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?

You kind of are saying gay people shouldn't be parents then, or gay men at least. If you think children should be looked after by their mum, despite you apparently being personally aware of excellent SAHDs, that's effectively saying a setup where there is no mum shouldn't include children. I'd have more respect for you if you were clear about that and owned it.

I just think in a situation where there's a mum and a dad then mum should look after the children. I personally think children need their mum more than dad.
I wouldn't bash anyone for doing it differently. Really thinking about it I couldn't care less if you do if differently. But this is the way I have chosen to do it as I think it's the right way. I am sure women who work and dad stays at home think they are doing what's right. Great. Again I am not trying to put anyone down or make people feel they are not doing a good job. People think I am not doing a good job as a mum because I don't work and my husband provides the money.

In fairness to lovely, I have sometimes wondered (not enough to do any proper reading or research on it though ) if there is something special/evolutionary/primal about the bond between mother and child and if the paternal bond can be the same? If you think about animals (I don't know much about this either, but I haves watched that March of the Penguins film 😂 😂) mothers and fathers do have distinct roles in raising offspring. Do thousands of years of evolution matter, or does the nature of modern society mean it's now totally irrelevant? I do think it's an interesting question and not necessarily one that you can dismiss as sexist bollocks just because the biology of the situation is as it is.

Thank you Natalia! I do think there is a stronger bond between mother and baby. Especially newborns. And even as a child grows up the bond doesn't break just because they are older and wiser!
I think people now want to believe that evolution isn't part of parenting as it affects they way they are judged in society.
Someone used to word "prehistoric" but I think evolution has done the work for us.

I know women want to feel equal and empowered. I am not saying I want to be thought of as less then a man because I believe I am the right person to look after my child.

But you saying you wonder if that might be true bears no resemblance at all to lovely's claim that it must be Natalia. Nor have you posted about brilliant SAHDs you apparently know and said you wouldn't want to take that away from them, whilst also saying that the mum is the one who should be doing the caring.

I think mothers and fathers parent differently. I am not saying that dad's can't look after their children. It's just I think mothers provide more emotional support for their younger children and should be at home with them. Again I obviously have to say the disclaimer that if you do it differently then I am not judging. It's just my belief.

I just think in a situation where there's a mum and a dad then mum should look after the children. I personally think children need their mum more than dad.

I think my DS needed Dad more than me. They have the stronger bond and always have had. But DH earned 4 times what I did so him giving up work to be a SAHP wasn't an option!

It was an option it just wasn't the option you chose.

No, it doesn't Beetle - I do take your point. But a lot of posts on here (not just on this topic either) start from "my experience is....so it must be true". The brilliant term I've heard for this is "anecdata", which I loved!

Please dont pick on SAHM to make a point about benefits. Women should be working together to protect each others rights not slating each others choices.

I certainly dont think anyone is morally superior to mums on benefits. Benefits are there to help people when they need them. Im glad my taxes get spent on helping people to raise children as hopefully the children will grow up with good opportunities if they have access to better care because of adequate benefits and government help.

Im a SAHM currently and not in reciept of any benefits but I dont think im viewed as morally superior in fact quite the opposite. I kind of feel like work you do is totally ignored even though were you not to do it someone else would be getting paid to do it so it is quite plainly a job isnt it? (I have 2 children under 3)

Someone needs to care for young children and I honestly dont see why, in either the case of single mums on benefits or stay at home mums not on benefits, people cant see that sometimes going out to work would just be for the sake of it. You might not make any real money over what you pay on childcare and so you are just swapping jobs to be socially acceptable. So unless you actually want to do it its pretty pointless.

Why dont people view childcare for your own children as an actual valuable job? That would be the question I would ask.

I am a scientist. There’s a great book called ‘cherubs chattels and changelings’ that looks at the way different cultures (mainly what we would call tribal cultures) raise children.

What’s evident from all the work in it is that 1. There’s no universally ‘correct, this is what we evolved doing’ way of raising children and 2. The ‘Mum some at home dad out to work’ model is incredibly rare - literally only modern western cultures donit.

So it’s not true to imply that Mum at home is what we’ve evolved doing. We haven’t at all, it’s a really modern thing. And a western thing. And we need to be very careful when we hear these arguments that start ‘we’ve evolved to...’ because 90% of the ones I’ve seen are using incorrect science with an agenda, and that agenda usually is to get women back in the kitchen.

Of course if you WANT to stay home and be primary carer for children that is your right. It’s whatever you work out as a family. But it’s not how it’s been since time immemorial

Do dh and I parent differently? Yes I think we do a little. We are aligned on most things. Ds goes through phases of wanting one of us over the other. Hopefully he loves us both equally. When he’s sick he seems to want me more and when he’s scared he runs to his dad.

Why dont people view childcare for your own children as an actual valuable job?

Because it’s ‘womens Work’.

I agree with you - child rearing is a tough job and a valuable one. The model in finaland seems sensible to me - payment to either stay home for one parent or subsidised nurseries of high quality.

