"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.

@aokii

I’m more exercised at the poster who said we were “twats” than I am at you.

But it isn’t helpful that people talk about financial independence as if it were basically a fabrication or a pipe dream. About half of my friends are financially independent.

Its really important to us because it’s protection.

I know some people are dismissive of SAHMs etc so you probably feel this is justified but that doesn’t mean people who are independent are just making it up.

Very sad news about the Queen. I just heard.

@aokii

Him buying a 20 million pound home wouldnt make me dependent on him

@Dinosauratemydaffodils i know it sad that other women feel this way. They talk about SAHMs having a negative effect on women in the workplace, but no woman should be forced away from her child if there is a perfectly acceptable alternative. Then they spout these views and expect that to encourage women back to the workplace sooner, its crazy (i use woman as that was the example given)

Having depressed woman in the workplace is not something we should be aspiring to (obviously only the ones wanting to be at home, i dont mean all women are depressed in work, before the crazies start.) I would not have been a productive member of our organisation if i were forced to return sooner than i was ready to.

Then the issue is why are these women not aiming all their anger at the fact we dont have adequate affordable childcare for all. We should have wages that far out weigh the cost of childcare, it needs to be a more feasible option for those who are forced to stay off. Imo its a lazy way to aim your frustrations as the bigger picture just looks too complicated in solving.

We should be proud that we are a country that was there to facilitate your education. Most people now are paying for a portion (at least) of their education in student loans. Education should be accessible to all.

I cant copy at the moment so just commented on the bits i remember so had to @ you as i couldn't copy it as i normally would.

I don't mean you would suddenly become dependent on him overnight Topgub. I mean that, as his spending patterns and expectations changed, you would inevitably get carried along in this. You would be living somewhere beyond your income; perhaps your children would have different opportunities that you could not provide on your income and slowly but surely, this becomes your new normal over time. So inevitably over a given period, even though you are working as you always did, realistically you have come to be largely 'funded by a man' (because you live with him and his income now determines your lifestyle). And your income may feel more insignificant in the wider scheme. That's all really. I know that is an extreme example, but it often happens to a greater or lesser extent in families over time. It's not always (or even usually) about women " marrying into money" and those threads like the ones the other day miss the point really (I think) because this is not predictable and how can you know how such things will evolve when you meet someone in your 20s, for instance?

@aokii

Oh my goodness

That thread was specifically about marrying for money

I'm not sure why you're so determined to twist it into something it's not.

Are you trying to prove that sahms have no choice but to be dependent on men cause that's bullshit for most.

The very choice to be a sahm creates dependency for both partners

Or maybe you just can't imagine how wome could also be capable of earning their own money and funding their own lifestyles?

Do most people not have insurance for this kind of thing though? We were told that it was a requirement for us to take out our mortgage.

We are also lucky in that my husband's job has fairly generous life assurance and income protection schemes on top of our own insurance. So I'm not particularly worried about my finances if such a dreadful thing were to happen.

There is a very valid point being made though. Women who are pro work or say they would find not working dull, a waste of their education, insufficiently stimulating, are nearly always accused of jealousy or 'protesting too much'.
There does seem to be a belief amongst some SAHMs that staying at home is living the dream. Yet somehow they never think their working husband's are getting a poor deal, or that men are jealous of them; or stop to wonder why if work is such a poor deal compared to staying at home, more men don't insist on being SAHPs.
If men are happier at work, why is it so hard to believe some women are too and consequently their comments are not based in jealousy?

@5128gap I agree with your post. I don't care if other woman want to be at home if that's their choice but there is often (on MNs) the narrative that every mother dreams of this. I genuinely do not & my friends & colleagues say similar. And there is absolutely a double standard where it's seen as a positive that the father "loves his job", "thrives in the workplace" etc whereas this would be negative traits in a mother, pisses me off.

Of course I can imagine women funding their own lifestyles. What a peculiar thing to say. That has nothing to do with it anyway. It just seems to me sometimes that people on here have weird ideas about SAHMs. The fact is, phrases like "living off a man", although silly, are something most SAHMs would only really encounter from women on MN or from abusive husbands. This, to me, is quite striking so that's, why I mention it really.

and yes & I wouldn't afford the same lifestyle without DH but nor would he.

I wouldn't want to not work and yes, don't really like the idea of asking my partner if I can have some money to buy myself something, but I really don't care what other people do.

I do need my partner for a decent standard of living, so we are not financially independent of each other, but the idea of not earning any money whatsoever terrifies me. I would happily work PT if I could though, just wouldn't want to earn no money at all.

I could still afford my mortgage & general life without DH though but not much else!

And once again

Someone saying they wouldn't marry for money or want to be dependent on/be funded by/live off man has nothing to do with sahms in the context of saying you wouldn't marry for money .

Or in general really

I know some sahms struggle with this sometimes but newsflash they're a minority that most people don't give a second thought.

As he claims polygamy is the natural state for men, but that women should just shut up and serve men and never go out, I'm surprised he didn't join the Islamic State when that was an option. He could still f off and join the Taliban though. At least he'd be off social media (and hopefully they'd do away with him).

Arrrggh sorry - wrong thread.

I'm not sure what you're talking about to be honest Topgub.

@aokii

Its perfectly clear.

Youve twisted people saying they wouldn't marry for money into an insult on sahms.

I mean, I've seen some sahms twist a lot of threads round to why no one values them but this is a new one.

I'm funded by a man and we deliberately had our first baby together before we got married. The ultimate mumsnet horror!

No, I don't care why people marry -and I don't take 'living off a man' as an insult anyway. Im the first to say that's true for me (although DH has "lived off me" in another sense). I'm just saying those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You cared enough to start a thread about it even though you've no idea what kind of houses people live in.

What do houses have to do with it now?

The glass houses you just mentioned. Do keep up!

Sigh.

You just said people in glass houses.

But you've no idea if people are in glass houses or not.

You're just presuming because you can't imagine not being dependent (I presume?) That others must always be too.

Arggggh - I mean those who ARE in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It's obvious what I mean anyway.