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?

Why goady Sssssurvey? The only people so far who have interpreted this thread as goady are those who up to this point had presumed themselves to be automatically superior to single SAHM on benefits and have had that perspective challenged.

Everyone else has said that the value comes from the role they are engaged in, i.e. bringing up their children. This role has the same value whether the state pays for it or the other parent pays for it, so it turns out that it is the feckless NRP who won’t pay for their children who are lower status not mothers who need to claim benefits to make ends meet.

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.

YY to this.

This thread is batshit. Makes no sense. None.

YANBU but I don't like the equating of 'single mum' with 'not working' which seems to be happening on many posts in this thread. I don't know if there are more single women not working than partnered women but I certainly don't think there's an automatic correlation between singledom and not working.

I've been a single mum for 15 years and have 3 children aged 15, 10 and 3. I'm also a high rate tax payer and have worked full time since graduating. I have several friends who are single mums and all work full time - because there's no other option if you don't have a partner! You've got to provide food and shelter for your children by yourself.

The only women I know who don't work have partners who earn enough for them not to need to. Do I think those women work less hard than I do? Yes, I do. Even if they do all the housework (because I occasionally! do that too)Do I judge them for that? Hell, no; I'm green with envy and would do exactly the same if it was an option for me!

I don't see much point in judging people's economic status. Most people make the best choices available to them and their families and get on with it - nothing to judge there.

Maniac this thread is specifically comparing SAHM’s dependent on their husbands and SAHM’s dependent on benefits and the questioning the origins of the perceived moral superiority of one over the other when both roles involve the exact same role (if not that the single mothers role is actually often harder).

I don’t presume most single mums don’t work (or married mums for that matter) I guess that would start up a whole other thread.

Because women who are financially dependent on men are usually part of a unit; a family or 'couple' or marriage and therefore are seen as a team. If the husband can support the 'unit' and the woman makes the choice not to work (with his blessing) then they are not a drain on society.

If someone chooses not to work and is dependent on the state then they are a drain.

You are not likening two similar things hence why people treat the two scenario's so differently.

"Does that mean non married mums shouldnt have babies?"

Not if they can't support themselves and the children without being dependent on handouts. That's irresponsible and sets a bad example to their children.

"if we don't even stick together"

"We" being women? DFOD. Why should I think the same as someone because we share genitals. Your feminism is a dangerous one. It is divisive and assumes all women are the same, think the same and must unite against 'the enemy'.

*Because women who are financially dependent on men are usually part of a unit; a family or 'couple' or marriage and therefore are seen as a team. If the husband can support the 'unit' and the woman makes the choice not to work (with his blessing) then they are not a drain on society.

If someone chooses not to work and is dependent on the state then they are a drain.

You are not likening two similar things hence why people treat the two scenario's so differently.*

What about the scenario in which the 'unit' is in receipt of either working tax credits, child tax credits or childcare credits (or often all 3)?

Are they included in your 'they are a drain on society' assertion?

If yes, then are you saying that only 'units' that earn enough to be completely free of any state assistance at all (excluding child benefit) are 'ok'?

If no, then then why?

What about the scenario in which the 'unit' is in receipt of either working tax credits, child tax credits or childcare credits (or often all 3)?

Meant to add to this that they are receiving these as well as the husband working (for example a full time minimum wage job can still be low enough income to qualify for some state assistance)

You are not likening two similar things hence why people treat the two scenario's so differently

There is really no justifiable reason to treat the scenarios differently. The roles of SAHM (supported by partner) are almost exactly the same as SAHM (supported by benefits) unless one of them is feckless. The dependency is exactly the same, benefits dry up family goes hungry, supportive husband fecks off, family goes hungry. The only thing that is different is one lives the patriarchical dream and the other does not. People treat them differently because we are conditioned to. We can challenge that view and particularly we can challenge those parents who leave children behind instead of just blaming the women.

The only thing valued even more than the patriarchical dream is to live the dream of the capitalist patriarchy and send children off to be minded by others, work full time, do all of the wife work and stay married come what may.

However it is no harm challenging these expectations imposed on women in particular and try to find a balance that encourages our daughters to have a wide variety of options open to them, that expects our sons to take a more active parenting and domestic roles and that challenges social and economic expectations.

Are they included in your 'they are a drain on society' assertion?

No because we assume they aren't dependent - they contribute to society with their jobs.

(again, 'they' refers to the unit)

What do you mean by "ok"? Surely the best thing for everyone is to be free of state assistance. It's best for society, the state and for individuals. State dependency should be a last resort.

Meant to add to this that they are receiving these as well as the husband working (for example a full time minimum wage job can still be low enough income to qualify for some state assistance)

The wife should be at work as well.

@Yellowshadeofgreen

Did you type "live the dream of the capitalist patriarchy" with a straight face? You made me chuckle.

The situations are not the same. Why should I pay for a parent to not work when they're perfectly able?

You're the one talking about wife work and staying in unhappy marriages. Of course you are free to leave a marriage. Then you support your family. I and other tax payers shouldn't.

What if everyone decided to rebel against the "capitalist patriarchy" (lol) dream? Who would support all of us? If we all stop working because your 'reasons' then there is no income for the state to support all these amazing feminists who refuse to be complicit in the capitalist patriarchy.

