"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 that's slightly risky thinking too in all honesty, as that depends greatly on the job market at the time, how long you've been out of the workplace, and what jobs you're prepared to consider.
Unfortunately employers are not asking middle aged women who haven't worked for 20 years to form an orderly queue for the type of jobs they would want to do. There is much discrimination against the demographic and in a competitive market, its by no means a given you will be employable.
Obviously some people will have specialised skills and abilities that will be marketable and the lack of current experience may not be a barrier, but for the vast majority who haven't, its really not as straightforward as people frame it.
I don't say this to belittle anyone, but working with women needing to return to work I think its something to be realistic about.

Hang on.

I thought it was being argued that sahms chose to be sahms so the could be around for their children?

How can they be around for them if they're off volunteering and studying? Who's watching your kids?!

The idea that all sahms nobly give up all their time for others is laughable. A large proportion of sahms are forced into it through lack of childcare. They're not volunteering or studying

I'm also sure I read a study that showed employed people were more likely to volunteer than unemployed

Yes TopGub. Just take everything 100% literally to make a ridiculous point. Again.

How is it a ridiculous point?

You cant have it both ways

If its OK/doable to give up being around for your children to volunteer, it's ok/doable to give up being around for your children to work.

This is a fair point actually. If the premise of being at home and not working is because you’re looking after your kids and you fill your time with volunteering it slightly undermines the logic of not working.

Again no problem with people doing this but you can’t both do that and accuse working mums of “farming out” their kids. I realise you haven’t said this @aokii but you get this sort of rubbish thrown at you as a WOHP.

See also when children go to school. That’s not really substantially different from childcare but it always gets a free pass on the moral high ground stakes.

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.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think a great place to start would be equal parental leave entitlement for fathers (separate not shared). More flexibility for both parents to take a longer career break, or the right to drop hours, then return to your previous role etc. it would benefit society greatly if men were enabled and encouraged to do this.

UK Gov survey for 2020/2021 showed it was slightly higher for unemployed respondents as opposed to employed, but difference only 3%. I volunteer and the majority of those there are employed. Most of my parent friends do things which particularly benefit their children (PTA, school activities etc).

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-life-survey-202021-volunteering-and-charitable-giving/volunteering-and-charitable-giving-community-life-survey-202021

@rainbowmilk

Ah, OK. Thanks

I knew it wasn't much of a difference!

@Sidonien

But women who chose to be sahms (and even plenty who dont) don't want those things.

They want all the leave and not to work. They domt want men to get flexible working or go back part time

How do we change those attitudes?

Presumably out of the home volunteering roles would be happening whilst the children were at school. I don't think anyone with a toddler in tow is much use as a volunteer!

There are lots of child associated ways to help out at school, tuck shop, clubs etc. Churches, sports groups, community activities, which of course many people with paid jobs and retirees contribute to as well. We are called in different ways.

But I would like to say that I know a woman who devoted her whole life to caring for her profoundly disabled child. She didn't work outside the home after that child was born and she didn't physically and obviously help lots of people outside the family, but she was a loving person who touched many lives in small ways with daily acts of kindness, and her life's main work of caring for one other human in her own home was profoundly valuable, inspirational, and worthwhile.

Why do you persistently go on and on about "SAHMs" as if they are some kind of monolithic group TopGub?

As soon as there is a more nuanced debate starting, you chip in with "SAHMs are this.. SAHMs say that.. You seem to want to reduce everything to a stupid football match with two "sides" and point scoring.

SAHMs do not say anything you seem to think they say because guess what, there are millions of SAHMs saying millions of different things. You know, just like any other woman? Imagine that!

There a SAHMs who can't work because they have disabled children. I'm sure they love coming in MN to be told what they think and how they are selfish and living off a man. There are SAHMs who can't afford to work - I'm not sure all the "I'm soooo eeeeequal" really resonates for them. There are women in abusive marriages and I'm sure they find these SAHM threads super-supportive (NOT). There SAHMs who are bloody loaded - do you think they give a damn? Then there is anyone and everything in between.

