Mortgage free but DH wont let me give up work

I have all along said the best solution is for him to step up and take on 50% of the load at home. Bet he won’t.

The misogynistic posts are the ones that are making out his job is more important, he is working all hours to pay the mortgage etc.

I am picking up on the posts that were not recognising that the OP is doing 2 jobs.. that needs to change.

16% of all families are headed by a SP, 80% of which are female. Of course she’d be able to support the family.

To your stupid question: both.

YABU… he’s also being very sensible as you’re older parents which means the kids will probably be young-ish when you’re at a stage of needing care. Working whilst your can is a good idea.

If he walked out tomorrow, would she be able to support the family?

Which is more crucial, cleaning toilets or bringing home a salary?

Because most of us do the domestic AND still manage to earn. Saying that housework is a fulltime job is absurd. Pare down the housework and prioritize earning.

It's hardly misogyny to say that women shouldn't expect to be financially supported unless someone enthusiastically offers to support them. That's not the case for the OP, so she needs to deal with it. No one ever said he shouldn't be pulling is weight domestically. This is why women need to be very careful in their selection of spouse/co-parent.

Ahh yes but she’s not working hard doing a full time job, everything in the house and everything to do with the kids?/.../ Just because he earns more doesn’t mean he gets to dial out of family life.

Nobody has said that. Who are you even quoting? Me and other posters who believe OP should not quit her job all have said that the husband should also do his share of housework and childcare. I questioned the opinion that OPs DH was at home sitting on his arse while OP was doing a double shift. Maybe he was actually working twice as many hours?

There are two young kids here. That’s hard enough for two parents but for one to be doing the bulk of it and working full time!
It’s really horrible how women are treated these days. expected to work they drop from exhaustion.
Nobody gets the best of someone in a situation like that - not her kids, not her boss, not her dh.

Op, what about going part time? It could save your sanity. Your dh is an arse if he can’t see how exhausted you are and not care about it.

I agree that he seemingly has the best deal at the moment (unless he is working loads of extra hours in order to cover the family's expenses). That is why I think the OP should push him to take on a fair share of the domestic load.

It is not in the slightest bit misogynistic to suggest that the solution to the current unfairness is not for the woman to quit work and take on the entire burden of unpaid labour at home, which would leave her in a more vulnerable positiom in the longer term. What exactly do you feel is misogynistic about suggesting that she should retain her financial independence and demand that her H does his fair share of housework and childcare?

Why assume that men can't/won't step up if they are pressured to do so? Are women just expected to suck up the unpaid work forever, and accept that that is their destiny? Sorry, but I will never accept that. We need to have higher standards.

Yes that's an important consideration.

I fear you are a man…as no woman would say this.

I had the same thought. Or internalised misogyny.

Yep misogyny at its finest. Makes you wonder who these posters are…who downplay everything that the woman (who also works full time) does at home and with the kids…. Hmmm

She’s currently in the workforce FT. “If” is a question she posed due to the exhaustion of an under-contributing DH.

And no a bigger salary doesn’t make him the breadwinner it makes him the higher earner.

Ahh yes but she’s not working hard doing a full time job, everything in the house and everything to do with the kids? I fear you are a man…as no woman would say this.

Who has the best deal here do we think? I’d have loved to have concentrated on my career then come home to a dinner, clean house, kids in bed. Big deal if you sit at a desk for a few hours more. You can focus solely on your career and be rewarded for that.

It’s unfair and you you know that. Just because he earns more doesn’t mean he gets to dial out of family life.

It does. It means the person who earns the money to feed the family. There is no sole earner in this house, they’re both working FT.

However, it’s an archaic term from a time with a traditional family model, and it’s used incorrectly so widely here I accept the meaning has effectively shifted.

It still doesn’t mean the higher earner though.

And I see no reason to diminish OP’ contribution as ”small” - she works FT, so that’s super insulting. Working contribution to a household should be quantified in hours not pay.

If she walked out he’d have to pay 40k+ a year for a nanny and he would be able to reckon with her contribution in monetary terms.

If she opts out of the paid workforce, they both are not breadwinners, by definition.

Currently, they could make it on his salary alone, but not on hers alone. That also pretty much makes him the breadwinner. But it's not fair to lump all of the financial responsibility on him, without mutual agreement. Nor is it fair for her to do most of the childrearing and housework.

