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?

the most dominant answer being given, sadly, is they did it to support their husbands career so he didn’t need to do any of the domestic shit at home or be bothered with the kids.

The thing is doing that can be pretty lucrative for some people. They might like the prospect of being well off. And if they like the prospect of being a SAHM too, it's win win for them.

@Gwenhwyfar this is what I actually believe in, funded childcare and funding for parents to do their own childcare up to school age, so there’s genuine freedom of choice and with SAHPs the non-working parent isn’t financially trapped as a dependent of the working spouse.

Link

True but few of them are wealthy. Generally it’s your average to below average family where they are lucky if the husband brings in fifty grand a year.

We both work FT.

True but few of them are wealthy. Generally it’s your average to below average family where they are lucky if the husband brings in fifty grand a year.

So. Maybe it's a defensive reason. What is it about attitudes towards SAHMs that might make them feel defensive? Or shamed even?

If you were a single mum on benefits looking after the kids, your dh would still be allowed to work and pay “thousands” in tax. You personally wouldn’t be doing anything differently or contributing any more to society.

fine to be a sahm in either case imo although I do think it generally benefits women to work at least part time. But many judge the single mum on benefits so harshly- the opposite of the sahm in fact. Both are essentially doing the same thing though. So why are sahm with rich husbands seen as the pillars of society, responsible and respectable whereas single mums seen as shameful, low status, undesirable, etc. it can only be in relation to the behavior of the men they’ve picked as there is no other difference.

Well, both are not employed in paid work, but otherwise no, they are not the same. Your sister sounds rather judgemental - hell, if I had married someone who could afford for me not to work I would have been overjoyed!

Don't be ridiculous

True but few of them are wealthy. Generally it’s your average to below average family where they are lucky if the husband brings in fifty grand a year.

No that's not true at all, I don't think. Areas with the highest proportions of SAHMs are the wealthiest areas of the U.K. Lets face it, very few women would leave career prospects behind to live off a limited income for evermore - like 50k. At the prep schools round here (London) I'd say 80% of women ate SAHMs and the DHs are probably at least in the top 1% in terms of income / wealth. Many are multi-millionaires. But more importantly, it's not about 'income', there is significant wealth and assets, so the wives know what they would walk away with in the event if divorce. These women are no stupid! Houses in area are probably 3-5 million on average. Many are ex pats too. So not exactly 'typical' in a national level no, but pretty normal in some areas and this is why some women are SAHMs, long term. They can afford to be - it's as simple as that. And with higher incomes and certain types of school come different sets of expectations and there can be a certain pressure there. Most SAHMs I know have 'help' in some form as well - definitely cleaners and sometimes after school care or live in nannies. Personally, I never used nannies or au pairs, but I was definitely the exception and most people were genuinely surprised when I told them this. Women are very focused on their kids education and put a lot of support in there. It's just normal in some circles - and those circles are SAHM circles!

Once you have kids there's potentially 3 jobs to consider -
Parents jobs x2
Running of house/ Raising children

There's basically a few options-
Both work full time and if you can afford to outsource chid raising and running of house (nanny, cleaner Gardner etc) Careers suffer less but less time with children.

Both work full time and juggle children and house , extremely stressful will often feel like trying to do everything comes at a cost to quality of life

One work full time, one works part time/ stay at home. If both people fully respect each other can work well but financially not always feasible

People should have the right to do what's best for them and we do need more affordable childcare between 1-3 so parents have a choice but choosing to be a sahp is a valid choice too and there's nothing wrong with it. If people can manage to make their life less stressful why shouldn't they?

