"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.

@aokii

So we're back to you choosing to be a sahm because you wanted to.

At no point have I said anyone should do anything they don't want to ir make themselves worse off or miserable.

You do you hun

But those choices will have wider societal impacts, like any other.

And yes, the fact that it's mostly women doing paid childcare is also sexist.

I meant career ambitions.

@Howardsbend

Yes it is.

Because it absolves men of any responsibility for 'raising' their children.

The whole notion of being 'funded by a man' is based in patriarchal systems. If we didn't have a patriarchal system, this wouldn't even be a thing.
Women who don't wish to work (rather than having it forced upon them by circumstances) have found a way to turn this to their advantage. The notion of man as provider, woman as child carer facilitates the preference of some women not to have to earn their own living.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising individual women for taking advantage of one of the few instances in which the patriarchy might be useful, just pointing out that that's what this is.

It's not always 'either / or' Topgub. It can be 'both,'

Its perfectly possible to want to SAH but simultaneously be with a husband who realistically, means anything else would be very difficult. Like I said the other day, the SAHM model probably works best when both parties feel like they are getting the better 'deal' (for want if a better word).

That doesn't mean I think the SAH model is necessarily 'better'. But I don't think there is anything wrong with it either. If you look at families as financial units (as we do), I don't think families with SAHMs are massively different to loads if households where one is the higher earner, or one works part-time. That was my OP.

Also, to take the idea of 'women have to work or it's ' sexist' on s societal level' to its extreme - I personally don't think a society where children are all in daycare being cared for by some if the lowest paid women in the same society is actually 'better' or even less sexist. It's all well and good saying couples should organise themselves to work flexibly work around each other, but realistically, this is not always possible and I can't see how it would ever be in some career paths, to be honest.

@aokii

But you were arguing earlier you felt you didn't have a choice.

2 people with sexist ideals choosing to live to their sexist ideals is A CHOICE. A choice they want!!

And if you think I've been arguing that all women should work and put kids in full time (poorly paid)childcare then you really haven't been paying attention

If it's what a woman wants, its what she wants and it's not wrong Topgub. No justification should be needed.

If you want to talk about an 'ideal' society, it would be one that owns what women want and celebrates the fact we are not all the same and want different things. Don't try to quash or dismiss women who see life differently to you because you're terrified it's 'sexist.'

if the only way you can comprehend someone's value is by whether they work or not, or how much they earn, you are doing the work of the capitalist patriarchy for them.

It's perhaps unfair to talk about my own experience as I agree that the larger proportion of high earners probably fit your description. Empire builders, chest puffers and suchlike. I'm in the minority so not particularly representative.

Probably an uncommon view but I don't see it as me funding my wife but us just doing what was necessary to make the family unit work. My wife and I had identical salaries before kids but I had the higher potential and she desperately wanted to raise them. Due to relatively low salaries at the time, childcare wouldn't have been worth the hassle so it made the whole thing more logical. In fact it wouldn't have been any different if she had worked as the childcare cost would've been split between us and we'd have carried on doing everything 50/50.

But I accept that her career has suffered and we have had to factor that into the division of assets. I think this is where the law may need to be adjusted as 50/50 just doesn't account for different vulnerabilities.

@aokii

I havent said I only view worth via aid employment and I certainly don't subscribe to capitalism

You seem to though.

I'm not terrified of sexism. It's not a good thing though. Why should we have to pretend otherwise.

No one says oooohhh you're terrified of racism when that's criticised.

@Lunar270

Why didn't you want to raise your children out of interest?

He did raise his children fgs TopGub. He just also had a job. And he respected how his wife felt and that that was different to.him.

Men and women do not have to want and do exactly the same to be equal. That's not 'sexist' - It's being honest.

Just because the end all and be all in your marriage is this 50/50 business - it does not follow that anyone who does things differently is not raising their children.

If I had a husband who told me to get back to work after kids, even though we didn't need the money, that would be sexist.

@Topgub

I would've happily been a house husband but my wife wanted it more and I had the higher earning potential.

I settled with putting my career on hold so I could spend as much time at home.

