about dh's bonus

[bath4]

Dh has a good job and earns enough for me to be a SAHP. We have a joint account which I rarely use and a joint credit card. I use this for day to day stuff. I don't spend a fortune on myself. Just buy essentials.
DH has just received a bonus. He has spent £200 on stuff for himself and £50 on each of 3 dc's. He has never said to me why don't you get something too.
Now in theory I could buy something but its not really about that.
I just want to treated as an equal. My contribution to household may not be monetary but its still important.
AIBU

Well all this has gone a bit off-topic hasn't it??

OP doesn't feel she is valued because not bought a gift with the bonus when the children were. But the bonus went into the joint account, no? I'm with those who (early on) pointed out that equality means she should just treat herself.

Seems to me, OP is hanging an awful lot on one comment once about spending money (and we don't know the exact wording) when the account was overspent. That's not the same as questioning every time she spends anything! If I went overdrawn, I'd be questioning myself about why this was and looking back to see what had caused this. Basic financial awareness.

I think OP resents the fact that she doesn't get financial recognition for her work, and that's her issue to deal with, not a necessary consequence of being a SAHM. To be fair, I have discovered that I don't deal well with the lack of 'recognition' that comes with being a SAHM either, but understanding this about myself meant that I could be positive about going back to working outside the home i.e. it wasn't a choice and I sort of wished I could stay home but it is still right for me to be out working. Other people are happier in their own skins and don't need that affirmation so being a SAHP is more successful for them. Seems to me OP hasn't worked out that you decide what suits you/your circumstances - then accept that you get good bits and bad bits with either decision.

Hear! hear! stillstanding

I'm with sm on that. Housework is just self-care. You can choose to pay someone to file and polish your nails or mop your floors (or do your accounts, walk your dog), or you can do it yourself.

But yes needinstructions is right - this is going off topic a bit.

the problem with that argument stillstanding is that there is no way to sack or discipline a sahm if her standards aren't any good, for instance I'm a pretty rubbish housekeeper...I suppose if that thought were taken further then one could say that as the job role is never appraised then a bonus could never be applicable....

this is miles off point
if the OP isn't comfortable with her situation then she needs to discuss with her H.

Wordfactory - I absolutely agree but surely, if taking into all factors, a woman wants to stay at home and forego her career (either in the short-term or for good) then she should be allowed to do so without feeling somehow a failure to womankind.

I agree though that it is usually for a miriad of other reasons that it is the woman that is expected to give up work if it is a choice between parents. I, in fact, have a friend whose husband refuses to give up his work to care for their child even though it costs them more for the child to be in childcare than he earns. I agree that it is their decision to do this but can't help feeling that if it was the woman that earned less she would be under a lot of pressure to give up her work.

SM - it is sad that you feel SAH is not equal to paid employment, I feel my husband's role is equally as important as mine within the family. If, for some reason, your DP was unable or chose not to work would you consider his contribution inferior?

No I don't feel anyone should be forced to do things for womankind, but I do think we have the duty to at least consider the consequences. None of us make decisions in isolation.

I'm not saying that SAHM is a job with employment terms etc but only that (in response to some other posts) it is silly to dismiss the "work" that a SAHM does purely because it is unpaid. Housework may be selfcare but childcare is not. If a SAHM did not complete the "tasks"/look after her children, someone else would need to. The SAHP enables the other to be in the workplace with no additional cost of, eg, childcare and both parents' contribution must be recognised.

I do think that this has got off point but there is something in it because there seems to be a suggestion that the OP doesn't feel entitled to spend money on herself from the joint account. (I, on the other hand, feel VERY comfortable dipping into the joint account!) But I agree that this is a relationship issue and OP needs to speak to her DH ...

It's just mostly the women givein up work and that's bad. We will never get equality with all these women (and not equivalent men) giving up work. You are in effect kicking working women and your daughters in the teeth and perpetuating sexist stereotypes.

As for how to punish the bnad housewife, if she's very had she loses her children or her husband but you have to be pretty bad to get to that point. If she sits around all day and neglects the child and doesn't clean the house (some housewives are worse than working men and women at organising the house - it is by no means the case that housewives do it better and you wouldn't expect that much competence from them in any quart er anyway as they tend to be the ones who failed at work) I suppose you cuold operate a system of penalties - no allowacne to buy new clothes until the house meets the right standards or she can prove she spent x amount of time interacting with the baby. Husband could have web cam on at home to check she was doing things right.

Oh poohsticks, I'm a terribly bad housewife!

Good job I'm very, very good at other stuff

Problem is the economy couldn't actually cope if all SAHM's decide to stick their kids in nursery and go get high powered, 'worthwhile' jobs.

Don't know if anyone has noticed but the current state of ecomony means the job market is poor. Especially to those who would need to be available to leave at the drop of a hat for an ill child (as presumably the higher earner wouldn't do it would they).

OP, you need to have a chat to your DH about finances - see whether he is treating you as an equal and you are projecting your own insecurities, or if in fact he does hold some weird grudge against you for funding your 'at home' years. I hope it's the first option, and that the talk resolves your feelings around money and the home.

FWIW I actually think this is not actually about the bonus, but the bonus was the catalyst for how they deal with their finances generally. Hope you get it sorted OP.

