Breadwinner ~ State V Husband

[CatharsisItIs]

Why is it that living from a husband (or partners) earnings, appears to be deemed more acceptable than living off of the 'state'? Generally

nearly every time there's a thread on here about a couple splitting up, one of the first questions is, 'what benefits can i get?' rather than 'what does he/she need to pay in maintenance?'

it's just expected for the state to pick up the lion's share of the fallout.

that is a rather grand sense of entitlement AND a huge shirking of personal responsibility on the part of many absent parents.

MIT: Get over yourself. I taught in rural Cornwall, so actually, being able to employ a 'good Nanny' was not in the equation, given the amount of kids on free school meals therefore poor; and finding a preschool could be challenging and out of the economic reach of many people. We don't all live in cities fgs, or have highly paid jobs. As for £200 to go to the Hairdressers or Harvey Nics; most of the mums of my students would have told me to get real! That was probably a third of their take home pay.

I didn't say that ALL kids were like that, as clearly some weren't; but those that were posed a problem in school. I didn't say either that kids aren't well-rounded, but some have few social skills because their parents aren't around to teach them. I can't comment on Swedish/Danish kids as I taught British kids.

The point I was trying to make is that I saw many cases of kids not being cared for, or left to their own devices because both their parents worked, so there was no-one at home for them. No-one knew what they got up to, or even where they were after school, which causes problems. I make no comment about them being single mums or not; many were in nuclear families, some in reconstituted families, and some single parent families. I also don't think it matters if the mother is 'knowledgeable' (I presume you mean with letters after her name) or not. One of the best Mums I've seen is one of my students who had her son at 13 (family abuse), came back to do her GCSEs, and now works as a cleaner at school so she doesn't claim benefits. Her lad is always clean, laughing and loved.

I feel it is a shame that many women feel forced to go back to work because they have to; because the government gives you more money in the form of WTC if you do, which creates a client state.

I have no problem with working mums, I went back to work when ds was 6 months old, on a part time basis, until he was 5, when I retrained as a teacher, and then worked full time. However, this meant long days at school for him, from 0750 to 1730, and latterly to 1830, so that I could work, whilst my dh worked abroad, and only got home once every six weeks. Now I don't work, our relationship is better; he likes me being there when he comes in, and getting my full and undivided attention, and my dh is happier too, as I am easier to live with. There is a trade off with mums working, and we have found that we function better as a family if I don't work.

Whilst the Armed Forces have us posted abroad, I am not going to go back to work, apart from examining GCSEs once a year to earn the fees for my MA.

And, before you say I am sponging off the state because the government pays my husbands' wages, I'd point out that he paid enough in tax last year to cover the net salary I received as a teacher just below the top of the pay scale.

Scary: I totally see your point re some kids, I just thought you were generalizing a bit too much and so did others on this thread.

I wasn't implying you had the same financial resources as I have so whatever works for you is fine.

Catharsis- you should do what is right for YOU. if you feel that you want to work, then maybe you should? Can you pay for child care for one day a week for example? Are you saying your conscience says you should work as you have more in benefits than you need?

I have always worked part time from when my youngest was a year old- I began lecturing in the evenings. I have not worked full time since my children were born because I knew that the work I did would leave me no time for my family- or to be a good mother when they came home from school. I also had absolutely no-one to look after them if they were ill - and I knew I would be very unpopular with my colleagues had I kept having time off for family reasons- it wasn't fair on anyone.

But you need to do what works for you. It is not necessarily easier once they get to school unless you can work school hours only and have school holidays free.

The only women I know who have made a real success of their careers post children have bags of help from their relatives, or fathers who are around working from home - or who earn enough to employ a full time nanny and have no qualms about out-sourcing child care.

I love SAH and yes live from DH wages. I don't care what people think. If I had been single I would have stayed home till they were at school or about 6-7 and then retrained or got a p/t job. My kids come first till they are grown up. I treid working f/t and it didn't work for any of us. Me being home saves money and allows DH to earn, we are both dependent on each other but so what? I have been studying for the last 3 years and hope to have a degree eventually; both for my own interest and also in case I want/need a career. If someone is on benefits to SAH with small kids, I am fine with that.

