to turn down a full-time job and let my DH support me?

[SassySusan]

DH works full-time and I work part-time (2 1/2 days a week). We are comfortable financially, and don't get any state benefits.

My boss has offered to make my job full-time. There is no practical reason I couldn't do the hours. DH says it's up to me whether I want to do the f/t hours or not.

So am I being unreasonable to sit on my fanny for half the week, spending DH's hard earned, considering he doesn't seem to mind?

marantha, I have no problems with your post, save what domestic chores are there if you are just a couple? Before I had dcs, I worked 15 hour days and sometime went in on WEs too, I don't recall being inundated by housework. Just having trouble magicking up all this domestic drudge to fill the time.

Domestic drudge isn't just about housework, though, is it? It's about doing the household paperwork, making sure the bills are paid, arranging family meetings, oiling wheels with in-laws.
I'm not saying this arrangement works for all, but, for those that it does, fine.
The woman is working for the man (doing things he doesn't want to do) and the man is working for the woman (doing things she doesn't want to do). What's the problem?

Hmm... DH has a higher salary than me, and if he suddenly halved his hours we'd possibly have difficulty paying the mortgage. We could sell the house, but that would be a stress niether of us need atm. I suppose it might work if I went f/t - so I'm guessing we have exactly the same issues as other couples. If we both wanted space to grieve, (rather than to indulge hobbies) the difficulties would be the same.

After years of studying feminist theory... I may as well dust off my memory... I really don't think many feminists would be arguing women had to work f/t per se to satisfy them...

I think the argument would be more like this:

The sorts of "work" that women do is traditionally undervalued - in fact it is probably not counted as work at all. Things like maintaining family networks - shopping for birthday presents - asking if Granny is feeling better after her hernia operation and visiting her in hospital... All these things are vital to maintaining a healthy functioning family life and society.

The problem we have is is the (sexist) notion that only paid employment is the only real work. If a woman chooses a room scheme, buys a lovely bowl and fill it with flowers from the garden - isn't her contribution to making the home and creating a quality of life just as important as the husband who earnt the money to pay for the bowl? After all, what is the point of the money if there is no one to buy the bowl.

.....

I do think there are issues at divorce though... financially men recover much quicker...

thank you SassySusan - that was the point I was trying to make, and was about to continue trying to make (by asking what kind of work, for example, organising my MILs birthday party would come under..) but you did it much more eloquently than I could. As would be expected after years of studying feminist theory! I think those sort of things are undervalued and yet they are so important.

I don't think the point of feminism was to make (all) women more like (the traditional view of) men, was it? It was to give individual women more choices as to how they live their lives. Some would want to do this by following traditionally male career paths. But it was also to ascribe more value to the traditionally female role and attributes eg the stuff that you describe above. In my personal situation it suits me to do more the traditionally female stuff and DH to do the wage earning. But that's just us. And I think both are of equal value and I'd always describe myself as a feminist.

Obviously if one partner is a lazy so and so that's a different matter. But it isn't as simple as who is in paid employment/ looking after a young child, and who is not. Life is more complex.

Marantha, I did all the bills and admin and investments when I was working ft pre-children and come to think of it, still do whilst working ft with children and split the social engagement arrangements with dh. Is it that hard?

There is no problem with couples choosing this so long as it is a real choice for both.

I am arguing about fulfilment of women being in ft work (of course not). I guess I am a teensy bit thinking that it might be somewhat lazy to want lots of time to do the things people can fit in and still have full working lives.

It is fine if that is what both parties genuinely want.

I don't know, blueshoes, as a (now) single female who works full-time, I do know that as long as I didn't have to do ANY thing else besides it (paid work) and just enjoy my 'leisure' time when not working, I'd be quite OK with having a 'househusband'.

I wouldn't expect to wash a dish again in my life, though. Nor iron a shirt. Nor vacuum.
Nor cook a meal.

But then I've a 'one-track' mind and not a 'multi-tasker'.

I don't see it as lazy. But then I wouldn't.

Dh and I could get up and both go to work and come home and do the shopping, the washing up and sort outthe household.
I know this to be true because I did it.

