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!

Ok - what is it that you think woh don't do then..... In terms of parenting. I mean of course not for as many hours, and certainly not the function of childcare during work hours which is outsourced for obvious reasons, but in terms of parenting functions. This is how it came out last round that the SAHM in question actually only really believed that the woh brought in money and not much else....

To be very clear, I don't have any issue with couple who organise their lives this way.

It's when SAHM's come on here and say that them being at home has been
a driving force in DH's career progress and he couldn't have done it without them as SAHM, that's what I find problematic from a feminist POV. And I have never heard a similar sentiment from a man.

"Personally I do not think anyone is secure if they are financially dependent on someone else"

If by "financially dependent" you mean "income dependent" you are right and I would 100% agree.

Nobody I know, who has made the lifestyle choice to be a SAHM long term or indefinitely, would have done that if they were dependent on the DH income alone. They would not take that risk (not beyond a year or two max). More importantly, they would not subject their children to that risk. Even if the DH is a mega-high earner salary-wise, it's still a massive risk because if he goes, the massive salary goes with him. This is obvious.

In areas where there are a lot of long term SAHMs (through choice as opposed to necessity), these will high asset families (property, investments etc).In these cases, there are many ways to take steps to ensure you and your children are not financially vulnerable. To put it bluntly, I don't think anyone I know would have been a SAHM if they weren't certain they could walk out of the marriage with more then they could have earned themselves over the same period (and more than mitigate against loss of future earning potential and pension). It may sound cynical, but it's the truth.

I doubt they're claiming credit for SIL/DH's progress in their careers however. Which is specifically what I'm talking about

Oh, if you only mean people who are making that claim thekeatimgfive then I think you and I are talking at cross purposes. I know you weren't addressing me here but it's the same point.

Oh, if you only mean people who are making that claim thekeatimgfive then I think you and I are talking at cross purposes. I know you weren't addressing me here but it's the same point.

Sorry yes I do mean that. I tried to clarify in another post, but it has all become a bit confusing.

To be fair there is something in this - the reason working patterns often are difficult for working parents (especially in higher paid jobs) is because so many men still have someone else doing the grunt work.

But that being said a lot of women claim to be facilitating their male partners in my profession by not working. Yet the women in equivalent jobs are working without having someone to facilitate them (usually they have a working spouse rather than me with no spouse).

as a matter of feminism the stereotypical division of labour has led to women individually being poorer and as a class. I suppose though it does benefit some individual women (at least while they are in the relationship) as they don’t have to work and yet can access wealth. But it’s a bad thing for women as a whole imo. And some men too who often barely know anything of their kids lives and are left working stressful jobs when they’d rather not.

It may sound cynical, but it's the truth.

It doesn't sound cynical, it just sounds relevant to only a very small percentage of society. And if you're that well off, it's hard to feel too much sympathy when your only problem is people on the Internet assuming you're not loaded when you are.

@Icanstillrecallourlastsummer
very good point.

Parenting is a relationship. It's about imparting what you believe are good values, providing enriching experiences, role modelling .... It can be done well (or not!) regardless of whether one, both or neither parent works. Parenting is not inherently about WOH/SAH.

I think that yes, rather obviously the structural inequality issue applies to women who live off their dh partially or fully. And to men who rely on women to take the childcare burden disproportionately regardless of whether than person is working or not. Why would it not?

But that being said a lot of women claim to be facilitating their male partners in my profession by not working. Yet the women in equivalent jobs are working without having someone to facilitate them

And there are posts from these women saying that they are at a disadvantage because their colleagues have support. So therefore it must be true that the sahm are facilitating their spouses careers.

Icanstillrecallourlastsummer

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

I don't really care to be honest because 'value' is so subjective as to be almost meaningless. I do wonder why some posters need to bang on about this ad infinitum though. But that's about them. I'm not responsible for these people.

I have my own views about roles that are valuable in society. The difference is, I don't inflict these in other people because I would never expect anyone to care.

I am just amazed that any human being has the sheer arrogance to declare what roles are to be considered 'valued' 'from an 'objective, societal perspective.' I mean, really? Astonishing is all I can say.

'I am just amazed that any human being has the sheer arrogance to declare what roles are to be considered 'valued' 'from an 'objective, societal perspective.' I mean, really? Astonishing is all I can say.'

Astonishing? Really?

It seems pretty obvious to me that being a good parent is a role that objectively, society should value. It is far better for society as a whole to have parents who fulfil their childrens' physical and emotional needs, who love them, impart decent values in them, support their education etc

The cost to society of neglectful or poor parenting is huge- both financially and in other ways.

And of course there are a huge number of paid jobs which benefit society tremendously too.

@iabr I am not talked about value as a person. Be atonished for your out of context conclusions all you want.

