To refuse to work full time even though DH wants me to?

I chose to work 3 days, now 4, I'll never go FT if I can help it.
Unfortunately Op also has another factor, he Dh whilst she says he is ambitious, he clearly isn't. He has SC and wants all the good bits, but isn't prepared to do anything to earn more, but is pressurising his milk cow to work more so he can benefit. How is being used attractive? I'd find his greed and using of me quietly highly unattractive.

It’s perfectly reasonable to have that one day with your DD, and I would imagine you do more than your share of the housework and childcare?
I worked full time from when my eldest was 13 weeks old, financially I had to and I really regret it.
My now ex was always resentful when I dropped a day even tho I do/did everything round the house and the kids.
my daughters have autism too, plus youngest has LD.
you accept the SC and the time and expense they take up, so why shouldn’t you have a day with DD

That's true. But a lot of women go p/t by age 30 and their husbands work full time for another 40 years. I'm not saying OP is wrong, just that there are arguments for both sides.

Who'd have a bloody husband dictating what one does!!!

Once again, where are the three stepchildren here DH reportedly has ? OP refers to DH’s children as her SC and there are two of them. And they have one shared child. That’s three altogether.

Where does it say he has three stepchildren ? He has two children of his own and one shared child with OP.

I was expecting to say YABU but in the circumstances I don't think you are. If you already contribute at least 50% of shared household costs then I don't think you should have to work more.

So the prime decades are spent literally in service -mum is the welcome mat and bridge we walk across- mums would not have it any other way- so when do you put yourself first when- in your late 60s?? Mums are treated like wells, and everyone takes from the well, who tops it up? Going less days provides for a happier home and work life balance - you need time to recharge. DH signed up for this.

These retail workers are seldom being facilitated in childcare, housework, life admin or holidaying with multiple other DC to the extent that the OPs husband is. OP has spelled out pretty clearly how things work in her house and there's been a great deal of comment on it.

This just isn't a great candidate for a reversal of the sexes because the circumstances are so niche.

Fair comments. Although I'm not convinced that all posters were considering these points when saying OP doesn't need to work equal hours due to her higher salary. Usually on here we hear that retail workers/nurses etc are making equally valuable contributions and it's not all about money (which I agree with).

But then, if you were to point out that the day dropping higher earner pays more of the bills, uses the time for childcare, is in charge of much more of the house stuff and generally does more than their equal share in every way, that might also shape the responses.

As pointed out by the pp though, such situations are as rare as rocking horse shit!

I understand what you are saying in theory but - in practice - lower earning women invariably pick up the bulk of childcare/housework. This is often NOT the case with lower earning men.

I think the aim of any partnership should be 50:50. Not from a purely financial perspective but in terms of overall contribution to the household.

It’s so common (and sad) nowadays to see husbands & fathers whose sole contribution is working in a mediocre 9-5 job. Meanwhile the woman is often the main breadwinner AND default childcare provider. I imagine women in this position are under immense stress and I don’t think it’s a good example to set to our daughters.

I agree sexist attitudes prevail - but I don’t think it’s women’s attitude to work and earnings. that is the problem. It’s men’s lack of responsibility to childcare and the home. Until this is addressed, there will never be equality.

On a side note, I'm still unsure what my stance is on whether higher earners are justified in working less. I feel it wouldn't go down well with a lot of women if the high earner husband said "OK, I'm dropping down to two days a week and you can continue full time as you earn less".

@Arabella3

I can accept that it’s my previous generosity that’s made things a bit of a mess now but here we are. You live and learn!

I disagree with thinking that you are in any way 'at fault'. You did what you wanted and felt comfortable with at the time. Now, you have had a child so things have changed and you can no longer afford to (or want to). Let's face it, who amongst us hasn't had to adjust our lives after the arrival of a child?

It is your DH's fault for continuing to have 'expectations' when you have explained that you have decided to retrench to provide what you think is best for your DD, and that is being able to spend more time with her. You will still carry your 'fair share' of the household costs, including when the DSC are there, and are happy to do so. There's nothing wrong with you now expecting him to pay for his children's 'extras' because you are taking a pay cut to care for yours. Both of you wish to do the best for your children. His costs money, but in a way so does yours. It is costing you money in the form of reduced earnings.

