"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.

Great post @Thepeopleversuswork

Its also got nothing to do with 'being like a man' for me. Or money.

People who say whd think like that just show up their sexism and mysoginy

Because what they are really saying is that only men should work. Only men should hold positions of power and trust. Women really shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about anything except the children, which of course they dont think men should have any responsibility for. They're far too important creating websites and making money.

I dont want women to be 'like men'

I want women and men to be equal. To have the same opportunity of having a career that will make money/influence/help people and to both be responsible for raising their children.

We still have a joint account, see ourselves as a team in all respects including financially.

But...if he packed his bags today there'd be no one to unload the dishwasher I know I'd be fine financially. I wouldn't have to start panicking about how bills were going to be paid or how I would be able to afford to pay the rent/mortgage.

I just know that I couldn't choose that position as I wouldn't feel settled in my life knowing someone else had the power to change it so much on their own whims. The emotional fallout is unavoidable, but the rest is a decision.

(I emphasise choose as disability is a different scenario)

5128gap - How did you get to the point where you think it's ok for a husband to 'give' his wife money - SAHM or not?

I'vr been talking to you for days and we have some different perspectives - fair enough. But I found your comment last night quite scary if I'm honest. This one -

"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."

Was this a joke?

That's OK, and thank you for the apology.

The point I was making is that if people do choose to cover costs this way - man supports woman during maternity leave and then they split childcare 50:50 thereafter - they can do this in just as respectful and dignified a way as I assume you and your husband share money. I don't see why you'd think it must be otherwise.

ReneBumsWombats - thanks for accepting my apology. You must have thought Wtf first thing in the morning!

If course, if two people are working, childcare is a joint responsibility. Even if they have separate bank accounts, I don't think the cost childcare shouldn't mean one has a lot less disposable income than the other though.

, I don't think the cost childcare SHOULD mean one has a lot less disposable income than the other though.

Sorry, I need to get to Specsavers.

I agree with that. I'm working on the assumption that they're splitting 50:50 because they earn equal amounts. If she's on 30k and he's on 100k and insisting on a 50:50 split of everything, I think that's a problem.

Context is important. The comment was in response to the idea that a woman had the 'right' to expect to be funded to raise her child. My argument is that this is not a 'right' anymore than it would be a man's right to insist on his partner keeping him while he stayed home with his children.
As adults the default is we keep ourselves. I agreed with a pp that the maternity period is an exception to this, but after that, really it is up to the earner if they agree to give the other person the funding they need to enable them not to earn.
I get that it's cold in the phrasing and not reflective of people's loving relationships. But neither is talk of demanding 'rights'.

"it is up to the earner if they agree to give the other person the funding they need to enable them not to earn."

You discuss this before you have children. Any man who is giving his SAH wife "half the cost of the childcare they would otherwise be using" is an abusive bastard, treating her as a commodity. Disgusting.

Any woman that is using her working husband to fund their entire lifestyle is abusive treating him as a commodity

You are ridiculous Topgub.

Lol.

Its your description, not mine.

Yes just get stuck on a word again and take it literally.

What?

That doesn't even make sense

If a man wants a SAHM wife or has a SAHM wife then he financially supports her. End of. That id the deal. It is not for him to decide "how much" to give her ffs. They are a family unit. She is the mother of his children. If you can't grasp that Topgub, I can't help you. Even my teenage sons understand that if you want a family and your wife is not working for a given period, this is not negotiable.

Because what they are really saying is that only men should work. Only men should hold positions of power and trust. Women really shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about anything except the children, which of course they dont think men should have any responsibility for.

This whole thing is a massive slice of crazy. Your principles are not the only principles it is possible to hold. Raising the next generation is a massive position of power and trust, whoever does it. Women are perfectly capable of choosing to prioritise that while also parenting as part of a team.

I dont want women to be 'like men' I want women and men to be equal.

Who cares what you want? It's insane to want something for other women that is based on your own very idiosyncratic value system. Many many people think women are equal with men even if they are doing the childcare at home while men are working. What an astonishing concept! It's up the couple in question to decide what they want. What you want doesn't even feature as you have no knowledge what's best for them or right to comment. Enjoy your freedom and you do you. Don't do the rest of us who have not shrugged off the mansplainers only to be bored to death by womensplainers.

As a side note, the way you talk about women who have chosen to make their role full time at home with the children is pretty damn insulting. You might want to take a look at yourself. If a man spoke of my role like that I'd think he was a dick and your lack of penis doesn't give you a special permit.

@Howardsbend

Why should I care what you think?

@aokii

Yes. I'm not surprised you have raised your children to be as sexist as you.

You said it so much better than I could Howardsbend. Thankyou.

@Howardsbend

This whole thing is a massive slice of crazy. Your principles are not the only principles it is possible to hold. Raising the next generation is a massive position of power and trust, whoever does it.

Sorry, I think you've completely missed @Topgub's point, on several levels:

There's no debate about the fact that raising children is a massive position of power and trust. Absolutely no-one is questioning this.

What's being questioned is who pays for the children to be supported, and who undertakes that care and the way the family is financially structured. And the central point is that if these roles are divided along traditional gender lines there is a financial cost to the woman (and often the children).

Many many people think women are equal with men even if they are doing the childcare at home while men are working.

This isn't about an abstract construct of "value", its about financial autonomy. With the best will in the world and even in a happy and stable marriage, women are not financially equal if they never make any financial contribution to the household. They may be valued, respected and loved and that's all good and well. But when the chips are down, they are not in control. And that may not matter while everything is tickety-boo. But it damn well matters when the marriage breaks up, as marriages often do. Or if the breadwinner becomes abusive.

Someone else made this point upthread and it bears repeating: the concept of "separate but equal" is specious and its often used by people seeking to justify marginalisation of minorities. In this case its a false friend. A woman may be philosophically be "equal" in the family structure in that she is "valued" for doing this work in the home but that doesn't amount to a hill of beans if she doesn't have the money to support her children.

You can tell yourself as much as you want that its all OK because she's providing a valuable service, and yes she is. But ultimately we all need to be in control of some of our own money.

topgub

You are right. There is no reason why you should care what any women think. You are loud in your assertions that women should have what you want for them and that you know better about what their choices should be - but you think you have absolutely no reason to give a damn what they think in their 'pretty little heads'. This is just the patriarchy with a bust. There is no reason for you to care because you're not actually against a patriarchal structure where women are free and autonomous in their thinking, whether it be from men's control or the control of women like you. But I see you.

@Howardsbend

No you don't.

You haven't seen or read a single thing I've said

You've reacted with fear and defensive to a pov you dont understand and can't counter.

Nobody has misunderstood Topgub. Thepeopleversuswork.

I would stick to your own reasoning if I were you..

@Thepeopleversuswork

It also misses the most insulting thing about their pov

The belief that working mums aren't raising their children

I think that's probably why they are so threatened.

They can't cope with the knowledge that it is possible to raise your children whilst also providing for them and having a career.

What has actually happened to you in life that you can end up like this?