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!

Bloody hell OP, with all the things going on in the world can you not think of anything better to put your energy into?

You’ve been banging on for 3 days, in a very heightened fashion. I think you need to go deal with whatever is actually bugging you.

But presumably someone would only mention being a SAHM if it was relevant to their thread. I mean, I wouldn't randomly mention that I'm a WOHM! I would only mention it if it had some bearing on the topic I was posting.

Oh @iabr this is clearly a matter close to your heart. Because you are all over the place.
"People sneer"
[posters explain why they've said wht they've said , explaining they aren't sneering],
"Oh you aree generalising, I am really rich and financially secure"
[ok, not you but generally],,,
"generally SAHMs are really financially secure"
[that not my experience]
"prove it, your expereince is just anecdontal, generally they are" [ok you prove it]
"...."
"people don't value SAHMs and slag us off"
[people slag of woh mums too]
"no they don't, it's only ever the one rogue poster, and you are just misunderstanding what they are saying. Anyway SAHPs are so valuable to their husbands and society because all that good stuff we do"
[we disgree]
"why are you commenting on the value of SAHPs. :Anyway I don't care about my value in society, beause I am valued at home"
[ok great, good for you, women need to make choices based on their persoan cirumstances, not society]
"but how dare you define me by my status in society!!!! Why are you even commenting on this"
[you started the tread and discussed this....]

Anyway, i think you catch the drift. You invited and continued this discussion. It's not like you asked a question about your cat and then everyone started "sneering" at you being a SAHP out of the blue, is it?

the fact is an adult that doesn't work, and relies entirely on the goodwill of another adult, is financially vulnerable. Are there other factors that can make adults vulnerable? Of course. But that's not the question you asked. Does it mean ALL SAHPs are financially vulnerable? No, and as far as I can see no one is saying that.

Why on earth would anyone do that? I’ve heard they’re not financially vulnerable anyway…

you are coming across as incoherent and angry. If your aim was to say not to make assumptions about people you could have said so instead of endless angry posts about other things.

You’ve been banging on for 3 days

This is unfair. It's her thread! If she didn't come back and argue her case, she would be criticised for starting a thread and buggering off!

Yeah but in this case she started a thread about sahm and then ranted at everyone for talking about sahms.

I have had years in MN of being told I am living off a man, useless, sponging, poor example to my kids, people secretly pity me, stupid, wasting my education, wasting my life, suffocating my children, a skivvy, a surrendered wife, financially vulnerable, naive, don't understand my own mind, no differntv a prostitute... All this and more for years. On a forum for mums. Do you think this is ok?

It's not "advice". Bollocks to that. Every poster in here knows full well what I'm talking about. Drop the pretence. And yes, it is upsetting. Damn right. Its. patronising at best, and vicious at worst. Dismiss it all you want, but it most definitely happens and it's disgusting on this forum.

Anywsy, yes to whoever said it. I am upset by some poster from a few days ago. I shouldn't have expected anything else from this thread either, though at least people have refrained from direct insults, which is guess is something. I've had Covid and my husband is away and I regret in engaging in this thread because it will never change on here.

Errrr, literally noone has said the vast majority that on this thread,, and what they have said was in response to your own comments. Maybe you have heard it elsewhere but, as you yourself have noted, we can't speak for everyone, and you might be reading it from a particularly sensitive place (I think the woh mums were accused of "misunderstanding" - talk about patronising?).

However it sounds like stepping back is a good idea if you are feeling too emotional to debate it.

Well it's clear you're not feeling great and I'm sorry about that but honestly, every insult you've quoted here can be mirrored by something equally offensive to WOHM. It's dull to list it all, but the 'dumping your kids with strangers', 'caring more about money than your kids,' 'part time parent', blah blah blah... you get the drift. Best thing is to ignore it. It's not intelligent rational debate, it's ugly and no doubt comes from a place of deep insecurity.

However, the wider and important issue about the gender issue and financial vulnerability is absolutely something we should be talking about. It impacts us all. The historic social structures which pigeonholed men into being provider and women into being carer. Yes, things are changing but there's a lot further to do. I don't want my adult dd to feel that there's an expectation that she should put herself in a financially vulnerable position almost by default, should she decide to have a baby. Likewise, I don't want my adult ds to feel an expectation that he should be a sole provider if he and his partner have children.

These things are definitely worth talking about.

OP you are living off a man. That is a matter of fact. I would phrase it being financially supported by your husband to be a SAHM.

I agree with you that people have goes at SAHM masked as concern. However I also think that some people are genuinely concerned and there is more focus in society generally on the financial vulnerability. However I accept the latter people are not the ones you are addressing.