The concept of people on benefits being scroungers annoys me. The idea is the richer people in the country pay more tax and some of that tax goes to the poorer people to raise their standard of living because not everyone has the education, opportunities and capabilities to gain high paying employment. Also we need people to do low paying menial roles so by propping their income up they get a better standard of life which means their children get to eat/be warm etc. it also supports women on maternity leave, people who are Ill, disabled people and people who are unable to find unemployment. Yes there is a small percentage who abuse/take advantage the system but for the majority it is a lifeline. It can also enable families to access services/training/education to increase their prospects which has a positive impact on future generations. (The benefit system is not currently that great but that's the tories fault rather than the people claiming)

The amount of benefit fraud taking place has a minimal impact on our economy unlike the tax fraud that takes place which if everyone paid their correct tax and businesses stopped looking for loopholes we would as a country be in a far better position economically. But we never challenge the rich we just judge the poor for accepting our meagre offering and expecting them to be grateful/owe us back, because we live in a classist society.

Also back in the day, it was perfectly acceptable to be a "housewife" as you could live off one income, and I think it was seen as a failing on the man's part if couldn't provide for his family and his wife had to go out to work. Unless v well off it's just not possible to live off one wage these days (without claiming some sort of benefit to make up the difference).

the most dominant answer being given, sadly, is they did it to support their husbands career so he didn’t need to do any of the domestic shit at home or be bothered with the kids.

Bothered with the kids , domestic 'shit'

No wonder some people don't understand the enjoyment others actually get out of looking after children and the home!

Great points @Autienotnaughtie it really felt during the thick of Covid and lockdowns people were starting to understand the contribution some of the lowest paid workers in the country make.

Posted too soon!

But now memories seem to be short.

Back in what day? My grandmother and great grandmother worked, in working class families women have usually always worked.

Back in what day? My grandmother and great grandmother worked, in working class families women have usually always worked.

Still doesn't mean it wasn't acceptable to be a housewife then.

Yeah, I was more referring to the statement about being able to live off one income. My grandparents couldn't!

Yeah, I was more referring to the statement about being able to live off one income. My grandparents couldn't!

Ah, I get you now! Yeah, two incomes often wasn't enough either.

I do find the juxtaposition in some posts intriguing- want to stay home as beneficial for the children but that doesn't apply to single parents as people shouldn't rely on the state. Personally whatever works for a family who cares, the only people I feel sorry for are those who are forced into a choice due to circumstance or finances that they aren't happy with and wouldn't actively choose.

Also back in the day, it was perfectly acceptable to be a "housewife"

According to Wikipedia only 11% of married women in the US kept working after giving birth. So yes, back then it was definitely very common.

Obviously it's financially not possible for many families to manage on one income nowadays unfortunately.

I have always worked, I'm glad I did and I'm happy with how I brought up my kids and managed my career. The only impact I've noticed is my relationship with my own mum. She was initially a housewife, didn't call it a SAHP then. Then over the years she worked part time at most. The issue I have that she disapproved of mothers working full time, and she is unable to relate to me in many ways. In fact she still refers to my job as being for "extras ". Totally different planet.

stay home as beneficial for the children but that doesn't apply to single parents as people shouldn't rely on the state

Yes that's a good point.

Ideally the state should provide for those situations, and as a society we should be willing to pay higher taxes to support single parents.

Ideally the state should provide for those situations, and as a society we should be willing to pay higher taxes to support single parents.

Difference being we live in a capitalist society. The state wants to attract income, as many in paid employment as possible. It is win win with working parents. Childcare creates more employment.

It not solely about what is best for the children with regards to the motivations of the state provisions.

It not solely about what is best for the children with regards to the motivations of the state provisions.

Yes good point. Especially at the moment as the UK's national debt is so huge and money is limited.

I'm more than happy to pay higher taxes to support single parents and other vulnerable people in our society, and I would really like us to ensure that people who rely on this safety net are entitled to a decent standard of living, but I do not feel that there is any need to support single parents to be SAHPs, unless there are specific disabilities etc that might necessitate this, because I don't actually believe that there is any significant benefit to children having a SAHP. It's a lifestyle choice that people are certain entitled to make if they can afford it, but nobody has the right to stop working just because they have children.