Anyone feel stigmatised about being a SAH single mother?

[hammerhead]

Just wondering if anyone else feels stigmatised about being a SAH mum on income support? DS is preschool and a lot of people seem surprised I don't have a job. I get the impression they think I'm on jobseekers and actively avoiding employent. I'll be quite happy to work when DS is in school but want to stay at home when he is still little. I worked before DS was born and have paid a lot of tax over the years, but some people still make out like I'm a scrounging chancer.

The bottom line is that there are no jobs for people who aren't single parents, let alone the single parents...so it's just as well that they can stay at home and look after their children.

There is no bottom line, no underlying way you can label everyone as this or as that. It just pisses me off when peoples opinions are based upon nothing but their own ignorance. While the innocence of ignorance in itself is not objectional, opinions and views based upon ignorance is the kindling of discrimination and hate.

If you really want to form an opinion on a subject how about bloody listening to people who know something about it, instead of simply perpetually stating your current views that are formed from a position of simply reaffirming the views of other individuals who are also as ignorant on this subject as yourself.

It really does sound like some people would like to see a return of workhouses/poorhouses/concentration camps for people who they judge to be the socially inferrior parasites of society. Sorry in advance, but you might be able to tell I'm getting a little annoyed

whiteandnerdy, I actually know a fair bit about benefits claimants and getting them back into work. My opinion is not based on what I read in the daily mail, but based on working in employment and training for a long time, being a foster carer and having attended countless training courses on social exclusion etc, and I am also degree educated in a relevant subject. Just because I have been critical doesn't mean that I am some sort of ignorant buffoon.

I do think that the complicated nature of the benefit system doesn't help. I am going back to work and have spent a lot of time filling forms and making phone calls to make sure my tax credits and housing benefit were correct both on maternity leave and when I work as I was worried
About being overpaid then having to pay it back. It's hard to work out how working different hours will affect your finances. I am used to filling forms and researching things online at work, so it must be worse for people who don't have this experience.

I am not saying either side of this argument is correct but I do think the whole system could be made more accessible.

Cracking post, Annie. I totally agree.

'Why are you ok with 'paying tax' for missiles and royal weddings but not for people, who have mostly had horrible times with relationships and a lot of us are also depressed and would probably be declared unfit to work anyway after abusive exes etc, to look after their children? That seems to me like pure evil, actually, to be ok with taxes going on the former but not the latter. I think single mothers who stay home and look after their children until the child is 3 at least are heroic, brilliant and should be thanked and respected by society in general, actually. Just as married/coupled parents who do this should be, but allowing that single parents have a lot harder time of it so it is much braver and more brilliant that they manage it.'
WibblyBibble fantastic post.

Happymumofone, of ONE, you have no clue. I didn't even say I lived in the UK. It's the principle though. INs and out may differ slightly in my country but it's the same thing, mothers of one child, probably married and/or in a relationship (which is a financial team ) telling me to get off my arse! The ffukcngi cheek of you. I have volunteered in two different organisations. sitting on my arse indeed.

wibblywobbly, thank you for that post. It is good to know there are people who get it.

eh is that directed at me wallisSimpson. I'm studying social studies. Which actually COSTS the government more. So I don't know whether you hate me more or less now. And if you think I have time to iron or clean other people's houses after minding my own two kids, volunteering in two different places, going to classes, doing assignments, doing my own cleaning and cooking and shopping.............. I don't know what planet you're on.

Bandwithering You should hold your head up high. I highly admire you for doing all that. I certainly don't think you should be doing other's cleaning on top of your own! I have given up expecting people to know how it feels in a situation they haven't been in (not as a lone parent but in other things). I just nod and deep down forgive their ignorance. You are doing right for your kids at this point in time. We all are. If someone SAYS they would do it differently, it's really just a wild guess as they don't know your full situation and haven't lived it. judging you makes them feel better. If they haven't choices then they don't want you to have it even though in many cases 2 parent families have much more choices. Good luck in your studies

"I also think that staying at home is a luxury, not a right. It's a thing borne of Western privilege and a relatively new invention."

SAHM was the norm. During WWII women had to work because men went to fight and that's when working women & childcare became the norm. So it was borne on the backs of 60 million dead, not privilege.

"They [children] really do not need undivided care an attention from a parent for their first few years.

...nor for their entire lives. Lest they prevent one from earning.

Just so I understand those being critical of SAH single parents, despite the fact that children do need someone to do that care work.

Working to do the day to day care of your own children and domestic work with government support equals bad/undeserved right/ luxury etc.

Working to do day to day care and/or domestic work of someone else's children/ house, probably on min. wage and with support from govt (prob. More) via WTC to pay for childcare is good.

...or have I missed something?

kissingfrogs - SAHMs have only come about since around Victorian times, and even then only the rich. Working class mothers have always, well, worked.

And I don't understand the second part of your post.

