"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.

"At no point have I argued that these families don't exist.

They do, albeit a minority.

You appear to be suggesting it's inevitable and unavoidable."

Oh dear.

Really TopGub?

Yes really.

Youve just reinforced that point again.

Once you're in that job you have to do it.

Sure.

But you don't have to have a sah m along with it.

It doesn't come with the contract.

If people want to prioritise working very long hours so they can make lots of money thats fine. If they choose to prioritise that over spending time with /raising their children that is also fine.

But its not compulsory and its not compulsory to have a sahm while you do it.

The job isn't really the issue, it's having a family while you do that job.

No of course you don't HAVE to have a SAHM! Christ on a bike.

But in some circumstances there is a tipping point at which needing someone at home to 'hold it all together' and have 100% headspace for the kids seems more valuable than more money of the extra salary. And this is more likely in families where one is in a less flexible, but much more highly paid job. That's why, in areas where there are a lot of people doing the type of jobs I described above, there tend to be a lot of SAHMs or women who work PT. It's no coincidence. It's a trend that you can directly observe, whether you agree with it or not.

As always, you pose an interesting perspective.
I do think there is a difference between the need to work excessive hours to be accepted as 'as good as the men' and the need to do so to be seen as 'better than the other men' but yes, i can see how the culture causes pressure, particularly for younger less powerful men within the sector.

Of course its not a coincidence

Its a result of sexism

@5128gap

I do think there is a difference between the need to work excessive hours to be accepted as 'as good as the men' and the need to do so to be seen as 'better than the other men'

It's a very fair point. I would argue that if you're a woman in this environment, and particularly if you're a woman without any family backup, you have by definition to be "better" than the men to be considered even half as good as them. Every mistake or failure I make is magnified and inevitably filed under "single mum, other priorities, lacks focus" etc etc. So I'm apt to overcompensate in order not to give anyone any excuse to think that my obligations are diluting my focus. I'm sure men do that as well, particularly if they have the luxury of not having to step up at home.

If their OHs were putting more pressure on them to participate more in the domestic sphere then over time it might help give them (and the organisations they work for) a bit of perspective. I think this is starting to happen at the margins: these firms are less macho than they used to be. But the pace of change is glacially slow and there's always backlash to any innovation which emphasises progressive values.

But I accept your broader point that a culture which prioritises getting one over on the next bloke is not healthy for anyone, the man, the woman, the children or society. I hate it, personally.

It just brings us back to the point that having a sahm promotes harmful ideals.

" Its a result of sexism"

What is this , "feminism for dummies?"

Of course the fact that certain job sectors are dominated by men is a result of sexist societal patterns.

This is a given! l'm trying to describe to you the actual reality that if you do happen to be married a man who is a CEO, or surgeon or who travels a lot or whatever, it is what it is and a family is likely adapt differently to those type if pressures, than where there are two parents in the type of jobs where they can easily click off at 5pm and that's the norm. Or people who can work shifts around each other. There is a tipping point where extra money from the second salary can feel like less of an imperative than time and family stability for the kids.

You clearly don't seem to know any families with SAHMs in real life and seem absolutely aghast that SAHM should even exist, so I'm trying to explain to how and why this can come about in one demographic which is the one I can directly observe. There will be other SAHM demographics too which are the result of other circumstances.

You dont need to describe it though.

I dont not understand it. I dont deny these situations exist.

But they are a choice. Every time. And every time that choice is made harmful stereotypes are enforced.

I don't want to get into 'provider' stereotypes but you certainly have a different mentality when you're the breadwinner and the financial well-being of the family is on you (or in your case the only person).

I grew up in poverty and everything is geared against you. I'm lucky to have been socially mobile but the statistics are dismal. As a result my mindset has always been to ensure our kids have better opportunities. It's sad and shouldn't be like this but what can you do but look after your own? My wife always wanted to be a SAHM and has loved every minute. I've always had the higher potential so was a no brainer. Now they're old enough she's going from PT to FT but money has never mattered to her and she's always had an, "it'll all work out" attitude; whereas I've been conscious that you should earn it if you can and not squander an opportunity that isn't open to all.