Some of these SAHMs may do some volunteering or charity work from time to time. Some may not. Just like any other person who may or may not do charity work at some point in their lives., You don't need to jump on that and chant on and on about "SAHM says she is full time. How can SAHM be full time if doing charity. SAHM is job. SAHM is not job. SAHM is not SAHM in school hours. SAHM thinks this. SAHM is blah blah blah blah blah." Its very frustrating and prevents what could be a more interesting discussion.

I agree with everything you've said in this thread (I think, haven't read it in its entirety!) and I agree with the seniment quoted from another poster.

Personally I have found it so difficult deciding what to do when I return from my maternity leave in a weeks time. I'm the main earner, yet it has still fallen to me to initiate conversations about work and decide what I'M going to do about childcare. My partner would be upset if he heard me say that - he gets involved in discussions if I bring it up and would argue he very much sees it as a joint responsibility, but his actions say otherwise. However he is quite a passive person generally so it may be less of a 'man' thing and more our dynamic and his personality. Its been interesting trying to figure out how I can make enough money for our family but have the most time with my child. It feels as though he is too small still at a year old, to be without me. The option to take a little more time out without losing my job or my professional registration would be a dream come true for me.

Someone mentioned it is upsetting when forced back into work to hear things suggesting you're abandoning your children. It breaks my heart to think of being away from him, even though I'm doing 4 days and he will be looked after by family. I never thought I'd say this as someone raised by a single mum and whose dad was an arsehole - but if I had the opportunity to be a SAHM for a couple of years I absolutely would, given that I felt secure enough to do so.

I think my point is (although this is a debate forum) that everyone is just doing their best, or what they think is best for their family in their circumstances. I can't understand some of the anger here.

@aokii

No.

the problem is you can't counter the point so now you're getting all personal and defensive

What frustrating is yours (and others) immediate jump to personal attack when you're being backed into a corner. It's so boring.

Your whole op is a giant fucking generalisation. Hilarious hypocrisy once again.

I also don't expect anyone to care what I say. But the super defensive and passive aggressive responses prove other wise

Well I don't know about that. Is that true? My DH's company started offering equal paid parental leave and he was one of the first to take it. Some colleagues told him not to, it would impact his career, but it hasn't at all, and a few years later almost all the men take their full entitlement . It's just assumed when they announce a pregnancy that they will be taking the leave and the company has adapted to this. Presumably it's popular with their wives as well, otherwise it wouldn't be so universally taken up.

If men want this kind of thing they should get involved in advocating for it.

@Sidonien

They should. And they do. As do women

However the uptake for parental leave remains shockingly low.

98% of sahp are women. The majority of past time workers are women.

Dad's are more likely to be employed than men who aren't.

Your post said you wanted to see men taking equal leave and going part time /working flexibly.

How do we achieve that?

Weirdly, the opposite at my place. Shared (I know you said separate) leave has been in place for five years and take up is less than 1%. When surveys were done the overwhelming response as to why was that women didn’t want to give up any of their leave, even where it would’ve benefitted the household financially.

Topgub - it doesn't matter what I or anyone else on these threads says. You have your own very special agenda and you need to think in a very rigid way about your "SAHMs" and "WOHMs." I do think it's a shame that this often drags debates down and prevents other people from being honest or talking in a more nuanced way.

Ready also to be funded by a man. Everyone's situation is different and everyone has different beliefs and goals. I currently have partner, we have children and we both work. But tbh we are both exhausted.

@aokii

I'm not responsible for how other people post.

Are you finished deflecting yet?

I Don't think saying it in that way is particularly nice and I don't look down on SAHM's who perhaps do depend on their DP. But I now earn more than my DP and if the worst happened I could take care of our DS and prefer to stay financially independent. We do share rent/ bills etc equally now though.

@rainbowmilk Yes, I agree separate entitlement is critical for change to occur, not shared. It has to be "use it lose it" that is attached to each individual parent. In my DH's company they could take it half pay and up until the child was 2. So the mother could still take the first year off to recover, bond, feed etc. then the husband could take over. If the husband chose not to use it then it couldn't be transferred to his wife.

@Sidonien

Why does the mother need the first year?!

Why doesn't the dad get the first year to bond?

Most women don't take a year to recover and most don't breastfeed past 6 weeks.

"Why does the mother need the first year?!"

Because she says she does?

Not who you are asking but I'm intrigued, what do you think should happen?