"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.

To me, it's a very strange way to look at life. Everything doesn't have to be reduced down to money. My OH and I both loved being SAHP (we ended up doing half and half, after he got made redundant). We both work now. When he was at home I certainly never saw it as me 'funding' him. We are a family. Families support each other in all sorts of ways, money is just part of it.

That's one of the reasons I've stayed single.

The risk of tying myself into a lifestyle that requires the man's salary and then have him leave, drink/gamble it away or use it as leverage for abuse is too great.

I own my house, ds' home, and no-one can wilfully disrupt that. Ds will have the security of a consistent home while he grows up. For me, it was the only way.

This gets said a lot on here. Often if someone asks if their baby is too young to go into childcare because they need to go back to work.
People are just shit about decisions that aren't the same as their own.

It's not about money really it's about self respect. It's about contributing to society financially too.

The UK has a really weird culture around stay at home parenting. In the rest of Europe it's normal for both parents to be working.

Of course anyone can post on the thread!

What I meant was, there is no point people just coming on and saying.", "Well I am single, therefore I am not funded in any way by a man." Because this is not relevant.

I am talking about couples with shared finances - or "family money" as it referred to on here. Whether you both earn the same; or one earns a lot more than the other; or one is PT or a SAHM - everyone is going to be funded by their spouse to some degree in a two-adult household.

It is true that I couldn't maintain the same standard of living without my DH's salary - but exactly the same is true vice versa.

It's also true that I could live a reasonable life and support my kids without my DH's salary - it would involve downsizing but not living in a shed.

I personally would not want to be financially dependent on a man - you can do what you like, OP.

Lol at the idea that high earning women are too ugly to get a man to support them - the school drop off doesn't seem to be a beauty parade around here...

I have zero respect for anyone using marriage/relationships as a meal ticket. It’s a different story if you were financially independent pre kids and as a family decided it’s best for one parent to sahp. A lot of SAHMs have had no means of funding themselves and the only aim seems to find a rich man. They want to quickly have kids to justify their choices.

Prime example is my SIL2. She never worked a single day yet constantly moans she had to “sacrifice” her career while I and SIL1 prioritise money over kids. What career? She never had one!

btw, mud slinging happens the other way around too. Wtf is a “full time mom” ? I’m a full time mom too, just because I choose to provide for my kids as an equal parent! Somehow sahm’s partner is a full time dad even if he works. Hypocrisy is nauseating !!

Life can take up’s and downs. You can be 100% self sufficient and find yourself dependent on your partner due to illness, redundancy etc. Realistically many families couldn’t continue their current lifestyle if the parents were to separate so most couples are as dependent on their partners salary as they are on their own to pay the mortgage/rent, food, heating, electricity, childcare, school costs etc. You are in a very, very privileged position if you can separate from your partner and you and your children wouldn’t suffer any drop in living standards due to your own income.

If you are in a rl and both work ft then in a way you are still dependent on the others salary to an extent. Sahm seems fewer now anyway. Nurseries are expensive and often take up one person's wages as well. People do what works for them .

It's different being solely dependent on an abusive man vs two working adults in a healthy relationship, isn't it - they're generally the differences being discussed.

I agree that it’s a twattish thing to say, and I’m all in favour of being spoilt as long as I can keep my independent income. Spousal maintenance definitely not something I’d ever pursue.

Wrong to say that pooling finances is equivalent to being dependent though - two may not live as cheaply as one but their expenses are lower as a couple than two households, as any of the divorce threads will show. That’s mutual support, not dependency.

"I have zero respect for anyone using marriage/relationships as a meal ticket"

So in your marriage (if you're in one) I assume you keep totally separate finances - do your own food shopping etc. Divide every bill to the penny? I hope you don't have a joint mortgage? Heaven forbid!

What I don't understand is, why do women care about how other women run their lives, and why do women care about what other people think about their life choices?

I couldn't give a shit. Also, can I get on the application list to be funded by a man or woman please.

I've been the high earner and the only earner at points in my marriage. I'm currently a sahm and a student although I've just got a part time job (in a field I used to work in). I have my own "running away" fund, a civil service pension and equal access to all dh's money (wages, bonuses and "family").

