"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.

@aokii

Why does she get to decide?

What if the dad wants the first year to bond?

@Menwithvenn

I'd prefer to see equal leave for both parents. Paid equally. So if women get 90% pay for mat leave, men should get the same for pat leave. I think 6 months each is probably enough.

I think women taking a year and men taking a few weeks is part of the reason things end up as they do.

It sets women up as the default parent.

Contributes to women going part time and the gender pay gap.

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!

I volunteered in a community charity shop with dc2 in a sling when she was a baby! Selling things, handing out food parcels to eligible people, sign posting them to various charities etc was not made any harder by her presence. I imagine I'm an outlier though.

A couple of dh's male colleagues have asked about dropping a day. They were told no chance. The same company wonders why all it's senior staff are men (it's an IT company) and why no women ever return after maternity leave... Dh gets excellent benefits in all aspects apart from paternity pay which was statutory. The husband of a friend (different company but same geographical area) took two days paternity leave and even that was moaned about.

My ideal would be us both working 3 to 4 days a week but it looks like dh would need to change jobs and every time he thinks about it, they give him a payrise (had 4 since March 2020) and now they're doing cost of living bonuses and I'd probably have to work in a different sector entirely. So for now we rattle on as we are. He works full time, although multiple days are from home so he can be present for the kids and I volunteer, study and do ad hoc relief days for the Local Authority.

I agree with separate entitlements but it would need to be flexible and not set in stone before the baby was born. As I mentioned up thread I had postpartum psychosis. I needed a year. My sil tore really badly and needed a good six months. I had no idea what motherhood would actually be like or how ill I was until I was going through it.

Totally agree re parental leave

I'd be tempted to remove the recovery time for the mum from the mat leave to a separate leave but I know that would result in women being penalised so that wouldn't work

Pps or physical issue post birth really aren't about childcare

I also agree that parental leave should be more flexible for dads. Definitely. Whether they take it or not is another matter.

They could do it the other way round if they chose, but physically it probably makes most sense for the mother to go first. Conventionally it would be a year, so the point I was making was that the mother could take the first year and then the father the second year. Some of that would be unpaid though, and like I said, the rest would be half pay. So either of them could take less than a year if they wanted to.

And when kids are off to school, they find utterly ridiculous excuses to continue to sit at home.

These women expect the partner to “help” with chores while they do nothing to “help” put food on the table!!

Wait till these hypocrites to start complaining when their darling sons end up with women just like them!

User112 - is that you, Andrew Tate?

Volunteering carries no obligation and is flexible. I guarantee there will be a voluntary role of one type or another that doesnt take time away from childcare, unless the SAHM is literally chained to her child 24 hours a day.
Examples I personally know of are:
A woman coaching a sports team for girls in a deprived neighbourhood 2 hours a week after her partner gets home.
A woman who logs in and answers a telephone helpline from home, as and when she's available to do so.
A woman who gives lifts to people for hospital appointments and takes her toddler with her.
A man who walks the dog of a disabled woman for an hour a week, which could easily be done with a child in tow.
Im not for a moment suggesting that all SAHMs volunteer. Merely that it's a way they can contribute beyond their immediate family if they choose to.

This makes no sense.
You can have an imbalance of earnings or financial contributions in a relationship without one being 'dependent' on the other.
The point is, regardless of relative income, if you were to separate, would you be able to support yourself?

Everyone and everyone's relationship is different. My DH contributes more overall financially but I'm certainly not 'dependent' on him. I have ensured that my own financial position means I could quite easily have a comfortable life without him.

@Topgub

I'd prefer to see equal leave for both parents. Paid equally.

That is exactly what I was describing and advocating for in my post!

Yeah, I wouldn’t recommend that. I had a medical issue which I won’t go into in detail but essentially it was pretty much identical to carrying a full term baby and then having major abdominal surgery to remove it, plus associated complications due to blood loss etc. I couldn’t (obviously) be classed as someone requiring maternity leave to recover but because it was sick leave, I was under intense pressure to return, and I was quickly unpaid. I took 3.5 months off and went back far before I was ready, because I had no choice. The absence of protection from pregnancy was what left me in that position, and it’s what would happen to others if you separated them out.

(That being said, a year is in my view too generous. Where I am, most women take the full year then their accrued leave on top, so 13 months off. Most also have at least 3 kids, so you can imagine the staffing issues if we added men to it.)

@5128gap

Except the argument was how can you be around for your children if you're not physically with them?

Oh dear.

Well in the examples I gave the volunteer could be physically with their children.

@Topgub

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

How do we achieve that?*

Well more companies need to offer equal leave to men. If it's not available to them then they can't take it. That would be a good start! Perhaps it should be made a legal requirement if companies are not willing to offer it. Separate and equal, not shared leave.

Men in the workplace should support and encourage other men who want to do part time hours, particularly those in management positions, they should also take the lead and model flexible working, leaving early to pick up children etc. That would help too.

What do you think could be done to achieve it (if you do think it is desirable too) ?

I'm 55 and never been financially dependent on anyone and never had a joint account. It did mean I had to pay somebody to look after DD from a very early age though and have always had to use full wraparound school care too.

@5128gap

Yeah sorry, I was rushing.

The implications being you have to not ever have anything else as your focus.

The oh sahms all devote their time to volunteering and communities only gets trotted out when it suits. And contradicts all the I chose to be a sahm to devote myself to my children's needs pish.

Much like dad's can work and be around for their children but working mums some how can't

@Sidonien

By not teaching girls they should be the default parent or to accept that their male ohs career is always more important than theirs

By making mat and pat pay equal. By not having women taking 1 year mat leave as standard (not actually sure it is standard outside of mc)

By teaching couples to discuss childcare before they decide to have kids.

By providing fully subsidised childcare

Following more of a Scandinavian model.

The oh sahms all devote their time to volunteering and communities only gets trotted out when it suits. And contradicts all the I chose to be a sahm to devote myself to my children's needs pish

I think they're different demographics for the most part. Of my social group of sahms, the women who do the most volunteering tend to be the ones who had children later in life (late 30s/40s), who had careers before hand and who are perhaps trailing spouses, have husbands who work away for weeks or months at a time or like me, were very ill after childbirth. Our local home start volunteers for example are mostly comprised of these with a few women who took early retirement.

Of the women I've met in person who insist they had to be sahms for their children, they tend to be younger or at least younger when they had kids and do less outside the house. Less likely to be degree educated and less likely to have had a career previously.

By not teaching girls they should be the default parent or to accept that their male ohs career is always more important than theirs
Are you teaching boys that mothers don't have to be the default parent or that their career isn't more important than their OH's? Or is this just the girls responsibility?

By making mat and pat pay equal. By not having women taking 1 year mat leave as standard (not actually sure it is standard outside of mc)
I had my first before the statutory 52 weeks mat leave was introduced. It wasn't great for lots of reasons IMO. Nobody has to take the full 52 but women in the UK are fortunate to have the option.

By teaching couples to discuss childcare before they decide to have kids.
Many do and it's obviously prudent to but how would you enforce it though.
Even if you could the best laid plans can have a spanner in the works.

By providing fully subsidised childcare
Paid for by?

Following more of a Scandinavian model.
Which parts?
I think it's Denmark who have recently changed parental leave policy as despite it being generous for both parents fewer fathers were taking advantage.
Sweden gets longer parental leave than the UK at 16 months.

@KateColumbo

Am I teaching boys?

Yes, I'm teaching my boy to be a feminist

Paid for by the govt

Not, sure. Sweden?

@Topgub
So higher taxes than?

@KateColumbo

Sure