"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.

OK

You seem determined to be offended by what some see as fairly factual statement about themselves. Would it bother you so much if they said dependent on? Or are women just not allowed to discuss how they feel incase a sahm takes offence?

They can say how they feel and you can continue to be offended. Or not read those threads. Not much else you can do.

Trying to guilt trip or demean other women is never helpful, is it?

Oh, I'll look out for your thread bemoaning all the ways working mums are demeaned and guilt tripped.

At this point in my life I would welcome being funded by any gent or lady.

That's true of many financial situations. Jobs can be lost, recessions can hit. Someone with several hundred thousand in equity is unlikely to be left with nothing.

@Twawmyarse

Lol

Nope.

Just proving a point.

Not so keen when it's directed your way eh?

I think its perfectly fine for people to say," i couldn't live my life like that" that is a respected view point.

The problem we encouter on here is the same posters, doing the same thing every single thread, trying to make about working mums vs SAHMs Trying to bring down SAHM for their choices. Noone respects that attitude.

As a whole, people in well balanced relationships will rely on eachother for lots of things. Financial, emtional etc but You should be a team both working for the best for yourselves independently and as a team. If as a woman whats best for you is to stay at home to spend that time rearing your child rather than outside childcare, do it, if both of you are happy with it.
If its best for you and your family to go to work, then you do you.

None is better or worse as a general rule and every case is individual.

The sooner thats recognised on here by some the better.

I think this is a bit simplistic.

• do I respect women who marry purely for money/to get the lifestyle they want? I don't.
• do I think that it is much wiser to have your own career/income? I certainly do. If you are dependant on a man for everything you put yourself in a vulnerable position.

That does not mean I would look down on a woman who stays home to raise the kids when they are young if that works for both partners.

@5128gap

Exactly

This is me🤣

I’d happily be funded by anyone tbh. I’m open to offers!

If as a woman whats best for you is to stay at home to spend that time rearing your child rather than outside childcare, do it, if both of you are happy with it.

If its best for you and your family to go to work, then you do you.

I think the problem for some posters is not the family level though, its the loss of tax payers on a societal level and the effect sahms can have on attitudes towards women in employment. I have acquaintances who hate that I had an expensive tax payer funded education and a career and now sit at home supported by dh and his inherited money (if studying and voluntary work count as sitting at home). To them my choices will always be wrong because I should be at least matching dh's wages if not out earning him for the good of the country and our daughters. One of them is my ex boss and he thinks my choice should be refunding the tax payer for my degrees or going back to work full time in a "proper job".

I don’t have any problem with anyone else’s choices. They can do what they like.

However, as someone who grew up with a mother financially dependent on an abusive man with a gambling addiction, I wouldn’t personally ever want to be financially dependant on a man. I don’t have children and am marginally the higher earner in our household and I am a saver by nature. I’d feel incredibly anxious if I was financially reliant on another person.

You are missing the point Topgub. I would not come on here to say "Oh I could never have used childcare" because I'm not so stupid as to try to pretend I'm not aware of how or why that could be interpreted as as a dig at those who do. Even if I only mean it as a statement of fact about myself personally, I wouldn't say it. As if women aren't under enough pressure as it is.

Seems like SAHMs are being treated as kept women, by some. Wrong.

@aokii

The whole point of the thread is that you wouldn't make a dig?

OK.

Everyone's different I guess

I'd imagine most saying it dont intend for it to be a dig, they're just making a point about their own circumstances especially in the context of marrying for money!

I doubt sahms who have chosen to make themselves dependent even enter their heads

It wouldn't enter mine

And no, I'm not going to start a thread "bemoaning all the ways working mums are demeaned and guilt tripped" because that is not something I have personally directly experienced. But if there was such a thread, you would certainly not find me on it criticising mums who work on a 'micro' or 'macro' level or in any shape or form. Because why on earth would I feel the need to do that Topgub?

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 am genuinely, 100% not funded by a man. I'm a single parent and I provide all the income that supports my daughter: food, a roof over her head, school fees, the works.

