To think single mothers are judged harshly because deep down society still thinks kids need fathers more than mothers admit?

[ByFirmTealViewer]

The way single mums get talked about is brutal. AIBU to think it’s because people still believe kids fundamentally need fathers, even if no one says it out loud?

They don’t get sex then, in that case, surely?

It isn't great - that is why it is baffling that no govt has ever actually tried to close the massive loopholes that enable men to get away with not paying a penny in child support and then wonder why so much of the welfare budget is apparently spent on "women" rather than the messes of men.

And the women who presumably have sex with said men?

I judge men far more harshly. The bar is so low for men as it is. I assume a lot of single mothers were strong enough to leave abusive or useless men. Men then seem to bang on about the pathetic amount of money the pay towards the upkeep of their children and swan in occasionally to have their children under the pretence they are great dads. Single mothers do it all and should not be judged at all.

I did not say you did. I merely noticed that point was not picked up in the post so I asked. The previous poster said Single dad however equals hero of the century, saviour of the western world, poor hard done by lovely bloke who's evil feckless missus has abandoned him and their defenceless children for absolutely no reason. 🤬

I am glad we can agree. I think we need to make sure children are supported as much as possible.

Oh I see. Apologies. We definitely agree there 🙂

Laughing at the idea women get a say at this point... We have had to pass laws to show this is rape, because men do this so often. Wake up!

Nah

Single mothers are judged harshly because of misogyny.

Also the more judgment single mothers receive the fewer useless male partners will be left.

(I do acknowledge there are women who put ZERO thought into who they procreate with.)

Sadly, I think it's because (in the past, at least) single mothers were judged to be lacking in morals but the men who made them pregnant and scarpered, were not. They were 'sewing their wild oats'.

Many women do get a say. I have known many a woman say they don’t use condoms because “he does not like them”.

Like it never occurs to them to refuse to have sex without a condom or leave him.

@jonthebatiste

But as for judging them: if I judge anything it's any person's inability to form lasting relationships. Children don't come into it, doesn't matter if male or female. I admit I think there must be something wrong with this person that they can't make a relationship stick.

That seems weird to me. Surely children are the only reason for staying in long term relationships?

I accept that children need stability in their household and for their carers not to be fighting with one another so I can absolutely see the logic of remaining married to someone even if the relationship has deteriorated. But putting children aside, why would you think "there must be something wrong" with someone for not being able to have long-lasting relationships?

I don't think there's anything intrinsically defective about someone not wanting to make a relationship work. I don't think very long romantic relationships between humans are very natural. Men and women are biologically oriented to couple for as long as they can conceive and have children, and then morally, socially and legally leant on to remain together while those children are being raised (with some justification). Beyond a lifespan of about five to ten years I think very few couples would naturally stay together if it weren't for children or finances.

But why would you think less of someone who made a decision to leave a relationship which they weren't enjoying (unless children were involved)? Surely deciding something no longer serves you and allowing yourself to move forwards is healthier than doggedly soldiering on with something just to demonstrate you can have a long relationship?

That is your take on it? The woman is at fault?

Did they not try that a while back with some government agency? The CMS, maybe. The fathers were difficult/feckless/unemployed/slippery and I don't think the agency was effective. Have I mis-remembered?

@jonthebatiste

But as for judging them: if I judge anything it's any person's inability to form lasting relationships. Children don't come into it, doesn't matter if male or female. I admit I think there must be something wrong with this person that they can't make a relationship stick.

You don’t “make relationships stick”. You are either compatible or not and finding a
compatible partner is down luck.

And sometimes relationships come to a natural end. Nothing “wrong” with people when that happens.

Could it not be argued that these loopholes work in favour of women as well though?

They enable men to get away with not paying a penny in child support, sure. But then the welfare state is tasked with providing for these children instead. So someone picks up the tab, regardless. The children don’t starve.

A woman can kick the man to the curb and decide to go it alone, if she so chooses - but the taxpayer is substituting for the income he would otherwise be providing. A woman can choose to do that, if she wishes. Should she want the child, and not the man, she can do this. She’s still dependent, just on the taxpayer, but government income can sometimes be more reliable. Loopholes can be exploited by both men and women for different reasons.

Yes, every few years they try then they realise that if they want to tackle feckless fathers it impinges on cash in hand trades that might be problematic for a lot of connected things that makes it to hard to sort out. If they did they may magically see more tax being paid and less human trafficking, but hey, as long as someone doesn't have to pay as much tax on their renovation work...

Quite. I don't want to live in a world where "making a relationship stick" takes priority over mine and my children's happiness, thanks.

Do women ever have any agency in the lives, or any responsibility?

Of course a woman can decide whether she lets a man impregnate her, and insist he wears a condom.

I think a woman needs to realise that if a man does not want to wear condoms she has more choices than simply shrugging and having unprotected sex.

I am not sure where your comments about “fault” come into that. I believe women are adults and we have agency (I am NOT talking about sexual assault.)

I'm going to take from this you have never been alone in a bedroom with a man who expects sex.

So what are you supposed to do when you’re in a bedroom with a man who wants sex and won’t let you leave until he gets what he wants? One who holds you down and has sex with you against your will?

how good do you think the chances are that if you report his rape to the police he will be convicted?

I have. I have also been with men who don’t like wearing condoms.

They either wear them or we don’t have sex
(and only ONCE have I been stealthed).

I don’t understand why your starting position is to give up your agency?

Can we ditch the stereotypes, please?

I am a higher rate tax payer to the extent that I don’t qualify for child benefit so I am not sure how I am dependent on the tax payer any more than couples with DC are? Probably less so than couples with DC who pay less tax than me.

I will also add that I have no issue whatsoever with my taxes going on people who need support.

Also, most single parents work. So are we judging couple parents who have their income topped up in some way by benefits, or just single mothers?

Single mothers are judged more harshly because their children are a greater drain on the state in general than coupled up mothers. And people resent paying taxes for other people's expensive choices. NASMALT.

Read the last sentence again.