MIT - if people read what was written as opposed to reading into things, posting would be easier! Secondary teachers everywhere will tell you the same thing as I have. Where I taught money was a real problem for some, as they had farms and not a lot of income, and the jobs that many parents were qualified for are low paid. Add to this that as a teacher on about £28k per year, I was considered extremely well paid and you can see that Mums were forced back to work whether they wanted to or not to pay the bills. We have in Cornwall high Council Tax and I think the highest water bills in the UK; allied to jobs that are seasonal in nature, or agricultural and therefore not well paid.

The knock on effect of this is on the kids. Some of my tutor group who were 11/12 year olds were out til 2300 at night; some were drinking and hung over in the morning; some never got a proper meal unless I paid for their breakfast or lunch at school, as the free school meals didn't cover both. When you queried what their parents thought, the comment was, 'they're at work, and I'm out by the time they get back.'

People have to work I know that; I did to pay the school fees, but mine was only ever a second income as my husband is a well paid Naval Officer (but he would still have forty fits at £200 in the hairdressers; where on earth do you pay that? Come to Brussels, it's cheaper!), but it does have an effect on the kids, and not a positive one. You try dealing with hung over teens and pre teens, or ones who've had Red Bull for breakfast; or the ones who exist off cheap ready meals and take aways whose ability to learn is shot because of poor nutrition.

Two further points; ds now goes to an International School in Brussels, and the rudest kids are not the British ones by a long chalk; and secondly, the point about finances was to do with some of the parents of the students I taught, not about my own, which are very healthy thank you; hence not working.

Ooh scaryteacher I should love your opinion on which nationality children are the rudest

A Club Med nursery nurse once told me the British children at Club Med were by far the nicest.

scary: no need to be so defensive and go on and on about the disparity of wealth. I've obviously touched a sensitive spot when mentioning a random figure.

I haven't seen this side of English society from up close nor do I desire to. I would say there needs to be more out of order for a child to go off the rails like you describe than both parents out at work .

Either way, it doesn't concern me directly so I shall let you get on with it.

MT- I do think your post lacks sympathy and a certain amount of insight into lives obviously very different from your own.

I too have taught in secondary schools and can agree with everything ST says.

You are being very simplistic to say that two working parents=kids off the rails.

If you really think about what ST says, these kids come from poor homes- it is not the working that is the issue, but the poverty and lack of aspiration in the home overall. It is not just about money though- it is about TIME- these kids need their parents' time and a role model.

I do think your "I'll leave you to it"is very harsh and seems to say that you know nothing about that level of society, nor do you ever want to.

Maybe that is not how you meant it to come across, but it does.

I DO know where you can easily spend £200 or even £500 on a hair cut in London, but most people do not live that lifestyle, nor do they shop at Harvey Nicks. If you do, that's fine- but maybe you need to open your eyes to how the other 90% of the population survive.

MT: You raised the point about wealth with the comment about Harvey Nics and haircuts, and the comment about your perceived disparity in our financial resources.

Luckily for me, I've only worked with this side of British (not just an English problem) society, not lived it; but it does concern you directly because it affects all of us, and your dcs as well. These kids are the people who will be the taxpayers of tomorrow, or not if they don't achieve their GCSEs. If you don't have a private pension, then if these kids don't work, the money doesn't go into the system to pay for your retirement. If you want to use the NHS. then we need Drs and Nurses. We need nuclear scientists, engineers, teachers, accountants and bankers to keep the country going, and at the moment we are not going to have these.

If the parents do shift work, and are out of the house when the kids get home from school and are not back until late, then who is going to look after the kids, supervise their homework, cook them a decent meal? As girlnextdoor says, the kids need their parents' time and input, and if parents have to work to get the maximum out of the benefits (WFTC) system, then there is a major problem that is not being addressed by the current system.

I'm lucky, I've always been comfortable financially, ds has always been privately educated and I've got most of the things I want. You may have too, but that doesn't mean than we can conveniently forget there are lots of people who don't.