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!

Jesus OP did a bee bite your bum??

When people on here suggest an SAHM is financially vulnerable, it’s usually because she is.

Your suggestion that a lot of SAHM are ‘the least financially vulnerable women in the country’ is screaming bollocks, and suggests that you live in a very wealthy bubble.

As you will see from glancing around here or the nearest bus, a large number of women are SAHM because they can’t afford childcare.

When a women posts ‘my husband is an Uber wealthy lawyer on 250k but I think I want to LTB’, no one would say ‘OMG get a job!’ they’d say ring a solicitor.

I assume someone has been mean to you IRL, but anyway, chill.

There’s an equal number of sneering at WOHM being part-time parents, not raising their own children, ‘nursery is so bad for them’ etc.

Of course… confirmation bias. SAHM focus on the posts attacking them. WOHM likewise.

The majorit of sensible posts, with balance comments get ignored in the mad rush to defend against inflammatory comments.

Bollocks. It is always as simple as who earns.brings in what.

They leave. You ned to leve and what do you have. Being very vulnerable.

The SAHMs with the wealthiest husbands aren’t representative of the majority of SAHMs, are they? Your example is like saying we shouldn’t be concerned about how the increasing number of lifelong renters are going to finance their housing costs in retirement because some renters are renting the multi-million pound riverside apartments at Chelsea through lifestyle choice.

I think this sort of thing just emphasises the middle class bubble many MNers struggle to see beyond. Threads about separation invariably focus on Mesher Orders for the house, applying spousal maintenance, making sure he pays child maintenance, fighting for the bigger share of his pension etc. But if you are the SAHM wife of a man who earns £30k tops and hasn’t made any more than the minimum contribution to his pension, and you rent your home, the reality is that you’re going to be walking away with virtually nothing but a couple of hundred pounds a month in child maintenance and into a hard gruel on benefits. Even the oft-advised “log onto online banking right away and transfer everything from the savings into your own account” or “secretly get £100 cash back every time you do the food shop from the joint and stash it away for your running away fund” is bone useless advice for the hundreds of thousands of women whose families have no savings and who can barely afford the bills as it is, where there are no £100s anywhere in the budget to stash in the first place.

I'm part time, earning less than my DH, so technically he is 'subsidising my lifestyle' (I do the bulk of childcare/housework), however my hourly rate is significantly higher than his and I could instantly go back to full time in my band 6 NHS role.

This is very different to being a 'financially vulnerable' SAHM who has never had a profession or has let her registration lapse. If circumstances change and they need to start earning then they will be starting at the bottom most likely on NMW. This is what makes them vulnerable.

I don’t think it’s ‘living off the husband’ that’s the issue it’s the financial vulnerability. Being late 40s I’ve seen too many women give up their careers only to see their marriages dissolve - their (ex) husbands still have a career and financial stability and they’re back to minimum wage roles trying to make ends meet. It’s usually concern not judgement.

My point is, that in AIBU, SAHMs are constantly being told they are financially vulnerable.

If they reply, "er, thanks for the concern, but I'm not," nobody will have it and they are just told they are. Cue post upon post about the DH will leave them; probably already having an affair; they will never work again; they have no pension...., It becomes a pile on usually, and it's very clear that people just project their own circumstances - eg. if I were a SAHM I would be / feel financially vulnerable, therefore it must be so for everyone...,

I'm not denying many women ARE financially vulnerable. But it's never as simple as just having a job versus not having a job. It depends what the job is , but more importantly, what the underlying wealth is.

As I say, if a SAHM tells you she is not financially vulnerable, just accept that and stop insisting she is!

I only thought this today as a lady so know is recently divorced and she's walked away with millions having been a SAHM for about 14 years. She was a teacher before. If she needs to get back to work in the future, it's not going to be impossible. She knew where she stood financially and this is why she was a SAHM. But if she had been on here she would have been patronised and told she was financially vulnerable. I am not a SAHM anymore but was for about a decade. I work for myself part/time from home, as do probably most women I know who have returned to work after a gap. It's not always doom and gloom like it's made out to be on here.

Am sahm. I think the vulnerability comes into it if the couple aren't married and the woman is living in a house owned solely by her dp

I don’t believe this is true. If you have half the cost of a house and no income you’re still pretty fucked if you split. There’s only minimum wage jobs ahead of you for life.

Yes I do. At anyone exploiting a partner to have a lifestyle beyond their means.

As I say, if a SAHM tells you she is not financially vulnerable, just accept that and stop insisting she is!

SAHMs are MORE financially vulnerable than women who are independently wealthy.

Your example of the £m friend is a complete outlier compared to the average woman

I wouldn’t use middle class scenario to justify stating how financially secure SAHMs are @iabr

According to sciencedaily.com , 25% of British society can be classed as middle class, and 6% as upper class.

You example only applies to about 1/3 of society.

“Save the Children estimates there are over 870,000 stay-at-home mums in England who would prefer to work if they could arrange good quality childcare which is convenient, reliable and affordable.

