"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.

Not quite what I said.

That's how it read

🤷‍♀️

@Topgub
I said 'as much of an impact' so not denying there's some impact.

As to who makes valid points that's subjective anyway. There a place for constructive criticism, in general though on these threads it just seems to make people defensive and I don't think that's especially beneficial. Do you?

The thing is though, you never know why people made the decisions they did unless they choose to be honest. If we met in "real life" and it came up in conversation I'd make some flippant comment about why I'm a sahm. I wouldn't mention my studies, my paid role providing relief cover to keep my hand in or my volunteering because experience has taught me it always leads to questions I don't particularly want to answer. Nor would I explain how ill I was after dc1's arrival, the voices, the suicide attempts, the paranoia. The lack of mother and baby beds and general NHS support followed by crushing despair and severe depression. My ongoing fear that the voices will come back. Not to mention if I returned full time to work or retrained slightly as I planned I'd have to disclose my medical records and I'm ashamed of them. If I feel unemployable it's not because I'm a sahm, it's because of what led me there.

I live in an area with a lot of sahms. One drunkenly confided in me on a night out that her husband won't let her work or volunteer (AIBU would definitely tell her to ltb). I think that's probably quite common around here. Birth injuries too, I know one ex teacher with a 4th degree tear who stopped teaching due to embarrassment about her incontinence issues. Better medical care could have prevented that and I feel if I'd actually had targeted help instead of being told that I'd be fine by the peri natal psychiatrist just before I lost my grip on reality, then maybe I'd have made it back to work instead of essentially losing the first 18 months of dc1's life.

Both the woman whose husband won't let her work and the one with incontinence issues have trotted out the "early years are so important" but it's just a veneer.

Dh's company refuse requests to compress hours or go part time citing business needs which translates as "we're all about the billable hours". Their competitors do the same. My previous job was done part time (not by me) but our client group hated it and regularly requested full time staff which caused many internal issues and led to management trying to decline requests. Entirely different reasons leading to the same issue in that we've both had female colleagues quit after maternity leave rather than have to go back 5 days a week.

So many different issues which all require different solutions being mashed together.

I don't care what anyone else does and I happily have a joint bank account but I had zero interest in being a SAHP and would never have wanted to put myself in the position where I could not comfortably support myself and my DCs and pay for childcare, should the worst happen.

@KateColumbo

Meh.

I'm not here to achieve anything other than give my opinion and challenge others.

Its highly highly unlikely anyone will ever change their mind based on a mn forum

@Topgub
Ah ok, good to know though I thought as much from your posting style.

As if anyone is actually trying to change anyone's mind

🤣

@Dinosauratemydaffodils

This is a very thought-provoking post and thank you, sorry you had to go through that it sounds harrowing. I hope you have got the support you need.

I think from my perspective this makes me realise that as you say people are not always totally honest about their justifications in these posts.

I have often suspected that some SAHMs are not wholly honest about their reasons for remaining at home and often there's a fair bit of background pressure from husbands and partners who don't want their partner to work. If you had been put under pressure not to go back to work by someone who believed a "woman's place is with her children" or whatever it must seem easier sometimes to say you felt you had to be with your young children, whether you actually felt like that or not.

To be honest when I read posts like this I am very grateful that I'm a single mother. I didn't choose to be totally responsible for all the family finances from the word go and if I'd had a spouse who was financially responsible and supportive I might have ended up going part time or taking a longer maternity leave, although I'm really glad I didn't now. I didn't particularly enjoy going back to work FT when my DD was nine months old but looking back I think my ex husband did me a huge favour by being so obnoxious I had to remove him from my life. If I'd been bumbling along trying to make it work seven years on I'd have been in a far worse place in every possible respect. Including financially.

I dare say there are plenty of WOHMs whose justifications aren't totally honest too. Whatever you choose to do (or have forced on you as may be the case), you have to live with and believe that decision was right, or you'd go mad.

And yet other posters are adamant that ALL sahms who choose it make the choice themselves because they want to. Nothing to do with their ohs.

People can only be taken at their word

The thing is almost all mothers want to spend time with their children. But not all of us have the luxury of being funded to do this and a large number of us who could (rightly) don't want to lose our all important financial autonomy so decide not to surrender this for a few years at home. Oh, and quality time with children isn't measured by how much of your day you give up.

I have no problem with people deciding to step off the ratrace if that's what they want and can afford to do.

What I really can't stomach is being told by these people that they love their children more than I do and that their nurturing instincts are stronger. Or that I'm some corporate shill who has been brainwashed by capitalism into thinking I want to work and that I'm ignoring my instincts.

@Topgub
I know it seems laughable but I've often seen it argued that pointing out that SAHMs are often financially vulnerable is done merely out of concern as a public service announcement.
So presumably some do hope their comments will influence others.

@Thepeopleversuswork

Oh, and quality time with children isn't measured by how much of your day you give up.

Well this is the crux of it isn't it.

I mean I like spending time with my kids. Just not to the exclusion of else.

No one ever judges men for that.

Agree with your last paragraph too. Balance is important

@KateColumbo

Yeah I'm not sure why, most dont seem to care.

Kind of the point of the thread eh

In any relationship, unless equal paid jobs/totally separate finances, we will always at one point be financially dependent on our partner.

Me and my DH used to do the same job, same pay, separate finances...this was before marriage.

