"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.

Well of course working parents are around for their kids when they're not working. No shit Sherlock.

Do you think parents of school age kids aren't around for them when they're at school?

Around for them means much more than physically being with them. In exactly the same way as you think funded by means more than just financed by.

You're being such a hypocrite its unreal lol.

People with that viewpoint tend to see people from the viewpoint of liberal capitalism, whether they recognize it or not. We are each independent atomic individuals that must pay our own way. And that in the paid economy, work that isn't paid doesn't have real value.

The fact is that is an illusion in pretty much every case. Most people do depend to some extent on two incomes if they have them. And sometimes it's the other way round too - I know a couple who at the moment are going through some issues. The woman, who is very career focused, and was explicit that this was to maintain her independence, has now realized that she can't maintain the pace of her career without her husband who does a lot of the day to day stuff like lunches, drives, etc. And she doesn't want to live apart from the kids.

Families where people can remain truly independent tend to be very well off financially.

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.

How have you come to this conclusion?

Of course you have a bond with children and you don't need to be there all the time Topgub. But that goes without saying and it's not the point, I did not want or need to have to factor in a job as well as 4 DC or have to use childcare.With 4 kids there is nearly always something. And me being flexible made sense financially too because DH's income was not comparable to mine so it was just basic common sense to prioritise that. Also, I loved being at home and being able to focus in the family. When they were at school there was loads to do, but if I got some 'me time' then, great. You have take it when you can and learn to not feel guilty about that. Otherwise you go demented and what use is that?

I was always on the end of a phone, and until they reached their teens, 5 minutes away, with a flexible, supportive employer, so while not physically present, I was on call.
For 13 years of their childhood, the vast majority of their own time was spent out of the house, so my sitting around passively waiting to be activated should they require something would have felt like a huge waste of my time, abilities and education. Had I filled that dead space with other commitments I wouldn't have been there either.
As their mother, I've obviously always seen my role as central, but never have I deluded myself that I'm the only person able to care for my children, and without my unique presence they would somehow suffer. That would have been arrogant in the extreme.
Giving birth does not come with magical abilities, and there is much difference between indulging ones own desire to be and do everything for your child, and genuinely being the only person able to provide them with the 'best' of care.

We are a family. Families support each other in all sorts of ways, money is just part of it.

This! There's nothing wrong with spouses relying on one another, with children relying on their parents, with grandparents who want to help and contribute. We don't have to all be on our little islands. We all do better when we work together for common purposes.

On a bigger level, we are reliant on one another in society and the roles we play support each other. The unpaid labour of caring for the young, the disabled, the elderly, is of vital importance to society. Our community would fall apart very quickly if the bins weren't collected or post wasn't delivered. We should all respect and value the role that each of us plays in the maintenance of society, and this is not defined by how much you are paid for your labour.

I'm really not suggesting you should have done anything else 5128gap. I'm sure you're a fantastic mum.

In my case, I had one baby, then two years later another, then 2.5 years later another, then 2 years later another. By the time they were all in school, about ten years had passed. I have no family in this country. I did not have the type of husband where I could predict his hours or tell him to be regularly home at x time. He is lovely but he is very full on and can be quite demanding as well. It is what it is and if he woke up and said he needed to go to Milan or wherever it may be, he just went. Yes, I was the default one here, but that was the whole point. It wouldn't have improved my mental health to get a nanny in so I could go and do a job for money we didn't need. I don't think it's arrogant to say I'm better for my kids than a paid person. There's no way a nanny would have done what I have done and why would I want the hassle of a nanny?

I don't feel I've wasted my education because my degrees had nothing much to do with my job anyway..I have put a lot of energy into my kids education for many years and our eldest is about to start at Cambridge in a few weeks, when the school wrote him off as having a 'concerning spiky educational profile' when he was 7. I have researched how to help him and worked in a lot with him in specific ways over many years so he can fulfil his potential at school. Another one does a music-related thing that has required a lot of ferrying all over the country. In almost 20 years, I've probably had about 2 nights away from my family..That's it. So, these days, if I want to do some things for 'me, damn right, I will. Life shifts. DH only works very part-time now, he spends more time in the boxing or in his bike, frankly. And we still have 4 teens at home and usually a houseful of their friends. When they've all gone, we plan to spend more time in back in Italy if we can, it will just be the dogs and cats to sort out.

