"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.

Why is it telling if we've worked out who does what before having a family and it works for us?

@Thereisnolight The problem is the father is rarely prepared to do his share at home. Lots of father expect women to go out to work and still do more than half if the work at home.

Yes I do think it’s sexist to ask a man to be the sole provider without his consent.

So do I.

Even if he can provide for you all, it is a huge responsibility being the only earner in the household. I think it is extremely sexist to think a man should take up this role even if he doesn't want to. Just as it would be sexist to expect a woman to be a SAHM if she didn't want to.

I'm still waiting to hear why it's sexist for a man to want his wife to continue working after kids. Expecting her to work while doing nothing at home himself, yes. But childcare and domestic duties weren't mentioned at all when OP said: "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."

@Lunar270

Your language is telling imo

Your wife desperate to be a sahm so she could raise the children

All childcare to be funded by her wage even though it was the same as yours

Your career worth more

You worked out you'd follow the same old sexist ideals

Ok, first point - I don’t think a SAHP is funded by anyone - they work extremely hard doing a very difficult job. The combination of childcare savings and, at its core, the services they render in the domestic barter economy more than makes up for the money a working partner provides.

Secondly, I would never say ‘I could never be funded by a man.’ Christ, as a partner who works 100hr+ weeks and goes dutch on everything, I would give my back teeth to be truly ‘funded by a man’. Or a woman. Really not fussed. 😁

But on your other point OP, no - my other half and I do have completely separate finances. He makes more but every bill is split in half. I pay all the bills and the shopping every month and then let him know at the end, how much his half was (minus half of the mortgage he pays). I even keep receipts in a mug in the kitchen.

We have a joint account but it’s only used for him to transfer that bill money into, that I then transfer into my account.

I am aware that, as he makes more money than me (and has a family that has left him decent inheritances), he can put more money away and therefore, like his dad did with his mum, he will likely retire long before me.

So, I can say with hand on heart that I am definitely NOT funded by a man, even though I really, really wish I could be 😂

Possibly.

I read posts here about men who do their hobbies all weekend or sit and game all day. I would leave a man who behaved like that as clearly he has no interest.

But I read many many more posts from women who say their OH put the wrong clothes on the child or fed them the wrong thing or didn’t bath them often enough or spends too much time with MIL. In other words, he has to obey her rules on his watch. In many cases the woman simply can’t relax and let go and let someone else run the show. That is definitely more common with many women I know.

I think that's unfair.
A lot of women really do want to stay home. Goodness knows, we've heard enough from them on this thread telling us how wonderful and idyllic not having to work is to the point some genuinely think working mums are jealous.
He also didn't say all childcare would be funded from her wage. He said once childcare came out of their income there was no point in his wife going back to work when she didn't want to.
Its also a matter of fact not opinion that some careers are financially worth more.
My own has an extremely low earning ceiling. It would be very easy for my partner to have paused his for several years and still caught up and overlook me salary wise, because he was private sector and I was third.

He did say from her wage.

He said it was 1 k and she only made 1400

And yes, I know lots of women want to be sahms.

I've not denied that. Its still a sexist choice, influenced by sexist, patriarchal ideals.

And yes, some careers are worth more financially. Again, influenced by sexist, patriarchal ideals. But thats not the only worth working has

It might be sexist that more women than men want to stay at home - could this be I wonder because there are actual sex differences between men and women,
? - but I’m not seeing much evidence nowadays that bring an SAHM is being forced on any woman. Quite the reverse in fact, much to many women’s dismay.

However to be fair, while I think @Topgub’s view is outdated in the current UK, women in other countries are still discouraged from being financially independent and in many cases lead awful lives. So Topgub may be keen that the UK doesn’t slide back to that level of expectation of women.

Ok, first point - I don’t think a SAHP is funded by anyone - they work extremely hard doing a very difficult job. The combination of childcare savings and, at its core, the services they render in the domestic barter economy more than makes up for the money a working partner provides.

I disagree with your 1st statement, assuming you and the children are healthy, I don't see looking after your children as hard, that's why as a sahm I do a bunch of other things as well. Sure it's a mixed bag, but difficult it's not, especially when they are small. Things can obviously complicated it (birth trauma, nicu stays, peri mental mental health etc) but I don't think labelling as "a very difficult job" does any women any favours.

In many cases the woman simply can’t relax and let go and let someone else run the show

That's definitely true of us. If/when I return to full time work I'll still be doing 100 percent of the admin and directing the housework, even if I'm not actually doing it because I can't stand it being done "wrong".

Also I'm against either partner giving up work without a discussion and feel it's one area which should be revisited regularly.

I think you're really reading more into my posts than there is, just to make a point.

If you could speak directly to my wife she'd tell you that it was one of her ambitions, over and above a career as it has infinitely more meaning than a 9-5. That's not my 'interpretation' but the reality.

You've obviously interpreted my pp how you want to but nowhere have I said that the childcare would've been funded by her wage. You might want to believe it but it doesn't make your statement correct. Us deciding that she was staying at home naturally resulted in us losing her FT salary so I guess it does end up trading her salary for childcare. But you're forgetting that my salary + her PT salary is what 'we' ended up living on as a family.

And yes, WE decided that my career was worth more in monetary terms because it was/is. Her maximum was £30-35k. Mine is 3x that. Again you're conveniently missing my pp where I said I'd be happy to be a sahd. If she was able to earn six figures and wasn't bothered about staying at home it would've been the other way round.

