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!

@iabr there is no way that being a SAHM makes you as finicial secure as working part time or full time for that matter.

You surely must comprehend this. After reading the finicial abusive stories on here I think it's a naive thing to be posting.

Quite

Some people have always had a job rather than a career. It's not just the wage when your relationship breaks down there's many factors of what a job would bring in terms of colleagues, the potential support and the "job" motivation REMAINS the same weather it be a "career" or not..
In UK there's a welfare system so either way you are stronger to be having any kind of job rather than no job at all 🙄

Ohhh and your pension.

I think some of the arguments are a bit contradictory.
On the one hand a SAHM is not living off a man as without her he could not pursue his career. Which is seen as a good thing for him. Possibly also for the family, provided the relationship last the distance, which many of course do not.
On the other hand the SAHM is not disadvantaging herself by not having a career as careers are something that can be picked up again at will.
Why is it important for a man to be facilitated to become successful in his career and more financially secure, but not for a woman?

That's bullshit too... a man will a career regardless of the woman being a SAHM. Or do all the men with a working wife not have careers?
single men? It's a mans world.

I quite agree.

It's absolutely not the case that, "Without her he could not pursue his career". Just another trope that's often repeated on these threads with little basis.

The more common scenario where the SAHM is trapped is one where the man doesn't have much of a career, either.

For "men with careers" there's often more money around which funds childcare and better enables the female to also maintain/return to her career.

I earn a third of what my husband earns and my pension valuation is probably about 5% of his currently. I have also earned zero and he's been the sole provider when I was doing full time childcare.
We are married and all income is in one pot. We agree our financial priorities together. We also have equivalent life insurance recognising our contributions.
It's not about dismissing SAHMs it's about ensuring they can get themselves protected especially when they aren't married.

It's disingenuous to pretend you don't know that I'm talking about in regard to anti-SAHM vitriol and stereotyping on here. It's as ridiculous as saying you're not aware of MIL threads on AIBU!

To the pp who goes off and finds some thread on "Money Matters." Are you joking? Obviously that's not what I'm talking about! That's a person specifically asking for financial advice. It's a different type of poster in that section.

If a SAHM (or anyone) tells you she is financially vulnerable and is actually asking for advice, then fire away.

I'm obviously talking about the irrelevant nastiness on AIBU. And women being told they MUST be financially vulnerable - "not like meeee, I'm soooo independent..."

Look at that poster Imsoproud or whatever she's NC to who says she is er, well... very proud of herself. Was I asking anyone why they are not a SAHM? No. It's starts like this on the threads ... "Oh I have too much self-respect..." Then the sweeping generalisations come - you are vulnerable; your husband is this and that; rah rah rah. Then these posters inevitably show their true colours. I've been called a prostitute many times, for instance.

I'm not even a SAHM anymore, but was for years. No difference to the poster balance. No difference to financial independence.

power imbalance!

I disagree with this. I know two widowers who really struggled to maintain their careers because the cost of childcare that allows you the level of flexibility needed for some careers is so high. These men were also completley comfortable with the child's mother doing bedtime every night etc but felt unable to leave it to staff so had to stall/change careers, both had to move to cheaper homes.

I also think a lot of men build their careers during the early years of parenthood rather than having the career in plac, so they havent yet got the big income. Even if they have good childcare in place and a working spouse, they still rely heavily on the working spouse /sahm to do much more of the nursery drop offs, overnights when he is in a trip etc. My dh lived in another country to build his career, only coming back every oher weekend. He was totally reliant on me to do all the wrap around etc. If i stopped he would have been stuck at a much lower career point.

I think a lot women facilitate their partners careers and this is rarely acknowledged.

I don't feel like a 'kept woman' - I feel like a woman who is in a partnership, where we each contribute different things!
He provided the money and I provided childcare and the security of never having to worry about work when the kids were sick/school holidays.

I certainly don't feel unequal or as if there's a power imbalance.

I think there are a lot of women in awful relationships where sah would make their lives worse but there are also plenty of dual income families where neither can afford to leave - you need to earn a fair bit to maintain a home and children as a single person.

I still come back to the view that it isn't sah which makes people vulnerable, more society's reluctance to hold men responsible for their children post divorce. This is what allows them to screw over the mothers of their children.

I know plenty of women who after their kids go to school find it hard to get back into the workplace. This is a combination of time- if you take 7/8 years off finding a job is not easy.
If you then don’t need a job/can work PT only then your family finances are such that you belong to an uber wealthy subset.

