DH pressuring me to find a job

I don't find it that strange.

We don't know what the OP means by well paid - could be anything from 70k upwards.

We also don't know how old he is and therefore how long he has been earning

If it's around £100k, and he hasn't been earning that all the way through, and is say 35 I don't find it hard to believe there isn't lots of money for luxuries.

He would pay a lot of tax and potentially also had student loans
Saving up for a flat deposit could have taken a while
Probably has a big mortgage even though it's a flat
Likely saving for retirement - esp with a wife who doesn't work - and for the kids

I'm not sure why it's such a race to the bottom here. No-one gets a trophy for live being extra stressful.

Yes, she could go back P/T to a minimum wage job. This would add a relatively small amount to the family budget which would pay for some luxuries. The price for this is increased stress for both of them, more juggling and less flexibility.

Or they have the current 'luxury' of him not using to worry about drop offs, school holidays, child sickness. He doesn't need to leave the office early to make pick up and then cook a family dinner before working till midnight to make up for the time he's lost. The house will be tidier, and everyone will be a lot less stressed. The luxury of an unstressed household may be with more than holidays in the short term.

What he can't have is both, and I'm not sure he realises that yet. He can't continue on with his unimpeded lifestyle and have the extra income.

I'm not saying that the OP should be a SAHM, I'm saying there's no point going back unless it's what she wants or worth it for the family.

It's pointless her taking on a low-wage part-time job if they then need to get a cleaner, childminder etc to keep the household afloat. It sounds as if her husband expects her to carry on as a full-time mum AND work a low wage (but NOT 'low stress' despite what some posters who've clearly never worked in retail/hospitality seem to think) job. In which case, he can either pull his weight and start doing half the school pick-ups, cleaning and childcare himself (unlikely because of his Important Job) or forget the idea of his wife going back to work. It sounds almost like he's just being controlling for the sake of it. It would make more sense if he helped her retrain for a decent well-paid job to rival his own.

Yes maybe. Though if they’re struggling for holidays and live in a flat I’d assume private education not a priority. And this would have been a key bit of info!

DCs could be in private education, that would eat up a lot each year.

You would be right if it wasn't for the fact that taking care of small kids with no help is certainly not "sitting on your bum" and because this is an arrangement that they both agreed on as they are partners.

So why now should he be allowed to dictate to her whether she should get a job, which job should she get and solely deciding whether to pay for additional training? That's not what a partnership should look like.

Do you have access to the family finances OP? Do you have a joint account?

Well, the money's going somewhere - he's had lots of promotions, but they still can't afford a holiday once a year on a hot-shot lawyer's salary. Curiouser and curiouser.

Let's be real, he's probably stashing the money away in case of divorce

If you have have a degree , there is absolutely no reason why you cannot progress in your career . Just make sure he understands the burden of the housework and childcare will have to be shared too .

We do wonder how a London lawyer getting promotion after promotion with a small mortgage on a flat and zero childcare costs (and a wife who is clearly being frugal) can’t even afford one holiday in nine years..

Where does the money go??

‘Sat on your bum’ and ‘looking after young children’ do not belong in the same sentence and you know it!

I sat on my bum more in an office drinking tea at work than I did looking after 2 small children (and the rest).

@Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain , glad to see that you think being a SAHM is "sitting on your bum". I must have been doing it wrongly.

Those asking why OP needs to go back to work if they don’t need the money.

They DO need the money though! Op said they have no luxuries and no holidays. So they do need the money.

Living with no treats year on year is no fun. If there’s no way of getting them, that’s one thing but they do have a way of getting them - op to get some kind of job!

Oh come on. She’s said she’s got a career but worked on and off. Yes she’s helped her DH advance his career but for 9 years she’s sat back on her bum looking after the kids and not tried to study or even negotiate with Mr Big Shot Lawyer DH so she can study or get childcare. We used to see lots of these women in our family/divorce dept, women who’d stayed home for years and then wondered why their DH got fed up with it and wanted them to either work or wanted a divorce.

