Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that a career / work is not the be all and end all

338 replies

Cantz · 02/07/2015 21:11

I am 38 now, no children and I haven't worked a job since I was 29 and even the it was just part time. My husband works but I don't I have a blog that makes a little money and I sell some art work which brings in something but I don't have a career or a job I am mostly at home cooking, gardening and doing my own thing. It works for us and we are happy after 21 years together.
Lots of my friends have careers some are Doctors, others work in TV or in IT and we still have plenty in common. I want these women, my friends to have what makes them happy and of that is a career then great. I absolutely support the right of a women to do what she wants with her life but I am finding more and more that for me to choose not to have a career, especially as I don't have children is a total taboo.

It often feels like there is huge pressure to go out and get a job, that you cannot be fufilled unless you are in paid employment and that worse by not working you cannot possibley be contributing to society. There are lots of ways a person can make a contribution it isn't all about money or even having kids for that matter.

Surely paid employment isn't the be all and end all?

OP posts:
abearcalledpaddington · 03/07/2015 07:31

OP have you read how to be free by Tom Hodgkinson?

Lweji · 03/07/2015 07:32

Also remember that it's not you who can afford not to work. It's your husband who can afford for you not to work. You are his dependant, whether you like it or not.

Buddy80 · 03/07/2015 07:33

Abear I have Smile but have you read his follow-up article?

Lweji · 03/07/2015 07:35

Buddy, can you see how contradictory your own post is?

The more people work and contribute, the more jobs.

Atm, the op is living a leisurely life whilst using resources, such as the NHS, instead of contributing to them. Not because she can't, or because it makes financial sense, but simply because she won't.

32percentcharged · 03/07/2015 07:39

The phrase 'work fetish' says it all... Very judgemental. I don't know a single person who fetishises work. People place varying degrees of importance on their work, but everyone I know values family, friends and often interests and hobbies as highly important.

As I said before, in one sense it's entirely up to the OP and her husband if they're happy with this set up (incidentally, does she think her hubby has a work fetish?! Or is that just an insult to throw af other people who hold down intetesting jobs?!)

However, I would imagine in 2015 there are sharply dwindling numbers of people who choose to partner someone with such glaringly different approaches to life- one sole earner and one earning zero. And Realistically you're pretty much pigeonholed into those roles long term because you're unlikely to walk into interesting well paid work if you haven't been in the workplace for years, in the event that the working partner decides they want a change. Most people nowadays (men and women) want a more equal balance of work, domesticity, hobbies, childcare etc so would opt for a more balanced partnership.

mamadoc · 03/07/2015 07:55

If I were your husband I would resent carrying you financially.
Where someone is a SAHP it is clear that bringing up children and managing the household is their contribution instead of paid work but where there are no children I am not sure that I would view getting household tasks for 2 adults done as sufficient payback for paying all the costs.

If I were you I would not be able to be comfortable being so financially dependent on another person.

But if it works for you then it works for you.

Writerwannabe83 · 03/07/2015 07:56

It isn't about whether the DH loves his job and would be doing it anyway. It isn't about the OP still being dependent on her DH even if she did work as don't we all need our partner's income as well as our own to maintain our current standard life?

It's about the fact that he has to provide about 99% of the income whilst OH does practically nothing to CONTRIBUTE.

I can't imagine ever being in an adult relationship where one partner of happy to leech off the other simply because they don't want to work. I doubt many if is any to work but we do it to make a contribution towards the costs of our houses, bills, food, holidays and cars etc.

As a previous poster said, if this post was flipped on it's head and a woman wad going out to work whilst her partner did nothing but grow vegetables because he simply didn't want to work there would be uproar and he'd be rightly so labelled as a cocklodger. I would also be interested to know what the female equivalent is?

However, because it's a woman living off her husband that is seem as much more socially acceptable and 'good for her' which demonstrate that behind everything woman are perhaps not the 'equal sex' in the eyes of society and some women are happy to take on that role.

I know of some SAHDs and obviously the woman is more than happy to financially provide, but I honestly can't think of any woman I have ever known who would be happy to go out to work each day to fund a lifestyle and pay for everything whilst her cocklodger partner does f**k all to financially contribute for the simple reason that he doesn't want to.

mortgagewoes100 · 03/07/2015 07:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BathshebaDarkstone · 03/07/2015 08:01

DH works part time because that was all he could get, but it's perfect for him as he's 61 and it's a very physical job. He gets home at 1, has lunch and falls asleep on the sofa! Grin

32percentcharged · 03/07/2015 08:10

Actually here's a suggestion OP. Talk to your DH and find out what it is about working that he finds rewarding (apart from the fact that it pays the bills for you both!) Think about the things that you find rewarding in your life- gardening, cooking etc . I know you have chosen not to have children, but maybe even talk to some of your friends who have decided to become parents to find out what makes them tick.
Finally- when youve done this thinking and talking- try to get your head around the concept that many adults (most, perhaps) value all of those things and want a life where they get some of each, rather than pigeonholing themselves Into one aspect.

It's not about work being the 'be all and end all' or a 'fetish'.... I think that's your misunderstanding. It's about women and men wanting balance in their lives, and partnerships which don't depend on diametrically opposed roles

Lweji · 03/07/2015 08:15

I am curious how it came to be that you ended up not working.

