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!

@5128gap

You are right and I don’t blame women at all for doing this. It’s often far easier.

I do however sometimes wish people wouldn’t position this as being about “choice” as if this was a feminist argument and a net benefit to women in general. “Choice” is now seen as the ultimate goal of feminism, which is slightly specious. Actually this choice, while understandable at a personal level, is not something that benefits women in general.

Not all choices are feminist. I think feminism is about equality of opportunity, rather than the freedom to choose whatever you like.
But women don't really have equality of opportunity - it all seems to go pear shaped in terms of earnings/career progression once children come along. Women are still discriminated against at this point, because we are still the default parent. It's really hard to maintain a full time job and not be super busy and knackered. Unless you have lots of help.
Honestly, part of why I opted out and sah is because I didn't want to be doing a full on job and loads of child/house stuff. And I didn't want (and couldn't afford even with 2 salaries) to pay for lots of help.

@ImAvingOops

I totally agree with that. Most women (unless they are independently wealthy) face an invidious choice between either being fully or partially dependent on a man (with all the risks that go with that) or having the shape of their lives dictated to a large extent by the demands of their employer.

I happen to see the latter as the lesser evil, partly because I don't have an alternative at the moment but I also would be really scared to rely on someone else for financial security. Plus I like working and it suits my personality far more than staying at home would. But I recognise that that wouldn't work for all women. We all make choices to fit our circumstances and we should all have the right not to have those choices judged by others in different circumstances.

And you're right also that the right to choice is paramount. In a free society every woman has the right to choose not to work if there is support available to her and that's a valid choice whatever the impact is on women at large.

But it would be nice sometimes if people with the luxury of not having to work to support their children would stop to think that this rhetoric about "supporting" their husbands to maximise their income unimpeded by the demands of childcare or domestic work is actually quite harmful to those of us who do have to do all of the above.

@Thepeopleversuswork Totally agree. Women who stay at home facilitating their husbands careers have a negative impact of mothers' ablity to compete effectively in the workforce, and on changing the culture. It's of course not the individual SAHM's responisbility to do that, but it is the impact.

Also, it's the issue of representation. When women become mothers and step off the career ladder because their job doesn't align with family life, rather than fighting for their rights to have both, it creates a lack of respresentation in women in senior positions. Again, not the responsibility of individual women, but that's the impact.

The one thing that would really help gender equality in the workplace would be if men made the same choices women make - whether it's taking time out, using their paternity leave, fleixble working, stepping up to care responsibility on an equal footing to women. But of could if you have a SAHP at home - doing all those things, and having to provide for - you don't do that.

@Thepeopleversuswork

"I totally agree with that. Most women (unless they are independently wealthy) face an invidious choice between either being fully or partially dependent on a man (with all the risks that go with that) or having the shape of their lives dictated to a large extent by the demands of their employer."

Ok, but so do men. In theory at least. They choose the latter. Women seem to choose the former.

@Icanstillrecallourlastsummer

Ok, but so do men. In theory at least. They choose the latter. Women seem to choose the former.

But these choices aren't arbitrary and don't happen in a vacuum. Men and women both have vast degrees of societal and economic pressure put on them to fit into one of these "tracks".

Men have historically been expected to be breadwinners (and still are to a large extent despite more female high earners) and are judged for not achieving this. So for them to consciously step off that track makes them anomalous and takes a degree of guts. Some men now embrace that but there is definitely a societal pressure on them to prioritise earning and "providing" over other things which benefit a family.

Women obviously have historically been pushed towards caring and nurturing (and administrative) roles within the family and a lot of them still do gravitate towards these roles.

It's quite hard to buck these trends. An increasing amount of men and women do but its still harder than going with the default.

And actually if men took on a few more traditionally "feminine" roles in the family and women took on a more masculine approach to earning money it would be a net benefit to everyone in most cases in my view, both at an individual/family level and society. I think it would enhance family life to have men be more present and it would massively support women to advance in the workplace if they were able to step up more and do more without constantly juggling childcare/cleaning/life admin. Not to mention the influence on the next generation of girls and boys of seeing a more egalitarian influence from their parents.

Again, I have no problem with people taking the "default" role for their sex and organising their families on traditional lines if that suits them. And I recognise that for many people this is the only viable option.

But when I hear women actively celebrating the fact that they are choosing to "facilitate" their husbands at work and actively perpetuating structures which really hold other women back at work and enable men to keep these structures in place it does frustrate me.

@Thepeopleversuswork

Of course it doesn't exist in a vacuum and of course challenging the status quo isn't going to be easy. Things only change when people fight for change. And it is always balanced against what is best for the individual (person or family). But sticking to the norm does perpetuate it. There's absolutely no doubt about that.

I loathe to say it, but the people who can make the biggest positive difference for gender eqaulity is men acting more like women do, rather than the other way around. I agree with you that would benefit everyone.

