Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

601 replies

Primarkismyonlyoption · 06/02/2018 19:10

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?

OP posts:
Srumtish · 07/02/2018 12:49

Well you could make the point that the sahm is aiding her husbands career so still adding to the GDP but I think really it's down to people being arseholes who blame women for everything

Truth is most sahm are looked at with a special sort of disdain as well.

If you're on benefits and a single mother to a child out of nursery I'd say that's usually down to a man not paying his share and doing 50/50 shared care so I'd only personally blame the man not doing his fair share.

Srumtish · 07/02/2018 12:51

No one has ever suggested my husband could just quit his job to bring up his own kids. Not once.

crunchymint · 07/02/2018 12:52

Kids have 2 parents. The father could be a SAHD while the mother works. Why is it just the mother who gets disdain for not "bringing her kids up herself"

Srumtish · 07/02/2018 12:57

if you can't afford a child don't have one

Do people really understand what they are saying? We live in a society that we have not designed. Where a family cannot afford to survive on the minimum wage working full time and support a child without benefits. Do you really believe it's fair that this society which has been created by business to get the most out of its workers while paying them a pittance should also dictate the children they have? The rich are a rich off the backs of the poor, we create the wealth they make more money off us than they pay us or they would not be rich.

Yes you live in poverty and no family either. Peasant. That's fair to you.

Most people in benefits are employed. They make the decision to have a child knowing they will get benefits. Fuck bring back workhouses

Srumtish · 07/02/2018 12:59

When the average family can find a plot of land to live on legally and raise a family self sustaining then I'll agree.

Lovelylovelyladies · 07/02/2018 12:59

Because children need there mother's more than there father's.
It's true. You can't deny it. Young children need mummy. The crux of their emotional well being comes from mummy.

Srumtish · 07/02/2018 13:01

A child being breastfed yes, but tell me why my 4 year old needs me more than his dad?

Srumtish · 07/02/2018 13:03

This whole fucking society setup only works because some people are at the bottom. Those people will never be able to afford children without benefits and they have no other options.I'm really shocked actually by the sentiments being expressed that they should just not have children rather than god forbid the rich pat more taxes on the money they make from the poor.

Lovelylovelyladies · 07/02/2018 13:04

Children get their emotional well being from their mother. I am not saying that daddy can't look after his 4 year old. But children and mothers have a stronger bond. Fuck my children love daddy. They got so much love and care from him. But they all still come to mummy when they need emotional support. Even at an older age.

Gromance02 · 07/02/2018 13:04

Scrumtish I think Lovelylovelyladies was being sarcastic. As well as being illiterate but I can't be bothered to educate her.

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 07/02/2018 13:05

Because children need there mother's more than there father's.
It's true. You can't deny it. Young children need mummy. The crux of their emotional well being comes from mummy.

🙄
Utter Bollocks.

ftmtb · 07/02/2018 13:06

I have worked since leaving school and never claimed any kind of benefits, me and my OH support each other. Together we can afford to bring up a child if we are both working, however if he was to leave me I could not afford my home, bills, shopping and a child just on my wage, (just above minimum wage) which is the reasons for tax credits to help 'boost' a wage.

I think this is completely different to a woman who has lived off benefits her whole life, gets pregnant off a one night stand and then continues to rely on benefits forever in a never ending cycle. That, I think is inferior and silly life choices.

Lovelylovelyladies · 07/02/2018 13:06

No sarcasm here. And sorry for being illiterate. I am not so hot on the old spelling and grammar. Still would like to think I am allowed to get my point across though!

IfyouseeRitaMoreno · 07/02/2018 13:07

We live in a society that we have not designed.
and
This whole fucking society setup only works because some people are at the bottom.

Well said!

Gromance02 · 07/02/2018 13:08

ftmb I assume you don't claim tax credits? As they are a type of benefit. Obviously.

ftmtb · 07/02/2018 13:10

I don't claim anything and never have, I'm saying if I was a single parent I'd have to.

Srumtish · 07/02/2018 13:12

Well some benfotsare OK thoughHmm they've done such a good job on us even people in benefits or people who realise they're just a divorce away from benefits look down on others for 'inferior life choices'.

I'd say finding yourself pregnant from a one night stand and realising you want to be a mother is a pretty good reason to have a baby myself. Just being in a relationship that could end as most is certainly not any more clever.

ftmtb · 07/02/2018 13:15

Yeah if you can afford to support them yourself

AngelsWithSilverWings · 07/02/2018 13:17

I’m a SAHM but I certainly don’t look down my nose at anyone. I have friends who are single mums on benefits and friends who work while raising their DC. We are all able to get along and not judge each other!

I resent the idea that I’m living off of a wealthy husband. I worked for 20 years and had saved up enough in that time to pay off half of the mortgage in a lump sum the day I left my job to become a SAHM. Ok so DH now pays the remaining half and for us to live day to day but I give him the ability to give his incredibly demanding job 100% by taking care of absolutely everything to do with running the home and taking care of the kids.

We are a team. We agreed that this was best for our family ( for all sorts of reasons) and it gives us a nice balanced life. If I got a job he would have to take up the slack at home and his job just doesn’t allow for that - so it’s lucky that his salary is enough for me not to have to.

When the kids no longer need me at home I will look for a job that I can enjoy. I won’t be doing it for the money , it will just be for something interesting to do.

WhooooAmI24601 · 07/02/2018 13:24

Because children need there mother's more than there father's.
It's true. You can't deny it. Young children need mummy. The crux of their emotional well being comes from mummy.

Isn't this a bit prehistoric bollocksy? I have gay friends who are raising an adopted child together; no Mummies involved at all yet he's a happy, secure, nurtured and cherished child like any other. I also have a friend whose Wife passed away several years ago who is -quite successfully- raising their DCs despite the huge trauma they've been through. Mums are no more important than Dads. What is important is secure attachment with caregivers.

Society just likes to make us think Mums are more important so that Dads can check out of child-rearing and focus on their careers. It's brain-washing bollocks and I don't believe a word of it.

manicinsomniac · 07/02/2018 13:29

FaithHope - only if they are lower wage earners. That argument doesn't apply to working in general. I don't know if there is a correlation between singleness and lower income. I hope not but, sadly, I suppose I wouldn't be that surprised to hear that there is.

Gromance02 · 07/02/2018 13:30

I assume that all of the people on here saying fathers are just as important as mothers agree with the USA's starting point of 50/50 access when parents separate or divorce?
It appears that in the UK, majority of access is automatically given to the mother unless there are mitigating circumstances?

Lovelylovelyladies · 07/02/2018 13:31

No society are now making us think women should go to work so they feel empowered and like they are not second class to men. That's bollocks, the only reason they want us to work is so we pay tax. They want us to make them money.
It all comes back to money.
Our society runs off it. Money isn't even real it was created to keep people in check and to put some people at the top and others at the bottom.
Yes it is a bit prehistoric but the values society holds today (all about the money) I would rather be prehistoric and live a more naturally balanced and pure life then one that revolves around how much money the big men make.

Anatidae · 07/02/2018 13:33

I assume that all of the people on here saying fathers are just as important as mothers agree with the USA's starting point of 50/50 access when parents separate or divorce?

That’s the rules here in Sweden. Fifty fifty split of assets, shared custody is the default. Note custody and access are not necessarily the same thing. Custody is more equal share in descisions that affect the child, more than how much time with each parent.