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?

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.

Sorry but you're misinformed. There are no 'single parent' benefits. I know plenty couples where both work and are in receipt of tax credits, likewise I know single parents who don't receive any benefits. Benefits are income dependant, marital status is irrelevant.

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.

The OP isn't asking SAHM's to justify their choices though.

She is asking why single mothers who are SAHMs are vilified and married SAHMs are not - when they are essentially the same.

Countless married SAHMs on this thread have gone to great pains to point out that they are in no way comparable, and are outraged that people would think they are 'scroungers' like single SAHMs.

Why don't women (and every fucker else) stop judging other women? It's attitudes like this that alert me to the fact the world is full of insufferable people who think they are better than everyone else (I am aware of my judgement before anyone gets smart). We should be supporting each other not posting divisive drivel about benefit claimants or SAHM. Is it really that bloody difficult to support each other?? And if I sound thoroughly pissed off it's because I am.

Well I think both groups are morally inferior! I am a single mum and I've busted my arse not to claim benefits and work to cover all my costs and somehow still be the primary care giver to my DC.

I don't really think anyone is inferior (SAHM, WOTH, benefits claimant, millionaire, male, female, married, single, black, white, blue, undefined gender etc) but I think our system is inferior. We still make it hard for the primary caregiver to return to work if they want to. We still think that women should be the primary caregiver, we still think that being a mum is not a job, we still don't pay fairly in the workplace, we still don't have affordable childcare, we still insist on judging people for their choices. GAH!!!!

There aren't any benefits you miss out on specifically by being married anyway. You might miss out on some you'd otherwise get if you were single, for example if you earn 8k and your partner earns 40k you're not going to get child tax credits whereas you would if single. But that's not because you're married, it's because you have a partner. Would be the same if you were unmarried but living together.

OP in what they do day to day there probably is no difference whatsoever. As others have said, I think the reason people view them differently is due to how being at home is funded. One is funded by their partner and one by the state (through other people’s tax payments). However, I think it’s stupid to judge someone as better because their spouse pays for everything vs a single parent on benefits. I imagine most single parents on benefits have not chosen to be on benefits raising a child/children. Most people’s lives are a lot more complicated than that. Many will have gone through a divorce or separation, be unable to work for health reasons or unable to find a job that pays enough to cover childcare. The welfare state is there for when you fall on hard times like these and it’s no one else’s place to judge as they could be in that situation one day too. I’m sure you get CFs you do just want to get paid benefits and stay at home, but I think they’re very much in the minority as from what I’ve seen life on benefits is not like being one of the #richkidsofinstagram!!!

@FaithHopeCharityDesperation

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 ££££££.

I've yet to meet any woman, who has worked for many years (and who therefore has a strong work ethic), who would then give up her job and start to pro-create, without any means to support the children she has. People who have worked all their lives, don't generally just give up work and go onto benefits if they fancy kids.

Unfortunately, as "non PC" as it is to say this, the type of person who has children fully expecting the state to support them, tends to be following in the footsteps of their own parents and grandparents. There are many families in the UK, who for generations have never worked. It is just expected, that a life on benefits is the only way. And yes, some do have more children to increase the benefits they can claim.

When my kids left school, there was a marked difference in the outcomes of the children in their year(s). The school straddled a fairly poor area of council housing, where most people were on benefits and a reasonably up market area, where most people worked. Unsurprisingly, the children whose parents worked, either went to Uni/College or got a job. The children of non working families did nothing. Not clear cut by any means, but generally this was the overall pattern. Which is really sad.

So "don't judge, just silently hand me your money, no questions asked".

Can't imagine why that wouldn't be a vote-winning slogan.

There are many families in the UK, who for generations have never worked

This is an oft repeated fallacy huskylover.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation actually did a research study on this exact assertion & could not find any evidence to substantiate this claim.

So it's not just "non pc to say it", it's just wrong.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation actually did a research study on this exact assertion & could not find any evidence to substantiate this claim

Send them to a certain area in the last town I lived in, and they would find literally hundreds & hundreds of families, where this is exactly the case.

Here it is:

www.jrf.org.uk/report/are-cultures-worklessness-passed-down-generations

'Literally hundreds & hundreds of families"?!

Get a grip.
Hyperbole is not your friend.