We were pretty poor back then so my wife worked evenings and ended up like ships in the night. We'd eat at 6:00, she'd go to work and I'd do the bathing, bedtime feed etc. It was like this for years.

So I did raise them, just not so much during the day.

If I had a husband who told me to get back to work after kids, even though we didn't need the money, that would be sexist.

Why would that be sexist?

@Lunar270

You just said your wife didn't work? Because she desperately wanted to raise the children. Or it wouldn't have made any difference if she had worked due to childcare but now you're saying she worked evenings so you didn't need childcare? All seems a bit contradictory

How did putting your career on hold mean you still had the higher earning potential?

@aokii

He did raise his children fgs TopGub. He just also had a job

Ya don't say.

So why oh why oh why do sahms have to give up work to 'raise' Children?

There's always someone ready to make nasty remarks about someone else's life. I try to ignore it.

Now this is concerning and every woman and girl should be aware so they can avoid if possible.

In less than a decade the proportion of female pensioners in the UK living in poverty has increased by six percentage points, resulting in one in five female pensioners – 1.25 million – now living below the breadline

ReneBumsWombats - where he comes from it's a different attitude in that if you wanted to father 4 children, but also expected your wife to be working inbetween births and putting her kids in childcare, that would be seen as misogynistic.

You said it would be sexist for a man not to want his wife to work after having kids. Now you're saying it's a cultural expectation where he comes from. That's rather different.

Do you think it's sexist to expect a man to be the sole provider when he doesn't want to be?

For a man to want his wife to work, I meant.

"So why oh why oh why do sahms have to give up work to 'raise' Children?"

Er, because they WANT to and they CAN and their husbands also want their children with (shock!!!) their own mother because they value that and why wouldn't they?

And also because not everyone is the same as you or has your priorities.

No I didn't. I said she didn't work FT during the day. She stopped that and went PT in the evening so we still had some money coming in.

Nothing contradictory at all and I'm not sure why you're looking to pick holes in stuff that's quite obvious. Childcare would've cost about £1000/month 20 odd years ago and she wasn't bringing in a huge amount more (maybe £1400). So it was pointless paying for something and losing out on time with kids when you could just be a SAHM. Working PT in the evening meant that she could make up the difference so we were essentially the same financially. It was harder work but was worth it.

Earning potential is based on your job/industry so not particularly controversial. I just held off bigger promotions and working at companies further afield so I could spend more time at home. My eldest was about 8 when we decided I could push on and that's when the salary increases came.

No you didn't.

You just said she didn't work.

The fact you don't see the value of you both contributing to childcare so you could both advance your careers is telling. Working part time in the evening isn't being a sahm but is obviously a good compromise

You say she wasn't bringing in much more but neither were you if you both earned the same

"Do you think it's sexist to expect a man to be the sole provider when he doesn't want to be?"

I wouldn't put a man in a position he didn't want to be in, no. What is the point of that -it won't work. But personally, I would not have children with a man with a 'separate finance' mentality such as you see people recommending on MN, because I could not respect that in a husband or father. And I wouldn't have children with a man who had the attitude of " just get childcare" or who only valued a wife for her financial contribution.

So do you think it's sexist to expect a man to be the sole provider when he doesn't want to be?

Please just answer the question without going into yet more stuff about you and your life and your wants and your husband and you and you and you. We all know by now what you like and what you want and how you live and my eyes are glazing over. I just want to know: do you think it's sexist to expect a man to be the sole provider when he doesn't want to be?

@aokii

Youre spectacularly missing the point. Again.

I’ll bite. Yes I do think it’s sexist to ask a man to be the sole provider without his consent. Men hate it when a woman unexpectedly suddenly downs tools and stops working forever once the DC appear. (This is why I’m always very surprised when I hear MN claiming that women are forced into being SAHMs).

Whatever works for you AND your OH is great. Ime where one partner drops work hours it’s usually the woman by mutual choice of both parties. Win-win for everyone including the DC as they get to have at least one parent at home more.

But in this case the woman should be prepared to step up again financially IF her OH is either unwilling or unable to do most of the earning alone. (Also so that she can leave him if she’s not happy for whatever reason).