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?

Well a parent on benefits where the partner has abandoned their responsibility is very different from a parent on benefits who chooses to have a child. ( without being in a position to support them). Whatever your position on that I don’t see how that correlates with a family unit who are financially supporting their children - whether that’s both parents working or one parent working.

Nails yes
But the consequences for them are much less.

Also tax breaks don't cost the taxpayer, they save the tax payer money-obviously. Basic economics/linguistics there. Read it-taxs breaks. A break from tax. Tax payer paying less tax.

Spirited so every couple who gets tax credits-they have chosen to have a family knowing the state would support them.

I don't think either is morally superior, but I feel your comparison is ignoring the fact that SAHPs' working partners are generally related to their children.

Both parents should support their offspring, be that financially or by providing childcare. If one parent stays at home, the other is effectively paying for childcare. If one parent fucks off, the other may have to take benefits, where s/he effectively receives pay without providing a service.

The only person morally inferior, though, is the parent who does not provide for his/her child.

could it be the difference between a family unit meeting its own costs v a family unit being provided for by the state?

Of course you're right - a lot of policy is made with the family, rather than the individual, as the unit.

Some of the self righteous crap on here makes me laugh at times. Just look up how much it costs to send a child to school. Don't even get onto all your other costs (health, police, defence etc etc) You have two kids? Three? Unless you're a higher rate tax payer, you're not actually paying into the system. You're taking out. Far, far more people are net beneficiaries than are net contributors.

maybe THIS
And yet women on here rush to help if a husband has an affair. Which is great. But 12 mths on those brave enough to leave will become single mum scum of they havent got a job yet.

Best
Spot on!

Because if more women chose single motherhood, society cannot afford to support them? Like if 50% of women didn't work, tax s would be sky high.

I think it's a macro-economics thing, that's underpinned by a sexist morality that's shoved out as propaganda to keep women in a family unit where they and their children are financed by the male.

Exactly Natalia
Very few people put in what they get out.
But so lng as you still live with your husband and he works, then thats ok

The welfare state is there to support those in need, not to support deliberate life style choices IMHO which is why those who deliberately start a family without financial capability are pilloried.

Morally they are no different - both want children and both have someone else paying for it.

Legally they are different - one has someone who pre agrees to this, the other requires the taxpayer to pick up the bill.

So you are saying one kind of women judging is wrong, but another kind of women judging is great?

What a beacon of solidarity, humanity and feminism you are.

Watch this instead: m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1447348932040937&id=28373121592&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2F&_rdr

They are considered morally inferior because it useful for the capitalist state if we consider them so.

'Providing for' your child does not just have to mean paying for it.

Paying somebody else to look after your kid is seen as morally superior for the same reason - again, in an economy focused state it's useful if we regulate each other & ourselves in this way.

Carrots
Youd think so wouldnt you.
And yes about the working parent being related to (usually the dad of) the kids. But if it goes wrong, and as a woman you dont get that, then why are you blamed but not him?

But again, I don't think creating a division between 'good' and 'bad' women is useful at all. You don't need to be contemptuous of married SAHMs (or Ds) in order to say unmarried/ benefit claiming ones are not inferior.

Because the men voluntarily assume the responsibility where as the state forces the responsibility onto tax payers. Asides from being legal, it is like theft. By choosing the take handhouts you are knowingly deprived by others of their property.

Exactly.

Most of the time in these circumstances a family has decided for one parent to stay at home- made their own choices, sacrifices for family and relationships.

Most of the time people couldn't give a rats arse where other people get their money from or what they do all day as long as it doesn't affect them. Because it's none of their business.

Most of the time a husband and wife love each other and have a common goal in raising children and being part of a team.

Most of the time it's a personal and private choice. Most of the time it's decided between the man and the woman. All of the time it's legal.

On MN though you can scrap the above. It's everyone's business to judge what other people/families do and where women get their money from. And heaven forbid a woman puts her feet up for an hour

But it’s natural to want a baby. Not lots ok, but one, everyone should be supported in having one.

It was natural in the past but didn’t come with the huge financial penalty. Our bodies and urges haven’t changed, just the supportiveness of the society around us.

Exactly mook
The wifework is something on here which is respected as an entity
What is non wife work?

The fact is whether you have a partner paying for your kids or the state is doing it, you are a drain on the system through tje schools, benefits, NHS, you name it. Unless you're earning massively, you take out much more than you put in as a parent.

So what are you complaining about OP? Either way, the tax payer pays for you to be able to have kids.

Meanwhile there are childless or childfree people who are net contributors. I reckon you get a good deal.

I think your answer would be because one family is working and paying taxes and the other isn’t. Some people see contributing to society in that way more superior to others.

Yes. No married sahm should ever judge a single parent on benefits unless she knows for a fact she could run a household singlehandedly. But they do!

To the pp who's said it's about choice, that her dh has "chosen" to work and support the family etc and she has "chosen" to stay at home and look after the children-

What about women who have no "choice"?

Those who were cheated on?
Partner buggers off?
Victims of domestic violence?

The list is endless.

It is not as simple as having a "choice"
How naive

OP you're coming across as a very bitter jealous person.