"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.

MaybeIWillFuckOffThen - but if you think you could be literally left with nothing if your DH left, then don't be a SAHM!

If, as a family, you operate in a way that everything is always shared and you have accessible assets in both your names, then it doesn't make as much differences who earns what and who looks after the children more.

I'd agree with this to a point.
My partner and I are both high earners - as such, together, we have a lovely lifestyle that we couldn't afford individually.
However, we could also both afford a pretty good lifestyle if we were to separate.

I don't see either of us as being funded by the other, and we actively work together to plan how we can get more in to the household, and how we can support each other in doing so.

Our lifestyle, size of our houses etc, would change if we were to separate, but neither of us would be in a real pickle.

My lovely DH died without warning, of a brain haemorrhage, leaving me with two babies in nappies.
If I had been financially dependent on him, with no career of my own, my children would have had an impoverished childhood on benefits.
However, as I grew up as a radfem in the 70s, I knew the importance for women of having a proper, well paid career. I was a hospital doctor, and was able to give my DC the life that my much missed DH would have wanted.
I would never advise any woman to put herself in the vulnerable position of having no independent income.

I’ve been a lone parent longer than I was ever married for, so no, I am in no way funded by a man.

The drop from two to one income if you split up is a hard drop, made even harder if you’re a SAHM or part time.

I'd be funded by a chimp if it wanted to do so. Male.or female.
Not by Trump though. Got standards.

Me and DH both work but I am part time and he is full time. He brings home double each month than what I do.

I wouldn’t say I’m funded by him, but we couldn’t have the lifestyle we have without his higher than mine wage.

He keeps making noises about me increasing my hours now the littlest has just started school but I can’t say I have any desire to…. 😂

It’s fine to be a SAHP and have no income of your own, your contribution is the raising of your children, etc.

But there are financially smart and sensible ways of going about this, I.E. being married, ensuring your name is on the mortgage and house deeds, you/your partner having critical illness/life insurance cover, ensuring you have independent access to household funds and equitable oversight of finances, ensuring that you are claiming the child benefit so that your NI contributions are being made, having your own little pot of money set aside for emergencies, having a partner who understands and values your contribution, keeping up some kind of marketable skill should you need to re-enter the work place etc.

But more often than not we get stories from downtrodden women who haven’t had so much as independent access to a fiver in the last ten years, who aren’t married to the high earner, who never started out with a marketable skill set, don’t have a bean to their name to leave with and a partner who thinks they’ve sat on their arse and bled them dry for the past however many years. These are the ones that have most people pulling their hair out at the stupidity and naïveté of it.

I wouldn't ever use the phrase 'funded by a man' as it's intended to be goady. However I think if your financial security is wholly dependent on another person, whoever they are, you are reliant on them being, and continue to be, a decent, honest person. That's something that's completely out of your control and I do think it is putting yourself in a vulnerable position.

Agreed. & its so insulting to SAHMs. As if a Woman becomes entirely worthless when she gives birth and stays at home to look after her child. They sound like sexist men.

They speak as if childcare is free out there. & she should bow down to The Great Man because he's working. Any issue she may raise its 'Well your H is out there working so, suck it up'

Ridiculous people. How many of them complain raising children is soooo hard - yet they'll imply a SAHM has it easy. So is it hard raising a child, or not? Does a Woman really only have value if she's out there working for an employer?

Its as if they're alien to the real world and can't accept that their way is not the only way, and nor does it have to be.

One quarter of households are headed by single mums like me. These threads recently have really made me think about single mums and how we see them in society.

society very much looks down on single mums. I get all sorts of comments from school mums (do i « just » rent my house, how can I afford that, etc) because I am a single mum. Also that I must get « single parent benefits « when there is no such thing.

Yet I am likely the highest earner of all the mums and even probably the dads. But I am seen as poor and lower class because I am on my own (wealthy school and I am actually the only single mum in dd2 class).

seems to me we should stop valuing women on who they have a relationship with rather than what they do themselves. That’s fine to say there’s no issues with women being funded by a man if you feel the same way about women bringing up their kids funded by benefits.

i would clarify that I am not funded by either benefits or a man. But if it’s ok for women funded by husbands not to work, why are single mums on benefits so reviled?