The figures, which are based on new analysis of the Department for Education’s Childcare and early years survey of parents in England, also show that childcare issues are the number one barrier preventing mums from working.” Source

"If you have half the cost of a house and no income you’re still pretty fucked if you split. There’s only minimum wage jobs ahead of you for life."

This is what I mean - assumptions. How do you know someone only has MW jobs ahead of them for life? They could literally be anyone and have done anything before!

There are threads on here at least weekly of women who are trapped due to finances and can’t leave. So yes, not working does mean a certain level of financial vulnerability, particularly if not married.

Because in the absence of any other information, this is an accurate summary of the situation. Attempting to get a decent job after several years, decades of not working is not easy.

You are taking offence at people making accurate points. If I were a SAHM posting about my relationship and other posters said I was financially vulnerable when I wasn't, I would explain why I wasn't and that would be the end of it. Or, if I were vulnerable I would accept that I was taking a risk on the goodwill of my partner/husband. No need to take massive offence over reasonable assumptions made by strangers.

I think it's really important that women (and men) are always in a position to support themselves ion their own ( if it came to it) as no one knows what the fixture holds.
Marriages can break down. Spouses can get sick or die..

Lots of sahp who let their skills lapse run the risk of struggling to support themselves and their families on their own if they had to ..
I'm not sure why you're getting so annoyed by that fast:

It’s incredibly unlikely that if a woman has taken 5-10 years out of her career to look after children that she’ll still have the same prospects to get back in to the workforce. Very sad but it’s true.

I do think its worth remembering not all sahm gave up careers with lots of earning potential. Many will have been in a minimum wage jobs anyway which is why childcare was prohibitive.

This is what I mean - assumptions. How do you know someone only has MW jobs ahead of them for life? They could literally be anyone and have done anything before!

I’m totally lost as to the point you’re making op. It seems to be ‘don’t use an average person as an example when discussing financial vulnerability as they may in fact be a really wealthy person.’

if so I’d say to you….wtf?

"Your example of the £m friend is a complete outlier compared to the average woman"

My whole point is that 'the average woman' is generally not a SAHM! She might be for a year or two, but what I'm talking about is women who SAH for much longer periods, or never work again after children. These are not generally 'average' families making decisions in the context of average incomes. Or even higher incomes.

No SAHM I know has taken the risk of living if a fixed 'income" - ie his income. It's rarely as simple as that.

These families may only account for the wealthiest 0.5% or some such families in the U.K, - of course. I'm by no means claiming long term SAHMs are typical in the population. My point is that it's within that demographic that long term SAHMs (aka women who don't need to work) will be most heavily represented.

The other type of long-term SAHM will be someone who can't work - either due to children with adoption so needs perhaps, or health issues. In these cases, it's even more disingenuous to rant about how financially vulnerable they are as SAHMs.

Just find out the specific circumstances. In general, if a woman tells you she has good reasons for not working, just listen to her and accept what she says. She understands her situation better than you. That's all I'm saying and why I'm posting, basically.

additional needs - not adoption !

Nah, not 'many'. More than zero, yes. But no, MNers not caveating discussion with obviously you may be one of an extremely small group of independently wealthy people isn't actually a problem that needs solving.

"It’s incredibly unlikely that if a woman has taken 5-10 years out of her career to look after children that she’ll still have the same prospects to get back in to the workforce. Very sad but it’s true."

Again, it totally depends. What is to say she even wanted to go back to what she did before? That's rarely the plan with SAHMs who take decades out. As if they're going to expect to just get back in where they left off. They're not. They usually retrain or do something else. Or they're in a financial situation where they don't have to work and it would make no difference if they did do the whole conversation is irrelevant.

Sorry OP but I think you're living in a very privileged bubble.

I don't know a single SAHM who is either a) independently wealthy or b) married to a wealthy man.

Every single SAHM I know does so because the are average middle of the road income families where the cost of childcare far outweighs the woman's earning potential and so they stay at home.

THIS is the "norm".

Without exception ALL of the independently wealthy women I know all work full time.

it's accrued family wealth that determines financial independence

I'm not sure you fully understand what the word "independence" means.

The minute you rely on someone else to support you, you are vulnerable. That’s not rocket science.

In general, if a woman tells you she has good reasons for not working, just listen to her and accept what she says. She understands her situation better than you.

I think you’d be surprised how many women think they are secure when they actually aren’t. A surprising number of women simply don’t realise or understand that they are vulnerable: belief in common law marriage / that if you’ve been living together for X number of years it’s the same as being legally married and you have the same rights comes up more frequently than you’d imagine on MN threads; as does the erroneous belief that if a woman has children she’s legally entitled to stay in the family home until they are 18, and that her husband will be ordered to pay for it.

Some women will, of course, be correct in their assessment of their own security. But don’t necessarily assume it, just because they’ve told you they don’t need to worry.