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?

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 hmm

Of course it’s okay to look after them yourself, if you can afford the luxury of staying at home while still providing financially for yourself and your child.

It’s not all or nothing you know. Plenty of parents manage to work odd hours around caring for their child. You don’t have to be at home 100% of the time or at work 100% of the time

It’s not people caring for their children that people object to, it’s expecting to be able to receive an income for not working or contributing economically.

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

I'm sure you can see the difference. One is economically viable, the other is not. If these single SAHMs felt so strongly about looking after their own children, they could work at nurseries and bring them along or become childminders themselves.

I'm sure you can see the difference. One is economically viable, the other is not.

How do you come to that conclusion?

For women who find themselves suddenly alone with preschoolers, it’s frequently the case that the state will pay them far MORE to support them in a job than it will to support them out of work. Almost as frequently, that higher figure (which includes a hefty childcare subsidy) is still insufficient to pay for childcare costs.

But if it’s break even either way, I don’t see the issue with them staying after home for a couple of years to anchor their D.C. in the wake of a traumatic split. They’ll save the taxpayer some money by NOT taking childcare tax credit, so why object?

Nasty thread with plenty of nasty views.

No one who is against Mother's being at home seem to be considering what is best for the child/ren here. I know that after their dad left, my 2 needed me more than ever and they live the fact that I am always there for them. They've been passed off enough by their dad and so putting them in before and after school club or with a childminder would be detrimental to their mental health. LO will start nursery in September so I'll work part time then. I actually love my job but my children have needed me to have this break. The government, despite its many faults, recognise the value of having a mother at home during the ore-school years which is why it's possible to claim income support for 5 years. However at a whopping £70 a week, it's hardly an incentive to stay home is it?!
I hope all the ones against single mums claiming because it's their precious tax money being used are also not using state schools or the NHS in any way. Maybe they'd like all access to benefits and services means tested.

Mothers

Because if everyone down tools tomorrow and decided they wanted to stay at home the government would buckle
Government is theirs when you have no other choice

Husbands are supposed to take care of their family those who don’t are widely known as feckless

Battleax, the question came from someone who was posing it philosophically, I think. Obviously, the practical realities of the welfare state distort such decisions.

As I said upthread a bit, I don't have a major gripe against the state supporting single parents who stay at home for 2 years with young children. I think it is far more easily avoided than many would like us to believe, but I'm a pragmatist and am aware of the fact that it is not enormously expensive and it's pretty silly to drag poorly paid mothers away from babies and toddlers to stack supermarket shelves.

That said, this arrangement is only tenable, really, under the current 2 child limit. The old system was absolutely bonkers.

If these single SAHMs felt so strongly about looking after their own children, they could work at nurseries and bring them along or become childminders themselves

So they all have the right qualifications/experience/general mindset? It is one thing looking after your own children. Quite another looking after a roomful of them. And as a paying customer, you surely want people with your children who really want to be there?

I haven't got time for any of this judgemental crap about women and its always judging women, always. The amount of men and other women that want to take away choices for women is phenomenal. What they wear, how fat/thin they are, how pretty they are, if they are married, if they've had loads partners, how many kids, no kids, if they work, if they don't etc etc etc. It's about one it stopped and we all supported one another a bit better.

it is about TIME it stopped. Be nice to one another, it costs nothing.

Owl nowhere have I encountered such a women hate women attitude than on here. It's bad enough that men are against us without having other women join in too.

"Sue is seen as a wholesome mother with a good marriage. If she was single shed be a scrounging breeder"

Amen to this

According to some on here, Sue is nothing better than a prostitute!

Battleax, the question came from someone who was posing it philosophically, I think. Obviously, the practical realities of the welfare state distort such decisions

But it’s the “practical reality” women have to deal with. So maybe stop slagging them off and dressing it up as “philosophical”?

If you genuinely want to engage with the theory, maybe go about that systematically? Which means addressing all the players.

And ohreally is right;

If these single SAHMs felt so strongly about looking after their own children, they could work at nurseries and bring them along or become childminders themselves

Is just so much out of touch lunatic right nonsense. What percentage of the population COULD land a childcare job? I’m pretty well qualified but if I suddenly found myself divorced and decided to perform a sharp career turn into childcare, there’s no way I’d get hired.

And working in a nursery wouldn’t be parenting time anyway. You’ll notice nobody ever tells widowers to get a job in a nursery “if they feel so strongly about looking after their own children”. Only the women victims of violent men, addicts, adulterers and deadbeats.

@BoxsetsAndPopcorn
I don't mean if NRP paid child support. Child support is fuck all.
I mean if men equally shared the burden of raising children.
If fathers had children half the time or if not then helped support the mother as she will be doing most of the childcare- pay towards housing costs and the raising of kids.
If both parents took and equal share whether they were in a relationship or not then we would have far less women needing to rely on benefits as they would have the time and childcare to be able to work or be supported by the other parent who is facilitated in working because the mother is providing the childcare. Not being in a relationship doesn't suddenly mean men are no longer parents.

I think 50/50 should be the norm, no child support due then and each parent will have equal costs and both can work full time as will only need a few days childcare costs each.

The reality is very different, most RPs who claim benefits won't have been working prior to the split so won't go for 50/50 as they don't want to work.

We are also assuming that there was a relationship but that's not always the case. Plenty have children with men they have known for all of five minutes.

The reality is very different, most RPs who claim benefits won't have been working prior to the split so won't go for 50/50 as they don't want to work.

I don't think this is correct.

I was working prior to my split and continued to work after until dc3 came along and my job wasn't waiting for me. My stbexh made life very difficult for me refusing to have the children at short notice so that I couldn't go to work. He refused to come to the house to look after them but had no where suitable to take them and I could t afford child care.

My daughters would hate 50/50 and restricts the parents to living close by each other in order to get to school and activities etc. I also think it's very disruptive for some children and they won't cope with it. Mine certainly wouldn't. Many fathers don't have suitable family accommodation having shacked up with friends or the other woman which is also a factor.

Where relationships have been abusive things aren't always as straight forward either.

The reality is very different, most RPs who claim benefits won't have been working prior to the split so won't go for 50/50 as they don't want to work.

I don't think this is correct.

Neither do I.

Most mothers work. But often they can only afford to because they’re in a two income family.

Remember the average income is £26k and childcare costs are HIGH.

I think 50/50 should be the norm, no child support due then and each parent will have equal costs and both can work full time as will only need a few days childcare costs each

Equal costs? How do you enforce that? I went through a period of 50/50 but paid 100% of child care costs (because otherwise I would have l would have lost the place), all school meals, haircuts, uniforms, shoes etc. All he paid for was an evening meal when he had them. And he earns around 5 times more than me.

The notion that 50/50 is somehow ‘fair’ fails to recognise discrepancies in income (imagine a husband refusing to pay more towards childcare than his wife when he earns 5 times more) as well as just plain difficult as many ex partners are (deliberately or otherwise).

We are also assuming that there was a relationship but that's not always the case. Plenty have children with men they have known for all of five minutes

By far the majority of single parents were previously married or in long term relationships. But don’t let your need to judge get in the way of a few facts, will you?

Being a sah for x number of years does not constitute not having a work ethic. I worked full time since leaving school for 20 years. Had a break from full time work but still managed to study, volunteer, work a few days a month. But clearly as I didn't rush back to work after maternity leave I have no work ethic.