"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.

If i wasn't 'funded by a man' I'd be on the street. I know what this means for me. Wondering why the particular financially independent women of which you speak feel the need to be nasty about others if they are so sorted in life
I had the misfortune of knowing a woman like this who never failed to tell everyone all of the time exactly how she never has to rely on a man for money because she worked. Always emphasised the word worked. Shame she sublet her council house, claimed benefits, worked cash in hand and never paid tax on any of her earnings. I mean they aren't all like this but makes you wonder why all the attitude against other women😐

@TokidokiBarbie

Vastly?

Hardly.

And how old are the couples in those brackets?

Are they even still of working age?

I've not properly caught up on the thread, but to pick up on thepeopleversuswork's point just now. I'm not entirely sure men want to have SAHWs as a status thing because, let's face it, who would care?

I think it's more a case of every family having it's own 'breaking point', By that, I mean it can be just too much to have two parents with super demanding careers requiring travel and whatever else goes with it. Yes you could have a nanny, but what sort of family life is it really if both of you only see your kids for a few minutes in the morning and at weekends? People just don't want to live like that.

A good friend of mine is an amazing woman who probably earns millions , I don't know, but she went back to work when her first DS was 6 months old - and when I say, went back to work, I mean she was straight onto on a plane to the Far East or something for 4 or 5 days. She is one of the most lovely women I know and a great mum, she really is, but I personally couldn't have done that. Her DH also had a high paid job, maybe £250K something like that, and his job involved a lot if entertaining clients in the evening. So some weeks, neither parent would see the kids from Monday to about Thursday. They had the most amazing nanny, to be fair, but as the kids got older and the nanny couidn't help with the homework and the eldest was falling behind a bit at school, they realised something needed to shift (by this point that had three kids as well). So it was actually the DH who left work and focused on the kids and this is how they've been for years now..They don't need two incomes and that is less important in their "hierarchy of needs" than a family life.

I know a lot of SAHMs and they are married to finance city types, entrepreneurs, hedge fund managers and that kind of thing. If someone has made a lot of money, or multi millions, they won't have done that working a 40 hour week. It takes a lot more than that and I would say very often, the wives are SAHMs to kind of balance things out in the family , so that it all doesn't reach ' breaking point." It's not that these husbands are "opting out if childcare" necessarily. It's just the reality of those kinds of jobs. Someone has to do them. All societies obviously need people who will drive the economy and create job opportunities for others. That doesn't happen by accident, there is a trade off. And no family will purposely make life harder for themselves than it needs to be.

Yeah I'd much rather we didn't have finance types or hedge fund managers.

They dont drive the economy. They make rich people richer or cost the economy in bail outs when they inevitablly fuck up.

Let's not pretend they're doing anyone a favour.

Or that only men can do those jobs.

Nobody has to do the jobs that involve 14 hour days and earn them £250k.
Assuming the jobs are 'essential', which I highly doubt, unless you consider moving wealth from one rich person to another a vital societal need, they could be split between more people working fewer hours, who even on half the salary would earn more than they need.
To chase excess wealth at the expense of family life is a personal choice. No one has to do it and no one needs them to.

Topgub - how am I pretending only men can do those jobs? I purposely gave an example of a female friend. Also, if you went a country without entrepreneurs and job creators - good luck with that.

It also doesn't make sense that a family wouldn't want both parents only seeing the kids for minutes a day but would then be ok with one parent continuing to do it.

Nobody HAS to do those jobs no. But obviously those who do, do.

You don't create a companies that employ thousands of by working 9-5.

Yet loads on hereargue (including you) their multi millionaire ohs hardly strike a blow and have loads of energy for their kids

@aokii

Because you said

know a lot of SAHMs and they are married to finance city types, entrepreneurs, hedge fund managers and that kind of thing. If someone has made a lot of money, or multi millions, they won't have done that working a 40 hour week. It takes a lot more than that and I would say very often, the wives are SAHMs to kind of balance things out in the family , so that it all doesn't reach ' breaking point." It's not that these husbands are "opting out if childcare" necessarily. It's just the reality of those kinds of jobs

All very gendered

You could be satisfied with a small fortune instead of a large one, share the work and share the wealth.
People who choose to put making vast sums of money ahead of other priorities are obviously entitled to so. But you can't reframe their greed as an essential service to society.
No one HAS to do that. Your DH made a choice based on his personal priorities.

