SAHM - does that mean I have to do pretty much everything?

[squishmittens]

I am a SAHM - we have a 4 year old in reception and a 2 year old at home full time. DH works from home full time. His regular chores are:

Putting out the wheelie bins (not taking the rubbish from inside bin to outside, just putting the wheelie bins on the curb once a week).

Walking and feeding the dog twice a day (he likes this - I'm basically not allowed to walk the dog as this is his time for fresh air).

Mowing the lawn

Any adhoc diy job/repair as absolutely necessary (e.g. fixing broken oven, washing machine, so stuff we can't live without - maintenance work that can wait is never done).

Puts one child to bed (we each take one child and swap each night)

He very occasionally loads/unloads the dishwasher and hoovers the lounge - maybe once or twice a month.

I do literally every other home and child related activity. I'm fed up of all of it. I think my DH should do more, he obviously doesn't and now I feel like a maid. I'm thinking of going back to work and paying for nursery/cleaner/after school clubs etc. otherwise I feel like I'm going to lose it. AIBU?

From my perspective, a SAHP should be doing 99% of housework and family management.

He didn't want me falling asleep leaving DS to his own devices
My DH was the same, so even when he was at work and I was in may leave we shared night feeds. We were both tired but neither was soul crushingly exhausted. He didn’t want the person in charge of his tiny infant son while he was at work to be in their knees with exhaustion.
Hooray for DHs that share the load!

I'm not sure what you're asking. You almost sound resentful for being a SAHM.
If you don't like it then pay for wrap around care and go back to work.
My husband left home at 5.30 am and was home at six. I did day to day stuff and he read to my children most evenings and did absolutely everything at the weekend to give me a break as well as spend valuable time with our children.

We discussed me being a sahp due to childcare cost, I decided against it as I do love my job. But our agreement was that I’d primarily be there for the kids, so groups activities etc with them. I’d do washing, cleaning as I go along and stuff but would mostly be taking care of the children. Once he was home chores would be split with him getting more time with the children so on Saturdays he’d take them to the park and I’d do the clean. What are you doing till 9pm Op? Can’t he get both Dc ready for bed and then you can do cleaning while he’s doing that? Do you all eat together? That might be a easy change to incorporate. Eat together then say right do you want to do the kids or loading dishwasher/cleaning kitchen? My main concern in your case is your lack of downtime and his lack of time with the Dc if it’s a breeze why isn’t he spending more time with them? Also I’d be insisting on a weekend morning lie in. Otherwise he’d be finding out what it’s like to have his kids eow.

My view is that a SAHP takes on the bulk of the domestic duties, which includes both household chores and childcare. It's why I don't want to be one!

I know people say having a SAHP saves nursery fees, but I always wonder- at what economic and mental cost is the result? It leaves women in an insanely vulnerable economic position.

If you hate it, go back to work and address the balance. And don't for a second talk or even think about your salary going to nursery fees and a cleaner because it's a slice of your JOINT INCOME that pays for it. Children aren't a tax on women. It should always be framed as a joint expense, and you should be able to save a proportionate amount of your income.

The SAHP should be expected to do the same job as a nanny during working hours (childcare and cleaning up after the children) and duties outside "working hours" should be shared between the parents.
This implies that the "paying" parent could treat the SAHP as their employee, right? If we are using the analogy. Toys not put away on time, the homework only half done? The disciplinary meeting is tomorrow.

From my perspective, a SAHP should be doing 99% of housework and family management
The other parent should be working evening and weekends then to make it fair.
Otherwise it’s just embarrassing to be sitting on your arse while your supposed partner is still on shift.

YANBU you are a SAHP not a maid and he needs to do more to help. Being at work full time is much easier than being a stay at home parent. I think you should be "on duty" with the chores etc until he gets home and then you split things 50/50 otherwise you are on duty on your own 24/7.

@AlexaShutUp

You wouldn’t be ‘supporting that partner’ though, you’d be making the decision that your own children are looked after by one of their actual parents rather than outsourcing it.

Yes, but I wouldn't make that decision personally, so unless my partner was financially independent, I would need to support them in order for them to make that choice.

Personally, if it was really important to me not to outsource childcare, I would opt for both partners going part time rather than having one SAHP, or working opposite shifts around each other. I would not have wanted to stay at home myself, but I wouldn't have been happy for my partner to stay at home and only do childcare either. I prefer a more even distribution of labour.