A lot of factors come into why someone thinks the way they do.
That's why everyone thinks differently. Because no one has lived the same life.
we are all products of 'anecdata'

I think I'm the parent my kids needed more because I breastfed them, I was their primary carer and was with them most of the time between birth and about 3. Their dad was there a lot too but not as much as me.

I don't it HAD to be me, their mother, that did it (apart from maybe the bf) but I think that because it was they do need me more - or they did when little anyway.

A kid can bond with any primary caregiver imo.

Backenette That’s really interesting - thank you. The Western centric point was one I’d never considered.

Backenette, I just did a little Google and it looks like a very interesting book. I think i may have to purchase it for my holiday.

I think one thing I miss greatly as an adult- especially one that stays at home- is education. I used to read a lot when I had one child, then I had two and it got harder, I have pretty much given up since having 3!

This thread has given me lots to think about and I would like to educate myself and research more into it!

I think one thing I miss greatly as an adult- especially one that stays at home- is education.

I missed that too - so I started a second degree in 2016. I'm doing it via the OU, which is brilliant for anyone who is working around either caring responsibilities or work. My youngest was 5 at the time and tbh I think I'd have struggled to dedicate enough time to study until he was happily settled at school. Fitting study around children is perfectly possible though and I'm loving it. Not only am I learning stuff which will (hopefully!) allow me to return to work, but my brain is stimulated for the first time in years.

As for the original question about 'moral superiority', surely that's just because whoever is staying at home is being supported by the family unit, so not a drain on society? Personally though, I think if you do end up being a single parent (and many people don't set out to be a single parent - it just happens), and claiming benefits, it is to everyone's advantage that you do so. The DC are raised by their parent and hopefully will grow up to be happy, healthy citizens who will, in turn, contribute to society.

boudiccaiceni its the same in that society benefits long term if people arent living in incredible poverty. It also greatly benefits if all children regardless of circumstances are cared for to a reasonable level.

People living in poverty commit more crimes, get sicker, more likely to get MH problems, addiction problems, and as the poverty goes on are less and less likely to reengage and contribute to society. Their problems would make them a burden on frontline NHS resources and the police etc....

So it is a similar scenario in that society is paying for these people so that in the long term they wont become a much larger burden on other people.
And in the case of people with children, so that those children have greater chances of contributing to society when they get older.

Babies need their mothers more then their fathers. I think young children do to.

Again, total Bollocks.

*One partner had contributed financially to a partnership for x years then decided to take a study break which would benefit them both in some way. So they jointly agreed that the other partner would financially support them temporarily whilst the other would do something that benefited them both long term.

How is that in anyway the same as someone relying on benefits whether it's because they are male/female childfree/with children?*

How is it in any way different?

In both scenarios the person who is not working is being supported financially by an 'other'.

It just happens that in the first scenario the financier is emotionally & socially connected to the person being financed.

its the same in that society benefits long term if people arent living in incredible poverty. It also greatly benefits if all children regardless of circumstances are cared for to a reasonable level.

Absolutely.

It is important to remember that a greater world exists outside of personal prejudice.

It was an option it just wasn't the option you chose.

It wasn't an option if we wanted to keep a roof over our heads. The option was DH works and I stay home or DH works and I do too.

Our DS needed a SAHP due to being adopted and finance dictated that that had to be me even though DH had the stronger bond and would have probably been a better SAHP than I am.

I think mothers and fathers parent differently. I am not saying that dad's can't look after their children. It's just I think mothers provide more emotional support for their younger children and should be at home with them. Again I obviously have to say the disclaimer that if you do it differently I don’t judge

Lovely

Have you met every parent ever when you formulated this “belief”. DH does a fabulous job as a SAHP. And you are judging. you just judged my DH as being a worse parent than me and you don’t even know either of us. He’s definitely not 😉

Men have not risen to the parenting challenge yet because the industrial revolution set us up to be unable to work and parent at the same time. Nothing else. I know loads of fabulous parents who are men, I know loads of fabulous parents who are women and I know loads of social pressures telling them exactly how they should be doing things. That is all I see in your post pure and utter social conditioning.

Why is the assumption constantly made that a single mum who works in a job is contributing to society more than one who works looking after her own children?

If looking after your own children isn't contributing to society then why does looking after other people's children (i.e. being a childminder) count?

Because A paying B to make widgets and then B paying C to look after B's children moves money around the economy, I suppose you'll say. But is that really what contribution means? Isn't contribution something warmer, deeper, more human than figures on a spreadsheet?

Looking after your own children is a fucking marvellous contribution to society if you ask me. The effort goes into making members of that society (i.e. the children) healthy and happy. Don't you think children are part of the society?

This idea that husbands choose to support their wives but taxpayers don't choose to support the less fortunate is a miserable argument. Is that really how you feel as taxpayers - that you are being forced, by the state, to care for your fellow humans? That you wouldn't do it by choice? You talk about contribution as though you're proud of it but without a welfare system, public health , education etc. what would you even be contributing to? Your tax IS your contribution and single mums and their children ARE part of society. You need them in order to have the exact pride in contribution that you think sets you apart from them.