they'd most like to do with their time.

There's also a world of difference between being able to find oneself an unpaid role in a sector that can't afford to pay someone, or where your contribution is an add on to the main body of the work rather than essential (PTA for example) and competing for a salaried role in the job market.
This is no disrespect to volunteers who make an invaluable contribution, and obviously volunteering does help to retain skill sets. But its a bit of a myth that employers accept the transferable skills gained from running a home and voluntary work as of equal value to a decade or more of direct experience in the field.

This thread has made me question my friendship group😂

Out of my close friends who all went to university none are stay at home parents. One does work part time while her daughter is small.

I do know two SAHMs - more friends of the family. Neither are wealthy, both have taken a lifestyle hit, neither volunteer or sit in the board of any larger charity, neither raise millions for the community, both worry about money. Living if one income, even if it is above average, is tough. Both have been out of the workforce for five plus years.

i Would say they are more typical of stay at home than the examples of high achievers cited on this thread. In fact I’m not sure why these women who do so much voluntary work don’t work part time? It seems odd - unless their volunteering is PTA etc.

I can't believe we have ended up discussing millionaire SAHPs here. Surely they are just so rare that they are hardly worth including in the debate.
Yes, if you are a SAHM married to a millionaire, you are probably going to be ok financially. Not so much guaranteed for the 99% of other SAHPs who are not married to millionaires.

Even if you are married divorce and division of assets takes time. If you really want to seperate the husband (with the job) is refusing to leave, or leaving and refusing to pay for the house (or would pay for the house but no other bills, food, expenses etc), then you have a good period that needs to be funded with.... well, that''s the question. Would benefits stretch? Could you pick up a job quickly?

What about when the divorce has gone through? Most couples don't have sufficient assets and savings to fund two households. So how will you fund buying out the house or renting somewhere else with no job? Is the plan just to rely on benefits and a council house? And how quickly do you think that's all put in place.

All the above can of course be resolved. But it takes time. And it does leave yu financially vulnerable. When the choice is between staying with a dickhead or going to a bedsit for an indefinite amount of time with 3 kids becuase there is no financial independence to do anything else, many women choose to stay. That's not a position I would wish to be in.

People have low self esteem for all kinds of reasons. I'm not sure that their work status is the major one, unless they are stuck doing something they really dislike or there is a specific problem attached to what they do, like bullying at work or a relationship issue.

If some women feel bad about sah, that might be because they are spending too much time on mn, reading about how their contributions to the family are not as valid as the financial one? Or being called spongers!

I think high self esteem comes from knowing you did the best you could with the information you had available at the time and not caring too much about the opinions of strangers, who aren't living your life.

@Icanstillrecallourlastsummer

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.

You raise a really important point and one which bears unpacking a bit.

This whole argument of "If I didn't SAH my husband wouldn't have been able to achieve what he has at work" is problematic for me because it perpetuates the idea that a working man needs and deserves a home helpmeet while a working woman doesn't. This attitude is really toxic and unhelpful to those of us who have to work and who have to compete with these men who are "facilitated" by SAHMs.

When I do encounter sexism at work its invariably not around my performance its around my inability to be basically sitting at a desk or going drinking in the City 24/7.

I work much harder than most of my male colleagues because as a single parent I have to. I have to start work at 6.30am to get a couple of hours in before the commute. I have to work most evenings. I put in far more hours and frankly I am better at my job than a lot of them.

But I still get told off for not being more "present" and not being able to network and be seen. And consequently I haven't been as far promoted as many of my male colleagues.

If I had a "facilitator" I would be able to go drinking in the City 2/3 nights a week and play golf and sit at my desk scratching my arse and looking at social media until 7pm. But I don't because I can't and consequently I work much more efficiently as a result. But I am still judged to be handicapped by my inability to "participate" in the social side of the job.

The phenomenon of the "facilitating" SAHM plays a part in this. It allows these men to be being "present" and "participating". I'm not saying that SAHMs owe working mums not to do this.

Clearly women have to make the choices that suit them best and fair enough as you can't sacrifice your life and happiness for a notional societal goal. But when people come on here and trot out this line about the "invaluable support" they are providing to their husband to further his career (for him to go out drinking) it does make me bristle.

If there were fewer of the "facilitators" the men in corporate life would have to step up a bit more on the home front and organise their schedules better in a way women in careers now have to. Women would be better supported at home, would be freed up to get more done, their children would see more of their dads and they able to earn at greater parity with men and the balance of responsibilities between the sexes would hopefully start to even out. So, sue me, but I feel a bit cynical about those SAHMs who celebrate the fact that they are facilitating their DH's glittering careers.

I agree with your post. And I think its quite conflicting for feminists. On the one hand supporting and valuing other womens choices, but on the other being expected to support something that harms other women. But it's not women's fault society is structured as it is, and perhaps you can't blame those who've found a way to turn it to their individual advantage.
I suppose women who speak about facilitating their husband's career are doing so to justify their value to him. Its a response to the freeloader arguments. There's few who try to claim the role is beneficial to society in general.

I wouldn't be sah to facilitate my dh going out socialising with work. Fuck that!
But I do think you are right to say that when a man has a lot of back up at home, it does make it easier for him to get promotions. For my dh that meant doing the work trips away, not having to leave work because the kids are sick/on school holidays. However I've been on a lot of threads where wohm have said that the husband didn't need a sah wife, that he would have achieved all he has if she had been working too, that they could have outsourced everything the sahm did since there would be 2 salaries coming in. Both those things can't be true (unless the levels of earning ran to enough for tag teams of nannies and a big enough home to house them!)

I think the solution is to forcibly change the work culture, so unsocial hours aren't the norm, that on site crèches and subsidised good quality childcare exists wherever you live. Because women aren't likely to give up on being a sahm if that benefits their families, just because other women can't or don't want to. The change has to come from society and employers.