To think only women with rich partners are encouraged and celebrated as SAHM.

[malificent7]

If you are skint or single then you are seen as lazy for wanting to be a SAHM.

This is following from my 'terribly entitled' thread. I made it very clear that I had to give up my teaching career as it was destroying my mental health. I am now a skint TA but much happier at work and I alos have time for dd.

The amount of people suggesting that I go back into teaching to balance the books even though it nearly ruined me was strange.
I was being encouraged to take up a more family unfriendly job.

Whereas if a woman in better circumstances comes on and says that she is struggling to balance work and family life she is often encouraged to give up work if she can afford it an did celebrated as being a good mother.

AIBU to wonder if SAHM are less stigmatised if well off?

I've been on both sides of the fence with benifits and being a SAHM and a working mum.

The benefit system and tax credits have really pushed lower wage income families in to a hole that's hard to get out off. The goverment need to force employers to raise the wage rather than subbing the low wage culture we have at the moment.

if your just above the thresh hold and not able to claim your fucked if you need child care as a full week can cost as much or more than your mortgage - it pushed me out of work.

Thsnk fuck we are not in that spot any more.

Really though? Who really thinks that benifits are for parents to stay at home ?

My daughter loves nursery. She has friends, a variety of activities that she doesn't get at home and she is very safe and well cared for there.

As for the income support thing, I think it's partly because it actually didn't do women (and usually it was women) to have over a decade not doing any sort of paid work whatsoever. I don't think being a single parent in the 90s was ever fun, but I am sure I remember reading somewhere that these women were most likely to end up in poverty after their children turned 12 as getting any sort of work was just so difficult.

Notstopped and rollon I don't know about the new regs. Only that they don't force your child into childcare before the compulsory school age. That's what it would mean, really for a single parent for whom pt work wouldn't be enough. And if all the childcare available locally was in crappy nurseries, how terrible that would be. Are we saying that free childcare hours are ethically better than being on benefits? That you'd be happy for your tax to go on those instead? Personally I don't resent my tax being used to make sure kids are raised by family when they're infants. (In an ideal world the father should be paying or able to be a SAHD, but you have to cover the situations where it's not the case.)

But what's wrong with living a leisurely life? I could go to work, we'd have more money, we like our standard of living now, we wouldn't if I went back to work as things would be so complicated.

We live in London, life is hectic enough, why further complicate things just so that I am not perceived as being "lazy". Frankly I think I'm lucky. My family is lucky that we don't have the added stress of me working outside the home.

But it genuinely doesn't matter what your socio-economic status, if you don't work people might characterise you as lazy.

My close friend is a trust fund kid so has never worked a gainful day of employment in her life. She's not lazy at all but has constantly been slated as such. Oh poor her, Like me, the characterisation doesn't get to her one bit.

Nothing wrong with claiming benefits of it means you get more family time. That's what they're there for.

Not sure benefits are there to give people 'more family time'

I'm a SAHM to a v high earning husband and I still get judged. Even more so because of the line of work he is in, I must be with him for the money 🙄 (not the fact he is smart, gorgeous, kind and so so fit)

They force the parent to find work..... the child can be in nursery, with family, or, here's s novelty..... the father can look after him/her!!

You can't sit on benefits til child goes off to school

Sorry, worded wrongly, I meant they don't force a parent to seperate from their child before compulsory school age.

I agree OP.

I'm a single parent and it annoys some people that I only work part-time. They assume I'm living on benefits, which I'm not. I don't claim any tax credits or anything.

Why should I work full-time if I don't need to? How come it's acceptable to not work or work very few hours if I'm part of a couple, but if single then I have to work all hours?? I can only conclude it's because some people want single mums to suffer.

Two FT jobs plus children is often a stressful and unsustainable combination that takes a heavy toll on the family. One adult deciding to SAHP or downsize their career is often nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with taking responsibility for family priorities.

Cherry your little one might love nursery, but. Not all children are ready.

Oh I agree in an ideal world, the family could pitch in, but that's not always possible for people. Even if they have family/the dad, THEY might be at work. And is it seriously better for the child if the nurseries in the area are crap? I'm happy for my tax to help keep the child out of that situ.

