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!

I’ve told this story before on MN. But I have a friend who is a SAHM. Two lovely school age children. Lovely house. She did do paid work before she had the children, but part time in her husband’s business (and it wasn’t really work, it was really just for tax advantages - it was worth using her personal allowance to take more money out of the company without paying tax on it). So everything she had and did was tied up with him.

It won’t be a hugely shocking twist to this story that a couple of years ago she found out he was cheating. Well, specifically she found messages and explicit pictures from another woman on his phone.

It all blew up. He managed to convince her he wasn’t cheating. He absolutely was, he admitted it to other friends, and the content of the messages was pretty clear. But she believed him because she wanted to. She was terrified of any other options.

He also convinced her that it was her fault. She’d been too wrapped up in the kids and hadn’t been keeping him interested in bed. So in addition to everything else, she now has to be mauled in bed every night, doing dirty stuff she doesn’t want to do.

He’s won in every possible way. Imagine cheating on your spouse and being able to convince them it was their fault. And getting them to have more sex with you. He held ALL the cards in that relationship.

I’m not saying that all SAHMs are vulnerable - smart/privileged ones will ensure they minimise their vulnerability as far as they can. My SIL is one. She’s held onto the flat she used to live in, kept it in her own name, and she rents it out. So she has her own income stream/property if she ever needs to tell my BIL to fuck off. She also has a qualification and career history that mean she could walk back into work at the drop of a hat if she needed to. She’s clever, she’s very privileged, and she’s not vulnerable in the slightest.

But I’ve given an example of a woman who was vulnerable. That said, she’s ok. She’s still in the lovely house. Lots of nice things. She gets to spend lots of time with her kids. Maybe in her head, her dignity and a bit of unwanted anal sex are an acceptable price to pay for those privileges. But some proper work history, skills and experience prior to having children, and/or working PT outside her husband’s business, just might have saved her from having to live in such a humiliating way.

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

These two can happen to anyone regardless of employment, someone who is financially abusive will control all income including what the other person has earned.
If we're going to use MN threads as evidence there are loads of threads about couples where the woman is doing 99% of all the childcare and household stuff on top of working full time. Which funnily enough is an argument often used against SAHP when they say "I do all childcare and household stuff" the scornful reply from the WOHP is usually "I do all that and work"

Taking yourself out of the workplace means getting behind with technology, procedures, training and registration running out in some professions.

Pension issues, you need 35 years for a full state pension, state pension is not that much so unless the family pot can pay for a personal pension for you then it’s not great plus it means no employer contributions to a pension, so always worse.

@FunDragon i agree that working
p-t in your spouse’s business with no legal stake in the business, is very risky and does make you vulnerable.

It’s very different if you’re a part-owner. One of my friend’s went through a brutal divorce, he worked and they also ran a lucrative business on the side. She ran the business while at home with young children and they owned it 50-50. When he left, she bought him out and continues to run it successfully several years later, as she was the real business brain, tbh. She says it makes him angry that she’s succeeded.

And in your noble attempt to stop stereotyping, you're ignoring the material reality for most people beyond an exceedingly fortunate few.

Like I said. Posters mention general truths, someone comes in to complain that it doesn't apply to them, is told that in that case they're not among the people being discussed and....tantrum!

Given the number of highly vulnerable women in that very position...

It appears that of those who do get bitten by this, it's not that they didn't know it was theoretically possible, it's that they didn't think it would happen. Can't hurt to reiterate the need for protection.

Of course, if you really are not vulnerable, then this doesn't apply to you and it's hard to see why you'd be so angry about a discussion for those it affects every day. Your life's great and you're safe, so why attack people for trying to warn or assist those who aren't lucky enough to be you?

That’s why I said “some”, but if you have your own job and career you are at least aware of what’s coming in to your bank account. Lots of threads on here show that the man gives the woman an “allowance” and she has little to no idea of what he does with the rest of his salary

Oh if we're doing anecdotes,
I've got a friend who desperately wants to get divorced but can't afford a house and childcare on her own, so they are living miserably together. They both work full time but overstretched on the house and don't want to downgrade or leave school catchment.

I've got another friend who split with her husband. She was a SAHM, he worked two minimum wage jobs. She moved into rented accommodation, got a place at university, got a council house and is about to start a job. She's really happy.

But I think that life insurance is something which is a relative luxury tbh. For a low earning family, the SAHM who is one because the cost of returning to work doesn’t outweigh the cost of childcare, and maybe the husband is on £30/35k, I don’t believe that life insurance would be a priority compared to everything else.

Putting the woman at even greater vulnerability

Again, who exactly are the 'exceedingly fortunate few?' Who decides who they are? How many are there?

Is it not up to the individual to do their own cost / benefit analysis required/ the decision to SAH for 1, 3, 10 years or indefinitely?

"Lots of threads on here show that the man gives the woman an “allowance” and she has little to no idea of what he does with the rest of his salary"

Do you seriously think I'd marry a man who saw fit to give me an "allowance?"