Not judging what anyone else chooses to do - if it works for their family and both partners are happy, all power to them. I'm just saying that I would resent a SAHP who didn't take on what I would perceive as a fair share of the load, and consequently, that isn't an arrangement that I would be willing to fund.

Both parents going part-time would be a massively inefficient way to do it. Two disrupted careers/wages/overtime/pension?

You’d rather pay for full time childcare than have a parent do it? Why?

It’s so bizarre to me that you don’t see full time childcare as ‘fair share’. And how does that work then when the SAHM goes back to work, suddenly the working parent has additional chores to do out of the blue? Who looks after the additional stuff, the play dates and the gym kits and the homework etc?

You are lucky - I was a sahm for 7 yrs and my now ex- husband did sweet fa.....wouldn't even remember feed his own child if I happened to be out for that part of the day.

This is why he is now an ex!

@AlexaShutUp
However, I don't personally feel that the benefit of having a SAHP from the perspective of the child is sufficient for one parent to opt out of financial responsibilities altogether, and such an unequal division of labour would not have been desirable for my family, so I would never have chosen this approach
Your choice of terminology is interesting. You clearly believe that the SAHP is opting out of paid employment as opposed to opting in to stay at home to look after their children. Would you say a WOHP has opted out of staying at home to care for their children? I doubt it. The implication of what you write is clear. The SAHP is a bit of a shirker and fundamentally could never really deliver value to the family in the same way a WOHP can.

I think this is really the crux of the debate. How do you value the contribution of a SAHP? If like Alexa, you believe that they have taken the easier route and looking after the children can never have the same fundamental worth as working in a job then of course you would expect the SAHP to do all domestic chores to at least make up some of the perceived shortfall in contribution. Even if they run around all day whilst you sit and relax after work like OP's partner, you would still secretly think they are lucky that you are financially supporting them and really as the breadwinner you deserve more respect, more leisure time and quite frankly more of everything.

If however you value the contribution of a SAHP more highly and believe that they are providing an invaluable service to the family which involves a lot of hard work, then of course you will view things differently. You would treat them as productive adults who are simply devoting their effort and energy towards looking after children and perhaps fitting in domestic chores where they can. If there is stuff left over at the end of your working day then you would accept that these residual taks should be shared as you trust that if your partner could have completed them during the day then they would have. You would accept you're not their boss and that the fact you are in paid employment does not make you intrinsically better or more worthwhile than your partner.

The two mindsets are so fundamentally different that I would suggest that being a SAHP in the former type of scenario is a terrible idea and would lead to horrible resentment on both sides. Being a SAHP in the latter scenario though can be extremely beneficial to the family as a whole. My advice to OP would be that you appear to be in the first situation and people with the mindset that SAHPs are worth less will seldom change their mind. Get a job and stop doing all you do. You will not be thanked only resented as they continue to take you for granted.

So how often does the washing machine need mending? And how often do you cook dinner?
He's getting a very cushy ride. And if you do go back to work, child care and cleaning costs shouldn't be down to you, it's 50/50.

It is about equal downtime.

This!

It leaves women in an insanely vulnerable economic position.
Is it always true though? If you are paying 70%-80% of your salary on childcare, and then on divorce get no compensation as it is assumed that you have independent earning potential (even though you will still be spending the bulk of your earnings on childcare, the court won't be interested).
I think, in my limited experience, SAHMs end up in a more secure financial position in case of marriage breakdown.

I haven’t read all comments, here. My situation is very different so I won’t comment too much --though it seems outrageously unfair to me ...--

... I just wanted to say: you seem to have a domestic / financial split. So if you’re washing his shirts, he’d damn well better be paying into your pension. Otherwise you’re basically subsidising him, to some degree.

The difference with the jobs your DH does is that he only does the jobs he enjoys, like walking the dog, rather than the stuff that needs doing.

If the SAHP has disturbed sleep every night, it isn’t reasonable to expect them to work a full day on domestic chores in addition to childcare. If the children sleep through then it’s possible to get done chores done with a little on home but not if the Op isn’t getting proper sleep.

Well, obviously I don't agree as I managed a demanding full time job on broken sleep every night for years. The days that I had at home with dd were much easier than being in work, and I managed to get stuff done easily enough.

