To literally BEG women to set themselves up, financially?

[CallieRedux]

Typed out a long post full of personal details, then deleted, but, honestly, the specifics don't matter. What DOES matter is that you save every tiny bit you can, because having FUCK YOU money is - by far - the most important thing you can do for yourself.

It's saved me from everything from wrong relationships, shit jobs, from natural disasters... I have both made lots of money, and not, but having savings, and the ability to walk away is having POWER, and the best "self care" a woman can have.

Shit happens. Things change. Even to you. Yes, you can save - even a little - when you are poor.

Do it. Please.

quite narrow, thanks for being offensive!

Saying all men with SAHMs are 'mothered' is quite a narrow perspective though.

How many SAHMs do you actually know personally in real life (as opposed to forming judgements from threads on MN)?

But it isn't about if you have a negative or positive view of SAHPs. The point is, they're overwhelmingly women. How many of your hundreds of examples are men? And women being the vast majority of the parents who stay home perpetuates a cycle of women being expected to shoulder more burden of child rearing/housework.

I recognise wearing lipstick in a world where this is an overwhelmingly female choice contributes to a world where women are expected to wear make up/value their appearance in a way men don't. I don't apologise for it and don't intend to stop. But just because I am a women who made the choice doesn't make it a feminist choice

I told you in my culture, women are expected to be SAHM. Have you even read what I wrote?

Very well explained.

My DD is only 11 but I'm already teaching her it's best to have your own money when you're married or in a long term relationship and to never rely on anyone to provide a life for you...

So true.

'I told you in my culture, women are expected to be SAHM. Have you even read what I wrote?'

Yes, in mine too historically. On the other hand, immigrant families such as mine can tend go the other way and push certain STEM professions at the expense of everything else, whether their daughters are that way inclined or not! I'm not necessarily criticising that because it's obvious why they do this. I'm saying any 'one size fits all approach' will not fit all. I can see the impact of this in my own family. There are pros and cons to everything.

SAH doesn't need to be a feminist choice to make it a valid choice.

immigrant families such as mine can tend go the other way and push certain STEM professions at the expense of everything else, whether their daughters are that way inclined or not!

Have you ever stopped and thought why?

Maybe because they earned low and wanted their children to have higher salaries
Well paid and secure sector
Maybe they didn't want their children to struggle on low salary and wanted their daughters to work alongside men... Be equal and all that.

Another thread about SAHM's and money issues:
Said his pay rise will be *A little bit more money for himself | Mumsnet

I don't think anyone is blaming SAHMs for workplace issues, just pointing it out as another example of patriarchy that disadvantages women. I am sure it works brilliantly for loads of families, and that is excellent for them. However until the SAHP is as likely to be dad as mum, it perpetuates stereotypes that impact us all. I definitely see the impact of this in the corporate world - around last minute changes in plans, networking put of work hours, travel expectations etc.

Exactly.

I would never criticise a SAHM for making that decision. Each family makes the decisions that suit them and sometimes it's not a choice. It is not the responsibility of SAHMs to work if they don't need or want to purely to further the cause of feminism.

But it is undeniably the case that men with children who are "facilitated" enjoy huge advantages over women with children who are not facilitated. In some fairly progressive industries it may matter less but in high paying ones its a massive handicap.

Until COVID I was required to pay a childminder to be at my desk for nine hours a day purely because the men in my office were non-specifically offended by the idea that I would work flexibly (and very competently) in order to fit around my daughter's schedule. No performance issue was ever raised, I worked harder and longer hours than most of my male colleagues. It was purely because the men (who were all either single, facilitated straight men in marriages or gay men) didn't like the idea that the playing field should be tilted a little way in my favour to compensate for the fact I was already operating with one hand tied behind my back.

Things have changed a bit but there's still very much an assumption that any kind of flexible working is an unfair advantage bestowed upon women by "woke culture" and the men constantly grumble about it. And there's absolutely no rational business reason whatsoever for it. It's just pure sexism and them not liking the fact that they are losing their natural place in the pecking order.

@TheaPrentice I completely respect your decision not to work and the choice you have made and I'll defend to the death your right to do it. I might even have done it myself if the option had been open to me. But trust me, the culture of facilitation of men by SAHMs is a huge, huge disadvantage for working women.

It's interesting to note that in countries where child raising is more equally shared, not only do women earn more, but their children are happier than those in the U.K.

There are a few reasons I am sure why but income distribution and better salaries for women mean they are having better lives. SAHM is not what happens in countries that are doing better than the U.K. in terms of equality.

Is this a sample size of one in a very narrow field of work?
Most people progress for a multitude of reasons, making huge assumptions-shoehorning feminist rhetoric sounds like sour grapes to me and a backhanded attack on SAHM and other women who might find the endless treadmill of a career frankly uninteresting.

Go say that to the other posters who have said the same thing as me

No one said it wasn't valid, it is as evidenced by the huge amount of people who've made it.

The discussion was on whether or not it had negative implications for other women, on a societal level

I agree

@Thepeopleversuswork - it is not just men who are like this. I certainly had female managers who were really difficult about flexible working, and that was because it meant I would compete with them much more effectively.

Yup

' SAHM is not what happens in countries that are doing better than the U.K. in terms of equality.'

Neither is the uptake if STEM subjects.

@Frazzledmum123

I've no idea why you are so irate at my posts 🤷🏻‍♀️

The point stands: any man can change their approach and treatment of their spouse, when a marriage breaks down.

It doesn't mean it will. It doesn't mean the man will. It is absolutely a possibility.

That doesn't mean you should live your life fearing that or not trusting your DH, who sounds lovely.

It does mean you should ask yourself the question: if for any reason I didn't have the support & financial backing of DH, what would I do and how would I live?

It's about backing yourself, not demeaning your DH.

This with a million bells on and then some!!! I truly try and reach all younger women I encounter this!!!

that’s focussing on a narrow part of what makes up the employment market. (Although I agree attracting women to STEM is advantageous)

i work in finance alongside many many women who are directors and managing directors.

I just think if you’re a SAHM mum then your contribution to your house is very valuable but you’re not employed. You’re not contributing to the labour market, you’re not building a pension and you can leave yourself in a vulnerable position.

you can make a valuable contribution to your family life but also not leave yourself in the best position should your marriage or relationship end.

I agree. Since I got out of an abusive relationship I did the same. He left me with thousands in debt and I cleared the lot and got a little aside. I will never be in a situation like that again. It’s only 7k but it’s mine and it’s stability.

"It does mean you should ask yourself the question: if for any reason I didn't have the support & financial backing of DH, what would I do and how would I live?"

Yes I totally agree that this is the most important question.

Ah it kinda makes me sad that people have a save me fund from their partners. I do have savings and the house is both of ours so I’d never be totally screwed…but honestly believe that if we went tits up neither of us would get nasty financially for the sake of our children. That being said I do enjoy working so have never had him fully fund me apart from mat leave