"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.

YANBU Being a sahm is an absolute privilege nowadays but the way it's spoken about is daft. Not every man wants to run off with someone else leaving their wife in the dumps. I actually think times are much worse for women than ever, all this 'have it all' crap. Those who successfully work ft and have dc usually have more free childcare via family or much high than average salaries to pay for childcare. And yet most women are expected to work as many hours as they can. But the truth is society aren't that stupid more and more women are choosing not to have dc and more dc are ending up in single parent homes, dc are not always cared for as they used to be, devices are often used to placate dc as their parents are too tired to discipline appropriately. we're sleep walking into a worse society as a result.

I agree.

@Babymamaroon I don't think it's a problem being funded by a man. Each to their own.
I do however find it disappointing that so many women have no ambition for themselves to earn well.
Why is it the default mentality that the woman will be the lower earner?
As a society is we need to change that mindset.

This ^

@Topgub
I thought it was an odd question because I've already said the answer.
In two of my posts I said when I worked I was dependant on DH's wage to pay the bills and to look after the children when I worked as well as all the other stuff people tend to rely on their partners for.
Now I don't work, so still dependant although it feels less so.

There is a world of difference between two people pooling their finances so both enjoy a better standard of living than either could alone, and one adult choosing to make no financial contribution to the household so the other enjoys less of the money they have themselves earned.
There's a tipping point, where the first moves nearer to the second and this will differ depending on the gap between earnings and the level of money the lower earner saves the higher earner in non financial contribution.
When the point is reached where the earner or higher earner would be financially better off without their partner, that's the point they are 'funding' them.

I love being financially dependant on a man, who happens to be the loveliest and kindest man I know. I love spoiling my husband and looking after our children..I feel extremely lucky with my lot in life and very grateful to my lovely DH.

@SethHazlitt

Well your response seemed odd.

That's why I asked.

You agreed with the op saying you were dependent on a man so you obviously wouldn't ever say you wouldn't be.

The op appears to be about people who are dependent on a man saying they wouldn't be.

I dont think anyone does this

Oh, I see we're at the orling mothers are responsible for all societies ills stage

🤣

I’ve been a single parent for over ten years. I’d love to be funded by a man and be a housewife. After years of doing everything I’m exhausted.

@Topgub
Well your response seemed odd.

That's why I asked.

You agreed with the op saying you were dependent on a man so you obviously wouldn't ever say you wouldn't be.

The op appears to be about people who are dependent on a man saying they wouldn't be.

I dont think anyone does this

I don't see what was odd.
I think some posters probably don't class themselves as dependent when they are. As pp there are varying degrees of dependency.
Obviously some will be completely independent and some will be completely dependent, those situations aren't the norm though. The norm is a shared lifestyle and if you have that then there's some element of dependency.

Mmm. Not sure about that. I was a child in the 70s with a SAHM. I was fed, dressed and my needs met, but my (lovely) mum certainly didn't spend her time playing with me, entertaining me and providing a superior childcare experience. It just wasn't done by the majority then.
Her discipline was stricter than would be the norm today, as was most, but I don't think that was designed to benefit children as much as for adult convenience.
The devices used to placate children these days are not a substitute for fabulous involved parenting from the past, they're a substitute for children being sent out to play, or expected to entertain themselves.

But who are you to decide someone's circumstances better than them?

Sharing a life is not at all the same as deliberately making yourself entirely dependent

But who are you to decide someone's circumstances better than them?
I'm not deciding anything. Someone is dependent or they aren't.

Sharing a life is not at all the same as deliberately making yourself entirely dependent
I didn't say it was.

Yes, personally I would never recommend any woman deliberately making herself dependent on anyone UNLESS she knows where she stands if it all breaks down. Surely that's stating the obvious

I completely understand why some posters on here can't comprehend the SAHM dynamic in a family and that's ok. It's not for everyone and each to their own. Personally, I would never be with a man who wanted separate finances in a marriage. No way. Zero interest. Alarm bells would be clamouring in my ears! And that would be the case even if I was the higher earner. I'd rather be single.

