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!

@MrsBwced

What goady crap?

You're arguing we should value and respect caring roles and saying women doing them isn't a barrier

Whilst also contradicting yourself by saying your oh not doing them (because he doesn't have a flexible job) meant you couldn't work.

Your proving my point!

Of course you want to ignore it.

@Topgub
The goady crap upthread where you speak for what SAHM wants.

I don't know what your point is. I thought you were arguing for equality for women earlier but now I think your just plain arguing.

'More, more, more. Just listen to yourself...you cannot believe that someone would genuinely rather have less money and more time.'

ROFL - on a thread with over 700 posts where literally no one has said they go out to work just to buy more and more and more stuff! 

Logic clearly isn't @Comedycook's forte. Best s/he sticks to pottering about

We need money to survive - is it not logical that a couple choosing to have less money so that one of them can sah, will favour supporting the job which has the potential to earn the most money?

It was discussed earlier that arty degrees are still predominantly favoured by females - do these tend to lead to jobs which are in the public sector or less well paid? Idk - I did a History and English degree and became a teacher. DS did a History and Politics degree and became an accountant. DS earns more money than I did at his age and has the potential to earn a lot more than I ever would. DH works in the private sector and again had higher earning potential.
So if we want to address societal inequality we need to look at lots of things - most of the change in career progression happens when people have children. Yes, women choosing to sah has an impact but so does lack of provision in the workplace, our culture of long hours, patchy and expensive childcare, people who struggled and coped so pull the ladder up after themselves, the choices we make even as teenagers re degree choices.

We also live in a society where we are expected to have and are taught to want lots of material things. Where a phone costs £1k and your kids want to have them too. Basic things like housing and transport are expensive, so most families need a second wage but are earning them in a society which doesn't support them enough.

And all that said, a lot of women do actually want to be with their kids more than they want a career. And that's okay too - we only get one life and if we can spend it doing what makes us happy then that isn't wrong or deserving of being insulted and blamed for everything that is wrong for other women.

😂 I love the moral superiority of this post - combined with the complete lack of emotional intelligence.

it must be lovely to have that certainty about other peoples motivations and your superiority!

@ImAvingOops I absolutely agree that no one deserves to be insulted for their life choices. And you raise some interesting points about career progression.

However, it's worth pointing out that nowadays, females outperform males at pretty much every stage of education, there are also many more women in STEM based careers than in the past. Also many people partner someone with similar earning potential to themselves. Eg I met DH at university and we started our careers on the same salaries. And this was back in the 1980s so I'm sure even more so the case now. So I think the structures in society are better than ever in the past to facilitate equality- but it does depend on people choosing it.

As for wanting to spend time with the children- well, they were dh's children as much as mine so it shouldn't really come as any surprise that he liked spending time with them too! As I've said in a previous post, I just wish transferable parental leave had been available when we had kids because dh and I would have jumped at it. I think it would have been great for our children to have that balance of 1:1 care from each of us.

I think in many ways, especially considering when I had my first baby, ML was only 3 months (and I was a passionate bf mum!) it would have been the easier option for me to give up work. Even just 30 years ago society was much more structured in a way which made WOH tough... childcare costs were as high proportionately as now, but with no subsidised hours. However, I'm glad I made the decision to keep working and was definitely the right way to keep the balance as much as possible for my family.

So people who work do so just because they want a "flash car and designer shit". Hmmm, OK. That's really profound and I'd never thought of that before.

What about the people who need to work to feed and house their children. Are they also "superficial"?

@Thepeopleversuswork and the funniest thing is she posted this on a thread where literally no WOHP has said they work just so they can buy lots of stuff she's clearly got issues!

@missdemeanors

I try to make it an iron rule to be civil and respectful to posters on these sorts of threads but I cannot hide my contempt for people who lack the intelligence to grasp that sometimes people need to work to support their children.

Invariably the people who come out with this sort of shit are from wealthy backgrounds and have never been touched by financial concerns.

