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?

Tax payers don't get to decide where their money goes though do they?

In the long term, of course they do. There was major public discontentment over the Labour years and the overly generous state, hence the David Cameron/George Osborne years and welfare reforms.

Sigh. Where I have accused anyone of anything? The OP used the word ‘scum’ and it is a word I have heard said about myself and certainly one my children have been called as a result of my single parent status. I am a full time teacher, children born in marriage before you make any assumption about me. But of course, why would mere scum be allowed to express experience or opinion?!

Tax payers don’t get to decide where their money goes. But if people already relying on the state continue reproducing, then the some of the money will be heading their way.
If people took responsibility for having families they could afford, then there would be less families for The public purse to look after. Obviously there will always be situations where people have to rely on benefits for a short period, or even lifelong in the case of poor health/disability. But that’s entirely different to planning dc when you aren’t working and amd expectong the tax payer to fund you havibfb the amount of children you want, for your own selfish reasons.

Oh really look at your post!
You said to me in response to my first post on the last line ‘why are they (couples) untouchable but single parents scum?’

I had not insinuated in any way at all that I thought single parents were scum.

@RoadtoRivendale really me a tax paying citizen gets to say where my money goes. Well then I say no more to the benefit claimants but only to those who need it i.e recently unemployed, disabled, elderly yep that should about do it. I think they are more deserving of my and my partners hard earned money.

Just because my partner goes out and works 10hrs a day and me 5 hours a day to support our family without the need to claim benefits does not mean we should have to support those who can not be arsed too. But you know what , I do not have a say where our tax payments go.

I was a single working mom for 6 years, I had no support around me and I managed to work 9 - 5. Pay my bills, ensure my disabled daughter had after care and guess what. I did that without the need of benefits. We weren't well off, we could not afford 50" televisions or go on holidays but we made it work.

yes, paying taxes doesn't give one more rights.

It's a very lower middle class obsession, bitching about people on benefits. Never encountered it until the internet. I grew up without the internet. It was a shock to me that there were so many people out there, so begrudging of those one rung beneath them on the ladder.

Why should the children suffer because of adult decisions, however bad?
Why should men not be punished for not paying maintenance?

I think my view is that society should look after ALL children and give them an equal start.

Children do get an equal start, free education, healthcare and housing.

Extras are down to the parent, there would be no incentive to provide if everyone has the same regardless of their work status. We need people with work ethics or we'd have no doctors, teachers, nurses etc.

Children also need to see that working hard brings rewards rather than copying their parents benefit choices.

Free housing? Really? I'm on benefits and certainly don't get free housing. I get housing benefit but it doesn't even pay half so not sure who gets free housing.

I think my view is that society should look after ALL children and give them an equal start.

If by 'society' you mean 'parents', then we're in agreement.

Children are the single greatest incentive for wealth creation. If parents are liberated from this obligation, it distorts decision-making across the board.

By all means, we should support vulnerable children. This is not to say that parents should get a free pass.

Mumto2two

Wholeheartedly agree with you

Oh fuck off. I'm a Sahm but neither I nor my dh view me as being 'funded' by anyone. I provide most of the childcare, I shop, cook and clean. I save dh the stress of what happens when the kids are ill etc. Also before I have up work, i'd contributed equally to purchasing our first home together and all the bills. Slogged out many long shifts as a nurse so we could buy our first home. We wouldn't have what we have now without my contributions.

Yeah Maybe I should do a proper job instead of very part time hours to relieve others tax burden. Well we now claim child benefit only and had yo pay most of that back.
I also resent the idea that being a sah (funded by taxpayer or your dh) means you have no work ethic to show potential employer. This devalues the childcare role of the sahp. Also the various different voluntary roles undertaken.

O and if you carry on children whilst claiming benefits you won't get extra money. The government has seen to that.

So why aren't stay at home single mums seen as doing an important job? Why scroungers?
If bringing up kids is the most important job ( which it is) why aren't we helping single mums to stay at home? Society benefits as a whole.

As a single mum I'm working ft to teach other people's kiss. Not that I mind as I like work but did misses out.

Slagging off single mums is kicking women when they are down.

