"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.

Thepeopleversuswork - I know you say your bosses have explicitly told you not to mention if you have childcare issues - but are these female bosses or male? What sort of company is this and why do you accept that?

It's one thing being a mum who works full time with a husband who can at least do some of the emergencies, but you are single mum. They are basically telling you to stfu about being a single mum. Ask for the discrimination policy. If you had a chronic condition and needed lots of medical appointments, would they tell you to lie about that as well?

Are there no other single mums there? I'd be talking to them and thinking about how to raise this through the appropriate channels. Ridiculous that that your boss is telling you to lie.

It depends people change I've known a few men divorce their SAHM middle aged wife. They don't do long term spousal support anymore so it's a clean break , they are expected to fund themselves or live on the equity from the house forever/marriage. Getting a job when you haven't worked for years would be difficult. Marriage doesn't mean you will never have to work nowadays and sadly 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. I'd advocate always having some qualifications back up so you can get back into the workforce.

You can’t really win either way. If the woman is the higher earner and doing all the speculating and accumulating, while her partner makes a lesser contribution, she’s told he’s a cock lodger.

Why are all iterations of lower earning women (regardless of children) told that their man should be helping support them out of love and generosity, because she’s holding the fort and he’s doing his big boy job, yet when it’s the man who earns less he’s a feckless cocklodger who’s on the take?

I’m not saying the guy in that situation isn’t a cocklodger, but why are women almost always considered beyond reproach in these scenarios?

Because it's traditional and normal for a woman to stay home with the kids, and provide the childcare and do the domestic duties, while the man goes out and earns the money. Always been that way, and whether people like it or not, it always will be.

Similarly women who shag around are called massively nasty names, whilst men are called 'studs' and 'playaz!' And men can fuck off and leave their wife and kids, and no-one bats an eyelid, but if a woman does it, she is evil personified. And men get way more promotions and much better pay at work, and their careers is never affected by having children.

So men have very little shit to deal with that goes against them, so I don't give a shit if men are not thought of so highly for staying at home and not working.

Anyway, a man is only called a cocklodger if he doesn't work but does absolutely fuck all in the house. A 'house husband' or stay at home dad is completely different to a cocklodger.

Because it's traditional and normal for a woman to stay home with the kids, and provide the childcare and do the domestic duties, while the man goes out and earns the money. Always been that way, and whether people like it or not, it always will be

traditional it might be but it’s no longer the norm. It was also traditional to send kids down the chimneys but that’s not the norm either. We have moved on. It stopped being that way a long time ago.

Whether you like it or not.

Kids are never sent down chimneys now.

Women DO still stay at home to raise the children/look after the children. Still quite common.

Whether you like it or not.

HTH.

These are women bosses. And on the surface they are very supportive and encouraging. But they do frequently tell me that it "rubs people up the wrong way" if I am seen to be making concessions to childcare in my job, even though most people know how hard I work.

A couple of the (youngish, male) partners are very hot on presenteeism and say it sends the "wrong message" to have senior people who aren't in the office all the time just because they have childcare responsibilities. So I've recently had to do a lot of showing my face in the office just to appease these people even though I'm vastly more productive from home. It's complete bollocks. It's because they want to hang onto an old-fashioned City culture, nothing more.

You ask why I accept it and the answer is because a) it pays bloody well, b) its the best of a bad lot and c) I've been there long enough and am senior enough that I can call some shots. It's much harder to move as a single parent and immediately demand that you WFH, for example.

And in terms of discrimination policy: being a single parent isn't a protected characteristic. I could claim they discriminated on the grounds of sex, but not on the grounds of my relationship status. Basically your childcare (or lack thereof) is your problem to deal with. This is very much the culture in my industry.

It sounds grim and it can be but I promise you from bitter experience it can be much worse than this.

What sort of company is this and why do you accept that?

Would your husband accept it if the alternative meant threatening the income that serves you all so well?

ReneBumsWombats - it just seems odd to me that female bosses are warning Thepeopleversuswork that 'the men' don't like it if she needs time for childcare emergencies. Who are 'the men' - has she ever actually experienced one of them with the attitude they are purported to have?

The female bosses are the ones who are aware of how they will be discriminated against, directly or indirectly. The men won't understand because they don't experience it and don't realise they're doing it.

Why do people put up with shit at work? Because they need the money.

I think I said before that you aren't coming across as worldly...

Sorry, to answer your question, Rene. Yes DH put up with a lot of shit in his 20s. He was in the military for a while (won't get into that), but when I met him in his late 20s he was surrounded at work by some if the most hideous, arrogant individuals I've ever met in my entire life. I couldn't believe it. Very male aggressive environment in a Suisse bank and, as a junior, he was in from 5.30 until 8pm or later, often with events after, After those three or four years in that environment, he was so over it, he decided he was never working for anyone again and he never has since. But yes, he put up with a lot of shit, only because the money was worth it and was a platform for what he did next. The work I used to do was stressful too, but in a totally different way and for a tiny fraction of the money. But now he's 51 and he hasn't had an actual income for maybe 15 years, it's mainly dividends, rental income (from properties I have renovated over the years) and money he transfers to our personal account as and when it's efficient from various business interests and investments. This us why it doesn't feel like he's paying me or whatever, because it's dividends etc in both our names and I feel like I've lived through the whole rollercoaster if his businesses and everything else for the last 20 years.

