Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask if people judge single mums for not working?

776 replies

PigsCanSoar · 14/03/2013 22:56

I have a 11 m/o, and am a 22 year old single mum. I have handed in my notice to work now, as I don't feel he is ready to be left yet. He has always been very clingy, he will happily go off and play with anyone if I am there, but as soon as I leave the room he will just cry and cry.
He is also still breastfeeding every 2-3 hours, and ideally I would like to let him self wean up until 2.

I have no doubts about this being best for DS, and am planning to stay with him until 2 then look for a job again, but I just feel a bit anxious about actually telling people this, as since he was born it seems to have been constant "so when are you going back to work then" off everyone.

I am very lucky to be back living with my mum, so money isn't much of an issue as this will just postpone moving out for a bit.
So there's no necessity to leave him before he's ready, but I just feel like I'll look "lazy" for not going back yet.

OP posts:
coatonarack · 15/03/2013 21:13

X

Crawling · 15/03/2013 21:16

You would probably be able to claim more money of the state if you work OP you will probably be able to claim WTC at 200 Ctc at 200 and child care costs which are high according to most people and you will get 70 % if you are in a minimum wage job and your tax won't cover it. But by not working hour will only get about a 100 a week as you won't get housing benefit so by giving up work you are probably going to claim less in benefits.

morethanpotatoprints · 15/03/2013 21:21

Ditto

eaves Grin, I love these threads, some people are unable to look at the bigger picture. Brilliant posts.

allnewtaketwo · 15/03/2013 21:39

Yes Wallison, I was paying more than my employer was receiving, as I was pretty much on full pay.

More than, I have no problem with you, or the benefits you receive. I pointed our you were in denial claiming not to receive any benefits. Oh, and also that your 2 parent working family selfish post was ridiculous

eavesdropping · 15/03/2013 21:47

Yes eaves got it in one..paid for by the tax payer. And thank god we have those otherwise people like you would be toast!
Entitlement at its best!! Just hope to god your children have a better work ethic than you sad

People like me seriouscakeeater?!!! You know absolutely nothing about my financial situation. If you're assuming that I'm on benefits myself, you would be wrong.

ConstantCraving · 15/03/2013 21:48

Of course you should stay at home if you want to OP. Similarly if you want to go to work, then do.

And re: the benefits debate - why is it ok to be a SAHM if you have a working partner, but not be a SAH single Mum on benefits? Neither earn their own money. It's just more acceptable for some reason to have a partner support you than the state.
I was a single, teenage mum on benefits in the late 80's, now I'm an old working mum paying my taxes and happy that they go to support single, teenage mums - or whoever else needs benefits..What goes around, comes around.

allnewtaketwo · 15/03/2013 21:55

More acceptable "for some reason" Hmm

Because as a couple when you decide to have sex and create a child it's your joint responsibility to provide for the child rather than the state's responsibility. So of course it's more acceptable to choose to stay at home at your own joint expense. Of course unforeseen circumstances excepted, but then that's clearly not a choice

morethanpotatoprints · 15/03/2013 22:00

allnew

You said you had a problem with people who chose not to work receiving entitlement to free prescriptions, and that is me. I pointed out to you that indeed this may mean receiving no monetary value at all if you don't need a prescription, or very little occasionally. So to be so bothered about this seems so petty imo.

Constantcraving
I totally agree its no more acceptable to be a sahm married than it is to be a sahm sp. Not in my book anyway.

eavesdropping · 15/03/2013 22:00

Oh and seriouscakeeater - my work ethic is fine thanks. Worked for 17 years before I had DD and am choosing to be a SAHM whilst she is little, supported by my DH. Will return to work in due course.

People are able to have empathy for others' situations and be in favour of the welfare state without actually being in that situation themselves you know.

Viviennemary · 15/03/2013 22:01

But the partner of the SAHM is willing to support her. And the same if it is the woman who works and the Dad stays at home. Not everyone who works thinks it is their duty to support the choice of a single parent to remain at home with no means of fiancial support for themselves or their children.

Viviennemary · 15/03/2013 22:02

'financial'

allnewtaketwo · 15/03/2013 22:03

I'm not bothered about it, I just don't know why you're so adamant it's not a benefit, when clearly it is

anotheryearolder · 15/03/2013 22:04

Im afraid morethan that once again your posts on this thread have made me cringe .
You seem very unaware that you come across as crass and your grasp of economics is risible .
The" two jobs per family is selfish", is something that you have recycled fom another thread.
As I asked previously - are you qualified to do my job ??