But I equally know that if I were still doing that our quality of life would be reduced. For others this will be massively different -especially if the loss of your job would make gains in any other ares too poor to compensate.
But we would not be half way through restoring the front of the house, nor the creation of a new garden in land we have just bought next door. Ds2 would be eating shop bought GFCF foods which are not as good as the ones I bake. DD would be in late room everyday which means no swimming or gym. I would probably be unable to fetch my elderly mother to stay for weeks at a time, Ds2 would not have made quite such progress with his cooking and bedroom tidying skills etc etc.
We were able to function well when I worked. I suspect that many many couples have greater talents than I and can do these things so efficiently thattheir personal time is a full and enjoyable as ours. But we couldn't.
Of course it is a personal choice.
But I do not ever regard the things I do as laziness. And I think drawing a line and saying 'we can do this and it works for us. And anyone who cannot or will not is lazy' is more than a little sweeping

In your position I would either work full time and put money away for when I do have children so I could afford to be a sahm or put it away for when they start uni etc. Apparently each child costs around £100,000 from birth to 18 iirc obviously that's a rough estimate so every penny saved would help if you do have children in the future.

Or I would

go to college to gain more qualifications. (you may have already done this though)

pagwatch, the 'lazy' in my post won't apply to you because you have dcs to look after. Not that you particularly care what I think naturally. Just wanted to re-iterate the parameters of my views.

Ok Blue

I will have to post again in a few years when DD leaves school and I am still at home

Thanks tholeon - good to know the expensive education wasn't entirely wasted

to be fair to blue shoes, she's not saying that a person at home can't contribute - she's just saying that without dependent DCs she can't imagine having enough to do to make the contribution viable, as opposed to working...

I can sort of see that. When I had DD I was rushing around on my days at home - ironing, organising, playing with DD, taking her on trips etc. Our life would run smoother when I was at home - eg. a nice home cooked meal, rather than an ommellette or a quick pasta

Perhaps it is because of the dramatic change in my life - from preschooler to no DC that I do wonder how I would fill my day if I didn't work. I still have the w/e to do the garden and bake scones...

Sorry - I know I'm making little sense, but I'm just weighing up the equity/quality of life arguments....

pagwatch I suspect that as your DCs become less demanding of your time, you will gradually fill it with other valuable things to do for the family...

Perhaps part of it comes down to how much you need/value the money

Depends. If he is going to assume this 'responsibility' well and not lord it all over you, make you feel guilty, lazy or whatever then fine.

Giving up your entire income potential must be done with extreme care wrt the male that will be supporting you.

Life IM (bitter) E is so much better when you have your own money coming in, it grants you so much freedom and does wonders for your self esteem somehow.

The only way you'd get a ruck is

a. if you had children and were doing it because you 'didn't know why mothers have children if they want to do out to work and leave them with strangers' ,

b. if you would be in financial difficulties as a result and got arsey about your DH not earning enough to keep you in the style to which you'd like to be accustomed.

c. You'd refuse to accept the situation if the roles were reversed.

Otherwise I can't see how anyone could say anything.

Sassy - I wasn't saying that your DH should work full time and you should do as you please because he's the man. I do appreciate he is grieving as much as you are :( I based my opinion solely on the fact that you said DH he didn't mind which you chose - if you had said he is struggling working FT & would like to work P/T but can't unless I work FT - we'd be having a different conversation :)

I don't get some of the posters' comments here.
I am an old cynic but I thought marriage was about a complete merger of talents and resources.
Surely marriage is about becoming 'one' with another person?
If one person takes on role of earning money, while other takes on other (equally valid) roles that is acceptable to the couple, I don't see the issue.
These people saying women should have to earn the money, too (if not a necessity), are really saying that they they are individuals and not really in a joint marriage.

It becomes a bit like 'every man for his/herself' in a way.
Now I tend to see it like this but then I'm not in a relationship.

Sassy

Actually I too have 'special circumstance'. Not as difficult as your must be - and I send you my best wishes as you try and deal with that, but in that this time of my life is hectic but does not have limitations. My future life will be very different. To explain I currently have three children at school. In years to come DS2 will leave school and I will then be his fulltime carer as he will never be independent.

So now is my retirement and then will be when my responsibilities increase IYSWIM.