I had very black and white views about sahms until I was very ill after dc1 arrived. In fact I still have nightmares about the period following dc1"s arrival and my postpartum psychosis. I wasn't fit to work or at least I wasn't fit to return to my career. If people want to judge me for that, they can crack on. It was utterly terrifying.

Do I feel guilty for not maximising my income for tax purposes? Nope and that's considering the fact the tax payer paid for degrees 1 & 2 and part of 3.

Of course, there are lots of women in low paid or part time work who are dependent on their male partners. It isn't just SAHMs by any means. But how do you know if the people who are saying that they "couldn't be funded by a man" are the people in the kinds of relationships that you describe?

If I saw that kind of comment, I wouldn't assume that they were a low earner with a much higher earning DH. I would assume that they earned enough themselves to be financially independent?

Then you put in a benefit claim until you get a job. Not every SAHP or woman who is working is earning more than hospitality, care, retail, lower admin roles and these you can get after a caring gap. There's many working women who can't afford the mortgage on their own and lives would implode more than a woman not working, because of the benefit/social housing rules etc.
Unless you only live in a house that you can afford in your own and work the hours that you can get childcare for as a LP, you are in no more secure situation than a SAHP.

It's interesting how you never hear men say "I could never rely on a woman to care for my kids whilst I'm at work" - nor indeed be criticised for putting themselves in that position in the first place.

Wow it's nice to be disrespected by somebody me who doesn't know you.

I'm that financially dependant SAHM to kids who are at school, DP works, I only work a couple of hours a week for what is essentially pin money. I look after the home, do hobbies, meet friends, read and basically do what I want with DH's full financial backing. If I want something I can buy it and he can too.

We just live a different lifestyle to families where both parents work or one is being financially abused. Not sure why our choice is anything to be disrespected for 🤷🏻‍♀️

You are leaving him high and dry!! Would you be happy to work to fund a man!?

I am disabled. Financially, mentally and physically dependant on my husband. Not what I would have chosen but fate. I hate some of the comments on this site.

how would you cope if he dropped down dead, became incapacitated or just ran off without a backwards glance?

Because I hold the financial strings. I would be fine because I have all the on-line bank access, and he doesn't!! Credit cards also in my name. He also has very good illness and death protection. In fact worth more dead than alive 🤔

I agree it can be said in a nasty way, but I think some might be reliant on a man.

After some of the threads on here where men are financially abusive, I can see why. Women are literally stuck with no access to money. It's horrible.

Aside from the debate on being 'funded' by a partner. Everybody should read the experience and wisdom in BuildersTeaMakers post.

This just isn't true - if my DH left us tomorrow, I couldn't afford the mortgage and bills on this house but I could buy a different (smaller, different location) house with enough space for my kids to still have a bedroom each and afford the mortgage on that. How is that not more secure than if I had no income?

Obviously any dual income family are "funding" each other to have a different/better lifestyle than either could afford individually as there are cost savings from living together. And in a good relationship, one doesn't pick away at the fine detail of who is "funding" more - "your salary is £20k higher, but my flexible lower paid job allows you to work from 8-6 instead of going part time or paying £x for before and after school care, you pay more of the mortgage but my parents gave us £x toward the deposit" etc. It's all just thrown in together.

BUT if you don't have a salary, and don't maintain your professional skills and CV, you are financially vulnerable if your DH stops playing by the rules/leaves you. Ok you may do alright out of a division of assets if married, but unless you have enough to live off for the rest of your life you will then need some sort of reliable income (bare minimum child support will not usually be enough to live on). It can be hard to re-enter the workplace - career gap, loss of skills, loss of confidence, need to continue accommodating kids etc.

So yes, even if my DH could afford to "keep me" (with the childcare cost savings that would make us) I would want to continue to work. Because otherwise I'm trusting him to always do so, and you just can't trust anyone to do that.

I think it is really reaching to try and say it's "to a greater or lesser extent" the same to be a working woman with a salary of your own as it is to be a SAHM with no income beyond what your husband chooses to give you access to, just because in most families money is shared. It's not about the day to day, it's about the "what if".