DH pressuring me to find a job

"He’s suggested low stress low skill jobs" - since when jobs in retail, waitress or receptionist are low stress jobs? 🤣🤣🤣

Jobs in retail or restaurants require a person to be physically fit, because it's all day running around. Second is a lot of stress, one crazy client every day is a lot to handle! And trust me, there will always be that one person a day.

The receptionist job is nearly the same - a lot to handle emotionally because people tend to be more rude over the phone than in person. Also, it depends where you work, a lot of work places require the receptionists to stand 8-10hr a day, they can't sit on the chair. I'm not sure why so many places require it, but that's how it is.

I think a lot hinges on who is driving the decision for one partner to become a SAHP, who primarily benefits from that etc.

In some cases, it will genuinely be a joint decision that benefits the family as a whole. For example, if one partner has limited skills/qualifications and very low earning potential, then the overall household income might be lower if they have to pay out for childcare costs than it would be if that lower earner became a SAHP. Similarly, if the couple have dc with disabilities or significant additional needs, the couple might conclude that it isn't feasible for both of them to hold down a regular job, so one parent might agree to sacrifice their career for the sake of the family as a whole. And in some cases, it may just be a lifestyle preference shared by both partners who decide that they are happier to live on a lower income because this enables them to simplify their lives, reduce workloads etc.

In other cases, the decision to have a SAHP is driven primarily by one person, typically the SAHP, and the set-up is accepted (or in some cases, just about tolerated!) by the WOHP, rather than being actively wanted or needed. I know quite a lot of families like this, but I don't know any where the decision to have a SAHP has been driven primarily by the WOHP.

I must say the majority of WOHPs that I know would prefer not to be the sole breadwinner and to carry the huge pressure that that brings. For all that it might be mildly appealing to have all of the domestic chores taken care of for you, most people don't live in mansions these days and there is only so much housework that actually needs to be done, so sharing it between two WOHPs isn't really that big a deal. And even less so with all of the modern technology that is available, not to mention the ease of getting a cleaner in for a couple of hours each week if you feel the need. Also, contrary to what some might think, I find that most people - men and women- do actually want to be involved in raising their kids, rather than outsourcing it all to their spouse/partner. As the main breadwinner in our family, I'd have really hated DH to be a SAHP. We did it for a short while after moving house, and while he certainly worked hard to make things "fair", we both recognised that he had the much easier the if the of the deal. Thankfully, he hated it as much as I did because he missed the social interaction of work, and the intellectual stimulation, so that phase didn't last!!

I guess what I'm saying, ultimately, is that what's fair in terms of a SAHP returning to work depends partly on how the decision for them to stop work was arrived at in the first place. If it was genuinely a mutual decision, then I agree that there needs to be mutual agreement and negotiation about the timescales and manner in which the SAHP should return. If the decision was driven primarily by the SAHP, with the WOHP having agreed to facilitate the SAHP's choices but not actively wanting the arrangement, then I think it's totally fair enough for the WOHP to say that they don't want to facilitate that set-up any more.

And of course, the WOHP cannot expect the SAHP to return to FT work and carry on doing all of the domestic stuff. That would clearly be unfair. However, there might be some circumstances in which a SAHP returns to work on a very PT basis, with the kids in school all day, leaving them plenty of time still in the working day to carry on doing most of the domestic stuff. Context is everything here, but as a general rule, I think it's reasonable to expect that both partners should have a comparable amount of leisure time.

Some SAHMs do make the choice in isolation though. I've known a few people over the years agreed they would go back to work after mat leave yet then decide they don't want to. And therefore the " joint" decision that was made was changed by one person. Who then expects the other to support her.

Which I feel is bang out of order and the man is shoved into a corner. Either financially support her( often needing to work extra hours to do so )or leave her and pay up and not see his kids much

It's a reasonable decision - the alternative for many women is working double shifts (work and domestic) while the man 'helps' occasionally and grows his career.

And as we see on here so often the false financial formula is that childcare costs come out of the woman's salary - though why the fuck since they are shared costs - and therefore 'it doesn't make sense the woman working for £100 a week.'

That sleight of hand, which works in men's favour overall ofc, is a really good example of misogyny which is just 'the air that we breathe' and actually really hard to see at all when you're in the thick of it.

It is something that should definitely be considered more long term rather than short term.

Women need to take some responsibility though. Not all of it because I agree with pp that the decision isn’t made in isolation but women are far from helpless and unable to think about long term issues.

