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?

@makeourfuture

I watch TV. Play tennis. Ride my bikes. Play with the children. Walk the dogs with DH. Generally, our house would be much less clean.

What's your point?

@NataliaOsipova @squishysquashy

I'm not talking about a functioning society without all kinds of people doing all kinds of jobs. This thread is about "financially dependent women" nothing more.

It sounds awful but we're in no way dependent our housekeeper. She's also a nanny so full time. 11 days work a fortnight. She has no other income. She is financially dependent.

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

Specifically their mums?!
Could you expand on why you think it's better for the mums to be at home (I'm genuinely interested, not sarcastic. I've never met anyone who thinks this before).

If I didn't work then I don't know how we would survive. I mean, I know it's theoretically possible because I know some single parents do manage solely on benefits (I don't know any though (bar one who is a carer for a lot of disabled children so gets enough).The only families I know who have no work at all are couples). But certainly I wouldn't be able to afford for my children to have any of the opportunities and privileges they have - decent house in lovely area, foreign travel, healthy food, extracurricular activities and lessons, regular visits/day trips, access to a car/petrol to see family regularly etc. Do you really think it would be worth them losing all that just so I could stay in the house all the time? Most of the time, they wouldn't even be there anyway!

The only advantages is I can think of is that I'd be a lot more organised and the house would be a lot cleaner!

MistressPage - Under 50K !! You're wealthy! I've been describing myself as an affluent, higher rate tax paying single mum ... and I earn 42K! I feel a bit ridiculous reading that you consider a similar wage in such a different light. But I honestly think it's a very good wage. And I live in the South East (though not London).

Whatever situation we are in to make the best of what we have got.

If a woman thinks that it will benefit her children's welfare and emotional well being by being on benefits for a while or depending on a man , that's her idea of making the best of what she's got.

If a woman is in the fortunate position to have a good career and make her own money then she's making the best of what she's got.

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

The CSA/CMS are about to write off 3.5 billion in unpaid maintenance. Many men give up work in order to avoid maintenance, or move abroad, or go self employed and fiddle the figures or just ignore correspondence from CSA/CMS because they can, because nothing will happen to them. You're welcome.

Single sah mothers equals benefit scroungers. Sinle sah dads equals hero. Tis the world we live in.

Our cleaner has about 5 families she works for and she charges £14 per hour cash in hand. No idea if she declares her income. We're not dependent on her particularly, nor her on us, because she could probably get another job down the road tomorrow.

She has no other income. She is financially dependent.

But then anyone in employment is financially dependent? So my DH's secretary is financially dependent? My DDs' teacher? Anyone in a job?

You see, I'd argue that your housekeeper isn't dependent on you. She provides a service for a fee. Just as your accountant does. If she doesn't want to do that any more, she can find someone else to pay for her services. It's a different point. (I think so, anyway).

Manic - if I was in a position where I needed to work, then obviously I would and I would consider myself no less of a mum for it. Please don't misinterpret me here. However, for me personally, given the choice, I prefer to be hind with the kids. We would not have made the decision to have 4 DC if I was planning to return to work, put it that way.

If there is a couple on similar-ish incomes who want to work around the DC equally, then good for them. But it wouldn't have made sense for us to structure our lives like that. That's all really.

I second that you don’t have to have 1 high earner is order to have a Sahp. My dh earns way under 30k and I’m a Sahp, although we have savings so don’t claim any ctc, and he is training in a career that will be highly paid when he’s qualified. Surely you fit your lifestyle around the money you earn? We live quite frugally and manage. Me being a full time mum to my toddler outweighs the risk to me of being financially dependent on someone else for a few years. I’d rather be poor and be able to look after my children that pay someone else to look after them so I can take home a measly wage. If my dh left me and the money came from the state I don’t think my viewpoint on that would change. Is there a difference really in funding childcare for single parents to work for those few years when their kids are young and just paying them to look after their own children? I don’t really see that there is.

You should hear some of the things women have said about me being a SAHM (or I have heard women say about SAHMs when they don't realise I am one.)

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

How ironic.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as this is predominantly a website for Mums but you are very naive and short sighted if you think it is only Fathers who walk out on their kids and dot pay a penny.

g1itterati - in that case, we agree; everyone doing what is right for them or managing however they can within their own family circumstances. No need for judgements on any side

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

I hate to break it to you but yes you are, or do you think that the tax from one salary covers the cost of healthcare and education for a family of 4 or 5?.
Contrary to popular belief single parents don't have the option of staying at home once their youngest reaches 5 years, soon to be 2 years. The must seek work or be sanctioned. Prior to that they'll receive around £70 per week income support. My SAHM friend with 4 kids with health issues has cost you the 'taxpayer' 10 times as much as a SAH single parent of a toddler. Fwiw if that SAH single parent went out to work p/t she would also cost the taxpayer far more than if she stayed at home as she would receive tax credits and have upto 70% of childcare costs paid for by the government which amounts to far far more than income support.

