"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.

Oh my actual god

I got what you meant.

My point was you're claiming people are being hypocrites when you've no idea if they are or not!

Why not just take it at fave value that those who say they wouldn't, aren't?

Why presume they actually are and are just being hypocrites or lying?

When DC1 was little we were completely dependent on each other, we couldn't afford to live without both wages and couldn't afford childcare so worked around each other.
I felt more dependent on DH then than I do now I don't work although I'm aware being financially much better off now has a lot to do with that.

I'm not saying anyone is lying. You said that.

If someone is adamant they don't want to be funded by a man - why not? Good for them. Be single then or don't share your money with a husband. Or earn more and have him as a SAHD. But if you are going to claim outrage about women who are funded by their husbands, just check you are not one of them to some extent first. That's it.

It hasn't occurred to you that they already have?!

And once again and I can't emphasise this enough clearly as you keep ignoring it

A woman saying she wouldn't be funded by a man is not expressing outrage that another woman is.

She's just saying she doesn't want to be.

We've already gone through that and I said all I have to say - why are you trying to go in circles?

Sorry I have genuinely lost your point. So you don’t object to women saying they wouldn’t be dependant on a man unless they are lying about it but you don’t think anyone is lying. So what are you annoyed about?

@aokii

Because you don't make sense

You don't seem to be able to accept that women can not want to be dependent and achieve that and for that to have nothing to do with sahms

Well I was 100% funded by a man for 14 years before I returned to work part time - and I bloody loved it. BUT had my marriage not survived, I’d have been in a very precarious position. I can see why people do say they couldn’t be funded by a man. It’s actually sensible.

Oh my god.

It's very common in MN to see the phrase "living off a man" directed as SAHMs.

I don't take it as an insult personally, but I can see why some might, esorcidkky fir women who have no choice but to be a SAHM (and often it is intended as a bit of a dig to be fair). Just as "I could never use childcare" could be just a statement of personal preference, but equally could be a bit if a dig in the context of the threads on here. People get very defensive and we've all seen it time and time again and we know how it all goes yadda yadda yadda rah rah rah and let's not pretend otherwise.

I was saying that it seems to me that quite often women who are married and have shared finances with their DH claim that they work because they could never "live off a man" like a SAHM. But in many cases, they probably are dependent on him to some extent, particularly if he is the higher earner, so, in such cases, what are they on about? I've seen this a fair bit recently. That's all. It's not that deep.

I've never seen that phrase on mn.

I've never been funded by a man.

I'd happily be funded by anyone.

@aokii
I understand your point. I'd imagine the majority of working couples live off both wages. As I said when I worked I was reliant on DH's wages just as much as my own and needed him to look after our child so I could keep my job.

SethHazlitt - Thankyou for understanding what I'm trying to say. If I was working, I would still be largely living off DH's income anyway.

@SethHazlitt

Would you say you would never live off a man?

But this is really odd… who has to “check”?

I’m absolutely certain that I am not living off a man. I pay my own mortgage, my daughter’s living costs. Why would I have to check?

Even if I was married and family money was shared (assuming I worked) I would know what I earned and what my husband earned and would be able to work this out?

At any rate it’s perfectly possible to be the lower earner in the marriage but still earn enough to be able to maintain some independence if the worst happened.

I have never seen anyone suggesting it’s wrong to benefit in any way from the earnings of your spouse, simply that it’s unwise and undesirable to be wholly dependent on them. There’s a big difference between having a shared mortgage and having absolutely no income and thus making no financial contribution.

You can have no income but still have shared mortgages. You can have no income and have all kinds of shared assets with your husband. Conversely, you may have your own income, but you're with a man who won't give you access to his assets or out anything in joint names.

But this is really odd… who has to “check”?
I would imagine OP is referring to posters who have the means to support themselves if they needed to but who are currently in a relationship where the family lifestyle is based on a dual income or where they are reliant on their husband for something else, childcare for example.
If you're lifestyle is supported by your husband it's disingenuous to say you wouldn't be dependent on a man.

Well you’re apparently not interested in the opinions or “personal anecdotes” of people who don’t fit your criteria. My partner and I both earn more or less the same so while I can’t say my lifestyle wouldn’t be different without him, either can he. And we have separate finances. But yes I guess based on your very specific criteria where only people who fit your model (those being married women who earn less than their husbands) are allowed to reply, yes you’re totally right. 🙄

@Topgub what do you think?
Would you?

It's well known that it is cheaper to be in a couple. Single people find it much harder to buy houses for example, buying in bulk is cheaper etc etc.

So anyone in a relationship is probably being somewhat 'funded' by the other.

Absolutely. The median house price where I live is $1.9m. I work part-time. No way on god’s green earth would I be able to maintain my current lifestyle on my salary alone. Props to those women who, unlike me, don’t work in the arts and are fortunate enough to work in finance or BigLaw and can afford to live where I do.

Exactly. I've seen the ideal family set up posted many times as being both parents working and sharing childcare.
I'd agree in many ways it's ideal but it also requires a degree of dependence that is often not acknowledged.

Nope. Could still not be funded by a man. And that's my opinion. I have always made my own money and paid my own way. Unsure why anyone would take issue with that..

However, whether other people could, is up to them. However, it's not for me.

I get this. But again there is a world of difference between sharing finances on your mortgage and household bills for example and earning nothing (therefore having all your outgoings covered by your husband).

I have rarely seen people suggest finances should not be blended at all, clearly that’s difficult in a family and blending entails some dependency.

”Don’t live off a man” is basically shorthand for “Don’t give up your job”.

@SethHazlitt

I've said repeatedly I wouldn't ever be dependent on a man

Odd you didn't answer

i lived through my Dad leaving my Mum when we lived in a foreign country for another woman. He barely gave us any money and my Mum couldn’t work as she had little work experience and didn’t speak the language. We went from being very comfortable to being on the breadline and struggling to survive. It was an extreme circumstance but my one driving force in life has always been to be self sufficient financially and not depend on (or be funded by) a man. The man I live with is actually dependent on me right now. If he left tomorrow my finances wouldn’t be affected. This is a personal anecdote but must be true for many others. So I don’t agree with your theory. And I will also be sure to install the same mindset in my DD that I have. Thinking about her potentially being funded by a man one day and the vulnerability that comes with that fills me with dread.