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!

@alphapie in fairness I have seen a fair few posts about SAHM and finances, generally they are mostly negative.

Yes, what the OP continually fails to understand is that there is a legal framework here, and that it's entirely possible for a random MNer to have a much better understanding of it than a woman posting about her own circumstances.

ReneBumsWombats - I did not intervene on a thread by women complaining they are financially vulnerable, to say they are wrong. Ffs. I started the thread for the exact opposite - to try to get people to stop stereotyping! Some SAHMs will indeed be financially vulnerable and those SAHMs are perhaps more likely to be posting on AIBU or relationships. But that cannot be used as an excuse to stereotype all SAHMs. Nor is it an excuse to be spiteful. There is never a need to be spiteful to anyone. Can't stand those sort of posters.

If you want a constructive discussion about SAHMs or women who work PT, try listening with an open mind to the full spectrum of women who do just that. Obviously they are as varied as any other women. If you're only prepared to think about SAHMs as 'vulnerable', that's your prejudice blocking you from a fuller and more realistic understanding.

But it's natural for people to generalise. A minority of SAHPs are financially secure, we have seen time and time again posters come on here claiming they're financially secure and it turns out they really aren't.

Most SAHPs leave themselves financially vulnerable and many don't even realise it.

Add that to the weird view many on here display that this concern comes from jealousy it's just a bit mad.

@Icanstillrecallourlastsummer
Many couples will already have things in place in case something does happen to the man (obviously life insurance but there are other options as well).
Obviously if your husband is on minimum wage and you are planning to spend your life living pay check to pay check as a SAHM this would be pretty stupid to do. But that’s very far from the case for many.

The other thing is not every woman wants a career as such that consumes their life, so accepting that they may not have the same income if something happens to their partner is a choice they make. I don’t feel the need to try to match my husbands earning potential just in case something happens to him, so I can continue exactly as I am - because that would mean my life right now and with my children and him wasn’t what I wanted it to be.
But I know I wouldn’t be on the street if he died early or something.

Death is financially one of the easier things to protect yourself in the event of, particularly if the SAHP in question is married. That's one risk that can be mitigated if you throw enough money at it.

Obviously I am only speaking about cash here, the death of a partner is absolutely devastating whatever one's arrangements and I wouldn't wish to suggest anything could make it any less so.

I don't think the reason a women should be financially independent (to an extent that works for her) has anything to do with being a SAHM. My mum was a SAHM and had nothing to her own name when my father passed (except a house which unfortunately still had a mortgage on it, which she could not afford to keep. It was a huge struggle for her. However, she grew up in a time when NOT having financial independence was the norm. Lots of things changed during her lifetime, and are still changing now, so that when I started work, my mother drummed it into me to be financial independent - not independent within the relationship of husband and wife, but to ensure that if anything happened to my husband, I would be financially okay. I listened to her wise words and I am now 67, my husband is 71. Although I still work full time (my choice) and my husband still runs his own business, albeit on a much smaller scale - a business which he started after serving 35 years in the military, I now find myself in a position where I collect pensions from my previous jobs (which became payable when I was 60), still receive my salary and have not yet claimed my OAPension - which in itself is a form of saving. All this has made me feel very comfortable and given me peace of mind that I would be able to carry on without too much worry if anything happened to my husband. I'm not saying everyone should work until they are 67 and beyond - that is my own choice, but I do believe that every woman should be putting something aside for the time when she is able to leave work and still enjoy life (as unfortunately everything costs these days) as they do when they were earning. I hope that all makes sense as I realise I have rambled a bit, but what I am trying to say, in a very garbled way, is that whether you are working, not working or a SAHM, please do try to put a little away for your future, twilight days - and if you can't do it now, do it as soon as you are able - life will be so much easier if you do. SAHM or otherwise

@Wollycraft66 but you might be if he left you? Or if he became abusive and you wanted to leave him. Life insurance doesn't pay out then of course. And Ive seen the whole "he would never do that" be proven wrong a fair few times. On here and in real life.

Of course we all risk assess and prioritise differently. That doesn't mean the vulnerability doesn't exist though.

"A minority of SAHPs are financially secure"

How do you know it's a minority? Have you done s survey?

What is your definition of 'financially secure?

Can you imagine any other factors that may contribute to how financially secure someone is?

Are all women who work financially secure? What is your framework for comparison?

'Financially secure' in relation to who? Over what time period? In what circumstances?

As stated in another comment, surveys have been done on this.

"A minority of SAHPs are financially secure"

How do you know it's a minority? Have you done s survey?

If she hasn't, it'll be the same as you assuring us that the majority of women who report not being able to leave bad relationships are working and that many SAHPs are the antithesis of financially vulnerable. Those are both direct quotes from you on this thread and you clearly don't have anything to back it up or we'd have seen it by now.

