This will be unpopular, but it seems we often need someone to talk to us as what used to be a 'Dutch uncle'. At the start of a relationship, if a woman was house-sharing with her friend, each one would have a set of personal habits and assumptions. They would just have to choose a) discuss it and make a compromise b) shut up and put up.
Gay men have the stereotypical reputation of being house proud, in the main. Heterosexual men, either from upbringing or from true inclination, tend to see their world outside the domestic sphere, which is by tradition a woman's affair. At the outset, he will possibly just yield to his woman partner. That is a self perpetuating circle.
There was some research about men and babies, and unsurprisingly men would yield. Probably domestic stuff is the same. He tries to do it, but she, however gently and unintentionally, undermines him by letting him realise he does it in a different way than she would have done herself.
Same sex relationships are the only ones free to be fully equal, simply because it is impossible to avoid discussing things. They cannot depend on just going along unconsciously with assumptions from their parents/grand/great-grandparents. Should the 'man' be the main earner, overtime worker, the one not free to change jobs at risk of risking the mortgage? (And deal with the mowing, the car, the d.i.y, the literal heavy lifting, climbing up to clear the gutter, etc. all resentfully) Should the 'woman' decide the day the sheets are changed? (And write cards for 'his' relatives, do the lion's share of child and house care and staying indoors, resentfully)
Obviously an average woman doesn't meet the eyes of a stranger at the start and think "I want to live off his earnings". Nor does he see her and think "I want her to be my house-servant". Having a child is the end of the free relationship, for an awful lot of couples. From that moment, both are tied. Tied together, tied to the child till they die, tied to whatever financial and housing path they are set upon, especially if she takes a load of leave. Statistics show women's income and career chances and (therefore) pensions never recover.
Others urge you to be a single parent and do 100% on your own, in anger at doing 70%. Some suggest you can get another man. First, read the testimonies on the Truth Commission website. A man who wants to take on another man's children may turn out to be a better father to them, or may have other ideas. It isn't rare. It must never, never, not be thinkable. Some foxes might only want to befriend chickens.
The effort you could choose to put into building a more satisfying relationship with the father of your children, will as others note be a lot less than you will have to put into living alone on reduced income with reduced freedom and/or setting off into a new relationship.
Also, if the children are not subjected to, nor witnessing, anything they can comprehend as a clear explanation for their parents to break up, they will be bewildered, distressed at their world being suddenly shaken upside down, may possibly be disturbed, and even as adults may never forgive you.
(That last will, but is not intended to, draw defensive attacks from those who divorced for inescapable reason, those whose view of their world depends on reassuring themselves they did the right thing with no possible drawbacks, and those who are for good reason just fed up with men, or of sharing a home with any other adult.)