"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.

@Sidonien

Google?

@MsTSwift

Do you mean me?

I mean, you might be ok with your oh not wanting to 'be with' his kids but I wasn't. I'm OK with that agenda.

I think unless taking time out or reducing hours to care for children is seen as an acceptable and positive thing to do for both mothers and fathers then nothing will change.

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 wouldn’t be in favour of this because the role being open would stop an organisation hiring someone else to cover the job, meaning that everyone left behind would end up covering the work for nearly a decade. We already have terrible bother where I work with mat leave, and public sector recruitment freezes would make this proposal incredibly difficult. I’d honestly leave my job if this were introduced.

But this doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Beyond the first few months post partum there’s no biological reason women are inherently more suited to caring for children than men.

Do you think women are hard-wired to want to stop working? Because there’s no evidence that this is the case at all.

The biggest factor is that most men are unwilling to derail their careers/liberties in general to care for children.

The biggest factor is that most men are unwilling to derail their careers/liberties in general to care for children

Agreed. The majority of men I know and have met, even if they want children, are not interested in being the person providing the childcare.

You can make it as destigmatised and easy and convenient as you want, but in general women are the ones who want children more than men, and there aren’t enough of the men who want to do 50/50 childcare or more around. Women are going to prioritise having kids over having the dad who’ll stay at home with them, and that’s unlikely to ever change no matter how good it’d be for feminism.

To be honest, even if my DH had said he would SAH, I would have felt like he was depriving me of that. Women give birth and breastfeed and other physical / psychological effects as a result - it's not for men to declare its all the same for them. It patently is not. I felt like I was hard-wired to want to be the one with my kids. I'm know some on here won't like or accept that, but it's how I felt and I'd be lying if I said otherwise. I'm absolutely sure some of it was internalised societal norms and this hardly needs pointing out. But in a way, what does it matter? If that's how I felt with my eyes wide open to all that, then that's how I felt. If I felt a need to get back to work, I could equally argue that is because I've internalised another set of societal expectations that to be equal to men you have to have paid work. This whole debate is because people have internalised different messages from a sociery you're damned if you do one thing and dammed if you do another. So I just did what felt right for me because life is not a rehearsal and you can't second guess yourself on everything..

@rainbowmilk

Totally agree. And the elephant in the room is that most women want children far more than most men do.

Many men make good fathers and some change after children arrive but few of them want children enough to curtail their lives in a way which will provide enough support to the woman.

So the unspoken contract is “you wanted them, you look after them.” And society doesn’t do much to disabuse men of this entitlement.

An awful lot of women have basically made a Faustian pact which goes “I want children enough that I am prepared to have them with a suboptimal man who won’t give me much more than money (sometimes not even that).”

Which brings us full circle to the question of why some women prefer financial independence. Because if we are going to have to do it all, we may as well make sure we own it all and call the shots.

@Thepeopleversuswork

The biggest factor is that most men are unwilling to derail their careers/liberties in general to care for children.

And women (generally speaking) don't really want them to

But for some reason, acknowledging that annoys even those women who say they dont want it!

There's no way I would have put up with an oh who put his own wants above mine or who thought his career meant he could just fuck off when ever he felt like it.

That earning all the money entitled him to do what he liked, when he liked and absolved him of any responsibility for childcare.

@Thepeopleversuswork Nailed it.

Topgub - but I have acknowledged that I wouldn't have wanted DH to SAH. I don't need that from him.

Why is a man wanting to provide the best life he can for his family "putting his own wants above mine." I don't look at it like that at all. It's just a different type of sacrifice to reap certain benefits. People are all different with different abilities and motivations.

It's just a different type of sacrifice to reap certain benefits.

Doesn't sound to me as if either you or your husband made any sacrifices. You both got exactly what you wanted.

Which is good, of course. The arrangement clearly works, so that's great. But why do you feel the need to describe it as a "sacrifice" when it clearly isn't?

