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?

What sahp offer to the family is more then paid child care, gardening, cleaning, cooking and other services that can be bought in. I’m not a sahp myself but fully appreciate what sahp offer to the family unit

Also what strikes me is how beneficial it is to have relatives and parents on your doorstep often undertaking intermittent, emergency or regular child care, over nighters and such. In my area it is families with relatives close by that tend to have two full time working parents.

My point was individual families are the ones who benefit from this arrangement, rather than society as a whole

But families are part of society.

My point was merely about the wider social benefits of the SAHP role in particular, because people always complain on these threads that the SAHP contribution isn't sufficiently valued. My point was individual families are the ones who benefit from this arrangement, rather than society as a whole so as long as your partner values what you contribute, it shouldn't be necessary to look for validation elsewhere.

It shouldn't be necessary to get outside validation but it often is when people feel worn down and defensive over criticism of their life choices. There is certainly a whole rhetoric that exists which does devalue SAHMs. And an equal and opposite rhetoric that devalues WOHMs, although I think this is less prominent now as the number of working mothers is so high. Unfortunately, it all becomes a bit tribal. This tribalism fragments and divides rather than benefitting society. The aim of tribalism is to assimilate everyone into the dominant tribe, diversity is lost. Human experience becomes narrower.

So yes, in one way you are right...don't look for outside validation and be secure in your own choices. However, I think the existence of people making choices which differ from individual to individual without prejudice from others is beneficial to society.

This!! People saying they’re the same are wrong. One is relying on your partner for income which is fine because that person is paying taxes etc, the other is relying on the government. Claiming benefits is fine if you’re actively seeking work or have a legitimate reason but a lot of people don’t!

Yes of course. And at a societal level, it is important for people to be happy with the lifestyle choices that they are making, as that lessens pressure on mental health services etc.

My point is merely that the choice to have a SAHP in itself has no particular societal benefit. There is no evidence to suggest that families with SAHPs are happier or more effective than families with two WOHPs, so there is nothing inherently valuable to society in more people choosing to be SAHPs. What matters is not the choice to be a SAHP, but rather the fact of having choices full stop. Those without choices - either because they can't afford to SAH with their kids or because they can't afford the cost of childcare that would enable them to work - are likely to be much less satisfied with life than those who can choose to organise their family lives in whatever way they see fit.

I'm not offended by sahms.

But wm can do what a sahm does and work.

No, people can't bi-locate! And working from home with young children doesn't work well either.

My point is merely that the choice to have a SAHP in itself has no particular societal benefit. There is no evidence to suggest that families with SAHPs are happier or more effective than families with two WOHPs, so there is nothing inherently valuable to society in more people choosing to be SAHPs.

Or a WOHP for that matter. As is suggested by your next point.

What matters is not the choice to be a SAHP, but rather the fact of having choices full stop. Those without choices - either because they can't afford to SAH with their kids or because they can't afford the cost of childcare that would enable them to work - are likely to be much less satisfied with life than those who can choose to organise their family lives in whatever way they see fit.

So if someone is happy with their choice we should let them be. 🤷‍♀️

Yes, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't let people make their own choices. Or that WOHP is an inherently better choice.

I am merely taking issue with the suggestion that we need to value the SAHP role more as a society as I think that the benefits are primarily for the individual couple concerned.

I am merely taking issue with the suggestion that we need to value the SAHP role more as a society as I think that the benefits are primarily for the individual couple concerned.

Ah. I don't think SAHPs should be valued more but that they should be equally valued. And to defend the SAH choice is often perceived as invalidating the WOH choice. This is the tribalism which I am against.

Currently, I think there are some very negative comments regarding SAHPs, SAHMs to be more precise. A couple of decades ago there were more negative comments regarding WOHMs.

So it seems we agree @Mumwantingtogetitright.🙂

FWIW, there are still plenty of judgemental comments about WOHPs. I see them all the time. We all probably tend to notice the ones that apply to our own situations more.

At the end of the day, it shouldn't be necessary for any of us to defend our choices. We are all doing what is right for our families and as long as our kids are happy and thriving, that's all that matters.

