"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.

That's great to hear top. I think the attitude change has really got to start with boys in childhood. Their fathers need to model the role they want their boys to take, being more involved in childcare themselves. Little boys need to be encouraged to be nurturing and gentle, playing with dolls, kitchens, ironing, helping out around the house and with younger siblings from toddler age.

We need to stop accepting more aggressive behaviour from boys than girls (no more 'boys will be boys'). These things are changing. If I think of the role my grandfathers played in childcare and at home compared to the role my DH plays, there is a huge difference in attitude between them towards the role of fatherhood. I know lots of dads our age who have changed their working patterns to let them be home more, and a few who stay at home with the kids full time, or work part-time while wife is FT.

What's your own childcare set up, if you feel able to say?

I wonder if OP is embarrassed that they don’t have a decent career and their husbands/partners eclipses theirs, and that’s why they felt the need to post this thread.

My son was described as a metrosexual as a 3 yo. By adult women

Because he liked dolls, hoovering, kitchens and cleaning. He's been 'accused' of being gay his whole life.

My dad, born in the 50s (just) parent in the 70s was an equal parent. My fil, with no mil, watched my kids in his 70s and still does almost 90
Age isn't an excuse.

My own set up is shared childcare from birth. Dh has been as equally responsible for his children as I have been since they were born

There's really no excuse for it to be any other way

I personally couldn’t and never would want to be funded by a man woman parent whatever because I’m proud of my work and for nobody to ever say you only have that because of x y z , this stemmed from a previous abusive relationship which in turn made me fiercely independent. I have no issue whatsoever or judgment of people who are happy to live off another human tho it’s personal choice

It's wonderful that you had such great male role models growing up who were really involved in childcare. Unfortunately not all men were like that in the past so it might take another generation for attitudes to change in those families.

I'm interested if you both work FT, what parental leave you took, if either parent changed working patterns, dropped days , SAHP etc?

@Sidonien

We both dropped to part time (ish) when they were preschool. And shared childcare between us. Once they hit school age we increase back to full time.

I switched from shifts to Mon to Thurs but I've had to go back to shift work and dh is still full time plus.

The kids are teens/pre teen now and my mum is retired so it all works out.

It sounds like it worked out really well for you top. I really fear with the cost of living and house prices etc that fewer and fewer families are going to have the choice to do PT, SAHP etc, even if they would really like to have their kids at home more.

I think the idea of a SAHP for life is pretty much gone now. For my parents' generation a comfortable family life on a single salary was possible for many (not for my family though - both my parents worked FT!)

These days I think it's very very rare for a family to be able to live comfortably on a single salary for life. Obviously single parent families have no choice, and I know that is incredibly tough in so many ways.

It's not common to have a lifelong SAHP in our generation, outside of very very high earners like celebs and sportspeople, parents with low levels of education or earning potential, disabled child/parent or other challenges.

These days Most parents who stay at home for a time when the kids are little have had paid jobs/careers before kids and will go back to some form of paid work again.

@5128gap re returning to work after a break

I'm sure some women will face problems getting back into paid work, which is why I'd really like to see greater access to longer unpaid family caring leave, with the right to return to your full time position after a number of years. I'm very sensitive to the fact that families might not be able to afford this even if it was available, but there are many who could afford it for a time but are scared about getting back into their career again when kids are older or if circumstances change (divorce, death, illness).

But generally in these threads people are too scaremongering about career breaks I think. Women having kids later with degrees and previous careers will find work again, more easily if they are willing to retrain, change sectors etc., start afresh etc. perhaps not at the same level they were at, but they won't be unemployable.

Women who had kids young straight out of school might be going for unskilled jobs where there isn't much progression to lose and it doesn't matter so much that you've had a break. And if they want to study and learn a new career they are young enough when their kids are grown to have a long and useful career.

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree that it's scaremongering. My work involves helping women into work, and from experience, the problems, while not necessarily insurmountable, are very real, and should, if not factored in to any decisions, as least be faced realistically rather than the airy 'I can always get a job' .
Women with degrees will find that over the last 20 years, the qualification is commonplace and their younger competition has them too. Their experience will be dated. I agree they can retrain, but the competition for entry level jobs is fierce and we can't factor out the prejudice that makes their demographic less attractive than younger women and particularly men.
Explaining to a prospective employer why you have been unemployed for 20 years is not an easy task. The attitudes that lead to the 'funded by a man' comment exist in employers too. Being a 'house wife' from choice after children reach a certain age is not widely respected and judgement is made about the work ethic of that person.
The difficulty for the woman herself after years of autonomy in becoming the office junior shouldn't be underestimated either. To suddenly find your additional two decades of life experience irrelevant to the 30 year old man you work for can be a hard adjustment.
I do think younger women returning after relatively short breaks obviously find it easier as they are seen as more 'investable', more current, and their break more 'justifiable'.
However, the comment about easily finding work when made by women with no intention of it unless forced by circumstances is naive. If in their 50s they are happy to consider retraining for minimum wage roles, in the care or hospitality sector, yes, they will certainly find work. But walking back into the type of job they might have done two decades ago, is very unusual.

Anecdotal evidence I know,but for the women I know,it’s been very difficult to get back into work at anything like the same level

This. There is a clear imbalance of power in every couple i know where the woman is heavily financially dependent. In some it’s more subtle than others but it’s there. He gets a greater say in big decisions.

