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 think this as well. Personally I’d rather not be in either situation.

It’s not the same (I’m not making any moral judgement, neither is “bad”) but I wouldn’t bother arguing with someone who thought it was because I’d assume they’re thick.

Absolutely!

Pointless and bizarre comparison.

Stop discussing other peoples financial arrangements. It's none of your, nor your sisters, business.

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

Obviously you don't support women to do what is best.
You are involved in pitting the two types against each other in a disagreement with your Dsis.

Now you've started a thread knowing well this will achieve pp's arguing their opinion on which woman is the worthy one and which one isn't.

Unless you're completely naive of course and new to MN.

Therefore I don't believe you support all women.

Of course it's not the same. One you have to meet very strict criteria. The other you just have to choose not to work.

So I assume that your sister is looking at someone claiming benefits and not working and not intending to find work in the near future?
In this case not the same!
Your MIL might be a housewife but she is also most likely supporting her husband by looking after the home and has most likely supported him in building the business up.
I know MN has something against a woman being SAHM/ Housewife but in many relationships it's what works for them. It doesn't mean that the relationship is doomed or that the woman is penniless in later life.

Before I became a SAHM I paid off half of the mortgage with the investments I'd made having worked in a well paid job for 20 years.

Both DH and I had jobs that involved really long and unpredictable hours and having children meant either employing a full time live in Nanny or one of us giving up our career. Our jobs didn't have the option to be done part time and the hours didn't match nursery or school hours.

As we adopted our DC and were told that we'd get a better chance of being matched with a baby if one of us could be a SAHP we made the decision that I would be that person.

We made the decision based on what would would best work for us as a partnership and give the best life for our children. That's no one's business but ours.

We now have two teenagers , one with a life long chronic illness and one who has needed a lot of support with his emotional and mental health issues to do with his adoption. We know we made the correct decision as we've been able to give them the care they need without having to compromise any work commitments.

DH is 8 years away from retirement and having been able to focus fully on his career has been very successful and we live a very comfortable life.

It's crazy to liken that to being on benefits.

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.

Exactly this.

Surprised at the comments on this thread describing SAHMs as “unemployed”. Not all employment is paid. Placing less value on caring simply because it’s not paid is pretty misogynistic. In the 60s and 70s feminists used to point out how much money you’d have to pay to have someone Don all the things a SAHM does. I thought we’d moved beyond needing this but obviously not.

As an aside, amazing how people reading AIBU (no less) come along with comments like ‘don’t be judgey’, ‘don’t discuss other people’s financial matters’. Do you read AIBU and did you engage in this thread expecting to see content from the latest publication of British Medical Journal or SERN weekly newsletter. Admit it, you love the drama. Drop the act.

But not everyone receiving benefits is unemployed?

OP, if you've been in MN more than 10 mins, you will know full well that there is a contingent on here who are very snippy / bitter / judgemental / jealous of any woman who can afford to be a SAHM. You know full well what 'discussion' you are trying to provoke, I think.

You both seem to think there’s something wrong with either situation.

plenty of people need to claim benefits.

I don’t think being a Housewife is usually a wise life choice, but there’s nothing wrong with it.

It is different, both have their own issues. I don't have the words to describe those issues,

but when I was a SAHM, I felt like I had wasted my education, the taxpayer, at the time, paid for my education from age 4 to 21, and I was at home enjoying my babies, being fully supported by a loving husband, but still... I felt economically and intellectually inactive, like I should be "paying back" I guess. The guilt of a mother knows no bounds....

*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.*

Many SAHMs contribute to the overall family income by enabling others to work to their full potential. They contribute by looking after the house, family etc. It's a partnership!

Completely different- a SAHM is basically saving her partner from outsourcing childcare, their a unit who have worked out what works best for them as a whole.

@projectxyz

The OPs not the only one trying to provoke, it seems..

Of course it's not the same. One you have to meet very strict criteria. The other you just have to choose not to work. 🤣 love Mnet whitty replies.

I’d say that’s a pretty unique feeling - no one feels indebted to their primary school education

I don't really understand making moral judgements about women in either of these positions personally. If you met me you might judge me because I'm currently a SAHM but I worked for nearly 20 years before that and will work again in the future. The vast majority of people in benefits IMO would prefer to be in work but can't for health, MH or caring reasons.

I didn't mean it to be witty. That is the difference. For most people being a SAHP is a choice. Benefits are for when you have no choice.

I know, it's baffling that still lots of people don't grasp this. There aren't that many people, despite what the daily mail would have people believe, that are just on benefits forever and live a financially comfortable life are there.

Well she isn't wrong in that they are reliant on money from elsewhere, but one is an active choice which some women are privileged enough to be able to make, the other group is because employers don't pay enough or they cannot work for various reasons. Although the money is less, I'd hate to be reliant on a man, benefits are probably actually more secure (albeit not pip etc sadly that is subject to unfair reassessments). If have to be judgey is personally judge someone who had chosen not to work than those overwhelmingly fucked by the system.

Yes that or they have their own wealth and have decided its what they want to do.

I was at home enjoying my babies, being fully supported by a loving husband, but still... I felt economically and intellectually inactive, like I should be "paying back" I guess.

Isn't 'paying back' by giving your children lots of love and time, by taking care of household chores so that your husband can work just as valuable (if not more valuable) as offering your work to a company?