Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

“Wife and baby to support”

85 replies

Bebepoor · 14/02/2018 22:26

I worked very hard to get a job with an employer offering great maternity. I then saved to be able to pay myself a full time salary over the 3 months on SMP and the 3 unpaid months of the 12 months mat leave I planned to take. Since I’ve been on mat leave we’re (very luckily) not seeing a real drop in income.

DH will not stop referring to “having to support a wife and baby” and “having a wife and baby at home” to gain discounts on things (eg product fee was knocked off our mortgage renewal; extra 3 years guarantee and servicing on our car) or sympathy or even just favours. He even got an early promotion at work because of his “young family”.

It makes me feel absolutely pathetic. Like I’m a drain. I hate it. He just thinks he’s being canny. AIBU?

OP posts:
ButchyRestingFace · 14/02/2018 23:16

Your DH hasn't done anything wrong apart from enjoying his newfound status.

His newfound status as being some poor, put-upon, solely-responsible-for-keeping-the-wolf-from-the-door worker bee? Hmm

Except that he isn't. And it's a lie.

He's reinforcing a patriarchal view of women and men's status. How are things ever going to change for women if we have men running around hamming up some total bollox about single handedly having to support the old ball and chain and kids?

That said, I'd struggle to get worked up about the freebies on anything other than a theoretical level. Blush

But the workplace promotion is something else.

greendale17 · 14/02/2018 23:17

Nope wouldnt bother me I'd be egging him on to keep hamming it up to keep getting discounts if its a winning formula!

^This

ILostItInTheEarlyNineties · 14/02/2018 23:20

Yes well put Butchy.

LadyLapsang · 14/02/2018 23:23

YANBU Fathers who work full time get a 21% "wage bonus" in comparison to their peers with no children at age 42, in contrast, mothers who work full time suffer an 11% pay penalty in relation to their peers without children (& of course mothers who work part time are worse off than those working full time). Tell him about shared parental leave, then you can come home and bleat at him about "having a husband and baby to support". You might be better off at the moment, but I bet that in the long term his attitude does not bode well for your career or family finances. I wouldn't be able to put up with this.

FloraFox · 14/02/2018 23:24

lottie

Presumably because they think the man will stay with the company and repay its generosity / feel obligated towards it, whereas a woman could flit off on maternity leave again and possibly never come back. The younger or single woman might do the same in future.

I don't even think it is as thought out as this. It seems to me that men in very free market companies suddenly come over all socialist when it comes to what men need to earn versus women. Largely men who have wives at home.

Valentinesfart · 14/02/2018 23:29

I'm a big fan of freebies, but I don't like the fact that men get a bonus by having children and women lose money on a wider scale.

It still makes sense on a personal level to milk it while you can though- sorry! Don't hate they player, hate the game!

I hop ehe isn't saying this shit to you though as you're effectively doing dobule time, bringing in maternity pay and providing child care.

Original poster
Bebepoor · 14/02/2018 23:32

Butchy that is exactly it. He’s all “I’m hardly saying you’re the old ‘ball and chain’ or ‘her indoors’” and I’m sort of....”errr yeah you are.”

OP posts:
feska5 · 14/02/2018 23:36

Surely your DH didn’t get promoted just because he has a young family? His employer must have felt he was worthy of promotion.

HeddaGarbled · 14/02/2018 23:42

I'd like to know the name of the mortgage lender, the garage and the employer who are giving these amazing deals. Surely no company hands out preferential rates to fathers/men only. That would be illegal, I think.

FloraFox · 14/02/2018 23:44

feska5 I think this is the just world fallacy. We like to think that people get ahead based on their "worth" but it's not true. Lots of people are promoted because they tick the right boxes for their bosses. I have actually heard this sentiment expressed by men who are in a position to make promotions.

It's very tempting to think that women's subordinate position in careers or society is a result of ignorance or lack of education but really I don't believe that. There are a lot of men in positions of influence making conscious decisions to prioritise men over women.

sallyandherarmy · 14/02/2018 23:45

This is a WUT isn't it?

Yep, it must be.

Nowt as strange as folk (or women).

ArgosTheDog · 14/02/2018 23:49

An employer would hardly promote staff just because of their young family!!! I stunned that anyone thinks they would

Valentinesfart · 14/02/2018 23:51

WUT?

