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?

I just think your sister is being unkind.

Basically saying your MIL is somehow wrong because she's just like these other people who are also wrong.

Doesn't really show a great deal of understanding of how benefits work, or the broad range of reasons someone may be a stay at home parent.

This is a little different to being left high and dry when he fucks off with something younger, perkier and tighter (see the relationships board for examples) - or even if he becomes ill or dies.

Yup. Twitter is full of right-wing men who express disgust and repulsion at the fact that women age, yet also demand that women become homemakers. The reality is that a big reason why women usually hang on to their careers is because we're painfully aware of the tendency of some men to trade in or cheat on wives who are aging. Ageism is a thing in the workplace too, but seniority and experience gives you some protection. A SAHM has no such protection.

Yes.

My own role as an unpaid carer isn't a job because the conditions and risks would never be acceptable to someone who is paid to do it.

This is what I think loads of previously lovely men who have a mid life crisis and completely change into horrible people. They then run off with someone else and will hide money to avoid paying out. At least if you have your own career it doesn't matter if you are getting old as at least you have wisdom and experience behind you and a salary.

How does providing a service for your family benefit society?

Families are at the heart of a society, and raising children provides for the next generation.

Isn't that worth at least as much, if not more, as providing one's services to a company to make more profit?

Yes, unless you pay income tax (the job is so valuable on MN, it must be equivalent salary enough to pay tax on) and your "employer" pays all the gubbins an employer does etc,

to provide for health, education, welfare, infrastructureand all the other stuff that taxation pays for.

Other people are paying for that for you.

Yeah, of course. Anyone spinning all these plates gets my hat off.

But not everyone can manage it, I know I couldn't and (not saying you poster) it's a shame society makes mum's feel guilty for not having or doing it all.

Most of the SAHMs I know have definitely facilitated the husband's career

this is just such a cringe way to try to take credit for someone else’s success. Many many mothers work, over eighty percent and milljons of them are very successful with uncertain or long hours.

No one needs a housewife or stay at home parent to enable their career unless the child has additional needs. No one’s career is due to their partner, it’s due to their own hard work.

Dual income families are the norm. Paid child care is a thing, be it nursery, child minder, nanny, au pair, after school clubs etc, pretending someone is in any way successful because they had someone at home during the day is nonsense and every single working and non working parent knows it. That’s something that the vast majority of families outsource and often to the benefit of the children. Every single one of those dual income families manage to do housework cook meals and do life admin as well.

honestly why can’t people just own it, “I stayed home because I wanted to” instead of all this “his career success is down to me and it was only for the kids benefit”

@Underhisi
^My own role as an unpaid carer isn't a job because the conditions and risks would never be acceptable to someone who is paid to do it.^
That is hard going. 💐

raising children provides for the next generation.

working parents do that too.

Your previous post seemed to imply that not using childcare was something you were proud of.

Why would that be?

OP, your sister is talking bollocks.

^Families are at the heart of a society, and raising children provides for the next generation.^

^Isn't that worth at least as much, if not more, as providing one's services to a company to make more profit?^

Oh for goodness sake you are far reaching now.

Millions of families all around the world raise DC while working.

You're making it sound heavenly.

There is no moral high ground in either SAHP or working parenting, do what suits you.

Most of the SAHMs I know have definitely facilitated the husband's career

Whatever about individual families, this strikes me as problematic for society. It's predominately highly privileged men who have access to these kinds of 'facilitators' and giving them further legs up on the career ladder probably isn't wonderful for society at large.

None of the successful women I've come across have had husbands at home, running the household and settling children into schools. This appears to be a male privilege in the vast majority of cases.

You are absolutely correct there, where a child needs a full-time carer, like you outline. My response was to the excuses SAHPs of children without additional needs. It is indeed easy to both work in those circumstances.

They absolutely do not.

I agree! I’m used to it but just wanted to see what others thought.

It’s very different and there are multiple scenarios.

There are some SAHP who have their own savings to enable them fully support themselves whilst not working. Plenty of people who work would be unable to earn what they do without someone looking after their children and their hours might mean that they would need to pay two or three nannies full time to cover it (especially if they often have trips abroad) but a SAHP enables this career progression.

What a horrible thread! Why the need to sneer at either SAHPs or people in receipt of benefits?

It’s a totally legitimate choice to decide to be supported by a partner to have someone at home all the time for the children. And there’s nothing morally bankrupt about relying on benefits either!

More than 50% of the UK’s benefits bill every year is for PENSIONS! And the next largest chunk is for IN WORK benefits! Once you take into account carer’s allowances /disability related payments, how much is going to people who “choose not to work”? And of those people, how many really have a genuine choice? There aren’t scores of people turning down highly paid (or even reasonably paid) work to “live off the state”.

And disclaimer - I have no skin in this game, I’m not a SAHP, nor was I raised by one and I’m not in receipt of any benefits. Not that that should matter!

People need to appreciate that there are many different people in society with different norms.
2 working parents is not the norm in my circle at all. Me and the majority of my friends choose not to work because we don’t have to. The majority of us have independent assets meaning we wouldn’t be left “high and dry” if our husbands were to leave or die.
I don’t see why we would choose to work when we have the lifestyles we do. Much better things to do with our time!

Most of the SAHMs I know have definitely facilitated the husband's career.

Sad isn't it, how many husband's do you know who have facilitated the wife's career?

Other than access to his earnings, how does the role benefit women?

Wouldn't it be nice if they could work out a plan where a man could play a more active role in the domestic childcare setting.

Do your husbands choose not to work?

The vaaaaaaaast majority of jobs do not require the extreme circumstances you describe. You are being ridiculous.