To think single mums are viewed as having no financial independence

[KatherineofTarragon]

Inspired by a thread i have posted on.

I guess people still see single mums in society as younger and with younger children and at a financial disadvantage?

I am a single mum to what are now older grown DC's , have been for years. Because i have worked full time and own my lovely home people have frequently been "surprised" to learn i am on my own. It has got on my nerves over the years that people think i should somehow be different/poorer as a single mum. I think this is because people in general have pre conceived ideas about what being a single mum is.

I do not fit into their narrative. I have more financial freedoms than them and a large house i pay for. People generally do not expect single mums to have this so there is a societal connotation to being a single mum.

Are people willing now to accept that a woman can be a single parent, work full time and maintain her own home?

[quote MyPersona]**@MarkRuffaloCrumble* @TheFormerPorpentinaScamander*

Are either of you clever enough to have conceived any of your children before you met the fathers? If not you might have to give some of the medals back.[/quote]
No :( seems I can't even do that right. Oh well. No medals for me

I would think of it the other way round, that single parents are more likely to be financially independent.

Are either of you clever enough to have conceived any of your children before you met the fathers? If not you might have to give some of the medals back.

Aww dammit I was so close! Here you go 🏅

@MyPersona no, my eldest was 3 when i became a single mum in 2004. I married in 1998 , divorced in 2003. Had my son first son 2000. Left my husband 2003 and handed over large chunk of my property to him .l had my second in 2006 , aged 35 having met a new partner in 2003 and then became a single parent to 2.shortly after that in 2008. I had worked since 18 and bought my first property at 24. I had my first child at 29 and second at 35.

I was married at 28 , had my first at 29, divorced at 32. Met my second partner at 33 and had my second at 35. He is also now my ex.

I owned 1 property when i married my first husband, i owned 2 when i met my second partner , when i did not marry him having been fleeced and learned after first and only marriage. I protected my assets during my second relationship and came out better.

@MyPersona Any other questions you would like like you ask ?

@Spinachfinger correct. I have received no maintenance. I have supported both my children fully myself.

I only know two single Mums that are well off, both had shit hot jobs before relationships broke down, both walked away the drama of trying to get maintenance, decided to do It alone. All of my other friends who are single parents are struggling financially

@MyPersona Any other questions you would like like you ask?

I actually couldn’t give a shit but you were the one who said you bought your first house at 24 eight years before you met him. I can’t help it if you can’t keep your story straight.

I think the OP is getting a rough ride here. I didn't read the post as smug or goady in any way.

If I'm reading correctly, what she's saying is that single mothers still have a huge image problem which doesn't accurately reflect reality for some of us. There's still an overwhelming assumption if you are a single mother that you must be poor and downtrodden, are unlikely to be working and probably receive most or all of your income from the government. Hence the comments such as the poster on here whose dad was shocked that a single mother could own her own car.

I don't think accepting state benefits or help from parents means you're not financially independent and I didn't read this as being what this thread was about.

I would like to see some stats on single mothers and their financial position. My guess is that there's a much broader spread of financial positions than people imagine here and that, while a lot of single mothers are in receipt of some benefits, there are a larger proportion of relatively wealthy single mothers now than there were 30 years ago.

I think this is complex tbh.

First, two people generally have a greater earning capacity than one. So children growing up in a household with one adult only are growing up in a household with reduced earning capacity ie the household can collectively earn one salary rather than two.

Ofc it's possible for a single high earner to out earn two or indeed more than two typical earners. We all know this. Eg the CEO of Google is one person but they out earn the majority of any group of two people you put together, by some magnitude.

However there are practical and structural barriers in place that prevent anyone with caring responsibilities from progressing in a career - cost and availability of childcare, demands on time, requirements to travel for work etc. And ofc single parents fall into this group. They also tend to be the group that is least able to get around the situation as child bearing and child rearing years, for most, are one's younger years when one has less leverage and bargaining power in terms of day to day structure of work.

There are always outliers ofc. There are women who succeed at work young, women who have children when older and as well there's a kind of cross-continuum so that if you become a single parent when your kids have all been at school a few years and don't require such intensive physical input and you've managed to get a few steps up the ladder in the meantime, you can aim more easily for the fabled well salaried work-life balance.

But for a lot of mothers, the point at which they become single is outside of that sweet spot in one aspect or another, which is why, statistically, children in lone parent households are more likely to experience poverty than children in two parent households. It's just more likely to be difficult than if there's two of you.

I became a single parent to 2 sons who were 17 and 7.
I am actually financially better off and more secure now, because I don't have the leech that is my ex living here. He had me believe I was bad with money - turns out I'm not at all.

I have supported them completely and continue to do so.
I get £109 a month from ex and child benefit.

I got the childcare element of child tax credits when DS2 was in childcare.

My friends and acquaintances know I work full time in a professional job. I don't care what assumptions other people make. I am fortunate to work from home and enjoy great flexibility in my working hours. This enables me to attend school events, to do my sport during the day at a time to suit me, take time to take the car to the garage, get my hair cut (in the village and I take my laptop while the colour is working its magic!). So I might be seen not to be at work, but of course they don't see me up and working at 6am or logging on late at night.

What was the point of this thread again?!

Single mum with a decent income here too!

I work part time and own my house, my ex pays me exactly what the government recommends, but I know he resents it and thinks he’s “funding my lifestyle”. And it’s quite clear that people who know me a little bit think I must have fleeced him in the divorce. I’ve heard it insinuated, and friends who actually know my situation have confirmed that people locally do believe that. But to them all, I say fuck it. I don’t need to explain myself, I work hard, do my best for my kids, and I owe no one an explanation, but I do resent the perception that we’re scroungers or money grabbers. All the parents I know, single or otherwise, are just doing their best. I don’t judge them, so why are such assumptions made based on our marital status😡? Sorry, rant over! 🤣

And I didn’t fleece him, we split our assets 50:50, in case I wasn’t clear!

