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?

Not really. Your posts very much gave the impression you think everyone can get employment that fits around childcare responsibilities if they want to, as though this is a genuine choice for everyone. I was just questioning your apparent smugness .

@Villagewaspbyke I take my hat off to you and I genuinely mean that. I worked for 20 years in the city and it can be brutal to women and parents.

I saw some bosses deliberately single out working Mums for the worse and most inconvenient time slots for performance review meetings while taking the male employees to he wine bar at lunchtime for theirs!

I'd like to think I'd have found a way to manage that balance if I had to but I'm not sure I'd have had it in me.

I don’t see how being a SAHM/P with babies/small children, can ever be called ‘unemployed’. If that SAHM/P wasn’t doing it, they’d have to be shelling out ££££ to a childminder or even more to a nursery.
They are not in ‘paid employment’ but that’s a different matter.

As for couples with one working and one SAHP, self funded, if they can afford it and are happy with it, it’s nobody else’s business, and IMO nobody should be passing judgement.

@Walkaround there's no smugness. The poster I had responded to said both she and her DH had jobs with excessive demands time-wise. When you start discussing children you discuss childcare and how that would work with your careers. Of course people can find jobs to work around children - if they want to. If your career is your priority, that's fine too. But the options aren't just either stay in a demanding job forever and don't have children or one of you quit work. There are lots of options available.

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 careers

this is not a good thing.

You do realize not everyone has a spare room to put an su pair in? You genuinely seem to be presenting an au pair as ‘the poor person’s choice’.

The blindness to other people’s reality is truly staggering.

It is possible to work and not pay for childcare

Most people on benefits work to some degree, so not the same.

IMO being a SAHP/housewife is the same as being on benefits.

They’re both unemployed for various reasons and rely on someone else for money.

If you’re a parent you’re a parent whether you work or stay at home.

Society looks down their nose at people who don’t work and claim benefits but IME it’s the couples who have one staying at home who claim more benefits than those who are on job seekers or income support.
Their household also contributes less tax etc over all than 2 people working FT.

I don’t think anyone should look down their nose at SAHP or those on benefits though as everyone has their own reasons for needing to do so.

@girlmom21 - yes, lots of options, and up to the family unit to pick the one that works best for their circumstances. You still sound phenomenally smug with your reference to “people” (which implies all people - which would require 100% of parents to be capable of finding paid work that fits around childcare responsibilities when we know the reality is that there are not as many genuinely childcare friendly jobs out there as there are people wanting them).

It's completely different. Your partner gainfully earning a living and paying for things for their spouse in a family agreement is completely different to you deciding that strangers tax payers money is yours to live off.

when my kids were babies/toddlers is was a SAHM. We also lived in a different country where it would have actually been quite difficult for me to work. I don’t see it the same as claiming benefits at all, I was contributing to the household in many other ways. If I was able to work we would if had to hire a live in nanny, cleaner and driver. I have at another stage in my life been on benefits due to being made redundant, during this time I was actively looking work, which felt like a full time job in its self.

There is nothing wrong with optimising your tax income by using benefits over having a partner within the law companies do it so should families so no judgement of the people involved.

However I would make the benefit system less generous and change the rules to encourage this to not be the case to rely on benefits. Benefits are paid by tax and currently the tax take on the higher earners are massive. I am on the cusp of taking my six figure salary (and doubling it at least) and moving to Texas where tax is much lover because the system simply won't support that level of benefit claiming.

You're reading things that aren't there. It sounds like you have a massive chip on your shoulder. My posts have clearly offended you somehow - that was never the intention. They're not a personal attack on anyone.

And 'people' doesn't mean 100% of everyone at all...

It's the government that decides how taxpayer money is spent, not individuals. If you take issue with that, put the blame where it belongs.

I don't think anyone should be a SAHM forever it's too risky unless a man is VERY VERY wealthy you will have to work at some point if you divorce. They don't do lifetime spousal support anymore.

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

Exactly this.

Families are in different financial situations - obviously. The more wealthy the family unit, the more choice it affords. For some, this will be the choice to have a SAHP. It's as simple as that. The SAHMs I know (which is a lot) are not financially vulnerable - in fact they're probably some of the least 'financially vulnerable' women in the U.K.

Some of the husbands don't 'work' really that much these days either. Maybe they dabble in investments and pick and choose what they take on. They are semi-retired at 45/50. I guess they're also 'unemployed' now then?

In either case, do you think these families give a flying hoot about some women on MN wrangling over who is unemployed and who is this and who is that?

Their lives snd the choices they make as a family unit are a world away from people who have no choice but to claim benefits - or who are eligible for benefits.

What a nonsense thread.

Would you also make childcare more affordable and accessible? As that is a big reason why many rely on benefits.

If that SAHM/P wasn’t doing it, they’d have to be shelling out ££££ to a childminder or even more to a nursery.

I never understand this argument.

The only way two parent families will need to pay childcare is if they’re both working the same hours.

Getting a job with unsociable hours for a couple of years is easily doable.

Then once the child is in school you only have to pay for wrap around care if needed, which the majority of parents do anyway.

@girlmom21 - The word some means not 100%. You didn’t use that option. No, I don’t have a chip on my shoulder, I just have a problem with people using their specific circumstances as a general lesson for others.

@girlmom21 I'm the poster you referred to. The time lapse between us discussing having children and finally getting them was ten years. During the ten years of TTC before adopting our DC our jobs went from normal office 9-5 with little responsibility to senior management level with all the issues I detailed up thread.

Our childcare arrangements would have been very different had I successfully conceived 10 years earlier and I would no doubt have stayed in my low responsibility 9-5 position while raising my DC.

I'm sorry you have poor comprehension skills. If I'd have meant all people I'd have said 'all people'.

It’s very different. House wife (stay at home partner) 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.

Exactly. Two people choose to form a partnership where both partners benefit!

One partner focuses on his/her career, the other focuses on running the household and childcare.

They both benefit!

Relying on the tax payer to pay for you is not the same as relying on your husband who you love and whose pants you wash and meals you cook. He probably relies just as much on you to do the day to day running of things so he doesn't have to think about any of it.
Not taking anything away from benefits though, they are a vital safety net that I would never want there not to be.

A SAHM to early years pre school children is basically a nutty full-time plus job with only the tiny child benefit as 'pay'! Think of what you'd actually have to pay someone to do it for you.

I try to view DH earnings as for both of us, which law / marriage states anyway - I provide free childcare which helps our overall finances. SAHMs can hold their head up high but people only 'get it' when they have been there themselves.

Housewives? I don't know. Without kids it's not really a full time job is it? I'd class them as seperate. But if thry have older kids I bet there's still a lot of running around after them, looking after the household things, my wealthy SIL manages to keep a full time live in nanny busy with her two teenagers.