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?

@NameChanger22 and @Miladamermalada

No one is looking down on you just for being single parents.

If you are doing the best you can and working hard then good for you, keep doing it and I wish you the best of luck with your futures. Take what you're entitled to from the state and use it to get yourself into a better place (as NameChanger has already done).

It is the single parents (mums or dads) who take from the state and do nothing to try to improve their situation or become self sufficient who people judge.

I can understand why people don't have a problem with SAHMs if the "family unit" as a whole is financially self sufficient. My bug bear is that a family with a SAHM and one low earning parent, largely dependant on tax credits, is viewed much more favourably than a single mum also dependent on tax credits.

The fact that (until Universal Credit fully comes in), a couple can choose for one of them not to bother working until the children are 18 and still receive a shit load of tax credits, no questions asked, while a single parent has to be in work by the time the youngest child is 3, is a disgrace.

I agree OP but many will find this very thought, a complete threat to the status quo.

It's like "Oh...you have a man! You have succeeded in the accepted form and therefore, you're ok by us!"

Because a self-supporting family that have planned their family carefully according to available finances is very different to a single parent who decides to have children with no financial security and therefore automatically has to depend on the state for handouts from the start.

SAHM whose husbands work are not 'funded' by their husband. They are a family unit where 1 parent earns money whilst the other rasies the children/manages household etc. And its a choice that was able to be made by both people in the relationship.

A single mother who claims benefits also does this by choice but it is only by her choice and not the choice of the people providing her with the money to live on.

I think single mothers who decide it is their right to stay at home and raise their children and be funded by strangers is where the resentment kicks in. I know of a couple of single mums who say they cannot work because they have a couple of kids or a baby and so they HAVE to live on benefits. Which simply isn't true. They have made this choice because it is easier for them. I am a single mum, no financial help from exh and I work full time. I would be no worse off financially if I stopped work and lived on benefits. A couple of the 'benefits' sahm mums I know think i'm stupid. Sometimes life is a bit shit and not equal, but I am far prouder to stand on my own feet than make up excuses as to why I shouldn't support my own family myself.

Wasn't this exact OP posted a little while ago?

I judge more people like the married couple next door to me who don't work and claim benefits for them and their five children. The man "claims" he can't work due to a bad back, although I've seen him lug all sorts of heavy stuff around the garden. No idea why the mum can't work. They are what I would call "scroungers". When there's a married couple then yes, at least one of them should work.

I don't judge single parents at all. We see countless threads on here where SAHM's complain that their husband doesn't help out with chores, or getting up with the kids etc. No one says to them "you're at home, do it yourself"and yet single parents are meant to do 100% of the childcare, chores etc etc and then work full time on top of that?? The working, married mum's on here generally have cleaners, a husband that helps etc. But no a single parent should do it all, just so as not to be labelled. It's unfair in my opinion.

@PollardorPolluck

Every year I get the letter from CMS saying this is what you're owed. Every year.

I get nothing. His last came stated he was working less than minimum wage so please don't for one second think I "let him get away with it."

That attitude does make me feel like I am deserving of a scum badge. I don't let my daughter go without. Her father would/does.

OP, this is a slightly pointless thread, because the “single mother”, Cheryl Prudham, you refer to and claim is called ‘scum’ is actually, er, very much married. To Robert Prudham. In fact they were sentenced together in January for theft and handling stolen goods after he stole £5k off his work which she spent on a holiday.

If she’s a single mother at the moment that’s because he’s in jail. Not because he’s single.

I believe people call them scum because despite the high levels of benefit they claim for her 13 children (only four of whom are his, naturally) they still resort to criminality to fund their lifestyles.

Because a self-supporting family that have planned their family carefully according to available finances is very different to a single parent who decides to have children with no financial security and therefore automatically has to depend on the state for handouts from the start.

Actual laugh out loud! How many single parents do this really? Surely it's usually a change of circumstances which result in a single parent family?

Because a self-supporting family that have planned their family carefully according to available finances is very different to a single parent who decides to have children with no financial security and therefore automatically has to depend on the state for handouts from the start.