OP most people are too busy with their own lives to have a go at SAHM. The people you are referring to you a minority and that minority exist no matter what the situation. I do think there is some heightened emotion/opinions around SAHM mothers. I’d wager some of that is from envy. You are in a financially secure position despite the fact that you don’t work & for some people that is something to be envious of. Some people are presumably motivated by a feminist outlook hence the you are wasting your education comments.

I think you need to deal with how to accept that other people may have opinions of SAHMs. No matter what you do in life someone will have an opinion. No, I don’t think it’s ok that SAHMs are subject to abuse on an Internet forum for mums. But the is the nature of Internet forums once people get going.

How on earth is it living off a man if you are staying at home to look after your (joint) home and DC?! I agree with you, OP.

@sensinggettingcloser it was very clear that the pp was stating a technical fact. If you don't earn and rely on someone else earning. The pp explained that she would phrase it as 'being financially supported by your husband to be a SAHM'

Let's not forget the one who chose the inflammatory thread title is.... the OP!

But the SAHM does earn (just doesn't get paid). It's black and white for me.
Now, if the lady who stays at home doesn't have DC and has a cleaner and a gardener, and goes lunching and to the spa ... then I would agree that she would be living off a man!

Everyone needs money, what are you living off? What money is buying your food, clothes, kids stuff? As I said I wouldn’t phrase it “living off a man”, from the situation the OP has described she is financially supported by her husband to be a SAHM.
Throwing insults at SAHM mothers is unacceptable.
But being in a position where your husband has agreed to support you being a SAHM is a huge privilege in today’s economy and one many simply cannot afford. (Different of course to those forced to stay at home). Let’s not downplay that.

Its shorthand for living off a man's earnings.
Just as working people may say they're living off their salary or retired people may say they're living off their pension.
Although I do sgree the expression has taken on a negative slant, in the same way as living off benefits has. But its still factually correct.
Is it better framed as funded by a man to look after children and a home?

But the SAHM does earn (just doesn't get paid).

Well this is patently factually incorrect.
It doesn't mean she isn't doing something worthwhile. It doesn't mean she isn't filling her day with activity. But she's not earning because you don't get paid to look after your own house and children!

No. It's not being 'funded' by a man. The man goes out to work, either for himself or for someone else. If the former, he 'earns' the money through his efforts (self-employed trade for example). If the latter, he 'earns' the money by spending his time and efforts working for someone who needs his skills.
The lady works in the home, cleaning, cooking and all that, plus looking after DC. Her efforts are just like her husbands (she probably actually spends longer hours when compared to a 9 to 5). She is not spending her time at the spa - she is expending effort in a job which needs doing. It's just that society does not yet recognise that raising children is a job (unless it's a nanny); cleaning house is a job for which cleaners 'earn' wages. The SAHM who is cleaning is saving this expenditure by doing it herself. She is earning. She is not being funded.

'Earning' is not limited in definition to getting paid!
I could spend a day working on a client. I have 'earned' that financial reward. If the client never paid me, I would still have 'earned' it.

This is the sort of comment that invites the responses that SAHMs find offensive, because its really overplaying your hand.
No one else considers looking after their own domestics, 'life admin' and dependents to be 'earning' its just the business of living.

Well it's a nice concept in cloud cuckoo land! I'd be owed a shed load of back pay for all the hours of looking after my own children in days off, weekends, all the hours between picking them up from a nursery session and dropping them off for the next one...

Not to mention all the housework, laundry etc....

Just not quite sure who I'd expect to pay me for the perfectly normal thing of looking after my children and home

And a man is paying her to do his share of those essential life tasks, so is in effect her employer? There's something about that that feels even less comfortable to me to be honest.

I would respectfully disagree that nobody else agrees.
When I was single, nobody paid me to clean my home. That was what I guess you would call my 'business of living'. I could have chosen to pay a cleaner while I was out at work, but I chose to save that expenditure and do it myself instead. That was time spent 'earning' the saving.

The SAHM who is cleaning is saving this expenditure by doing it herself.

The vast majority of working people don't have cleaners you know. They do their own cleaning on top of their jobs.

100%. What funds life - cash, cold hard cash that you earn while working for someone else or running a business, not looking after your own kids and cleaning your own house. To have someone else take on the responsibility of putting bread on the table is absolutely massive and yes I think SAHMs who downplay that invite critics which can then spiral into and nasty back & forth. Having something else earn the money you spend is an massive privilege, mentioning spa days is ridiculous.

Hopefully there will be a societal change in attitude to the SAHP situation - it certainly needs to change. But if there is so much antagonism to the idea that SAHPs do actually earn ... on a forum designed for mums, well, I won't hold my breath!
P.S. of course a husband is not 'employing' his wife to stay at home. It's a partnership. They're both in it together. He has skills. She has skills. They work as a team.