Quite Annie and even then, wealthy women didn't work. They managed houses and staff.

Certainly, mothers devoting all their time and energy to their children, as opposed to running a household, sewing all the clothes, cooking, baking, doing laundry by hand, walking miles to the shops etc is a very new invention, the last 30 years or so. I'm not at all convinced it's a good thing. I can't see how children believing that they are the centre of the universe can turn out well.

I agree with you wholeheartedly!

'- SAHMs have only come about since around Victorian times, and even then only the rich.'
But you could say many things such as immunisations, welfare policies & social housing have only just come about in relatively recent times. Doesn't mean we should want to get rid of them or act like they are bad things. We should eb glad we have them. Just because they haven't been around for ever doesn't make them just a throwaway thing.

'Certainly, mothers devoting all their time and energy to their children, as opposed to running a household, sewing all the clothes, cooking, baking, doing laundry by hand, walking miles to the shops etc is a very new invention, the last 30 years or so. I'm not at all convinced it's a good thing. I can't see how children believing that they are the centre of the universe can turn out well.'

I was the same kind of parent when I worked as when I SAH. Are you implying that only children of SAHM's will believe they are centre of the universe? Are you saying it is a better thing to pay someone else to be with your child most of the day?

One of the mums at school showers her son with material items and she works (I believe she would probably be the same if she SAH). I would say that that kind of 'child as centre of the universe' is worse than a child knowing it's parent has given up their career for a number of years to run the household/rasie kids.

Just my opinion, jellybeans, but I think doing nothing but looking after your own child is self-indulgent, no matter who is doing it. If you can afford it, fine, your responsibility, your choice. I have no problem with it. But if you can't afford it, why should you get to do it?

To be fair, the OP may have a whole raft of things she does to help her community that she isn't sharing here... running a toddler group, working as a breastfeeding counsellor, organising the village fete etc etc. There are plenty of things you can do to contribute to your community and society without having a paid job. But I honestly think that people who do nothing but look after their own children are self-indulgent and privileged.

'But I honestly think that people who do nothing but look after their own children are self-indulgent and privileged.'

Annie, you may feel that but surely you wouldn't want to take that choice away from others who are in that position? I feel i wouldn't want to be a f/t WM at this point in time, but I am glad that choice is there for those who want it.

WHY is it OK if me and a neighbour decided to care for each other's kids? Would that be OK as it isn't our own kids? What about mums who go back to p/t and don't earn enough to pay tax? What about grandparents who look after their grandkids and nothing else, are they self indulgent? I don't understand why only a parent looking after their own child is so slated but NOT someone caring for another child (doing exactly the same things physically)? It can't just be about money; some parents don't earn enough to pay tax, some people get more in benefits than if they SAH, grandparents don't get paid and may have indeed given up their jobs in able to care for GC.

If you and your neighbour look after each others' kids to enable you to work, fantastic. Otherwise it's silly. Grandparents who have retired and look after g-children, lovely. If they give up a job to do so, well, it's not something I would do but their choice.

It's about contributing to society and your community. Nannies, while not doing much apart from looking after children, are enabling someone else to go out to work and tax is being paid.

This isn't just about single parents and SAHMs. I don't believe that anyone who is physically capable of doing some kind of work, paid or voluntary, should get to just not be a productive member of society unless they can afford to support themselves. I include anyone on benefits unless they have a disability or are a carer. Even if it's just a few hours a week voluntary work, do something to make the world around you better. Looking after your own children does not qualify imo, because millions of people manage to do both that and volunteer/work.

'Nannies, while not doing much apart from looking after children, are enabling someone else to go out to work and tax is being paid.'

But what if they don't earn enough to pay tax or they are getting more tax credits than before they worked?

'It's about contributing to society and your community'
I have a little one now but when my 4 older DC were all at school, I was one of the mums always helping in school and on trips etc. They soon cotton on to the ones who are likely to be able to help on trips etc! I was in at least once a week usually! Not to mention being around for my grandmother etc. etc. There is alot more to being a good society member than 'working' for pay. With the lack of jobs etc, you could argue that if DH and I can manage on one wage it would be best to let someone else who needs it have a job. I also was told by a financial expert that relying on two wages is the worst thing you can do. Of course if you could manage to run a household on one of the two wages then that is different.

If you read my posts properly, jellybean, you will see that I did say that non-paid work such as you describe is just as valuable as paid work.

And people who can afford nannies are not usually getting tax credits.

And I'm not talking about SAHMs. I'm talking about people, anyone, on benefits, who does nothing for their community.

I don't see basic Child Tax Credits as benefits; they are simply a recognition of the cost of bringing up the next generation. In the past, there was a tax allowance for each child, which meant you paid less tax if you had a family. Now it is paid directly to the main carer, whether they are earning or not, and if I remember correctly it will no longer be paid to people on higher rate tax, which I seem to recall a lot of MNetters were very upset about.