To think DH’s income belongs to us both?

[Illeana]

I’m a SAH (we can’t afford childcare, I’ll be returning to work when DC goes to nursery). DH (father of DC) works and supports us. I have no income other than DH’s salary.

I bought DH a birthday present, then he was really horrible to me and I snapped at him, you don’t deserve me to buy you a present when you’re so nasty. He lost his temper and said you didn’t buy it anyway, I DID BECAUSE YOU PAID ON MY CREDIT CARD.

AIBU to think it’s OUR money and OUR credit card? I’ve told him he won’t be getting a Christmas present because I apparently have no money to buy it with.

[SalmonFajitas]

@Pretzelcoatl
You can't have it both ways - either you are the husband or you're making up a load of rubbish about a situation you have no idea about. If the husband's job is so stressful and demanding he has the option of taking a pay cut and getting a less demanding job and doing his fair share of the childcare while OP also works. He'll have to do more work around the house of course and won't be able to swan off to to do his hobbies whenever he likes.

You suggest that OP works evenings - but when do you think she's going to sleep? What will she do when her husband absolutely has to work late or pursue his hobbies which you claim are vital for him being able to continue to work (although of course you don't know him and have no idea what his job is.......).

I imagine what the husband wants is to have his cake and eat it. He wants to have a lucrative career while his wife sorts everything out at home. He wants the freedom to pursue his hobbies and social life whenever he wants and he wants all the money from his job kept for himself.

[Namenic]

It seems like teamwork may have broken down in OPs case - which means that they can’t be efficient in getting things done.

They have different things they care about - eg OP is fussy about who looks after her kids and her DH likes/needs his hobbies - perhaps to help him continue with his job. Could they have counselling to help see other options?

@Pretzelcoatl - the correlate for OP paying teenager to put her child to bed is to have DH taking a less demanding job with less pay and doing more childcare so OP can work/study. Unless the DH is on minimum wage, this is an option (though may involve some upheaval as depends on the mortgage).

In the OPs situation I would prefer DH to take a less stressful job and share the childcare and housework while I re-trained/got a job. I have no issue with SAHPs - and have done it myself, but would never want to do it if DH said the stuff OPs DH said.

[millymoo1202]

I really hope you have this in your deeds that you have paid off your half of mortgage with inheritance! I was a stay at home parent for over 10 years to enable my Stbex to work away and earn a high salary, then took mim wage jobs once kids at school. You wouldn’t believe the bull he’s coming away with now we are divorcing! I heard your husband’s comments over and over again

[Pretzelcoatl]

@PitterPatterOfBigFeet

*” No one said love is all they need. People said love is something they definitely need. Your comments implied that it really made no difference if DC were cared for by a loving parent or a teenager being paid £5 an hour.

No, people said love was the most important thing, so I was responding to that. And because of what they were responding to, it was clear they were negating that the OP’s DH’s contributions were as nothing.

But the OP can, on a whim, pay a teenager to play with the kid and put them to bed. There is no equivalent to this for the DH.

”On the one hand you say that this husband (YOU) needs to relax after his demanding job, on the other you say his wife should be out working leaving him to do all the childcare and evening housework. Apparently he also goes on business trips so who is meant to care for the child then? Or is OP going to get some mysterious job which can be picked up and dropped on a whim?”

Maybe she could get that mysterious job from the poster who said that “love is the most important thing a child needs” who also said that they could simply move to a smaller house in a less desirable area - an idea that doesn’t touch on any of the issues raised and shows a huge disconnect from reality.

As I noted in a previous post, if you are a SAHP and are finishing that housework is a constant thing, something is very wrong and an expert should be brought in to remedy whatever has screwed up.

I also never said her DH needs to relax, I said he needs to get rid of the stress that high-end careers inevitably produce, which is what hobbies are for: you’re doing something you enjoy, and that makes it easier to continue shouldering the burdens of the parts of life that you are required to do.

If that still somehow means that neither of them would be available some night for the child, that’s where the teenager for hire comes in.

”The issue is clearly that you absolutely can't stand your wife and aren't particularly bothered about your child either.”

If the OP lives in the UK, then she’s not my wife and her child isn’t mine. But I feel bad for the entitled workshy “partner” he’s saddled himself with and hope that she starts acting like a contributing adult before she kills their relationship dead.

[PitterPatterOfBigFeet]

@ posterPretzelcoatl

If you need to blow off steam so much after work and sometimes stay late then how will you do all the childcare and extra housework OP won't be doing while she's at work in the evening?

