"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 see it all the time and it really pisses me off. I don't know where anybody else on Mumsnet lives around here in Surrey it's so much easier to be part of a married couple. I worked part time whilst having the children and I've only just recently increased my hours. Standard of living I have is nice and it's a good job I like and Love DH because the thought of moving out and living on my own and struggling financially fills me with dred. I couldn't even get a vile 2 bed flat 25 miles away from Ds2's school for less than £1000 a month around here. All this 'don't rely on a man stuff, easy if you are a top earning professional. Here less than £40-£50k and life would be harder.

I think YABU. It's fine if people think that for themselves. It's not fine if it's being used as a way of undermining other women's lifestyles. I think it grates because obviously very few people are 'funded by a man' - maybe mistresses who are kept in their own villa are, and even they ahem "work" for it. More accurately, families decide together that one parent working to bring in money and one parent taking responsibility for family admin, childcare and housework is what works best for the family as a whole. And on this description, the SAHP is no more 'funded' by the working one, than the working one is 'waited on hand and foot' by the SAHP. They have just organised their roles in a compartmentalised way for the benefit of all.

But ok, I think the idea that you should "look at yourself" if you would not want to be 'funded' is also wrong. I would never want to not rely financially on a partner - is that wrong? Quite simply I would not 100% trust anyone to stick to their end of the bargain, I like working and earning money, I hate the unpaid labour (housework) expected of non-working partners. I would be happy to fund a partner to do these jobs if I earned enough and if we decided to organise our lives to prioritise my career in order for this to happen. I don't look down on people who are SAHP, often they have done far better out of life than I have on all the metrics that people use to assess this stuff.

I don't see anything wrong with supporting one another financially, that's the whole point of being in a family unit. As long as it's done in a way that works for you and everyone is happy with, it's none of anyone else's business.

I was supported by DH's salary when I was on mat leave but there was no other option at the time. I was the higher earner by then but also the one to have the baby and actually require leave and shared parental leave was not a thing when I had DD1 and DD2. I'm still the higher earner, even when I've been PT I still earned more. We've been together since 1999 and I have usually been the higher earner since about 2004 when we got married. So maybe he is supported by a woman, shock horror?

I am a single mum/lone parent.

Self made, career etc despite societal best efforts to keep me down.

The one piece of advice I always give to younger women is to be financially independent.

It gives you choice and self determination.

It's a bizarre statement. The only way not to be "funded" by a male is to earn huge amounts of money, pay huge amounts of tax, purchase all health and educational services privately, buy in all your childcare from females, and live as a sole parent.

Because any other situation may mean that a male somewhere has funded something you use, like a bit of road or a streetlight.

Yes, I am being a bit awkward. 😎

I am “funded by a man” but don’t see it that way. I’m working part time earning 10% of his whopping salary. Also a part time student. Older teenage kids. I have my own pension, own 50% of the house, have my own savings. If he was hit by a bus coming home from work tonight I’d be even more well off.

it’s said to sneer at women for making different choices. Usually in a “ I couldn’t possibly be dependent on a man” often with “but that’s just me” added on the end for a bit of an extra sneer:

However, it is infuriating that in this day and age men often still more and women are the ones to go part time or quit work to look after children. The more that’s accepted as the norm, the less progress we will make towards equality.

Same 😂

I just want to be a 'stay at home'. It whatever capacity that may be.

I don’t think it’s good to be too reliant on a partner financially, I’ve seen what happens when the relationship ends and the women who were reliant on their partners financially because they had very low or no earnings as they hadn’t worked for many years or only worked very low paid unskilled part time work were almost always struggling massively.

They couldn’t stay in the family home because they couldn’t afford to buy their exes out or pay the mortgage, they had to sell and split the value minus any mortgage, but didn’t have enough from this to buy another one and they weren’t approved for a mortgage because they’re 40-50+ years old on minimum wage or benefits, often with kids to support. It’s not a position I would ever want to find myself in, but it’s something I’ve seen happen so many times.

