to think the benefits system makes women subordinate to men

[PeppersTheCat]

If a single parent (the majority which are women) partners up, she loses her benefits and become literally at the mercy at her new man. There is an assumption that the man will fund the woman AND her children. Essentially, women are encouraged to stay single parents indefinitely OR lose their independence and rely on the goodwill of their partner.

How is this system fair? Is there any hypothetical way around it? (Particularly if you have young children).

[Andrewofgg]

NoCry You are, I take it, aware, that not every child is planned?

Are you saying that men and women who would find it difficult to support a child should live "celibate" lives?

[NoCryLilSoftSoft]

I am indeed aware that unplanned children exist

I'm saying that you shouldn't be planning future children if you already can't support the ones you have. Of course accidents happen, contraception fails. That is different than planning to have a child you can't afford. As was suggested by the poster I was originally responded to. Which I thought I had already explained.

[timeismovingon]

Both parents should be made responsible for a child. There is no obligation at the moment for women to go after the father for money, the state then becomes a contributor/providor through the benefits system. There is no consequence for either parent to then go on to have more children, the father isn't asked to pay and the mother claims more from the state. Perhaps the system should be altered to that both parents NI number is put on the birth certificate so that both parents have to pay. If the one/either is unemployed then part of their benefit can be paid to the person with parental responsibility. I think if men were forced to take more responsibility for their children they would take more responsbility for contraception. If both parties are then more sensible we wouldn't have all these accidents.

[NoCryLilSoftSoft]

Perhaps the system should be altered to that both parents NI number is put on the birth certificate so that both parents have to pay. If the one/either is unemployed then part of their benefit can be paid to the person with parental responsibility

I have been saying this for years! Registering a child should trigger a change in tax code for both parents and a portion of their income is taken in the same way NI is taken. And paid into a children's welfare system where if either or both parents become unable to earn and support their children then a figure is paid to whoever gets the child benefit or split between two parents who share care.

[YellowMakesMeSmile]

They are only dependant upon men if they let themselves be.

They could simply work and support themselves, not all women need a man to keep them or turn to the state to financially support the choices they made.

Likewise we live in a country where contraception is free, abortion is free and nobody has to have a child they don't want. If they choose to have one then they should accept it comes with financial responsibilities to them as well as the man.

[PurpleTango]

Married women who don't work are not entitled to benefits... I cant see the difference tbh?

[makeourfuture]

Basic income/citizen's wage.

[PortiaCastis]

Married women who do not work usually have the benefit of their husbands income

[NoCryLilSoftSoft]

They could simply work and support themselves, not all women need a man to keep them or turn to the state to financially support the choices they made.

Simply? Do you have so little contact with the real world that you think it is simple to just work and be self sufficient and support your children without any financial support from either the state or the other parent? Did you see my post upthread laying out the cost of full time childcare versus a full time wage?

[NoCryLilSoftSoft]

Do you think all women leave education on a level playing field?

[Andrewofgg]

I'm saying that you shouldn't be planning future children if you already can't support the ones you have.

NoCry You sound more and more like me at seventeen!

The logical effect of that is that if a woman marries or goes into LTR with a man who is keeping a former family she should not expect to have children, even if that means letting her most fertile years tick past.

It's like Dr Spock - Star Trek not Baby and Child Care - logical but not reasonable. Or rather, logical but not attuned to the way most of us, male and female, are.

[DrunkOnEther]

I'm sure I'm being thick here. But the main living costs for most people are housing and household bills. If two people are living apart, they're paying two sets of housing costs. If they move in together, they're only paying one. So joint outgoings are less, therefore income needs are less.

[PurpleTango]

Married women who do not work usually have the benefit of their husbands income

Exactly the same scenario as a woman who does not work but is living with a new partner then? No?

[NoCryLilSoftSoft]

The logical effect of that is that if a woman marries or goes into LTR with a man who is keeping a former family she should not expect to have children, even if that means letting her most fertile years tick past.

Umm yes, obviously. Why on earth would you chose to have children with someone who was already not supporting the children they have? we see it all the time here on MN. Woman has new partner, considering having kids, mentions that he doesn't pay child support for X reason and everyone piles in saying "do NOT have children with this man" it's pretty much common sense! If you need to have a child then either choose a father who at the time of conception at least has the means to support it or go it alone fully accepting you will be entirely responsible for its material needs for at least18 years.