Even if women did have kids just for the benefits they would soon realise how hideously tough it is.

I'd love to see a more matriarchal society where women actually supported each other.

Kids even

Plus I'm a firm believer in a village raising a child which is why we pay taxes to support the most vulnerable...the children.

Kids have free education and healthcare but fee housing...no. What about food, clothing, opportunities such as after school lessons?

I don't think you should knock the single mothers claiming benefits - I would think it very rare to think, you know what? I'll have a baby, that'll sort me life out (cos they speak like that innit!) Or should I say we speak like that as I myself am a single parent, working, but only part-time so I do rely on some top ups. My entire wage is spent on rent and council tax though.

Anyway, I digress... I have skipped a few pages. Has the family that stay together, play together and solely rely on benefits been mentioned? Both Mum and Dad claiming, or claiming as a partnership long term. Surely these families should take some of the brunt of the single mum anger.

You don't need to be unemployed though to raise a child, it's perfectly possible to work and raise a child.

Do we really want to continue to teach children mums look after the home, dads work and it's ok to not work? Of course not, it's old fashioned not to mention lazy amd selfish if other tax payers are paying for that choice be it as a single adult or a household of two.

If everyone had no work ethic, there would be no surgeons. nurses, education etc not to mention no funds to pay for all those that opt out of supporting their children.

I have 2 kids under 2 and would absolutely love to get a job. Unfortunately it's not that easy. I'd love for someone to tell me how I get a good paying job with some but not a lot of experience, pay my rent, pay childcare, buy shopping & clothes which my kids are constantly growing out of, take them nice days out etc. They've made it so you're actually worse off if you were to work. It's totally unfair. Parents who claim benefits aren't just sitting about the house on their arses, it's a full time 24 hour never ending job which don't get me wrong I love and wouldn't change for the world, but it's quite sad that it means you don't get the experience of having a normal job because quite simply you CANNOT afford it.

I don't think people are actually aware of the reality of being a single working parent. Lets say you get a full time minimum wage job in a factory or a shop. If you live rurally and don't/can't afford to drive, it may take an hour or more each way. Your childcare help from working tax credits covers 80% of the time you are actually in work. So you already have to find the money to pay for 2 hours commute time, plus 20% of the rest of the day. Maybe for 2 or 3 children. Then there's rent, bills, council tax all out of one minimum wage paypacket. Clothing, packed lunches, food shopping, school uniform. If your child is sick you can take a couple of days unpaid leave,which then messes you up for the next 3 months. Then what if something breaks?
Single parents who stay at home don't have it easy either. Your options are limited and it's harder and can take longer to make changes. We need to be supporting people, not looking down our noses at them.

I provide most of the childcare, I shop, cook and clean

I totally forgot that in working households, no shopping, cooking or cleaning takes place.

So why aren't stay at home single mums seen as doing an important job? Why scroungers?If bringing up kids is the most important job ( which it is) why aren't we helping single mums to stay at home? Society benefits as a whole

This. Either bringing up children with a parent in the home at all times is important work and if it is, then we don't kick the people who need to use the benefit system to achieve that. If it's not important to us as a society, then we expect all women to contribute economically. I am not sure you can have it both ways.

And I say that as a working single parent.

So why aren't stay at home single mums seen as doing an important job? Why scroungers?If bringing up kids is the most important job ( which it is) why aren't we helping single mums to stay at home? Society benefits as a whole

If having children were some special rarity that yielded treasure, then you might have a point. As we know, this isn't the case. Nearly everyone has children, we have far too many of them, we don't need to actively encourage them - it makes no sense for the state to allow people to opt out as a matter of course for giant chunks of their working lives.

As I understand it the government 'allows' (I hate this term) single mothers to stay at home until their youngest is 3, isn't this the case?

I don't have any great issue with the current state of the welfare state, it's been stripped back and as many have noted, it's the seniors who are the giant hole in the budget. But I am not in favour of reverting to the previous Labour-style arrangement whereby people were straightforwardly incentivised to produce carefully spaced children and stay at home for decades.

I love the way it's ok to pay someone else to look after your children, or for the government to pay someone else, but not ok to look after them yourself