So given the choice would you, the 'taxpayer' prefer a single parent of a young child to work and receive upto say £1000 in inwork benefits or stay at home and receive £70 a week income support, costing the taxpayer less overall?

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'

Oh get over yourself.

OP I understand the unfairness and judgement you are talking about but you are NOT going to be making that better by tearing down other women.

As others have said the price of living and wages are the issue.

I read this OP several times over because I was questioning myself about why I initially assumed GF, and then on second thought realised it was a very fair question.

I don't think OP is tearing down other women (she's been a bit retaliatory in some of her responses, but I don't really blame her). She's pointing out what she perceives to be a societal double standard. She's questioning the difference in perception, not attacking married SAHMs.

It's full of the usual bollocks you get on these threads ("I'm totally non-materialistic unlike these terrible working mothers who are all obsessed with brands and crap holidays THEREFORE I WIN" vs "You're a spineless sap who needs a man but I'm independent and fierce THEREFORE I WIN") but it is actually an interesting question with some interesting responses.

A few points to consider,
If a person earns more than 27k they are a higher earner.
Two thirds of people in this country earn under 27k.
Only around 20% of the welfare budget is spent on benefits. (Most goes on pension payments)

It is entirely wrong to judge women more harshly than men when a relationship ends and there are children to provide and care for. Children occur (mostly!) because a man and a woman have sex. Both the man and the woman are equal in this act and should equally share the responsibility of that childs needs, for as long as it needs them.

Sometimes in life shit happens. Men and women don't always take responsibility for their children. Sometimes one or both parents have health issues, mental or physical. Sometimes one or both has drug addiction. Sometimes one or both has no understanding of their responsibility to their child, usually relating to the poor parenting they themselves received.

What shall we do with these people if not try to help them?
Also, and here's the important bit, the welfare is for the children! We as a society are stepping in to help provide for children who don't have a choice about the situation they are born into.

I just think there was no reason for a comparison. I think the OP could have just asked the question 'Why do single mum's get judged?' without having to resort to that.

Anywho fundamentally I agree that some people judge single mum's and it's something we as women need to address.

Yes, quite, Billydessert and what's more we are problematising the existence of children who are in fact just the next generation of PEOPLE! We deem it better to live as a society, together, so our next generation of people in that society should surely be our priority.

In all this blaming of who is responsible, who is dependent, who is bad etc etc etc we seem to lose sight of that. I'm not being all sappy 'think of the children'y about it it's just that practically if we all choose to live in a society we ALL have a responsibility for the care of its next generation. Financial care or practical care is just part of that really.

I hate to break it to you but yes you are, or do you think that the tax from one salary covers the cost of healthcare and education for a family of 4 or 5?

The tax from that one salary could easily be far more than your family with two salaries, so your comparisons are useless.

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

Why are you assuming that mums work to buy stuff? Has it occurred to you that some mums have to work because their husbands don't earn anything like £50K a year and they have to work to eat/pay the mortgage etc? It seem not.

I have always worked but I live in a smaller house than most people I know, and have an older car, and they have never worked full-time. And I've never been to Centerparcs. Their husbands earn considerably more than my husband does.

I really get fed up with people slagging off women (never men) for working.

I kind of see where the OP is coming from.

What I've never understood is why people think it's better for their kids to be at home with their mums, but never see their full-time working dads. I'd have thought it was better for both parents to be at home part-time and work part-time - I know that it is a bit of a nirvana, but is becoming increasingly possible. And flexible and home working is also becoming more common.

I just think there was no reason for a comparison. I think the OP could have just asked the question 'Why do single mum's get judged?' without having to resort to that.

Because she was referring to a specific context whereby non-earning mothers in one position are judged, and are not (or not so much) in another.

It's funny though because as a SAHM I never, ever EVER criticised a woman for WOH - and never considered it either - and yet have often been subjected to criticism for SAH. I've had explicit criticism and veiled criticism, sometimes by people whose kids I was actually looking after at the time but presumably who thought I was too thick to understand what they meant.

And, you know what, EVERYONE is a tax payer if they buy anything or move any money around at all. So saying that tax payers pay for benefit claimants' kids is only half the story.

The tax from that one salary could easily be far more than your family with two salaries, so your comparisons are useless.

Well yes I'm aware of that, I was responding to the post below and pointing out that yes actually tax money is spent on families with one or two parents working as well as SAH single parents whether that be in the form of cash benefits/healthcare/education etc. The poster seems to be confused as to what tax is spent on and appears to have assumed that only those out of work cost the taxpayer money. Very few people are net contributors.

Whatshallidonowpeople

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