Talk

Advanced search

To ask why women financially dependent on men are viewed as morally superior to those dependent on the state?!

(602 Posts)
Primarkismyonlyoption Tue 06-Feb-18 19:10:50

Just that really, my experience and something I see everywhere.
Having a baby on benefits? Irresponsible. Single mums? A drain on society raising kids without fathers who are growing up to be uncontrollable. A government document citing such women as raising the 'psychopaths of the future'. Women to blame for a cycle of poverty which never ends.
What scroungers. Lack of morals. Less so than married women whose husbands work. Why?
Why are women in relationships where men provide financially known as SAHMs but single mums are just that. Implying thay staying at home is only a morally acceptable choice if you have a partner. The single parents are pushed to find work by baby aged 2. Housework for them isnt seen as work at all but sitting on their arses all day.

Instead of the moral segregation of women based on their relationship status why can we not view their lives as equal in the case of any woman whom cannot be financially independent in their own right, and start to look at how more women can become independent of both men and the welfare state?
And to stop double standards as if mums hide what money they have in order to claim money for their kids they are done for benefit fraud.
If men do it by hiding capital in court for maintenence or divorce, the woman is still gets judged for having to live off benefits whilst men get off scot free and go on to impregnate more whomen whom may or may not stay together. Worse, imo, the judgement of women recieving welfare assistance is doubled if there are more than one father, the children are mixed race, the more children there are or the fact the woman dares to have a sexual relationship with another partner whom she cannot afford to live with because most men cannot or won't take financial responsibility for children who aren't theirs just because they love their mum. And why should they?
As it happens I had babies on benefits and have fucking grafted to get to where I am. I work equally hard as I did then but in a totally different way. Yet the difference in how I am treated is astounding.
AIBU to ask for your views on this and what can we do to change it?

ThroughThickAndThin01 Tue 06-Feb-18 19:13:11

Not on mn they're not. Stay at home leeches I believe a poster called them yesterday.

ASongOfRiceAndPeas Tue 06-Feb-18 19:16:27

I wholeheartedly agree with you OP. Most won't hear though, I fear.

DriggleDraggle Tue 06-Feb-18 19:16:28

could it be the difference between a family unit meeting its own costs v a family unit being provided for by the state?

just a guess. i have no idea if that is the thinking.

ASongOfRiceAndPeas Tue 06-Feb-18 19:16:40

*here

DriggleDraggle Tue 06-Feb-18 19:16:59

and not v

Cabininthewoods69 Tue 06-Feb-18 19:17:32

I guess it's to do with the fact that they agreed to have a child together and a relationship together so one works while the other works at home. It's team work. I do however work myself but my dh earns more then me

Primarkismyonlyoption Tue 06-Feb-18 19:18:30

Wow. Maybe judging women full stop then. I read another thread and a woman was slagged off when tax credits were suggested as it involved expecting every working person to pay for their kid. The OP was working. Tax credits are there because the minimum wage is not a living wage and rather than making large companies pay proper salaries those at the bottom are kept there. Plus, many couples claim jointly.
How are politicians going to take us seriously on issues such as gender ID and changing rooms if we don't even stick together about the one thing most of us have in common which is raising children and doing so as the most vulnerable parent.

OutyMcOutface Tue 06-Feb-18 19:18:35

Because the men voluntarily assume the responsibility where as the state forces the responsibility onto tax payers. Asides from being legal, it is like theft. By choosing the take handhouts you are knowingly deprived by others of their property.

Primarkismyonlyoption Tue 06-Feb-18 19:20:10

So if your man doesnt voluntarily assume financial responsibility. Is that your fault or his? And why

coldstreams Tue 06-Feb-18 19:21:50

Because the money comes from somewhere.

It’s like saying ‘why do you care if that woman steals from the supermarket when that woman pays, they are both taking food from the supermarket.’

It’s not the same at all. One is paying for her food, the other isn’t.

SallyLockhartsDog Tue 06-Feb-18 19:22:21

Because my husband and myself made this choice together as a team. He has chosen the responsibility of earner. I have chosen the responsibility of carer/cook/cleaner/educator.

The state hasn't chosen to be financially responsible for you or your offspring.

Kimlek Tue 06-Feb-18 19:22:50

Women seem to get a hard time either way!

Primarkismyonlyoption Tue 06-Feb-18 19:23:50

No. Neither are paying. The married woman doesnt pay.her husband does. If the single womans husband has fucked off, then is she supposed to not eat?

Firesuit Tue 06-Feb-18 19:23:54

It's the difference between the people funding the women doing so voluntarily or being forced to against their will.

Although I think you could argue that benefits are a voluntary choice for collective spending by society as a whole. The problem is, not everyone who pays taxes agrees with everything it's spent on, so the people who disagree will be the ones making comments.

Antigonads Tue 06-Feb-18 19:24:56

I can't believe you need to ask.

Mookatron Tue 06-Feb-18 19:25:35

I don't think this is a further division between women that we need. I don't think we should be slagging off either 'type' of women nor any other type.

Better to discuss how we can support every way of being rather than set up a false 'battle' idea about it. That's not me saying this opinion doesn't exist - I just think it's completely the wrong way to think about it.

Primarkismyonlyoption Tue 06-Feb-18 19:25:54

How about women who also made joint decisions but whose husbands left? Is that enough justification to need help? Or does it need to have been DV to deserve help?
Why are the women wrong but not the man?

Fairenuff Tue 06-Feb-18 19:27:38

Probably because it's not costing tax payers anything.

Primarkismyonlyoption Tue 06-Feb-18 19:28:25

And then..should you have to be married as otherwise it's easier for them to leave and you are less likely to need state support? Does that mean non married mums shouldnt have babies?
I cant believe the obvious disdain on here towards other women. What avout the mans responsibility in it all?

Primarkismyonlyoption Tue 06-Feb-18 19:29:52

But married couples get tax breaks. Which cost the tax payer.
What about joint tax credit and child benefit claims. All are benefits.
Shoukd you need to be married AND earning >50k to be allowed to breed?

g1itterati Tue 06-Feb-18 19:30:01

I have no problem whatsoever with single mums receiving benefits to be able to stay at home with their DC, if that's what they want to do. That's what we pay our taxes for.

My DH and I decided to have 4 children, but ONLY because he was in a position to be able to financially provide for us as a family, including their education, with me at home with the children. If I had needed to work, we probably would have stopped at 2 children. He wouldn't have wanted children he couldn't provide for and I wouldn't have found it very stressful if I couldn't be around for the DC.

I have no issue at all being "dependent" on my DH because he's my husband! We depend on each other and we're a family unit. That is the whole point of a family, surely? We don't impact anyone else. Nobody ever gave us anything. We are raising our children in the way we think is best and that's it really.

OutyMcOutface Tue 06-Feb-18 19:30:30

@primark his obviously-only scum would abandon his own children but then you have to go to court and fight for the financial support or suck it up and get a job. Obviously there are exceptional circumstances (children with SN) for example where that isn't possible but if tax paying women put their babies into nurseries from six weeks why shouldn't you?

NailsNeedDoing Tue 06-Feb-18 19:30:31

Unemployed men who don't pay for their children are often viewed as wasters by society as well.

Primarkismyonlyoption Tue 06-Feb-18 19:31:38

outy
I did.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now