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?

s. If a guy fucks off and doesn’t provide for his family he should be pursued criminally, as it’s child negligence. Bank accounts and assets should be seized. I recognise this is not a popular view.

No? I’d vote for it. A child is the responsibility of both parents. Ducking child support should be a criminal Offence.

Single mothers seem to be blamed for all of life’s ills while men seem to be able to run around freely Siring children they don’t support. If all these men paid what they fucking well owed to their children the welfare state would save a fortune. Attachments to earning or lock the fuckers up.

It's obviously because one is a private arrangement not costing the taxpayer anything. The other is a drain on the public purse and the taxpayer.

Ah well mine skipped the Country and has never paid a penny for 8 years

Funny you only responded to that one within the context of my whole thread though what
Anyone would think you had an agenda. I'm sure if you pop off to the thread you referred to you will find other people who find your need to tell your husband all your friends' problems absurd. This thread has nothing to do with that. It's about financial dependence had you read the opening post rather than finding one post to make a point.

Have you been on the receiving end of some judgmental remarks?

Hahahahahaha. The judgement never stops. It is hard not to be bitter about it. My absolute favourite was some cow in the school,playground who told me she would love to do the training course I was doing but, well, you know ohreallyohreallyoh, I couldn’t possibly because I have a husband.

Dreams I dont think I sound angry at all. I am challenging peoples views. Im not aggressive. I am questioning. It is different.

Have you been on the receiving end of some judgmental remarks?

She's a single mother, I think we can safely assume that many people think she's not worth basic common courtesy.

It's obviously because one is a private arrangement not costing the taxpayer anything. The other is a drain on the public purse and the taxpayer

You read all the threads on here and that’s what you think?

Married people never, ever claim benefits, do they?
Single parents could never possibly work for a living, could they?

Primarkismyonlyoption Of course I did, because your entire thread is ridiculous and goady, as many have pointed out.

My comment was related to this thread; yours isn’t.

Many people look at the position of benefits as To those who judge, you have the choice to do the same. Why don't you? A lot of the time I suspect it is moral superiority of the 'if we all did that'...
But not everyone does. But you could. But you don't, because that would make you less than what you are now.
Is that right or is my perspective flawed

Yes lots could turn to benefits as a choice like others do but don't for many reasons.

For me they are a last resort, a safety net to catch you in bad times. It's not something I would ever actively choose as I have pride, a sense of responsibility and way better for my children. The only reason pupil premium exists is because children from certain backgrounds fare less well in life. Why on earth would anyone actively choose that?

Yanbu op. It's because a lot of people are greedy and resent a single penny of tax they pay not going directly back into their own pocket. So benefits claimants, the disabled, asylum seekers and anyone else deemed to be taking more than their fair share (regardless of their need) are deemed idle and basically thieving from decent, working people.

For me they are a last resort, a safety net to catch you in bad times. It's not something I would ever actively choose

Very few people really would, whatever the Daily Mail says.

Well the woman with the working husband is using her husbands money to enable her to stay at home. The woman who is living off benefits is using the state to pay for her to stay at home. Benefits are supposed to be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

The injustice here isn’t sahms vs single mums.

The injustice is the quite awful way single mums are treated by society. A single woman coping alone seems to be a threat to some people. That’s the real issue. A woman doing ok without a man is a threat. If we examine why that is, we might get somewhere.

And I am, at the moment, in the latter category of sahm to a well paid husband. Or stay at home scrounger as some may say

The only reason pupil premium exists is because children from certain backgrounds fare less well in life. Why on earth would anyone actively choose that?

Pupil Premium follows a child for 6 years. Eligibility means sod all. You can be eligible for 5 minutes and then people like you assume your children are being poorly brought up, usually by a single mum on benefits.

Few people actively choose benefits. I would hazard a guess none make a conscious decision.

I didn’t think you were aggressive primark. Just wound up. I personally couldn’t give a fiddlers fuck what people think of me. It really does go in one ear and out the other. Every situation is different & unique to person living it. It’s that simple for me really

Poor women are not supposed to have children, everyone knows that. And it's always women's fault if they can't hang on to their husbands, and end up raising children in poverty because the state chooses not to prioritise making men contribute to their children's upbringing. And lone parents, of course they conceived miraculously, no man was involved in that . . .. If there is a woman involved it has to be the woman's fault. Can't some of the women posting their misogynist views on here stop and think. Apply a bit of compassion and thought for fellow women who may not have had life easy. Support not judgment.

Very interesting post OP and you are right about the patriarchal capitalist double standard at play. Especially the fact that the NRP get left of the hook while the RP mood re often than not the mother gets vilified.

I firmly believe that the state should recoup the cost of benefits required to maintain children from non contributing absent parents. No way should a resident parent ever be chasing these useless wastes of space for money. Let those who have power over the world fight with these wasters.

A resident parent doing the work of both parents should be praised not vilified for the extra burden they bear.

Probably for another thread but I also firmly believe parents not childcare should raise children and this should be equally divided by both parents. This would require a wholesale revision of capitalism and a massive reduction in the working week to facilitate parents actually doing this. A 50 hour working week, typically split between both parents, should pay for a good family existence as it always was in the past. The notion that a family needs to contribute 100 hours of work to maintain an average lifestyle while very young children need to be minded outside of their homes is capitalist bullshit IMHO.

@BlueMirror me too. Although I find the term 'sponging broodmare' much more fun. That's what someone on here called me once. 😂🙄

Few people actively choose benefits

You would have to be awfully naive to believe that.

So all the unemployed single parents, those with a partner who don't want to work so claim, those who only want to work part time etc are not actively choosing that lifestyle? They all want to work full time ...
Really??

Plenty of posts on here re people refusing extra hours, asking what they will get if they quit work or whining that benefits have now got some caps.

You have to look for work or be sanctioned, even single Mums have to look for work and there's also a benefit cap.

I really enjoy plopping this on threads like these and watching people’s heads explode.

I’m a SAHM.

DH earns 6figs.

I get full ESA.

And Child Maintenance.

And yes I literally do fuck all most days as all my kids are at school.

Tra la la.

Bite me.

@Backenette - I disagree. Being a single mother on benefits isn’t “coping alone”, it’s just depending on tax payers to pay for you. I say single mothers should work, as I did, if those are the cards we are dealt. That’s what “coping” looks like. I don’t see women coping alone is a threat but I do see women living on benefits a threat to tax payer money that should be being spent elsewhere.

Again, nothing against women who need to be on benefits to make the life change. Luckily I never had to, but it’s perfectly acceptable to accept the help whilst you suck up whatever job you can and start the process.

I’d say I’m a socialist. Myself and DP pay 40% of our salaries each for taxes and I’m perfectly happy for it to go on people who need it, public services in general, we are strong believers that we should be helping people get off the streets and into work, we should be putting more money into health services and support services... but paying for single parents to raise their kids and nothing else? Nah. Not even slightly. So despite what a PP said it isn’t greed at all, but we must be sensible if we want the system to work correctly (and better than it does now)

AnachronisticCorpse well I retired at 50 and live on my yacht in the med most of the year . . ..