No SAHM I know would countenance such a thing. They are not that that type of family or mentality. I don't care what 'lots if threads say' really. I care more about what I see in real life.

The trouble with being aSAHM is that you'll always face criticism due to... well... jealousy. It's interesting that men giving this kind of financial/lifestyle advice is just seen as giving advice but women advising other women is described as jealousy.

It's also interesting that the OP seems more interested in focussing on pitting women against each other than instead turning the focus towards men who all too often get away with barely seeing their children and paying a pittance for their children (if they bother to pay at all).

So if you care more about what you see in real life why on earth are you on working yourself into a froth?

pointless

You can work it out through averages.

If you can afford not to work without compromising your individual financial security at all, you're unusual. Rather like if you're happy and you know it.

There's something in kind of bad taste about being in such a position, but complaining because people, when discussing not working, don't acknowledge your fortune to your satisfaction.

I don’t sneer but do roll my eyes when you hear one of the following……
I’m not on the mortgage/deeds/rental agreement etc etc
He pays for everything and gives me a bit of housekeeping
I have no bank account/savings
We don’t have a will
Not married
etc etc

Do you seriously think I'd marry a man who saw fit to give me an "allowance?"

I've no idea. I don't know you.

Many women do.

Another bizarre reply from the OP 🙄

You may not know women like this in real life, but this does happen. And many women on here say how their husband wasn’t controlling before they got married but that they’ve been ground down by them over time to the point of being given allowances.

Youre the one who keeps saying “judge each person by their circumstances” but you are absolutely determined to believe that only your opinion is valid. Particularly that you only know rich SAHMs with perfect husbands so don’t seem to believe in an alternative.

@ShirleyPhallus Fair point. I fully admit to being middle-class and I don’t know anyone who started a family with a household income of £30K.

The way I see it, your job or career is the one thing you get to keep, even if you lose everything. If tomorrow, your husband divorced you, the house was sold, the kids were doing their own thing, what would you have that's just for you? A job is a means to live and thrive. Without one, you'll always be dependent on other people, either the state or someone else, unless you're a one percenter with millions inherited. You've got to look out for number one. Everyone else is. I confess that I don't understand people who don't prioritise their own well being like this, because other people can and do let you down.

See, this is literally what I said in my first post.

Someone mentions "allowances", as many women on here seem to have them. OP takes offence, thinking they're talking about her personally.

If it doesn't apply to you, we're not talking about you.

I'm not 'complaining' about general discussion.

I am talking about threads where a SAHM posts.

If she is posting about being financially vulnerable, then by all means discuss that.

But if she tells you she is not financially vulnerable, what is the point of going on and on about other SAHMs you know or random threads you've read about financially vulnerable SAHMs. What relevance is that to the person posting?

The first time I posted something and happened to mention I was a SAHM someone likened me to a prostitute! I've been told ms t times on here that I'm useless, a tax dodger, that my husband secretly despises me (as will my kids) - all sorts of things from frankly, people who are nasty pieces of work and are all over any thread about SAHMs. All claiming to be feminists. It happened to me last week. It's the culture on here, sadly. I've seen many other SAHMs receive them same treatment and they just give up.

You can deny, deflect and minimise all you want but that is my direct experience in this forum. Totally different to real life. It's just an AIBU phenomenon, but can be horrible nevertheless.

I'm afraid no amount of, "Oh but we've read other threads," "we're just concerned," really washes. Do you think I don't know the difference between concern and someone just being plain nasty? This place is what it is. And I think it's s shame and reflects very badly in women. And yes, I do wish attitudes towards SAHMs on MN could be more balanced and realistic and consider the issue of 'financial vulnerability' from other perspectives rather than just the usual WOHM / SAHM language that polarises people.

@MrsBwced of course you should trust your husband - otherwise you shouldn’t be with them - but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t also ensure your own financial stability for if the worst happens.

It’s just like life insurance, you don’t think about dying all the time or think you’re going to but you still get it just in case

someone likened me to a prostitute! I've been told ms t times on here that I'm useless, a tax dodger, that my husband secretly despises me (as will my kids)

Well clearly that's unacceptable and I hope you reported it.

Very different to the earlier complaints about not having one's wealth sufficiently acknowledged.

@iabr what was your hope for this thread? It just feels like a stand for you to tell us all how independently wealthy you are under a guise.

i don’t suppose anyone argues with the fact that some SAHM are financially secure. But overall - as overall is all you can reference in a general discussion - they are less financially secure. End of story.

i suppose my point for this thread was to hope that whenever someone mentions she is a SAHM, people could try talk to her as an individual rather than projecting a load of SAHM stereotypes. Also the spite and nastiness is not pleasant.

Just like if someone mentions she works 9-5 as an accountant, she wouldn't have to face a barrage of stereotypes and abuse, backed up with 'evidence' by "other threads" about women in a similar demographic or anecdotes from your cousin's neighbours friend or whatever. She can just expect people to hear her out as an individual.