AskBasil · 14/02/2018 23:56

"An employer would hardly promote staff just because of their young family!!! I stunned that anyone thinks they would"

It's more subtle than that.

It's well known that men who are fathers, earn more and have higher professional status in an organisation, than men who are not.

This is even taking into account the relative ages of fathers vs non-fathers (obviously they're older and therefore higher up the career ladder). Even if you weight the figures to take account of age, men who are fathers just earn more.

The likelihood is that they are seen as more adult, more serious, more dependable etc. and therefore the men who are in charge, who have empathy with them, take them more seriously and promote them.

Also married men earn more than single men, also even if you weight for age.

FloraFox · 15/02/2018 00:02

The likelihood is that they are seen as more adult, more serious, more dependable etc. and therefore the men who are in charge, who have empathy with them, take them more seriously and promote them.

I think this is ex post facto justification. I really think men in positions to make decisions really think men with families to support deserve more. I have had many conversations about this with men who have this power to make decisions. When you say "I didn't realise you are a communist" (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need) there is a lot of blustering. But it ends up in the same place.

BoneyBackJefferson · 15/02/2018 00:06

ArgosTheDog
An employer would hardly promote staff just because of their young family!!! I stunned that anyone thinks they would

I've seen it done either jumping through pay grade boundaries, actual promotions, or nepotism.

I've also seen it done when redundancies come through, those with families being placed on the list as more important even though they are no so good at the job.

mathanxiety · 15/02/2018 00:16

He even got an early promotion at work because of his “young family”.

If I were a woman in his workplace who did not get a promotion because of her young family (and I bet it works the opposite way round for mothers) I would be taking his employer to court.

Because this is BS.

FloraFox I couldn't agree more.

LadyLapsang · 15/02/2018 07:48

Sadly, in poor companies, people promote from a very small pool in their own image. So if your husband's boss / management chain are fathers with SAHMs, they could be more likely to promote him. Also, a common perception is a father with an economically inactive partner, or whose partner doesn't earn much, will be more reliable as they have less choice - if they are sacked, they are in a much worse position than someone whose partner is their financial equal. My personal bugbear is men at work who talk the talk about equality in mixed company and then when they forget you are around, start referring to "the missus" and put "childcare" in their calendars when they are going home early to watch the football - funny how they all suddenly have childcare or the same day, even though you know their partner is at home and they never have childcare responsibilities when they are heading off to the pub for the evening.

NurseryFightClub · 15/02/2018 08:03

Discount fine, I'd be pissed if my colleagues got promoted because they had children to support and not on their merit

MyKingdomForBrie · 15/02/2018 08:09

I couldn’t be annoyed at him for things like the mortgage fee, but I’d be angry at the world re the promotion point! Hard to criticise him for taking advantage where offered but it should not have been offered.

If he was telling friends/family that kind of line I’d rip his head off though.

I didnt save for my mat leave and we solely depend on my husband’s income. He solely depends on my childcare though so we are more than quits.

StealthPolarBear · 15/02/2018 08:15

Well said butchy.
Op there are plenty of people who think the husband provides. If the wife works it's a little job for pin money.

TheDailyMailLovesTheEUReally · 15/02/2018 08:15

I find it really interesting that you are the one that did the saving up to cover your maternity leave. Surely the baby is a joint responsibility, in which case why isn't he contributing financially to your mat leave?

I have no issue with someone being financially savvy - although the sexist and manipulative way he's going about it leaves something to be desired. What I would have an issue with, is someone lying through their teeth about their responsibility to financially "support" you when it's actually YOUR savings that are keeping you...

HeartOfSass · 15/02/2018 08:19

The daily mail - but his “lies” are supporting/benefitting the family financially not just himself.

grasspigeons · 15/02/2018 08:33

This makes me a little sad. I value my financial independence, but surely he has contributed in some way to your being pregnant, giving birth and providing round the clock care to his child. Its like you are bearing the entire cost.

Blagging free stuff wouldn't bother me though.

Cambionome · 15/02/2018 08:34

Yes Heart - but talking about her as if she is some kind of financial burden while he manfully supports his family when she is the one who has saved and worked hard to avoid financial shortfalls is awful. He is showing a total lack of respect, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this wasn't indicative of his attitude towards her all women in general.