"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.

Exactly it's a rare couple who don't depend on each other in some form.

Yes I actually agree with the peopleversuswork in her last post. But if I respond, It would have to be personal because I can't speak for anyone else.

Depending on each other is not at all the same as 1 person being entirely dependent on the other 1

So im not sure why people keep saying it

I think at its most simplistic, the working partner becomes the non working partners employer, with certain expectations in return for their money. Some will be 'light touch', others more demanding, but always with the ultimate sanction within their power, should they choose to use it.

I have to disagree with that 5128gap. I don't know any woman who regards her husband as an employer , even subconsciously.

@aokii

Plenty sahms argue its a job

🤷‍♀️

What does that matter?

I'm not sure why not. If they live off money he provides them with in return for managing his domestics and raising his children, what else would you call that part of their relationship?

I don't know what to say to you but it's never felt like that to me.

You have children. They need money and the need care. Different parents organise themselves differently, that's all. For some it makes practical / emotional sense to have two working parents. For others it doesn't.

Well in point 2 of your OP you make reference to SAHMs saving childcare costs by doing this work themselves, so one of things you are taking issue with is the failure to monetise this work, which suggests you have thought about it.
You don't want being 'funded by a man' to be seen as some sort of freeloading, but nor do you want it seen as compensation for work you're doing in the home, so I'm not sure how you want it percieved.

@aokii

Well if its a job, someone is employing them.

And that has to be their oh.

5128gap - does it matter? It's just how we are in my marriage and it's normal and natural for us.,

It is a job.

@WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps

Then your oh employes you.

And working parents have at least 2

🤷‍♀️

It doesn't matter if we are here to discuss nothing but your marriage and your life.

It does matter if the discussion is more wide-ranging than that.

This (along with insisting you’re a chef/nurse/chauffeur/PA, and arguing that your DH couldn’t do his job without you at home) is what makes SAHMs look silly. It’s not a job. It’s work, but it isn’t employment.

@ReneBumsWombats and @Thepeopleversuswork doing an absolutely sterling job on this thread, but sadly to no avail.

It doesn't matter to me, no, other than something to have a chat about. You're the one who started the thread to object to people saying they wouldn't want to be funded by a man.
I assumed what you were objecting to was the sub text you percieved to be behind that, and was curious how you'd prefer the role percieved.
I'd have thought the only two ways of looking at it are either that you feel you 'earn your keep' or that its gifted to you by your OH.

I have no skin in this game, honestly. I could have been a SAHM, we can afford it and my husband would have been supportive had I wanted to, but it would not have made me happy. But I am very respectful of the fact that different people live different lives.

My only concern is for women's security because, while of course there are SAHMs who are as watertight as any of us can be, there are just so, so many who aren't protected and get screwed over and we see them on here all the time. It's devastating.

Regarding this particular thread, I think there are some very interesting and insightful ideas on both sides of the fence. I'm just finding OP's posts to be somewhat naive and limited in scope.

For me, there are things that are joint expenses, his expenses and my expenses. Joint expenses are things like childcare, mortgage, household bills and food. His expenses would be his Xbox game pass, whatever alcohol he buys and his car. My expenses would be my car, gym membership, clothes and weekly coffee from a coffee shop. Lunches bought during work hours would also count as individual expenses too.
Joint expenses should be covered by both, whether that’s by paying financially (whether through work or benefits) or by providing a service (housework/childcare).
I wouldn’t expect my husband to fund my expenses though, I think that’s up to me. I also expect him to cover his own expenses.

It's a defence mechanism. The people that say it are usually trying to reconcile their boring office job in the face of another woman who gets to spend her time how she wants and maybe still drives a Range Rover in spite of not working.

"I'd have thought the only two ways of looking at it are either that you feel you 'earn your keep' or that its gifted to you by your OH."

As you keep directing this statement at me I will answer. I think the SAHM model works best when both people feel they are getting the better deal, to be perfectly honest. I can't speak for all SAHMs, only myself. I'm not going to make sweeping statements about millions of women. In my case, my husband is the way he is which is extremely driven (probably workaholic) and there is no changing people like that. Asking him to cut his hours would not compute. It wouldn't suit everyone, but I understand and respect the way he is I let him do what he is going to do and I support him. I have been dining for 20 years and I don't regret it. It benefits is all anyway and has changed all our lives which is why I did it. It's important to him to provide for his family and I respect that in a man. If you said to him he was paying me it would make no sense to him. Nor would it make sense to any man I know whose wife is SAH. They would laugh.

DH and I are probably both quite all or nothing people. He understands why I want to be around for the children and fully supports that. He has never once questioned it and I don't think childcare or a nanny was something we ever even discussed. I make his life easier, he makes mine easier. I'm happier doing what I do then the alternative. So Is he. He makes time for the kids as he has a lot of energy snd that is a non issue.
It's a joint effort and it has worked for 20 years. If I restricted him in his work or he insisted I go to work, we would have been less happy and fulfilled so what would be the point of that. These days he only works when he wants anyway.

have noticed that this line, " I want to be around for my children" is often trotted out on here. Frequently, it is directed at working mums

I take issue with this because working mums are obviously around for their children. Its used to judge working mums as not being around for their children.

AIBU to say that before tossing out the line, "I want to ne around for my children," people on here should look at themselves?

Topgub ... come on.

You spend all afternoon arguing that the statement - "I would not be funded by a man" is a valid personal view and people are di silly to take it personally.

If I say to you I wanted to be around for my children, that's not a criticism of anyone else. You know this. Who else sound anyone be a SAHM? It's kind of the definition.. If you like, I can say that I wanted to be available to my children without the commitment of a paid job. Is that ok?

I say to you I wanted to be around for my children, that's not a criticism of anyone else.

Ding ding ding