I wouldn't say I was overly materialistic or greedy. I just wanted better than poverty. I'm genuinely happy with six figures and have no aspirations for more, unless it comes organically and fits in. I love my job and still have time for family. I'm lucky. Although I'm not sure that everyone earning six figures is the same.

@aokii

I think what @Topgub is probably trying to do is to bring this discussion back to your original point about women “living off” men.

No one is doubting the reality of this environment or it’s pressures. I am certainly not because I live in it and I recognise what you are talking about.

I suspect what she and others are trying to get you to do is to focus on the role that SAHMs play in this dynamic. The existence of the SAHM actually exacerbated it.

At an individual family level no one can blame people for making this choice but the point remains that having lots of women who are prepared to remain at home actually helps sustain this situation. It’s not something I would blame an individual woman for doing but it would be nice if you and others could acknowledge that there’s a correlation here and these choices do serve to make it harder to achieve a level playing field.

Topgub - the reality is that if you think of any website you might frequently use - last minute.com, Expedia, GoCompare, Rightmove whatever - at some point , an individual or a small group of individuals will have conceived and developed those from thin air over many years and these things would not exist if everyone just had a 9-5 mindset. Behind every "success story" there will be an individual story involving s lot if ups and downs and significant personal financial risk - and quite possibly, a family who have ridden that rollercoaster with them.

Now I don't know the proportion of '.com success stories' that are men. The ones I happen to know personally are, so that's all I can speak for. But I mean, there is MN we are on now - created by a woman. But even, for the sake of argument, if it is a man who is able to drive through something through in a sector where the vast majority of start/ups fail, while still maintaining a family life because he is facilitated by a SAHM, you just shut that down as 'sexist' and think no further. Or you can look at all the millions of jobs for women in the economy that would never exist without the people who create those jobs and the families who support them behind the scenes. Then you can realise "society" much more complicated and nuanced than just crying out "Sexist" wherever there is a SAHM or women who works part-time to try to balance the family a bit.

A desire to earn money to provide your family with a comfortable or even luxurious lifestyle is not of itself greedy @Lunar270 and I can relate well to the desire for financial security often found in those who know well what the alternative looks like, and want to spare those they love from it.
What I'm referring to is the drive to make money for monies sake, prioritising that over all else. Perhaps for some that's also rooted in fear of poverty. But to be honest, many of the men occupying the highest paid positions entered them from a position of privilege. The rags to riches, bootstrap millionaire is not really that common, as, as you say, less privileged men face huge barriers to success too.
I also think that much is made by some men of 'providing for the family' as the acceptable face of carving out a very nice life for themselves. Work excessive hours/hide at work during the time all the domestic heavy lifting needs doing, only to re emerge at 50 to enjoy an early retirement without the nuisance of small children and to a chorus of 'hasn't he done well'.

"The rags to riches, bootstrap millionaire is not really that common, as, as you say, less privileged men face huge barriers to success too."

Maybe not at the top of 'the professions' such as barristers etc. But bankers are a mixed bunch and other industries such as tech millionaires could be anyone.

The female friend I mentioned yesterday whose husband is a SAHD, didn't even go to uni. My husband was a refugee who arrived here at a young age and his family all kinds of cultural barriers and poverty. I do agree that often, underneath it all, the most driven people or workaholics are actually driven by fear, yes. I can definitely see that in quite a few people I know.

@5128gap

And of course proclaim that the wife always wanted to be a sahm anyway.

Makes you wonder what would happen if that wasn't the case.

@aokii

Omg. I dont think everyone needs to work 9 to 5.

I dont. My oh doesn't.

It doesn't matter how much you protest that its not fair to point out the sexism of these choices, they remain sexist choices

And if people chose differently (even though its really difficult) there would be less sexism in society.

The thing is, I've never really understood why sahm who choose to be sahm get so defensive and annoyed about it being pointed out the choice is sexist. Why would you even care?