@aokii

Did you read the comment I quoted?

Men don't want to derail their careers

I dont want to derail mine.

I said I wouldn't put up with a man thinking he could absolve himself of responsibility for his children for his own wants/to further his career. I'm not willing to be entirely responsible for all childcare

I'm not sure how your comment relates at all to what I said.

Topgub - you make no sense though. You argue that, on the one hand, women who work full time do exactly the same as a SAHM. But then you say that men who work but who happen to have SAH wives, are "absolving themselves of childcare." ????

Why would having a SAHM be absolving yourself of childcare? When my DH is home, I'm sure he's probably as involved with his kids as you are.

Why does everything have to be so binary or extreme with you? People do different jobs with different hours and they do what they can with their kids around that. That's all that needs to be said really.

@Topgub
According to the article below:

• men earn more money than women on average, even before children

• where the woman is the lower earner before childbirth, mothers’ employment rates and hours of paid work fall by 22% and 33% on average when children arrive

• where the woman is the higher earner before childbirth, their employment rates and hours fall by 13% and 26%

In other words, women who earn more than their male partners are less likely to stop or reduce work after children.

Therefore, it would follow that if you want to discourage women from reducing or stopping work after children (which seems to be the only thing you care about 🤔) then one great way to do it is to ensure that women earn more than their male partners before they have children.

But that means men will have to accept earning less and being promoted less often in the workplace. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid!

https://ifs.org.uk/news/women-much-more-likely-men-give-paid-work-or-cut-hours-after-childbirth-even-when-they-earn

The biggest factor is that most men are unwilling to derail their careers/liberties in general to care for children.

I agree with this also.

ReneBumsWombats · I used the word 'sacrifice' because the accepted discourse in this thread seem to be that if you don't work you have "sacrificed your career for a man" "sacrificed your independence" etc etc etc. So, if that is the sacrifice I've made, it is what it is. But In sure there has been many an occasion over the years when DH hasn't felt like getting in a flight or carrying the burden of his work, even though there aspects of his work he thrives on. It's just different people and deciding what suits you more - on balance.

@Sidonien

Less likely than other women is not the same as less likely than men.

My point was that even when women are the higher earner they're still more likely to be the one going part time /giving up work than their male (lower earning oh)

That is true.

This article discusses the 'motherhood penalty'

www.vox.com/2018/2/19/17018380/gender-wage-gap-childcare-penalty

But that means men will have to accept earning less and being promoted less often in the workplace.

Why is that a problem?

Ok, so you don't actually consider it a sacrifice yourself, for you?

I mean, the title of your article even says what I did lol!!

Women much more likely than men to give up paid work or cut hours after childbirth even when they earn more

Yet you posted as proof you were right?

It's not a problem for me, but men might not be too happy about it!

See also The biggest factor is that most men are unwilling to derail their careers/liberties in general to care for children.

This is the issue you're up against. So instead of getting upset about women who SAH, why don't you get upset at the men who:

-don't do their fair share of housework
-don't do their fair share of childcare
-get paid more and promoted more often than women
-aren't willing to reduce or stop work to care for DC even if they are the lower earner

@Sidonien

Where, in any of my posts have I said I'm not?

Its all part of the same thing.

Women sah enables men

Not doing their fair share of housework
Not doing their fair share of childcare
-getting paid more and promoted more often than women
To not reduce or stop work to care for DC even if they are the lower earner

I think for someone who proclaims to be happy to be paid for by their husband , doesn’t have any money and is fully financially dependent you react very strongly like someone who is very sensitive about it.

@Topgub I haven't read the whole thread but your latest posts are all full of complaints about how unfair and sexist it is that women are the ones who SAH more often.

And, if men are lazy, then you just say that's their wives' fault for allowing it.

I think you should be looking to men to take accountability for their own behaviour, and changing their own attitudes, instead.

@Sidonien

How do we do that without women changing theirs?

Do you think its a coincidence that none of the men in my life have these attitudes?