If both partners are happy for one partner to stay at home and focus primarily on the childcare, then that's totally fair enough. It isn't for me to judge what works for their family. I'm merely saying that, for that arrangement to work, both partners need to feel that it's a fair division of labour, and personally I would feel that it was very unbalanced.

I do everything your DH does (except we don't have a dog!) along with everything else, and I work part time. It's exhausting, and I don't think going back to work will change anything for you, it will just make it all more stressful.

@Youseethethingis

From my perspective, a SAHP should be doing 99% of housework and family management The other parent should be working evening and weekends then to make it fair. Otherwise it’s just embarrassing to be sitting on your arse while your supposed partner is still on shift.

Didn't quite get it. Why is the SAHP "on shift" in the evenings and weekends? Does housework take more than 40 hours a week? Evenings and weekends can be downtime for everyone.

@AlexaShutUp

If the SAHP has disturbed sleep every night, it isn’t reasonable to expect them to work a full day on domestic chores in addition to childcare. If the children sleep through then it’s possible to get done chores done with a little on home but not if the Op isn’t getting proper sleep.

Well, obviously I don't agree as I managed a demanding full time job on broken sleep every night for years. The days that I had at home with dd were much easier than being in work, and I managed to get stuff done easily enough.

If both partners are happy for one partner to stay at home and focus primarily on the childcare, then that's totally fair enough. It isn't for me to judge what works for their family. I'm merely saying that, for that arrangement to work, both partners need to feel that it's a fair division of labour, and personally I would feel that it was very unbalanced.

How many days at home did you have with your DD if you were in a demanding full time job? Is it not likely you saw those days as easy because they were a novelty, a break from the grind?

I went on a partial strike when our situation was slipping this way. My DH wasn't as bad as yours, but he did get lazy when I was at home on Mat leave. I stopped washing his clothes. Started picking mine and the kids out of the basket and just leaving his there to fester. It took a month but the message got through and we are more even now. I also prioritised getting back to work and was a SAHP for less than 2 years. It wasn't for me at all. I still do all the cooking now but we have a cleaner and we share the laundry and other chores

I was a SAHM for several years with my two children years ago, children never went to baby things and nursery etc.I did mostly everything at home,as late Husband was quite a workaholic, but I liked doing everything really. I did all the decorating and gardening and some diy etc.We never had a dishwasher,which seems to be an issue with lots of people, as to who has to load and unload it !

I am not boasting about anything here at all., It was just the way that things worked out well in our life for all of us.

Your DH is being shit, he works from home ffs... he could easily do a lot more.

It’s so bizarre to me that you don’t see full time childcare as ‘fair share’.

Yes, I guess this is where we differ. I spent a lot of time caring for dd in the early years, as I worked many of my paid hours in the evenings when she was asleep. Maybe I have just been fortunate, but I have always found parenting quite easy. I never regarded my time with dd as hard work - it was a privilege and a source of pure joy, and so relaxing compared to my job because I was in charge of how we spent our time and wasn't accountable to anyone.

If I had spent the whole time at home with her while DH did all of the earning, I genuinely wouldn't have felt like I was pulling my weight at all. If DH had stayed at home with her while I worked, I would have resented it because I wouldn't have felt that he was at home having fun with dd while I did the hard work. I'm not judging anyone else's set-up, I'm just saying how I honestly feel (well, felt, as dd is far too old to need childcare now in any case).

Honestly, I guess I struggle to understand what people mean when they talk about how hard it is to be at home with young children. I do appreciate that it might feel quite relentless if you're doing it all the time and never get time to do anything different, but if that's the case, why not get a job so that you don't suck all of the joy out of it?

Of course, it's different if you have a very large family or a disabled child, and that would be a different discussion within the family as how to manage that. However, the OP has one toddler at home and a child in school, so I am responding on that basis.

OP says she doesn’t get time to herself. From 6.30am till 8.30pm, 7 days a week. No bloody wonder she’s fed up, on a long weekend after a year of lockdown when her DP has a lie in and plays some golf. Leaving her with two children under 5 for 14 hours a day (every day). Doesn’t he want to see his kids??

Assuming the SAHP isn’t just locking them up in soundproofed room all day, that’s hard going.

Why do we insist on treating work as some sort of punishment to be endured? Why treat child-tearing as shirking off? You get one life. Don’t make it about irrelevant shite.