"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.

That’s like saying beware of builders as Fred west was a builder 🙄

I agree @aokii So, is every woman who has children, supposed to work full time then and make sure she earns as much as her husband, and that she has loads of savings, and a cracking pension plan etc etc, lest he fucks off and leaves her after 20-odd years of her staying at home?

Plenty of women stay at home for a generation, and then plop back into the workplace quite happily. According to SOME on here, no woman should ever be a stay-at-home-mum. Daft. As you say, many single women who live alone are financially vulnerable and struggle financially too, as not everybody is on the £100K a year they claim on here.

Ok, let me be very clear.
Most of us working mothers have zero interest in how people fund their lifestyles. Earning, borrowing, handouts, marriage, relationships, depending on other people. Whatever!

What we have a HUGE problem with is, when shit hits the fan, you expect the state to “help” you. That’s not on. That’s the money WE pay in taxes to look after the most vulnerable. It’s not for cheeky people who intentionally put themselves in vulnerable situations.

If you are able bodied, bring children into this world ONLY if you can provide for them. Period. If you already had children without this idea, rise up and become a providing parent. Or Have some plan in place to provide for them. It’s not the state’s job to provide for your kids.

I have never claimed benefits in my life User112. Why are you taking about benefits?

Speak for yourself.
Benefits are for those who are entitled to them. Of course a newly single parent should have a helping hand if thats what they need.

@WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps

So, is every woman who has children, supposed to work full time then and make sure she earns as much as her husband, and that she has loads of savings, and a cracking pension plan etc etc, lest he fucks off and leaves her after 20-odd years of her staying at home?

Why is that such a wildly unrealistic idea? Us single parents have to do that anyway. Why should it be considered unachievable for are married (for whom its already easier by definition because there's support).

Just to be clear, I'm not saying anyone "should" do anything they don't want to. But the whole premise of the OP's post is that women who claim to be financially independent are deluding themselves because they're all basically funded by men somehow or other.

I don't understand why women who aren't independent compelled to tell women who are that they must be lying?

I have never claimed benefits in my life User112. Why are you taking about benefits?

This is the problem with using such a broad term in my opinion. Sahm covers women like me who had a career before children, who have savings, a pension and access to all their partner's wages and family money. Who have studied and done voluntary work in a range of fields all relating to said career across their time at home. As well as women like one of my acquaintance who has never had a job and keeps having babies with various men, relying on the State when the relationship breaks down. However unlike a previous poster, I'd argue she is vulnerable rather than "cheeky" and needs support.

I can't see a scenario in which I'd need to claim or be entitled to benefits. Dh has an excellent death in service/illness package plus insurance and if he left me, I have savings in an account he can't touch on top of our joint ones which would give me a grace period to find a "proper" job (I currently do relief work for the Local Authority in a field which interests me). However I know plenty of working mums whose circumstances are more precarious than mine. Benefits should be there for those than need regardless of what led them there in my opinion.

If I was able to, I would tell every young woman this:

Do not even think about having a child unless you are prepared physically, emotionally, financially, and mentally to raise that child alone.

I know of so many women who were widowed early (under 50) or who lost their husband/ by other ways that were no fault of theirs, and were penalised financially as a result.

So women, IMO, need to skill-up/get qualified/develop a career as a back-up plan.

Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahha

@WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps

So, is every woman who has children, supposed to work full time then and make sure she earns as much as her husband, and that she has loads of savings, and a cracking pension plan etc etc, lest he fucks off and leaves her after 20-odd years of her staying at home?

^ this in spades.

Benjamin Franklin said that there are only 2 things certain in life - death & taxes.
He wasn't wrong.🙂

This site in general is absolutely overflowing with people just waiting to hammer down on SAHP (mothers specifically) and I just don't know why? What difference does it make to anyone else?