I'm sorry if this position offends you OP but there's a very valid reason some of us feel strongly about this. And that's because some of us have been badly burned being funded by, or even part-funded by a man. People have been abandoned, abused, had their standard of living reduced, or (more commonly) pushed into domestic drudgery or to scale back my own career because Billy Big Balls is too important to leave his job to do any pick-ups.

I have had to not be funded by a man. It was literally the only choice open to me, I didn't seek it out. It's still the only choice open to me.

But by God am I glad I had it forced on me. It's freed me from all the shit that goes with being dependent on a man.

So if you think some of us are being goady or twattish or whatever, you might want to stop and think that for a lot of us we're just celebrating having survived and thrived at not being funded by a man.

Being sneered at by people who can't conceive this to be possible is just water off a duck's back tbh.

Well not only could I not be funded by a man, I couldn't live with one either, so yes it's a phrase I could say confidently, but usually just keep schtum, other people's choices are none of my business. Plenty independent women out there though.

Otoh a friend of mine just gave up everything for a bloke including selling her car to fund his and is now carless and homeless at the age of 37. Do I think she was stupid for putting herself in that position? Yes I do.

What percentage of UK families are reliant on two incomes? I would guess the majority. We have had two friends go through a split in the last year. One has moved home with his parents and the other couple are still living together 8months on because they can't afford separate places.

Tbh I think quite a lot of posters on Mumsnet talk utter bollocks and like putting others down. I refuse to believe that all who make these "helpful" comments are that out of touch with reality.

Of course single parents who have escaped less than ideal (to put it mildly) men don't offend me. How could anyone be offended by that?

The thread was provoked to all the women declaring they could never be funded by their husbands on the threads about 'rich men' (or however it was phrased) in the last few days. I'm suggesting many of these women claiming this are in fact, funded by their husbands to a greater or lesser degree (if they have shared finances and the DH is the higher earner). It's just a sliding scale as to how much. And, even in the rare event that you earn exactly the same as your DH today, what are you going to do if his salary wealth ever accelerates at a much faster rate than yours. Anyone could find they are suddenly funded by the DH whether they planned it or not.

@aokii

You'd need to ask all those that do

@aokii

Seriously

Why would a woman saying she wouldn't marry for money or be dependent on a man on a thread specifically discussing that offend you?!

Its not about you!

@aokii

But your original post expresses incredulity that there are women who are actually financially independent as if it were just a posture.

In fact for many of us it is so far from being a posture that it was literally life or death. It was the only way to support ourselves and stay safe.

And then a bunch of people have piled on to say we are “twats”.

Some of you may think female financial independence is a posture or an act or stealth boasting or whatever. Your perspective is hopelessly out of date even for married women but for a single mother who has escaped DV and celebrates being financially, physically and emotionally free to be told she is a “twat” for feeling happy is just offensive.

At best your post was worded insensitivity. At worst you were basically saying working single mums are all lying.

I'm not at all offended Topgub. I think you misunderstand me. I don't mind if people want to say I'm funded by a man - because I am and the man is my husband! I really don't mind if you call me a kept woman or whatever makes sense to you. I am a kept woman in the financial sense - absolutely! I'm fine with that and so is my husband - otherwise we wouldn't have lived like that for over 15 years. But even if i worked, I'd still be largely 'funded' by him and it is what it is, so what's the difference really? We don't think of it as "funding" though. It's just not in the mentality.

@aokii

Yeah.

I dont get it.

At all.

Or maybe its you who doesn't get it.

Cause when I say I wouldn't be dependent on a man, that's what I mean

Thepeopleversuswork - not at all. Of course there a women who are financially independent. And of course I don't mean single mums!

Topgub

" Cause when I say I wouldn't be dependent on a man, that's what I mean"

So if your husband came home with £20 million tomorrow, what would you do? Supposing he wanted to do something like buy a new home - would you refuse to move with him? How would you avoid it?