"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 agree that it's not so much one partner "funding" another that's the issue, it is keeping your financial independence and earning capability in place should something happen, either divorce or death.

Personally I think it's best if both parents are able to work more flexibly so they both have the opportunity to spend some time with young children and it is easier to take time off work for, eg looking after sick dependents. I think places like the Netherlands have a much more family-friendly work culture and don't rely so much on the idea of one parent always being at home. Subsidised childcare, as is widely available in many other countries, is also crucial.

I think it's ok before kids get to school age if both parents are comfortable with it.

However, I've noticed that high flying successful men tend to want a partner who will be their equal (i.e. another successful high flyer), rather someone who sits at home and relies on them for money.

What I've seen happen in these situations is that the man ends up having an affair with someone in the office, and then the woman is left up sh*t creek (no career etc).

I was always taught to never rely on a man for money. If you do, then you will have less power in the relationship, it will be harder for you to leave if things go wrong, and if you do leave then you're left with a shitty life and no career.

Nobody thinks that their partner would do it to them, but I've seen it so often, even with men who you would otherwise consider to be lovely guys.

In short, I think its a huge risk for the woman.

How does your husband give money to you?

It's obvious from your posts that your worldview is about half an inch wide, but have you really no clue about how two working people can split costs?

It’s not about being a SAHM due to circumstances. It’s about not having a career pre-kids to fall back on if the marriage breaks down. Expecting the state to provide should things go south.

"How does your husband give money to you?"

What kind of a question is that? Give me strength!

Do you actually think I'd be a SAHM with a man who gives me fixed handouts? "Half the cost if childcare you would otherwise be using" indeed!

Seeing as your world view is so wide, I assume you've at dime point heard of the concept of the joint bank account?

Wtf!

*some point - sorry for all my typos btw.

@TokidokiBarbie

The more big and important they are, the more women they will have falling over them. Its amazing how a chubby balding guy

What does that have to do with feminists?

However, I've noticed that high flying successful men tend to want a partner who will be their equal (i.e. another successful high flyer), rather someone who sits at home and relies on them for money.

What I've seen happen in these situations is that the man ends up having an affair with someone in the office, and then the woman is left up sht* creek (no career etc).

I've seen articles shared before that suggest the husband of a female breadwinner is more likely to cheat. As a disclaimer I've idea based on what research.
Sharing your life with someone is a risk regardless of employment status. Everyone should take steps to protect themselves.

It's nothing to do with "elevating" male roles, or what work you value or don't value. It's about cold hard cash and protecting yourself.

This is an unpleasant piece of rhetoric which always gets trotted out by people who are suspicious of working mothers: the idea that working women have been "brainwashed" by capitalism and want to ape men. It's a complete misconception.

Feminists don't want to be like men just for the sake of it. They want to earn the same as men, or at least to have the right to earn the same as men. And they want not to be endlessly drowning in domestic work and childcare just because that's the way its always been, they want the load to be shared by a man where possible and to have an equitable partnership.

The reality is, however, that many work environments, particularly the higher paying ones, prioritise a "male" approach to work (ie the idea that you are supposed to give the appearance that you don't have children and not to allow children to impinge upon your productivity).

This is a role and an ethos which is imposed by patriarchy, not by women. Women go along with it because they have choice. If you want to change this disagreeable culture and make it easier for working women to play a part in raising their children, try to change the culture from within by incentivising more men to play a bigger part in the domestic sphere. Instead of having a pop at women for being more "male".

Every time I think your half-inch scope can't amaze me further, it does. Tbh, I'm only on the thread to gawp at it at this point. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. The things you think are sexist. The way you think anyone who doesn't live like you do must live instead.

No, of course I don't think your husband gives you handouts. I can make a very good guess at how you handle money together. Which is why it's so astounding that you can't figure out a way that two working people might pool their resources and suggest it must be something as loony as the man giving the woman money in an envelope every week. You don't think two people who both earn can share money in any way resembling how you do?