I've been there - where so much of my salary went on childcare (in theory; we split the bills proportionately) that it was barely worth my while working. I chose to continue to work FT, and now that I am contemplating retirement in some form, I am so glad I did!

Most women are not on the right Mumsnet boards at this critical point and did not understand what the price to pay for being out of the workplace was until it was too late.

Really, you don’t think he’s at fault at all? The man who has stipulated to his wife that if she works outside of the home she will still be responsible for all the housework? You don’t see how OP may have thought about the stress of it and decided to stay as she is?

SAHMs don’t make the choice to be a SAHM in isolation.

Couples will often compare the cost of childcare and the woman’s income if she is the lower earner and decide to sacrifice the woman’s career progression and pension.

Just look at the threads where women say it’s barely worth working because ‘their salary just goes on childcare’.

Lets not pretend that SAHM’s are generally forced into it though. They want to be SAHM’s and want to take the risk of 9+ years (or however many years) outside of the workplace.

I don’t agree with OP’s DH thinking that OP should work and also continue to do everything at home but it also isn’t his fault that OP wanted to be a SAHM either.

Ah, that makes more sense. There is a running theme on your posts; he wants you to get a minimum wage job so you do. He doesn't want to spend money on re-training so you don't. He doesn't want to travel with kids so you don't... Your problem isn't getting a job, it's that your husband is a selfish prick.

Yeah "looking after the kids" and "sat back on her bum" are incompatible. Pick one or the other. I hate how women throw other women under the bus like this. A man spends his effort on his own career, wellbeing, future, using his financial power over his wife to make her into nothing but his fulltime nanny/housekeeper, and then turns around and complains that he's fed up with her because she didn't manage to advance her career while he was sucking every drop of lifeblood out of her.

The sums don't add up. She says they are 'frugal', but to not be able to afford a holiday once a year - on a lawyer's salary? Very hard to believe.

Ive been back at work 6 years after being a SAHM, never had to miss a single day of my part-time job for sickness. I guess ive been lucky that they must have either got ill on days im home. I think they miss 1-2 days of school a year for illness at most.

I dont think a Mum should not return to work on the chance her kids might need a few days off school a year. Employers are generally very understanding of that with 80% of women working in the UK. Plenty of jobs are also either WFH or hybrid (so she could WFH on days her children are ill). The DH may also be able to WFH to cover child sickness aswell.

A couple both working would divide annual leave between them to cover as much of the school holidays as possible. Thats completely normal and what we do. The rest of the time they would use holiday clubs (plenty on offer where I live so I can only imagine there must be large choice in London).

This is a ridiculous stance. The view that looking after children involves simply sitting on your bum is obviously very silly.

I looked into this option and the cost of childcare was a considerable chunk of earnings. I think if you have a OH that is unable to support child sickness it is also a factor.

Work from home is another option. You may still have to work with your child at home at times which isn't ideal. Dependent on your skills you can find work from home options online.

The cost of childcare in school holidays is astronomical where I live. That's another factor to consider.

Her children haven’t been at school for 9 years. She has been at home having kids/looking after kids for that time and now the youngest is about to start reception in Sept I guess.

At least one of the kids is in school! She’s been at home 9 years!

She even said that once she got her degree she worked here and there and stopped when having babies. That’s stopped not planned to return. Working here and there either means she budgeted to not work when she pleased or he bankrolled her. So it doesn’t look like she has a great work ethic.

I don’t deny she should have choices and say in her future career plans, divisions of housework and childcare but from how i see it she’s sat back, supported her DH but been very happy not to work until he asked her to. I’ve got friends who say the same it’s easier not to work but their DH holds the purse strings so a few have returned to work simply so they have their own money as some DH (contrary to what MN says they should do) are quite controlling with money (though lots do have a budget to go out with DC etc) if they do stay home.

Her youngest isn’t in reception yet.

To be fair, his salary covers her salary as a SAHM/W but if he’s earning as much as she says I am surprised as to what he’s doing with it. Depending on the area of law he’s in he could be on as much as £150-£200K if not more and that’s even in house but it doesn’t come without stresses and as far as I’m aware a few wfh but a lot are back in the office and no family friendly working hours, or very little.

Young children is very different to school age children especially if you have ledgers, shopping delivered etc.

She has been a SAHM for 9 years whilst her DC have been at school, she doesn’t say if they had cleaners, my friends once their DC started school complained that they had nothing to do (they had cleaners and shopping delivered) they also said it was much easier being at home than working.

Yes that’s what I’ve been saying. He’s not willing to pull his weight. He’s said this. So where does that leave her?