"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 think we've established that it's not risky to be financially dependent on your partner if:
Your father is sufficiently rich to make you 'independently' wealthy.
Or you marry a man who earns such a very high salary, and your own earning potential is so very limited, that any contribution from you would be 'negligible' to him.
Who also believes half of his huge salary in exchange for taking on fewer domestic chores and avoiding half the cost of nursery care, is a good deal; so will never, like so many other 'DHs' of SAHMs on these threads, become resentful, controlling, lazy or superior.
And, who is also significantly less savvy than you. So that while you have taken steps to ensure your ongoing access to wealth in the event of separation, he will have given no thought whatsoever to protecting his assets from you in the event of the same.
Clearly the SAHMs who feel the choice is risk free, have all these boxes ticked, but I'd say they are part of a very small minority.

This whole statement about needing to be "agreeable and attractive" because you don't work and your DH does, is really odd indeed. Why would people think that? I know loads of SAHMs. If they take care of themselves, they do it because they want to and it makes THEM feel good. Why would it be different to anyone else?

And I don't know why you are shuddering Topgub. Don't you have standards for your husband?

I expect him to be an equal partner. An equal parent. Do an equal share if housework

Does that count?

While I can see how power imbalances can happen it's being spoken about as though it's inevitable.
It's not something I recognise in my own marriage.
We were equals when I worked and we're equals now I don't. When DH decides enough is enough with his current role he'll take a step back and I'll start working again. We'll still be equals.
The same with my parents, My Dad was a SAHP for a big chunk of my childhood, decades later my Mum has retired early and my Dad has been the breadwinner for years. They're a team, they always have been.
I'm not saying it wouldn't happen. I'm fully aware many marriages break down. I can see it could easily happen where one party becomes unhappy with the SAHP situation. There needs to be regular discussion agreement from both sides.

"I expect him to be an equal partner. An equal parent. Do an equal share if housework

Does that count?"

Sure if that is what's most important to you.

I actually saw it argued on a thread that it's better for a women to rely on the state to support her and her children than to rely on a man.
Even if the man is the father of the children.

Women have been fed some seriously fucked up ideas which are not serving them well.

There needs to be regular discussion agreement from both sides.

This should be the default if one of you is staying home in my opinion. For example the decision for me to stay at home was between me, dh and my then psychiatrist (postpartum psychosis) and we revisit it regularly. He doesn't want me working "properly" until our youngest is settled at school at the earliest*. She starts next year. My ideal would be us both doing 3 to 4 days a week but his company won't let staff who have asked in the past drop days and they are excellent employers in every other way.

*not because I'm his domestic helpmeet though. He does his share of the house work.

@aokii

Is that not what you meant by standards?

I respect those are your standards, Topgub and nothing wrong with that at all. For us though, being 'equal' never depended on how much housework you do, or who works and who doesn't. It's just not like that.

Why would people think that? Why would it be different for anyone else?

Because not everyone has the life you have, obviously. Do you truly not understand that?

Besides, it's kind of a logical point.

I get what you're saying, OP. I'm the main earner in my relationship but without my partners income I would have less money - therefore I guess I too am "funded by a man"! But then he is "funded by" me! However I don't see it that way as we are a partnership. I'm guessing for most relationships with a SAHP there is also a partnership whereby one party does not feel they are funding the other. There are of course exceptions and there are some absolute twats out there, making some SAHMs vulnerable. However I do think that SAHMs are viewed unduly negatively on mumsnet.

What did you mean though ReneBumsWombat? If you're going to go to the gym or whatever you do to keep fit or feel "attractive" this has nothing to do with whether you work or not. You are the way you are regardless.

@aokii

It was more the idea of being ok with your oh having standards for you because you don't work that gave me the shudder

Bleugh.

Well it wasn't my point so if you want clarification, ask thepeopleversuswork...although to be honest I don't see how you could have missed it to the extent that you did. She was extremely clear.

You still seem to be missing it now despite how clear it is. Now you're making out that she was talking about staying fit and attractive for one's own wellbeing. Are you trying to invalidate her point by purposely misconstruing it?

She was saying that if you are entirely dependent on a romantic partner for your money, then you risk losing that money if you are no longer romantically appealing. It's literally the opposite of doing it for yourself. It's about needing to keep the man because you need the money. Not going to the gym because you like to keep fit.

You may disagree, and if you do, talk to her; I didn't say it. But at least address the point she actually made. She was very clear.

I see what you're saying Topgub. I think standards was the wrong word - probably expectations would be better. Everyone has expectations and in a relationship, you find your own dynamic.

I'd never trust another person enough to be entirely financially dependant on them.
For me, it's more a "not all eggs in one basket" mentality and a deep mistrust of people
Even if your other half is Jesus reincarnate, who would never ever leave, or cheat, or lie or manipulate etc etc - he/she could die and leave you without the support.
It just doesn't seem like a sensible option.