Sorry to disappoint but there's nothing sexist in this at all but knock yourself out.

There really is a skillset in reading a post and applying your own coloured view to suit a narrative.

Comparing a single income to the cost of childcare is just a simplified way of looking at it. Why? Because it was my wife that was looking at giving up a FT job. If I were going to be a SAHD then I'd be comparing the cost of childcare with my own salary. Seems logical to me but again, you're trying really hard to assign meaning where there isn't any.

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

Of course. Just like it's sexist to demand a woman be a SAHM if she doesn't want to be.

it's also sexist to tell women they have to get back to work after a baby asap because there is no difference between them and men.

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.
I don't deny having a SAHM reinforces stereotypes on a basic level.
I do struggle to see how me not working has an impact on a wider level. DH is no more committed to work or home than he was when I worked too. The benefit to him of having me with the children while he works was there when I worked as we worked around each other.
He has always pushed for the company to be more family friendly because it's important to him, that hasn't changed because I'm at home. In fact because he's more senior he's in a position to make the changes rather than just ask for them.
If I was working he wouldn't have taken the promotion, but the role would still exist and someone else who can commit to working away regularly would be doing it.

@Thereisnolight

I never said sahms were forced to sahm.

But not all sahms are mc/well off won't somebody think of the children types either.

Plenty are forced into it for a variety of reasons (mostly influenced by sexism)

There is research that shows a fair proportion of sahms are unhappy and a fair proportion would work of affordable childcare was available

(No I don't have it to hand but I'll find it )

I think we have the illusion of equality in the UK. But we still live in a sexist, partiachial society of which encouraging women to be default parent is the ideal.

@Lunar270

Mmmmm.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence you conformed to the sexist status quo.

Right down to the pay gap gender jobs.

🤷‍♀️

I agree. Unless you both earn exactly the same then one partner is "funding" the other. If you're then you're a team anyway, so I never see money like that.

We've had periods with me not working and periods when my husband hasn't worked due to various reasons.

We've also had periods where each of us earned more - no big deal as we share our money.

It's certainly sexist to expect a woman to get back to work while she's still recovering from childbirth and not yet well enough.

But that's not what you said.

You said: "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."

You didn't mention the women's health and you didn't say anything about returning to work "asap". Your only thoughts were "after kids, even though we didn't need the money". The money was the concern. Nothing else.

Please don't try to pretend you meant something other than what you clearly said. You said that it would be sexist - discriminatory, based on sex - for a man not to want to be the sole provider after having children even if theoretically he could.

By that logic, I am being sexist by choosing to work when I don't need to, because I could be staying home and sparing my husband ever having to do any childcare or housework

If you want to reconsider your idea that this is sexist, and you should, because it's nonsense - great. The purpose of discussion is to think. But please don't start telling us you meant something other than what you wrote in your post for us all to read.

It's possible to be anti-women without being sexist. In this example the woman wants to be a sahm for a while (possibly because she's a woman and feels she's not emotional ready to leave her baby). It's not respecting her views and emotions to force her to go back. It's anti-women in the traditional sense, but could be dressed up as "feminist/anti-sexist" because we're all supposed to be the same now and women aren't allowed to say "I'm a Mum so I want to be with my baby for longer".

Equal doesn't always mean the same.

Hmmm all you like.

It would've been infinitely more sexist if I'd had the conversation with my wife and then told her she couldn't do what she wanted because of some sexist ideology.

It must be difficult for you to accept the fact that some women choose something that you find disagreeable or doesn't fit with your beliefs. We're happy that we've done our best to strike the best balance for us and ultimately that's all that matters isn't it?

I don't even know what you mean about pay gap gender jobs.

@Georgesgrumpymedicine

and women aren't allowed to say "I'm a Mum so I want to be with my baby for longer".

Where has anyone said that?

It's not respecting the man's views and emotions to force him to take sole financial responsibility for the household when he doesn't want to.

Disrespecting the woman's views and emotions would be to tell her that she must never be a SAHM no matter how her husband felt about it. Having a SAHP requires each partner to take on a specific and all encompassing role. It is the height of disrespect to force this on one person when it's not what they want. Running a household is supposed to be a team effort, not a case where one person's views and emotions completely outrank the other's.

"Equal but not the same" can be true in theory, but in practise it's the cry of the oppressor throughout the ages. Every culture that values a woman on nothing but her ability to be domestic says she's equal but not the same.

ReneBumsWombats -that's quite an extrapolation. In some cultures it is considered not on to insist your wife works if you have children. That's not to say women don't work because they do. But the attitude is different to the MN accepted discourse. But I can't be bothered trying to explain on here because people will just carry on twisting everything and being belligerent.

You’ve implied it.
In your world, any woman who wants to stay with the baby for longer is sexist. And she’s being oppressed without realising it.

Yes, I'm aware of those cultures. You don't know much about me, remember.

And they all place restrictions and sexist demands on women and they all say women are equal but not the same. Well, some of them do own the sexism and in a weird way I almost respect that a bit more than those who try to tell you it's not there.

This suits some women, which is just as well. But it doesn't mean it isn't sexist, disrespectful and unloving to force anyone to become a sole provider or a SAHP unnecessarily when it's not what they want.