@Icanstillrecallourlastsummer

I agree with you about men becoming more like women being the greatest benefit and the hardest to achieve.

Not sure what the solution is to this really except to keep plugging on.

I think it starts by women not allowing men to take such a back seat in the family. It's simply not ok for a father to be out of the house 14 hours a day, coming home for a readily prepared dinner and a quick pat on the head for the kids before he takes himself off to the sofa for a film while wifey cleans, puts the kids to bed and, oh, does all the nightwakings becuase his job is sooooo important. Women (and this is where is suddenly becomes a little circular) can of course remove the financial argument of allowing this (and having to prove their worth by facilitating the earner) by working and bringing in money and not relying financially on another adult to support their lifestyle.

Of course things like affordable childcare etc need to be in place to facilite this.

You see some countries where this is already the case, and gender equality is LOADS better.

But it would be nice sometimes if people with the luxury of not having to work to support their children would stop to think that this rhetoric about "supporting" their husbands to maximise their income unimpeded by the demands of childcare or domestic work is actually quite harmful to those of us who do have to do all of the above.

This is a fair point but I never see the same expected of other people who are able to work unimpeded for other reasons.

This is a fair point but I never see the same expected of other people who are able to work unimpeded for other reasons.

What other people are you talking about here?

People who can work unrestricted by childcare or domestic responsibilities but who don't have a SAHP to facilitate that.

People who can work unrestricted by childcare or domestic responsibilities but who don't have a SAHP to facilitate that.

That's not really comparable as these people don't usually have unpaid support running their out-of-work lives for them.

I dont sneer at sahms

I do think its daft that women give up their independence (financial and otherwise) and I dont see any value to the role

It promotes inequality and sexism.

Most sad also seem to judge working mums but not their own working ohs which always gives me a bit of a chuckle

So maybe sahms should stop being so sneery about working mums if they don't want people to sneer at their choice?

Why is it not comparable? If I start working full time, I might pay a childminder to pick up my children, I might wait until they don't need picking up or my parents might do it for me.
My husbands job isn't going to change to one that means he's home 7 nights a week.
One person on his team had is single and childfree, two have adult children and working spouses. They are all happy to stay away more nights a week, they wouldn't be accused of having a negative effect on others chances.

They can both be men and women though. And generally pre-kids women and men are fairly equal. Most people at some stage have a family though. One of the reasons men are favoured in the work place is the perception that once they do have children men will stay committed to their careers, women will not.

Well there's going to be less on average to coordinate when there aren't dependent DC. Also there are cohorts of people in the workplace other than those with a SAHP who are having their out of work lives coordinated. For example as young adults stay at home longer on average now, some amongst that group will have virtually nothing in the way of domestic responsibilities. And for couples who live independently and have no DC, it's hardly uncommon for the female partner to be the one who in practice does the running of their lives.

It's valid to talk about how some people in the workplace have much more significant domestic responsibilities than others, and the impact this has, but men with SAHPs are only one part of that picture. And it is quite telling that it gets framed as SAHPs look at the impact your facilitation has.

Those people aren't one gender facilitating another though. I think you are being deliberately obtuse here.

It's part of the wider societal picture though, as to WHY someone doesn't have much life slack to pick up outside work. Not having kids is different to having an unpaid support human - and be that a parent or a partner, I think we all know what sex they are overwhelmingly likely to be.

You're not comparing like with like. The comparison is between two people who do have family responsibilities, and the way in which one is advantaged over the other.

They can both be men and women though. And generally pre-kids women and men are fairly equal. Most people at some stage have a family though. One of the reasons men are favoured in the work place is the perception that once they do have children men will stay committed to their careers, women will not.
Yes but my point is only the SAHM are held accountable for it.
Pp said other people aren't comparable despite having exactly the same outcome because their support isn't unpaid but I know loads of people who have grandparents who take over all childcare and often do domestic chores too.
When I worked some of my colleagues never had to stay at home with sick children because grandparents did it, I could sometimes get GP's to help, DH stayed at home if he was local which was rare but more often than not it was me.

I don't think most sahm are sneery about wohm. Most of us have done both at some point. And on mn threads, the criticism of wohm is usually a response to some faux innocent post asking what do we possibly do all day

As for why women tend to sah more than men, yes some of it is societal expectations but to some extent it's also biological, I think. We are the ones who are pregnant, give birth, breastfeed, are home during maternity leave. I didn't want to leave my children. And my work didn't enthral me enough to compensate. Men haven't been through the same day to day changes in their lives and their bodies, so are less likely to change than we are.

Because it's systemic and therefore scews the perception of the genders, and their commitment to work.

You seem to have missed the point. Which is that in the context of mostly women facilitating mostly men, it's only the women who are being asked to think about the wider impact of that behaviour. Worth thinking about why.

Oh come off it. There's not many threads about this topic where SAHMs don't throw out the old "I like to raise my own children thanks" or "I didn't have children for someone else to raise them/ never be with them".