You haven't thought this through, have you?

computational what would you define as a capitalist patriarchy. For me it is one where women give up their labour for free to have and care for children, care for the elderly, care for and support their husband in their career, engage in the vast majority of domestic work all the while making themselves economically vulnerable by being dependent in a country where over 50% of marriages end in divorce.

I appreciate I am wasting my time because clearly you have absolute no insight into these issues. No reason to think about it I suspect. Men seldom do.

I am not sure where you got the notion of feminists not working from. Almost every single one of my posts on this thread has encouraged an equal division of labour beteeen men and women in terms of economic and childcare roles.

I personally am more about encouraging women to keep a foot on the economic ladder, domestic and parental responsibility in men and overall to drop the working week to facilitate parents to actually parent their children and families to actually have time to be able to care for relatives who need it. Nothing radical there up until 20 years ago that was the norm it was just all done by women.

The wife should be at work as well.

So really what you're saying is that the luxury of choice to have a sham parent in a family applies only to those who earn enough that they require no state assistance at all?

"So really what you're saying is that the luxury of choice to have a sham parent in a family applies only to those who earn enough that they require no state assistance at all?"

Very nearly.

I'd say minimal state assistance. There are arguments for and against things like child tax credit and to my mind having these is like minimising your tax liability (as we all do) as opposed to being financially dependent on the state.

In essence, you summed up my position though. Being a SAHP is a luxury for those who can afford it.

@Yellowshadeofgreen

How did I know you were the kind of person to accuse a poster of being a man because they disagreed with you?

I have been a full time working married mum, a part time working married Mum, a stay at home married Mum, a unemployed single Mum on benefits, a part time student single Mum on benefits, a part time working Mum with benefits, a part time working married Mum again (although largely a SAHP). Wonen’s lives are complicated and changeable. I have done it all and had all kinds of judgements made of me at various times. My view now is that none of those scenarios are easy because being a Mum is not easy. I don’t judge other women. I have worked for many years and paid in to the state. I am raising DC who will become taxpayers. If others judge me they can fuck off. I have always loved and cared for my DC and made them my priority and got through in whatever way was necessary at the time. I support other women in doing the same and am happy to pay into a system that supports single parents and low income families.

IRL I don’t hang around with anyone who thinks men can fuck off and that’s ok, and it’s the woman who should be judged.

IRL, the two men and one woman I know who abandoned their kids from first marriage are vilified.

But then IRL I’ve never met anyone who called me a leech or a scrounging bloodmare either, at least not to my face.

I happily brought up my dd on a combination of benefits and work. I consider it a job to look to after a small child and try to give them the best start in life you can.

That was many years ago and since then I have been paying all my taxes. I prefer my taxes to go to single mothers and other vulnerable groups than to the army and remodelling rich people's homes.

"I consider it a job to look to after a small child and try to give them the best start in life you can."

And one other people should subsidise?

What would happen if everyone felt this way?

We all chip in and pay for the roads whether we own a car or not. It maintains a working society.

Well said op and @Primarkismyonlyoption

Just as an aside, many people mention bereavement of partnent for why needing to be reliant on state... I personally feel that if you have children you ought to take out life insurance to ensure that your child is provided for if the mother or father dies.
And no, I can’t really afford it either, but it’s part of responsible parenting IMO.

Savings and insurance should be a basic when it comes to children so agree with Tiger. However given how many feel it's the responsibility of others to pay for their children then they are very unlikely to have the necessary extras like that. Responsibility seems to have gone out of the window for many, so many excuses as to why it's their right not to work and why others should feed and clothe the children they chose to have.

NRP who don't pay child support should face harsher punishments but equally RP who don't work and do a token few hours needs to have the same punishments too. There are two parents who should be financially providing, not just one.

A child is not the sole property of its mother nor is the mother solely responsible for paying for it.

Exactly.

So really what you're saying is that the luxury of choice to have a sham parent in a family applies only to those who earn enough that they require no state assistance at all

But everyone would agree with this wouldn't they? The generally accepted adult position is 'I need money to live so I need to work'. If you are fortunate enough to get to a position where you don't need any more money than you already have that's when you stop working (if you want to).

Being a single mum on benefits must be so hard (it's hard enough with plenty of money!) It's not exactly a choice people make, it it! People in that position are (I assume) either unable to find work, physically/mentally unable to work or can't make enough money to cover childcare.

Being a SAHM with a working partner is a life of luxury - the two situations just aren't comparable. One is a choice, one is an unfortunate life circumstance.

I don't judge anyone for the circumstances they end up in. But I definitely think that being a working woman (either single or coupled) is the best situation to plan for (best in terms of financial security, economic benefit and mental well being)

It’s the patriarchy at its finest. WE made an informed decision to have a child together in a family unit. 6 months in, HE decides it was a mistake and leaves. HE does not pay a penny towards his son nor see him for 15 years. I keep DS fed, warm, educated, clothed, etc. Society judges ME to be the irresponsible one.

The rest of it is nuance and detail, the bottom line is that a huge proportion of single parents are not single parents by design or intention. We are, however, the ones that are stepping up to the plate and not leaving someone else to look after our kids.