To work full time to fund DHs preferred lifestyle?

[Smoothsailing9]

Bit of background first. My DH has a professional job which he trained for at university and has done ever since (20 years). He earns approx £50,000 a year. I went to university but did an arts degree, then trained as a teacher but didn’t enjoy it. Worked in various fairly low paid arts related jobs until I had DCs and took several years out. Returned to work part time when youngest was 3. My mum has always willingly provided free childcare/ after school supervision. I now have a 20 hours per week job I really enjoy but is very low paid compared to DH, I bring home around £8,000 a year.

A few days ago eldest DS was talking about a new phone he wants for Xmas. We discussed it and told him it was way too expensive. Obviously he moaned and sulked - he is 14. But DH used the opportunity to go on a massive rant about how little money he has, how he can’t afford a new car and foreign holiday every year etc and eventually, as I knew it would, it ended up being my fault for not bringing enough money in. This was in front of DCs. I was upset but left it.

Then about 3am that night DH wakes me up to say he’s really stressed about money. I said, I’m not discussing this in the middle of the night and went downstairs to make a cup of tea (I don’t sleep very well). He followed me and started a huge row about how “someone of your intelligence should be earning more” and “ if I’d married someone in my industry, I’d be fine”. Went on about how much more his friends earn, how I’ve got no savings or pension (although I actually have), how he wants me to get a full time job.

He brings all this up regularly but it’s really upset me this time. Although he’s a good dad, I do all the housework, paperwork, shopping and cooking and the ‘mental load’ stuff. I spend all my time not at work doing stuff for the house and family, whereas he just works, comes home and relaxes. If I worked full time his life would change massively. He might be able to buy a nicer car, but he’d need to take on half of the running of the house and I know he wouldn’t. I would certainly go back full time when the DCs can look after themselves more, but I just can’t see how I’d manage it now. Also, I am really low maintenance and really don’t cost him a lot. Don’t drink, no expensive hobbies, buy all my clothes off eBay. So AIBU not to look for a full time job?

I love how all the posters banging on about how "irresponsible" the OP is not to have any savings are conveniently ignoring the fact that she inherited £30k but her DH lost it all in some daft scheme.

And you only have to look at the pitiful statistics about women in retirement and the frightening percentage who don’t have adequate finances

Just responding to this Morno27, not all low paid part time workers have poor pensions

Neither would be as well off in the event of divorce, that’s pretty darn obvious. You’re going from 2 people sharing a home and income to running 2 separate homes. But he would be way better off than her and most importantly could probably continue on his current earning, albeit dropping his standard of lifestyle a bit. The impact would be much greater on her, and that 8k wouldn’t go very far

Sexual bullying to the point of developing vaginismus = ‘not a catch’.

Riight

It’s called understatement. Or were you looking for me to call him a cunt?

No it’s not it’s called minimising. Or really not getting it.

the OP is not to have any savings are conveniently ignoring the fact that she inherited £30k but her DH lost it all in some daft scheme

Did she not say she used it to pay off a bad investment (BLT)?

No it’s not it’s called minimising. Or really not getting it.

I agree that you don’t get what understatement is.

Yes, she did. His shit investment. Because he appears to be as shit with money as he is with just about everything else.

God I hope the op has hidden this thread now. It gets worse. There is a real person on the end of this. Piling in and ripping her apart from behind a keyboard is vile no matter if you disagree with her work ethic. The projecting on this thread is rife.

AIBU = Am I Bullying Unreasonably?

Ah right ringthebells- thanks for clarifying. My point is that when you look at the statistics overall, far more women than men are in a financially vulnerable position in retirement and don’t have adequate finances to support themselves - particularly if their husband predeceases them. Of course being statistics, there will always be exceptions and women who are on fabulous final salary pensions that are enough even working part time. But that’s pretty rare. My final salary pension is a teaching one and probably about as good as it gets, and having worked full time most of my career it will be very comfortable- but I certainly wouldn’t want any less. But people like you and me are the exceptions. Most women are far more vulnerable. The OP with her very low earnings throughout her work life, and in a rubbish marriage, is definitely vulnerable

If all the money she earnt by getting one of these mythical well paid jobs from the well paid job money tree was spent on new toys for him, what's in it for her? Nothing at all except less time to do everything needed to run a household.

This sums it up beautifully.

