"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.

No, to aid the discussion. I'm actually surprised that overall lower earning men aren't more likely to SAH than higher earning men, as the men I know who do SAH are the lower earners, but that's just my personal experience.

But again, the issue to be tackled there is that men are unwilling to derail their careers/liberties in general to care for children. Your problem there is encouraging more men to do it, rather than complaining about the women who are willing to do it.

@Sidonien

Its not my problem.

Its societies problem.

And again, the women who are willing to do it are enabling the men who aren't.

So why would they change?

Women aren’t all the same.
Some like to contribute financially, some (I would say most) would prefer to take the major child-rearing role.
SOME women abuse the latter by doing fuck all but still expecting the man to share the earnings equally.
SOME men abuse the situation by being controlling over the earnings and disregarding the work the mother has been doing.
There’s no one-size-fits-all “answer for women” because we’re all different. Marriage does help by providing the woman with financial rights if the earning man leaves her. I would say it’s up to everyone to have a plan if you can no longer depend on the able and willing contribution of your partner, no matter what that may be.

But your idea isn't really supported by the statistics.

Men aren't working more because women are working less.

Men are working the same amount no matter what their female partners do.

Some like to contribute financially, some (I would say most) would prefer to take the major child-rearing role

The two are not mutually exclusive. Unless you’re bizarre;y using the phrase take the major child bearing role as some form of short hand for sahm?

becuase if you are then no most wouldn’t prefer that.

It's true that, whether down to nature or nurture, a lot of women choose to go down the "nurturing" route (I happen to believe its more nurture but that's another discussion for another day).

I'm not a believer in forcing women to do things they don't want to do for the good of society. I'm a big believer that people have to make choices to suit their families and if that means most women remaining at home, so be it. That's the price of living in a free society.

And its also true that fundamentally the responsibility lies with men, not women, to take up a larger share of their responsibilities.

But @Topgub highlights what is for many of us an uncomfortable truth: that women choosing to stay at home in large numbers and be supported does make it much harder for those of us who don't or can't choose this path, partly because it reinforces the idea that men don't have to support their partners domestically and with childcare and also because it makes men much more intolerant in the workplace of women who have caring responsibilities and work.

Again, I don't know what the solution is to this: I want to be very clear that I don't believe women should be made to feel guilty about this at an individual level or to sacrifice their own happiness for the greater good. But we don't do ourselves any favours as a society by not facing up to this. It's a big problem for working women.

I’m not a SAHM but I would prefer to do the larger share of child rearing so I work part time.
Most women want to spend a lot of time with their children. Ask around.

@Thepeopleversuswork
I don’t agree that many women choosing to stay at home causes a problem for women who work full time. I’ve worked full time and never had a problem at work.

So proving my point, you contribute financially and do the bulk

If women who work full time have a partner who doesn’t step up at home that’s because she had children with an arse.
Best way to help women would be to get them to discuss these things before they get married. Provide a check list. I did a pre-marriage course. It had all that stuff on it. Finances, workload, dealing with in-laws, deciding where and how to live. A lot of the couples didn’t bother to show up - inevitably, that was probably the very ones who needed the information. So from that point of view the govt can spend the money, provide all the information, but I’m not sure that you can help people who won’t be helped.

I don’t provide the financial bulk.
So it evens out.
I’m happy.
Sorry not to fit your victim narrative.

If that's the case, you're lucky.

I work for a company which is actually led by women and therefore more progressive than most. And still I'm routinely told that I'm not allowed to talk publicly about my childcare obligations in the office because it might irritate the men. For example if I have to leave early for a school related appointment, I'm always told not to let people know the reason.

The younger men in my office take umbrage at the idea that anyone should be allowed concessions to take care of their children.

To be very clear, I don't bang on about my child at work and I don't expect to be cut any slack in terms of workload because I'm a single mum. And in fact I work far harder than most of these men to compensate for the occasional time when I have to leave work early etc. But the idea that its inappropriate to talk about your caring responsibilities comes directly from a male-dominated culture which thrives around the idea that you work uninterrupted while someone else (your wife) takes care of the children. It's bad form to mention children mainly because the men in this culture are used to having all that stuff dealt with by their stay at home wives. So the fact that a peer is able to do the job and deal with the dirty work of looking after children feels like a rebuke to them.

If fewer women stayed at home to facilitate this and men had to step up to do pick-ups and doctors appointments and al that jazz, this sense of entitlement to work unhindered, and the accompanying sense of disgust at "female" considerations entering into the workplace would slowly start to diminish.

