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 can't say I have seen sneering, but the truth is that when SAHMs aren't working, those who do work are subsidising them by paying the NI that covers the credits that will one day (eventually) lead to a pension, and are paying the tax that pays for public amenities used by everyone.

Obviously a lot of people work because they want to, but it's anomalous that those who can't afford to SAH subsidise those who can, regardless of any salary differential between them and their husbands.

I think there is a difference between pointing out a woman might be vulnerable and treating her as if she is inferior or unequal in her relationship because she isn't directly generating money.

Whether sah is wise really does depend on how each person in the partnership views its worth and on the financial set up of the couple.
But it is also true that working doesn't mean a woman is always free to leave a relationship

I’ve never seen (in twenty years on here) anyone sneering at posters for being “only mums”.

That’s surprising. Finances aside, there are countless posts on a regular basis about SAHM being boring, having no interests outside of their kids, inferences to how the poster’s brains would have melted if they’d spent every day with small kids instead of adults, how SAHM husband’s must find them dull and uninteresting, how they complain about them to colleagues.

There’s a vocal minority who love any chance to stick the boot in to women who don’t have jobs.

"No, but not having a job almost always means a lack of financial security."

No it does not.

This is what I mean. Never assume.

Many SAHMs are only SAHMs because they are possibly some of the least financially insecure women in the U.K.

Yet in MN they are always told they MUST be financially vulnerable.

Actually, i think people who express negativity about the concept of being a SAHM, are often about as far from jealous as its possible to be. They are generally women who enjoy work and value their own careers, would find being a SAHM boring, have genuine concerns or aversion to not being financially independent, and find it hard to imagine other women being happy with that life. Just as some SAHMs find it difficult to imagine other women are happier at work and therefore not jealous of them.
Neither should criticise the other, but when it does happen I doubt jealousy is the motivator on either side.

JOB does not always mean FINANCIAL SECURITY.

Having a job, and therefore the means to support yourself regardless of whether or not your husband sticks around, makes you more secure than being entirely reliant on his income. So many women end up in a position where they’re miserable in their marriage but don’t see a way out because they can’t afford to leave as they rely on their husband to give them money.

It’s a precarious position to be in, and more women need to be aware of it - as well as that marriage only really protects you if there are sufficient marital assets and your husband earns enough that a decent share of the house equity and a sizeable maintenance contribution would be available after divorce. For the many women whose husbands earn a low or average income and who rent their home, they’ll leave with very little and really struggle if they also have no work and have stifled their warning capacity.

It’s not sneering. It’s concern. I was that SAHM who gave up a fantastic salary because of my rock solid marriage and well paid DH who adored his family. He was having an affair while I was pregnant and left me with a 2 year old and 5 month old baby. I suddenly had no income, no family around me, a mortgage and a house in negative equity (it was the 90s). I was only 3 years out of the job market but found it so hard to get back into a decent job and still had to take a drop in pay. CM didn’t even cover the childcare costs. I lived on debt and credit for the first years - and paid for it many years after. I have many friends - several having had highflying professional jobs and beautiful lifestyles - now find themselves in minimum wage roles living in grim flats because their confidence is shot, they need to work around childcare, and the house had to be sold. (Eyeroll whenever posters are told you keep the house until DCs leave school)

I will never be financially dependent again. Neither will my DDs. Anyone who tells me the cost of childcare means “it’s not worth working” I ask them about projected salaries, pension contributions and access to cash. And why is it their salary and not a joint cost?!

The trouble with being aSAHM is that you'll always face criticism due to... well... jealousy.

That old MN trope, "jealousy", which is the only possible reason that people might have a different opinion.

I think a lot of people dont realise how interdependent they are on their spouse for their overall quality of life. Its easy to undervalue both monetary contributions and childcare/housework/life admin contributions.

I also find the focus on sahm difficult because they are such a small group and most of the advice is relevant to working mums too.

I think mumsnet of all places knows the value sahm bring, after all they provide the free childcare and domestic services etc so it isn’t seen as living off a man, more like if you’re going to rely on him for money then make sure you’re protected should he decide to dump you.

Actually generally no the women who can’t leave aren’t working they are financially reliant.

I’ve never seen sneering on here. It’s clear you’re financially reliant on a partner and have issues. If you don’t like rhe site, don’t visit it? You don’t need to read peoples opinions.

Many SAHMs are only SAHMs because they are possibly some of the least financially insecure women in the U.K

Perhaps read that again and have a think

Oh cmon now…in general they are often the most financially vulnerable. Very few are independently wealthy.

