To think being a SAHM/housewife is not the same as someone claiming benefits?

[Jajana]

Was chatting to my sister and was talking about how my MIL is a housewife (sorry not sure if that’s the correct term). She said that being a SAHM/housewife is no different to someone claiming benefits and would rather claim benefits than rely on someone for an income!

Bearing in mind, FIL runs a very successful business and all of the money MIL receives is from private funds - not through the state.

Am i being reasonable to think being a SAHM/housewife isn’t the same as claiming benefits?

Technically it is relying on someone else got an income. Just someone you live with instead of the state. Doesn't make her any 'better' or more legitimate.

No it’s not the same. But it’s one of those things that’s not worth discussing with people.

Where does she think benefits money comes from? If you claim benefits you ARE relying on someone else for an income, just someone you don't know instead of someone you're married to.

it's better for the taxpayers I guess, buts she's just as unemployed as someone on benefits.

Many housewives/SAHM do contribute to the overall family income by enabling others to work to their full potential. It's a partnership, your sister is wrong.

In both situations you’re relying on someone else for money

both are situations that I would not like to be in

You both sound like snobs.

If a couple has a SAHM/housewife dynamic that works for them; then it’s nobodies business.

Likewise, thousands of people rely on benefits - including people who work full time, so it’s weird to pretend they’re a bunch of scroungers.

Neither is “better” or “worse” than the other.

I’m astounded at how judgemental that whole paragraph is tbh. Tell her to mind her own business. Every person makes a decision based on their situation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with working/L vs being on benefits vs being a SAHP.

Your MIL may have her own savings and therefore not rely at this stage on your FIL? I’m a SAHP and I do and we receive tax credits and child benefit as a large amount of families do. I never even think about what other people are doing or why because that’s none of my business. Also, if I were to find myself a single parent, I would work or have to rely on benefits anyway. (My youngest has a disability). It’s circumstantial.

It's not the same someone who is a SAHP or housewife is deliberately economically inactive, they are not seeking work. Someone on out of work benefits is ( unless they have very young children possibly).

Your sister sounds nasty, and a bit thick.

Why am I a snob? I have no opinion of what an adult does with their life as long as it isn’t illegal. It is none of my business what MIL & FIL do - just wanted to know what people thought of what my sister said

I’m a SAHP and I do and we receive tax credits

I'm surprised, I thought it was all universal credit now and dependant on job seeking. The problem with this set up is when your DCs turn 18.

Neither are employed, both depending on another person to financially support them.

They have some similarities though the single parent on benefits would have less choices.

I think you're sister is winding you up for a reaction, I suspect you started it by supporting MIL or women in general who stay at home with a rich husband while judging those who stay at home without any husband.

and would rather claim benefits than rely on someone for an income!

She might have been speaking practically rather than morally (as you have interpreted it). Because a husband could leave you but the benefits are more predictable. That's not an unreasonable view.

On a separate note, I hate it when people judge benefit-receivers on here. It's so unreasonable. For that reason alone, yabu

Well I think the difference is that there is a mutual agreement between the two people that one will financially support the other while one looks after the children, so it's planning ahead so I don't think it's the same at all. A lot of people believe that when you're married you share each other's money and that household contribution is a team effort.

The criticism that benefits get is that people are relying on the state to look after them. However I think the vast majority of people who are on benefits didn't choose to be on them but at the same time they don't have a choice either. There are obviously people who choose that life, but I think the vast majority of benefit claimants are on them because of change in circumstances beyond their control such as disability, long term sickness and losing job or break up of a relationship and having young children. It's completely different in my opinion. People who tend to have that view tend to have different relationship dynamics where they keep their finances more separate and have the mine and yours attitude- Which is also fine if it works for them!

I guess what I'm saying is your sister is being quite judgmental

Is this a thinly veiled benefit bash? Because it reads a bit like it.

Your sister sounds nasty, and a bit thick. The irony. 🤔

Of course there’s a difference!

Is this a thinly veiled benefit bash? Because it reads a bit like it. Bingo.
I smell it too.

Well obviously it’s not the same.

Relying on beneifts is asking for charity from the government which is funded by taking money away from richer people.

Being a sahm is a deal you make with your partner where one partner’s contribution to the family is primarily financial and the other partner’s contribution is primarily non-financial ie raising children, cleaning cooking house admin etc etc.

You are l not wrong OP, but you’ll get told you are the devil for asking this question. Having a financial agreement with the person you are married to on how to run your lives is very different to relying on the taxpayer for all your financials needs. Both mean that women forego their future potential but the former is less of a trap than the latter.

As I said previously, I don’t hold an opinion of it. I support women to do what they think is best for themselves

It's completely different.

I'd have given that a frosty reception and said that whilst you didn't think the two things are the same there is no need to be judgemental of either.

One is relying on the taxpayer to fund them which IME should be reserved for the most vulnerable and needy in society.