I did not say "SAHMs are the antithesis of financially vulnerable" (but you know that). I said some will be and you never know who you are talking to. So better to listen to an individual, rather than assume.

If anyone is going to make a statement that "most SAHMs are financially vulnerable, then you have to define what you mean by that and in relation to who and what. Eg. in relation to someone in minimum wage with no savings, or a woman on £x with 2 children? What is the framework for comparison?

A minority of SAHPs are financially secure, we have seen time and time again posters come on here claiming they're financially secure and it turns out they really aren't.

Most SAHPs leave themselves financially vulnerable and many don't even realise it.

Interested to read the reasoning behind this as it's not something I have seen on MN.
I've seen SAHM who are financially secure and those who aren't, who are fully aware of the fact they aren't but have decided the risk is one worth taking.

There are posters who have taken the risk and it hasn't worked out but that's different to them being unaware in the first place.

I find it hard to believe there's a huge majority of SAHM who aren't aware that not having independent income means they don't have independent income.

Didn't say you did. I said, correctly, that you said many were. Here's the direct quote from 11.08 today

many SAHMs, contrary to the MN accepted discourse, are the antithesis of financially vulnerable.

You didn't provide any evidence for that either, for this or your claim that the majority of women who say they can't leave bad relationships are working. If unverified assertions with nothing to back them up are a problem, stop making them yourself.

I think the reason people get frustrated and snippy at many SAHM on here is that they often insist THEY don’t have to worry as THEIR relationship is rock solid.

But many posters have experience of thinking that and then their world turning upside down in a day, minute, hour. So it’s frustration that some women stick their heads so deep in the sand it comes across as smug but also stupid frankly considering the weight of evidence on this forum!

It would be interesting to conduct a survey about SAHMs geographic locations across the U.K. You would first have to define SAHM for the purpose of the survey - eg. someone who hasn't worked for 1 year, 5 years, 10 years? Someone who is a SAHM indefinitely is likely to be in a very different demographic than someone who is just taking a year or two out to avoid childcare.

Then define 'financially vulnerable' - would you mean risk of being homeless? Less than £x in available funds? Less than the average salary - savings in the U.K? What?

I would expect to see 'clusters' of SAHMs in certain areas. For instance, there are large SAHM demographics in parts of Surrey for example. Definitely, areas of London have a lot more longer-term SAHMs than average. Wealthier areas will probably be more SAHM-heavy.

Similarly there may be clusters if SAHMs in other areas where they are not working because the cost of childcare is prohibitive.

Then there will be everyone and everything inbetween. I would suspect that some SAHMs would be very financially vulnerable, but others not at all when measured against some sort of national average. But unless that survey is carried out, who knows?

@iabr

"Then define 'financially vulnerable' - would you mean risk of being homeless? Less than £x in available funds? Less than the average salary - savings in the U.K? What?"

The main vulnerability comes from no longer having the working parent's income. So a SAHP might not be financially vulnerable while in the relationship, but be extremely vulnerable without it.

Why is it frustrating that some women trust their husbands though?
Surely everyone trusts their partners unless they give them a reason not to.
I wouldn't be married if I didn't trust my husband regardless of my employment status. I'm certainly not going to change my mind just because a stranger on MN has had a relationship breakdown.

Icanstillrecallourlastsummer - Few SAHMs I can think of in real life are 'income dependent.' Very few women don't work for decades are happy to just live on a given salary, even if it's a very high one. It is rarely like that in my direct experience.

If the SAHP had half a million in savings, for example, I don’t think they’d be classed as financially vulnerable, even if they would be potentially homeless when the family home was sold. I agree that those types of SAHP’s are very different to the “average”SAHP.

By my definition, SAHMs are financially vulnerable because:

• they are reliant on someone else giving them money


• they are reliant that that one person who gives them money is going to be trustworthy, faithful and not die in the immediate future


• by putting themselves out of the workforce they are losing earning power by the month / year


• if they are in the situation of having to work again they will be disadvantaged by it


• some SAHMs aren’t in control of budgets and money but receive an allowance - vulnerable


• some SAHMs are treated as skivvies by their husbands and do a proportionally higher amount of work

The main vulnerability comes from no longer having the working parent's income. So a SAHP might not be financially vulnerable while in the relationship, but be extremely vulnerable without it.

And people are seriously suggesting SAHP are unaware of this?

Some or all of that may be true ShorleyPhallus, but equally, it may not be.

Good points, @ShirleyPhallus
although the impact of a spouse dying depends on the life insurance situation. If DH or I die, the surviving spouse will receive a very large payout, we sometimes joke about this when our cooking is questionable. 😂

The main vulnerability comes from no longer having the working parent's income. So a SAHP might not be financially vulnerable while in the relationship, but be extremely vulnerable without it.

And people are seriously suggesting SAHP are unaware of this?

EXACTLY!