Demanding job

'And all for minimum wage'

Typical spurious argument. Where did that come from? This only applies to those living in penury. And no, merely being in the same house as one's own sleeping child, is not being 'on call' and is not 'being a night nanny'.

Given the amount of time I see devoted to MN by some posters, there is clearly plenty of spare time available.

Bathtime,

This is so spurious. I am going to stop posting. We both regard one another as arguing against straw men.

You are not defining any of your terms, merely trotting out truisms, none of which bear up to analysis. And then, rather than addressing the arguments that I make, indulging in ad hominem attacks.

It is a 'dialogue aux sourds'.

So far as housework it seems odd that a paid cleaner manages to do in a few hours what apparently takes all day every day for a stay at home spouse/partner.

Golly! That cleaner must be astoundingly good if he also makes all household arrangements, books holidays, packs, unpacks, washes, bathes children, supervises homework, books and takes cars in for their service/MOT/winter checks, finds the best insurance deals, sorts that all out and on and on and on and also still feels sexy feelings about the lazy ass man who's been festering on the sofa since he got in from his work, all in a few hours...... Such a paragon! And all for minimum wage. But still a wage.

The consensus on this thread seems to be that the WOHP should have zero say in this environment. Any say he/she might have would be interpreted as 'controlling' or 'being the boss'.

And now who's throwing up strawmen.

The consensus on this thread seems to be that the WOHP should have zero say in this environment.

That's not the consensus at all, Mr Strawman.

It's just nobody agrees with your ridiculous (and obviously sexist) notion that since men who have jobs have bosses to answer to at work, it's only right that their SAHM wives have a boss to answer to too.

Because that's "equality" to a sexist man - making sure women never, ever have anything worthwhile or nice that men don't have.

The very idea that a SAHM needs to have a boss at home because their husband has a boss at work to make things equal is laughable

And here you are saying that people who are giving it way more respect than it deserves (none) are "reverse sexist" because they think equality in marriage is based on mutual respect, not evening scores.

Your ridiculous arguments on the thread are only getting so much airtime because you are a man, and a sexist one who constantly tries to shut women down and define equality for us.

And you are oblivious to that and think people are paying attention to you because what you are saying has merit.

It doesn't. It's embarrassing. Like something in a 4th year school debate about how domestic work should be allocated.

It's almost as if SAHP's have more to do than cleaning and housework, isn't it?
And what exactly is that once children are at school? The enormously onerous task of taking them there and collecting them?

I haven't read it all in detail but how exactly is looking after your children (and I'm sure the "looking after his children " card has been played) and doing some housework unfair if you are not doing paid work but expect to be kept by your partner?

'I would have never managed to have my own business and live from it if I hadn't decided to 'act like a man' ie put my work first and forced DH to take on HW and childcare duties.'

'Forced', 'educated'. Might the 'power imbalance' here be not quite what this thread makes it out to be?

Finally, a house is a shared environment. The consensus on this thread seems to be that the WOHP should have zero say in this environment. Any say he/she might have would be interpreted as 'controlling' or 'being the boss'. It seems to me that the SAHP seems to feel that they should be in sole charge of the shared environment and should not have to contribute to the WOHP's life at all (other than doing weekday childcare, again within their own parameters). So, the WOHP is merely a worker ant, sent out to work daily and having no say over their environment other than when they are at work (where they also generally get little say).

Funny sort of equality.

And further, that this imbalance doesn't systemically limit women's ability to fully realise their potential (eg doing jobs they like and want to do)?

Actually that is a very good point.
I would have never managed to have my own business and live from it if I hadn't decided to 'act like a man' ie put my work first and forced DH to take on HW and childcare duties. Mainly because to make my business work, I need to be able to work late so DH has to pick up the slack. (Only 3 days a week mind)
But also because of an issue of attitude. When your 'role' is to keep the house tidy, that you are the only one to know about the school stuff and the latest dressing up thingy happening at school and the only one to actually sort it out, etc you end up in a situation where your dcs are reliant on YOU and only YOU to keep things going. Giving priority to all these 'little' things because you don't want to let your dcs down means there is little space left for the rest and certainly not to build a business up. Changing that attitude and starting to give work more importance is hard. It's hard because you don't want to put your dcs in a situation where they feel let down. And hard because you have a DH that just doesn't know and doesn't want to know because let's face it it's not fun, no more than it is to calm a teething baby down
Having two working partners means a share of the HW etc.. From what I see around me, what we have is women working part time/school hours because otherwise they can't cope. They can't cope because it's might on impossible to do two full time jobs (one of which is highly demanding as we established before, long hours etc etc). As for the 'demanding, rewarding' jobs outside the home... how could you even think about doing that when yoou have another full time, long hours, demanding, job waiting for you at home?

captain DH did that.
Very helpful, 50/50 share of all the HW etc until I had dc1 and went on ML.
Then all HW became mine, he became used to have the evening meal ready when he came back home. He did bath time etc... only because I sort of forced him to do so (ie put the baby in his arms and walked away).
He also started a new position in his company thyat required travelling 3 days a week the week I gave birth...

He isn't like this anymore but it took years of 'educating' for him to take responsibility again.

MN experience is not everyone's experience and if the bloke you married suddenly turns into Mr Hyde then why would you then go on to becoming his housewife and make yourself totally financially dependent on him once maternity leave is up I don't know.

You do have to accept that it most circumstances we are the masters of our own fate and no one is forcing you to put up with it.

really? These men went from doing 50% of everything then just do nothing? Do they not get involved with any childcare? Do they just switch off from the household once baby arrives?

