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?

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

Of course money is real. And that isn't why it was invented either.

Assuming shared custody is fine (assuming all is well with each parent). Access should be decided on a case by case basis. I refuse to agree that splitting time 50/50 between 2 homes is a good default option.

Isn't this a bit prehistoric bollocksy?

Yes it is. It keeps women firmly in their place though, excuses lazy men from lifting a finger and ensures the status quo is upheld.

Secure attachment to a primary caregiver is what’s important, followed by an emotional loving and STABLE home environment. That can be dad, Mum, grandparent, gay, straight or whatever. What’s important is that secure foundation from the start. Most children in heterosexual parent families actually have ‘mum’ and ‘Dad’ phases where they actively prefer one parent over the other, and of course a child in a family where dad does chuff all but go to work is going to be more attached to Mum.

How is money real? Turn off the computers and money is obsolete. It has no value anymore.

That’s the rules here in Sweden. Fifty fifty split of assets, shared custody is the default As it should be. Apart from the ridiculousness that occurs in the UK where it is 50/50 despite one person massively contributing more than the other.

I refuse to agree that splitting time 50/50 between 2 homes is a good default option.

My gut says the same. There was research published recently that showed that children in amicable divorces were better off splitting time. I’d suspect that it’s strongly dependent on the age of the child (the younger they are the more they need one attachment focus) and the stability/acrimony of the new households will play a part.
I imagine it works fine for a teen with two happily divorced, cooperative parents. It’s probably not so good for very young children, or where there’s conflict or abuse (it’s VERY hard to get sole custody here even if a man is abusive)

Gromance Access should always be based on the needs of the kids, not the needs of the parents.

Lovely Seriously? Money would not exist if there we turned off computers? WTF do you think happened before computers? We traded donkeys?

How is money real? Turn off the computers and money is obsolete. It has no value anymore.

I just turned off my laptop but when I asked at the bank, my credit card bill still existed.

Money is a construct just like society is.

How is money real? Turn off the computers and money is obsolete. It has no value anymore

Thats not at all true. The value would change, but it does that all the time anyway. '
How is it NOT real? Can you see the coins in your pocket? Can you spend them? Can you do anything in your life without money? Can you live without it? No. It couldn't be more real, your entire life hinges on it.

Money is a construct just like society is

that doesn't make either of them any less real.

This is a good paragraph:

*Business is a game. A job is a game. More to the point: money is a game. None of it is real. The economy is a big game. This is why it is a mistake to define your identity or self-worth in economic terms. You are not your job or career. This game of acquiring money should be played like the game of poker. At work, you aren’t expected to be honest about your beliefs, your feelings, your dreams, or your opinions. If you are ethical, then you are expected to play the game in a way that enables others, who are also playing a game, to win. In doing so, it is up to you to make sure that you also win. If you aren't winning, play the game differently.

I wish that our world was organized in a way that ties human beings together through truth, dignity, fairness, love and kindness. Perhaps we could go back to living in tribes, we could all know each other, accept each other, and work together as part of a caring, nurturing community. But that isn’t the way the world is currently organized. Today, the economic system is a big game that is maintained by ruling elites to control us as they exploit resources for personal gain. Those who see the economic word as reality are those who lose. The true believers are they fully-exploited. Your challenge is to play the game to your benefit while finding space for your real life to flourish.*

Indeed it doesn't. But it does mean it's deconstructable - which is an over complicated way of saying we don't HAVE to base everything around it.

If you can't see a difference between a woman choosing to become lone parents with the state as their only reliable and consistent financial support and a woman choosing to be a SAHM while the father of her child works to support them all while they live together as a self sufficient family then I can't see the point in trying to explain it to you.

Today 12:40donners312

Shmithecat - "why do I think SAHM look down on me", maybe because they use expressions as you just have like "why does it have to be a race to the bottom"
And the original argument/point the OP was trying to make is that neither SAHM or SP are financing the DC still stands so the question does come back to why do you think you are morally superior as your comments suggest you do.

Wow. Do you want some ketchup for that chip?

lavande exactly. Pissing in the wind.

To answer the original question:

Woman A : Single. Not working. Loves kids. Already has 2 and continues to have another 5, because she loves kids. Wholly funded by the tax payer. Because, in her mind, it is her "right" to have as many children as she chooses. Cost to tax payer is ££££££

Woman B : Married. Has worked since age 18. Decides at age 30 that she is broody. Husband has a good income. After doing the sums, they calculate that they can afford for her to become a SAHM, and they can afford 2 children, on his salary alone. Cost to tax payer is ZERO.

Can you honestly not see, how woman B would be looked upon as more sensible & less of a drain on society in general?

Of course, where this all falls down, is where Woman A's children do not want to repeat the pattern. One becomes a doctor, one a police officer, one a teacher.... you get the gist. They all pay tax etc.

Woman B's children end up becoming junkies, never pay tax or contribute to society.

Then, Woman A has ultimately paid back her debt somewhat. And Woman B's children are milking the state.

What's the answer? No idea. But surely you can see why Woman A would be viewed in a less satisfactory light in the beginning?

I actually think that many people miss the point that due to being married they are trapped in a situation where it is almost impossible to work! No help with tax credits or childcare.

Single parents get much mor support with benefits and help with childcare making work more accessible.

Maybe this is on reason??

Can you honestly not see, how woman B would be looked upon as more sensible & less of a drain on society in general?

Well, in this ridiculous and contrived example where the single mother is OF COURSE totally selfish and irresponsible, and the married one is OF COURSE sensible and financially secure - and in this Middle Earth where children don't cost anything in taxes if their mother stays home - you're right.

How about over here in real life land?

*Woman A : Single. Not working. Loves kids. Already has 2 and continues to have another 5, because she loves kids. Wholly funded by the tax payer. Because, in her mind, it is her "right" to have as many children as she chooses. Cost to tax payer is ££££££

Woman B : Married. Has worked since age 18. Decides at age 30 that she is broody. Husband has a good income. After doing the sums, they calculate that they can afford for her to become a SAHM, and they can afford 2 children, on his salary alone. Cost to tax payer is ZERO.*

At least make them comparable!

Woman A : Single. Has worked since 18. Decides at age 30 that she is broody. Has 2 children & chooses not to work whilst they're young, so they're therefore wholly funded by the tax payer. Cost to tax payer is ££££££.

Woman B : Married. Has worked since age 18. Decides at age 30 that she is broody. Husband has a good income. After doing the sums, they calculate that they can afford for her to become a SAHM, and they can afford 2 children, on his salary alone. Cost to tax payer is ZERO (assuming they don't use state school or the NHS etc).

Why does the single mother get the 'has loads of kids' tag, but the married mother prudently stops at 2?!
And why does the single mother get the 'never worked' tag, but the married mother 'worked until choosing to have kids'?!

I somehow missed a chunk off my previous post, but it was basically about how both those endings are as silly and contrived and baseless as the rest of it.

And what about the damn fathers?

I do actually wonder if all these SAHM threads are actually started by the same person - they just keep coming at it with a slightly different scenario in the thread title.

In real life, nobody in almost 15 years has ever asked me if I work or if I have plans to return to work. Who would give a hoot? Yet on here, being a SAHM with, shock horror, school aged children, is perceived to be some kind of extreme lifestyle that needs to be discussed and justified, over and over again. Why? It's just normal life for most the mums I know.

Good question