Research from the European Sociological Review showed that SAHMs in British were under twice as much financial pressure than in other countries, based in the lack of governmental support and their precarious home financial independence.

The majority of SAHMs are not financially secure, they're seen posting on here time and time again. You might be an exception, that doesn't make it less true that most aren't as secure as if they were working

I think the OP is pointing out that situations such as @Comedycook’s definitely exist and that having the larger income doesn’t necessarily mean that the lower paid partner is without financial resources… and
there’s definitely been some sneering
about SAHM’s on some threads, as well as genuine expressions of concern about SAHM’s being in a vulnerable financial position.

Income alone isn’t the only financial resource that a lower earning partner can bring to a marriage. Like @Comedycook, they may own property, pay a large deposit on the family home. I know some SAHM’s IRL who have significant financial resources and they’d be fine if their DH’s walked away.

I don’t think people sneer at the concept of a SAHM, but it is sad to read thread after thread of women who are financially vulnerable because they have no job or career prospects as they didn’t have anything before having children. Reading those threads of women in their 50s who have to start from scratch because their children have flown the nest and husbands are divorcing them - it’s very sad to see that they have nothing to fall back on, no security etc.

It would be great to just encourage women to have some job or career prospects pre children so that they have an element of financial security before going in to a relationship.

i also think it evens up the power dynamics in the relationship if both parties come to the table with similar prospects and values. I don’t believe that all men value SAHMs and understand how they enable men to advance their career and as a result loads of men think that means they shouldn’t even do a load of laundry or parent their children enough.

It's probably parenthood in general that makes women most vulnerable because it's women's lives which alter the most. Generally it will be the mum who goes part time or gives up work, who gets 'mummy tracked' or phoned by the school every time a child is sick. If a marriage breaks up, it is usually the mum who is rp and has to organise her whole life around childcare.
Fathers aren't even compelled to pay proper child support, let alone actually do 50% of the looking after of kids.
On the whole I do think sahm are more vulnerable but I don't think working mums are protected as much as they might assume. Unless they are highish earners with careers rather than jobs.

I'm not talking about SAHMs who are 'independently wealthy' Summersolargirl.

Families who need two incomes will probably not have a SAHM.

The very wealthiest families in the U.K. are more likely to have a SAHM. Brcsuse they can, really. And those kind of families will not be reliant on 'his' income anyway. They may have property, dividends from investments, ways of making money work for them. Why do you think there are concentrations SAHMs in certain types of areas?

I’m so sorry you went through that.
This is my point too.
Even if legally you’re protected there is nothing that compares to your own salary and pension contributions.
I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with women telling women what can go wrong.
I haven’t come across the bitchy types on here more people advising out of concern.

What exactly is your point here OP?

There definitely are bitchy types though. I've seen sah being compared to prostitution. It's not uncommon for sahm to be called boring (as if having a job automatically renders a person interesting)!

I think that women putting themselves against each other in this area detracts from the real problem of men not being held properly accounts for supporting their dc post divorce (financially and practically)

I don't think SAHM,s are sponging, it's incredibly relentless be the one thats responsible for everything to with the kids, house etc. I would always recommend though at least maintaining a part time job as even if the relationship is sound I know a few sadly very young widows who at least didn't need to worry about having to find a job on top of dealing with the loss of their partner

I don’t think it’s the very affluent Pippa Middleton types you need to worry about, it’s the ones who have been on min wage (if they worked at all) who had to give up their jobs because childcare costs were prohibitive who end up most stuck

Completely agree @ShirleyPhallus. There's nothing wrong with being a SAHM or dad for that matter as long as there is a balance of power and autonomy. Unfortunately there usually isn't. I work part time and my husband dictates a lot. I'm not unhappy with this but I also have the means and the strength to leave him if I need to. I am better supported by family and have equal earning power though so the power balance overall lies in my favour, as if the worse were to happen, I am in a position to take care of myself and the kids perfectly well. He would struggle on the other hand.

Some women aspire to be a SAHM, and that's fine - as long as they have a plan if it goes tits up, or take the risk. Some have good family to fall back on, or their own personal wealth not through earning. Eg. A friend of ours got a generous inheritance and was her dad's pension beneficiary, so she paid off the mortgage and has given up work to be SAHM. She still has her own income. It's all good.

I don't see sneering, I do see a lot of people who have learner the hard way, asking women to protect their own interests.