[Pretzelcoatl]

@Londonmummy66

“ in what parallel universe will the DH (who is clearly you - stop snooping on your wife's MN account) be able to maintain exactly the same lifestyle if OP works the graveyard shifts? He will have to give up his freedom to stay late whenever he feels like it and his hobbies - which you seem to think poor pathetic little men need after their hard day's graft... “

His freedom to stay late... in what parallel universe is it a treat to stay even later at work? “Man, I’ve loved being here all day so much that I’m going to stay EVEN LATER because of how awesome it is!”

As for “poor pathetic little men”, he’s poor because his do-nothing wife - can hardly call her a partner - takes advantage of what he provides to have life her way, and he gets nothing out of it. He’s pathetic because he’s allowed himself to be trapped in a relationship like this. But yes, stressful jobs need valves to blow off the steam. Any psychologist will tell you that. Any article written in a big font you may have seen on Facebook will also tell you that.

”FOr a start being a SAHM is actually far more demanding than hard graft as a partner in a major city firm (and I know as I have done both) so if anyone needs a break and some hobbies its the OP and not the DH. Secondly you can just imagine how it will pan out “

I sure can - they should switch. OP can go live the cushy life by working and being the sole financial provider, and her DH can toil in the mines of domestic servitude. He’ll suffer and beg her to switch back, and with a newfound appreciation for how hard she’s had it he’ll gratefully go back to work, possibly as a newly-converted feminist in awe of how hard home life is.

”Reality check time for you poor little snowflake who has all the stress of going to work in the mornings.....”

You have convinced me. Help me save OP by having her trick her DH into doing all of the home stuff while she relaxes at work on Easy Street!

[PitterPatterOfBigFeet]

Kids need lots of things, and it’s only people who spend a lot of time watching television who lean towards the “love is all you need” fantasy.

No one said love is all they need. People said love is something they definitely need. Your comments implied that it really made no difference if DC were cared for by a loving parent or a teenager being paid £5 an hour.

On the one hand you say that this husband (YOU) needs to relax after his demanding job, on the other you say his wife should be out working leaving him to do all the childcare and evening housework. Apparently he also goes on business trips so who is meant to care for the child then? Or is OP going to get some mysterious job which can be picked up and dropped on a whim?

The issue is clearly that you absolutely can't stand your wife and aren't particularly bothered about your child either.

[Londonmummy66]

@Pretzelcoatl - in what parallel universe will the DH (who is clearly you - stop snooping on your wife's MN account) be able to maintain exactly the same lifestyle if OP works the graveyard shifts? He will have to give up his freedom to stay late whenever he feels like it and his hobbies - which you seem to think poor pathetic little men need after their hard day's graft...

FOr a start being a SAHM is actually far more demanding than hard graft as a partner in a major city firm (and I know as I have done both) so if anyone needs a break and some hobbies its the OP and not the DH. Secondly you can just imagine how it will pan out

DH - Hi OP I need to work late tonight
OP - sorry DH but I am working from 6pm until midnight
DH- well you'll just have to chuck it or sort out childcare as my job is the important one

Just never going to happen.

Reality check time for you poor little snowflake who has all the stress of going to work in the mornings.....

[Dontdisturbmenow]

There is always a counter argument in such thread that if the IP went back to work, they would still do all the housework, care etc...because their oh don't do it when they are sahm, but maybe they don't do it because the sahm insists they are doing a job too and contributing as such and therefore why would they do it? However, they might be very happy to do so if the OP did work.

In my experience, all sahm are so because they really don't want to work. OP admired it, yet is trying to blame her oh for being unreasonable.

Some men are very happy to bring in the whole family income even if it means giving up on luxuries, some do nothing in the home, some are happy to help too. But many Jen see this as unbalanced and think a couple should have more equal roles but at home and outside.

These are things that should be discussed before setting family together, at least in terms of principles.

[Pretzelcoatl]

@FredFlintstoneMadeOfBones

“ You're contradicting yourself. So according to you who obviously no so much about the intimate details of this couple's life. His demanding job necessitates him spending time on his hobbies? In that case how will he take on all the extra responsibilities at home when OP goes out to work? He won't be able to pursue hobbies when he's cooking dinner and hoovering up will he?”

There is no contradiction - I said that OP should go off to work after DH comes home. And I should add that I don’t understand the implication that cooking and housework is a time-intensive job - if your home is such that you are spending hours each day cleaning it, and your place isn’t submerged in a swamp, you’re doing something wrong.

”Sounds like the DH is the one being cared for like a child - dinner cooked, his childcare all sorted, house cleaned for him. Or do you think all that magically happens without any effort?”

