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?

But you think single parents should be able to manage it?

Single Mums have a hard time of it and we should give them more respect .Very few of them are at home FT now, and my DDs friend works PT and does all CC and HW .Another works nights .Some are unable to find work suitable around DC and thats fine .Since when did we need to attack one another ? Many women now work and with a supportive partner all fine .Often still pick up the Lions share of HW/Chores though! Benefits are supposed to catch the poorest in Society .Do we really want even more DC caught up in the poverty trap FFS!

@Waxonwaxoff0 off course not - how the hell could they? I'm not a benefits basher either!

@sst1234 - to be fair, there are more threads from parents upset about huge problems with childcare. Maybe you should be advising people not to have children, because they trap you into having inconvenient and onerous responsibilities and seriously limit your freedom, with or without partners who may or may not be trustworthy or supportive. Maybe just give up all activities that involve not being 100% self-centred, to be on the safe side, and never have a relationship with anyone.

Apologies, I think I got you confused with another poster!

Both are relying on someone else for income. I suppose in respect of a sahp, generally it is agreed that that person doesn’t work whereas lots of benefits (but not all eg disability benefits) don’t agree the person won’t work but in fact require them to look for work.

i don’t agree though that the difference is sahp “facilitate” other people to work. If people can’t work due to caring responsibilities, it’s no different being on benefits or living off the income of a partner. Lots of single mums on benefits are “facilitating” their ex to work too, for example. Just because he doesn’t fairly contribute to his children (in money or time) makes no difference.

I suppose the difference is choice.

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?

You find a job with work-life balance.
DP and I both work full time and have always been able to manage our calendars around childcare.

Both are financially dependent on others. Some willingly, some not willingly.

The comments on this thread from women just delighted with themselves for fully supporting their male ohs earning potential are depressing as fuck.

I always thought it was funny when well off sahms judged benefit clsimants and yakked about self reliance. Not once seeing the irony.

This 100%

@AngelsWithSilverWings I manage a very busy career in the city with being a single parent. When I was with ex we had a nanny. After that I had an au pair. I also lived on benefits for a period after I lost my job. It’s absolutely possible to work in any career with children. Difficult but possible.

I think it's important to bear in mind (as PP have said) that no mum is an island.

We all depend on others in society and that's especially true when we're caring for small children.

Someone has to look after the next generation and that takes time and limits your earning potential.

You might rely on a partner, or state benefits, or the school system or a subsidised nursery place.
You might rely on free childcare from relatives. Or you might rely on benefits indirectly, for example your childminder's income may be topped up by tax credits. (If childcare jobs paid enough to support a family without top up benefits, childcare would be even more unaffordable).

Having read the awful awful financial abuse threads on here, I think there's a strong argument that we should support mum's collectively via the state rather than leave them at the mercy of individual men.

I always thought it was funny when well off sahms judged benefit clsimants and yakked about self reliance. Not once seeing the irony this is demeaning to SAHM massively- for which I am not one so not bias. If you see most SAHM set ups the working parent prefers it, they don’t worry about anything house or child related and advance their career.

The difference is state money is the publics money, what a family unit do with their money is non of my business.

Totally agree! Single mums on benefits are seen on mn as idiotic drains on society whereas sahm are facilitating their dh important job (which he couldn’t possibly do without them).

i personally think we should all have a balance between work and parenting (including men). It’s beneficial for children (as a general rule) to see both parents. Also I think it’s good for people to spend at least some time working outside the home.

@girlmom21 I don't think it's always as easy as that. I've never had a job that was a simple 9-5 even when that's technically what the contracted hours were. To succeed in the industry we worked in (and DH still does ) you have to have a very flexible attitude to working hours.

The difference is state money is the publics money, what a family unit do with their money is non of my business.

Once you pay it to the state, it's not your money. Once the state pays it to a family, it's no longer the state's money.

There's very little difference between a person living off their spouses income and a person living on state benefits because, for whatever reason, they're not in a position to work.

If you're a SAHP you're not contributing via taxes or national insurance either.

I didn’t say I chose not to work. I chose not to seek EMPLOYMENT. My husband effectively paid me (I had and have always had full access to ALL money, restricted only by funds never by him) to take care of the household. If I did the same duties taking care of the household and children for someone I was unrelated to that would be more acceptable? If I hadn’t been around then DH would have had to pay a stranger to do those things. When we started our family he was a basic rate taxpayer but we budgeted and went without to facilitate our choices.