[CocktailsAndCake1]

WOW. Do people really think of a single parent claims tax credits is because she doesn’t work? Really. I would lose my tax credits if my dp moved in (aka the point of the thread) and I do work, bloody hard! I have to do term time though because otherwise the childcare would be unaffordable, hence the low income by myself. The kids does pay cm too.

You need to educate yourselves some you on this thread.

[NoCryLilSoftSoft]

Andrew you sound like a man trying to justify procreating all round you with no intention of supporting your offspring. Is that what you have done?

[Imustbemad00]

Haven't read all posts as to be honest the first page made me pretty angry. First of all, people saying "get a job", people can have jobs as single parents and still be entitled to universal credit or benefits if they are a low earner or on reduced hours because of childcare.
I also believe it is unfair that if you enter a relationship with somebody, those benefits would be stopped. So all of a sudden, you would be relying on your new partner to cover the money you are losing. New partner may be a low earner or have his own children and responsibilities he can just about manage.
I was in a similar situation years ago, ended up financially dependent on somebody who turned out to be quite controlling, and also in a lot of debt. Some might say you shouldn't get in a relationship with someone who you can't be an equal partner with etc but you can't always predict how a relationship will turn out. Also, it would be pretty hard to get into a serious relationship ever, if you had to tell the person that would soon become responsible for your loss of income and would therefore need to support you and your children, therefore making his own life difficult. I think most men would walk away.

[ivykaty44]

Magpie - I’m not sure why it’s a shone? No forward planning, no forward thinking about what will happen.

As the dc are growing up their lives revolve around their children and they don’t have the time or inclination to plan.

I’m not sure, what I do know is that it happens and it is a shock. Added to which many feel they are on the ‘useless heap’ with part time jobs and low skill sets

[Andrewofgg]

NoCry I said upthread that I am not and never have been an NRP. I have one son, now adult, whom I supported to adulthood. I also said that I have no time for the man who does not meet his dues - which may not be much, it depends on his (true) income.

I quite agree that a woman would be foolish to have children with a man who is not supporting his existing children - which doesn't stop many women doing it.

The question I meant was the case where a woman marries or goes into LTR with a man who is supporting his existing children - because like it or not if he has more his obligations to his earlier children will be reduced accordingly - in practice if not in law. Should that woman be content to have no children until the earlier family are - at least in law - off his hands?

[NoCryLilSoftSoft]

The question I meant was the case where a woman marries or goes into LTR with a man who is supporting his existing children

Well then I have no idea why you quoted me because that clearly wasn't the situation I was taking about which I have also clarified a couple of times since!

[ohreallyohreallyoh]

There is no obligation at the moment for women to go after the father for money, the state then becomes a contributor/providor through the benefits system

what? There are thousands of women out there who support their own children without the additional,support of the father and without recourse to,public funding. In fact, single parents are statistically more likely to be in work than out of it.

You are also not aware that child maintenance is not considered income for means testing purposes anyway so whether it is chased or not makes no odds anyway.

But don't let a few facts get in the way of your prejudice, will you?

[PortiaCastis]

Spot on oh really I've been doing just that for ten years

[SleepingStandingUp]

would cut the benefits right back so everyone works full time. I always worked full time
Great idea but can you make sure I get paid enough to employ a medically able nanny? I have a disabled son who I had to quit work to care for. No child care setting near me would have been willing to take him on and I certainly didn't earn enough for a full time nanny. Hence quitting work. DH works full time but we still rely on WTC, CTC, DLA and carers. Obviously in your utopia wages will be high enough for e eryone to afford full time child care AND the bills

[timeismovingon]

You didn't understand my post and have cherry picked. I simply said both parents are responsible for their children. If a mother, or father, is raising their children without recourse to the other party or to the state then that's surely what society is looking to achieve. My point was that where this doesn't happen, generally the state picks it up. IMO the other party should always contribute through either their wages or their benefits, collected through their NI number.

Frankly there are no medals for a woman or man bringing her children up alone without support from the father/mother - why shouldn't the other party be least financially responsible. If the mother doesn't want the father to contribute then fab, work away, provide for your children yourself.

Lastly I am well aware that maintenance isn't part of income for benefits but frankly it should be the basis. The start point should be what is the other parent contributing and if not then we need to make them. On the whole it is men that don't contribute, my post was about making all men responsible for their children.

[HelenaDove]

"Frankly there are no medals for a woman or man bringing her children up alone without support from the father/mother"


Single dads are hero worshipped. Single mums are seen as feckless.