"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 work three days a week (part time) and as my youngest son has recently started school it means I now have two days a week where I’m home and child free.

My husband has been making comments about me going full time at work even though financially it isn’t required at all. He makes light of it and we only ever joke about it but I imagine there is some underlying issue of “Well I have to work full time so why shouldn’t you?”

But I like my two days to myself, I get to do all the washing and ironing, the cleaning, the shopping, the batch cooking and I love being able to take my children to school and pick them up rather than send them to before and after school club. I like that for just those two days a week I can spend the evenings with the children rather than rush in at 6pm and maybe see them for an hour before they go to bed.

All of mine and DH’s money goes into a joint pot although he brings home over double each month than what I do. I suppose I don’t see myself as being funded by him as such, but I know I couldn’t have the luxury to work part time if it wasn’t for his wage.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

Tiogub - I have to tell you, the way you rounded on Lunar was was insane. Bizarre reading.

Aaaannd we're back to the personal attack deflection

Im not deflecting anything. I'm telling you straight. It's bizarre.

@Thereisnolight

Except I havemt said anything about babies?

Acknowledging the patriarchal society we live in is nothing like saying women shouldn't be allowed to do or say something

Am I supposed to care?

I'm not talking about those cultures, I'm talking about the undisputable fact that women choose disproportionately to take on the caring roles, even in societies like Scandinavia that promote equal pay/ parental leave.

It's instinct, biology, whatever you want to call it and it's not sexist to support women's rights to do whatever they want, even if that's being at home for a while.

If you want to eat you have to earn, or find, your keep. This is everyone's personal responsibility as an adult.
Giving birth does not absolve you of that responsibility.
If you can find a man who is prepared to support you so you can raise your children without also having to earn the means to keep yourself, then that's excellent, if thats your preference.
However, it is not a woman's right to expect it, nor is it sexist for a man to refuse it.

Women don't have a right to do whatever they want. Nobody has. A couple with children have a joint responsibility to run their home and raise their children and they should decide as a team how they wish to do this together.

If you've got so much respect for what someone wants, this means not forcing one person to bear sole responsibility for providing if they don't want to. If you don't want it, it's soul destroying, stressful and nobody who loves you should expect it.

It's sexist to make a woman to stay home if she doesn't want to and it's sexist to make a man the sole provider if he doesn't want to. You are supposed to be a team, not one person at the behest of the other to do "whatever they want".

support women's rights to do whatever they want

I mean, even as an ardent feminist I don't support women's rights to do whatever they want

The default for an able adult is to support themselves and their children, as single parents have to do.

Perhaps you have some private arrangement that means you don't have to support yourself. Fine, if everyone involved is willing. But nobody has an innate human right to it.

Thanks but it's fine.

I'm a man on a predominantly female space. I expect to be questioned and in fairness we have what would outwardly appear to be a sexist setup. So I find the difference of opinion interesting, although I don't agree that this type of setup should be so negatively viewed.

The problem is (with ideology) that my wife an I have an equal relationship where we discuss and decide all important stuff fairly with no bullying or coercion on either side That she's a stereotype isn't her or my fault. We're just bumbling along like everyone else. The difference is, she's my equal and I genuinely believe that. To me, that's all that's important and that our girls know this too.

I will never cease to be amazed by the way so called feminists try to tell other women that they know better. It's like having men walking around in women's bodies, leaving the rest of us to be womensplained to. I find it egocentric and obnoxious.

No, staying at home with your children does not absolve men of child rearing responsibilities, what a ridiculous notion. It's not necessarily patriarchal unless the people in question want it to be and a woman working can be twisted in that way too. Nor have stay at home mothers cunningly twisted something oppressive into an opportunity. It's logistics, goals, priorities and what works best for individual personalities.

No time for the high handed condescension.

@Howardsbend

staying at home with your children does not absolve men of child rearing responsibilities

You said women raising children wasn't sexist.

You yourself absolved men of raising their children..

Something, though, about a man who impregnates a woman by having a 30-second orgasm….then expects her to spend the next 14 months carrying the child, giving birth and breastfeeding through the night…but refuses to financially support her…Call me sexist but I don’t like the sound of him.

They’re his children too by the way.

Actually you make a fair point. It would be reasonable to expect financial support for the duration of maternity leave. After that an amount equivalent to his half of the cost had they used childcare instead would seem fair.

@Thereisnolight

Exactly

So he can look after them.

Something about a woman who expects a man to impregnate her. Finance her but not spend the oh so important years raising the child.

Don't like the sound of her.

I find it odd how so many feminists seem to have contempt for men whilst simultaneously elevating the stereotypical/traditional male role of the breadwinner as the most virtuous one, implying that the woman who selflessly dedicates her life to her children can never be as valuable as the 'very important office person' bringing in the wonga.

@TokidokiBarbie

Oh c'mon

No woman who chooses to be a sahm is selflessly doing anything. Dedicating their life to their children my arse

I'm also not sure which feminists you've been listening to

."It would be reasonable to expect financial support for the duration of maternity leave. After that an amount equivalent to his half of the cost had they used childcare instead would seem fair."

Should he give her this "half the cost" in a brown envelope on Monday mornings? Astonishing.

The inference seems to be that in order to be worthy you have to be like a man.

No it doesn't. Talk about inferring what you want to lol

The only person impressed by the big important men with their big important jobs is the op.

The only person impressed by the big important men with their big important jobs is the op.

Not true.

The more big and important they are, the more women they will have falling over them. Its amazing how a chubby balding guy suddenly becomes like Channing Tatum if his pockets are deep enough.

Why are you so comfortable sprouting your sexist crap on here TokidokiBarbie?