But going back to the subject of the OP, I don't believe that parents who rely on benefits should have to defend their situations either. There will be reasons for the situations that they're in. And while I agree that WOHPs are not inherently better than SAHPs, I would also make the point that neither are inherently better than people who need to rely on benefits. Again, we're all just doing the best we can.

@Muffinsorcrumpets

I didnt 'bi-locate' or wfh.

But going back to the subject of the OP, I don't believe that parents who rely on benefits should have to defend their situations either. There will be reasons for the situations that they're in. And while I agree that WOHPs are not inherently better than SAHPs, I would also make the point that neither are inherently better than people who need to rely on benefits. Again, we're all just doing the best we can.

Totally agree.

But I also think it's quite ironic that the right choice, that you very willingly make, sometimes seems like no choice at all...

I feel I was though! I loved every minute of my 15 years as a SAHM. I was able to take them to toddler groups, baby gym sessions etc. the fact that I was able to do the necessary housework and home admin while DH was at work (out of the house for over 12 hours a day in the early years) meant that weekends were free for us to spend together rather than catching up on chores. Once the DC were both at school I did some volunteering but was always available for sports days, concerts, etc. which I know they appreciated. Both DH and I grew up with a SAHM and it was what we always wanted for our children. We decided on me being the one to stay home as we felt it would be easier for me to return to work down the line as a woman taken a career break is more “normal” and I had no trouble getting back to work when I decided it was time. Amongst the other school families the vast majority of the children had a SAHP - yes there were many SAH Dads .

Returning to employment was like a rest compared to life as a SAHM not least because DH naturally took on a share of the chores when I was no longer at home all day. Plus, as I left it until they were old enough to not need childcare, my earnings can all go in the family pot.

@LadyDanburysCane

Why work at all if you were designed to be a sahm?

But going back to the subject of the OP, I don't believe that parents who rely on benefits should have to defend their situations either. There will be reasons for the situations that they're in. And while I agree that WOHPs are not inherently better than SAHPs, I would also make the point that neither are inherently better than people who need to rely on benefits. Again, we're all just doing the best we can.

It's not about people being 'better' or 'worse'. Of course every parent is doing the best they can and should get the help they need.

However, to answer the original op, NO someone claiming benefits is not the same as a couple working together as a team.

Economically speaking the former is receiving funds from the Government, whereas a couple is paying taxes from the wohs's salary.

Why work at all if you were designed to be a sahm?

I'll answer that - lots of reasons: I enjoyed working, I used my brain, I added value to my company, I earned a good salary, I got to travel, it gave me confidence and skills, I made great friends etc etc.

And I wasn't 'designed' to be a sahm. I made the choice to become one when the time felt right!

Economically speaking the former is receiving funds from the Government, whereas a couple is paying taxes from the wohs's salary.*

Although different, working people are not inherently better than those that live off benefits, though. The Government has decided they qualify for help as an investment into society, to improve their life chances and the life chances of their family which enables them to contribute in the future.

Sorry first sentence should be in bold.

Because my children grew up!

Although different, working people are not inherently better than those that live off benefits,

Of course not Where was that even suggested?

Reading this thread I am very confused as to whether I am benefit scum or not...

Been a SAHM with a partner at minimum wage work
Been a single SAHM on benefits only
Been a single SAHM on benefits only with a disabled child on DLA/carers
Been a student on benefits/student loans/working PT at various points
Now work full time at an above nlw job and still receive some benefits to top up my wage and DLA for my disabled child.
I do all my housework.

I am so very very confused.

It's funny to me how SAHP with a partner who works are deemed more important to society than those who are single and on benefits. They are both doing the same job, if you deem it one. One just has a partner, the other doesn't.

Once the children went to secondary school I wasn’t really a SAH MUM any more - secondary school children don’t need the Mum/Dad input during school time that primary children too plus they don’t need to be taken to and from school. Much as I enjoyed taking care of our home, it didn’t take up so much time with the children at secondary so DH and I decided that a return to employment on a term time basis would be good.