I am a SAHM - through choice. My husband earns well and I don't need to work to afford our lifestyle. Our children all go to paid childcare a few days a week so I essentially have a few days "off" every week. But in turn, my husband does jack shit very little around the house as I essentially consider that to be "my job". The reason we do it this way is because my husbands job is demanding, and if I went to work it would mean that inevitably, there would have to be some flexibility from him. And he's not willing to / can't do that (he owns his own business) and quite frankly, I'm perfectly happy not going to work, thanks for the offer, but no thanks. Nobody in real life cares less whether I work or not, and in fact the majority make it clear that they'd do the same if they had the chance.

Thepeopleversuswork - I think you are blowing my original point out of all proportion. I'm not sure why you are bringing single mums into it when it's clear I'm not talking about single mums.

On MN there is a peculiar tendency to try to pit WOHMs against SAHMs as if these are two clearly defined groups - with this assumption SAHMs are taking a risk by "living off a man" while WOHMs are "financially independent". I think this is a load of utter nonsense because obviously, within each "group" there are all types of women on all income levels (or not) and married to all types of men (or not). Many WOHMs will be financially independent, but many other WOHMs will not be financially independent at all, or they rely heavily on a dual income for their lifestyle. Similarly, you can't assume all SAHMs would be on benefits if their DHs left them (as people seem to believe in MN) because this is far from being the case. Some SAHMs will be in precarious positions, but others will be among the most wealthy women in the U.K, plus everything inbetween, just as is the case for women who have jobs.

@wibblywobblybits

I don't think its true that the site is full of women waiting to hammer down on sahms.

I think, as a parenting site, its perfectly natural for how we parent to be discussed. Gender politics too, obviously.

Sahms in particular seem to want to discuss how they need to be valued.

Wms react to things like raising my children/best for a mum to be at home etc.

Sahms (clearly as per the op) get annoyed and defensive if anyone criticises their choice.

I couldn't be dependent on a man and would absolutely not be ok with your situation where the man absolveshimself of any home responsibility in exchange for paying for everything.

You say you don't know why people care but yet discuss your own circumstances.

Folk just like to talk. And while most dont care about individuals these things do affect wider society

See @Thepeopleversuswork posts

"Sahms in particular seem to want to discuss how they need to be valued."

Where am I asking to be "valued."

How could strangers on MN value me when they don't know me? This makes no sense.

Oh Jeeze... I know loads of families where the woman is the main wage earner. I earn more than DH, i wouldn’t want to say either of us “funds” each other.

but, I think it would be very stupid to become a sahm without being married, and without having your own career to fall back on when the kids are bigger

@aokii

Did I say you personally?

I'm bringing single mums into it partly because I'm a single mum so this shapes my perspective.

But also because the fact that single mums have to have financial independence blows a hole through the tone of incredulity you seem to have adopted around the idea of women being genuinely capable of financial independence.

If single mums can do it, married women (who have loads more support) can definitely do it as well and many do.

You're right that you get a lot of threads on here pitting SAHMs versus WOHMs but yours was really a classic of the genre so I don't think you're in a position to suddenly stand back and claim that you think this is a "load of utter nonsense".

I have never used the phrase "living off a man". I recognise that in the majority of marriages there's a degree of financial interdependency and its sometimes hard to separate "his money" from "her money" and that's absolutely fine I have no problem with that at all. It's also true that the fact that a woman works does not gold-plate her against financial disaster.

But the bare facts are that choosing not to work at all puts you in a position of dependency. I (and lots of other posters on here) would not be comfortable with that.

It isn't just a question of whether you'll get some money out of him if you divorce (yes you probably will). It's a broader question about what being so dependent on one person for money does to you as a person and you within the family.

It puts you in a position of dependency and subservience. Not only about money but in lots of other ways. It means you are always the default child-carer and domestic helpmeet. It means you are the person who is always expected to bow out of a career opportunity if there is a clash. It means you are considered the "junior" partner in the marriage. It means that at some level you have to consider your "agreeability" and "attractiveness" to this person who is financing everything, because your failure to live up to his standards can jeopardise your financial health. That changes everything about the dynamic.