I think that if the DH could spend the same amount of time as the OP on cleaning, cooking and childcare with no loss of quality, but the OP going to work instead of her DH results in a loss of income and quality of life for everyone, then how they each contribute isn’t equivalent.

”Your point about kids not needing love and care is just ridiculous. Kids don't need a luxurious lifestyle provided by business trips etc they do need the basics and love and care.”

What’s ridiculous is that you’ve added “luxurious”, attributed it to me, and then used that to show that what I’m saying is unreasonable.

Kids need lots of things, and it’s only people who spend a lot of time watching television who lean towards the “love is all you need” fantasy.

[FredFlinstoneMadeOfBones]

@Pretzelcoatl

You're contradicting yourself. So according to you who obviously no so much about the intimate details of this couple's life. His demanding job necessitates him spending time on his hobbies? In that case how will he take on all the extra responsibilities at home when OP goes out to work? He won't be able to pursue hobbies when he's cooking dinner and hoovering up will he?

Sounds like the DH is the one being cared for like a child - dinner cooked, his childcare all sorted, house cleaned for him. Or do you think all that magically happens without any effort?

Your point about kids not needing love and care is just ridiculous. Kids don't need a luxurious lifestyle provided by business trips etc they do need the basics and love and care.

[Pretzelcoatl]

@ThreeAnkleBiters

“ Wow you really have a dim view of children don't you - if it's all about finances just don't have kids - that'll save you huge amounts of money.”

No, I have a dim view of adults who expect to be cared for as children, especially when they make the decision unilaterally.

”OP is enabling her DH to have his career - if he did his fair share at home he wouldn't be able to keep up a career of that kind. It would simply be impossible.”

This is so delusional - her DH’s career is facilitating her lifestyle, not the other way around. No children, no house, no nothing based on what the OP herself said her earning potential is. It’s because of her DH’s career and his continued commitment to it that children, house, and savings are possible. If you can’t see this, then I truly don’t know how to communicate with you.

”Love and Care is more important than finances to a family.”

Really? I’ve yet to see any legislation passed that allocates love for children’s benefit, but there is certainly legislation than allocates finances. 🤔

But please explain, without saying or implying that DH (or men in general), how the child will lose an iota or love or care if the OP goes to work once her DH comes home in the evenings.

” They could live in a smaller home in a cheaper area, he could have fewer hobbies and evenings out. The kids cannot grow up healthy and happy without love and care. It is vital.”

I have no idea what sort of career or life you’ve had, so please forgive me if I’m telling you what you already know: the more stressful or responsible your job is, the more important it is to have some way to shrug that weight off it is. Simply not being at work doesn’t usually do it, which is why hobbies are vital - otherwise the stress accumulated faster than it is removed, and that affects the job (unable to do the work), mental health, home life... everything.

As to the smaller house in a cheaper area... you know full well than smaller houses in cheaper areas are the properties most scarce to find. But ask the OP if that’s also what she wants - I suspect you’ll find it isn’t.

[daydreambeleiver]

I always had a joint account until my marriage imploded. Conversation about money is too premature in my new relationship but I have already indicated I think keeping finances separate is odd

[ThreeAnkleBiters]

@Pretzelcoatl

Wow you really have a dim view of children don't you - if it's all about finances just don't have kids - that'll save you huge amounts of money.

I think Op should work to give her independence from her horrible husband but just because the family would be very slightly better off financial in ideal circumstances with OP working (and in reality they probably wouldn't when you factor in extras - late fees when you're stuck in traffic, petrol parking, extra food costs because no one has time to cook properly etc). It would not be better for the family. The kids will be ferried from nursery home, in front of a screen or playing alone while OP cooks dinner, given bath and dinner then go to bed, the house will be more chaotic as housework will need to be done in the evening and on weekends meaning again less attention for the kids.

OP is enabling her DH to have his career - if he did his fair share at home he wouldn't be able to keep up a career of that kind. It would simply be impossible. Love and Care is more important than finances to a family. They could live in a smaller home in a cheaper area, he could have fewer hobbies and evenings out. The kids cannot grow up healthy and happy without love and care. It is vital.

[Pretzelcoatl]

@Londonmummy66

”I really do think that you are the DH in this case.”

Then maybe you should consider my point of view as part of the household. Maybe you should consider the crushing responsibility of knowing that if anything happens to affect my ability to continue providing what I do, there is literally no backup. Maybe you should consider that, while I don’t need appreciation in the form of accolades, OP is behaving in an entitled manner which I am required to facilitate while being treated poorly and reviled by the majority of posters in this thread.

And maybe you should consider that I have no options whatsoever, while the OP does. She is benefiting more from the current setup than I am. With the roles reversed, OP wouldn’t be able to support me and our child, so then what?

