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!

Is a woman on NMW going to be quite so wary of stalling her career or is shacking up with a financially successful guy actually much more likely to raise her quality of life?

Quite possibly. But most people want to marry someone they love; earning power isn't top of the list for most of us. And like I said, a lot of people meet their partner at Uni or through work. It's quite common for people to partner someone at a similar level of earning. I imagine couples where one is on a six figure salary and the other on NMW are relatively rare.

Many couples start out earning a similar amount - it's after having kids that the gap starts to widen. And that's a worrying issue.

Agreed, but I'm talking more about the risk element to be fair. The 'should I give up my job to be a SAHM' element. If you work in retail then it's probs less a dilemma than if you're a Head of Finance.

Although to be fair a lot of studies show that women place financial security much higher than men, which I'm guessing may be down to the traditional setup where the man usually becomes the main provider.

Men were found to regularly seek a loving partner who is physically attractive and healthy, while women tended to opt for a partner with status and resources, as well as someone who was educated, dependable and intelligent.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/what-men-and-women-look-for-in-an-ideal-partner-a6755706.html%3famp

Sadly I think often women do choose poorly paid work. Nothing on our chromosomes gives us a preference for being poorer than men. But still, somehow women choose to go into hairdressing, pet grooming, cleaning jobs, working in nail bars, telephone sales, all kinds of jobs that few men consider for more than a few minutes. Women can choose this kind of job and they do. It’s a fact that women often do choose poorly paid work. ( Which is fine if they can balance their budget accordingly)

when clearly these are obviously female dominated and lowest paid, I don’t think women chose it any more. Decades ago, sure, as they expected to stop when they had kids, but I don’t think young women chose this today, it’s more they do it becayse there is no other options,

I've never seen a man in a nail bar ( though tbf I've never been in one) but they absolutely work in all those other industries, or a close equivalent. Hospitality, retail, call centres, barbers...men all over the place. Not to mention unskilled work in factories, warehouses, labouring. On MN every man might be a high earner doing something vague in the city with IT or other people's money, but in real life far more men earn low wages than are high earners. Do you also think they've deliberately chosen to bypass well paid work for these occupations?

And this goes back to the root of the thread. If it's for income as a couple only, no it doesn't really matter who earns the money. But for financial security for the non-earning parent it does. and arguably for a couple it does too (i.e. two jobs less likely to be lost at the same time, two personal allowances etc). Same re the NMW argument. Just because you are a low earner doesn't mean you have less to lose by relying on a man.

Also, there are distinctions to be made in these discussions - a SAHP to a small or disabled child no doubt provides care. We can argue what's harder (work vs childcare) till the cows come home, but no doubt it's hard work to be in sole care of child all day. But once if that child is in school most of the day, doesn't that change? It's often then that the "facilating the husband" really comes in becuase women say "oh, I couldn't do pick ups around my job if I worked". Why does the woman specifically have to stay home t faciliate this?

Women choose it, but also society pays less (values less) traditional women's work. The gender pay gap is still very real, with women being paid less per hour than men.

Women choose it, but also society pays less (values less) traditional women's work. The gender pay gap is still very real, with women being paid less per hour than men.

I was talking about this the other day with DD, even within the lower paid jobs the men doing them often earn more than women.
Our male window cleaner, traditionally a male role charges £20 to clean our windows once a fortnight, it takes him about 20 minutes maximum.
DD and her housemates employ a female cleaner, traditionally a female role for two hours once a fortnight, they pay her £20 an hour.

Our hairdresser is DD's friends Mum. She rents a chair in a salon, the salon is part of a chain owned by a former male hairdresser. I hadn't noticed until she pointed it out but apparently it's quite a typical set up, she said when you consider it a lot of the big names in hairdressing are men. Lots of salons have full female staff but a male name as the brand.

@MrsBwced it's something I've talked to my own ds and dd about over the years too.

I really hope if they decide to have children, we've moved closer to achieving a society where women and men aren't stereotyped into certain roles.

That said, things have improved over the last few decades. When I had my babies, paternity leave didn't exist! That very much set the tone that the mum is the one whose life is changed by having a baby. My dh was back in work two days after I gave birth. Transferable leave was just a pipe dream!

To go back to my own upbringing, my mother gave up work when I was born and never returned properly into the workplace. She got a little bit of part time work when my sibling and I went to secondary school but tbh she was very 'under employed' and was capable of doing something more fulfilling, but there just weren't the structures in society to support it. When I was at primary school almost all my friends had SAHM, and I think the very few whose mum's worked, used relatives for informal childcare arrangements. Certainly no wraparound care and I think very few nursery facilities.

Society has progressed - thank god- but no doubt there's still a long way to go to achieve a society where there's a better balance

It has progressed yet. But not enough. As long as we accept the difference (whatever it may be) we accept the notion that men are superior or worth more than women. I was on a call where my company was reporting that they were super pleased as our gender pay gap was "only" 13% or something. I wasn't pleased. The gender pay gap should be zero. There should be no "gap" based on gender. Anything else is simply not good enough and I found the fact that they were celebrating any kind of pay gap a bit of a kick in the teeth really.

@Icanstillrecallourlastsummer I completely agree; we shouldn't be satisfied until the gap no longer exists.

I was reflecting really on how it's not just society progressing to provide the opportunities- it's dependent on women taking them up. I feel like my mum didn't really have many opportunities at all and never fulfilled her potential in many ways, though she was a great mum. Then when I came to have my babies things were a lot better - regulated childcare was available and maternity leave existed (albeit very short!) but it was so wrong that paternity leave didn't exist at all. It sent out the message that for the man, life doesn't change; he just rocks up back at the office next day.

