"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.

5128gap - there are not many SAHMs in the U.K. today. What I'm saying is those who are SAHMs (I don't just mean women who take a couple of years out when the kids are little - I mean beyond that) are probably going to be in quite specific circumstances. They are going to be women who can't afford to work; women who can't work because of children with SEN or other caring responsibilities; women who don't need to work; women who are / have been expat; or perhaps women who live in very remote areas where there are no jobs.

So when statements are made to the effect of - "your life is meaningless if you don't do paid work like me" or "you are financially vulnerable" - it's just worth stopping to think about who may be on the receiving end of that and how it may make them feel. Just think about it. And then also consider what 'meaningful' really is and the fact that loads of married working women or just women in general (and men) may also be financially vulnerable anyway.

@aokii

it's just worth stopping to think about who may be on the receiving end of that and how it may make them feel.

I don't disagree with this. This is a hugely emotive and political subject. No one should be castigating individual women for the way they have structured their financial/family life. It may not be a choice in the first place and if it is a choice it is usually done with the best intentions.

I do think there is a very real issue with financial vulnerability though. This isn't simply WOHMs having a pop (although I can understand how sometimes it can feel like that). Its a subject which many girls aren't properly informed about before they make these lifetime choices. Information which has the potential to colour these decisions, such as the importance of choosing the right career, the importance of marrying if you do decide not to work etc, are filtered through a dreadful miasma of "romance" about marriage which leads many young women to make choices based on a Disney ideal of what marriage should be like. This leads an awful lot of women to make disastrous choices about how they structure their lives and this is why many of us feel so strongly about teaching girls the importance of financial independence. Not only SAHMs, by the way. I include myself in the category of women who was woefully educated about this stuff.

If this rhetoric inadvertently upsets some SAHMs and makes them feel picked on then I apologise. It's not my intention and it goes against all my instincts to criticise other women for things they may not have control over. But I do feel very strongly about this and to be honest if the hurt feelings of a few SAHMs helps persuade more women to protect themselves, then so be it.

Everyone's life has meaning. The only variations are to what extent, and to how many people, and the individuals perception of what to them gives life meaning.
If a person makes choices that mean their life doesn't touch many people in a positive way (and you can be in paid jobs where that's the case) it's inevitable that people looking in will not see it as having the same meaning as other lives.
But, to put it bluntly, that's the trade off, isn't it? People with choices, deliberately choosing to structure their lives so the emphasis is on ease for their husband, the facilitation of his creation of wealth to benefit themselves and their families and their own pleasure in child rearing are not going to have the same 'meaning' to others as those whose lives bring other people benefit. I understand that's not a 'nice' thing to say, and it's not something I'd drop into conversation, but its objectively true nonetheless.
No lifestyle is without its downside and the lack of being seen to make a meaningful contribution is the downside to being a wealthy SAHM who neither works nor volunteers.

I totally agree about the importance of enabling girls to make informed choices. Absolutely! I have 2 daughters myself.

I am 100% for equality of opportunity and this needs to begin at the school level. I don't think anyone in their right mind wouldn't be. My girls are in all-girls school. Everything is open to them and I will support them 100% in whatever they want to do.

You may have read though about a quite comprehensive study (I think it was 2018 - I can find the university if you're interested) which first identified something called the "equality paradox." They had gone to Norway (I think, it may have been Sweden) which is widely held as being the most equal society in the world - even to the extent there are enforced quotas on the % of women in management positions in organisations;; "take it or lose it" paternity for men and various other initiatives. However, they were surprised that, in terms of education, the impact of a more equal society actually has had the opposite effect in terms of the choices girls are making in schools (ie. far less are choosing to take STEM or 'career orientated subjects' compared to non-Scandinavian countries and particularly developing countries or other societies where there is far less equality for men and women in terms of their representation in the workforce).

Basically, they concluded that equality of opportunity will not always lead to what would be expected - ie. equality of outcome. As women are more confident and assured about their "equality" in society, they are likely to do subjects they are genuinely interested in, rather than subjects that perhaps they are being told they "should" want to do. I guess all this links in with this thread to some degree.

The value of a life 5128gap is about how you touch others lives and if you make them feel better about themselves. Doesn't matter if you are out in Africa with the aim of alleviating poverty, or just someone who gives in a small way to perhaps an elderly neighbour, to animals or just something small scale in your community. There are many ways of making a difference in your own small way. Most of the time, your job has nothing to do with it (unless you happen to work as a teacher, or in the caring professions, etc etc). My husband is not so deluded that he thinks his life value is connected to his work impact or how much money he has made. He would laugh at the idea. I'm amazed anyone can think like there, to be honest.

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

I think you are being deeply insulting to those women who have managed to retrain and start their own successful business. Plenty bring in good money - sure, not as much as the stock broker in the city but enough to manage and grow should the relationship fall apart.

I have never once said that value is connected to how much money you make. That couldn't be further from my opinion.
And you say your husband would laugh at the idea of value being through work, yet earlier in the thread you pointed out how many jobs he'd created, ie, benefitting others, so it is obviously something you consider as linked to work.
I agree you can touch lives and be meaningful in smaller ways. But the more you get out into the world the more scope you have for it. And working people help their elderly neighbours, rescue animals and are kind to strangers too.