I find it frustrating that people like you just want to chant "sexist" as if that's all there is to it and real life is like a textbook of right and wrong and 'ideals.'

If I had kept working, what difference would it have made? Do you think my husband would have just chilled out a bit and worked less hours? No he would not. He was in a sink or swim industry and is a certain type of personality anyway.

If I was working, it wouldn't have meant he suddenly did "more childcare." Do you think he would suddenly have come home and started cleaning the loo or something, just because I had a job?

No. He would have done what he was going to do anyway. That's the truth if it. You can't change people like that. You either go with it or you leave.

If I'd been working as well, the main impact would have been on the children. I was not prepared to have that happen. Don't get me wrong, I genuinely loved being a SAHam and would have hated leaving them with a nanny. Overall, I have not regrets at all, looking back. But I'm still fully aware of times when it's felt like I didn't have a lot of choice but to SAH. This is what I'm trying to say - it's complicated. You can actively want to do something and feel privileged, but it doesn't mean you don't understand that you didn't really have a lot of choice at the same time. It's just as well I wanted to SAH / otherwise we'd probably be separated!

Well thats kind of the answer then isn't it?

You were willing to stay with someone who saw the house and childcare as entirely your job.

Regardless of if you had your own career or not.

Doing so enforces their sexist beliefs.

You cant then moan you don't that choice called sexist because its 'complicated'

You chose to marry and have kids with someone selfishly career focused and you wanted to be a sahm and support his career.

You're very fortunate @aokii in your ability to find pleasure and satisfaction from a lifestyle that sounds very much from your latest post as having been thrust upon you by a man with little thought outside of his own interests.
He would have allowed the 4 children he is equally responsible for to suffer, would not even have cleaned a toilet, leaving you with no choices but to fall in with his chosen lifestyle, to prevent 'breaking point', or go it alone as a single parent of 4.
Imagine how different your situation would be if you were one of the very many women with ambitions of her own who could only avoid her family's breaking point by sacrificing them for her husband's.
Just because some women have found away to advantage themselves through patriarchal systems, not needing to work because they don't want to, it doesn't mean this model is any less risky or harmful to others.

If I am a woman and I wanted to be available to my 4 children and not use childcare - then that is also the answer.

Flip it on it's head - why WOULD I have wanted to use childcare?

It may have been less sexist on a societal level for me to have a job as well and the kids in childcare, but I would have been miserable. Is that the 'ideal?' You assume your ideal is everyone else's, but women are more complicated than you are prepared to entertain.

And who would have been looking after my 4 children while I was doing my job so it's less 'sexist?' Oh yes..., other women. What a surprise! And women on virtually minimum wage, no less. Yes, that sounds be a real strike against sexism, doesn't it.

I'm not funded by a man as such. I'm not an establishment. He earns the money for the family and we have different roles. If I were to need funding for the things I do, he would be considerably out of pocket but fortunately nobody thinks like that. It would be considerably to our children's detriment if I decided to adjust our lives so I could leave at a moments notice so I'd rather take the vanishingly small risk.

Sorry that post was in response to Topgub.

5128gap - I have never said being a SAHM is a wise option for everyone. Far from it. I agree it can be very risky.

if you were one of the very many women with ambitions of her own

So the op can be said to have no ambitions of her own?

That's insane. Raising four stable children without outside care is quite the ambition and more than many could achieve.

Just because some women have found away to advantage themselves through patriarchal systems, not needing to work because they don't want to

Wanting to raise your children isn't the same as not wanting to work. For starters it's a very intense job on its own but it is not necessarily the case that the woman wouldn't, given the ability to split herself in half, have liked to work. It's just that you can't be in two places at once. Watch motherland to see an attempt! Nothing wrong with it but it's a choice, always.

Many men would like their wives to work but their wives see the children's need and think, rightly or wrongly in those circumstances, no, I'd rather invest everything I have here. Point is that's hardly a patriarchal system if it's a choice women make for themselves. Deciding to be with your children rather than outsourcing childcare is not an inherently unfeminist decision.

Howardsbend - Thankyou.