My experience from my friends is that their DH do not have a clue, cannot even fathom out how to change a nappy out of the home, never done a shop. Oh yes they may do the token Sunday Roast, bins out, washing-up once in a while, stuck his footy kit on to wash chores. But the man who actually always spotted the fridge needed defrosting and did it, and perhaps cleaned the skirting boards or instigated a spring clean. Are you telling me he won't want to then partake in a bit of child raising (bonding) after work, at weekends. He will surely have more of a concept of how tough it is. He is more likely to keep on doing 50% of the chores.

my friends who always did the house chores before children came along are still doing it after. Their man child husbands swan off on bikes clad in Lycra, or triathlon challenges, or just down the pub as they always did.

You got an uphill battle there.

Why put up with it though? Your not have to stick with the first bloke you marry. You can try going on holiday for a fortnight and give them a taster of life on the front line, or perhaps even divorce.

If you don't want your children to go through it then teach your sons and daughters.

You don't have to put up with being a domestic slave.

Yes, there is seemingly such a poster on this very thread.

However there are also many, many women that really are not hogging all the mundane chores, and would love their partners to step up to the plate even a little bit.

And it is all too common for the dynamic to suddenly and substantially change when babies arrive, and women take on a more domestic role.

Really at the end of the day don't get married and have children with a lazy twat. Make or female, presumably the warning signs are there to see before you take the plunge? Do men suddenly go from doing 50% of everything to expecting wifey to do it all? Or do women hope that their spouses will suddenly step up once kids arrive? Cos that always happens.

I'm a SAHP, DH has been out of the house for 12 hours, he has done about 2 hours of chores and child raising whilst I stay on the sofa having some TV me time. He gets breaks at work, I don't.

One of the reasons I fell in love with him was that he was prepared to take 6 months paternity leave (and did) and he can clean a toilet and wield a Hoover just as good as anyone.

Teach your children to pull their weight at home, warn them no one wants to live with a lazy person. A marriage is a partnership in more ways than one.

I grew up with my dad working FT manual work and doing most of the chores because mum was too inebriated. I never got the whole, "men can't clean as well as women, it's not in their nature," thing.

There are women out there who wouldn't dare dream of letting their husbands do so much as change one nappy. Women sometimes are their own worst enemy.

It's almost as if SAHP's have more to do than cleaning and housework, isn't it?

Yes, because paid cleaners morph into your kitchen to wipe the bench down every time it needs it, and put daily laundry loads on, and cook dinner each night, and ...

So far as housework it seems odd that a paid cleaner manages to do in a few hours what apparently takes all day every day for a stay at home spouse/partner.

It's almost as if SAHP's have more to do than cleaning and housework, isn't it?

Larry I'm just astonished given how bloody awful being a parent is being described on here that any women would ever have a child.

So far as housework it seems odd that a paid cleaner manages to do in a few hours what apparently takes all day every day for a stay at home spouse/partner.

Not everyone has grandparents near by, either through geography, or because they are dead (my parents both died before they reached retirement age).

Grandparents may still be in full time work themselves. One of my school friends was a grandparent before she was 40 - she might get to look after her great-grandchildren, I suppose.

There are a lot of people who have neither grandparents nor money to spare. My parents left just enough to cover the costs of their respective funerals, and it's not that unusual. Not all the babyboomers bought houses.

Going back to the original post, I think sometimes women are their own enemies. I work a demanding job as does my husband and we do more or less split the household jobs. What I find more galling is the effort it takes me to get things organised and have to think about. Eg buying x presents for x number of birthdays coming up, planning holidays, doing play dates, what's for dinner etc.

He doesn't feel the need for any of that. If he forgets to buy a present he just pops in to the nearest shop and gets it. Kids don't need to eat proper food all the time, they can have frozen chips and egg. Holiday? What holiday? His idea would be to pop up to his parents 6 h drive away and perhaps ring the night before to organise.

Again, all non life threatening but would probably drive most women crazy. It drives me mad.

If he doesn't pay the cleaner, he'll drive her to the ATM and take the money then. I've never ever done that - i always get the money at least the evening before if not the weekend before.

I suspect that's why women 'take on' these jobs.

Also women have higher standards for each other than for men. Why else do we not thump each other on the back for babysitting our children and yet congratulate the man for taking his kids swimming?!!

Larry, are you seriously suggesting that 2-3 years of 24hours a day on call (with 6-18 months of that being up multiple times a night for each child), plus the expectation that you will pickup, cook and clean, all for half the minimum wage (ie. half whatever the WOHP brings home) - which is capped at a working week, so 40ish hours (despite being on call for all 24). Is a good deal? Is one that the SAHP should be grateful to have, and they don't deserve a couple of hours during the day once the kids are at nursery or school, and they should do housework in that time?

That's not a job I would take for the money. That's a job I've done because I love my kids and someone has to look after them.

SAHP is not in any way equivalent to a WOH job. If my partner thought that he could demand standards above those I was setting myself then I think we would have words. Splitting, and having the kids half the week would be a much better deal - the time I would save on clothes washing alone.

It's irrelevant anyway, as they're almost always helping out working parents.

Also Basil, it also fails to take into account the fact that an awful lot of the not living in gated communities demographic older generation are still having to work, and so can't take care of grandchildren.

Let's just end the thread here - Larry is right and we're all wrong. The proviso of the thread is redundant because it just isn't an issue, OK?

"A lot of grandparents (of all classes) do a lot of parenting these days. You only need to look on these boards to see grandparents taking children for whole days and sometimes even several days at a time."

Yeah, that tends to be when their grandchildren's parents aren't SAHPs.