My DH has been away for 2 weeks on business. Who was going to feed, drive my DC to school, wash their clothes etc. etc. if not me?

I work 25 hours a week and my DH has the luxury of having zero stress of doing anything for my DC whilst he works long hours, and travels on business.

So, if my DH earns more than me, because I enable it, he can bloody well fund me. Alternatively I could tell him that I am no longer prepared to do it, due to it affecting my own career, and he can no longer travel.

What should I do?

@aokii

Changing the word to expectations doesn't help

'She was saying that if you are entirely dependent on a romantic partner for your money, then you risk losing that money if you are no longer romantically appealing.'

I didn't specifically respond to that because it's not true (for me) so I genuinely don't know what I'm meant to say about that. I just read it as someone else's projection / assumption. If I was working I guess theoretically my marriage could end if he didn't find me attractive. Either way, SAHM or working, I'd be more bothered about the relationship than the money. I don't see any difference personally.

Agree. I’ve also seen it argued on here that SAHMs should get a works pension paid by the state for services rendered in bringing up their own kids.

I think we’ve moved to an appalling absence of personal responsibility in life and quite often I see that reflected in people who choose to not work and have someone else fund their entire life.

I didn't specifically respond to that because it's not true (for me) so I genuinely don't know what I'm meant to say about that.

Well, maybe you could consider the possibility that it's true for some people and a risk for anyone who is dependent on a romantic partner. She wasn't talking about you specifically, she was talking about a general situation (yet you keep accusing her of projecting).

You seem to be unable to get that not everyone lives your life, hence the "why would anyone feel differently" and "why would I respond to that point if it doesn't apply to me" etc. It's coming over as really obtuse and unworldly, to be honest.

And I do think that if you suddenly found yourself without any income, you'd be very worried about the money. Again, unworldly...

I was struck by the point when thepeopleversuswork said it because a) it was rather logical and b) sadly we do get a lot of women on here who are worried about being financially fucked when their partners are no longer happy in the relationship. It annoyed me to see you continually misconstruing it into something that bore no resemblance to what she said.

But look, it wasn't my point and I have no skin in this game, so there's only so much time I'm going to spend on it. For the most part, I'm finding this an interesting discussion on all sides. But your posts do come across as naive to say the least.

Its not necessarily that a woman who depends on her husband for money has key performance indicators like having to go the gym or hair done or nails done. Sometimes it can be as crude as that but obviously not always. I’m sure plenty of breadwinner husbands couldn’t give a shit and totally love their wives for who they are etc.

But the point about a relationship where only one partner is economically active is that it creates contingency. If the man is carrying the woman financially and she is hot, funny, intelligent, looks after his kids well, cooks or whatever it is he values, he perceives that as an exchange of value which benefits him on a net basis.

If he is carrying her and she breaks the unspoken rules of the arrangement it is going to create resentment. Whatever it is which he values in a woman he will be willing to pay for as long as it’s there. If it’s withdrawn it will change his perception. Whether he acts on that or not depends on the man. But the “contract” is broken.

This therefore creates pressure on the woman (or in rare cases a man) to meet those spoken or unspoken standards. It may not be as crude as “If you put on weight I will leave.” But there are guardrails in place that limit the woman’s behaviour. If those are broken, it jeopardises the financial security which is contingent on them.

You must realise that for most of human history this is why women have been so preoccupied with beauty and the domestic arts. They are currency to be exchanged for security.

This is why so many of us are terrified of being with a man who earns more than us.

ReneBumsWombats - if my husband is going to leave me, then he would leave me. In MY situation, whether I have a job or not is irrelevant to how I would survive financially in that event.I have already said, if being a SAHM was a financial risk for ME (or more importantly my children) I would not have been one. It's as simple as that. I am not unworldly and am capable of assessing my life as much as anyone else.

I did not respond specifically to the "logic" that if you are a SAHM you have to pay extra attention to your "attractiveness" or "amenableness" because this is not "logic" to me. It's not something Ive ever thought about. If that statement resonates with other SAHMs, they can come on the thread and talk about their experiences, but all SAHMs are obviously different and I can only speak for myself. All I can say is , I know a lot of SAHMs and have done over 20 years and I genuinely don't think this crosses anyone's mind. I am who I am and I can't change that.

This whole post is nothing but yet more stuff about you and why the very valid points being made don't warrant any response because they don't apply to you (and yet for some reason you need to make an answering post anyway). It's cementing absolutely everything I said in my previous post and now it's getting dull.

Perhaps respond to thepeopleversuswork's latest post, which is as intelligent and articulate as her posts always are. Just please this time respond to what she actually said.