You need to understand that just because something has always been a certain way that doesn't mean it alway has to be that way. You have the right to change the status quo. Chances are, again, that most of us have had to make decisions that change the way we 'run' our families and our spouses end up picking up some slack because of it.

That subsidising of other children can run into hundreds a months and thousands over the year.

Money that if invested in savings for your own children, could be their university fees or a house deposit in 20 years time.

Cautionary tale!

OP agreed to return full-time before she had the baby, now she has changed her mind - unless her DH agrees to this change, OP is not treating him fairly.

Things change. Funny how he sees the path of least resistance in increasing the family’s wealth is to put you under pressure to earn more whilst he stays in his comfort zone, fuck that.

You are already pulling more than your weight.

OP will bitterly regret all this money that she is spending on childcare that are not hers instead of putting it in a savings fund for her child.

She will eventually wake up and be furious with herself for being so used.

Isn't it.
What was it about her that first was so attractive to him I wonder🙄.

OP has been funding them all, as he funds his ex whom had years at home🙄

You couldn't make this shit up.

Now the OP quite rightly intends to reduce her hours but he's not happy because him and his family have gotten used to the good life on OP.

OP may want a second child but could well face push back as he will say "we" can't afford it because of my first children.

Children only get more expensive as they grow.
The teen years can be brutally expensive in my experience.

My friends daughter had a big surprise baby with a guy like this and he casually mentioned that they definitely wouldn't be having a second as they couldn't afford it.
She hadn't even thought of a second but she was very well paid and easily could if she wanted to.

They were together two years and had just moved in together.
She hadn't minded treating the children but certainly didn't feel she had to because they were now hers.

However, she felt she had to push back hard during her mat leave as he and his ex kept trying to treat her mat leave as free nanny care and she wasn't having it.
It really pissed her off.

Combine that and him wanting her to take his three children to Portugal to her parents villa for a three week holiday she was going on, as it would help him and his ex with childcare for the summer holidays, woke her up to what her future might looked like.
They had a huge blow up and she moved home immediately for space.
Apparently her moving home was letting his children down too. The holiday gave her the space to think.

She finished with him and feels she dodged a bullet.
She was so grateful they were not married, she gave the baby her name and that she has a great career.
It's unlikely she'll have another as she is focusing on her little girl, but she thinks life is far easier doing it alone with her family luckily willing to support her.
Not everyone is so lucky of course.
My friend is bonkers about the baby so they really think of her as a huge blessing.

Throw in the fact he’s a cheeky twat and it’s even more baffling!

A successful well paid woman who wants children gets together with a lower earning man who has an ex wife and three step children

baffing

If op was a bloke and was doing all the household chores/ admin and childcare it would be a bloody miracle!

@DearZebra my eldest 2dds are in their early 30s and it was decided that I would be a SAHM - we lived in dh's home country so it was easier for him to work. We moved back to UK and when eldest two were about 5 and 7 I started working part time and he worked full time. I was made redundant, he got promotion with a lot of travel and we decided to have 2 more dc. He had affairs, made life very difficult, we are now divorced and I am now working minimum wage zero hours contract after so many years out of the workplace. My elder 2 dds are married with dc and would never make the same mistake as me. One works full time, the other 3 days a week.

I think you should tell DH that you are thinking of going 3 days. It's too much on mums, and seriously it also allows you to take time for yourself. He needs to man- up.

I would also tell him that you are going to reduce your contribution by 200 pounds a month so you can do pottery class or something you love ❤️ Get a baby sitter etc. This DH is non negotiable and he will just have to go and earn more.

I’m going to put my opinion, which will be unpopular but was more normal 30 years ago.
When a couple starts a family it is a natural instinctive state of being, where the differences between the sexes really kicks in, in terms of mother / home maker and father / bread earner.
I can already feel the eye rolling and gasps of horror from mums-net but I’m not talking about women becoming subservient beings, just a couple combining as a team to raise a family. I am frustrated that rent and mortgages have become so expensive that both parents in many families have no choice but to work for those precious 5 years when children are preschool age. They really do zoom by in the flash of an eye and you do not actually need fancy holidays, expensive cars, branded clothes, luxury lifestyles during that time. I think governments should be supporting one parent to be at home with preschoolers and then for parents of school age children to be able to re-enter the work place.
Also, don’t let anyone tell you not to have a second child of your own if that is what you want just so you can work full time for a kitchen extension and more material possessions.