I recognize it from my own relationship - I was the higher earner by far. It was never overt but ultimately my say on big financial decisions was most important.

@Sidonien

The problem is that its not parents. Its mums.

So yes. It is less common for women to to be a lifelong sahm. But when families do have a sahp it's 98% of the time the woman. Same with going part time

@Thepeopleversuswork
You’re right of course and it works both ways. If the man (or higher earning partner) stops earning for whatever reason he also loses his value.

I don’t know why some people seem to think that others should devote all their talents and hard work to them just because they’re “them”. Just because they exist!

No. Unless they’re incredibly lucky (or very manipulative or domineering, which in itself is a skill) everyone has to bring something to the table or the other person will lose interest. People can be high-earning/useful/productive/lovely to look at/emotionally wise/good home-maker/socially interesting….whatever. But if they stop offering it they will eventually become less of a draw and the more productive partner may want to leave (though may stay out of a sense of duty).

Thereisnolight - OR, perhaps some couples function better with different roles and yes, even gendered roles? Perhaps that's the dynamic they naturally have and why they value each other. Perhaps they don't want what is essentially another version of themselves in terms of day to day life - go to work; come home; do exactly the same chores? If that's the only way you can conceive of 'equal' it could get a bit limiting and boring. Yes, it's supportive, but what does that partner bring to you that you're not already doing anyway? It could all seem a bit perfunctory and I think you could get under each other's feet and on each other's nerves quite quickly. It's the mundane squabbles about same-old-same-old that often drive couples apart because they get claustrophobic and then bored and they stop making an effort.

You're right in a way that a lot of marriages function well when there is a division of labour which allows people to "specialise" (ie specialise in providing vs specialising in nurturing/admin/domestic work). It certainly allows things to run more smoothly.

This is because society still encourages this: most of the infrastructure of modern life still assumes that a family consists of a "breadwinner" and a "homemaker" (a good example of this is the way many schools still subconsciously take as read that there is someone on hand all the time to deal with school admin). Look at the way the tax system incentives marriage etc.

But, as @MsPincher says, it comes at a cost to the partner with the least financial power. It means this partner (usually the woman) is vulnerable and has less authority in the family dynamic. A lot of women say they are equally important as their partner because they provide the domestic support that allows their partner to flourish in their career etc etc. But the reality is that benefits the breadwinner more than the non breadwinner and it progressively weakens the authority or the non breadwinner in the marriage.

This may work well as long as the "contract" suits both partners but it leaves the financially weaker person very exposed when this stops being the case. Which happens in just under half of all marriages.

The solution over the long term has to be one which enables the weaker partner to increase their financial autonomy. That doesn't necessarily have to mean absolutely everything has to be split down the middle, it doesn't have to mean keeping finances separate and it doesn't have to mean both partners work full time. But any structure which relies on one person holding all the financial authority weakens the other partner. Society needs to evolve to make this model less attractive.

But it doesn't have to be the mother. your DH dropped to PT, so other men can make that choice too, if that is what they want. Every family works out what is best for them.

This is never going to be equal. Men and women have different relationships to birth and early child-rearing, that's a biological reality. Women are pregnant, they give birth, they have a totally different hormonal experience, and they breastfeed. It will result in different experiences and it means different choices.

Trying to force human beings to behave as if these things are not true will never result in good policies.

@Sidonien

I didnt say it had to be. I said it is.

Because that's what happens.

Men don't (generally) go part time, or give up work. Women do.

Because society is still sexist

It’s so mush less smug than the SAHP’s or part timers spouting off about how they couldn’t let anyone else look after their children! Or how children will suffer if the parent isn’t home for them!

@5128gap I don't live in the UK anymore, but perhaps the outlook towards family responsibilities is a little different here as public sector workers can take up to 7 years unpaid family carer's leave and return to their role. I'm lucky enough to be benefiting from this currently. Not sure if this is commonly available in the uk but from comments I gather not. I

I think it would be a great step towards supporting families and normalising the idea of taking a break until the youngest goes yo school , for example.

I don't know anyone in their 30s or 40s who has taken 20 years out - it seems like you are dealing with the older ge ration of women in their 50s and 60s who raised their families ina very different financial climate. A 5-10 year break until the youngest goes to school would be more typical these days. Cost of living is just too much!

I do know they are also desperate for teachers in the uk so anyone with a relevant degree can do a postgrad in that and will 100% get a job, no problem, no one cares how old you are! A job with a great deal of autonomy , if that is important to someone.

Over here there is a big push for female recruitment in traditionally male dominated industries such as the one my DH is in. Older women new to industry are actively recruited and promoted very quickly (perhaps too quickly! But that's another story.)

I've changed careers twice in my life and my DH has done it once, which probably also affects my view about these things!

It happens much more often when the woman is the higher earner. The majority of families will be looking at this with an eye to the overall household income.

So one solution might be for companies to actively mentor and support women into higher paid management roles and to preference women in hiring. This is what my DH's company is doing, as part of their equality and diversity stuff, along with giving men equal separate paid parental leave.

happens much more often when the woman is the higher earner.

Unfortunately not.

The stats show even when women earn the same or more (pre kids there is no gender pay gap) it's still the woman going part time/quitting

Maybe more women than men step back to be with their babies and young children because….they want to?! Know that doesn’t suit your agenda but that’s the reality!

Source?

Yeah, and the men don't want to.