"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.

It’s an ignorant, Insta-type “feminist” slogan.

Don’t give it the time of day.

@Twawmyarse

No

Its a woman speaking about their own circumstances (that's what sahms always say when they try to defend the put downs they use about working mums)

What have they to be jealous about?

I'm a lone parent, so I am not funded by a man in any way. I'm funded by the state though if I put it bluntly, as I claim UC top ups (work full time).

What I find most strange is that if that if a man constantly reminded his wife, "you are living off me" or "you are dependent on me", simply because he earned more than her, or she was working PT around the kids or was SAH, then that would be an abusive husband, wouldn't it?

But you hear it a lot on MN - women telling other women they are "living off a man" - which is worrying tbh. Eye-opening though.

@aokii

Macro v micro

The micro v macro thing doesn't wash.

To use your complaint from earlier Topgub, that people accuse mums who use childcare are less involved with their kids or some such... If I was to come on here and say that, I know full well that it's nasty and would be taken personally by many posters in that position, either through choice or necessity . It's no good me then saying, "Oh, I just meant on a macro level...." Come on!

@aokii

No

You made a specific comparison of a man financially abusing his oh v random discussing gender politics

That's macro v micro.

Accusing someone of being less involved with their kids is a direct obvious put down. Saying I don't want to be funded by a man isn't.

You can't just pick and choose to suit yourself Topgub.

I’m a SAHM and funded by a man.

Its lovely, hard work but more enjoyable than going to work for 45 hours a week!

Yes, he could dump me for a 25 year old next week but if he did we’d be okay. Obviously I’d rather he didn’t 🤣

I think you’ve misunderstood my post entirely. I am a single mum (who is self funding - no man or taxpayer to fund me).

What I was saying is that if there is nothing wrong with being a sahm funded by a man (as you seem to be saying) then the same is true of a sahm funded by benefits. Yet society doesn’t view them the same (as we still value women on who they have a relationship with rather than what they do themselves).

But nobody on here is criticising women on benefits are they? I think that's another thread, tbh.

Well, I have several friends/acquaintances who happily admit to being envious that we can afford for me to be a SAHM and that my dh is fully on board and supportive of it. It makes all of our lives easier. So it's definitely a thing! I'm sure some working women would rather gouge their eyes out than stay home and be a full time mum - that's their prerogative and I'm all for it. Being a sahm can be really hard.

I fully admit to sometimes feeling envious of friends who go out to work. But then I weigh up the pros and cons and imagine having to go and either retrain or work 40+ hours a week for a low wage and 4 weeks holiday a year if I'm lucky and I thank my lucky stars quite honestly,

Sorry if that offends some people.

I think you've taken this and run in the wrong direction.

I've only ever seen this when referring to SAHM who have no income and no financial security of marriage.

@aokii

I dont understand what you think I'm picking and choosing.

You're comparing things that aren't directly compatible

@Twawmyarse

Presumably women who are jealous if sahms aren't going to be saying it's wrong to be funded by a man if they want to ne sahms?

Its more likely to be said by the gouge your eyes out ones and they definitely aren't jealous.

Your post is full of contradictions

(Ps, mums who work are also full time mums)

I'd love to be funded by a man. I'd happily do all the house type of work load and mental load so I didn't have to work. It's absolute bullshit that we can have it all.

Topgub

The fact I said some women who make the "I could not be funded by a man" comments may be a teeny tiny bit envious really seems to bother you.

Maybe ask yourself why? 🤷‍♀️

@Twawmyarse

It bothers me because its a snide dig.

Designed to get people's backs up by implying that being a sahm is the ideal all women would love to be if they could just admit it.

The fact its utter bullshit sahms make up to ease their own insecurities is just an added bonus.

Topgub - there are macro implications to most family trends. Just as you say there are macro implications to SAHMs being out of the workforce, there are other macro implications if there is a shift towards babies / children being in full- time childcare and that becomes the societal norm. There is a debate to be had there and people will take a view. However, it is still not ok for me to come on here to say, "I could never put my children in day nurseries" because I'm fully aware that this will be interpreted as an insult / judgement by those who do, not to mention disingenuous to women who have no choice. It's the same with, "I could never be funded by a man." You must realise that some will interpret this as an insult / judgement, not to mention disingenuous to women who have no choice. It's exactly the same thing. So, that's what I mean by you can't pick and choose and fudge insults with 'micro and macro.'

@aokii

Except my comment about macro v micro was about you comparing a man saying it to his wife (micro) and a discussion on the Internet (macro)

Not about funded v childcare which could both be micro

So, no.

I wasn't picking and choosing.

Maybe we're all only sensitive to particular insults but I see 'I could never leave my kids for that long' far more on here than I see comments about being 'funded by a man'

Most people have no choice or limited choice in how they run their family set up and women have less choice than men.

No, the discussion on MN is not 'macro.' What are you talking about. You know full well people will take things personally on here.

If you are in an abusive marriage, your husband may well try to put you down by "you are dependent on me - fact." Recognise that kind of statement Topgub?

Another type if abusive husband might try to make his wife guilty for using childcare. This is why I would never say anything on here like that. Trying to guilt trip or demean other women is never helpful, is it? I don't care if it's said under the guise of a 'macro' discussion. It's not necessary.

Ahh..there we have it then. You're just a massive hypocrite aren't you?

Your derision for sahm's can't help coming out in the end!

For those talking about how much equity they have in their homes, remember everything could change as quick as a flash.

I agree. Its smug, provocative and lazy. It shifts the discussion away from the points of debate to the imagined motivation of the person disagreeing, in order to belittle them and discredit their views.
I don't care which side of the debate people are on, and I've heard it levelled the other way too, trotting out 'you sound jealous' annoys me too.