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?

And, you know what, EVERYONE is a tax payer if they buy anything or move any money around at all.

Very good point. I'd forgotten that. And, of course, VAT hits poorer people disproportionately, as they spend all the money they have rather than having the luxury of being able to save it.

he 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

The point is that the people not working cost us all a lot more money and contribute even less.
Now, I have no problem with that, a civilsed society should have a strong welfare net. But it doesn't help to deny the reality.

*"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.*

YY Manicinsomniac!
That was what I saw as the OPs point too.

The point is that the people not working cost us all a lot more money and contribute even less.

Not necessarily, though. Not if you measure it purely in £ terms at the time. The two parents earning £25k each - they have three or four kids? They're costing "us" a lot more than the single mother of one on benefits for a few years. She contributes less, sure. But her net cost is lower.

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?

I view a child's healthcare and education not as a cost the parent's tax should cover but as an investment into that child's future tax payments, to allow society to continue

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

No. I'm not. I am no better than a single mum on benefits. And I'm no better or worse than a woman who works and earns the median wage. Nor am I better or worse than one who works and earns a huge salary. (I used to be one of those. I now pay less tax personally, but I facilitate my DH to be able to do so, however you feature that in these calculations of "worth".)

What I am is bloody lucky to have the choices that I have.

Yes, as an (ex) SAHM with a wealthy husband, I'm fine to be told I'm 'no better' than a single mum dependent on benefits. I never thought I was. But then I don't make a habit of thinking I'm better than people in general, except murderers etc. I make better decisions than them (I expect).

I view a child's healthcare and education not as a cost the parent's tax should cover but as an investment into that child's future tax payments, to allow society to continue

It is a good view.

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.

If she'd done that then it wouldn't have shown the truth.

There would have been hundreds of posts listing reasons why, with a few goady fuckers who are told off for 'benefits bashing' or 'attacking the vulnerable'.

Ironically, the telling off of goady fuckers would have been done by the same posters on here who have been horrified at the idea that they'd be in any way comparable with a single mother.

In fact, they have gone to great pains on this thread to point out that they're nothing like those single mothers.

We've all been brainwashed to think that unless you are directly generating tax for the govt to spend, then you have no value.
It's no accident that women are being pitted against each other - divide and rule. Meanwhile the patriarchy is ticking along nicely.

The way to end it, is not to judge women for sah, but to ensure that the wealth between men and women is shared. Having children puts women at a disadvantage in life. Society should recognise this and where a woman has sah, should recognise this was a joint decision and she should not be financially disadvantaged because of the long term consequences of that choice because the husband has gained too. Single mothers should get the same financial support fron the fathers of their dc as if they were married, because they are the ones taking on most of the responsibility and not able to work freely, as the men are.

^ this (@Iwannaseehowitends)

The point is that the people not working cost us all a lot more money and contribute even less.

Assume you're including SAHP's?
Either way there's really no way of quantifying that is there?

Eg1. Single parent, worked full-time for 20 years prior to parenthood, has one child and stayed at home for 3 years then goes back to work.

Eg2. SAHM, married, DH earns average salary, worked for 5 years before starting a family fairly young, goes on to have 4 children who all require education, healthcare etc

Who has cost the taxpayer more? And then there's my earlier point about parents, single or otherwise receiving far more in inwork benefits than they would out of work if they're low earners. It just seems to me that many people would rather see a single parent out working even if it costs the taxpayer more. I wonder why that is? Why do people begrudge a woman who's relationship has broken down (and it's always a woman) a couple of years at home with their dc but are fine with subsiding the married SAHM's 2+ kids education etc just because their DH pays a little bit of tax when in fact that SP may have paid more tax than the SAHM or her DH for that matter ever will?

I love your post - I often look at the SAHM that are loaded at school who look down on me and i bet they could never do what i have done! and what lots of single mums who have been left in the lurch by irresponsible Fathers.

I would admit to being jealous of them though and for blaming myself for picking such a deadbeat in the first place.

Assume you're including SAHP's?

Not unless they are being subsidised with benefits.

It's not hard.

We've all been brainwashed to think that unless you are directly generating tax for the govt to spend, then you have no value

No we haven't, I don't think that and neither do most people I know.

Not unless they are being subsidised with benefits.

You see, I think it is quite hard! What about working parents who don't pay higher rate tax and are being subsidised with free nursery places, tax credits, child benefit? They're costing us money and contribute less than they take out. Do we castigate them for not having a higher paid job? Do we say they're "better" than the unemployed but not a good as the higher rate tax payer? On the same logic, is the CEO of Tesco an inherently better person than the headmistress of the local comprehensive school? It's just not that simple....

Mainly because a wife relying on her husband isn't burdening the economy in the same way.

shutyoface Nomoreusernames went on to show how most/all SAHPs are subsidised and that the amount is not necessarily more if it's a subsidy of benefits.

Not hard to read the whole post not just one sentence of it.

@donners123 I love your post - I often look at the SAHM that are loaded at school who look down on me

Why do you think they're looking down at you?

and i bet they could never do what i have done! and what lots of single mums who have been left in the lurch by irresponsible Fathers.

Why? What renders them incapable of being a single parent if they had to be?

I'm a sahm who Is fairly 'loaded' as you put it. My dh is a high earner. But previous to becoming a sahm, I did actually work for 20+ years. Of course I could do what you did. I imagine many sahms could. Why does it have to the bottom?

to be a race to the bottom

Nomoreusernames went on to show how most/all SAHPs are subsidised and that the amount is not necessarily more if it's a subsidy of benefits

But they aren't, as a class they are not any more than any other class.

Why do you think they're looking down at you?

You just have to read this thread to see how many SAHM's have gone to great pains to point out exactly how/why they are better than single mums who don't work.

I think the point is it's difficult to quantify how much overall subsidy one class gets/ contribution one class makes when compared with another, assuming we accept subsidy for their children (and associated education/health costs) is part of that.

We are all subsidised in a welfare state. I think we agree that that's how it should be.

Some of us contribute, though working out who and how that is - when taken as a net figure - is v tricky.

Some of us contribute, though working out who and how that is - when taken as a net figure - is v tricky.

Agreed. And - let's not forget - most people don't. Most people. If you're not paying higher rate tax, you aren't. If you're not paying higher rate tax and you have kids? You're seriously subsidised by the state. You're subsidised less than the single mother on benefits, yes. But you're still a taker.

It's a bit like the "all the money goes to London" arguments you hear bandied around. No - the vast majority of the money comes from a London and is then redistributed around the country....

On the subject of all relying on one another, even the people who pay in much more than they take out are still reliant on the rest of society not to take their assets and property from them by force. To prevent people from doing that generally requires providing them with a sufficient standard themselves that they don't find it worth the risk. This is in addition to things like general respect for the tax and legal systems from the population, without which those systems couldn't function. I appreciate the financial contribution the highest earners make, but let's not pretend they're not relying on others in society either.