I am just amazed that any human being has the sheer arrogance to declare what roles are to be considered 'valued' 'from an 'objective, societal perspective.' I mean, really? Astonishing is all I can say.

What amazes and astonishes you?

I doubt they're claiming credit for SIL/DH's progress in their careers however. Which is specifically what I'm talking about.

Ha! You clearly haven't met my in laws.

I think SIL and BIL would be the first ones to say they couldn't do it without them. Just like my husband says the same about me.

Those are highly unusual situations to be fair.
In the UK yes, although having a SAHP isn't a majority situation either. There's not many at my DC's school especially now they're older, most parents work at least part time.

In none of these cases are the facilitators focused on facilitating only men to do their jobs. And that's the bit that's problematic from a feminism POV.
And this is what I have a problem with.
In doing what works best for my family I am to be held accountable for facilitating my husband's career (though I'm not allowed to say that's what I'm doing)
I should be in the workplace in order for things to change and help pave the way for others.
However those who are employed who could be facilitating change but who have other means to enable them to have a family with minimal impact on their careers because presumably that's what is best for their families are not accountable.

Its not arrogance to say that certain roles are valued by society and others are not. Its an objective statement of fact. Sometimes imo 'society' gets it wrong, like the greater value attached to jobs that make profit as oppose to those that help people; but as a general rule, people value roles that they percieve to bring benefit to themselves and others.
Which is why most people would place greater value on the role of a surgeon than that of a social media influencer, for example.
Obviously within this people's opinions vary dependent on the own priorities, but realistically few people will value a role they don't feel has any positive impact on their lives.
I don't see what wrong with pointing that out, when surely its just common sense?

I think SIL and BIL would be the first ones to say they couldn't do it without them.

Presumably the in-laws have had their own lives/careers though. I doubt they're actually going round asking for that kind of credit however. If they are I'm sure people think they're deluded.@

In doing what works best for my family I am to be held accountable for facilitating my husband's career (though I'm not allowed to say that's what I'm doing)

In doing what's best for your family, you are doing just that - and of course that's your choice to make. However I do think there are wider implications of that.

If what's best for your family is you stepping out of the workforce in order to facilitate your DH's rise within that, then there are obvious repercussions for other women and feminist principles generally. I'm not saying that's your conflict to solve, but at least be aware of it.

women with children competing with men with no childcare responsibilities are definitely at a disadvantage yes. But it’s not true that they need a non working spouse to do their job or that those with someone else to pick up the slack couldn’t be doing more at home. The very fact they are working shows that.

What we do need is for more men to insist on family friendly hours and to take more responsibility with the kids. That would make a big difference to sex inequality.

Which is only a valid point in this context if you consider good parent and SAHP to be interchangeable terms.

However those who are employed who could be facilitating change but who have other means to enable them to have a family with minimal impact on their careers

In none of the cases that you use as a comparison point is anyone stepping back from the workforce in order to facilitate someone else's rise within it.

Yes agreed. It’s not an attack on individuals but these choices have consequences for other women and society in general.

Agreed.

I can see the societal value in good parenting. But does SAHPing mean good parenting? Can that not be achieved by woh parents? It is no benefit to me (or society) that Jane chooses not to work so Bob can work all hours. In fact that arguably has an indirect negative impact for me (for all the reasons we've already touched on). So would I say Jane's role (not Jane herself as person) as a SAHM has societal value. No.

Were it the other way around, so that Bob was a SAHD I would - perhaps unfairly - feel it had more value, because it would be challenging the traditional gender roles that hold so many women back.

ReneBumsWombats

" It doesn't sound cynical, it just sounds relevant to only a very small percentage of society"

Of course it's only relevant to a very small percentage of society. That is precisely because SAHMs are a small percentage of society anyway, and the ones I describe will be a certain proportion of those. I can't tell you the relative size of that proportion. There is no census info. about household wealth in relation to having. SAHM (as far as I can tell, maybe someone has something)? But all I can tell you is all around me, in a highly populated area, that type of SAHM is the norm. I would be interested to see data actually for the demographics and locations of families with women who SAH beyond the ore-school years. I suspect around me there are hundreds of thousands, but hard to know how this fits with the overall national picture without any data to contextualise.

'Which is only a valid point in this context if you consider good parent and SAHP to be interchangeable terms.*'
*
Exactly! And obviously they're not, because there are good, satisfactory and piss poor parents among all elements of society, working or not!

I don't think SAHPs do anything extra in terms of parenting functions. I simply think they spend more hours in the home/involved in childcare while WOHPs work and outsource childcare while they do so.
Neither situation is better or worse for children...some setups suit certain people/families better, or people may not have a choice for financial reasons or because they have a child with additional needs etc.

I just wish people on both sides would stop judging others. On this thread pps have said they don't value what SAHMs do. You can given examples of the opposite. It seems very conceited to me to say one doesn't value what a stranger is doing.