"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.

And given feminism is the reason I can vote, own property

Not really. It was more the end of the war, during which women had stepped up and taken over many men's duties, and the fact that other countries like Australia had already given women the vote, making Britain look behind the times. The average man didn't have the vote until women did.

Only rich men and those who had fought in the war could vote previously. I'm not even convinced many of the suffragettes really cared whether their maids got the vote as many seemed to be rich women who wanted what their husbands had. Some historians even believe they hindered the cause by attempting to set bombs off in churches etc and blinding innocent postal workers with letter bombs.

I'm not sure I see them as heroes tbh. Anyone who attempts to bomb the innocent public is morally equivalent to Al Queda really.

Completely agree.

I have mostly been single throughout my life so am pretty self funded. It's hard.

What baffles me is that there are women who have never worked or worked part time who get a house, car, holidays, clothes etc just through the transaction of marriage with a man. Wow! Many of them could never afford close to the lifestyle they're living and I often wonder if they think 'I work 2days a week but got this lifestyle that is far better than my salary allows'.

What's off putting is some women have a sense of entitlement as if maybe just by being a woman one deserves someone to pay one's way. All the work that goes into presenting oneself deserves a reward in the end, right?

Agree with this too.

Nothing at all wrong with choosing to be a SAHM if someone genuinely wants or needs to be with their DC or manage the home. But it’s the women you describe who give it the ick for everyone.

Lazy and entitled people everywhere though I guess🤷‍♀️

👏I agree. It's mind boggling to me that so many women seem to be like this. So entitled.

I wouldn’t use the phrase in the OP but I wouldn’t personally want to feel the vulnerability of being a SAHM both socially (I need adult contact) and financially. I was married before children and have worked part time since. This has allowed me to continue to progress my career, DH has progressed his more so he earns far more than me and so I am able to remain part time.

The key thing for me is the marriage, doesn’t matter about the wedding but the marriage because unfortunately so many women sacrifice their earnings to be. SAHM for the man to disappear. Absolutely shame on the man but women need to protect themselves with a contract (marriage) rather than trust.

Overshadowed - your post completely illustrates my OP though.

I've followed this fascinating thread for days (thank you for posting it) and I agree @Overshadowed is the type of example you've talking about in making your opening point.
However, I think there is a very significant difference between those of a woman who may earn less, and so enjoy a better life than she could otherwise due to a man's income, and those of a woman who makes no contribution at all, either to wider society or to her own expenses. Who has allowed her employment skills to lapse completely, and reduced her world entirely to that of the domestic sphere. Which obviously she is entitled to chose to do, but that does not put her in the same category as a part time worker, a low earner or a woman on a short career break.
So yes, many women may meet the definition of being (partly or temporarily) funded by a man, but there are degrees, and its the extent that matters more, both to the woman's personal risk and also as a wider societal issue.

Yes I agree there are degrees. But also, it's all relative, isn't it. What is more important when considering 'vulnerability' is your assets as a family as the actual 'income gap' between the two people in a marriage. Just as some women can afford to go part-time (as in the case above), a point may come on a marriage where one person's income is "overshadowed" to the extent it doesn't seem worth doing anymore - on balance and considering the amount of children and other family pressures. That's all it is really.

*and the actual income gap (not 'as').

"and reduced her world entirely to that of the domestic sphere."

I don't think anybody needs to reduce their lives to any sphere, do they. Has somebody who works in an office "reduced their life to an admin sphere?"

@5128gap

I totally agree with this. It's a minority of women who can claim to be totally financially independent, the vast majority will benefit to some extent from their husband or partner's finances, whether that be being gifted a share of a million pound business or just someone chipping into your gas bills. It's hard to have intertwined lives without some financial give and take.

But there is a huge difference between someone whose earnings are hugely overshadowed by those of their partner but who still earning something, has a bank account and a pension, takes some interest in family budgeting and keeps her skills and workplace awareness up, and someone who essentially surrenders all of that to her partner.

It's not only the point about access to money, its a mental capability thing too. It's having the mental and emotional readiness to switch into being self-sufficient should you need to and knowing how to put a first foot forward. Even if that entails a painful downgrade to your finances.

A woman doing a limited part time job on a low salary who has her own bank account and has some knowledge of how PAYE works and what rent costs is better able to make this adjustment than a hedge fund wife who is worth £4 million on paper of her husband's assets but hasn't paid a bill for 15 years and doesn't know what a loaf of bread costs.

For the first category of woman its going to be daunting being on her own but something she can at least conceive of doing. For the second category it will be so far outside her realm of experience it will be much harder to get started on.