@MyPersona my story is straight. I did buy my first property at 24. I still have the original paperwork to prove it. I also gave birth when i said i said i did and got divorced as i have said have. . Got all my legal docs to prove it.

Jog on darling!

Oh, I've had very, very little childcare help from family, but some friends have been amazingly supportive when I've needed to travel abroad for work. I'm very lucky.

When you bought your first property, did you have any help with the deposit? Was it in the south-east, or a much cheaper area? I'm sure you can understand that most young people aged 18-24 simply don't earn enough to save up a deposit and buy a place on their own in the south-east.

Are people willing now to accept that a woman can be a single parent, work full time and maintain her own home?

No issue in accepting this however I would think it's rare for any single parent of either gender to be financially very self sufficient. Simply because life & childcare is very expensive.

@KatherineofTarragon

DH then left with half the property i had bought years earlier , 8yrs before i had even met him

my eldest was 4 when i became a single mum

@TheKarenWhoKnocks

I think this is complex tbh.

First, two people generally have a greater earning capacity than one. So children growing up in a household with one adult only are growing up in a household with reduced earning capacity ie the household can collectively earn one salary rather than two.

Ofc it's possible for a single high earner to out earn two or indeed more than two typical earners. We all know this. Eg the CEO of Google is one person but they out earn the majority of any group of two people you put together, by some magnitude.

However there are practical and structural barriers in place that prevent anyone with caring responsibilities from progressing in a career - cost and availability of childcare, demands on time, requirements to travel for work etc. And ofc single parents fall into this group. They also tend to be the group that is least able to get around the situation as child bearing and child rearing years, for most, are one's younger years when one has less leverage and bargaining power in terms of day to day structure of work.

There are always outliers ofc. There are women who succeed at work young, women who have children when older and as well there's a kind of cross-continuum so that if you become a single parent when your kids have all been at school a few years and don't require such intensive physical input and you've managed to get a few steps up the ladder in the meantime, you can aim more easily for the fabled well salaried work-life balance.

But for a lot of mothers, the point at which they become single is outside of that sweet spot in one aspect or another, which is why, statistically, children in lone parent households are more likely to experience poverty than children in two parent households. It's just more likely to be difficult than if there's two of you.

You're right obviously that two people tend to out-earn one and that there are structural barriers for people with childcare responsiblities. So the odds are certainly stacked against lone parents in terms of managing the logistics which allow them to maximise income and that's a setback.

But in a household with two earners at rough parity there's a tendency for the woman, even if relatively successful, to take a back-seat after having children (because that's what society and often the husband expects), which damages their career and earning power.

My point is that in that scenario it may be better for the woman long-term not to be in a marriage. It will be extremely difficult and stressful in the short term and will cost a lot in childcare. But ultimately she won't suffer from the "mummy track" trend that you see so much with multiple mat leaves, drifting back to part time work and moving sideways in her career.

Its not for the faint-hearted and its not for everyone but if you can stick out the early years in the long-run you may be better off than sharing assets with someone who actually wants to out earn you and use you as domestic labour.

Of course not all husbands see things like that. But a surprisingly large amount of them do.

So if I was single & worked f/t my childcare, mortgage & bills would be easily 3k so Id need to get myself a promotion asap.

Ah thanks for the clarity OP.

What doesn't make sense is that you say you don't like the box that single mums are squeezed into by society, ie. the stereotype, but your post does make it sound like any one who isn't solely independent (not on benefits/in receipt of maintenance, despite their employment status) has been squeezed into that stereotypical box, by, erm, you!

I think your situation IS rare. You can't be THAT surprised when other people do too. When my kids are grown like yours are and my mortgage is paid off, I would imagine I'll be in that rare category (assuming I remain single) in society's eyes.

You have obviously worked very hard and you deserve to feel proud of yourself, but are you able to see how some of your posts could actually undermine single mothers who have no choice but to claim benefits or access free school meals, otherwise their children would be hungry and perhaps homeless?
People ( not just women) become single parents for many different reasons and if they are doing the best they can for their children then they deserve nothing but respect and support, regardless of individual financial circumstances.

@DianaT1969 no. I bought in the early 90's in north london. I had house shared for 5 yrs to save the money ( hse share was a nightmare) i left home at 19 ( long story) i rented and house shared while working full time. Sharing was horrible but my first flat was such a joy after all that sacrifice. I sold my flat in late 90''s ( made £35k in profit) used the equity to buy a house, then met my first husband and thats where it all went pear shaped.

Stealth boast from OP.

I am a newly single mum and I agree with pp that it feels you just think you're better than me because I am on Universal Credit at the moment.

I have a decent career, a degree and lots of experience but I still need help because childcare is expensive and I work part time.

@thepeopleversuswork I'd agree with that. Most women who are single parents become so in their 30s and early 40s ie have been in a partnership where their contribution has been non financial for a significant period of time, and therefore have not progressed to the point where they can earn well and work a pattern that suits their responsibilities.

I am close to 50 and I see the fallout from this all the time as friends' marriages go to the wall. The consequences are dire, especially for women who also as part of a partnered family relied on tax credits ("I've got my sixteen hours so that's ok") ie no one is earning very much money, but when the guy runs off they're screwed, especially given that the tax credits /uc will stop in a matter of 24 months and there's no way to rise up the payscale in that time having been on the bottom of it for 16 years.

@MyPersona i can see you are trying to reply. Yes, my Dh ended up with half the property i had bought 8 yrs previously. We were married, i was the higher earmer and i had not protected my investment. He walked away with half my house.