But I do think people invent busywork in the home to justify being an sahp. There is no need to have excess possessions, to create "must do" things like birthday parties, seasonal decor, excessive kids activities, etc., to fill the time. Focus on the children's education and simple family time with a minimum of possessions.

They should review all of the domestic tasks together, decide which ones can be jettisoned or how the house can be decluttered/streamlined to make maintenance easier, decide on whether to outsource anything (cleaning, gardening, hire someone to do school runs, etc.) and then divide up what is left.

If he won't help, the obvious is to drop the housework to bare minimum for herself and the kids, NOT to drop out of the paid workforce. That is the road to ruin.

didn't you post the other day that breadwinner means sole earner? While I would say it's usually understood as sole or main earner, she's not the latter either, she admits her financial contribution is small.

If she walked out, he could get a live in nanny/housekeeper. Not sure about the school play argument - if DH said that he wants to be a SAHD so he can go see school plays while I work to support us all, I wouldn't really see it as a win for me?

This is true. But he may or may not be doing additional hours for his paid employment over and above the standard full time contract, in order to bring in the level of income that he does.

Certainly, a number of posters have been keen to emphasise that the H has only been able to earn what he does because the OP is picking up the slack at home. Given that the children are in nursery every day, that would suggest that these posters are assuming he is putting in extra time in outside of his standard working hours. I.e. he is working more hours than the OP.

Of course, he may not be doing any extra hours at all, and he might be sitting around at home in the evenings while the OP does all the work. If that is he case, then obviously, the division of labour is very unfair and needs addressing. But in that scenario, it can no longer be argued that she has enabled him to earn a higher salary.

Totally agree. And those articles that try to compare being SAHM with being a chauffeur, chef, nurse, engineer, teacher, etc. all rolled into one and worth a couple hundred grand a year always overlook several things:

a) they aren't performing such roles full time
b) they aren't performing them to professional, objective standards
c) applying a plaster doesn't make one a nurse; cooking a vat of chili con carne or putting some babybell and carrots on a plate doesn't make one a chef, etc.
d) there is zero accountability for outcomes, either with the children's development or the state of the house
e) most important of all, the SAHP gets an incredible amount of stuff paid for them, including dwelling, taxes, heat/light/internet/TV etc., mobile and subscriptions, food, beverage, clothing and sundries, personal care/appointments, furnishings/appliances/repairs/maintenance, vehicle/fuel/transport fares, hobbies, leisure spending, gifts, holidays, Christmas, on and on. Not to mention emergency savings, retirement savings, and other long-term goals.

Providing all of that for an able adult is a HUGE burden not offset by housework. Providing all that for one's children AND an able adult is stressful.

They’re both breadwinners!

Yet she’s doing additional unpaid work on top that he is not.

If she walked out tomorrow would he be able to hold down this job with 2 small children? Would work allow him to take unscheduled days off for child’s illness? Hospital treatment? Parents’ evenings, school plays etc.

Oh, come on. "Unpaid labor" is what we all do to manage our households. It has no value out in the world. But the family would be on the streets without the breadwinner.

Try going to Tesco and saying "I've done two school runs, cleaned the toilet and made some doctor appointments this morning, so I'd like a buggy full of grocerires, please."

Don't pay council tax, send them a note saying "I batch cooked a stew and ironed my spouse's shirts and drove my kids to football practice, so please credit me as having paid council tax in full."

Tell your lender "I won't be paying the mortgage this month as I've organized two birthday parties, walked the dog every day, booked the kids a half-term holiday and mopped the kitchen floor. Consider my account paid for the month."

I think the issue is most of us don’t consider doing normal daily chores as a financial work effort, if we work or don’t. We all clean our houses, care for our kids etc, it’s just life. Very few of us see that as paid work as you’re suggesting. Yes they should do equally. But I’m really not supportive of any woman putting herself into the position of staff. Often also the woman earns less than the man, as in this situation and if he then totted up how much he spent on her, home utilities, car etc, it would usually out weigh it. So it’s a foolish game to get into.

How is she not supporting him financially too?
He certainly hasn't valued all her admin and childcare and house keeping?
Can't believe people of today actually playing into the hands of misogynists!
Unpaid labour not valued and yet saves the family 1000s a month.

Except nobody has suggested that that would be fair.

probably having a lovely work/ life balance and pursuing hobbies.

Or working hard late nights and weekends to pay off their mortgage?

No one has advocated for him doing nothing at home.