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?

necessary extras

Is this a contradiction?

Sorry if this is naive or incorrect- isn’t there legal responsibility for the father to pay? I’ve heard the maintanence inforcement people are quite good at making dads contribute if they leave?

Please educate me if this is wrong

This thread is disgusting. Hello Katie Hopkins.

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

I didn't! Wouldn't make that assumption. My comments on child benefit were in answer to a question asking if SAHMS still received it. (Same would apply to a SAHD claiming it, of course; his spouse or partner would have to declare it on her tax return).

Neonlights - that' depends if you a) know who the father is, b) want the father's involvement and c) the father can be tracked.

The father of my older 2 children is not British, has not lived in the UK since being a student and is an abusive, terrifying man who raped me. Even if he could be made to pay (which I'm not sure about) I would die before letting him find out about the existence of his second child and would never take his money. Especially if it meant he might be able to meet either child.

I don't know who the father of my 3rd child is - got horribly drunk trying to cope with a night out during a mental health crisis. I wouldn't know where to start finding him for money and he's probably not the kind of person whose money I'd want either.

If a single parent is a single parent due to relationship breakdown I think there is a legal obligation. But it's probably also possible to disappear if you are determined enough not to pay.

Sorry if this is naive or incorrect- isn’t there legal responsibility for the father to pay?

Yes, but the resources to pursue them are lacking and there are various loopholes.

Lol at this thread. Why is there so much jealous vitriol directed at SAHMs on mumsnet?

This thread is disgusting. Hello Katie Hopkins.

It's interesting, though, isn't it. As I've harped on about (pretty much continuously), there are very few people who actually do fully support themselves and their families. Just do some back of a fag packet sums. If the average cost of a school place is about £6k pa and the average salary is about £25k, think it through. You get £10k personal allowance (ish) and then you pay 20% tax on the residual £15k. So you pay £3k. Roughly. (There's NI as well, but just assume that goes on NHS etc). So two parents, both earning £25k each probably don't even cover their own costs and that of one child, let alone more.

So how do we judge people as a society? Is wealth the only metric? Do we say to the £50k joint income household that they can only have one child, but the £100k household can have two? And the two city lawyers can have three if they like? Are the two City lawyers morally superior beings who can sneer at the £25k earners for not actually covering their own costs and being a drain on society?

.....or do we accept that we're all dependent on each other (to some extent) in any sort of functioning society. That most people benefit (in the majority of cases, financially) from this. That most people will be subsidised by others, but some will be subsidised a bit more. And that luck, life and circumstance means that some people have more money than others. But that none of this makes you inherently superior?

.....or do we accept that we're all dependent on each other (to some extent) in any sort of functioning society. That most people benefit (in the majority of cases, financially) from this. That most people will be subsidised by others, but some will be subsidised a bit more. And that luck, life and circumstance means that some people have more money than others. But that none of this makes you inherently superior?

But...but....I've got to be better than someone! It's crucial! And single women with kids are such an easy target! Don't make me stretch for higher hanging fruit! And I've got to find every opportunity to tell everyone that I wouldn't ever 'choose' to take money directly from the State, because that's so incredibly rare and everyone has to know I'm one of the chosen few!

DON'T DO THIS TO ME!!!

Alas, poor Yorick.....

. ....I can't tell you how long I've been trying to get that in somewhere.....😂

I need to be a fellow of infinite superiority complex, if not jest!

@ratonastick

"Society judges ME to be the irresponsible one."

Sorry he left you but maybe that's fueled your anger and coloured your outlook.

When does society judge?

What does the patriarchy have to do with this one?

@NataliaOsipova

".....or do we accept that we're all dependent on each other (to some extent) in any sort of functioning society."

But we aren't. The entire premise is wrong. If you don't work and are dependent on the state for your and your children's welfare then you depend on others. The ones who subsidise your lifestyle are not dependent on you.

I used to feel looked down upon being a working mum. Some mother told me living in my house must be like a hotel as we are never there. 🙄

The ones who subsidise your lifestyle are not dependent on you.

Well, in a broader sense, we are. Take my example above. The two City lawyers are subsidising the lifestyle of the two average earners. Because we live in a society where we want all children to have a decent education and where healthcare and access to other vital public services is based on need and ability to pay for it. But think it through. Those high earning lawyers need someone to grow their food, transport it to the shops, drive the trains, service their cars, clean their house, teach their children etc etc. These are all things done by people who probably earn less money than they do and who are subsidised by their taxes.

A single mother on benefits is subsidised more than the averagely paid worker. She isn't the only person - by a long shot - receiving a subsidy. She's just receiving a bigger one.

"Why is there so much jealous vitriol directed a SAHMs on MN?"

No idea MistressPage, but it's definitely ramped up in the last week.

Basically this whole thread, yet again, is a goading ploy for working mum's to come on and point the finger at SAHMs whose husband's support their families - "Look you SAHMs with wealthy husbands - you're no better than a single mum dependent on benefits really are you?"

