"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.

NC fail 🙄

Agreed, but that ain’t free. 😉

@NellyBarney

Your post misses the context those comments.

Its not about logistics.

They're not thinking about all the things that could go wrong that could maybe force someone to not work.

Its not about that.

They don't say I had 1 to give up work to raise my small child because of lots of extenuating circumstances

They say I gave up work to raise my child because the early years are so important and I didnt want to miss a thing. Etc

So telling me you had no choice but to give up work isn't really answering the question of how many hours it takes to raise a child.or why the small amount of difference in hours matters

@KateColumbo

Yet they can take the hit of 1 giving up all together or of dropping lots of hours.

If you can afford a sahm or a very part time mum you can afford 2 part time parents both dropping 1 day.

I didn't mention wrong. Just less valid. Which is obviously subjective

@Topgub
Yet they can take the hit of 1 giving up all together or of dropping lots of hours.
It's not many of 'them' can do that either though, SAHP are the minority. Being able to live off one wage or two part time ones is generally (although not always) seen a privilege.

If you can afford a sahm or a very part time mum you can afford 2 part time parents both dropping 1 day.
Maybe not if you have to pay for childcare for the other days. Not all jobs will offer part time anyway, neither DH or I were able to when we had DC1.

@Topgub

Why are you so angry at women who choose to spend more time at home? You keep on asking about the magic number of hours to spend with your children as if a scientist has worked it out. The “magic number” varies from woman to woman depending on how much time she WANTS to spend with her children. I wanted to spend a lot. I was willing to cut down on my earnings to do this. I didn’t have to. I wanted to. Lots of women I know did the same, for the same reason. Some chose to spend longer at work. The exact number of hours varies wildly from woman to woman. Some might have chosen more or fewer hours either way if there hadn’t been health or finance issues. Many others are happy with what they have arranged.

One thing ALL of those who have reduced their work hours have in common is that it was their choice, not their OH’s.

Some women’s choices wouldn’t be mine at all but that’s ok. I know we don’t all share one brain so I’m not at all surprised or angry when people do things differently from me.

(For the same reason I also don’t put angry, sneery little speech marks around words that other people use but I don’t).

@KateColumbo

Being a sahm might be the minority, I dont think going part time is

Not at preschool age anyway.

@Thereisnolight

I'm not angry. Nothing I've said indicates anger

You do know people can have a different opinion yo you without being angry, right?

There's no need to rone police because you can't cope with your views being questioned.

Using quote marks isn't a sign of anger (since when was that even a thing?!) It just indicates I disagree with your use pf the word.

I keep asking because I'm interested in the answer.

That I never get. I just get deflection.

If someone is making a bold statement like you cant spend time with your children if you work full time amd you can only raise them in the very little time you do have, then of course its going to be questioned why you think that.

Thats not a personal statement about what your doing. Its a judgement of others.

Which is fine but at least admit it and own it.

100% agree

I have always been of the mindset that I need to be able to financially protect myself and my family and also be able to keep my skill set fresh, should anything bad happen and I need to be working.

And as you rightly point out, this isn’t just about a relationship breaking down. This could be because your partner becomes ill, made redundant, passes away etc there are a multitude of reasons why things could change.

I’ve absolutely nothing against any woman who wants to be a SAHM. Everyone is free to make the choice they feel works best for them. It just wouldn’t personally be something I’d choose as I’d wouldn’t feel financially secure enough.

(My mom did the same as you, worked part time all the way until she retired. Good job really, as my dad never so much as even bought us a pair of shoes!)

I don't say it was.

@KateColumbo

So not so much of a privilege then.

I said being able to live off two part time wages was generally a privilege. If that's what you were referring to I do think that's a minority of people.
Most of the couples I know who've been able to drop a day each have condensed hours, work shifts or work weekends to have time off in the week. They haven't taken a pay cut, they couldn't afford to.

@KateColumbo

Right.

