"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.

I haven't really heard the phrase funded by a man, unless its a mistress of a rich man situation 🤣.
My in laws are a family of housewives (different to sahp), and whilst they are very happy I'm raising my dd to be financially independent and secure. So many women I know and read about on here are in absolute shit street because a man has promised the world but delivered nothing. These are women who live in a home their partner (not husband) owns, with no financial security of their own.

My DH and I earn about the same, neither of us could maintain the life we have now without the other. I think people really mean having the freedom to leave. I have a good job and childcare in place so if it didn't work out I could leave him tomorrow (I won't though) 😁

I'm sorry that the comments on this thread are upsetting you. Personally, I would prefer that the state guaranteed a sufficient income for people who are unable to work due to their disability, thereby enabling them to be financially independent.

It really annoys me when people trot out the 'You are silly to rely on a man financially, I could never do that' line on here, as if it's some terrible moral failing or a betrayal of the sisterhood. It's such a smug, patronising attitude and usually comes from people who are lucky that their lives are so uncomplicated.

Forget about "oh what if he just upped and left, THEN what would you do?" You'd probably be fine.

The real question is what if YOU wanted to up and leave? And you didnt have family locally? What are you going to do, use his bank account to put a deposit down on a flat for yourself without him knowing?

I'm not funded by DH, I work bloody hard at home to keep the ship afloat, and he works hard outside the home to keep the ship afloat in a different way.

Thankfully he sees my contribution to the household as equal to his (wouldn't have married him if he thought otherwise) and it was important to both of us the children not be in a private daycare setting.

It's a very 'traditional' setup but it absolutely works for our family.

If anything I am 'funding' his career with unpaid labour at home. Can't we think of it like that?

There have been loads of threads this week on this sort of topic - financial independence etc.

I have noticed it, because it’s a topic that’s relevant to me - I assume we are busy contributing to a newspaper article, or dissertation or similar ?

😂😂love this

I just think in any marriage with children there has to be a certain level of "dependency" in some form. Whether it's a dependency on a second salary; or the other partner's working (or non-working) schedule complementing yours. A working DH likely to feel he is just as dependent on a SAHM as she is on him - it's rarely as simple as "just get a nanny." People's finances become entwined anyway, whether both are working or not, eg. it's the household income that determines how much a couple can borrow for a mortgage, regardless of who earned what.

I'm not canvassing opinion for any article anywhere. It was the other threads this week that got me thinking, Aroundthetwist.

If anything I am 'funding' his career with unpaid labour at home. Can't we think of it like that?

I think this is a disingenuous argument and it's the sort that gets people's backs up

A working DH likely to feel he is just as dependent on a SAHM as she is on him - it's rarely as simple as "just get a nanny."

But it is often as simple as "just bugger off, pay the bare minimum via CMS, rarely or never see the child and leave the mum to deal with that problem" for a lot of men who decide they're fed up of family life.

DH and I bought a house together - couldn’t have afforded it separately. So I guess we fund each other? That’s just part of being married or in a long term relationship isn’t it. You support one another. And you’re finances do merge to an extent. I think generally if you are married, whether you work full time or part time or you’re a SAHP you’re not completely self funded. Neither of you are really.
To be completely ‘self funded’ you need to be single I think. And even then, many people do have help from family or an inheritance - but it’s often conveniently left unmentioned.

I’m a single mum so I am not funded by a man. Yet so many people look down on us. We are the very pinnacle of self sufficiency - admire us please!

i wouldn’t mind if someone wanted to fund me out of the goodness of their heart but that’s not how it works. Money brings power and I think there is often a big disparity of power where there is a large inequality of finances.

Agreed I've reached the point in my life where I completely understand why people marry for money and actually don't think it's that bad of an idea.

Sadly I don't know any incredibly rich men on the look out for a chubby, middle aged woman with a very persistent moustache but I can live in hope.

YANBU because it's a horrible phrase used to talk about sharing the financial and practical burdens of life in marriage.

But financial insecurity is a major thing. I freak out for friends with very small ones who have lost their earning capacity. What if the husband dies or is suddenly incapacitated and can't work at all?

I decided to continue working at the same level but 4 days a week so that in extremis I could just get a FT job again they would hopefully keep me and my daughters just about afloat (and we have life insurance too obviously)

MaybeIWillFuckOffThen (love the name) - very true. However, there are obvious steps you can take if you're not working (ie a SAHM) to protect yourself.

@Tort It's not only well paid women that say it.

I see it said by women who are struggling too. Even by women who have men living in their houses with plenty, while they're struggling.

Yip. As a single mum you’re not. I have the same career as a lot of men with sahw. Their lives are easier yes, but an au pair would fix it unless you have really young kids.

You're willfully ignoring the distinction between mutual dependency to maintain a certain standard of living and fundamental one way financial dependency for all the necessities of living. It is not the same, no matter how many times you say it is. And it ignores the basic fact that very few women walk away from their responsibility to their children, whereas a lot of men do. So finding yourself suddenly without an income with children to support is not just "oh bugger, better move to the scabby end of town and increase my hours ", it's "shit I literally can't afford to feed and clothe my children".

@PinkButtercups "He'd never leave me high and dry he's a good man."

I absolutely believe you, but also... he might die or have a stroke and become unable to work? Any manner of things can trash a family's single income stream overnight.

No, that doesn’t make sense. If two people are living together and contributing equally then neither is being “funded by” the other.

@aokii

That's fair enough. You'd be bloody bonkers to be a SAHM and not at least be married and named on the mortgage of the home you live in / all savings and pension policies. Probably one of the reasons I could never be one as I'm morally opposed to marriage (for myself!)

Everything is easier when shared so having a partner who pulls their weight in whatever way will improve your quality of life.

I think the phrase more applies to women who deliberately refuse to ever work at anything or make any effort to be self-reliant because someone else (partner, parents, the state) will cover it.

This!

I would think any healthy relationship would view themselves as a team. I also agree with PP that you can’t reduce relationships to monetary exchanges.

I think the above applies whatever type of family set up you have, so pitting working mums and SAHM against eachother is irrelevant.

Just to give a personal anecdote despite them being banned by OP: I am the higher earner, even when on Mat leave, even when working LTFT. I don’t see myself as “funding” my husband. We are a team.

Also - no such thing as separate finances when you’re married. The courts will see everything (savings, debts) as joint.