I am thoroughly enjoyingthese years of being able to read a book, nip to the shops, lunch with a friend.
In a few years I will be able to do these things but only with planning and support/respite.
At that point DH intends to retire and we will piss off somewhere warm for much of the year and pop home when we want to.

We are very lucky that money will never be an issue so we have that freedom.

But my life experience has taught me that we have a responsibility to make ourseleves happy now. To organise our lives to best support the comfort and happiness of those we love and of course ourselves. Because if you live to function, if you only exist, and do today that which you did yesterday, then you can end up looking back at a life that meant less than it should.
You really just do not know whether the future you are planning for is the one you will be gifted. And the everyday memories that we skip across because we have shit to do become the ones you regret

But my life experience has taught me that we have a responsibility to make ourseleves happy now. To organise our lives to best support the comfort and happiness of those we love and of course ourselves. Because if you live to function, if you only exist, and do today that which you did yesterday, then you can end up looking back at a life that meant less than it should.

Pagwatch that was such an inspiring post! I do agree.

I don't know where this huge guilt/work thing comes from. I know at least two people who had a third child because they were not enjoying their jobs and it was an excuse to give up (not my interpretation they said as much!) they are great mothers, don't get me wrong...but why does someone have a child to justify not working? It's insane, financially and emotionally. Why can't people just relax and do what they want to do?

MrsCromwell, "Why can't people just relax and do what they want to do?"

Totally agree. So long as both parties to the relationship have an equal opportunity (not necessarily exercised concurrently) to do it. The only scenario I object to is where one party has to be a work monkey to finance the other's swanning around being relaxed and happy.

I wonder if some women collude in societal's expectations of men being the bread winner to justify their relaxed existence.

That is interesting Blueshoes. But I doubt that there are many swanning around whilst Dhs slave away unhappily as work monkey. I suspect, but don't know for a fact, that isn't very common.

Probably more common is where couples balance the potential for control that earning partner possesses and loss of independence for non working , against the greater free time, smoother run household and different obligations.

Like all relationships these things are intensely personal. I tend to the view that in 90% of cases the SAHP is the one more vulnerable and with most to lose if the relationship ceases to suit both of them.

Blueshoes, I don't see why men should feel under pressure either. I mean, obviously we all have to pay the bills, and every couple or family has to work out how to do that, but why this fetish about work, work, work...for it's own sake? Like it's proving some kind of moral superiority if you are always under pressure, carrying a blackberry and doing endless overtime...

At a societal level it doesn't really make sense for us all to accumulating more and more...we'd be better working out how to distribute things better.

And as SassySusan says, there are huge benefits from not everyone being in paid employment. Communities where everybody works full-time often feel like dead communities, nobody knows each other...and it's the elderly for example, who often suffer, as well as schools and other organisations which benefit from volunteers.

pagwatch, I like your point about the increased vulnerability of lower/non-earning partner being the trade-off for choosing a more home-focused life. The 'we are a partnership and yours-is-mine and vice versa' does not adequately take this reality in account. Since you and your dh acknowledged this important point I am satisfied (again not saying you care) that the joint decision was an informed one.

Someone mentioned earlier about cutting off your nose to spite your face. My discomfort is, however, is in women shooting themselves in the foot without even knowing it by choosing to mangle their employability to take the less work-focused route of their heart's desire. The work monkey might have the last laugh after all.

I think the situation is fine as you are both happy with the balance as it is, and you're not receiving benefits, so not expecting the state (ie other workers!) to subsidise your choice.

The only thing I'd add, is that people change and go through various phases (you say yourself that you used to be ver career oriented and have changed) so bear in mind that your DH could, in the future, feel that he wants to go part time/change career etc. At that point he may need you to step up career-wise. So I'd advise that you keep yourself employable and with earning potential - and it sounds as though you are. I would also advise you to check your pension situation, as in the event of your DH dying first, would you have an entitlement to some of his pension? Not nice to think about but very necessary. I have some female friends who erroneously think they are entitled to the full whack of their husbands pension in this event, and are merrily going through life having no provision of their own.

I think the key thing is both couples agreeing (as you two are) and also recognising that flexibility is the key. People's career pattern has changed these days - the days of women practically giving up and never working again once they have a family have long gone, but equally, I think a lot of men want more flexibility than just working their way up the career ladder for 40 years f/t.