To ask would you rather you or your partner was the sole breadwinner and you didn’t have to work...

[Merryoldgoat]

Or that you were both pretty equally responsible for bringing in the money?

My DH and I are not high flyers but we’re both professional and have decent jobs and live comfortably.

He earns around 60k, me around 38k part-time.

He’s recently taken a step up so he’s working longer hours.

However I also have a responsible job and need to work pretty intensely at various times.

We have a cleaner and some support from PIL, childminder etc.

But I find it a grind.

I sometimes feel like encouraging him to get a much better paid job (this is possible if he changed sectors) and me taking a step down to a less challenging job so I had some time to get stuff sorted at home - it’s all a bloody rush atm.

If you have seen any previous threads of mine I have two children with additional needs and it’s quite a grind sometimes.

On the other hand I’m not a natural SAHM and I love my job.

I’m just musing really.

DH is great, does his share with everything but I do wonder if life would be better and/or easier if I wasn’t working as much/at the level I do.

YABU - better to both work and share the load
YANBU - better for one ‘breadwinner’ and someone dealing with mostly home stuff

Let's take a realistic scenario that thousands and thousands of women face right now, rather than the £30m weirdness.

A couple very much in love start a family. The woman gives up her career to be a SAHM but it's fine, because with childcare on tap the man is free to work as much as he needs to, building up contacts and putting in the overtime so his career flourishes. His salary is enough for a good lifestyle and everybody is happy. It's all family money, Mrs Example does her part (home) and Mr Example does his (work).

10 years and three children later, things aren't quite so loved-up. Mr Example finds someone new, has an affair, and leaves.

The house has to be sold and Mrs Example's share isn't enough to buy somewhere outright, so she has to rent or get her own mortgage. Except she has no income. She has a 10-year gap on her CV so she's virtually unemployable. Maybe she can get some menial work but that doesn't fit in with the children's school hours - she's the primary carer, of course - and doesn't pay enough for her to use a childminder.

Mr Example is supposed to pay maintenance but he doesn't want to "fund her lifestyle". He keeps missing payments and the CMS are too feckless to force him to pay. Or he goes self-employed and claims he earns £50 a week. He's so loved up with new Miss Example that he doesn't have much time to see the childre and give Mrs Example a break.

Mrs Example spends the next decade struggling to keep herself and the children above water, and when they leave home she's still stuck in low-paid work with barely any pension or prospects.

And that's why no woman should be financially dependent on a man.

There are several women who earn more than their husband's or they are SAHD and no-one seems to complain that they are living off their partner or dependant on them.
It's only women who must go out to work and not be stay at home parents. For men it's fine. Sexism at it's best.

50 / 50 100%. I'd hate to be kept. That's not equality.

I sometimes fantasize about being a SAHM I would like some bits of it, but know we'd never be able.to afford it. I do like having a job, so I'd work part time and once the baby is around 2. That's my ideal world.

@Rosebel I wonder how many of those men working less or not at all would be left with substantial custody of the children if the marriage were to break down?

I don't.know how to answer. We both work and we both share the load and that's how it has always been for us. I always wanted to contribute equally. However, we earn significantly less than you and your husband so were never in a position to seriously think about one of us staying home . I.certainly think that if there are no worries about the money coming in and no resentment on either side, it would make family life much easier to have a stay at home parent.

I've been on both sides.

DH and I meet at work. Spent years on pretty much the same salary. By time we were married and having DD we were both on £40k +
I went on maternity leave for a year and then went back part time. So my salary dropped but still very good for only 3 days. Last year I was made redundant. I'd worked for the company for over a decade so had a good pay off which meant we could pay off all debts and then afford to live on DH salary alone. What was left of my redundancy is in savings for a back up.

The plan was for me to start a business - which I did - and it's pretty much been torpedo by Covid! So I'm now looking for work. Also due to Covid I have involuntarily become a SAHM.

I would rather be working! No joke. I hate the absolute drudge of daily life - cleaning, cooking, caring for DD all day alone. The work of a SAHM is sooo not respected !!
I wouldn't care if I was earning a pittance as long as it got me off the hook of being a servant to my DH and Dd. I have very little time "at my leisure" - can only do my hobby if I get up really early or when DD goes to bed and by then I'm shattered. Every time I go to the toilet or in the back garden I have to tell dd where I'm going - still doesn't stop her shouting for me though 🙄
Fingers crossed she starts school in September and I cannot wait for some real free time!
Money wise I don't feel I "live off" DH.
If I was working still there is no way he could do the hours at work he does, there is no way our DDs needs could've been meet properly during lock down. So I have sacrificed my career, my time, my mental health! So he can have the career he does. We both have our roles as a family team. His is to the earn the cash to pay the bills. Mine is to support him to do that - so he never has to worry about getting DD to childcare, cooking himself dinner, washing his clothes - or tidying up after himself apparently - so I more then do my bit. But I certainly wouldn't have chosen this as my role.