IF he’d left me penniless (anyone who knows him would laugh out loud at the idea) then yes I would do anything I could to provide for my family, subsidised by benefits if absolutely necessary. State benefits should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice. Whereas me being a SAHM / housewife and now working part time was and is a lifestyle choice made by DH and I together as a family unit.

The same as in the early years of our marriage when DH was not in paid employment and I was earning.

So, some jobs should be reserved for the childless, then?

I've worked in industries where it's impossible too - and left them and found employment elsewhere.

I'm not judging you for not working if that's what works for your family. I'm just saying it's doable but you have to make sacrifices.

So, some jobs should be reserved for the childless, then?

Nice big stretch on a Sunday morning

My MIL says the same about me.

Always referring to me as unemployed.

Shes even asked me what they job centre “say to me about it” a few times. Why would I have any contact with the fucking job centre?!

Its not the worst though. I’ve had far worse comments over the years of being a SAHP. Quite a lot from this forum.

(I always answer the old chestnut of what would I do if If dh ever left me with - I’d be fine. I’d go back to the minimum wage, shit work I was doing before that no one else wants to do, working the backbreaking 12 hour shifts or 24 hour live in shifts when it was his days with the children).

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...Just own it, if you're a SAHP, no need to invent financial contributions.

I don't really understand your comment @HandScreen. There's little or no need to outsource to childminders and cleaners (as you have described above) if there's a SAHP at home. That's the financial saving/financial contribution surely? The SAHP is doing work you would otherwise have to pay others to do.

We had times when I worked full time that work commitments clashed. When DS1's class was affected by industrial action, I had to collect DS from school at lunch time, and teach with him in my classroom, which frankly was an embarrasing disaster when he found he's got a willing audience of 14 year olds. We had childcare paid for 3:15 to 6pm but nothing to bridge 12pm to 3:15. We have no local family. Our local friends have their own work commitments. When I had work commitments beyond 6pm it was difficult to cover them if DH wasn't around. Some employees get more influence in their work commitments, some people actually do their jobs 9-5. I didn't have influence in mine, when DH's come up they're often short notice and based around multiple diaries and travel connections. "Sorry, my wife's got Open Evening" doesn't wash that well and they'll contract someone less flakey. TBH just the toll of childcare in a crowded 8am-5:55 pm 5 days a week was pretty crap for DS. Then there was a couple of hours of dinner/ bedtime, then it was back to work again, and possibly setting the alarm extra early to finish off before the DCs woke.

With no external support and only a fixed after school club avaliable, it was very difficult to give DS the time and environment he needs and put fair effort into the demands of our jobs. We didn't know at the time that DS has additional needs. He needs stability and quiet time to unwind. Every family has their own set of circumstances.

Could I pick up family-friendly part-time work? Probably, but why? We don't need me to, they're thin on the ground, other people do need it more than me. We live comfortably and our choices have zero impact on anyone else. We are aware of the toll on my pensions and have arrangements accordingly.

Ultimately we are happy with the choices that we've made in the circumstances we are in and they make bugger-all difference to anyone else. Most of my friends who have maintained their careers have family support that spreads the load a little and has a bit more flexibility. They also have neurotypical children.

I don't know why people find it so hard to comprehend that people have different circumstances and therefore make different choices, especially when those choices have no impact on them.

Not all jobs are the same. Not all families are the same. Seems pretty easy understand to me.

Never understood why people get so hot under the collar about SAHMs.
If your finances allow you to stay at home and not go out to work then good for you.

I know a few professional couples near me who both work fulltime and they hire a fulltime housekeeper (they have older children so nannying isn’t necessary but occasional school pick ups are). Housekeeper cleans, cooks all meals, does laundry, does household admin, walks the dog etc. Dinner is cooked from scratch every evening from locally bought produce. Running a house this way is definitely a full time job (and to be fair their houses are gorgeous).
But how is it that it’s ok to pay for a housekeeper in this way but if a mum (or dad) chooses to do this job, they’re seen as essentially unemployed? Seems wrong.

Precisely this. Currently pregnant with our first. DH and I purposely waited until our careers were in a place where we can call the shots on our work / life balance. There will be no 7pm meetings. Our time spent away from home for conferences, etc will not conflict. If dates clash, one of us won’t go. We are both senior, and well established, enough to make these decisions.

There was no way I was giving up my hard earned career to have a baby, and DH felt the same. There was also no way that I would be ‘frazzled’ by conflicting work schedules.