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

[Primarkismyonlyoption]

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?

Live I do take umbridge at this to a certain extent but this is because that yet again the most vulnerable are screwed, and that the children of those women whose ex partners don't pay anything, get less than any other child in society.
To whom referred to pupil premium. This isn't something you apply for. It is automatically granted to kids on low incomes. Yes incomes, not benefits. Married parents on low wages in receipt of child tax credit have pupil premium children but may not be aware.

If income is deemed low enough, there is an entitlement to tax credits. If you look at some of the stats on maintenance you will see average payments are very low indeed.

women relying on men has been the status quo for a long time because a patriarchal society is benefitted because of it.

Well if a single parent isn't able/qualified to earn a massive salary you're either going to be paying for them to look after their own child or for their childcare while they work.
I also think there is a bit of resentment from some working parents that their partner wasn't happy for them to stay at home or it's that they dont want to contribute to other people staying at home in their kids early years while they had no choice but to return to work. Even if 'no choice' is translated as no choice because they wanted to continue the lifestyle they were accustomed to.

This is so atypical for most people's thoughts these days (OP) "I want, so gimme!"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/legal_money_matters/3159207-The-big-benefits-headache

Totally depends on family income. As it does for working parents. (I think! If you do claim child benefit when your spouse earns above a certain level, then he has to declare this on his tax return and pay it back....)

What makes you think my spouse is the high earner and not me?? ......

But what about those who were on benefits, tried to get off but nearly lost their home as housing benefit was cancellef but they had to work a month in hand. And used food banks. And had no heating. Do you not think at some point people just go fuck it. Why not.

Where I live yes there are a lot of people who say fuck it why not and actively choose a life of benefits.

Blue mirror - I agree.

Maybe a very radical solution like a universal basic income set at a decent level would help everyone. It would certainly improve equality between the sexes. It would also help to narrow the gap between the rich elite and more ordinary people in this country which is causing so many social problems.

I always think this!
I'm.not in either category but not judging.

I hear that a lot, Blue. Lots of women, most happy fortunately, but some in crap but not 'bad enough to leave' marriages who look on with a heavy heart that life could be much easier.
In some ways it is, in a lot of ways it isn't.
Having reread my post the end sounds a bit like I expect people to let single mums be SAHMs regardless. I don't. But I do think that single mums and married ones are equally as valuable to their children and to society. If we were to put kids in care, then it would cost a damn site more than what mothers currently receive in benefits.

What a goady post.

As if anyone would live on "handouts" from their husband. Either it's family money or it's not. If you don't have a husband with this mentality, then don't give up work.

And yet it’s incredible when relationships break down how often it becomes the man’s money. I’m a Sahp. For me work wouldn’t pay, so it’s not as simple as ‘not giving up work’. We agreed before we married that he wanted me to be a sahp and I wanted to be one. What’s his is mine and all that. Of course I view it as ‘our’ money and he values the work I do bringing up our family. But right now I’m 100% dependent on someone else to put food on my table, just as I would be if I was a single mum depending on benefits. I would never look down on a single mum on benefits simply because our source of support is different. Why don’t some people understand this?

And having never been in a relationship where I co-parented, I do not of course know other people's reality. I am viewing this very much through a single parent lens and I am proud, yes proud, of being a single parent. I've done a good job, worked hard and my kids are loved. I am not saying at all that single mums are better, they are not. But they are equal to married mums. Not less than them no matter what money buys the nappies.

Because we (the tax payers) aren't paying for them

Is that what you think the alternative Is? Let single mums stay at home or they'll put their kids in care and it will cost more? I can think of 2 other options immediately. Stop having more kids you can't afford or get a job!

I pay tax What.

I take my hat off to single mums who stay at home with their kids or go out to work. Especially those with no family support. They literally don't get a break ever. I have friends who returned to work because it was easier for them. And they get help with most of their childcare costs so are probably still considered a drain by some. You can't win either way. And as for people suggesting SMsshould have chosen a better man You can't predict the future. A close friend of mine didn't know her husband would end up beating her up - if she did she would never have had children with him!

I sah as I was made redundant on mat leave like 1000s of women. It’s not always choice or good or bad judgement. It’s life.

Everyone wants to feel superior to someone don’t they? I look down on her because she doesn’t earn her own money and I look down on her because she relies on benefits to feed her kids etc etc. It’s all bullshit.

Men should be made to pay for their dc regardless and it should be legally enforceable and men that don’t should be looked down on. I’d also say that women need to not have relationships and never more kids with men that don’t pay for kids from a previous relationship, regardless of how much of a ‘bitch’ his ex was.

Lol @what it's like that age old "carers allowance" thing in here. "well you're costing the state so much less on carers than having them pay out"

I'm like "WTF? IT'S THEIR OWN KID!!!"

Really Primark? You pay tax? No tax credits?

Maybe a very radical solution like a universal basic income set at a decent level would help everyone.

Stripeymonkey - I was doing a bit of reading around this last year - I've been sold on the idea, I think it's great.

Rumpled - your DH is also dependent on you looking after the children so he can earn the money and doesn't have to pay someone else to do it. They are HIS children. How can a man think of supporting HIS own children and the mother who cares for them as "handouts".

Co-dependency in a marriage is fine. I would say it's even desirable in a healthy marriage and it's what binds you together. Why is it such a taboo on here? I support my DH and he knows this. He supports me and I know it. That is the whole point of why we are together, surely? Not to act as if we are two economically-independent units who happen to live together. Yes marriages can break down, all sorts of things can happen. How many working mums could manage to remain in the lifestyle they were accustomed to innyhe event of a marriage breaks down? It's still going from double to single income. The point is, how you fare after a marriage failure depends on what the family wealth was overall, not simply who was earning it.

I think a decent benefits system should be there for everyone who needs it. I have no issue whatsoever with single parents (or married parents, or indeed non-parents!) claiming support from the state as required. I also believe that benefits should be enough for people to live with dignity and have a decent standard of living.

However, I don't think that the state should fund parents to SAH with their kids as I consider that to be a lifestyle choice. The default should be that those who are able to work should work, unless they are wealthy enough to support themselves without doing so - or have someone else who wishes to support them instead.

I certainly don't think that married mums are morally superior to single mums in any way at all, regardless of employment status. Nor do I think that those in paid employment are morally superior to those on benefits.

I agree with op. There’s no difference- if neither work outside the home, both are being supported by someone else. Both are contributing the same to society- care work for children. If in some cases the children’s father is not contributing adequately, we need to stop seeing that as the hard working mothers problem.

In the case of women supported by the state, they may have paid in - I know I was a higher rate tax payer for many years before I had my daughter. I paid for what little benefits 8 got and then some.

I didn't have sex with the state, I had sex with the fathers of my children

But I do think that single mums and married ones are equally as valuable to their children and to society
^this and not forgetting that many single parents bear the entire burden of parenthood alone and still find themselves being vilified.

Of course I view it as ‘our’ money and he values the work I do bringing up our family. But right now I’m 100% dependent on someone else to put food on my table, just as I would be if I was a single mum depending on benefits

^and this

And the above very succinctly explains how flawed is the logic of those who have made their open and shut moral judgement on how they are morally superior to single SAHP.

Raising children has value whomever is doing it. Encouraging people to fully engage in domestic, parenting and economic participation also has value and should be encouraged equally for both men and women.

What a goady post.
In my real life I don't come across anything that is so divisive. I've never heard anyone compare a married sahm to a single mum. The comparison is ridiculous as pointed out by reasons upthread. In real life people understand each others situations, not completely without criticism, but I don't see any protests going on.
Is this a C5 bait for debate?