We have both supported each other and the family. I'm the higher earner but limped along PT so I could look after small DC. For most of school years we were both on slightly reduced hours and shared school runs. Now I'm FT because Covid has wrecked DH's business. We sadly have friends who have been widowed so it's good to have some resilience if you can.

Nope. I always make the effort to pay my way as much as I can while also balancing childcare. Yes, it probably would be easier to give up and stay at home and be kept by DH, especially considering after childcare is taken into account me going to work only benefits the household by about £300 a month. But I am an educated woman with a decent career job who always had the means to stand on her own two feet, and I am not prepared to give that up once I am bringing some basic money in.

Plus I wont ever have DHs family say I am a gold digger. It was mentioned a lot pre-marriage.

Zoe - but that was kind of my point.... I wouldn’t recommend a woman giving up work long-term to live off the fixed salary of a man (even if he’s a very earner on £100k plus or whatever) because, as you say, if this is where most if the family wealth is, he will take it with him in the event of divorce.

Most women who become ling-term SAHMs do so, not because they are short-sighted. Most are highly-educated tbh. They do so because they know they would be fine (financially) on divorce (perhaps better off than if they’d been single and working all those years) because there are sufficient assets that the couple share between them. Wealth / assets and salary are two different things, obviously. Of course, I accept that this scenario does not apply to a large percentage of women. But the percentage of women who don’t work (long term) is not large either. In areas where there are high proportions of long-term SAHMs, this scenario is generally the case. As I say, these women are not dim and they haven’t given up very good careers to put themselves at financial risk. The reality is, it is a distinct demographic of women who can make this choice without risking their own or their children’s financial futures. I wouldn’t recommend leaving work in the medium - long term in order to live off the DH’s £60k per year no, unless the OP happens to be in an industry that it very easy to pick up where she left off.

Yabu, I don't think it's sensible to be financially dependent on a man, it creates imbalance of power and women get stuck in crap marriages.

Both earning well is preferable imo.

No, I was SAHM for a long time and hated not having my own money.

It sets women back to the 1950's. Woman want equality but only if it suits them. I bet you not many women would be happy for their partners to be staying at home, but it's ok for them. It's outdated, old fashioned and damaging to women.

Dh outearned me by a lot when we were younger and had young dc then I climbed the greasy pole a bit and it’s probably about equal now. I hate work stress, he hates house stuff so I’d say we were probably objectively happier when he earned more and I was at home more but the money is nice and I like my brain being challenged and “having a good job” as I sometimes felt I wasn’t reaching my potential previously.

We often argue that he doesn’t pull his weight at home though as his job just being “going to work” is pretty entrenched and I refuse to work all hours and then still do everything at home too.

For a whole host of reasons I was 36 when I got my first full time job. I will not give that up for love nor money. It gives me

• adult interaction
• language practice
• mental stimulation
• a purpose
• money
• pension
• structure
• a chance to meaningfully contribute
• eligability for citizenship

However I live in a country where the childcare is cheap and work life balance is highly valued. Ive been out of the workplace for long enough. This is my time.

Unless there was a very good reason for it I would massively resent being the main earner while my DH dossed about the house. I'd love not to work but I couldn't in good conscience sit back and watch him bring in all the money. Better that we both earn and retire early.

I'm currently the higher earner and would not take kindly to a suggestion that I work harder so that he could work less.

@Rosebel

There are several women who earn more than their husband's or they are SAHD and no-one seems to complain that they are living off their partner or dependant on them. It's only women who must go out to work and not be stay at home parents. For men it's fine. Sexism at it's best.

I don't think its a good idea for anyone to be wholly dependent on their spouse or partner for money. For certain periods during the marriage it obviously makes sense for one partner to take the lion's share (pregnancy and maternity, looking after very small children, redundancy) but as a starting principle I think its profoundly unhealthy long term, whether its the man or the woman.

