Mortgage free but DH wont let me give up work

unless you're independently wealthy and working just for the fun of it, I don't believe people who claim that being solely responsible for providing for the family is not stressful.

And OPs DH would not have much less to do at home, OP is already doing most of it, as she says. Which is not fair, but that's a different topic anmd does not change the fact that for OPs DH, things would not be easier if OP would not work.

Fair enough. You clearly didn't find it stressful. Many people do, however, particularly if they are in sectors where there can be instability or a lack of job security.

As the main breadwinner in our family, I was beyond stressed when Brexit hit my sector hard, and even more so when I was eventually made redundant. And that was with my DH still working, it would have been infinitely worse if he had been a SAHP.

I find being the one with primary financial responsibility for the family to be quite a lot of pressure. If given the choice between doing 50% of housework and childcare or having a second working adult to share the load, the second working adult would win hands down.

DH did spend a short period as a SAHP when we moved house. He did pretty much all of the housework during that period, though I was still very hands on with dd because I wanted to be. Being excused from the housework didn't make much difference to my stress levels at all - it's just housework!

So have I. I don’t know why people make such a big fuss about it.

Yes, I have.

Have you ever been the sole breadwinner for your family?

No he wouldn't. His job would remain the same, but he would have much less to do at home, because Op would cover it when she was off. Everyone wins.

I haven't said that at all. Quite the contrary, in fact - I have said that she should push for a fair split of the domestic labour.

And yes, you're right that they're both working at the moment, but she wants to stop. So in that scenario, her H would be the breadwinner.

It would obviously be less stressful for the OP to have 3 days a week to herself with no job and the kids in nursery. However, that would involve her H taking on the role of sole earner, which would probably be considerably more stressful for him. How is that fair?

There is no breadwinner in this situation (which means the sole earner) they are both working FT.

I’m not sure why you think the feelings of the partner doing all the wifework don’t count.

It seems that the feelings of the breadwinner in these situations never count. Or else the SAHP just assumes that the WOHP will be less stressed with someone to pick up the slack at home because they actually have no concept of how stressful it can be to be the sole earner with total financial responsibility for the family.

The OP stated that the children are in nursery, presumably full time, given that both she and her H are in full time work.

She said that, if she quit her job, she planned to take them out of nursery for a couple of days a week and have the other days as time to herself.

So the savings on childcare would equate to 40% of FT nursery fees after any free hours etc had been taken into account. I'm guessing that she probably earns more than this at present.

Cleaner AND nanny though? Didn’t get the impression from her posts that she earned more than that

This.

posters keep saying the family would be “less stressed.” The breadwinner would be under significantly MORE stress.

He sounds like a dick for not pulling his weight.p at home and expecting OP to pick up his slack. OP is working equally hard, indeed harder, to the point that she’s exhausted and he refuses to hear.

@TheCaribbeanIsCallingMe

Op, I would think you had a great idea, but alas, your DH sounds like a bit of a dick.

He sounds like "a dick" for working hard to earn the family some security and for not wanting to now compromise that?

To quote you, "I despair".

The only upside, is that at least by working still, you're not compromising your career, CV and pension. You might need all of these things if your DH leaves.

It's not "the only upside", but yes, people do think about those things very carefully. How many times are there posts on MN from people who've done exactly that - given up work and assumed they'll always have their spouse's income behind them - and then found themselves scrabbling around trying to get a minimum wage job when their comfortable life collapses before their eyes as their marriage breaks down...

Could you both reduce your hours? If two full time salaries are not needed would two part-time salaries work? I think we should all be pushing for more equity on this. My mum was a sahm in the 80s, as most were, and she always felt that it just wasn't normal to have the kids with one parent the majority of the time not fair on them or us. I do think we should all be looking at a fairer split and in some countries both parents having the option to reduce their hours when kids are small is supported by employers. It is better for family life in my opinion then one parent doing the lions share at home and the other working long hours to trying to earn to keep everybody. Resentment builds on both sides and kids end up knowing parent more than the other.

I agree with all you’ve said here

Because he isn’t showing any interest in spending time and effort with his children from what is indicated in the OP’s posts. It’s not unnatural for a mother to actually want to slow things down and take a break to be with her children in their very early years, though you’d never think it judging by the torrent of replies to the first opening post. I wouldn’t advocate giving up work but reducing hours. With so much money spent on two children at nursery, financially they’ll likely break even or even be better off and the OP will certainly be better off emotionally.

Good old Women's Lib.

Now, as well as bringing up the children and doing all the housework, women have to work full time as well. And, if they dare to wonder about giving up work to save on nursery fees, and be a tad less exhausted, they get screamed at by other women, for daring to suggest that a man actually provides for the family he has created.

Fucking madness.

Op did not suggest that she gives up work to be a "lady that lunches". She doesn't earn much, so most of her salary will be eaten up in nursery fees, therefore, she's suggesting, that for the sake of a few hundred quids difference a month, it might be best for the whole family, if she temporarily stops working, and takes on all the childcare. Everyone would be less stressed, the house would be less chaotic, and the children would get to be raised by their own (less stressed) Mum, rather than strangers. Not only that, but she's willing to let her career and pension take a hit for doing so. Seems like a very ideal solution, to what sounds like a currently stressful lifestyle.

But well done Mumsnet, for making her feel like she's totally unreasonable. When did women stop seeing the bigger picture, and stop being supportive of each other? I absolutely despair.

Op, I would think you had a great idea, but alas, your DH sounds like a bit of a dick. The only upside, is that at least by working still, you're not compromising your career, CV and pension. You might need all of these things if your DH leaves. I'm so sorry you're stressed. Raising young children whilst working FT is so hard, so I hear you.

when she plans to have the DC at home only couple of days, and the rest of the time for herself, as OP wrote? I would consider it relatively relaxing compared to being fully responsible for family income.

But it’s not a relaxing life when you do everything for the house and dc.

While I agree OPs DH should pull his weight at home, I don't think people here can see it from DHs perspective. I can, we have a couple of months left on the mortgage, thanks to my hard work.
Do you know how much I look forward to having that money left over, so we can use it for savings and investments for DC, house renovations etc? No, I don't think me putting in all this work should mean that now DH is entitled to a relaxing life and 'time to himself', while I continue earning just as before, except we'd have less disposable income.

Do you get home earlier with the kids? Tell your dh he is cooking 3 nights a week, you will eat a simple dinner with the kids and once he starts cooking for both of you you will join him for dinner, but you’re making sure you’re fed while he adjusts to having a working wife as that seems quite difficult for him. Ditto laundry. Leave his. Book in ballet or something on the weekends and he can take them at a minimum every second week. You will cope with working better once you have a husband who thinks he’s a partner and acts like it.

Would you consider part time? It can be really tax efficient as a bigger chunk of what you keep is tax free and is much easier to justify financially.

It is really stressful for one person to have to be the sole earner, it places a lot of pressure on that person. Going part time you keep your career going, it feels much more temporary and easy to step back up when kids go to school. If you stop entirely honestly its hard to pick it back up.

Mumsnet is full of resentful working people. If he is the higher earner and you don’t genuinely need your salary at the moment then taking a career break so that one of you is running the home some more and/or looking after the children (out of choice) makes perfect sense.

There are a lot of people who have this set up but won’t talk about it because the feminists will shoot them down for it. I will caveat though OP that it is important to have some of your own savings and a pension.

And both partners have to share the load at home if both work full time. Being the higher earner doesn't mean he gets to do nothing at home.