"Maybe you should be grateful I let you live here for free"

[DefinitelyDone]

A similar thread got me thinking about my situation with OH. After what he said to me the other day I was in no doubt that he was the one being unreasonable, and I think I’m ready to end things with him over it but some perspective would be good.

We were having a discussion/disagreement over getting our children a small pet, and then he said:

“Maybe you should be grateful that I let you live here for free”

This is long so TLDR: He said I ought to be grateful for living in his house for free. I’ve contributed £15k to ‘his house;’ despite that being most of my saving and me having a mostly low income. And have done 90% of the housework and childcare for 14 years. AIBU for thinking I shouldn’t be expected to pay him?

We aren't married but have been together for 14 years and have three children, 12, eight and three.
He bought our house a few years ago but we used to rent, the house is in his name only. I did contribute £10k towards an extension and have spent at least another 5K on things such as furniture and carpets Etc. I’ve also decorated 6 of the rooms alone if that counts for anything.

I have never paid him rent. We lived together for two years before having our first child and I never paid rent then either, though wasn’t working at the time. He’s never asked for money and I’ve always bought my own things/paid my own bills and never asked for money from him.

While being together my finances have ranged from having no income to receiving £40 CTC per month, up to receiving a higher amount of CTC when he went self employed, to me earning anywhere from £100 -£1000 per week over the past few years but this has now reduced back down again over the past few months and doesn’t look to be increasing again. I’m also very unlikely to be receiving CTC next year as his income has increased again.

My point is that my financial situation is changeable but other than the past few years I’ve had a pretty low income.

He always paid the rent before he bought the house, but there is no mortgage now, he pays for most of the food and household bills, but nothing that is just mine such as my phone bill Etc.

I pay for everything for the children and always have, even when I had hardly any money when our first was born, I bought all her clothes and baby things second hand.
I buy all of their clothes, their school uniforms, activities, pay for school trips and days out, every birthday and Christmas I have bought 90% of their gifts.
I do pretty much all of the housework and childcare. He is better with our three year old than he ever was with the other two and does tend to his evening (not middle of the night) awakenings which he never did with the others. Basically, he’s just being a father there, sort of, but this was pretty amazing when he started that as I was completely on my own with the very frequent evening and night awakenings with my first two.
He never, ever gets up early to help with the children. He never, ever lets me sleep in in the mornings. He rarely gets up for work before 10am and is usually home by 5pm, often earlier.
There was a period of about a month when our second was a baby and went through a period of wanting to sleep in when it was time to get up to get my first to nursery. After much nagging he started taking our first to nursery so I could sleep in a little and let the baby sleep in too but this didn’t last long and he hasn’t helped in the morning since. Eight years since.
He occasionally collects them from school but I do all the school related things- homework, spelling, reading Etc, I did all of the home learning, even during the first lock down when he had no work. I battled a very reluctant seven year old with a very demanding toddler while he hid in his ‘office’ playing games or whatever.
I have always done pretty much all of the housework, until our three year old was born I used to do his laundry too, now he sorts his own clothes out, I do pretty much all of the cooking, cleaning, tidying.

Things got very bad during lockdown and I pretty much stopped everything. He had no excuse of being
busy with work and witnessing how he watched me fall apart and didn’t step in to help really hit home how things were, so I did the minimal laundry and pretty much stopped cooking and cleaning. The rest of the day was home schooling. He started to occasionally wash towels and load/unload the dishwasher a few times. He’s even mopped the kitchen floor and cleaned a bathroom or two a couple of times. Amazing. I wish I wasn’t joking.

So bearing in mind all I do and have done, is it unreasonable of me to think that actually, I shouldn’t have to pay him a penny to live here? I shouldn’t be grateful for living here for free like it’s an amazing kindness from him, and that actually, he’s the unreasonable asshole here and should be grateful for everything I do. It’s really shown me how he feels towards me; I’m just a lodger that doesn’t contribute in any way.

I realise all this is grounds to LTB and after several similar threads and being told to, I think I’m finally ready to call it a day, but right now I want to focus on who’s being unreasonable here and if I’m deluded.

I also think this should be a key feminist issue where SAHMs are championed as much as women who work. We do not have to pit against each other here. Both are to be supported. SAHMs are often put down as ‘having a free ride’ which is just misogyny, and worse when it comes out of women’s mouths

100%

I agree with that too.

I also think this should be a key feminist issue where SAHMs are championed as much as women who work. We do not have to pit against each other here. Both are to be supported. SAHMs are often put down as ‘having a free ride’ which is just misogyny, and worse when it comes out of women’s mouths

You want feminists to champion for women (the normally disadvantaged sex) to become financially dependent on men (the normally advantaged sex) therefore becoming even more disadvantaged, as a key feminist issue?

