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!

Actually, I specifically said earlier -several times - that I think the thing that would change society and gender equality the most would be if MEN changed their behaviour.

It's not sneering- it's simply acknowledging the facts which based on real, measurable statistics.

It's a FACT that far more women than men are financially vulnerable, particularly in their later years. Pensions are an area where they're massively more vulnerable for example, and it's fairly obvious that if someone hasn't worked, or has worked only part time, for a significant period of time, then their pension provision as well as their overall earning power and career progression throughout their life, are things that are going to be significantly reduced.

And of course with statistics there are always the outliers - so you'll get the occasional woman who hasn't worked for years but who tells us they're fine because husband earns a shed load and pays into a private pension for her blah blah blah - but these are a very small minority of women.

That's why it makes sense to address a serious issue which disproportionately affects women, and within that category of women, impacts even more on mothers who don't work/ work pt/ work in low paid jobs

Then why do you think it's obtuse to give other examples of mostly men being facilitated by mostly women, in response to a point about only one set of facilitating people being asked to consider the wider impact of their behaviours? It sounds like if anything your views would match the argument that wider discussion is needed?

Because it's without a doubt a fact that women faciliating men this way has an impact. Those men couldn't do what they do without those women and would therefore have to change.

The other people you refer to aren't faciliating the same behaviour at all. It's not comparable.

It does have an impact yes. Given that you're clear men changing their behaviour would lead to the most significant change, why is it obtuse to point out that one group of facilitators and no facilitated are being asked to consider the implications of their choices? The people with the most power are completely left out of this picture.

hey? You've lost me entirely....

And I didn't say only one group should consider the impact of their behaviours....

If there were men on the thread with SAHPs I'm fairly certain they would be being asked to think about the impact of their behaviour.
I'm equally certain most wouldn't care less.
Very few men would be interested in relinquishing some of their own advantage to uplift women, so there very little point in sitting around asking them to see the error of their ways.

I agree with you but there will always be a small minority of women who want this set up.

It’s reducing every single year but you see it on here regularly,

“my wages won’t cover childcare”
“I won’t get this time back”
“ I didn’t have kids for someone else to raise them”
“I run the home and enjoy it, I don’t like working”
“my husband simply couldn’t do his job if it wasn’t for me staying home and raising the kids”
“my husband really appreciates the fact he doesn’t need to do any of the house chores or kids work”
” I’m married so his money is legally mine anyway”
”money is tight but I really don’t want to work”
”working women are just jealous they can’t stay home and do the domestic stuff”.

and on the flip side multiple

“hes cheating, abusing, drinking, violent, absent, but I need his money so I’m staying”

Those men couldn't do what they do without those women and would therefore have to change.
If a SAHM dares to suggest this than they are told it's rubbish, what they do would simply be outsourced if they weren't around or they have no significant impact because after all working mothers do all that and work full time.

Then I'm not sure where you think we disagree?

That's not the comments I see. I don't think anyone denies that SAHMs enable men to reduce their responsibility at home or as fathers. Quite the opposite. But people question the value/ benefit of doing so.

I'm much less certain than you are that men would be held equally accountable, but agree that lots of them simply wouldn't give a shit if they were. However, none of that means framing the issue as simply SAHPs ought to consider the wider impact of their actions is justifiable, especially as there's no reason to imagine people who have made a particular decision for what they perceive to be the good of their families are going to be any more receptive.

Most of what is wrong in society could be fixed if men as a class changed their behaviour!
Starting with paying proper child support - it would make a lot of sahm much less vulnerable if this was properly enforced as a starter.

Personally I'd like for there to be public information campaigns so that non married women know the common law wife thing isn't real. It would be beneficial if couples sign legally enforceable contracts when they decide for one to be a sahp - signalling that they acknowledge the benefit to the family as a whole, recognising that this arrangement will have implications for earning potential etc of the sahp and therefore agreeing that the wohp income belongs to both parties, both now and in the future should they divorce, until the sahp is sufficiently compensated financially. I think this would really focus both parties attention on what they are agreeing to and ensure that neither is disadvantaged or advantaged more than the other. If a wohp won't sign, then you know from the get go that you've married someone who won't protect you if the shit hits the fan.
It shouldn't be necessary but sadly I think it is, at least until we live in a world where men aren't allowed to duck responsibility for their dc.

@Icanstillrecallourlastsummer you might not have seen those comments but trust me, they are definitely there and crop up on most sahp threads.

I think that's a slightly different argument. Often SAHPs argue that their role should be as highly valued as a person's role outside the home, and demonstrate this by explaining that their DH would have been unable to save the planet, negotiate world peace or whatever he does without them. The counter argument is that he could indeed have done it without them, but would just have had to work harder, or pay for the support, like people without a SAHP do.

I think you need to plan for the worse and hope for the best which many women and men dont do. I kept my job, if dh disappears tomorrow I know I could up my hours and keep everything running and the house. We keep separate savings of the same amount so neither of us are vulnerable. I earn less as pick up more of childcare so we pay into a private pension for me. I hope to be married forever but I plan for the worse

It would be beneficial if couples sign legally enforceable contracts when they decide for one to be a sahp - signalling that they acknowledge the benefit to the family as a whole, recognising that this arrangement will have implications for earning potential etc of the sahp and therefore agreeing that the wohp income belongs to both parties, both now and in the future should they divorce, until the sahp is sufficiently compensated financially.

A marriage contract?

I think that's a slightly different argument. Often SAHPs argue that their role should be as highly valued as a person's role outside the home, and demonstrate this by explaining that their DH would have been unable to save the planet, negotiate world peace or whatever he does without them. The counter argument is that he could indeed have done it without them, but would just have had to work harder, or pay for the support, like people without a SAHP do.
That's not quite how I've seen the discussions go.
In my experience SAHP are told this is what they have to tell themselves to make peace with the fact they are in fact spongers or leeches, while simultaneously being told what they do is enabling our husbands at the detriment of everybody else.
I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to be valued by society. Everybody deserves respect regardless of employment status.

I acknowlege that many people wouldn't consider propping up a man as a benefit to society. I can see how it might benefit the individual family (although ref pps's comment on two wages may be better from a tax and secruity stand point), but society, not. Not least because of the negative implications on gender equality.

I have a female friend who is single, works in a low paid job and is judged constantly. I have another female friend who again, has a low paying job but her husband earns big money so they can afford a lovely house and holidays. She is seen as successful. 😕 yet if her husband left her, she would be judged the same as other friend.

Have been sahm. Its def risky if one job goes though. I was home when kids young. Part T now but could do with more hours. Its too risky rely on 1 wage

@MrsBwced a contract within a marriage or relationship.
I guess comparable to when you buy a house - the mortgage is a big financial commitment and you have to sign that you can afford it, agree to the t&c.
One person becoming a sahp is equally a huge commitment with far reaching financial consequences. It wouldn't hurt if people had it spelled out to them what these were.

I don't care if society doesn't value what I do - I saw value in it and so did my husband, and it's our views that matter. But it would be nice not to be insulted.

Do you consider it an insult if someone says that a SAHM doesn't have value from an objective, societal perspective?

Everyone, well almost everyone, deserves respect as a human being, and for their strengths and qualities. Not everyone deserves respect and to be valued by society for their role. If you choose a role that benefits no one other than yourself and your partner, it's not reasonable to expect respect for that, other than (hopefully) from your partner. It doesn't mean people are saying that you're not a valued and worthwhile person, merely that your role of SAHP is not what you're valued for.