Entitled to do so

I'm not talking about my DH, I'm talking more widely about loads of people we know. It's not greed, it's just jobs. Some people do those jobs. Some people build companies providing jobs. Unless you think only the state should create jobs?

Of course its greed

How well do these created jobs pay?

I'm not talking about my DH, I'm talking more widely about various people we know. It's not greed, it's just jobs. Some people do those jobs. Some people build companies providing jobs. Unless you think only the state should create jobs?

" How well do these created jobs pay?"

Depends which company you're talking about?

Ask the nation,

No, I'm asking you.

Its your argument

Should we use bezo? Tesco?

If ceos are making millions you can guarantee the actual workers aren't

I'm sorry, but working the hours of two people, leaving no time for the partner you married and the children you created; requiring your partner to take on all domestic and childcare responsibilies in order to make far more money than you need tp live a very comfortable life, is prioritising material aquisition over people.
To me that is greed.
No, I don't think only the state should create jobs. But nor do I think the creation of jobs by a private individual as a by product of their desire to make themselves rich is particularly admirable either. At best it's neutral, at its worst exploitative.

If people didn't start business ventures and companies, whet would we be? What jobs would we be doing?

It's far too simplistic to think about it in terms of 'exploiters' and 'exploited.'

I could tell you, people in DH's company could be on £200-£300k at director level. If they weren't paid that they would go get it somewhere else. There are all kinds of roles ranging down to graduate stater salaries of about 30k maybe, or internships. Many of them work from home most of the time. How is anyone being exploited? They are free to leave at any time. They build up experience for the CV. They move on to different things if they want. Another company he's part-involved in has created thousands of jobs in the U.K. at all levels. It's IT- related, they are not being sent down the mine!

I thought it wasn't about your oh?

Who works limited hours and has lots of energy for his children?

Literally never met a man who would be proud of his wife not working - isn’t that deeply weird even my grandfathers (born 1909 both long gone ) thought that was old fashioned! We both worked in corporate law most high flyers were married to their female equivalents.

Topgub - you are bring purposely facetious. Yes, my DH tends to work kind of part-time NOW because he is 50 and semi-retired. He is around as much as I am these days and has been for a few years now. But he worked long hours to get to this point for many years. But that doesn't mean he had no energy for his kids. He does things with them I don't or can't do. It's called playing to your strengths. He's been massively involved with his kids. But it just made sense for me to just have full headspace for them because four kids is quite a lot, in and of itself.

I'm not talking about people starting companies. I'm talking about your own reference point of men who work the hours of two people to earn the (handsome) salaries of two people.
There is absolutely no need for it. Anyone who does it at the expense of their family responsibilities is greedy.
I have no idea if your husband has exploited people on his way to success. Whether he has made money off the back of other people's labour. Whether he's paid other people less so he could aquire more. Whether he's taken advantage of the lower costs resulting from poor working conditions here and abroad, or made any money through those who do.
I do know that very many successful wealthy men have done these things, and so are, at their worst exploitative.

What about people who get roles in the theatre abroad, or who make films overseas and they go for months leaving their family behind? Are they greedy too?

Whether you think they are greedy or not, the finance sector and many other industries besides , require a certain type of expertise, focus and commitment. If you're in that type of job, you can't really rock up and say you would like to "job share"(!!) or, "sorry I'd like to leave a 4 every day - thanks!" They are not being 'greedy' they just know the deal. They'd be out and they'd have someone else in the seat in a day.

Stay at home, don't stay at home. Live off a man, don't live off a man. The reasons for doing either are varied and vast or very simple. No one needs to justify anything to anyone.