I'm not mis informed.

Do you think that a wife at home with the children with a good earning partner gets help with childcare???

Does a wife with a husband who is earning get financial help should she wish to study or retrain? Compare with a lone parent.

In both situations both women are not working. There is a difference in the help they will get.

Just because a wife has a husband who earns, does this mean he will use his income for childcare or to help his wife retrain??!

Just because a wife stays home and looks after the children , does this mean her husband gives her money???

No I am not misinformed. Through work I have seen the sad facts.

Most married working mums are still likely to be dependent on their husband's income anyway though, to a greater or lesser extent. Not all families can survive on one income.

We are all dependent on something. Working women are also dependent on their employers. As are most working men.

If I'm deemed dependent on my DH, then so be it. Our family is a net contributor in terms of tax. DH employs about 300 people in the UK - from graduates on starter-salaries to MDs on £250 k. These include men with SAH wives, single mums - the whole spectrum - all paying tax accordingly.

When I left work I was on about £30 k in 2002. Even if I could go back in where I left off, it just wouldn't be worth it anymore. In different circumstances, with a different husband and maybe a couple less children, things might have panned out very differently for me.

I would never judge the mums on benefits - why? They are literally the ones left holding the baby! I do judge the fathers who have buggered off or who are dodging their responsibilities, however. That's what the thread should be about.

No way did you personally know literally hundreds of families who were in generations of worklessness. I don't know why you want us to believe that. Coupled with your ridiculously contrived and completely made up 'woman A' and 'woman B', I have to assume you have some sort of agenda.

I've only glanced over the research but it seems to have been carried out in areas that sound deprived enough for the purposes and are likely to have been close enough to your area.

"Despite dogged searching, the researchers were unable to locate any families with three generations who had never worked. If such families exist, they can only account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Recent surveys suggest that under 1 per cent of workless households might have two generations who have never worked. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer."

Actually I disagree nomore
I decided not to return to work after having first child fir msny reasons including the fact that I did not qualify for help with childcare due to dh's income.
A colleague was living st home having split with her baby's father. She had a new partner but didn't want to move I with him because she would lose her 80% childcare subsidy.
I understand that this support has reduced but it is still there.

Send them to a certain area in the last town I lived in, and they would find literally hundreds & hundreds

Don't trust the boffins?

Ms Thatcher used to tell it the way it was. She didn't need any boffins with their clipboards and tick boxes.

Apologies for typos.

g1itterati, a working person has a mutually dependent relationship with their employer though, it is somewhat different to a person who is not receiving an income for the sale of their labour/services and is being financially supported by either a spouse/partner or via benefits.

You could argue that there is a mutually dependent relationship with the spouse/partner, but given the high percentage of relationships that end in divorce or split up - that may not necessarily be the case.

As for a person claiming benefits, it is harder to see where the mutually dependent relationship is there.

God told her who was worthy.

Recent surveys suggest that under 1 per cent of workless households might have two generations who have never worked. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer

And of course, every single person in the UK completed that survey? Did you complete that survey? I didn't. I absolutely hate that surveys can be done and then the tiny results are applied to the population as a whole.

Ask any Police Officer or Paramedic, whether there are thousands of families in the UK where no-one works, and where no-one has worked for many years, which may stretch across a generation. Your answer will be Yes, and not only that, they are our bread and butter.

They are literally the ones left holding the baby! I do judge the fathers who have buggered off or who are dodging their responsibilities, however

I agree, however, in many cases the father's haven't buggered off, they weren't working at conception and may never work.

Do you think that a wife at home with the children with a good earning partner gets help with childcare???

Isn't the point of a SAHM to stay home and care for the children? Why would they need childcare?

Does a wife with a husband who is earning get financial help should she wish to study or retrain? Compare with a lone parent

I went back to uni aged 40 as a LP, I had to do my degree p/t whilst working, I didn't receive any help so not sure what kind of help you're talking about.

Just because a wife stays home and looks after the children , does this mean her husband gives her money???

I would think so otherwise you'd have to be pretty stupid to give up work in the first place if your partner's unwilling to support you. Besides she could always leave, afterall the government will give her shit loads of money and free education, right?

they would find literally hundreds & hundreds of families, where this is exactly the case.

What literally literally?