Of course that is a compromise that works for many women and I'm perfectly happy for them to live like that if it suits them. But I am not and many other women feel as I do. And I resent being told, as I often am on here, that I'm deluded or jealous of SAHMs or that my financial independence isn't real. My financial independence came at a high price but I'm bloody proud of it.

I was a sahm for 8 years until our youngest started school. I had a decent job before but dh was by far the highest earner with erratic hours as well and as we were moving area anyway it made sense.

Now I’m back at work. I work as a 1-1 ta. I earn barely above minimum wage. So I’m still ‘funded’ by DH. Anyone in a low paying job is likely to be somewhat supported by a partner. But these low paying jobs are often important jobs. I think the parents of the child I support would say my job was essential - he wouldn’t be in school otherwise. If we take the attitude that women (or men!) always need to be completely self supporting then who will be doing these jobs? If dh and I divorced I would have to leave my job to try and get something higher paid which is fine but someone still needs to do the jobs that pay poorly!

Thepeopleversuswork - Wow, that's a LOT of assumptions about someone you don't know snd their marriage, based on a few posts on MN!

Are you possibly projecting slightly because of your own past experiences here?

Why do you keep telling me your financial independence is "real." I know it's real. I respect that, What else could it be?

@aokii

Of course I'm speaking from personal experience: how else could I look at it? I may be projecting a bit too, I'm human.

But hopefully I'm intelligent enough to know not all marriages are the same and I recognise some of them are massively life-enhancing.

I'm not making any assumptions about anyone's marriage. I'm simply stating that if you don't bring anything financial to the table throughout the course of a marriage you dilute your own power.

Of course there are other elements to a marriage and I'm sure husbands with SAHM wives value the the fact that they look after the kids so well and keep a nice home etc. That's an important part of the work of a family and I'm not denigrating that at all.

But the cold hard fact is that it undoubtedly reduces your bargaining power. And many of us don't want to live like that.

WOW! Someone is irrationally angry and bitter. You OK hun?

Thepeopleversuswork - I have been with my husband 20 years now. Yes I have been the "default childcarer", but that never put me in a position of subservience. You talk as if leaving your career to look after your children at home is a step down in life, or some kind of consolation prize. But, for me, that was what I actively wanted to do. I know you and some others find that hard to believe that any woman should want such a thing, but it was true for me.

The "domestic helpmeet" thing - well, yes and no. I always had a cleaner. But I don't feel demeaned by the fact it's important to me to create a home and make myself available for my family. I take care if my husband and he takes care of me. Yes he does have standards for his wife, but I have standards for him!

As for "you have to consider your "agreeability" and "attractiveness" to this person who is financing everything, because your failure to live up to his standards can jeopardise your financial health" - I've never felt this to be particularly onerous. I don't think I'd consider my agreeability or attractiveness less if I was working!

Finally, it's not about "getting some money out of him" if we divorce brcsuse it's long past that stage where I'd be thinking about money. We have our assets and I would be very well off. I would not have been a SAHM if it had been a risk.

Yes I have been the "default childcarer", but that never put me in a position of subservience. You talk as if leaving your career to look after your children at home is a step down in life

Speaking generally from threads on here, I absolutely believe some men take it to mean they hold all the cards so it makes some women subservient by default. Someone up thread referenced their father making all the decisions because he was the only earner for example. Or all the women who don't have access to the accounts, being handed allowances like they are kids. That's not how my marriage works or yours I presume but we might be the minority.

@aokii

Yes he does have standards for his wife, but I have standards for him!

Amd in 1 sentence you've summed up why I would never be dependent on a man.

Fuck me that gave me the absolute shudder

You talk as if leaving your career to look after your children at home is a step down in life

No she doesn't. She didn't suggest that working makes you sexier either, you missed that point too. She said that if you rely on a romantic partner for all your money, you are to some extent relying on him continuing to find you attractive and agreeable. You may not agree with that, but if you're going to argue with her, at least address the points she actually made.

If that post was meant to be a rebuttal of thepeopleversuswork, redo it. I have no skin in this game, but it's a mess.