Don't let the responses here make you feel like you don't deserve better than a minimum wage job. If this was posted from the perspective of your husband saying my wife has done all the childcare and housework for years and now I want her to get a minimum wage job while still doing all the childcare and housework, the responses would drag him to the high heavens too.

Sometimes the responses here are based more on how you phrase what you're trying to say than what you're saying.

If he’s a London lawyer and getting promotion after promotion surely he should be able to afford a mortgage on a house by now? I worked with lawyers for a while so I know what they earn.

You do need to get your arse out into the job market though regardless of whether you supported his career or not (my ex NDN did the same) for your own benefit, self esteem and just to ensure you get pension through NI contributions and to ensure you have money saved if you need it.

You have no doubt contributed to his promotion after promotion (especially in law). Does he honestly think if he was doing 50:50 and rushing back for nursery at 6pm and then cooking and cleaning that he’d be able to hold down such a job let alone be promoted.

I’m sure you’ll get some (un) helpful replies saying of course it’s possible to be successful in a law firm and do half of everything but I don’t believe that is the case. It’s a real luxury to be able to focus 100% on your job when you have kids. A luxury many women don’t have as they are spinning all the plates.

Of course he was happy for you to do that when the kids were young. It suited him. And now he wants you to get any old minimum wage job and carry on doing school runs/cooking/cleaning/after school activities etc. Whilst nothing changes. for him.

You can be just as successful but its what works in your family life right now. Do you want full time hours? If you do, go for it and get extra help in (cleaner, childminder for after school etc). You could have gone straight back to work after having kids and used extra help then aswell (long hours in nursery etc). I imagine you discussed with your DH what the best option was and for both of you it was to stay home.

If you dont want it so full on, why not enjoy the luxury of having a part-time job to contribute to the extras? My earnings cover our holidays, days out and extras (presents etc). I could stay home but we’d have to cut back on extras significantly. I think alot of Mum’s do take this option as they want more time with the kids through Primary years (to be there after school) but also want to work. Thats a win win for me (and I consider myself lucky I have that choice).

@Macadamiamama exactly though you have helped his success and now if he wants you to contribute financially he needs to step up and help.

finding a balance that both are happy with takes time but if you are adding to the finance side things need to adapt and change on the other.

you clearly had a career path in mind when you started out why shouldn’t you do that now. You have helped him he needs to help you. Your contribution shouldn’t just be the money you can give around doing everything else and running yourself into the ground just so you can give money. It should now be about seeing how your career should go.

being the sole breadwinner is hard but it comes with the understanding that the other picks up the childcare (and spending quality time with your children isn’t child care). If you are working the childcare side, school runs, after school care etc needs to be looked at and divided fairly

Im very aware as ive said in my previous posts.

But yes, most women that are sahm have that discussion with their partner and agree to it and are happy in agreeing to it, as they would prefer to be at home with their young kids.

no the demographics and govt stats show most women work so no,not most.
a minority mums don’t work they’re they outliers
don’t make global most mums… statements when you’re wrong.makes you look a bit silly

Choose not to parent?

I suppose he could have offered to he a sahd after op finished maternity leave and her miss out on time with her kids and go back into full time work with long stressful hours. Would she have been happy to do that?

Most mums want and choose the option to be a sahm because they want the extra time with their kids.

I'm sure that, in many cases, it is a joint decision. In some cases, it may even be driven by the WOHP, especially if they have quite old fashioned views.

In most families that I know where there is a SAHP, that decision has been predominantly driven by the SAHP. The WOHP has agreed to it, but hasn't necessarily actively wanted that model. I don't actually know many men or women who would actively choose to be the sole breadwinner.

Of course, where there are disabilities etc that essentially require one parent to be a SAHP, the dynamics are likely to be very different and the WOHP is likely to be very grateful for the SAHP having taken that on.