This is quite insulting you know. It seems you have a certain 'type' of SAHM in mind? Lots of women are at home long-term because they're caring for disabled children or other family members, and leisure time is something they may have very little of. And please don't imply they're not making a contribution! And they have many skills, just not ones that are highly valued, unfortunately.

I've encountered on here exactly the attitude you describe in your last paragraph. It was in a thread about women being paid for. It may have even been the one about a poster's middle aged friend questioning whether to go on a second date as the guy hadn't ordered and paid for her taxi home.

To paraphrase, the answer was something like "he pays for the privilege of being with me."

My post is contextual. I'm responding to a direct question from the OP where we were discussing women who are SAHMs from choice not necessity. Its been acknowledged by me and other posters several pages ago that some women are SAHMs because they have specific circumstances such as caring for disabled children. So yes, in that response I did have a certain type of SAHM in mind. The type I was discussing with the OP, so your offence on behalf of mothers with care responsibilities is entirely misplaced.

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.

The other (and very common) type of woman who always seems conveniently missed out is the woman who earnt significantly less in the first place. These women have much less to lose. Like the receptionist who married my former boss (Commercial Director) at my previous company.

Did she really sacrifice her career mobility by giving up her receptionist job? I'd see her driving around the posh little market town in a black Bentley Continental or sitting outside having a leisurely lunch at a fancy bistro whilst I was rushing to get a sarnie from M&S and get back to my word documents.

She certainly didn't seem to have been too badly oppressed!

If I'm an office selling some product for some random company; or perhaps advertising it or what have you (that nobody actually knows they wanted or needed) - would that have more 'value' than the value and impact I can have with my own 4 children at home? I don't think so.

Some jobs are if great value to society, yes. But a lot are not, apart from the money earned by the individual.

At the end of the day, someone needs to be with children and this role has more valley then many other files in life. If it's not you or your DH, it's no doubt another woman on MW or thereabouts who has perhaps had to make other less than ideal arrangements for her own children so that she can look after yours for MW.

Or perhaps your child is with your own mother or MIL while you snd the DH are both at work. At the end of the day, chances are the SOMEONE HAS TO DO IT is a femalE. Either for free or less than you earn.

I did actually used to do one if the so-called 'benefit to society' type jobs in the public sector. but I became quite disillusioned with it actually because there is such much arbitrary bureaucracy that stops you doing the actual point of the job.

To be fair, we don't really need any more humans destroying our already crippled planet, but neither do we really need people whose sole working existence is to convince people to "buy our staples not theirs".

Do SAHMs with really wealthy husband's not worry they will be traded in ? I've seen this happen lots and wealthy men are better at hiding the money .

@5128gap I see, that wasn't clear to me, thank you.

Most office jobs are mundane and boring IMHO. What a way to gauge the value of your existence.

Spending the majority of minutes in every hour, majority of hours in every day, majority of days in every week, majority of weeks in every year, majority of years in your life....sitting in a chair. 😂

And all the "reaching out to Derek in accounts" and checking we have "the bandwidth" to compile another word document.

It's hideous IMHO.

It wasn’t my intention to be insulting and I have gone out of my way to say that this is a positive and valuable thing for a SAHM to do. I think it’s great that people retrain and do something that interests them.

But the fact is that running a business which is primarily based around a hobby or interest and upon which you don’t rely for your financial security is a is a very different ballgame to having to work to be financially sustainable.

I've seen it happen. She walked away a millionaire (was a carer/nurse before) and is apparently living in Spain with a younger bloke now. True story. But she was absolutely gorgeous looking tbf.

" Do SAHMs with really wealthy husband's not worry they will be traded in ? I've seen this happen lots and wealthy men are better at hiding the money ."

Is he worried about me trading him in?

Much as I admire the sentiment, and this is not a comment on you personally, or the unique value your husband sees in you, but realistically it doesn't work quite like that does it?
There are far more women out there who could be a housewife to a millionaire than there are millionaires seeking housewives. Especially those who have already raised someone else's children.

The men I know with SAHMs are just ordinary men who come from nothing particularly but have worked hard with a bit of luck along the way. It's not exactly high-glamour, drama and some kind of WAG reality show!

Anyway, I would argue that our marriage is far stronger because we have allowed and supported each other in our roles than if we'd both been working and juggling and had less time for each other. The older I get, the more I can see this.

I must know hundreds of women who SAH in similar situations to me. Only one or two divorces I can think of in 20 years. That's not bad going and much less than the national average.

I think its also fair to point out that if a rich old man decides he wants to chase after a younger woman, whether his wife works or not isn't likely to make a difference, so I've never subscribed to the idea SAHMs are at increased risk, just that their position could be worse if it happened.
If anything I would have thought the SAH model probably results in fewer divorces, given the amount of affairs thst start at work, as the SAH partner at least hasn't the opportunity. So that's something!

The bottom line is - if you could walk away from the marriage tomorrow with similar or perhaps a lot more than you would have earned if you'd been single over the years, then you are ok. That's how most SAHMs would look at it.

Also, I'm not sure there are that many women out there anymore who would cope with a dynamic where a husband is open about his preference for his wife not to work. It's not for everybody!

@aokii I actually think the bottom line is that marriage or aligning with a man remains the most certain and probably the most popular way for women to ensure their financial future. A few high flying women will be able to generate wealth on their own, but for most it will be through joint partnership.

As long as this is true - that probably the easiest route to financial security is via a man - then women will always 'live off men' as you suggest in the title of your post.