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?

Headdreamer obviously id take the one year maternity leave but i wouldn't quit my job and the company entirely and take 10yrs off or so.
Ahh you're the OP who blew the £30k inheritance and still expect your dad to subsidise your lifestyle choices as you don't want to do most jobs or work many hours. Did the OP seriously post this !!! That's hilarious and pathetic at the same time, she sounds like the world owes her a favour for no reason

No your lazy and work shy if your expecting the tax payer to find your desire to be a sham

We are working class but don't get any help bar CB I am a sham I never had a issue

Why don't you go back and read the primary sources grindel instead of labelling someone "pathetic" on the basis of an acidic third party paraphrasing?

I think if one partner is supporting the other to stay at home with the children that is considered acceptable (although if it's a woman she's betraying feminism blah blah etc). Any negativity there is probably jealousy. The couple have presumably made this arrangement so they can have the best of both worlds.
If a single parent is not working but claiming benefits to be a SAHP then the negativity comes from a more justifiable stand point, as State money is meant for people who are totally financially unsupported not out of choice. Why should people work and pay taxes to support a person who could support themselves but chose not to?

Surely it depends on the DC too. DS loved nursery but DD hated it and was thoroughly miserable - even 10 months later. So we decided that I'd become a SAHM and the whole family was happier as a result.

It was me that stayed at home as DH had been a SAHD for a few months when DS was tiny and he went back to work with a spring in his step. He found being at home far harder and more tiring than working!

Had DD been happier the subject would never have come up.

Staying at home to take care of DC is no more and no less of a "right" than is going out to work. There are responsibilities involved in taking care of a family, and any couple is free to share out those responsibilities as they think fit between themselves.

Bobochic not in a way that society has to pay for though.

If a single parent is not working but claiming benefits to be a SAHP then the negativity comes from a more justifiable stand point, as State money is meant for people who are totally financially unsupported not out of choice. Why should people work and pay taxes to support a person who could support themselves but chose not to?

Because depending on the age of the child and circumstances (benefit criteria,availability of work,commute,no support network etc) some single parents after paying for childcare,transport,taxes and having their benefits cut,would actually have less income. And as u fair as it seems,their main responsibility is keeping a roof over their kids head,food on the table,clothes on their backs.

For example in my area, the only full time nursery available charges 47£ a day(9-5) . That's 235 a week,aprox 940 £ a month. There are lots of people that earn a lot less than that a month,so they'd lose the whole wage,plus their benefits possibly being affected. Rightly or wrongly, i can see the logic in it,at least until a child is in full time education.

The state/society shares in the burden of raising DC in many ways (NHS, schooling, CB...). Whatever is legal is fine.

Not read whole thread but I am appalled by the poster who said benefits are there to enable you to spend more time with your family.
I'm so glad my taxes are going to support your family time PP.

I don't think choosing to stay at home with children should be state subsidised except for exceptional circumstances (ie a disabled child).

Going out to work also requires a state subsidy for many families, particularly single parents, due to the prohibitive cost of childcare. In some cases is costs the state more to support a parent who is in work than it would cost to support them to stay at home at least until the youngest child starts full time in school.

State subsidy of child raising takes many forms across countries. Some subsidies are more direct/visible than others. Working out who is a net benefactor of, and who is a net contributor to, taxation over a lifetime is not an obvious task.

I agree bobo. I think some people dont consider costs like education and NHS which they themselves may benefit from and not be net contributors. Too busy berating people who get direct benefits such as income support and tax credits. Having children should not just be for the wealthy.
The new tax credit rules which take effect in April are quite concerning as I don't think everyone is aware of them. How many people are going to have a third child and find that they won't get any help towards childcare costs? How many families will this new rule force into one parent giving up work due to not being able to afford the childcare and how much will it cost the state to keep that parent at home? Bearing in mind that a gap of a few years in CV might mean less earning potential for a while even after the parent has returned to work.

I don't understand how low-income families like ours can afford to have both parents in work? DH and I are taking it in turns to be SAHPs, to avoid huge CV gaps, because until I get accepted for training (hugely competitive course, could take a few years) our earning capacity is limited (thanks, useless degrees!). I'm currently the SAHP. If I was to start working again in the jobs I worked before SAHM, we'd be worse off because of childcare and transport costs.

We're entitled to housing benefit, council tax reduction etc but we don't want to claim it because of the stigma. We're scraping by at the moment with tax credits and child benefit and DH's salary.

I don't particularly want to be a SAHM, but right now I don't seem to have much choice. It's easy to criticise low-income stay at home parents when you have flexible hours and family around you to look after your kids.

AIBU to think that only rich women are encouraged to buy Luis Vuitton luggage sets and stay at the Four Season's Hotel?

The costs of raising children go up and up. Who could have foreseen in 1995 that their newborn's university fees would cost £9,000 pa, plus living expenses? And saved in anticipation?

Raising DC is not the same as purchasing luxury consumer goods.

Bobo -- SAHM is a luxury, same as Luis Vuitton. LUXURY.

In fact, some ppl would even say that having a child is a luxury.

No it's not the same, because most SAHM work very hard to support their DC's education and upbringing. It's very different to shopping and staying in hotels and the effects on the DC are very different too.

In fact, personally I would have wanted to have a 3rd child, but didn't because we couldn't afford it. Again LUXURY.

Having DC is not a luxury. It is what humans are designed to do!

I don't agree that having Children is a luxury. But regardless, not adequately financially supporting families will ultimately cost the state more in the long run.

SAHM is a luxury. I'd hate to think of my DCs as "luxuries" though. I think I would be very sad if I didn't have at least one DC.

In England, the state-approved plan for child raising is now incredibly expensive and fairly rubbish.

Yet people with no critical faculties are quick to despise those who opt out of it, often at great personal cost.