"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.

Why else did i want to be a SAHM? To watch the weather?

Haven’t read the full thread, not going to lie. 16 pages is a bit much.

The phrase in the OP was judgemental and nasty. I would never use it.

But I have seen so very many women shafted after giving up their future earning potential to provide childcare and housework and support their husband’s career. I think long term ‘staying at home’ is a risk I wouldn’t take it. I understand absolutely why some women do, but I personally wouldn’t. I’m too cynical and risk averse.

@aokii

Why else would I not want to be dependent on a man other than to not be dependent on a man?

Tbf, you literally can't be around for your children if you're not physically there. Of course you can still be a devoted mother but I do understand why some people wouldn't be happy only seeing them for a few hours a day.

I'm not sure that makes sense.

Why else would I not want to drink coffee other than to not drink coffee?

Of course you can be around for them if you're not physically there.

Ask your oh.

You do and say want you want Topgub.

But if you're going to get offended by a SAHM telling you she is not working because she wants to be available for her children without the added commitment of a job, then there is nothing anyone can say to you. That is the very point and definition of a SAHM! Why else do you imsginr it to be? It's what I have done day in day out for almost 20 years. I should be able to state that without people thinking it's a comment about them. Of course it's not.

Well, in the metaphorical sense you can, but most people mean they actually want to be around their children.

I'm not offended

I'm proving a point lol.

Just like the women in your op should be able to state that they don't want to be funded by a man without people thinking it's a comment about them. Of course it's not.

@TokidokiBarbie

Does your oh want to be around his children?

@aokii
Thank you for answering me, and for your honesty. You are clearly in a situation that suits you and your husband.
Personally, I have always enjoyed work and even though I'm at a point in life where I don't have to work, I still do, as it gives me the same satisfaction as your role gives you.
I was around for my children, just not all the time. But i never felt they suffered for that, and as adults they confirmed that was the case and have affirmed it with their own life choices.
Like your husband, i too felt i wanted to provide for my family, and it was important to me to role model that women could enjoy success and make a wider contribution outside of the home, that the aspirations and ambitions of my dsughters were as important and valid as those of my sons.
I hope that you can accept that some of these things are true for many of us who say we wouldn't want to SAH, and when saying 'I wouldn't want to be funded by a man' (which i agree is not the most tactful way to express our desire to work) it reflects a genuine preference rather than malice or envy towards those who don't work.

It's about being available but also about headspace. Where I used to work was very stressful and took up a lot of emotional energy and headspace. The money wasn't particularly great either (public sector)., We have more than several kids, it's not like we just had one or two.

This. 😂

I only work 14 hours a week and I am therefore 80% funded by my husband, or thereabouts. Not ashamed in the slightest. I didn’t realise I had to be.

If everyone is happy, and secure, what’s the issue? Envy?

@aokii

Do you just have much less energy than your oh then?

I can totally understand why women would be wary of being funded by a man. 100%.!! I'm not on a mission to recommend this as the ideal. Far far from it. In different circumstances, I wouldn't have done it myself. No way.

I only started this thread discuss that the issue is not binary and it's too simplistic to say it's only SAHMs who are 'funded by men'. In real life nobody thinks like that and people weigh up their own situations and do what they need to do. That's all.

Do you just have much less energy than your oh then?

Yes!

Then maybe its a you thing rather than a wp thing.

Whst are you telling about now? You just do these one liners that make no sense. What WP issue?

Same here.

I wouldn’t need to work again if my husband died.

Not being able to be around for your kids?

I'm around for mine

🤷‍♀️

How are you around them during working hours?

Have you never heard of life/critical illness or income protection insurance?

We have all three. And more.

Ffs Topgub. Why are you so triggered by nothing.

No I personally did not want to juggle a job in the health service (for a salary less than my DH would make or lose in a day on the financial markets), with 4 children, 3 different schools, a large house, other properties to manage, 2 dogs, various cats, and a workaholic husband who was frequently abroad at the drop of a hat and no regular work pattern to boot. So shoot me down!

Because we have a secure bond?

They can contact me at any time.

I'm not sure I get the obsession with being present 24/7?

Honestly, what do you think you're achieving with those extra hours a week?

I'm not triggered. I'm just answering why I think working parents are around for their kids.

You were so triggered you started a whole thread.