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 don't know where you're reading that single mothers are 'scum' and neglectful fathers get off scott free but it certainly isn't on mn. At least that's not what I've seen on this site. In fact, we're often accused of coming down too hard on men.

Im not contemptuous. Just interested.
And it seems that so far only married women are those who are critical.
What about the poorest in society. What about women who had no father and whose mums never worked? How are they to know how to choose a partner who will provide when most of the local lads smoke weed all day? How can they get enough insight to understand that education is valuable?

Great post OP, I completely agree

Feral not bitter nor jealous of other women. I am bitter about social judgement however.

Thanks user

And qbove all why is it not possible for ANYONE, particularly women, to achieve a life off of welfare, with hard work and graft? Because for most it is utterly impossible.

*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.*

I think your morals might be a little mixed up . Morally there is a massive difference.

With a SAHP the breadwinner AGREES to fund THEIR family. It is a consensual agreement within a family and costs the taxpayer nothing.

People who have children relying on benefits are forcing the taxpayer (i.e. people they’ve never met) to fund their life choices. They are taking money from a pot that is already too small and depriving others who really need it.

Primark - you sound very outraged about this, but it can't come as a shock to you that some marriages do actually work and in many of those the man and the woman choose to take on particular roles. This has been the case since time began.

Was a cave woman "a leech" or whatever on her husband if he went hunting and brought the food back? Or were they supporting each other and getting on with it? Sorry to bring up this ridiculous example, but the whole argument is ridiculous because when did women wanting to care for their children day-to-day become such a shocker? Why would a "nuclear family" need to justify itself if it's self-sufficient? What are you actually talking about?

Hmm. Why are women who go out to work and pay a stranger to look after their child for 8+ hours a day seen as superior to either single mothers on benefits or SAHMs?

Whisper so if you are poor and have noone to act as breadwinner because all the men around are unemployed or poor, should never have kids.
So a woman is only respectable because she has a baby knowing a man is going to pay for it. Because for some women that is another life entirely, and they don't even know.
Id argue many married women on here also get tax credits.

I'm a single Mum because I ran away from the violence and had a dd to raise so had to get some help to live, alternatively I could have stayed and be beaten up continuously so which is worse.

I wish the stigma of single motherhood was lifted, some of us are single for good reason

I don't understand your last post OP.

It is possible to achieve a life off benefits. Many people do.

Glitter
I never called anyone a leech.

@Whisperquietly
There is no moral difference. In both cases, the woman is not financing her child.
What happens when the SAHM's partner finds himself on the dole?

Tax credits are a disgrace. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticising the people who claim them at all. But tax credits were brought in so that taxpayers subsidise private industry so they can pay such shit wages that no one can live off them. so it’s piblic money subbing private industry.

What’s needed is an overhaul so that anyone working full time on minimum wage can afford to make ends meet. Wages in the UK are shockingly low and worker protection is eroding rapidly. We need better subsidised childcare, to enable women and parents generally to work flexibly and we need decent wages.

The welfare state is there as a safety net for people who cannot work. So the disabled and those in need should be cared for. To choose to rely on it is immoral on the part of the user. To be trapped in it when you want to work points to a fault in society.

A sahm is not comparable though. The family unit is paying for the child.

Hmm. Why are women who go out to work and pay a stranger to look after their child for 8+ hours a day seen as superior to either single mothers on benefits or SAHMs?
Because they pay more in taxes. We live in a capitalist society and money is everything. It's wrong imo, but that's what drives it imo.

Babooshka I work. I always did as a single parent but got benefits as well.
Bucking yes you can.

Because one family unit supports itself and one doesn’t

In both cases, the woman is not financing her child

Just playing devils advocate. The family unit finances the child. The sahp contributes childcare and domestic labour to the family unit. A child is not the sole property of its mother nor is the mother solely responsible for paying for it.

A woman left by an irresponsible man who will not contribute is not immoral - the father is. If that woman is then trapped in the benefit net then that is an indictment of the system.

To choose to rely on welfare when you are capable of supporting yourself is the only immoral option. A sahm or a single mother who has an irresponsible or absent (or dead) partner is not immoral

Portia
Obviously you are the exception and it was bad enough for you to not be judged
(Totally tongue in cheek I hope you get my pointx )

back
Heare hear

I'm a single mum and I'm not dependent on anyone at all.

When I first became a single mum I asked my dad why society hated single mums so much, his answer was "because they are poor". Society hates poor people.

I think this is an absolute disgrace because poor people are not to blame for all our problems, they take the least (and often do the most).

I'm a tax payer and I want my taxes used to support people who need help i.e. the disabled, sick people, single mums, the elderly, people looking for work and the unemployable. That's what a civil society does, shame on anyone who thinks otherwise.

I'm a single Mum because I ran away from the violence and had a dd to raise so had to get some help to live,

This is exactly what the welfare state is here to support. The blame lies with the DV perp, not the victim and child

Exactly that if we are only looking at women, because that is my point here, neither are funding the child. The man is, or the state is. Marriage is the only difference.

In some cases. A woman can't work because of health issues (or just plain choice to stay at home which is completely fine!)
It doesn't make you; a drain on society. It is just an unfortunate situation, if someone is ill or a mutual choice, if the woman stays at home.
I think as a society, we are too quick, to judge; those who don't have a career, or single Mum, or on benefits. Even when I didn't have children, I got judged because of that!! How I wish looking back, I could have just told them all to fuck off. Who do we need to impress? No one.