[Pretzelcoatl]

@ALLMYSmellySocks

•“ Wow you're a really nasty piece of work! I hope you don't have kids or a partner!”*

Thank you.

“Of course looking after your own kids couldn't be done by anybody! You think when DH goes off on business trips it's fine for just anyone to put them to bed. Chuck the teenager net door £10 and let her watch the kids every night. Kids need at least one parent to be a big presence in their life, having two parents working the hours her DH works would not be OK for the kids.“

Nobody has said that OP needs to work the hours her DP does. But yes, anybody can put the kids to bed. What I think should happen here is, as others have suggested, OP gets an evening or graveyard shift for when her DH is home. Not particularly fun for her, but when the DC is old enough to be spending several hours away from home during the day (school), that can shift to employment with more reasonable hours. Pros: more income, more pension, better foundation for future employment/income, more visible contribution to the household. Cons: OP’s burden slides closer to her DH’s, while his barely moves, possibly causing her resentment.

“Of course she is contributing to the betterment of the family by providing love and care for their children, keeping the house nice, dinners cooked. In almost no marriage is the financial contribution equal. If you want that you should find a house mate not a spouse. If OP's wages wouldn't cover childcare then her going to work would make the entire family worse off and more stressed since her DH would need to do more at home to help. It would probably be in OP's best interests to invest in a long term career but it wouldn't help her DH.”

Except the OP has said that her working would cover childcare, with a small amount left over. “Love and care” somehow being held up as equivalent to “household income” seems nonsensical. Her love doesn’t diminish if she works, and care can be distributed.

[Lobsterquadrille2]

I'm not sure that the views of @Pretzelcoatl are that unusual; maybe not always as baldly expressed. They definitely mirror the views of my ex (and father of DD). I gave birth overseas where the maternity leave was six weeks, and mothers returned to work after that unless their husband/partner was prepared to support them financially. I would have ideally taken six months, but in DD's father's words "what do you think you can do that an experienced childminder can't do better?".

I went back to work ....

[Pretzelcoatl]

@MiniEggAddiction

“ You're being completely nonsensical. OP is facilitating her husband's lifestyle; his job, his ability to pursue his hobbies. In a marriage you don't split everything 50-50 - it's not a house share, (and if it was he would have to pay OP for 50% of the childcare) one person does more cooking another might do more washing up. Likewise usually one person works longer hours and the other does more housework or childcare. OP's DH refuses to do his share around the house or with childcare. It's not financially viable for her to work. “

Except that it IS financially viable for her to work, as has been shown by many posters including those who are clearly supporting the OP. And it’s viable both in the short term (slightly), and the long term (much more). It is the OP’s DH who is facilitating OP’s lifestyle, not the other way around. She has indicated what she is qualified to do for employment and how much she could earn given ideal circumstances and, if she were to be the sole breadwinner and her DH becoming the SAHP, everybody’s lifestyle would diminish.

“OP is facilitating her DH’s job” has to be the stupidest thing said in this thread, and that it’s being repeated is worrying. It’s the income from that job which is facilitating everything else.

”You're being completely stupid by saying she's not contributing. No one is that stupid so you must be being deliberately insulting. Not only is she contributing financially by saving the cost of a cleaner, house keeper and childminder, evening babysitter etc who would otherwise be doing all the work OP is doing she's also contributing to the smooth running of the house, happiness of the kids etc.”

Cool. So they split up and the DH pays for childcare and possibly housekeeping and his life stays pretty much the same.

Meanwhile, OP can’t single-handedly support herself, nevermind the child, and her life takes a massive nosedive.

It’s pretty clear who is facilitating who in this relationship, and it’s also pretty clear that the one doing the heavy lifting isn’t okay with the other one having all of the options. This is definitely something the two of them need to discuss, but I expect it means than OP is going to have to contribute more financially that she currently does.

[Londonmummy66]

@Pretzelcoatl - I really do think that you are the DH in this case.

[ALLMYSmellySocks]

@Pretzelcoatl
Wow you're a really nasty piece of work! I hope you don't have kids or a partner!

Again, what she is contributing can be done by him or by anybody.

Of course looking after your own kids couldn't be done by anybody! You think when DH goes off on business trips it's fine for just anyone to put them to bed. Chuck the teenager net door £10 and let her watch the kids every night. Kids need at least one parent to be a big presence in their life, having two parents working the hours her DH works would not be OK for the kids.

What I AM saying is that the OP has decided to not contribute when she could, electing instead to do nothing to contribute to the family’s betterment.