I don't value material possessions either. But I need to eat, house myself and my dependents, and provide a means for us to participate in our community, and for the children I chose to bring into the world to have the resources to access at least some of the opportunities it offers.
Unfortunately within the sector I chose to work (third sector, because making a positive difference to others is one way i measure worth) the pay is poor, and there are no part time jobs that would enable me to afford to do these things.
So, if I wanted to 'potter around' my choices would be to either top up my income with benefits, taken from the pot quite unnecessarily because I am fully able to work full time; or insist upon a man subsiding my choice to reject the work ethic (for myself, not him, obviously).
Neither of which sits easily with me.
You have obviously found a way to have a lifestyle that suits you, which is excellent. But you really haven't gained some special insight into what 'really matters' that the rest of the gullible herd haven't hit on.

@5128gap

Thank you for articulating this in a way I was too angry to manage 😀

So, if I wanted to 'potter around' my choices would be to either top up my income with benefits, taken from the pot quite unnecessarily because I am fully able to work full time; or insist upon a man subsiding my choice to reject the work ethic (for myself, not him, obviously).
Neither of which sits easily with me.

Ah yes the men are allowed a work ethic but of course they are not doing it for flash cars or designer handbags.

Thats a real 90s attitude, all SITC and splurging your wages on shoes and leaving your poor little children wrings hands
Most people I know are both WOH to provide for their families and for their pension.
How will you manage your pension @Comedycook ?
The CII report I mentioned above shows that many women are woefully unprepared.

or insist upon a man subsiding my choice to reject the work ethic (for myself, not him, obviously).

Lots of SAHPs, particularly those with young children, or disabled chikdren, don't spend their days "pottering" either. They work very hard. I don't work within the home, rather than outside it, because I "reject a work ethic"!

@BessieFinkNottle no one is saying you don't. They're commenting on an offensive post claiming that people who work are doing it because they are materialistic and just want more more more.

Ah yes, men work for mortgages and food and shoes for the kids, while women work for Botox and Jimmy Choos. I forgot about that.

@missdemeanors Yes, I know it's intended in reply to a pp, but @Comedycook never said anything about having a partner subsidising her lifestyle (did she?)
SAHPs on the other hand are supported financially by their partners so those comments cut a bit close to the bone.

@BessieFinkNottle

Someone is funding their lifestyle.

Anyone who doesn't work needs someone to fund that lifestyle choice.

I accept that.

What I don't accept is that my DH (and others like him) are doing this because I (and other SAHPs) "reject a work ethic".

I work very hard but it's unpaid work.
And that's not always a choice either. Not really.

@BessieFinkNottle

I think there's often more choice than people are willing to acknowledge.

I havent commented on your work ethic.

But it stands to reason if you've chosen to not work you probably have less work ethic.

If it genuinely wasn't a choice then most of this discussion isn't even relevant to you.

I didn't say you rejected a work ethic.
@Comedycook said they did.
Unless you are allowing a man to support you simply because you prefer to 'potter around' ( in that poster's own words) all the time judging yourself superior to those who work because of your lack of materialism, there is nothing in that comment to offend you.

But it stands to reason if you've chosen to not work you probably have less work ethic.

But this is my point - please listen.
I haven't chosen not to work.
I just don't get paid for the work I do.

And some people do have fewer choices than others, that's hardly news.

I'm not sure @Comedycook did say a partner was financing her to potter around. She mentioned later she'd worked FT, PT, and been a SAHM. It's possible she earned shedloads and made good investments during the job she 'hated.' If that was the case, She obviously didn't count herself among the 'more more more' brigade.
One things clear: she's completely incapable of applying any logic to her posts

Strawman though.
You havent rejected the work ethic whilst going around stating women who WOH do it to buy flash designer goods ( such a 90s argument!) and taking a moralistic tone.
Its been recognised that many women have no choice but thats not what was being referred to here.

Fair enough @5128gap.

I understand what you mean.

Others obviously do think SAHPs are rejecting a work ethic (eg @Topgub) so it's sometimes not clear what people are saying exactly. Thanks for your clarification.

If you are a carer, either for your own child or for someone else, I'm sure there are few people who would suggest you don't work very hard.
But that is a particular circumstance, and different from SAHMs who are not also carers.
Quite frankly, unless they have a particularly demanding partner who believes himself entitled to a certain level of return for his support, those in the latter category can work as hard or not as they please. We all have to run homes. If you have all day to spend on it, you could make a pretty easy life for yourself if you chose. (And once again, that doesn't mean you personally if you are also a carer)