I don't believe that should be encouraged, to be honest.

If a woman wants to do that, and her partner / husband agrees, then good for them. It's not up to anyone to judge what goes on in other people's homes.

But don't suggest this is something we need to be fighting for and defending the rights to (you have the right already, what exactly is there to defend or champion?) Don't suggest this is something we need to be teaching our ten year old daughters about -- unless it's from the perspective of, you know, actual feminism.

The second wave of feminism practically started because women were turfed out of their workplaces after the war and "forced" to be housewives and mothers. And even then, being a SAHP was a usually a luxury reserved for the middle classes, and predominantly white middle classes at that. That's what got the movement criticism in the first place - the fact it was out of touch with so many women's lived experiences. On both sides of my working class family the women always worked.

So you are suggesting a new wave of feminism which, yet again, focuses on something that is only really an issue for middle class women, when those middle class women have (as has been said 40,000 times on this thread) a way of securing their position via marriage.

I personally believe key feminist issues should be centred around things that we currently have no control over. Putting the rest of the world to the side for a second (because we could be here all day discussing lack of education, gender mutilation and child marriage amongst other issues). If there was a new wave tomorrow, it needs to focus on how women have been so disadvantaged by this pandemic, by being (yet again) unwillingly forced back into the roles you seem to want to champion. And about how we're about to get shafted even more by the proposed recovery.

If you can prove you have paid towards the extension and renovations you may have a claim but it’s a long and potentially expensive process and the onus of proof is on you.

Second wave feminism did support SAHMs. The wages for housework campaign is why we have things like tax credits and child benefit.

Very many women are not entirely SAHMs but work part time or in low paid shift work that fits around their kids. They are subject to very similar vulnerabilities that SAHMs are.

Very many kids just cannot cope with full time childcare and very many families cannot afford it. We’d have far more really messed up kids if everyone worked full time, and plenty of men are just not that arsed about their children.

If you have some combination of caring spouse, extended family offering childcare and children with no additional needs that can cope easily with childcare, good for you. And if you are a GP, teacher or some other woman providing services for women and girls - then good for us too.

But I haven’t got any of those things, so I did horrible, crap jobs around my kids’ needs. And now my kids are grown up I can do a better job.

And if I had my time over I wouldn’t have children, but as I did have them, I had to put them first. And I mean them, not some imaginary kids with no issues who can handle being at school from 7.30 am to 6 every day.

@DefinitelyDone

The fact that you are asking if you are unreasonable here is
(1) massively missing the point
(2) a sign that your OH has been emotionally abusing you for a long time

Go and see a solicitor about getting your 15K back from this man.

Go and look at flats you can rent with your three children.

Look for a job.

..............
The key feminist issue is that women who have children and who for whatever reason cannot return to earning an income get shafted, yet childcare costs so much that it is often unfeasible to try to work. This issue affects both married and unmarried mothers. Feminism should focus on assuring that women who become mothers don't get screwed over when a relationship breaks down. As a mother who may or may not be able to return to full earning capacity after having a baby, your financial security shouldn't depend on having a ring on your finger and a marriage certificate filed away.

So you are suggesting a new wave of feminism which, yet again, focuses on something that is only really an issue for middle class women, when those middle class women have (as has been said 40,000 times on this thread) a way of securing their position via marriage.

A horrible position to be in. Completely dependent on how the man feels about marriage. Women should not have to 'secure their position' by marrying.

If feminism is about women then it has to be about all women, with no looking down snooty noses at the middle classes. The patriarchy divides and conquers when we do that to each other.

SAHMs know it's not a free ride. Those who do it used to work and I;ve never met a mum who thinks staying at home raising DC and keeping a home is an easier job than their paid work. Might be gruelling in a different way but not a free ride.

@Cowbells

SAHMs know it's not a free ride. Those who do it used to work and I;ve never met a mum who thinks staying at home raising DC and keeping a home is an easier job than their paid work. Might be gruelling in a different way but not a free ride.

Really? I assume you are only know SAHM parents of pre-school children. Every SAHM with older children I know freely admits it is much easier than having to work a paid job and have no desire to go back to one.

I have absolutely no issue with women with school age children becoming SAHP if that suits their family and their partner/husband/wife is in agreement but they really shouldn't argue that having 6 hours of free time (of which only a small proportion needs to be spent on housework/child relating things) a day is harder than paid working during that time. And they don't do themselves any favours if they do try to argue this. Parents who have children with significant SEN/disabilities not included.

Clearly it hasn't occurred to some posters here that leaving the workplace for a few years to take care of small children makes returning well nigh impossible unless you have a professional qualification or are willing to take a crappy job with terrible hours that might or might not work for the family.

