"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.

A disclaimer to the above. You don't hear men splitting hairs over this stuff because, to date, they've never had to. Many of the threads on this site attest to the fact that a disappointing proportion of them assume the 'wife work', as MN likes to phrase it, will always be picked up by the women. The phrase 'having it all' is frustratingly never used in the context of men. The assumption that women will DO it all is, however, still far too prevalent.

That's the situation I would be railing against (and frequently do). Not the issue of whether other women are undertaking paid work or not.

I dont think its that "society doesnt value unpaid work". Its just that when SAHPs list all the unpaid labour they do... Its what everyone else does anyway on top of working. Everybody does unpaid labour. Hoovering and posting letters isnt unpaid labour, it's the basic stuff any person has to do to live a normal life, whether they work or dont work, whether they have kids or not.
When SAHPs talk about all the energy they expend that goes unrecognised, I just think...what on earth do you think single people and/or working people do? Live in hoarder-style hovels as their life admin falls apart, eating beans straight out the tin?
Hired help is used by a very small minority.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

Exactly why minding your own business is never going to change anything

@Tierne

Exactly

Its baffling.

I can change my own perceptions, attitudes and behaviour.

Nothing I can do about other people's. If you want to change a situation, the only thing you can alter is yourself.

Let's not get into the whole "SAHMs what do you do all day?" What does anyone do all day and who cares? How long is a piece of string? Nobody can possibly say "I do everything you do AND work" because you don't know who you're talking to or their circumstances. Chances are, they are quite different. But mainly, it doesn't matter. Let's not get into all that.

I am the sole earner in my household. I wouldn't want to be funded by a man -and I am not.

You literally started that conversation with this thread. You knew exactly what way it would go.

Me too! I’d also like my dinners cooking and hourly hugs (see Ukrainian refugee thread)🙂

What do nannies do all day then?

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

Do you apply the same logic to racism, homophobia etc?

Not worth discussing those attitudes as you cant change them?

@VioletInsolence Parents expect nannies to do much more with their children than they do themselves. You are not allowed to have a quiet day at home putting on kids TV for example. You are expected to entertain the children all the time and use any naps to clear up the kids mess.

Could they honestly say they could maintain the same lifestyle without their DH's income coming into the household?

Yes, I could and did.

I am funded by a man, who helps me out with payments for things. I'm more than happy to carry on accepting such help, rather than struggle.

No I did not start the thread to discuss what SAHMs do or don't do. Everyone varies and that discussion is pointless. It has nothing to do with the point in the OP which is the reality that this phrase "funded by a man" is too often the "pot calling the kettle black."

For instance, you frequently get posters saying things like, "My DH earns 10 times what I earn but I still work 35 hrs per week for £30k because I refuse to be funded by a man..." I'm not saying her job should be less valued than his just because he earns more (far from it), but, at the same time, she can't pretend it doesn't affect her. Unless she literally lives a separate life to him, how could she avoid being funded by her husbands income in practical terms?

Funded by is the same as dependent on.

Some women want financial independence. Even if they do share money they could still be completely financially independent if they wanted to

Its really not that difficult a concept to understand

Well its a bit loaded isn't it? As well as being a little reductive in describing the nuances of people's set ups.
I'm financially independent so it's not my fight, but I can see that the phrasing, while technically correct, implies all sorts of assumptions and judgements that would be offensive.

Yes I see that Topgub. But over time, it's easy to see how a family's lifestyle becomes determined by the higher earner's salary. If you have a much higher earning husband, so that you end up living in a very expensive area and your kids are in private schools or something like that, how 'independent' are you really if you can't afford those things alone? Or if you would have to radically adapt and possibly leave your job anyway to move away to a cheaper area?

😂 same tbh, my DMs are open

Join the queue 😂😂😂

I am single and pay my own way. I am thrilled to not have to rely on a man to fund me.

Me too please!!! 😃

It's totally my aspiration in life (sadly so far unattainable)

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.

Hear, hear, same here.

Tbf, the wording "funded by a man" is a bit condescending and it's not a phrase I'd use myself.

I’m happy to be funded, but not for my freedom to be dependent on a man.

I can afford to leave any time I need to.

@5128gap

Meh

Certainly not any more loaded than I didnt have kids for someone else to raise them/precious time you dont get back/love them too much/too important to miss etc etc

At least funded by a man is actually accurate