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 am a SAHM and take issue with the fact I am "relying " on my DH for income.I have a private pension as well and worked for 10 years FT plus PT jobs .If a couple are married and unfortunate enough to split up ,the money is divided between 2 people .Anyone who thinks looking after small DC isnt working is deluded .As far as being on benefits is concerned no one should feel ashamed ,its a safety net .Would she like people to starve? Sorry she sounds very bitter ad judgmental

It’s kinda the same as some people on benefits but not the same as others.

sahm with 3 month old is not the same as sahm with 6yr old and is not the same as sahm with 14yr old. Ditto for child with disabilities. ditto housewife with no dependents.

whether someone is sahm or on benefits or employed does not reflect the effort put in and the ‘work’ someone does. I would think unpaid care for elderly relative or person with health condition (which can be done by people employed, sahm, housewife) can be more work than some FT jobs.

Its not the same. But neither one is financially independent. So there are similarities.

Yes, I think it's very different but probably not in the way you think.

A SAHM in a relationship is lucky enough to have a partner to provide financially and also physically with sharing childcare, etc. A single mum on benefits is trying to survive on an incredibly small sum of money, and often does either the bulk or all of the parenting with no respite.

I have every sympathy for single mums on benefits and those who judge need to remember that they are LUCKY not to be in that situation.

It is telling that when a married woman is a SAHM it's the "hardest job in the world" but a single mum on benefits is "lazy."

It's not the same at all, only ignorant people would think it is. A couple choosing for one parent to earn the money and the other to stay at home to care for the children is completely different than someone living on benefits.
In a couple you decide what suits your life and circumstances best. If one partner is happy to be the bread winner while the other cares for the children and does the housework, and do not rely on any benefits, that is in no way the same as claiming benefits and living off taxpayers money.

Goodness, when was free speech banned? I had no idea

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....

I remember feeling a bit like this- not that I was in debt to the taxpayer (I don’t really think of taxes like that and happily pay mine to educate everybody, whether they will work or not) but a horrible conflicted feeling that somehow I wasn’t doing enough. I so wish I had given myself a shake and allowed myself to fully enjoy those early days.

I think we all internalise societal messages about what makes a valuable citizen in a capitalist society (the value of your work is how much you’re paid), along with the ones specifically aimed at women (You can have it all! So why aren’t you back on the phone doing deals before your stitches have even healed, eh?) Urgh.

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.

Yes, and surely looking after children and running the household can be much more valuable than offering your labour to a random company!

The difference is that one chooses to stay at home and rely on the provision of someone else, the other likely doesn't, and is not only being hounded every day to get a job, but being judged for relying on someone else.

Sometimes it is exactly the same as many SAHPs rely on befits to fund the staying at home.

Do you believe everyone on benefits (bearing in mind most work but let's focus on those that don't) choose to not work? Do you not see how it's a privileged position to be able to have a parent not work because the other one earns enough whilst progressing their career/earning potential and adding to their own pension pot and that for many the ability to work isn't an option? So much ignorance on here about benefits.

Same goes for single mums on benefits then.

I was a SAHM supported by DH for 15 years. If he couldn’t have afforded to to that then I would have sought employment - I’d sooner have cleaned toilets than claim benefits if I was capable of working.

DH effectively “paid” me for running out household. Even now he heavily subsidises me as I work part time and support him by running the household (although he now participates too as he knows it wouldn5 be fair for me to still do it all).

Employed people are still relying on someone else for an income (in my case the local education authority). Self employed are relying on their customers for an income. We all rely on others at some level.

Either way you can't win people will judge. I've been employed full time, part time, relief, been on benefits and been a stay at home parent and there's always someone to offer an opinion on what's right and what I should be doing. Your sister obviously doesn't realise how difficult and demoralising it can be to claim benefits if your mil is happy with the arrangement then its nobody's business.

Oh no no, doesn't apply to them- of course they should be out there working whilst running a household by themselves and burdening everything else.

I never understand this idea that a SAHP contributes financially by aiding their partner to have a successful career.

I have an extremely successful career, and my husband works full time. I can't see how him staying at home would have enabled my career? What on earth do you mean? Those of us with successful jobs and husbands who also work full time just have childcare? And a cleaner? A SAHP is in no way contributing to the family financially.

Minding the kids is nice, and some people love doing that with their lives. Just own it, if you're a SAHP, no need to invent financial contributions.

I don't think it's the same but it's leaving you in a very vulnerable position (not if children are pre school age) but carrying on being a SAHM when they are school age and beyond is leaving you vulnerable. You might be able to get half the house and CMS but the courts expect you to get a job now spousal support is very limited if a man leaves you you are up shit creek and might have to take a minimum wage job .

The double standards make me sick.

Either being a SAHP is valuable or it isn't, you can't pick certain sectors of society and decide they are worthier than others.

Your MIL is ‘economically inactive’ and that isn’t really any different to those on benefits apart from the Govt can’t incentivise/sanction her to look for work.

True. It’s a very convoluted way of justifying a choice to not work. Comparing looking after your own children with working for a employer to whom you are accountable for your performance.

DH has been out of the country for work for a week comfortably in the knowledge that the childcare provided by SAHM (me!) is in place. No clashing long hours and commitments that don't work around the restrictions of paid childcare and no practical informal arrangements. For value of effort/ money, his job is better value than mine was so it works out better for work life balance to prioritise his career that than both of us be permanently frazzled trying to do everything. I could hypothetically have climbed the career ladder but for covering our lifestyle, having time and a child with ASD that needs quiet time at home, the costs weren't worth the income.

Benefits is a vast range. People with disabilities/ caring responsibilities. People on low incomes being topped up. People with poor opportunities being supported.

A lot of mothers of children with SNs become SAHMs because the time, appointments and complications affect employment productivity and employability, so the line can be blurred as it can often take years for the differences to be apparent enough to qualify for DLA for the child.

I once had someone get really shirty with me for not doing supply work while heavily pregnant and struggling to move with SPD. She'd worked through 3 pregnancies with her radiographer's lead apron. Lovely. Totally different circumstances (no compromised mobility, regular employer with risk assessments, not schleping around different secondaries every day with no adjustments). Some people just get irrationally narked that people make different choices in different situations, especially when it comes to work.

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!

You might want to explain to this hypothetical sister that unpaid labour is still labour, the unpaid labour of women in the UK contributes significantly to the economy and tax payer already.

The only commonality is both a dependent on others financially. That is an additional risk SAHMs take when they sacrifice their own income stream to work for the family.

I'm slightly confused by all the suggestions that SAHPs don't work. They don't get paid, but I think I worked harder as a SAHP than in any job I've done (with the possible exception of my first year of teaching). It's probably a lot easier if you have a lot of money but as I was on a tight budget, I never really encountered the parents who spent their days at the gym or cafe. Getting maximum benefit for minimum money was the main benefit of being a SAHP - we couldn't have afforded to buy in the work I did on our joint incomes.

I've been off work for over a year on maternity leave with 2 more months left to go and I'm starting to feel pretty damn unemployed at this stage (I'm not, I'm still getting 100% of my wages every week).

It's not the same as claiming benefits of course but to me SAHM/housewife isn't a job either.

I was being sarcastic by the way, I absolutely agree that the double standards on here are often grim. Lots of ignorance around benefits too, yet no appetite to vote for people who would put funding into initiatives that would help people out of the cycle.