Xenia,

Your model is bizarre. A far better model is a partnership. There are 2 jobs which need to be done and two people to do them. Once they have decided a split, they are both responsible for their part of the partnership. Basically, they are autonomous individuals within the partnership with equal access to the resources (maybe adjusted for the assets each partner brought into the partnership).

If either partner really fails, either has the right to break up the partnership. However, this should really be a last option.

I dunno larry.

Until recently men went out and earned the money and women stayed at home and did all the bloody chores. Unsurprisingly, women were not best pleaded with this arangement.

Now we have all this talk about partnership and equality and choice and I do worry that it is just the same old same old wearing nicer knickers.

Wouldn't a better paradigm be that all parents did a bit of everything? They both took care of home and children, both earned money?

I mean I don't, sadly, live my life that way. My DH works silly hours. But I do wonder if his job might change a bit if more women did it. Everything would be less extreme>

I hear you very clearly there wordfactory.
DH works silly hours too in an almost exclusively male environment apart from support staff. I have no doubt that if there were women doing what he does at his level, things would be different.

So true, wordfactory. I read this article recently which talked about the "normal" system (ie men working, women at home) effectively creating disgruntled harpies not able to live up to their full potential and resenting it and workaholic fathers who never get to see their kids. The System's Broke. A bit of balance all round must be a good thing ...

Word,

I think the deal is up to personal agreement. Housewife/earning husband, Househusband/earning wife or 50/50. Any can work but people do have to agree, ideally before marriage and children.

Wordfactory, whilst I think you make an excellent point which would be great in an ideal world, we unfortunately don't live in one.

The chances of my DH getting a part-time job in his profession mon-wed (for example), and me get one in mine thur-fri, are non-existant. And even if those jobs could be found, it would be more likely that our hours would overlap in some way &/or we would need help with the school drop off and pick ups, so we'd still only have the equivalent of one ft income coming in, but the additional costs of childcare that we don't have to pay now with me as a SAHM.

What angers me with debates such as this, and comments such as Xenia's above that "it's mostly women giving up work and that's bad", is that I believe woman's equality is supposed to give us a choice. My choice is to stay at home with my dc, but the choice that I have made is belittled by the very people who say that they want women to have choice.

You can't fight for woman's rights, and then when women exercise those rights complain that they're doing it in the wrong way; as surely that makes "feminism" more of a dictatorship than an equalising movement?

And as for the OP, have a chat with your DH, explain how you feel and come to an agreement together as to how the family money is spent - that's what partnership/marriage is all about.

*school drop offs, pick ups and holidays

yes ideally discuss and confirm before dc and bidie-in
? concretely agree
? work patterns
? finances
? expectations
? roles
? division of chores

discuss all that before children arrive. I had nursery booked 12wk pg had it all planned. I couldn?t have had children by a man who expected a housewife

don?t just fall into its women?s work, mums do childcare or that the woman gives up career or halts progression

if your discussion is yes want both to work then plan that and stick to it, be clear parenting is shared. And no career has priority over the other.and plan use of cm, nanny, nursery for drop off, collection, school holiday clubs etc

if discussion is woman sahm til kids at school plan that, and plan woman re-entry to job market when kids at school. Once they are at school there is nowt parenting to do anyway. but will need to plan and ideally have kept connections or contacts and skills. Or an educational course and the wage earner needs to conceptualise and accommodate housewife working when kids at school

and then of course some women never work at all after children.id recommend discuss the precarious nature of wholly dependent upon someone else.and the absence of purpose or vocation

I couldn?t have had children by a man who expected a housewife

And I couldn't have had children by a man who expected me to be a working mother.

shrugs

Really, slacking, REALLY?! Am incredulous ...

Am all for choice - lots of different people, lots of factors, lots of reasons to stay at home/go to work - and I don't think that any choice is more valid than any other. Each couple works out what works for them but statements like yours are what give SAHM's a bad name. It is bizarre to expect a man to "keep" you because you have children. Bizarre and archaic.

But I spose, if everyone sits down and has a proper and realistic discussion re aspirations/expectations etc as scottishmummy proposes, then it should all work out (in theory anyway) .... The men who want housewives get housewives and the women who want providers get housewives. Good theory anyway.

Arrghh ... meant to say "The men who want housewives marry housewives and the women who want providers marry the housewife-hunters" or some such-like.

YANBU

For once, I can look at what my DH does and be pleased! I hadn't really thought about it until now.

Like you, all of our finances are joint but DH manages the accounts. I do work part-time but I actually think that is irrelevant. I think that DH would do exactly the same whether I was full-time or not in paid employment.

My DH always makes a point when he gets an annual bonus of encouraging myself and DC to chose a treat. Mainly because he wants a treat himself. Most of the money will go out sensible things like takiing a lump sum off the mortgage or clearing a car loan - but there is always some for each of us.

He does sometimes refer to buying things with 'his money' - which is irritating as I work 30+ hrs a week, do almost all of the housework and childcare. He does earn about 5x as much as me so I let it slide...

My DH no more expected me to SAH as he expected me to go to work.

He had no expectations it was and always has been a 100% joint decision between us.

I think it would be pretty grim to be in a marriage where the other partner expected you to do something you didn't want to, full stop. Actually, it would be pretty grim to be in a marriage where there was only one acceptable option regardless of whether you both agreed to it. People change and can change their minds, how awful to be expected to work/not work without any flexibility of choice.

"how awful to be expected to work/not work without any flexibility of choice."

Welcome to the real world