Why are women dependent on benefits viewed as lesser than those dependent on men?

[Miladamermalada]

Just that really.
Women, usually single parents are viewed as total scum when they rely on benefits to live.
Women who are funded by their husbands are seen as morally superior.
Both women are dependent on an outside source-why is their value decided by what source of income they have?
Most families receive tax credits which are also a benefit. So many of the UK parent population are dependent on public money.
Thinking specifically of the Radford situation and the recent thread on their proposed receipt of tax credits (this may not be true but was suggested by a poster.)
Sue is seen as a wholesome mother with a wonderful family and good marriage.
If she were not married she'd be a breeding scrounger.
In both situations she'd be doing the same job-raising children and doing the wifework
AIBU to be pissed off at this disparity?

Ummm ‘total scum’?? I don’t know anyone who thinks that single parents claiming benefits are total scum. Pretty goady language there.

But reading beyond the way you’ve written your OP, I see a difference in that household finances are just that - household finances, so one parent may bear the brunt of the childcare to enable the other to work more.

For example I pay very little tax at the moment but we as a household claim 30 hours childcare. However our household tax bill is much greater than that 30 hours free childcare costs the government.

People who are dependent on partners are presumed to bring something to the relationship. They're not getting something for nothing.

Well, it's presumed they are not getting something for nothing. There are some who are just successfuly con artists, but hopefully they're exceptions.

But they aren't getting something for nothing. They are raising children.
I was referring to the single mum Cheryl something with quite a few children who has often been referred to as scum. Not my words-sorry if that wasn't clear.

Also, in addition to the fact they may be contributing something, the person paying them is presumed to be doing so voluntarily. The individual taxpayer doesn't have a choice.

Because women who are funded by their husbands aren't dependent on taxpayers. Surely that's obvious?

Women, usually single parents are viewed as total scum when they rely on benefits to live.
Women who are funded by their husbands are seen as morally superior.

No, I don’t think this is a wide spread view.

I’m a sahp, so I’m ‘funded’ by my husband. However, given I’m bearing and bringing up his children, we don’t view it like that.

But they aren't getting something for nothing. They are raising children.

Not sure I follow what you are talking about. Do the children being raised belong to the person providing the money? That makes quite a difference as to whether the source of the money is approved of.

But often the reason single mums exist is because men take off and don't pay maintenance etc. So why does the woman receive the judgement that taxpayers don't get a choice in keeping her-the children are only half hers.
Also, 'giving something' to a man usually means sex, wifework and childrearing. The only difference in what the women are doing boils down to providing sexual services to a man.
In a way you could argue the single mum is liberated and more free.

Haven't we had this thread a few times before?

And as I recall they never end well. (Misses the point of the thread while getting popcorn.)

I think it’s because people see the family as a unit, so it’s a relationship where they’re self sufficient within the unit and presumably both parties are contributing whether with an income or household labour.

Whereas a single parent on benefits isn’t in a mutually beneficial relationship with the state, it’s less give and take and more take.

Plus people don’t like the fact that their tax money goes towards supporting the single parent, while the couple with a SAHP are actively paying tax and earning money that isn’t from their pockets/tax.

You can argue the single parent on benefits is contributing in return by raising children but with the world population ever increasing, it’s not like we’re desperate for as many new babies as possible. People often have a perception too that the single parent on benefits who is raising kids will likely raise kids who see that as a normal way to live and also be a drain instead of a net contributor to society.

Does that make sense OP?

I mean the work they are doing is the same as a SAHM. The kids belong to the mum/parents. But the judgement is of the mother despite them doing the same job.

Your post mixes a few different questions and issues.

I think it comes from the idea that single parents who rely on benefits to live are seen as burdens on the state and using tax payer money to pay for their kids whether women who rely on their husband for financial support are seen as not relying so much, but that it is the decision that they as a family unit made.
It is the husbands choice to be the breadwinner whilst the wife stays home and raises the kids and often this actually saves the family money in travel and/or childcare costs.
Whether everyone has to pay taxes so we are all paying for the single parents being wholly funded by the state and the tax payer doesn't get the choice whether or not to fund these people and reaps no benefit for it IYSWIM.
When a wife (or husband) is a SAHP that decision is made between the parents and is deemed to be mutually beneficial both financially and often emotionally too. In a family where one parents works and the other stays at home both are reliant on and support the other in different ways. Whether in a single parent situation on benefits the state entirely supports the single parent but the single parents (if they are wholly on benefits and therefore not paying any taxes) does not support the state back in any manner.

That is where the different attitudes come from.
I am in no way saying that single parents should be looked down on or seen as scum but, 100% SAHP's definitely should not as they are doing work in a mutually beneficial agreement, just not traditional salaried work.

Because women who are funded by their husbands aren't dependent on taxpayers. Surely that's obvious?

Yep

I am 100% financially dependant on my dh, not top ups at all.
People still judge, but instead of thinking I'm scum for using public money, they sneer because I'm not independent, or self supporting.

So the difference is that married women and their husbands are a family unit, so women aren't independent. So while a single mum does the same job as she has no partner so no choice, the married SAHM isn't judged because she is a 'they' not a 'she'-since her husband works and his tax paid is seen as 'theirs'.
Basically then, by being married women are contributing by letting their husbands go to work and pay tax. But they are doing the exact same things as the single mum bar being intimate with a man.
So it's how the family is viewed, not the woman.

So why does the woman receive the judgement that taxpayers don't get a choice in keeping her-the children are only half hers.

Those tax payers who are judgemental are probably assuming it is somehow her fault. Or don't really care what the true facts are, as they don't see beyond the idea that someone is taking their money.

It boils down to the fact that the majority of people resent paying for children that aren't theirs.

Wasn't there a thread about this recently?

If the household unit is dependent on benefits (other than CB or WTC, plus maybe HB) then yes, I think people might wonder about whether they are doing all they can to support themselves (but it is important to remember that the answer to that may well be 'yes'). And that is because the public tends to have a view on the spending of public money.

The number of adults in the family, let alone their gender, is a red herring really.

What about families where both parents work full time. If women in partnerships can work full-time why can't single parents? Surely too it's on a case by case basis. A woman on benefits having escaped an abusive relationship is a world away from a woman who has three under 7 by different fathers whose parents refused to house her so the local authority had to.

What is meant by all families getting yax credits? We didn't and neither did any of our friends who are in two parent families.

I think the point about the state is prescient.

So why does the woman receive the judgement that taxpayers don't get a choice in keeping her-the children are only half hers.

I think if you look through threads from single mothers here you will see that the men who don't pay maintenance for their children receive a hell of a lot of judgement.

Because SAHM with working husbands have made that decision to support their families. Parents on benefits are not supporting their families, the rest of us are whilst struggling to support ourselves.

This is the qurmestion!

Because parenthood costs women more than it costs men.

With today's divorce rate, many SAHM's may well end up taxpayer dependent after divorce if they haven't kept their skills up to date. Lots of SAHM's refuse to work after divorce, saying they can't find a job that they are willing to do.

A woman on benefits having escaped an abusive relationship is a world away from a woman who has three under 7 by different fathers whose parents refused to house her so the local authority had to.
The latter woman may have also experienced abuse. It is the woman receiving the judgement here again.