If you are in a couple it's a mutual dependency though not just one person relying on the other.

I wouldn't rely on a man to fund me, that's not a dig, I have a lot of pride in bringing in an income, I've established myself really well as a freelancer and I'm very proud of that. And I wouldn't be comfortable feeling that my whole lifestyle is purely determined by my parter.

I don't particularly care what other people do, if making money for you isn't important and your parter is happy to earn the family money while you take care of the home then you do you. I know a few people that's worked out for.

I don't think its a dig when people say this, maybe ignorance as the they dislike the thought of it and can't fathom why others may be okay with it.

We can all take pride in the contributions we make to our families and society. The value of the contribution is not defined by how much we are paid for it.

How exactly do you spoil him? Buy lavish presents with his money and expect him to feel spoilt 🥳

A lot of people don't have the choice whether to stay at home or not. In an ideal society I would like more parents to have the option of taking career breaks, going part time, stopping paid work, or continuing full time, if that's what's best for the family.

There are a lot of parents who would love to stay at home, but can't afford to stop work, or are afraid to drop hours as it will impact their career. There are a lot of parents who are forced into staying at home because there isn't suitable childcare available or it costs more than they would earn.

So this can explain a lot of the anger and emotion around these issues.

How will you be ok if he dumped you? Are you independently wealthy? Or do expect the state to fund you?

Presumably, she can get a paid job like anyone else @User112 if required. Just because you don't have a paid job for a time, doesn't mean you are banned for life from having one.

Completely agree. Its about the number of lives you touch and the impact you have. Some of the most important contributions are made by unpaid volunteers, and some of the greatest negative impacts are made by people earning the highest salaries. Many SAHMs volunteer, and contribute in that way, which I think is very different to contributing only to the life of one man and your children.

We contribute equally into a joint spending account. We also have equal spending money and the rest saved/invest in joint accounts.

I earn my place as an equal. And love my DH too much to exploit him financially. Should something happen to him leaving him unable to work, I’d happily support him forever and I know he’ll do the same for me. We still remain equals.

She can get one now too then?

@User112 presumably, if she needed or wanted to. What's the problem?

Yes, where I live there are a lot of SAHMs and we do all sort of things in terms of volunteering and charities. You have more time for this as the kids get older.

Your kids just didn’t magically appear! You chose to have them. My eldest is 15 and twins are 7. The large age gap is because we focused on our careers and made sure we could independently afford more kids !!

My DH and I have earned much the same throughout our marriage
My DM drummed it into me to keep my financial independence and I am telling my (male and female) children that too

Kids go to school presumably? Or are they kept at home so SAHMs can justify their choices of being “full time”. Selfishness know no boundaries!

" We contribute equally into a joint spending account. We also have equal spending money and the rest saved/invest in joint accounts.
I earn my place as an equal."

I think User112 is an EQUAL!!!! everyone (just in case you missed it).

Many SAHMs volunteer, and contribute in that way, which I think is very different to contributing only to the life of one man and your children.

In my experience as a sahm who volunteers a lot (Trustee of multiple charities, chairing committees and doing voluntary work in the field in which I used to work) as well as studying for yet another degree I think many people would disagree. Or if they did agree that it's different, they'd see it more as an negative because sahms in that category clearly could be a taxpayer but are actively choosing not to.

This is true. It can be incredibly upsetting and triggering when you are forced into a particular path through economic necessity and others who don’t have this experience and have the luxury of not having to make these choices imply that this is damaging to your children. Profoundly upsetting.

It does go both ways and come from both camps: WOHM and SAHM It’s an important and valid debate which should absolutely be had and there’s a good reason these threads are popular but the dogged point scoring helps no one.

People’s decisions around work are primarily economically determined: there’s usually a man knocking around who earns more than you and childcare is expensive. Many women have to choose paths they aren’t comfortable with for financial reasons and sometimes these posts are self justification.

But there’s also an emotional element to it. I find the idea of not generating my own money absolutely terrifying due to my background. No doubt there are women who feel equally disturbed by the idea of not staying at home to raise their children for their own reasons.

But stepping back from all of this is a wider point that should concern all women: men don’t face these choices. Until it’s an equal dilemma, our job is not done.