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 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.

I find this a contradiction.

So you're capable of working but choose not to work, unless your husband has millions every household would benefit from the extra income.

If he left you what would you do until the divorce etc was finalised? You'd want to be cleaning toilets 14 hours a day to cover rent/mortgages and food.

It's easy to make flippant comments about benefits when cocooned safely with a high earning husband.

But I often go away for work for a week. Our kids are in childcare for the day and then my husband looks after them outside of work. Why on earth would he need to be a SAHP to enable this?

SAHM and housewife are totally outdated terms. YABU to use them.

There are plenty of same sex couples or families where the father does the bulk of childcare and domestic chores. or unmarried couples with children. Housewife is so archaic.

How a family finances themselves is kind of a separate issue and not always tied into who does the childcare and domestic arrangements. There are loads of different possible scenarios.

I don’t think you can say they are the same or different as there is so much variation.

I'm still on tax credits, not everyone has been moved to UC.

Most people don't stay on them until their kids are 18 though! It's usually while they're young because childcare costs are expensive. I have a DC who is nearly 9 and I work 28 hours a week due to lack of childcare and get benefit top ups. I'll be able to go back full time when he's old enough not to need wrap around childcare, so probably secondary school age which isn't far off. I don't plan to stay reliant on tax credits until he's 18!

I couldn't give a shiny shit what anyone else thinks about the choices I made for my family. I really think this is the attitude everyone should take.
Stay at home if that works best for you, go to work if that works best for you.
Why spend time thinking about other people's lives ?

It’s very different. House wife often supports partners career by covering house/family related stuff. Partner often provides for family in high pressure job. It’s mutually supportive and not reliant or under pressure from the state.

I know, I was agreeing with you! 😉

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.
All parents who want the best for their DC are valuable regardless of how they work around things.

But those of us with two careers manage the household related stuff fairly effortlessly, what household admin are you doing that takes up so much time and effort? The rest of us fit this in around our full time jobs fairly easily.

Very easy for you to say that when you've never been in that position.

Single parents don't have the luxury of a mutually supportive partnership and they are expected to everything in your post on their own.

I think most of the difference that people see is that women on benefits often choose waster fathers for to have children with, to satisfy their maternal urges, safe in the knowledge that the taxpayer will pick up the tab. Those relationships often break down, unsurprisingly. Then there are women who are barely getting by on benefits, but have second, third sometimes fourth baby. All, in the knowledge that the taxpayer will take care of it. A SAHM funded only by her partner, although economically inactive, is relying on the person she is living with, not the taxpayer. Cue, umpteen replies saying how this is a generalization. Yes, it is, because we are not writing a research paper here. Simply discussing views.

I think you asking the question reveals a rather revolting stigma of people on benefits.

People on benefits are entitled to them. Some are unable to work, some need support to enable them to be employable/ find work, many people on benefits are actually IN work.

And regarding SAHM as ‘kept women’ is rather sexist. Men are not regarded as ‘kept’ because they do fuck all domestic or child rearing labor, are they? It’s just what women do that id regarded as valueless.

Your MIL is financially supported by someone who willingly agrees to this based on what they feel get get back ( i.e they are a team and work together). The agreement is also based on emotion ( love, affection and trust hopefully!, though sometimes also fear and control ) which helps to cement the agreement. The money earned by the wage earner is considered money for the family unit with other family members contributing other non financial things .

When someone claims benefit, this is also a sort of contract of trust . They are relying on money paid by others ( strangers) who pay tax on the understanding that if they ever need financial help in the future there will be money there to help them too

There is no emotion in the second contract apart from maybe some level of trust. It is a practical one but obviously some people might never need the money being collected so end up resenting paying for it and having others use it. The people paying aren't always willing as they might not see that they get anything back

So in some ways it's the same but it is also very different in very important ways.

Everyone should contribute to society in whatever way they're able.

Personally I think any long term SAHP who relies on their oh for all income (long term/no established career as back up) is nuts. Because if they fucked off, you'd be up the creek - and that's a much more vulnerable position than someone on UC who's already managing on that income.

Fgs, as if anyone in real
life has these 'conversations.' People just invent any old crap on here - "my sister said such and such, but I don't think that... oh noooo..."

Any thread with SAHM in the title takes off like wildfire. Watch this one go and the OP won't even need to come back now that she's lit the tinder box.

People who aren't SAHM and claim they have no wish to be so, need to ask themselves why they are so triggered by it as a concept.

Well MIL isn't 'employed' but surely that's the only similarity.

FIL and MIL are a family unit that support themselves without relying on benefits. It doesn't matter how they agree to split life's duties between them, I.e. finances, household chores, looking after kids etc.

The other important point to note is that the family unit will be paying taxes and effectively helping to fund those that are claiming benefits!

You do realize that there are people on benefits as they cannot work as the care full time for a relative? These people collectively save the state billions a year. They receive a pittance in benefits , whereas a 24 hour care package from the state would be £100,000 plus per year.

The ignorance around benefits and the profile of people receiving them is astounding.

This with bells on!

Oh, ffs. Every human being is reliant on other human beings to live the lives they lead. Your sister clearly has a problem with comprehension, whilst selfishly not living in the little self-reliant bubble she thinks she is. Tell her to fuck off to a deserted island and live the real life she thinks she is already living.

But claiming benefits is relying on the taxpayer for an income ... she sounds like an idiot.

Maybe you are new to AIBU and haven’t seen a thread a day on women complaining about being financially paralysed due to giving their jobs to look after children. Partner has all control on finances. She is trapped. Now finding it hard to get back to work. Etc, etc, etc. If that’s not enough to put a woman off from being a SAHM, then AIBU is lost on you.

I think your question on benefits vs family money is missing the point your sister is trying to make. It sounds like your sister’s been burned in the past or maybe someone close to her has and she would prefer to rely on the state than another person for money.

Each family can set themselves up how ever they like, so it’s not unreasonable of your sister to not want to be reliant on another person for money. It’s also not unreasonable for your MIL to have been a SAHM and not go back to work if that worked for her, FIL and their family. Your sister may imagine FIL giving out £50 a week housekeeping, but she has no idea if MIL has thousands in savings and access to all accounts so not need to skimp and save.

@HandScreen I'm full of admiration for parents who can successfully combine a career and parenting.

But what do you do when the nursery/childminder closes at 6 but you have a client meeting that finishes at 7 or later or a breakfast meeting that starts at 8am and you have a 90 minute commute to get there after doing the nursery drop off.

How do you manage twice a week evening networking events , client dinners , two day conferences , a week long conference in the states when your partner also has the exact same work commitments?

This was mine and DH's working life. It would have been impossible to be parents without a live in Nanny so I basically became the live in Nanny. We didn't even have the option to ask family to help as our parents were still all in full time work themselves.