Was it a conscious decision by the both of you? Or did you slip into it? It could be that your husband doesn't want to stir the boat. Is he truly happy that you do not have a significant income because you choose not to? Or is he under the misapprehension that you would work if only...

Lweji · 03/07/2015 08:17

What's funny it that this thing about work not being it all only works when one of the partners does work and earns enough.

If both were like the OP, it would have been interesting and we'd all be complaining about benefits spongers that are too good and arty to work.

ReallyNotAMorningPerson · 03/07/2015 08:21

Another one who thinks please don't think an MA will help you after a decade out of work (unless you've been child rearing).

I've seen people with huge gaps on their CVs and the qualification gathering dust does them no favours (and many MAs aren't vocational so don't, realistically, 'qualify' you for anything as such).

I don't think people on here are being harsh because they're enjoying it, they're just wanting to point out that OP would do well to be a little more cautious and make provisions for herself should things go tits up.

If husband is in science he could fall in love with someone sexy in the lab and then what? Wink

Buddy80 · 03/07/2015 08:31

Lwej not everyone in work "generates" work. If ten people go for one post, surely it is better if it goes to someone not only the best qualified but also needs the job?

I did not post to get a debate myself, it is just my opinion.

If the OP does not want to work, surely it is better that a job can go to someone else?

As for using resources such as the NHS, is that really a worry? Surely the OP contributes to society in her own way (through spending). The NHS is a service that is here for all.

Buddy80 · 03/07/2015 08:33

Out of interest, what if the OP chose to volunteer full-time?

Would that be seen as worthwhile?

SirChenjin · 03/07/2015 08:56

Buddy - the job goes to the best person, full stop. Recruitment is never ever based on who 'needs' the job - it's not even a minor factor. People work for all sorts of reasons - and the OP should be pleased that her DH has chosen the employment route which allows her to spend her days pottering about.
Career/work is the be all and end all for her - someone else's career/work, that is.

abearcalledpaddington · 03/07/2015 08:59

Do you mean the one where he moves back to london? Grin

Buddy80 · 03/07/2015 09:03

Yes Sir, fully agree that in recruitment the job does go to the best person and based not need - agreed.

But there is also the theoretical discussion of if the OP does not need to work, surely it is better that a job can go to someone who needs it more? That is not a bad thing.

This thread has seemed to raise some hard feelings towards the OP, which is a shame. Yes, it could be that she is pottering around with her days, but it is their choice.

SirChenjin · 03/07/2015 09:09

And how do you determine need? Someone who fancies the job because they're bored at home? Someone who fancies a Job with a bit more money? Someone who needs the job because they would starve otherwise? You can't introduce the concept of 'need' into recruitment because there are simply too many variables and it would be impossible to recruit on that basis.

The OP has been challenged because it seems that she hasn't fully grasped the fact that it's that work/career she is so scathing about which allows her the freedom.to do as she pleases - and it's work/career she would have to turn to if it went tits up.

Buddy80 · 03/07/2015 09:14

I am not talking about recruitment, just the needs of society.

I think it is better that if the OP does not have to work and her husband is fine with it, what is the issue? Surely, it is up to him to decide.

SirChenjin · 03/07/2015 09:20

The needs of society? That simply doesn't make sense. Furthermore, I'm not exactly getting the sense that the OP is not working for altruistic reasons.

It is their decision, absolutely - but completely ridiculous to claim that work is not the be all and end all - because it is. Paid work supports her lifestyle, puts a roof over her head, pays her bills, puts food on her table. Without his paid income she'd have to - guess what - work!

Buddy80 · 03/07/2015 09:22

Ha ha ha - love the circular reasoning.

But we are not talking about hypotheticals, the OP is happy as she is.

Yes, I agree, that work does play a part in her life, that provides for her lifestyle.

OP if you were single, what would you be doing work-wise? a part-time job and a minimal lifestyle? Or would you work full time to have the lifestyle you have now?

SirChenjin · 03/07/2015 09:31

There is no circular reasoning - I am simply disagreeing with you.

Yes, the OP is happy as she is. So why start a thread about it? Unless she hasn't grasped the fact that paid work is the be all and end all for all manner of reasons.

butterfly133 · 03/07/2015 10:25

can anyone provide a link to Tom Hodgkinson's follow up article?

OP, I think some of the questions you have been asked are fair. I'm not suggesting that you catastrophise but some questions are legit and better planned for than not, in my humble opinion e.g. illness. It does sound like you save and you sound like the SAH of a friend of mine.

their story, for those who are interested - the woman worked all the time and he was a stay at home. Unfortunately they spent recklessly and she suddenly found herself having employment issues, got made redundant and didn't have a fricking bean. He stepped up big time and got a job sorting in a local market etc - about 1/4 of what they were on before - but I always wondered what would have happened if he had been unable to do that heavy physical work. I realise you are prepared to step up, but sometimes the options you have are so limited.

but if you're happy with your choice, fine. You put them out here for comment, so we are commenting!

keepitsimple0 · 03/07/2015 10:26

You are raising the next generation of workers, how is that not a job?!

well, it's not paid employment. And many people do that without being a SAHP.

I agree, people should do what they want if they can afford it, but it does have a cost. Should the OP split from her/his partner the OP will have no job experience and it will be very tough.