It's the same agenda every time.

The fact is that SAHMs are probably more likely to be in support women at home bringing up they children in benefits (rather than putting them in childcare) - because they see being at home as important.

Natalia is right. The women who have this agenda about SAHMs (whether they are supported by their husbands or the state) need to take a good look at their own status, because, unless they are very high earners, they are probably net gainers from the tax system, particularly if they use free school places for a few if their children.

The very high-earning DH's who tend to have SAH wives will very often be also contributing millions in tax every year. They will also be paying for private schools and health care, etc. They are the net contributors to tax. So they're not only supporting their own wives and families, but a lot more than that - and quite rightly so.

People need to get off their high-horses about SAHMs because the whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

Women have control of this if we want but for some reason we don't. If there was a shift in thinking about the family unit and responsbility for children we would see a dramatic improvement in this issue, because it is an issue.

How many times do you hear - it wasn't worth me going back to work as my wages only just covered the childcare? How ridiculous both parents contribute to childcare, going back to work will enable, normally the mother, to maintain her job/career and some financial independence.

Why when we are working do women allow companies/organisations to see us as the go to person for childcare. We also allow this in our own relationships, probably based on earning power. Gender pay gap anyone? If women made it clear to their partners that they see the relationship and parent hood as a partnership and thus expect men to step up things would change. There are 2 obstacles - firstly the men many of whom don't want to do it secondly women themselves because many women I think want to stay at home and look after their children. That's fine but we all need to be aware that we are exposing ourselves by doing this and frankly we need to start becoming as selfish as men.

Lastly society is run by men there is no benefit to them in changing the status quo, women have much to gain and actually a lot of power if they start to use it effectively.

"Look you SAHMs with wealthy husbands - you're no better than a single mum dependent on benefits really are you?

But in trying to defend one group that is being put down on this thread, can't you see how you are throwing the other group under the bus. Your post implicitly (almost explicitly, really) states that single mums on benefits are fair game to be looked down on and judged.

If you don't want that to happen to SAHM, then don't do it to any SAHM, regardless of the reason. That, I think, is the OP's point.

I'm sorry if I've been part of villifying SAHM. That wasn't intentional. I do think it's an enviable, luxurious lifestyle but it's one I'd very happily choose if I had the means.

Well, in a broader sense, we are. Take my example above. The two City lawyers are subsidising the lifestyle of the two average earners. Because we live in a society where we want all children to have a decent education and where healthcare and access to other vital public services is based on need and ability to pay for it. But think it through. Those high earning lawyers need someone to grow their food, transport it to the shops, drive the trains, service their cars, clean their house, teach their children etc etc. These are all things done by people who probably earn less money than they do and who are subsidised by their taxes.

Well stated.

@NataliaOsipova

No. Our housekeeper is dependent on DH and me. That's why I feel a responsibility, give annual payrises well above inflation and bi-annual cash bonuses.

Your broadening of the argument "to the wider sense" makes no sense. This thread is about financial dependency not anything else.

The point is manic, as a SAHM I think children are better off with their mum's at home (to be perfectly honest). So no, I certainly don't look down on women in difficult circumstances who are trying to do just that on benefits. If "society" judges those women, what can I do about that?

It's not SAHMs judging mums on benefits. It's the people that believe earning a wage = moral superiority.

Your broadening of the argument "to the wider sense" makes no sense. This thread is about financial dependency not anything else.

I don't think you can calculate it so finely in a societal context. We need a range of goods and services to be provided for the economy to function. We need people to have children to work to support the current generation of workers in the future. It's not as simple as saying that you pay in x and only take out y.

The families being supported by themselves, however that works, are their own business. The families using taxpayers money to live are everyones business.
It's not exactly rocket science is it? It's not one type of woman against another type, its literally just the cost to society.

Our housekeeper is dependent on DH and me

If they did not clean your house you would have to. Whatever you do with that time now would not be possible.

computationalAspects Could you and your dh make enough money to employ a cleaner without a functioning economy and society?

It is great you are responsible employers wrt your cleaner, but we are all reliant on each other. The wider sense is absolutely relevant here and the economy is bigger than just the tax take. You can't talk about "contributions" without looking at the whole (complicated) picture.

G1tterati nice to hear someone talking sense.

Also I'd just like to point out that being a SAHM isn't exclusively for the wealthy. My husband earns under 50k. We have a modest mortgage, both drive old bangers, and holiday at the UK seaside.
We prioritise our kids emotional welfare (which to us means effectively that we believe our baby/toddler/preschooler is happier at home with mum) OVER branded clothes, posh cars, trips abroad and to the ubiquitous and ludicrously overpriced centerparcs.
I know too many families where mum works and the kids are dumped in full time care from 1 year old so they can afford all this tat which they see as 'a better life for their kids'
Fuck that, nothing compensates for time spent and being emotionally present.
I yearn for simpler times when the job of raising your kids wasn't looked down on in favour on material nonsense.