Op Its a difficult decision for you - longterm its probably better to stay in work if you have no partner to support you and your baby.
Could you work parttime ?
I wouldnt judge you whatever you choose (smile)

SirChenjin · 15/03/2013 22:06

Constant - because when 2 people decide to make a baby they assume (or should assume) financial responsibility for that child as far as possible, which usually means that one or both work to support that child. If a decision is made for one parent to stay at home then it should be on the basis of whether or not your financial circumstances can support that decision.

It should not be the State's responsibility to foot the bill for a child that a couple have brought into the world when they have no discernible means of supporting it. It really, really isn't rocket science - and I'm also an old working mum who was a teenager in the late 80s. The difference is our definition of "need" I think - you don't "need" benefits if you actively chose to do something you know you can't afford.

anotheryearolder · 15/03/2013 22:07
Smile
Shagmundfreud · 15/03/2013 22:15

"Because as a couple when you decide to have sex and create a child it's your joint responsibility to provide for the child rather than the state's responsibility".

Being a parent is part of the normal life cycle, not a hobby, and the birth and raising of the next generation is essential to the continued existence of the country. The state needs women to have babies and raise them into tax paying citizens, otherwise the future of our economy is pretty bleak (unless of course you're suggesting we just import ready made adults from abroad).

My personal view is that all parents who wish to receive a salary from the state to stay at home and raise their children (or child benefit for that matter) should attend obligatory classes in child psychology, early years education and parenting. If they don't attend and complete assignments, they lose their benefits. If you want to be paid by the state to parent you should agree to training and education in order to do an optimal 'job'.

anotheryearolder · 15/03/2013 22:20

What about WOH parents shagmund ?
I dont think whether you SAH or WOH has any bearing on how good you are as a parent .

morethanpotatoprints · 15/03/2013 22:33

anotheryear

I can assure you my comment on 2 parents working has not been recycled from another thread. Its how I feel and I believe I'm entitled to an opinion.
As I don't know what you do, I'm not sure if I do qualify to do your job and don't see as that has any bearing as I am not seeking employment.
In addition, as I said previously my grasp of economics has not done my family any harm up until now, so I'm happy not to be a specialist in world economy Grin.
You got anymore.
Oh coming across as crass, well I voiced an opinion or two.

reneaa2 · 15/03/2013 22:34

Op I would recommend going to part time work.

I really think it would be good for you long term to stay in the workforce. Also I think that it would be good for your child, as a child of a single parent to have experiences with other children and carers as well.

Also those who are saying that 2 parent families should be given the opportunity to have a sth parent, they already have the choice!!

Those on low incomes will have their benefits topped up if one parent chooses to stay at home. And if the family earns to much then they will have to downsize/cutback to allow this to happen as of course the govt shouldn't not have to top up high earners income! So I don't understand the argument tbh

morethanpotatoprints · 15/03/2013 22:47

reneaa

There shouldn't be a problem but some people don't believe that you should have income topped up if one parent chooses to sah.
They don't like it that you can survive on less income than they can, so they name call and belittle your decision to be a sahp.
That's it basically, a bit of Envy

reneaa2 · 15/03/2013 23:15

I don't understand the jealousy, everybody in our society is in reality able to choose, no ones hands are truely tied (although it may take some time to downsize etc) so it comes down to priorities.

I don't understand why you would make a choice and then be jealous of someone making the opposite voice to you?!

reneaa2 · 15/03/2013 23:17

Choice not voice

anotheryearolder · 15/03/2013 23:22

I think if the mother of a young baby has been effectively abandoned by her partner- who pays no child maintenance then this qualifies as being in genuine need .OP If you could maintain part time work it would pay off in the longterm - if you live with your parents can they help with child care?

morethan SAHP who have partners who cannot earn enough to provide their basic family needs are hardly in a position to be envied - they are at the mercy of this government. Sad

whiteandyellowiris · 15/03/2013 23:48

Wasn't long ago the government wanted to pay sahp fifty pounds a week to sah as they wanted to promote family values.....

scottishmummy · 15/03/2013 23:52

Which govt wanted to pay unwaged parents to stay at home.not recall this
Do elaborate