After we got married, I left my job to complete my postgraduate studies...worked part time. DH earned more and ultimately I depended on him.

I finished uni and started a traineeship in my chosen field, my DH left his job to pursue a different career...at this point he was ultimately financially dependent on me.

I qualified in my chosen field and now earn significantly more than DH...we don't have separate finances, it's "family" money.

It's swings and roundabouts and, in my opinion, we support each other in achieving our dreams.

@Topgub
Kind of the point of the thread eh
Well yes, as Thepeopleversuswork suggests the only way to be fully independent really is to go it alone, if your in a couple however much you share things there'll be some degree of dependency.
I found that out the hard way.
When suddenly I couldn't do my share, it had a massive impact on DH being able to do his.

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.

I was of a similar mindset, and I suppose still am, but life got in the way.

I previously worked FT but unfortunately I developed a disability that made it impossible to continue. I can just about manage my current working pattern of 3 days TTO with some reasonable adjustments. Another thing we didn't see coming is that our youngest DC has SEN, again this makes two parents working FT very difficult. DH's job cannot be done PT and even if it could, we would be much worse off financially if he were to reduce his hours and it wouldn't change my health issues.

Fortunately, we are happily married but the reality is that it would be difficult for me to leave DH if I wanted to. The only way I could support myself and two DC would be to move to a cheaper area, which would mean uprooting them and losing my own support network, which would actually make it more difficult for me to work as my DM helps with the school run.

The mortgage is in both our names and we pay into a private pension for me. I don't think there is anything more I can realistically do to financially protect myself. I could tell myself I'm not "funded by a man" as OP says, because I am working and contributing to the family finances but the truth is less straightforward.

Most men would prefer their OHs to contribute financially. Try asking the men you know.

Most men would prefer their OHs to contribute financially. Try asking the men you know.

Having discussed this at length, in my social circle at least they dont seem to. Multiple reasons, bog standard sexism being one for sure. Dh doesn't want me to work, we've discussed it and he keeps trying to move goalposts (he's a hands on dad and does housework but ultimately I think it's movitated by guilt as he got broody but having a baby nearly killed me). Fil thinks working is only acceptable for mothers if the alternative is benefits. I know a lot of men who work either abroad for months a time or off shore. Many of them say they want their wives at home when they are, to do "family" things or before the children start school so she can pop on a plane to go see them.

I wonder if it's linked to income? My wages have never been needed since we pooled our income. They mostly became savings that we still don't need. I presume if dh was a on low income, he might feel differently.

@Thereisnolight

I'm not sure why you're quoting me, it's not my argument

I think, men, like women are a mix or ideals and beliefs.

My oh wouldn't be ok with me not working.

I wouldnt be ok with him not wanting me to work

I’m 50 and gave up work 17 years ago when having my second. The youngest is 15 now. I have no intention of returning to paid work . I don’t see it as being funded by my DH, neither does he. I do all the boring household stuff and admin and he goes out to to paid work. It’s a pretty even split. I don’t worry about if we split either.

It's interesting to look at what really wealthy women do - usually it is neither have a traditional career but not is it be a SAHM in the sense of spending every possible moment with their children. Usually they will have a nanny and some form of hobby/job. E.g. Pippa Middleton or Zara Tindall aren't changing every nappy, they choose to have plenty of time to themselves and pursue something of interest to them. I have a friend who is married to a very wealthy man, she doesn't work but her daughter is at nursery every day and they have a weekend nanny!

I know a lot of posters don't believe that women can choose to work even if they could stay at home but I honestly think I have the best of both worlds - I work 4 days a week in a career I really enjoy - we could live on my DH's salary but I genuinely choose not to. We could also live on mine as we both earn about the same but no one questions whether he would like to stay at home. I love my kids but spending all day every day with them is not for me

I’m sorry to hear you’ve had a lot to cope with.

Something happened to you that was out of your control, so you weren’t physically able to continue in the way you had previously. And then other factors came into play and you had to adjust.

I guess my point is then, that as long as I have the choice and am able to work and earn my own money I will. As you say life doesn’t always work that way and that can’t be helped. Sometimes that choice gets taken away from you.

Most men would prefer their OHs to contribute financially. Try asking the men you know.

It depends on your income/wealth and the world you live in but this is not necessarily so.

Being wealthy enough to be able to afford for your wife not to work is a status symbol and in certain circles, such as the one @Dinosauratemydaffodils seems to move in and also environments like investment banking/broking/corporate law/venture capital, plenty of men would feel undermined if their wife worked. It's a combination of old-fashioned "family values" plus the snob factor of having your friends and colleagues know you're supporting your family alone (which tells them how much money you make) plus also the convenience of knowing you'll never have to interrupt your work to do anything as pedestrian as the school run is also appealing for these people.

Then at the opposite end of the demographic in some very traditional working class communities having a wife who works is looked down on although I suspect few people at that end of the scale have the luxury of turning that down any more.

Double income is a necessity for many if not most families these days but its a relatively recent development in its current form and there's still a latent snob value in having a wife who doesn't work.

The average relationship age gap in the UK is around 1 to 3 years

Yes, but in 11.2% of couples the man is 6-9 years older, and in 12.8% he's 4-5 years older.

So 24% of couples have the man a good few years older. For comparison, with women the figures for the above age gaps are 3.4% and. 2.8%.

So men are vastly more likely to be 5+ years older in a relationship.