Also for those who say that it’s ok if men choose to pay for women but the taxpayer doesn’t « choose » why is it always the man’s choice? We single mums don’t choose for our ex’s to be crap with paying for their kids (as they so often are). Why is our contribution not what matters but what relationship we have with a man?

I personally would never revile mums in benefits, MsPincher.

It's is quite different though - eg. If a family is already has a high tax paying parent, but they decide the other parent will go PT or SAH to make family life easier all round, then the family is self-funding that, just as they would be if they decided to take on a nanny instead.

And I don't think anybody on here is saying for one second your contribution doesn't matter MrsPincher??

I was a SAHM for some years and it’s a bit offensive to say funded by a man. While my DH was furthering his career, and our financial situation, I did all housework/shopping/cooking/washing/gardening/ferrying children where they needed to be. I did every single night time waking and morning get up. I’d argue that I worked harder than him, but we both worked towards the same goal.

I will never be reliant on a man again. I was married and gave up my job to be a sahm, completely reliant on my DH, this was a joint decision but one I regret. My marriage fell apart entirely by his action and I found myself unable to leave as I had zero access to enough money to do so. Now, I have my own income and a career I love and I would never give that up to be reliant on someone else. I will never live in a house I couldn't afford off my own wage, or be in a position where I cant leave a situation should I need to. I would share my income with anyone and wouldn't want someone to share theirs. Once you've been burned, you avoid a repeat.

I don't mean this to sound awful, but did you not have life insurance?

My Dad died unexpectedly when I was very young, it's made me very careful about DH and I both having very good life insurance.

I've seen it and being funded by a man wouldn't be my ideal situation.

Funded by a man is a phrase used to get a reaction.
Sadly though, it is a fact that society doesn't yet value unpaid work in the same way as paid work. So if you are wholly dependant on another person (man or woman) for financial security while you do the equally valuable but not equally rewarded unpaid work then your position is naturally riskier than a more balanced distribution of paid / unpaid work would be. For many, that risk won't materialise and for some it's worth taking but the risk still exists and we shouldn't be blind to it.

There are families with SAHM's who do pay for childcare and more. My SIL had a nannny, cleaner, driver and an ironing lady while staying home. When she went to work her earnings were entirely her own and weren't to contribute to the household or related costs.

I agree. Load of rubbish.

I didn't work for 5 years so was 'funded by a man'.

We are a family. We support one another. All decisions were made together. I don't see it as being funded by a man at all. Will never understand this mentality.

It’s a stupid and lazy statement and I would ignore it. The reality of most SAHM situations is bloody hard work.

Thats about as deserving of a laughing emoji as saying those women funded by men are the ones no one would want to employ.

I would never advise any woman to put herself in the vulnerable position of having no independent income

Me neither

And it's nearly always women who give up work and rely on a man. It rarely happens the other way round.

People aren't reliable, so don't rely on them. Rely on yourself and your own earning ability. You might work part-time, I do myself, but make sure you have your own income.

As for society not valuing unpaid work - unpaid work doesn't put a roof over your head and pay the bills. It doesn't pay for your kids to go on school trips or learn to swim.

And who want to have to ask a man if they can buy a pair of tights (true story from my mum who went back to work part-time when I was 6 and was very keen indeed that I got a good job and had my own income).

I stand by saying 'I would not be funded by a man'.

What I mean is that my parents had a. very traditional marriage

father worked outside the house and had the ultimate power / say in decisions.

mother worked inside the home, got to rule over the domestic sphere.

From a very early age, I knew that I didn't want that life. I earn my money through a contract of employment. No subtle messages, no assumptions, mis communications are recognised and sorted out in a straightforward way.

It meant I didn't have DC, which is a fair price to pay. Once you have the dependents, you can't send them back so then you need to negotiate and compromise with whoever funds you.