Very presumptuous. Of course, all single parents are feckless scroungers who never had any intention of providing for their children, while couples are moral, upstanding members of society who had £1m in the bank before even entertaining the idea of starting a family. What bullshit.

"Wasn't this exact OP posted a little while ago?"

Yes, I think I was eliza

I'm married and we both work and support the family financially. I dont hunk being a SAHP is financially viable for us, so I work and pay my way. For those families who are lucky enough to have one parent at home, I think that's lovely for them. If I were a single parent though, I can't imagine thinking I should be entitled not to work - married or unmarried. I wouldn't want to claim benefits whilst I'm fit and able to work.

I'm the higher wage earner in our household, and we won't be entitled to tax credits etc. I will be going back to work full time, because financially it makes sense and I enjoy my career, DH also works full time. I'll get judged for that too. As a woman you can't win.

Women dependent on their husbands don't expect others (taxpayers) to provide for their family. You say most families receive tax credits but this is not true. I know many families who do not receive tax credits. I don't get them nor any of my friends. Many families go out to work, do not claim any benefits or get child benefit, or claim tax credits but do pay higher rates of tax and NI. I don't think single parents are scum nor do my friends. We know most do an amazing job of bringing up their children with many often choosing to work out side of the home as well. You make too many false assumptions OP.

As a married SAHM not only did I have less economic presence than someone claiming benefits but I was also luck enough to be accused of being a "parasite" by a friend. Interestingly a friend who, like the Op, is a single mother. I sacrificed a career of my own and gave every minute of every day of my life to enable my husband to work, at times away from home, and ensure the home life security we both wanted for our children. Apparently having a roof over my head and food to ensure I didn't starve made me a "parasite". My contribution as a woman, wife and mother is considered worthless by other women. I have never heard this sort of language from a man. My friend's inability to use contraception properly was not my responsibility. Her choice to have a sexual relationship with an absolute lump of toe cheese was not my responsibility. Yet she felt the need to project her feelings all over my life and it ultimately killed what I had thought was a good friendship. Sometimes single mothers maybe just have to acknowledge that they may have played some part in creating their own situation.

It's not as black and white as that and enough people have enough sense to realise that.

Many single mums (most?) will have been married at some point. Lives change. They may well have contributed far more into the pot than married SAHMs.

If you are doing the best you can and working hard then good for you, keep doing it and I wish you the best of luck with your futures. Take what you're entitled to from the state and use it to get yourself into a better place (as NameChanger has already done).

I haven't. I don't claim benefits. Keep on assuming.

what about families where one parent doesn’t work but they claim CB, HB & WTC? What category do they come under?

OP you need to live and let live. Single parents on benefits aren’t scum and SAHPs aren’t lazy people “funded by their spouse”. You’re making massive judgements when there’s no need for it.

I've been both. At least I didn't get pestered for sex by the state

It is because money comes from unwilling or begrudging tax players rather than a consenting individual. If a man decides to give money to a woman that is no one else business. If a person takes money from the state then it is the business of everyone who pays tax because it is ultimately their money.

Scatty she's not saying they are ffs! Quite the opposite! Read the OP again. Carefully.

Here we go again..this same old tripe gets replayed repeatedly on here.
Does it really need explaining?? I recall the last thread got to the point of suggesting we should all only ‘take out’ what we as tax payers, have put in. Which would be great for us, both as individual high rate taxpayers, and as a family, where DH has been the only earner for a time, earning 6 figures and paying a mountain of tax.
I have a couple of female relatives, who are/have been single parents living on benefits. And actually, the difference is way beyond what you portray. For starters, they have never had any ambition, never earned very much, and never did anything to improve that situation. They were careless about who they met and chose to churn out kids with. Naturally the fathers were not on the scene for long, and given their sporadic employment status, and with a variety of offspring by other poor unsuspecting females, who were similarly ‘ambitious’, maintenance was never a viable option.
So yes, they see it as their right to be supported by the state, i.e the taxpayers. Including tax paying families like ours, who have one main earner and are working their butts off, to support themselves ....

There are SAHMs who could walk straight into well paid jobs if their marriage broke down, alternatively there are SAHM's who would have to sign up for benefits if the marriage broke down.