So as I said. Maybe not so privileged after all.

I wouldn't like to be financially dependent as a man as I wouldn't want to be at risk of financial abuse.

I also derive a lot of pleasure from my career.

But if I had a wealthy, TRUSTWORTHY partner who could provide, I would absolutely love that.

I just don't want to be in a position where I'm screwed over.

Oh I think see, no pay cut?
You're still pretty privileged IMO. I'd have loved for us to have the flexibility to go part time.
You're the higher earner with a flexible career and a supportive family.
It's ok to admit you're fortunate, whether by design or circumstances.
I do think it's something to bear in mind when you are being critical of others though. It's not a level playing field.

@KateColumbo

I haven't said we're not fortunate or that it is a level playing field.

However, I think lots of people don't even consider it as an option. Or actually even want it

Sahms by choice certainly don't

@Topgub
No, but when I've suggested you were, for some reason you've argued the point instead of owning it.

Sahms by choice certainly don't
No shit Sherlock.

@KateColumbo

No, I said in my first comment we were privileged but also that it didn't just happen by chance. It was both

Thats not arguing we're not privileged. Other people are just as privileged and make different choices/don't bother to try.

I'm mainly critical of those choosing to be a sahm so I'm not really sure why your banging on about people who don't have a choice.

All choices being relative of course

EXACTLY! You won’t believe the sense of entitlement of some of these women. When they fancy playing “working mom”, they expect to start at a very senior level directly and get very pissed they are not getting any interviews!

But many of us want to spend time with our babies! I “sacrificed” my big £100k work round the clock career to stay at home for 6 years. Wouldn’t have it any way. In the words of Elton John “it’s no sacrifice” . Started own business when dd2 started school. You see life in such a black and white way. People do t fit into boxes.

Ive always worked except for a year maternity with my first and 18 months with my second.My eldest daughter is now 19.
SAHP isn’t something that any of my wider family did (both sides) all the females work in some capacity- my Gran was a nurse, aunts cleaners, teachers etc maybe in a part time capacity around childcare but all worked . importantly all the men stepped up and did their fair share with parenting - drop offs etc

Being a mother of two daughters, I wouldn’t want them to be reliant on anyone. Their Dad has shared the care (even though he had a big important job with travel) we’ve made it work - hasn’t always been easy but he’s had to leave work when one of the girls poorly. He’s had to equally stay at home on a school inset day.

Weve both been their for the important days, he treasures the memories of the nativity plays!

I spoke to my eldest and we chatted about SAHP - whether she felt impacted by our choices. Her response was no she knew we would both always be there for her, work for both parents was a means to putting a roof over our head, but more importantly she knew we would always pick them first (both of us)

Her plan is to pick a partner with some of those same principles to ensure she is equally supported and supportive.

@Topgub
You said you were ' a bit' and 'not so privileged' twice, and your still banging on that others are too as though that dilutes the fact you are.
You are and others are. It gives choices and people make different ones. That's ok with me but not with you for some reason.

You say you're mainly critical of the minority who have the option to chose to be a SAHM. Why?
What do you hope to achieve by criticising them?
Do you know any RL SAHMs?
Do you criticise them too or just the online ones?
I'm struggling to see the benefit of a group of people who have had the luxury of choice arguing with each other has on anything.

@KateColumbo

Because I think the lack of choice is often debatable. That's not really denying my own privilege. However the sahm role impacts societal ideals and available choices. Thats why I criticise it

And if you think the debate around gender politics is pointless dont join it.

@Topgub
I'm not sure the minority of SAHM who chose to do so have as much of an impact as it's claimed. I think it's far more complex than that.
I certainly don't think that discussion is pointless, there are lots of interesting and valid points made. However they all seem to be made by the posters who are accepting of others choices rather than those who are solely critical of them.

@KateColumbo

How odd that only non critical pov can be valid.

As is denying the impact of the sahm role. By 'choice' or otherwise