I mean, I'm honestly not trying to be rude here, OP, but the limit of your scope is really quite striking.

You must know the demands of childcare because a) you're a SAHM and b) your husband literally couldn't do his job unless you don't work at all because of these demands. And yet it's a revelation to you that these same childcare demands bring a disadvantage to working women who have to meet them in a way you say your husband couldn't do without you.

And you're surprised that this results in a lack of patience and understanding about it in male-dominated fields? That the women are the ones who spot it? And you don't understand why these people who need to be their own providers "put up" with it?

What would you say if your husband announced he was quitting his job, or taking a huge pay cut, because he didn't agree with the office culture regarding flexibility for childcare?

Of course they don't like it. Because in their lives it doesn't need to happen so they see the woman who needs to do this as getting a perk denied to them, or not pulling her weight.
You must know these attitudes are a reality.
Isn't that the very basis that underpins your side of the bargain with your husband? You want to free him from domestic and childcare responsibilities so he can give 100% to his job. The logical conclusion from that is that you think someone with those responsibilities couldn't offer the same in the workplace.
Well that's what 'the men' think too.

When I was working, I also put up with a lot of shit - inc nearly being stabbed. When at left work I was too underweight to conceive and it was due to stress. This is why he didn't want me going back into that. Tbh, I could have taken a less face to face role but I can't say I felt in a rush.

To answer your question, no, you can’t work full time and see your children very much during weekdays.
My OH does rear them as much as he can in his free time.

BUT HE WASN'T PUTTING UP WITH DISADVANTAGES RELATED TO CHILDCARE!!!

I'm sorry to shout but I'm finding your posts so, so frustrating. You don't seem to have any understanding at all about what life is like for most people who need to earn money themselves while somehow meeting childcare needs. This is the umpteenth post from you that ignores the wider issues and focuses solely on you and your situation and why your husband has got it all so well worked out for you...and this one is the most irrelevant yet. I'm sure your husband had some shit at work. Everyone has. But this discussion isn't about general shit at work, it's about shit relating to juggling work and childcare, and the widespread disadvantage to women.

It's not about the prick your husband had to work with at a Swiss bank 20 years ago, or the fact he's so successful he effectively retired in his mid 30s. Do you not see that we're talking about the reasons why so few women manage to do that? Do you not see that we're not talking about how rich and generous your husband is?

Rene, you have understood me. I was not suggesting the men are being mis-represented. I'm sure a lot of them don't get the demands of childcare. No doubt about it! I was just asking if thepeople had actually experienced it from them directly. It was a question to her!

With respect, your reasons for not working aren't the issue here. We aren't asking you to justify anything.

The issue is that you seem to understand the demands of childcare insofar as they relate to working men and SAHMs, but you never thought that they impact negatively upon working women. And you think that women should just not "put up" with it when it bites them at work.

Then, when you're questioned on it, it's just a load of stuff about you and your husband and how he had to work with a jackass years ago, because nobody else ever had to do that but now he's got a shitload of passive income.

It's very myopic, and it's very, very frustrating.

We, when he was in banking and working crazy hours. We didn't have kids.
Why are you shouting?

Since he's been self- employed, yes he's had me at home su has rarely has to juggle work commitments. Where have I denied that?

I know most women don't have that option - his lack of flexibility may be a reason I never went back to work (combined with the fact I didn't feel a massive urge to).

You are preaching to the choir!

@aokii

How come you name change so often?

@Thereisnolight

Huh

I manage it.

You didn't answer my other question I notice

What question?

I strongly believe each family should do what’s right for them. But for the love of God make sure you are married or at the very least financially protected and have access to all money, name on the house deeds, etc etc

Oh my God.

I'm not suggesting you're denying anything about your family setup. I'm suggesting that your worldview is so limited that you've got next to no understanding about what it means to need to work while juggling childcare. You understand your husband couldn't earn his squillions without you at home, but you don't understand that this exact issue is what causes wider problems for working mothers. . It came as a surprise to you! You understand it only so far as it affects you. And you couldn't understand why sole earner thepeopleversuswork "puts up" with it.

And when we try to explain the issues to you, you go into how much your husband earns and why you love being at home and he had to work with with a dickhead 20 years ago at a Swiss bank etc etc. Do you not see how myopic that is?

I'm shouting because it's so, so frustrating. I think I'm going to have to give up. Anyone else want to have a go? I can't think of any other ways to put it.

Of course I understand that. Who doesn't I'm astonished you keep stating the bloody obvious like it's some great revelation.

Would I have coped with 4 kids in a full time job with a workaholic husband and no family support? The answer is - with great difficulty. I know this. It's why I am in the situation I am in today.,

The reason I told you about my husband was because you specifically asked me if he ever put up with shit at work, so I was trying to give you an honest answer.