I think in some circumstances (married, very expensive home where mortgage has been paid off, partner has a good pension and lots of savings) you would probably be fine financially as everything would be split 50:50 and you would get a very large settlement, but most people aren’t in this situation. If you don’t own your own home, your home isn’t worth a lot or you have a lot left to pay on the mortgage, you have debt and low earning potential you’re probably going to be screwed if you split.

I’m not funded by a man. I’m a lone parent, who gets no money from the dad. I made sure in our relationship that I was able to fund myself.

my choice would never to be funded by a man, but I don’t care what anybody else does. My own life experience means that I will always ensure I am financially able to manage alone, but if that’s not the case for you fine. But I’m allowed to learn from my experiences, and have my own take on how I live financially.

DarkShade - I didn't mean "look at yourself if you don't want to be funded a man". I think you misunderstood., I meant that most women in a marriage will inevitably be to a greater or lesser extent (unless they have totally separate finances) whether they are working full-time, part-time or not at all and especially if they are the lower earner. So, it's a case of "those in glass houses should not throw stones" in a way. If you want to be single or have totally separate finances, then what I'm saying does not apply. Apart from that, I totally agree with your post.

We have less than that and are fine. But where you live makes a difference.

I don't mind being funded by a man. I am, since he earns a lot more than I do and I couldn't afford my lifestyle on my salary alone.

What I don't like is not earning money at all. It makes me anxious and uncomfortable, even though I know I'd have to make big changes if I had to live on my salary alone.

Obviously not everyone feels that way and that's fine. Just do protect yourself. We get so many SAHMs on here who aren't married or independent or on the house deeds etc etc and they really are fucked. It's awful.

Why are sahms personally offended by women saying they don't want to ve funded by a man?

I dont get it.

YABU, as a fully functioning adult why on earth would you expect another adult to pay your way for you? Differences in income within a couple are unavoidable but one adult just living off another and not earning their own income is something that many wouldn't be happy with.

When I was a teenager, I saw how my parents operated the family dynamics. One parent worked FT & one very PT. The FT parent had all the power & decision making over big purchases.

I knew that I never wanted that lifestyle.

Therefore I have worked FT & I don't regret it.

@aokii Ah I see - ok, fair enough, I did misunderstand! I don't disagree with you generally. I do think though that what people who say "I wouldn't want to be funded by a man" often mean is "I would not want to be financially reliant, where the reliance is one-sided" which seems fine.

But your point 1 doesn't make sense - just because 2 people dont have joint finances doesn't mean either are funded by the other unless there is a wage discrepancy???

If I pay half of the bills and he pays the other half, he isn't funding me any more than I am funding him?

Topgub - it's not about being offended, it's just pointing out that people who say this are often largely 'funded by a man' themselves anyway, to a greater or lesser extent..

It's like someone complaining that women who have five children don't care about over-population, when they themselves have two children.

I'm not sure that's a good comparison.

I am not funded by a man at all at the moment. My DP is self-employed and currently unable to work due to a disability. Only my wages and child benefit come into the household. We are okay.

Your op doesn't make sense and lots of people have said they are offended/pissed off etc

I couldn't care less how other families organize their domestic and paid labour, nor do I give a buzzard's bum what they think to the way I organize mine.

Some women, IMO, spend altogether too much time fretting about this. Minding your own business takes a lot less energy.

How is anyone who earns the same or more than their partner funded by them? I earn the same as my wife and we pay for things equally, I’m not supported by her any more than she is supported by me. It’s nothing like not working or working part time low paid work and being reliant on someone else to pay for everything for you.

latetothefisting - even where you both earn exactly the same, chances are you can get a larger mortgage and therefore live in a better house than if it were just you on a single income. Maybe there are other savings you can make too.

In reality though, very few couples will earn exactly the same. Not to mention, earnings can fluctuate a lot over a lifetime. Where one earns significantly more than the other, couples may organise themselves differently, that's all.