Again I can't reiterate enough that I don't expect other women to go out to work just to enable the priorities of working women. I realise that its not for everyone.

But the cold truth of it is that it does have an impact: women who stay at home make it much harder for those of us who don't or can't.

@Sidonien

That doesn't make sense.

Of course men are enabled to work more by sahms. Even the op admits that. Her oh was able to fuck off whenever he felt like it.

@Thereisnolight

Can you not work and rear children?

Is your oh not rearing his children?

If not, why are you ok with that? Why are you ok with him not wanting to sound a lot of time with his children?

It makes no sense to claim that men aren't helped by having women do most of the domestic work.

I could not be funded by a man. Or anyone for that matter. While still a child living with my parents I decided that. I couldn’t tolerate the power held over me by my father because he was the breadwinner so he had the final word. I never have been funded by a man and never will be.

I don’t much care what anyone else does though, it’s just not for me.

@Thepeopleversuswork that's a hilarious pov. Sounds like you work in a misogynistic company tbh. I work a few hours a week the rest I'm at home. My dh wfh ft. No way I'm doing all the appointments when he's so close by. He has to ask all the time for time to take the dc to and from all sorts.
I hope your ex is pulling his weight too.

You're supporting the misogyny by deliberately not owning to being a proud single mother who needs to take time out of work to help your dc end of! Tell the blokes that think it's ok to down you for taking much needed time to attend to your dc to stfu!

You're supporting the misogyny by deliberately not owning to being a proud single mother who needs to take time out of work to help your dc end of! Tell the blokes that think it's ok to down you for taking much needed time to attend to your dc to stfu!

I've explicitly been ordered not to do this by my bosses.

I would never have married a man who expected my career to be second to his in any way

I don’t judge anyone who wants to be a SAHP or not work, but I would personally always want to know I could be financial independent. You never know what can happen. We have all seperate money apart from joint mortgage and I can’t see us ever changing that.

It doesn't have to be the case that the husband of a SAHM is some kind of man who doesn't care about anything but his career.
DH's industry is traditionally male dominated, he ruffled feathers from day one by taking three weeks paternity leave the week after he joined.
He has caused some controversy within his company by employing women in top level roles and discouraging men with young families from joining his team due to the need to work away so much and the impact that has on families, he has introduced a pay out for new parents to encourage more of the males to take full paternity leave.

Would you entertain the possibility that the man may not demonstrate the extent to which he is an arse until its too late? A man who is quite amenable to sharing equally in the comparatively minimal chores and responsibilities of the childless, may show a whole new side when those chores suddenly ramp up with the advent of children. A checklist a person decides to no longer adhere to is pretty worthless.

I don’t think some women who chose to stay home to care for children have sacrificed careers for me , some had poor careers and hadn’t achieved much but don’t want to admit it. Usually the same women who bleat about women being biologically wired to do the primary childcare and housework.

Its not just as simple as asking for time off. Its the 'optional' activity weekend for charity that the CEO loves people to attend. The after work drinks where the informal networking happens. The opportunities available if you have complete flexibility to jump on a train or plane to do that deal.The extra hours you can put in at home if necessary, safe in the knowledge you'll be left in peace.
Realistically who is most likely to have the easier career progression, a man who can do all of that, or a single mum who can't?

@5128gap

Thank you.

Its not just as simple as asking for time off. Its the 'optional' activity weekend for charity that the CEO loves people to attend. The after work drinks where the informal networking happens. The opportunities available if you have complete flexibility to jump on a train or plane to do that deal.The extra hours you can put in at home if necessary, safe in the knowledge you'll be left in peace.
Realistically who is most likely to have the easier career progression, a man who can do all of that, or a single mum who can't?

It's never going to be a level playing field though. Anyone who's childfree or has grown up children or helpful grandparents can do all of that too.

How rude! I gave up being a deputy headteacher when I had my son. I've always been very maternal, and had waited years to have a child. Luckily I had some money behind me, so me and my husband could afford for me to be a sahm until DS started school. 2 other teachers I knew didn't go back either. None of us has returned to teaching. One is a childminder, another runs a music group and I now work in a preschool (school hours). In my experience, it's people who did have good careers and have savings, who can afford to go part time or stop work to be with their child, if ttey want to. I believe the early years are the most important and I got a lot of satisfaction from being a sahm. Obviously I know not everyone feels the same.