But he would be way better off than her and most importantly could probably continue on his current earning, albeit dropping his standard of lifestyle a bit. The impact would be much greater on her, and that 8k wouldn’t go very far

He would be which is why it is so ridiculous that some posters seem to sympathize with him rather than her. Career wise he has probably benefited greatly from the fact that OP has done all the childcare and housework and he may be earning a higher amount as a result and he will be able to continue earning that should they divorce. In contrast OP's career opportunities have probably been very limited by the fact that she has taken all those things and it will be very difficult for her to increase her earnings.

Ok, you call it a bad investment, I called it a daft scheme...pretty much means the same thing doesn't it? The point is her DH made a bad investment and OP had to use her inheritance to bail the family out, so it's a bit rich to berate her for having no savings.

I that you don’t get what understatement is.

I know exactly what understatement and so do you. You know what minimising is. I’m not calling you semantically challenged but a liar.

I do think OP would've had a different response had people been aware he's sexually abusive, and in fairness some people only really read the highlighted OP posts so might have missed the back story.

Now that we have it though, hopefully we're all clear that the OP would be well advised to earn more to give her the best protection against this bully. Not because we think there's any real chance of him suddenly behaving decently, or because he's entitled to a new car on a 50k salary with three teen kids, an expensive hobby and a history of poor investment decisions.

I love how all the posters banging on about how "irresponsible" the OP is not to have any savings are conveniently ignoring the fact that she inherited £30k but her DH lost it all in some daft scheme.

We have no idea what went wrong with the BTL. Many people have gone on to build small empires out of BTL.

Neither do we know if the OP was a part of the decision to enter into the BTL.

Ok, you call it a bad investment, I called it a daft scheme...pretty much means the same thing doesn't it? The point is her DH made a bad investment and OP had to use her inheritance to bail the family out, so it's a bit rich to berate her for having no savings.

No, my point was that it sounded as if a) she was forced to use her inheritance and b) that the investment was entirely his doing.

I think PP asked for clarification on both points but don’t remember seeing a response from OP.

I certainly haven’t berated her for no savings - but I think it would be wise, for her own sake, given her husband’s repeatedly expressed discontent, for her to try to maximise her income now, so she is not in such a precarious position in the event of a split.

I know exactly what understatement and so do you. You know what minimising is. I’m not calling you semantically challenged but a liar.

Fair enough. I’m thinking you’re a thick, reactionary, aggressive, trothing, projecting idiot.

Que sera, sera.

Aww I guess you panicked?

i’m not the one claiming not to know the difference between understatement and minimisation.

Aww I guess you panicked?

Panicked by a frothing muppet on the internet who has no comprehension of understatement?

Your attempts to call me out as some sort of rape apologist because you don’t seem to understand anything more nuanced than shouting CUNT CUNT CUNT when describing someone are your issue.

Quit trying to merail the thread. It’s really distasteful, particularly on a thread of this nature.

i’m not the one claiming not to know the difference between understatement and minimisation

And nowhere did I claim I didn’t know the difference. What a bare faced liar you are.

The point is her DH made a bad investment and OP had to use her inheritance to bail the family out

I haven't seen a response from OP on how this decision was made (if I've missed it, please point me to it - I've scanned the thread for highlighted OP posts). The facts of this decision are crucial to know.

Did make this investment unilaterally? Not involving OP in the decision, or going over her head when she protested? If so, that's pretty serious, even if it had succeeded.

Or did he just float the idea and they agreed on it jointly, or OP just didn't like to think about money stuff and agreed to let him make the call on it? If so, then it's wrong to blame him and say he somehow owes OP for it.

We need to know what happened here. I know the OP says 'he' did it but this is brief, vague and flippant language and there might be more to it.

If they got divorced would she be entitled to half his pension?

fast moving thread. I said it is best to agree things in advance. Momo27 rightly said things do change. i agree with that.

The issue here is if he wanted them both always to work full time why did they get to a position where she gave up work? If the agreement is we both work full time then he is doing what mmy children's father did before baby 1 was born even calling round childcare agencies, interviewing people, choosing childcare - that is what good men do if they want to help and you will both work full time always. I wonder if he did any of that and how they came to a point where after say 2 or 3 mo nths of the baby being born she was not planning a return to full time work.

TatianaLarina you're well and truly derailing.