And @aokii while I do accept that many SAHM have some protection because they are entitled to assets because their husbands have set them up in trusts etc, this will put many of them in the second category rather than the first.

I've not read the thread but I couldn't be with a man who saw life through money glasses.

Our family is the priority and doing our best for the children we have brought into this world.
In our circumstances although money was extremely tight, it was our priority for me to raise our DC and not do paid work.
I couldn't respect any man who would have preferred me at work whilst teens looked after our babies when we didn't need them too, with some personal sacrifices?

I work now however.

Money is extremely important but it's not the most important thing and we try and keep money draining assests and moves low.

I'm sure some women are very financially vulnerable being SAHMs, but really, a lot are not.

This point about re-entering the workplace ... I mean, it's a statement of the obvious. It stands to reason that if you take ten years out of the work place, no woman in her right mind is going to expect to just pick up where she left off. This goes without saying. No SAHM I know has any remote intention of going back to what they did before. If they did, they wouldn't have been SAH! This is so obvious it goes without saying.

Life shifts snd changes and what you want at 45 and your ambitions and outlook on life and what matters to you is not going to be the same as when you were 25. Many SAHMs retrain and do totally different things as they get older and the kids grow up - for instance, I have friends who are now nutritional therapists, psychotherapists, teachers, tutors, fitness instructors and run a whole array of small businesses.

Thete is an assumption on here they everyone is locked into a corporate career and once you step off - that's it. Well not everyone is. People have all kinds of career shifts in life. And those who step off to be a SAHM are doing this knowingly and precisely because they want to step off.

Whatever you do, life is what you make it, whether you work part-time, full-time, do voluntary work, are retired, a student, retraining or a SAHM focusing on her family. Nobody is one -dimensional - and that includes SAHMs.

Equally I couldn't be with a man who insisted I stayed at home and controlled money.

We are a partnership.

It's a very 80s "American movie "mindset!!

That corporate obsession....
Things are more flexible, realistic etc.

No. Because people who work also have a domestic life. Women who work are part of the wider world AND the domestic sphere, and you don't become deskilled in the tasks required of a SAHM because you work.

Do you think SAHMs don't do anything else?

@aokii

Many SAHMs retrain and do totally different things as they get older and the kids grow up - for instance, I have friends who are now nutritional therapists, psychotherapists, teachers, tutors, fitness instructors and run a whole array of small businesses.

Of course. And its a privilege and all power to them for managing that shift in such a positive way.

The thing is, if you are married to someone in finance and have a side hustle as a nutritional therapist this is a lifestyle job. It is probably a drop in the bucket of the family's financial assets and it's very unlikely that this would be sufficient to maintain your lifestyle. It keeps you occupied etc but it probably wouldn't help you much if the financier walked off.

For an otherwise savvy and switched on SAHM I'm sure its a positive, but it doesn't provide much financial protection.

No, I think that some SAHMs volunteer and depending on the role, are those that tend ime to have both the wider world view and experience, and to fare much better should they ever need or want to return to work. And obviously they make a contribution.
Those that don't simply do the same sort of things the rest of us do in our leisure. Hobbies, excercise, learning, socialising, cooking, decorating, gardening and so on. They just have more time for it.

It's for the individual SAHM to decide how much financial protection she needs and act accordingly. For instance, if you live in a house worth £6m and you are mortgage free and your name has been in the deeds since day one so half of that is yours, plus you have other properties elsewhere, you may be a SAHM but you're not exactly financially vulnerable on a national scale.

This is why it's ridiculous to be applying sweeping statements .

"The thing is, if you are married to someone in finance and have a side hustle as a nutritional therapist this is a lifestyle job. It is probably a drop in the bucket of the family's financial assets and it's very unlikely that this would be sufficient to maintain your lifestyle. It keeps you occupied etc but it probably wouldn't help you much if the financier walked off."

Yes, I agree. But so would many jobs be a drop in the ocean - for a lot more stress, longer hours and impact on the family. Which is why women in those type of circumstances, don't go back to those jobs.

But you must know how rare outside of your own circles that is? It's much more ridiculous to hold that up as an example than it is to make sweeping statements, the latter will at least be true for a majority.

It's is very rare in a national scale and that example was just to make a point. But you will be finding more SAHMs in those circumstances than in other circumstances.

To me, it's a bit like saying 'I don't think we should be saying that the local park where there's been multiple attacks on women is dangerous. I'm an expert in unarmed combat so at no risk, so its a bit if a sweeping statement'