Spot on namechanger

People can make whatever choices they wish. But the benefits system has gone mad. It shouldn't be there as a life style choice for those who'd rather stay at home and not work or who would rather do less hours and be topped up by benefit. This is why left wing politics are losing support and why there is a right wing government in power and no support for an ever increasing welfare state. IMHO.

But that's the point OP. If your partner is earning shit loads & there's no need to work then someone who wants to can be a great SAHP as there will never be money issues. If you don't have money, one eye constanty on the overdraft limit, how on earth can you expect people to justify you staying at home! I came from a really poor family and both of my parents had to work to put food on the table - no need for SAHP because they had me (the eldest dd) to take care of things after school.

"I wouldn't encourage anyone, male or female, to choose not to work and let either the state or another adult pay for that choice.

Too much can go wrong, it's an unfair burden on someone and to choose not to work shows laziness"

Fuck right off with this. Being a SAHM is not lazy or sponging as some other twit put it. It's raising your own children and there's not enough of it.

I also find SAHP when both parents worked is sometimes less about 'proritizing home prorities' then it is about taking advantage of unforseen circumstances like redundancy. Unfortunately many more women than men still get made redundant or get forced into dead-end jobs if they take more than the minimum mat leave - even when they initially earned more.

rollonthesummer the op mentioned mh issuses. So it depends on the level you except the risk of the ops mental health issues. If the op has a mental break down what is that going to do to the cost burden they are to the state and emotional impact on the children? And TAs do still provide a valuable function in our education system.

Obviously your example very much depends on lifestyle and aspirations (which is a personal choice). I know some couples work their arse off in low paid jobs just to put a roof over their head. That you cant argue with. But then there are middle class family's that could afford to cut down on hours for more family time if they were willing to take a change in lifestyle. I.e. not go and buy the big house, the brand new cars and fancy holidays. They are fortunate to have the option of family time or fancy things. Most seem to chose career and fancy things over family time. At the end of the day we all have to make choices over how we run our families, some have more options than others.

She is no doubt getting assistance from the state but she is working too. She is no good to her kids, her self or the tax payer if she were to break down. Prevention is better and cheaper than cure.

But yes I can see why it's easy to get a bee in your bonnet. I work full time to support me and the kids. I pay a shed load of tax and not entitled to any child benifit, tax credits ect. But sometimes there is a more complex picture at play. Like I say a lot depends of the weight you put on mh situation.

MistressPage Not much 'raising' to do for SAHP when kids are at school right? I find your comment shocking - working parents raise their kids too & in often in far more stressful and difficult circumstances.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating = you cannot judge the success or otherwise of any family's parenting until the DC are adults. And while schadenfreude is a horrible emotion, I know far too many families with shipwrecks for DC. And they aren't the ones with SAHP!

Benefit money doesn't come from the magic money tree. Much of it comes from income tax, paid by working people, many of whom are working parents who may also quite like to work less and have time with their children. That is why if you are a sahm suported by a wealthy husband its nobodys business but your own. But I'd be pretty cheesed off if I was working and putting my own kids in childcare to pay someone else to be a sahm just because they fancy it!

To be fair DailyFail I was thinking more of SAHMs of preschool age, and I typed quickly as I was enraged by a comment indicating all SAHMs are lazy spongers when I'm sure you'll agree there nothing lazy about being a toddler-wrangler! Forgive the comment it wasn't meant to disrespect working parents. That's the problem with these threads, setting us against each other!

DailyFail1 you remind me of a comment I heard by a SAHM on hear the other day try to claim how much being a SHAP is. She said that she spends I think 4 hrs a day alone just doing the house work. I mean come one 4 hrs a day just on house work? That's not including the school run, doing stuff with the kids. Now I am a full time working single parent with two young kids. I am lucky to get the time for 1 hr of house work a day but yet my house is clean and runs smoothly. I fully support the idea of sahp's if they can be supported. But I don't buy into the idea it's a super hard full time job in its self.

MH 'issues' are not diagnosed MH illness.... there's a massive difference

Lots of people will have MH issues regularly.... not so much MH illnesses which totally prevent work and advise staying at home exclusively raising kids!

Bobochic That's quite offensive and completely unfounded. In any case, what is the solution? Only the wealthy can have children? Or women not being allowed to have a career and work? Quite apart from the tax issue, who will be teaching these children when 70% of teachers are sent home, or seeing them in surgeries when half the Gps are informed that their children are running root so they need to go home for 5-10 years?