It's such a shame that women tear each other down and engage in the race to the bottom we see on this thread. Denigrating the contribution of women who work in the home is shameful and contrary to our best interests as a whole.

@mathanxiety

Clearly it hasn't occurred to some posters here that leaving the workplace for a few years to take care of small children makes returning well nigh impossible unless you have a professional qualification or are willing to take a crappy job with terrible hours that might or might not work for the family.

It's such a shame that women tear each other down and engage in the race to the bottom we see on this thread. Denigrating the contribution of women who work in the home is shameful and contrary to our best interests as a whole.

Totally agree.

Clearly it hasn't occurred to some posters here that leaving the workplace for a few years to take care of small children makes returning well nigh impossible unless you have a professional qualification or are willing to take a crappy job with terrible hours that might or might not work for the family.

This is all just part of the argument that women (and men, but it's more often women as they tend to take the time off for children) shouldn't leave themselves financially vulnerable. If you're not married, you take time away from a paid job, and you then split up from a partner, you need skills or experience that you can fall back on. Otherwise it's relying on benefit or the crappy job.

Is this sort of thing covered in formal education? It should be. Although parents should also tell their children, and perhaps point out where they are leaving themselves vulnerable as adults. (Although many adult children might not wish to hear, of course).

are you coming back? @DefinitelyDone

I could have written this post word for word. Only difference was we were married but it didn't stop him being a complete narcissist. Got out after 15 years and my only regret is that I didn't divorce him sooner.

Im not sure that posters (who I'm going to assume are women) are tearing down SAHM or each other, I think they are trying to protect them.

Love, trust and promises can be broken. And they are broken in a blink of an eye.

This is why my advice is to never ever ever ever rely on someone else for financial security.

I'm sure we all have examples of when women are screwed over by thier partners/husbands. I thought share a family members story as it had such a huge impact on me as a teenager.

My cousin was married, worked full time and had 3 children. She trusted and loved her DH. He did all the financial stuff, mortgage, bills, loans etc and she trusted him so much she would just sign whatever he put in front of her, without question.

One day he was gone. He had cleared the bank accounts and was now living with the OW.
That wasn't even the worst.

My cousin then started to open the post. House was being repossessed, bailiffs threatening to come and legal action had started because he hadn't been paying mortgage/loans/bills.
She was homeless, 3 kids and no money.

When I talk to her about it, none of it was her fault, but she says she will never allow herself in a financially vulnerable position again.
She says it isn't romantic to make sure you are financially OK should the relationship break up.

But then as she said, being homeless/penniless isn't romantic either.

@LibertyMole

Second wave feminism did support SAHMs. The wages for housework campaign is why we have things like tax credits and child benefit.

Very many women are not entirely SAHMs but work part time or in low paid shift work that fits around their kids. They are subject to very similar vulnerabilities that SAHMs are.

Very many kids just cannot cope with full time childcare and very many families cannot afford it. We’d have far more really messed up kids if everyone worked full time, and plenty of men are just not that arsed about their children.

If you have some combination of caring spouse, extended family offering childcare and children with no additional needs that can cope easily with childcare, good for you. And if you are a GP, teacher or some other woman providing services for women and girls - then good for us too.

But I haven’t got any of those things, so I did horrible, crap jobs around my kids’ needs. And now my kids are grown up I can do a better job.

And if I had my time over I wouldn’t have children, but as I did have them, I had to put them first. And I mean them, not some imaginary kids with no issues who can handle being at school from 7.30 am to 6 every day.

I totally agree with all of the above. However women who care and think about what their children need are absolutely the people we want as mother’s, so it’s heartbreaking in a way that you felt you wouldn’t have children if you had your time over.

That to me speaks volumes about how messed up our lack of support for mother’s still is. That anyone should feel this way.

I do think we’ve lost a bit of our passion and motivation as women to support ourselves as mothers. I have had very little since I decided to be a SAHM to my disabled child, give up my good career, do rubbish jobs. When I’ve come onto the boards on Mumsnet I’ve been told constantly to just work, even when patiently explaining how detrimental that would be for my DS if I did. My Ex doesn’t even have to hang his head in shame to anyone, his family, his work, his friends, no one expects him to really give that much financially.

Other posters are right there has been some protection of child benefit, but tax credits have been eroded and carers of any form, usually women, are still treated very poorly. However no feminist organisation is tackling the issue of men paying very little maintenance (CMS is not what a child costs, just what is the minimum legal enforceable amount, a crucial difference) or men not financially supporting their unmarried SAHM partners.

I second every single word of your post, @Rejoiningperson.

How could we have got so far into the 21st century still letting men primarily identify in terms of the job they do or the career they have or even the bloody football team they support, letting them get away with so little sharing of the 'parent' identity and the weighty sense of responsibility that entails?

@mathanxiety - so true.