The reality is that for many women with average qualifications the problem is that even when kids go to school there are school holidays and school hours and finding a job that fits around that (usually with a husband who does much less housework) is impossible. Especially when you have been out of the work force.

Also I think it’s fine what your OWN individual circumstances but you are as at the same risk of sweeping generalisations that you are accusing others of.

I would bet a lot of money that SAHM or WOHM most marriages involve a considerable level of power imbalance. This is why women do the invisible labour. The mental load that women carry. The last minute school costume? Presents for Christmas? MN is literally full of threads where women go above and beyond in the holiday season with their useless partners doing the bare minimum. That’s an imbalance.

There is a lot of research on how when BOTH men and women work the same hours, women still do the majority of the housework. It’s called double duty. That’s an imbalance.

There is also research cited above about women who would like to work but can’t because of the cost of childcare (which means that childcare is seen as the woman’s job- not a cost that comes out of the family income). That’s an imbalance.

These power imbalances are well documented. Your saying that it doesn’t apply to you…means it doesn’t apply to YOU. It applies to many many many people (as the research demonstrates).

I still come back to the view that it isn't sah which makes people vulnerable, more society's reluctance to hold men responsible for their children post divorce. This is what allows them to screw over the mothers of their children.

Yes but a woman can't change society's attitude, she can only control her own circumstances (to a certain extent). Besides, it's not only divorce which can put you in that position - also life-limiting illness or loss of a partner etc.

Well yes, but women attack each other for making choices according to their own circumstances and preferences instead of appreciating that the real problem isn't the choices that women are making.

There is an imbalance in the amount of mental load and house stuff women do, irrespective of whether they sah or work full time. Arguably sah evens things up a bit in that the woman is refusing to be responsible for everything - earning money and all the thinking/doing for the house and kids?

I don't really get the argument that childcare is a shared expense and that women need to stop offsetting the cost against their some salary. It's still money gone from the household income, however you slice and dice it. Some people consider it an investment for future earnings, some can't afford to make the choice and some would prefer the easier home life of not balancing 2 jobs along with raising kids.

I would agree with you though MangshorJhol. You just described just a couple of differing scenarios and this is my whole point. There is no typical. Like I said, if someone (SAHM or working) posts about being financially vulnerable, then comment / advise accordingly. But equally, if a SAHM (or anyone) tells you she is not financially vulnerable, then just accept that and, for want if a better expression, put a sock in it. No need to declare or speculate or or lecture her about what her must children must surely think; or what her husband wants or thinks; or random anecdotes about Bob the office who left his wife or whatever.

Some salary = sole salary. For some reason my autocorrect doesn't recognise some as a word!

Fucking phone

I don't think it's sneering. It's usually just expressing comcern that so many women end up in a precarious financial situation.

This

I've also seen threads where a woman wants to remain a housewife, and it's clear their partner/husband isn't really willing to support them to not work (particularly with older children). In those cases people will tend to advise that it's not sustainable (or fair) to continue refusing to work for an income unless your partner is happy to support you financially.

Op, most of the time people don’t RTFT and that’s why they go on and on about financial vulnerability. A lot of posters will just read the first post. Then the op posts they are financially secure later
Many sahp on here, that come for advice, are vulnerable. I’m on here loads and have lost track of those who are unmarried and given up their careers and then their partner dumps them.
If an op put that in the event they split they would still be rich beyond their wildest dreams, then those posting otherwise are just assuming they are the more typical sahp on here ( and not reading)

No it is definitely sneering in AIBU. It creeps into every SAHM thread. Loaded phrases such as 'leeches,' 'no self-respect,' 'little woman,' 'the 1950s' 'brain dead' - I could go on. All on AIBU in recent weeks.

If people want a discussion about structural inequality there is no need use spiteful language. The difference is glaringly obvious.

If you see people making those comments report their posts, there are mean people everywhere, no need to get so sensitive about it

I think feeling sensitive it reasonable if someone has called you a leech or said you have no self respect for being a sahm

You'd have done better not tying a valid point about spiteful use of language to the frankly daft insistence that a SAHP who considers herself not financially vulnerable must be presumed correct.

ApplesandBunions - if a woman tells you she is not financially vulnerable, then who are you to tell her otherwise, just based on the one fact you know about her, that she is a SAHM? Can you not see how that insistence could come across as patronising? Why would you think you understand her situation better than her? I find that so odd.