Of course she is contributing to the betterment of the family by providing love and care for their children, keeping the house nice, dinners cooked. In almost no marriage is the financial contribution equal. If you want that you should find a house mate not a spouse. If OP's wages wouldn't cover childcare then her going to work would make the entire family worse off and more stressed since her DH would need to do more at home to help. It would probably be in OP's best interests to invest in a long term career but it wouldn't help her DH.

[Toll2]

What a bastard

[MiniEggAddiction]

@Pretzelcoatl You're being completely nonsensical. OP is facilitating her husband's lifestyle; his job, his ability to pursue his hobbies. In a marriage you don't split everything 50-50 - it's not a house share, (and if it was he would have to pay OP for 50% of the childcare) one person does more cooking another might do more washing up. Likewise usually one person works longer hours and the other does more housework or childcare. OP's DH refuses to do his share around the house or with childcare. It's not financially viable for her to work.

You're being completely stupid by saying she's not contributing. No one is that stupid so you must be being deliberately insulting. Not only is she contributing financially by saving the cost of a cleaner, house keeper and childminder, evening babysitter etc who would otherwise be doing all the work OP is doing she's also contributing to the smooth running of the house, happiness of the kids etc.

[Pretzelcoatl]

@Londonmummy66

•“ but the point is that the OP IS contributing to the household by providing the childcare etc that enables her DP to go to work. If something happened to her it would cost him a bloody fortune to pay for the 24/7 childcare he wants plus someone to clean etc that he would need to enable his current career/lifestyle.”*

You’ve got it backwards - it is the OP’s DH financial responsibility that enables the OP to have her currently lifestyle, including not working. Just because if she was gone he’d also have to solely fund childcare while still working doesn’t mean she is entitled to an equivalent amount of money for doing it. He has zero choices here - he HAS to go to work, spend the hours, and the burden of the family existing is solely on him.

“A cocklodger is someone who does not contribute either financially or in kind/time.”

Again, what she is contributing can be done by him or by anybody. What he is contributing can’t be duplicated by her. That’s a huge imbalance, and not remotely fair. And the strain of that is showing in their interactions.

“Or are you saying that all SAHMs are cocklodgers and contribute nothing and sponge off their partners? That is the logical conculsion of your line of argument. Frankly only entitled men like the OP's DH seem to hold that sort of opinion.”

I am not, and have not, said anything of the sort. What I AM saying is that the OP has decided to not contribute when she could, electing instead to do nothing to contribute to the family’s betterment.

Of course children have to be attended to, but while you could pay a bit of cash to have the neighbourhood teenager do that if you wanted an evening off, how could the DH’s contribution be covered? So much of the advice here is for the OP to go to work for her OWN benefit, but the same posters say that the DH should be contributing his time and effort towards childcare and housework for THEM. It’s so misandrist and hypocritical.

[Londonmummy66]

@Pretzelcoatl - but the point is that the OP IS contributing to the household by providing the childcare etc that enables her DP to go to work. If something happened to her it would cost him a bloody fortune to pay for the 24/7 childcare he wants plus someone to clean etc that he would need to enable his current career/lifestyle.

A cocklodger is someone who does not contribute either financially or in kind/time.

Or are you saying that all SAHMs are cocklodgers and contribute nothing and sponge off their partners? That is the logical conculsion of your line of argument. Frankly only entitled men like the OP's DH seem to hold that sort of opinion.

[ConfidingFish]

The whole crux of this is if OP returns to work she is still expected to do everything she does now and add a full time job into it.

Her husband will still fly off on business trips, enjoy all his hobbies because he sees parenting as her sole responsibility or someone elses, hence handing off the child to her mother when she went out for an evening or handing their child off to whoever would look after him/her when he couldn't miss his hobby club.

So I can see why you wouldn't want to add in a full time job that potentially earns a few hundred quid a month into the family pot. Her husband does not prioritise the child, just himself.

Now I will be honest I am a SAHM to two teenage boys, Dh's job has been facilitated by my ablity to do school runs, collect and look after sick children, cover all the school holidays, the evenings Dh has to work later etc but all his money is family money. I do earn some money but not by working. I am partially disabled so working even part time would be very detrimental to my health. But we knew this before we had children and that my health would deteriorate over time anyway.

The reason this works is because he isn't a tightass with money. He loves his children, and me and will spend to give us whatever we want. He is also very close to the children, spends time with them one on one, or with both boys or altogether as a family. Plus one on one time with me.

As for the cocklodger comment above, a cocklodger is someone who contributes nothing, doesn't do housework, childcare, cooking, shopping etc and doesn't work. The OP is certainly not that.