That definitely seems to be what the op is implying.

So many things I disagree with in this post:

a) Of course not every man wants to run off with someone else, most of them probably won't, but the point is you can't ever know and why would you gamble on it? Just under half of marriages fail. And marriage gives you a degree of protection but it won't prevent your finances being negatively impacted.

b) It isn't just about men "running off". It's the marginalisation of the woman's financial strength and general needs when the man is sole earner. Women's careers get downgraded and they get pushed further and further into the domestic sphere because his "big" job is the financial cornerstone of the family and can't be diluted by childcare etc. Maintaining a job, even if its not the "main" job, keeps a woman's hand. It means she has something to fall back on if he leaves but it also makes it harder for him to push her into being solely focused on the domestic sphere.

c) The idea that parenting and discipline are significantly worse now is just demonstrably untrue. I was a child in the 70s and children were far less central to the family than they are now. My SAHM mother wasn't neglectful but she made it very clear she would far rather have been working. There was a huge amount of benign neglect and just general lack of interest in kids in those days. Devices do pose certain problems for sure but there is absolutely no evidence that society is "worse" because more women work.

d) The "have it all crap" is one of my absolute bete noires. I'm so tired of being told that I can't "have it all" by women. No one ever tells men they can't "have it all". What does it even mean? If it means you can't have a job and happy children, it is just not true. If the idea of working and having a child doesn't appeal to you then fair enough and crack on as you see fit but that isn't true of all of us. I work and I have a job. And my life works and my kid is OK and I'm tired of being told by people who don't work that I must secretly be in deep pain about it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other women who can manage it are deluding themselves.

Excellent post @Thepeopleversuswork I agree entirely.

Topgub - can't you just understand that in most marriages there will be some level of financial dependency. As for SAHMs "living of a man" - I would never recommend being a SAHM if you would be left with nothing if it all ended. Definitely not! But it doesn't need to be like that at all. In a SAHM family, you just set things up so you are protected and you know where you would stand. And there's no "his money" or that kind of mentality because you are both focusing on the family as a unit and investing together in everyone's future security.

This

So, if you earned, for the sake of argument, £80k and were dating a man earning £20k who told you he had no intention or prospect of increasing his earnings, and may in the future, initially due to childcare, but possibly ongoing if he felt like it, decide to reduce his hours or stop working altogether, with the expectation of sharing your earnings, that would ring no alarm bells?
If he went on to tell you that he intended to take steps to secure his rights to half of what you owned so he would remain financially secure in the event you separated (regardless of which of you wanted out of the relationship) you would be fine with that?
If he told you that this was perfectly fair because he would look after the children (you wouldn't be allowed this option as you earn too much) saving you the cost of your half of any nursery fees, you would think this was a good deal?
If he then went on to frame the arrangement as being to your benefit, persuading you that without him you could not be successful in your job, so your career achievements are 'our' achievements, you would agree?
I have to say, if I were to be presented with an offer like that from a man, alarm bells would be ringing very loudly indeed, and I'd have zero interest and prefer to stay single.

Three words: "Betsy Broderick case" 😬

Betty*

5128gap - I personally would not go for that type of man, no. Just being honest. Maybe some women would though if they knew they would never want to SAH, but they wouldn't want to use childcare either - so a SAHD would suit them?

But if I was a man who was very career focused or who earned a lot more than £80k and didn't really care what his wife earned because he didn't need her money and valued other things more eg children having their mum at home, then yes.

In reality though, it doesn't usually happen like that in SAHM set-ups What happens is, people get married but are in different types of career. The DH makes a lot more money than the wife because of the type of work he happens to do. As a result, the woman is more likely to SAH when children come along (also she is more likely to want to, let's be honest). Then, in these years, he has set things up to the extent she doesn't need to work anymore and, by this point, they have a lot of shared assets anyway so it doesn't feel like a risk for the wife..

What's that got to do with it?

I just googled and she murdered some people?