"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.

So I can't have self respect because I'm a SAHM? Are you kidding?

I think this is it really, isn't it. It's fine as long as you're not solely dependant on them for everything. If you can afford to cope without them, or even not have to ask for money while you're with them, that's fine. It's when a woman has no access to money without having to access that it becomes a problem.

A lot of SAHMs have had no means of funding themselves and the only aim seems to find a rich man. They want to quickly have kids to justify their choices.

Why do you even care?

So your op is exclusive to those with a higher earner/mc lifestyle?

Thats going to be quite niche and still isn't even true.

@oxydant

You could also ask why you care they care and we'd be here forever

I have never seen that phrase used but being a SAHP with the protection of marriage, name on the house etc is a perfectly acceptable way to solve the expensive issue of childcare, and if a family can survive on one income then why not?

The sad thing is when you read threads about women who stayed home with the kids, never developed their careers, paid into pensions, or even married, and the marriage breaks down when the kids are teens or have flown the nest.

I don't think it's a problem being funded by a man. Each to their own.

I do however find it disappointing that so many women have no ambition for themselves to earn well.

Why is it the default mentality that the woman will be the lower earner?

As a society is we need to change that mindset.

I’m sure it is annoying to those being funded by a man, but for many women they just can’t work out why anyone would want to make themselves vulnerable. And yeah maybe not every SAHM or SAHW is vulnerable, but if their husband left them tomorrow they are in a very different place to someone who earns a good salary and can support themselves. That’s why people say it, because they think it’s crazy to live like that. But it works for many women, and not all men leave their wife’s. We all have different priorities, I’d hate to be a SAHM, many women would have to be a ‘career woman’, but I don’t we can deny it’s often a vulnerable position to be in.

OP, are you a man trying to portray women as spongers?

May I answer that? If DH drops dead tomorrow we still have about 500k equity in the house, so I could downsize to a 500k house and live mortgage free. I would also work again (I plan to when DD goes to school anyway) and I've studied for two extra certificates in the meantime so I'm still employable. So Yes, I'm a SAHM, but I'm not "stuck", I have rights and options.

If he runs off into the distance then he'll still have to buy me out of the house, so same story and I'll downsize a bit more than in the previous scenario. Oh and having a well off dad if I need extra help to tide me over. If dad is alive that is, I hope he'll live for a long time. If DH does leave after my dad died I'll be rich anyway, and the money is protected so he can't get it (not UK, different laws).

Not all SAHM's are vulnerable.

@stayinghometoday

Imnlt sure it's just a question for vulnerable but why so many women are ok to be dependent on men full stop.

Dad or husband

No I'm not a man trying to imply all women are spongers! Quite the opposite. I'm saying, if you are in a marriage where your husband ends up earning a lot more than you (whether you work or not), there is not exactly a lot you can do about that really is there? So, unless you are going to live a separate financial life to him (assuming this is even possible), you will be 'funded by a man' to some degree whether you like it or not. So I don't know why, on the threads about "If you are with a rich man, was it worth it?" (or some such titles in the last few days), some women were falling over themselves to declare they would never marry a 'rich man' or 'live off a man". Because, they probably do live off their DH's income to some extent. Also, if he suddenly became a high-earner, what would they do? Tell him to reject the extra money? I don't think so.

I don't see myself as dependant though, I can get a job and 250k equity is mine. Surely that's not a bad position to start over in?

Plus that I'm at home temporarily. When dd goes to school I'll go back to work. Most SAHM's I know are planning to go back to work in the future.

TBF as long as our financial setting works for me
and husband, I don’t care what strangers on mumsnet think. Waste of headspace.

@stayinghometoday

But you are currently dependent

🤷‍♀️

I agree that ideally, women shouldn't be funded by men but looking after children is no such thing.

I assume you are either single or have separate finances to your husband Topgub (in case he earns more than you)?

I’ve seen it so so many times, always directed spitefully at sahms.

Yanbu OP.

@aokii

I'm not single, no.

I'm not dependent my oh. We have kind of shared finances but mostly separate and I'm the higher earner.

But none of that is really relevant as your premise is a false equivalency.

It's quite a twatty line. It's also the line of someone reasonably young with no significant health issues and not much imagination. In the course of a long relationship (and in particular with regard to marriage) there is every chance that one partner will end up "funding" the other for a period, due to ill health, redundancy and a myriad other things. That possibility of depending on one another and the feeling of mutual support are hugely valuable, so to take a policy position that you'll never be "funded" by a man seems quite short-sighted.

Tbh that's bandied about too a lot. Along with assertions that working mothers aren't doing parenting the right way.

Yes it's usually said out of spite and sometimes a teensy bit of jealousy IMO.

I have every respect for women who go back to work and want to be financially independent but that isn't right for everyone. We have a big family (4 dc's) and I didn't want to put them in childcare. back when I had my eldest 2 you only received 3 months SMP so they'd have had to go to nursery from 3 months old - neither I nor DH were comfortable with that.

Every situation is different and hopefully if dh dropped dead I wouldn't be high and dry as we have significant assets and he has a large insurance policy.

The one piece of advice I would give women who don't want go back to work though is make sure you get married. The amount of people who still believe there is such a thing as common law marriage is scary.

I have every respect for women who go back to work and want to be financially independent

Yes calling them jealous speaks to that respect. Do you think your husband is jealous by the way? Or is it just women that wish they didn’t have jobs?

Well, we're talking about women who put down SAHMs with the line "I couldn't be funded by a man" aren't we so I don't really get your question?

I don't think my dh is jealous no - il have to ask him 😂