Things have improved since then but you're right, a lot more needs to happen but people need to take up the opportunities there. Why is it almost always the woman who takes up to a whole year off? Why is it women who go back p/t if at all? Why is it women who gravitate towards lower paid jobs to fit around the school day? Or put themselves as the first point of contact for the nursery to call if a child needs picking up?

@missdemeanors exactly! And that's why choosing to be a SAHM is bad for gender equality. The system needs to change, but we (men and women) need to change it.

@missdemeanors

Things have improved since then but you're right, a lot more needs to happen but people need to take up the opportunities there. Why is it almost always the woman who takes up to a whole year off? Why is it women who go back p/t if at all? Why is it women who gravitate towards lower paid jobs to fit around the school day? Or put themselves as the first point of contact for the nursery to call if a child needs picking up?

This. This is why a PP (I can't remember who) was absolutely correct to say that the biggest single positive shift that could occur would come from more men taking on more traditionally "female" roles (childcare, domestic work) as opposed to driving more women into "male" roles.

I'm not saying women shouldn't choose ambitious, high-paying roles, those typically thought of as "men's" jobs. They absolutely should if they want to and they are, in large numbers. But in most relationships, regardless of whether they work or not, they are still doing over 80% of the childcare and domestic work.

I've been working in a senior position in a traditionally "male" job for the past 10 years and I got literally no support from my husband when we were married, even though I out-earned him by a factor of three to one: he either couldn't grasp or refused to budge on the fact that I needed more help and for example flatly refused to do any drop-offs/pick-ups or any childcare at all, claiming it was unacceptable in his industry culture. That was the main drive for my deciding to leave the marriage. I was extremely lucky that I was in a financial position where this was an option for me and my career has gone from strength to strength since, although I pay out a fortune in childcare.

But if I'd been earning less than him I'd have had to downgrade my job and my ability to earn money. I'd have been stuck. Masses of women take a back seat at work and go from high-paying jobs with good prospects to the "mummy track", part time work or lower-stress jobs, mainly because their husband and partners aren't prepared to support them enough to pursue their careers full throttle.

The societal bar to women getting good jobs and advancing in them is considerably lower than it was 40 or 50 years ago due to changes in education, culture and sex equality law. There are still hurdles but for women with good support they are mainly not insurmountable. The real rate limiting step is men's unwillingness to support these women with their children and at home which forces women to take all of this on and for most women, understandably, its just too much.

Do you understand how income tax works?
Every individual gets a personal allowance, beyond which they start paying tax.
If one person earns all the money then it's one personal allowance and the extra into a higher tax bracket.
Why would we want to subsidies people for having a SAHM? It's a privilege.

Yes I do know that @OooErr but it would be nice if I could transfer my tax allowance. I don't think it's fair that the state treats couples as separate entities in some circumstances and not others.
If I claim child benefit, it's repaid through dh's salary because he earns above the threshold. But two people earning his salary between them could still claim it. I don't see how this is fair.
Either couples are a unit to the state or not!

As a single person the idea of a man or woman with a stay at home partner getting double the tax free allowance gives me the rage!

it is already expensive enough to be single and childfree. I agree having a stay at home partner is a luxury.

it is also unfair that if I had a baby as a single parent I wouldn’t get child benefit because I earn too much but lots of couples whose household income is greater so get it.

but that’s life. Doubling what will mainly mens tax free allowance would never pass equality screening.

@Thepeopleversuswork your experience shows absolutely how women can be trapped in relationships. Good on you for getting to a position in your career and maintaining it so that you had the choice to leave

@Mellowyellow222 abso-bloody- lutely!

Women fought hard to be treated as individuals when it comes to tax.

@missdemeanors next there will be argument that men should earn more than women because they have a family to support - oh, wait 😂😂

Men can be sahd too. I understand your arguments against the idea, but you can only argue it's unequal if it was only sahm who could transfer their tax allowance and not sahd.
If I decided I wanted to return to work and actively started job seeking tomorrow, I couldn't claim any benefits while doing so because of dh's wage and the assumption we are a couple and share resources. But we can't share tax allowances.

yes , but the majority of SAHPs are women - so in your proposal the majority of people getting their tax free allowance doubled and therefore salary increased would be men. So any men I work with who have stay at home partners would have a larger take home pay than me for doing the same job. To find a lifestyle choice. And it is only men in my work - I don’t know any females who have a stay at home partner. Of course they exist - but it’s a really small proportions.

your proposal means families who take more out of the system than single and childless will be expected to pay much less into it.

a counter to job seekers allowance is you made a choice to be a stay at home parent - so if you choose to return to work there will be an inevitable period of job search. Why should the state fund that?

@Mellowyellow222

Further entrenching the notion that being a sahm is the only financially viable option / just works for their families

I would be absolutely at the notion that a colleague in my workplace doing exactly the same job as me would be taking home more pay than me.... simply because they have a stay at home partner!!

Woh is a lifestyle choice too! For some anyway - it's not always driven by necessity and I don't think one choice has greater moral value than another.

your proposal means families who take more out of the system than single and childless will be expected to pay much less into it.

Im not sure I follow that bit. Everyone who isn't a net contributor is taking out more than they put in. These people may be single and childless, maybe not.

I do accept this would feel unfair to a single person especially one who had children. I do think there is also more the state could be doing to support single parents too - mostly what would help them is making the nrp more accountable, financially re child support etc.

Anyway, it was just a thought, not a fully formed policy idea 😉