I don't think that it is "being funded by a man" that is the actual issue. Many women who are sahp and post on here complaining about their situation have no way to be financially independent. Nothing wrong with being a sahp but they should always have the ability to support themselves in case something happens.

Rene - it has nothing to do with me "having a guess" about two working people". You were specifically responding to a pp's post about SAHMs! You said you thought it was reasonable for a man to fund the cost if his wife's maternity period and then after that, give her half the cost if the childcare they would otherwise be using. Your words.

And of course most working couples have joint finances. No shit Sherlock.

No, I was specifically responding to your idea that sharing childcare costs 50:50 between two workong parents was such a ridiculous and borderline obscene notion that there can be no dignified and normal way for the man to make his contribution. And I didn't make the comment about 50:50 in the first place. Another poster did. Can't you read?

As with your earlier goalpost shifting about what's sexist, the post is right there for us all to see, so I don't know why you do this.

It was actually me that said that.
It was part of a specific conversation about what women should be entitled to 'by right' in terms of their keep from the man who fathers their children.
Personally I don't think any woman has a right to indefinite financial support from another adult, how ever many children she chooses to have. However, I acknowledged the other posters point that she is entitled to support during the maternity period and for compensation for his half of ongoing childcare that she saves him by being at home.
I'm obviously aware that women get better deals through agreement, but I'm talking about what I believe should be their right, not what the man might choose to give.

I do apologise. It was actually 541gap that made the comment I was referring to.Apologies for this.

I'd never use that phrase because it's clearly spiteful but...

I very much have always felt that I could never financially rely on a man. Ever.

I've never been in a position where a man leaving me (or doing something where I'd ask him to leave) would put me at a financial disadvantage.

Would there be a bit less disposable cash, maybe, but also only one person to spend it on (no DC).

I wouldn't choose to put myself in a position where I had to change my lifestyle or home.

It's been a very conscious decision.

What other women choose to do is up to them and not for me to comment on. We are all different people with different values and priorities.

Being financially dependent on a man would make me feel extremely vulnerable and I'd hate every minute of it personally.

I mean...this is said fairly regularly.

This is what I was talking about Rene - and it had nothing to discuss with you. I do apologise.

Thereisnolight
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.

To this 5128gap replied -

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.

*nothing to do with you - Arrrgh. Must check posts before I send.

This is such a weird thing to say though...it assumes the woman earns less. I find that a bit bizarre.

Agree with this. It's a good post!

Its nothing to do with elevating stereotypical jobs. It's a simple regonition that some roles contribute more to society than others. I 'elevate' the roles that make the most difference and value those thst benefit me and other people. Being a SAHM benefits one man and the children. I obviously don't consider that as having the same value as a teacher, carer, midwife or worker in a womens' refuge, the person who serves me in Tesco or the woman who cuts my hair. Why would I?

@wheresmymojo

I’ve never been in a position where a man leaving me (or doing something where I’d ask him to leave), would put me at a financial disadvantage.

This is it, this is the central point of this discussion and it’s got somewhat lost in places.

Whether or not there is a degree of financial merging isn’t the point really. It’s very normal and pretty inevitable for many people.

What matters more than any of this is that the woman is able to leave the relationship with the ability to support herself and her children alone. Even if that entails a diminution of her living standards.

This is really what it boils down to. And unless a woman is independently wealthy that means having to work.

wheresmymojo - I was simply saying that most couples, even where there isn't a SAHP, share finances, have joint bank accounts, shared mortgages and savings accounts, etc etc, so in a sense there is not much difference, especially where one earns a lot more than the other.

That was my OP which was a response to some previous threads where I had read various working women telling SAHPs they had no independence etc, only to then hear them describe how their husband earns ten times more than them. And I just though, what's the difference really and why are you on your high horse about SAHMs then?

But the discussion has er, progressed since.