"I could not be funded by a man" - Really?

[aokii]

I have noticed that this line, " I could not be funded by a man" is often trotted out on here. Frequently, it is directed at SAHMs.

I take issue with this for two reasons -

1. Unless you are in the type of marriage where you have totally separate funds, you are inevitably being "funded by a man" to a greater or lesser extent anyway - particularly if you are the lower earner or you work part-time.

2. Unlike in families where there are two working parents, a family with a SAHM is not going to be paying childcare costs. So although the SAHM is obviously not doing paid work, her role is still a direct and significant saving.

No doubt people will come on now and talk about "financial vulnerability," re- SAHMs and this is a fair point. However, it is far from a given that SAHMs are any more financially vulnerable than the next woman. Nobody should ever just assume this.

I'm aware that there will be many women who earn more than their husbands and have separate finances. There will be couples who both work flexibly around each other and will argue a SAHP would not be a saving for them as they don't need to use childcare anyway, etc etc. But I less interested in personal anecdotes. I'm talking more generally about the vast majority of families with parents who both work and have shared finances. Could they honestly say they could maintain the same lifestyle without their DH's income coming into the household? If "no," then they are at least part-funded by a man surely?

AIBU to say that before tossing out the line, "I could not be funded by a man," people on here should look at themselves.

I could quite happily be funded by a man. Or a woman. I would be quite happy for anyone to fund me. Anyone interested in this please do DM me.

I've PMd you. 😉

I’ve not come across that phrase on here

Yanbu whatsoever.

It's almost always used spitefully to put down the woman posting. Women supporting women out of the window on this one.

My OH loved working, I loved being a SAHM and working part time as kids got older, we did what worked for us. I have no problem with others not wanting to be dependent financially on anyone else but as you say most people probably couldn't cover the mortgage and bills alone so they are to some extent dependent if they want to maintain their current lifestyle.

For some people their job is a huge part of their identity though, while for other it's just something they do to pay the bills.

meh. It is often said here when someone posts that they are a SAHM without their own income and they are reliant on an "allowance" from their partner and they don't have access to all the bank accounts.

and yes it is often said to sound superior. I haven't ever said it, but i have thought it. And the only reason is: how would you cope if he dropped down dead, became incapacitated or just ran off without a backwards glance? I rarely actually say that unless someone is doubling down on SAHP-ing being the only way to be a real parent.

I’ve never seen that exact phrase tbh but have seen that some posters clearly think like that. They are tossers.

For me it’s not necessarily about being funded by a man, but if I needed to could I leave the relationship and be ok financially? You could do that as a SAHM by having your own savings/pension, making sure you are an equal owner of the house, and keeping yourself employable should you need to return to work. Of course your ability to do that diminishes with your household income which is why it’s not an easy choice for those families. But it’s not for anyone else to look down their nose at other peoples choices.

Anyone tossing that line out is a twat TBH.

It's always bandied about on here.

My grandmother always encouraged us as women to have our own war chest, so I understand encouraging people not to be entirely dependent (at least save some of your allowance).

That being said, I have no problem 'being funded by a man'. I likely am being funded to some extent 🤔

Yeah, it gets right up my nose. As if women were all waltzing into their work with the diamond solitaire on one hand and the resignation letter in the other, as if redundancy, relocation, lack of affordable childcare, illness and disability weren't everyday features of life that women have to navigate some way or another. It's so trivialising of other women's decisions. I hate it.

I bet they'd be pissed off with a SAHP saying "I would never pay someone to raise my children for me". Which is the equivalent.

What’s worse, is that the people who do say it imply that they’re thinking that way out of concern, when they’re usually not, it’s usually out of spite.

Op

I know this phrase is said by people who it actually applies to. Women who are financially independent.

But I dont want to hear from them.

I want to hear from women who agree with me that its ok to be financially dependent on a man

🤣

😂

Yeah.

Its definitely ar worse to say you want to be financially independent than to sneer that other women couldn't get a man to fund them(wtf) or that they're paying someone else to raise their kids

🤣

tbh i think it might be ok to be financially dependent on a man (or woman - so partner) if you can 100% trust them and the future.

I agree that a "war chest" is a good idea.
As for when SAHP used to say to me "oh i couldn't pay someone to bring up my children" because I worked FT and used a childminder? I used to say, no, i wouldn't either. And leave it at that.

I don’t really get what you want from this thread. People who are not funded by a man are not allowed to post so what’s the point?

Love the idea that well paid women are just too ugly to get a man to pay for them. Tbf I am ugly so you may have a point.

YANBU at all. It oversimplifies the complex and shifting nature of partnerships. For years I earned (much) less than my husband. Now, as my career has developed, I'm the sole earner and he is a SAHP. I'm sure this situation will change again in the future. I don't consider that I'm 'funding' him. Different arrangements work for people at different times in their careers and family lives.

We are a team - initially I earned more had house deposit saved so we could buy in London before prices rocketed / I looked after kids for 6 years and did all life admin / now I earn again he earned throughout. We both pull our weight he supports me I support him. Isn’t that what marriage is? Pretty pointless otherwise.

Generally said by women who no man would want to fund, so in a sense they are right, they couldn't be funded by a man

I hope you point out to your husband that he is a man no woman would want to fund - sucks to be him. 😔

I think you need to recognise that many of the posters who come on here and say their DH funds their lifestyle are often, in the same breath, complaining that their husband is financially abusive or isn’t giving them as much money as they’d need/like.

I think you are being naïve.
when I married, my ex, who was older, earned more than me.
when I went on maternity leave he earned way more than me (this was 1990s and maternity pay was lower and shorter)
when I was working part time he earned more than me
UNTIL
he developed a serious and enduring mental health condition when our youngest was pre school.
Then, my ex was then mostly out of work for next 6 years (and had over 5 short term irrational jobs) and I became main breadwinner. After 6 years he gave up work entirely and did not work at all for next 14 years. I was the only breadwinner.

so, with the best will in the world you are naive to think that it is a safe state to be “funded by a man”. Nor is it a safe state to be funded entirely by a female partner.

if you have children (man and women, married or not) then you are in a partnership that requires both of you to be responsible for your financial security. As I found out, you never, ever, know what is around the corner. Your partner may well be able to support you entirely or partially right now, but that can change in a nano second. Any women who thinks there is security in being a “kept women” is hopelessly naive . We only think that the risk comes with a possible breakdown in the marriage/relationship..but there are multiple other, very common, reasons why the main breadwinner may need to switch between you over the course of that relationship- redundancy, illness, pregnancy and maternity, accidents, etc.

This doesn’t mean I don’t agree with SAHM, that’s fine if you can as a couple accommodate that without causing undue pressure on the other earning partner or even the SAHp ..but fgs do not assume that you can do this whatever happens or indefinitely- you must always have the contingency of what would happen if your partner suddenly wasn’t earning…for me that means a SAHM should be keeping her skill set and employability up and looking over her shoulder at what she could do to earn money in an emergency

that is why I went part time when kids were little. It was actually costing us more for me to work, but it meant we had a safety net that I could easily switch back full time, and it also meant I could earn my pension. As a retiree I am very glad I was sensible in working to earn my pension.

Spot on 🤣.

As long as my babies are fed, clean, warm and clothed and happy. I'd quite happily let a man fund me. A decent one though like I have now.

He'd never leave me high and dry he's a good man.