I think its incredibly important for financial self-protection, self-esteem and dignity that both partners have some ability to be financially self-sufficient. That doesn't have to be at total parity of course one partner is likely to have higher earning potential than another but I think its vital for both to have the ability to support themselves if the marriage breaks down.

I don't think anyone's saying its "only women" who must go out to work at all. Both partners need to protect themselves. But obviously the context is that in the majority of cases the man is the main breadwinner as a result of his ability to work harder so it tends to be the woman who gets left up shit creek if the marriage breaks down.

I have some independent/non work related income anyway, so assuming I still had that I'd stay home in a heartbeat if I could. I like my buying power though so that would be the thing that tears me.

I love being at home and lockdown has really reinforced to me just how much I adore it, really - and unfortunately.

We get NO applications for term time only. The wage is reasonable too - not fantastic, but certainly not pennies (17k after pro rata and tax). You'd certainly think that it would appeal to someone more interested in the flexibility than a big salary.

The trouble is that they might be working 30 hours a week, but they're working every day, Mon-Fri, they've lost 20%/a day of their potential salary being paid for 30 hours instead of 36, then they've lost another 20%/a day for being Term Time only.

So they're working 5 days a week, too many hours to be able to realistically get another job in the evenings/weekends/school holidays, but are taking home the equivalent of 3 days pay for it.

And - from my Universal Credit application about 3 years' back, I was told that the only reason I wasn't going to be ordered to get a second job/a different job and have to simultaneously work full time AND fulfill a job searching requirement was because I worked 36 a week; because they averaged out the hours and that made it 30 on pay. A contract for 30 a week TTO would mean 24 in the UC calculations.

Basically, you might not think it's pennies, but a takehome of about £950 in exchange for working bloody hard 5 days a week and being unable realistically to get temping work means it's better paid and more flexible to work in a supermarket, as a cleaner, a care worker or as a junior admin person anywhere else than in a school.

Definitely similar salaries
Would hate to be dependent on my DH
And have seen a few friends left in dire straights when marriage has broken up

You see I’d be quite happy to go to work every day if I was safe in the knowledge that every detail of the kids lives / education / friends / health / everything was taken care of and everyone was happy. I know this is a large mental / emotional burden for someone to carry - yes, different to the demand if a job, but no less valid. I’d be very grateful if someone was prepared to take all that on to allow me to have the flexibility and energy to give 100% to my job (assuming I enjoyed the job of course). It does the kids no good if both parents are exhausted. I understand the benefit of having someone SAH.

@ahorsecalledseptember

There are frequent complaints about lazy DHs who do little to nothing around the home and don’t help with the children.

I think it is often forgotten that raising children is caring and providing. No one should complain about providing all the care if they are doing none of the providing.

The whopping great flaw in this argument is that care frequently requires more time than providing, and virtually always does for a preschool age child. Additionally, even if we take the definition of 'care' that's most favourable to your argument, ie that it includes all meal provision for the child plus enough cleaning to keep areas where the child is present safe, substantial parts of normal housework falls into neither category.

@luckylavender

50 / 50 100%. I'd hate to be kept. That's not equality.

Is it really being ‘kept’ if you manage all of the household stuff and two children with special needs?

And 50/50 regardless of salary? I definitely disagree with that.

@Capr1

You see I’d be quite happy to go to work every day if I was safe in the knowledge that every detail of the kids lives / education / friends / health / everything was taken care of and everyone was happy. I know this is a large mental / emotional burden for someone to carry - yes, different to the demand if a job, but no less valid. I’d be very grateful if someone was prepared to take all that on to allow me to have the flexibility and energy to give 100% to my job (assuming I enjoyed the job of course). It does the kids no good if both parents are exhausted. I understand the benefit of having someone SAH.

This is how I feel often.

There’s so much ‘admin’ with my boys that I feel worn down by it.

Both of us are so busy with work AND home stuff that everything feels hard.

Merryoldgoat

I don’t think anyone is arguing that there’s anything demeaning about managing the household and childcare. It’s a tough and demanding job and requires intelligence and planning to do properly.

It’s more the financial jeopardy of willingly making yourself wholly dependent on someone else’s earning power.

I can see how for many households it’s very tempting and makes a lot of sense short term to have this very clear division of roles.

It’s just very rarely worth it over the long term for the financially weaker partner. You are essentially placing control of yours and your children’s financial future in the hands of someone else. Yes you will have some financial protection in the event of divorce but not without a lot of acrimony and putting yourself in the position of having to try to extract financial concessions from the financially dominant partner. It’s like playing Russian Roulette with your financial security.