AIBU to not want to work?!

[Anonymouseperson]

I’m a mum of two (aged 3 and 5). I worked part time freelance from when my kids were 6 months old. I’ve recently started a new job (35 hours a week) because I thought I should try and get my career back on track and wanted to take the financial pressure off my husband.

I used to be very career driven. I loved my job. I was proud of it. Now, I just don’t give a monkeys. I work so much, my house is a mess and I don’t get to do as much with the kids in the week as I’d like.

This is going to sound really horrible, which is why I’m posting anonymously, but sometimes I just wish I’d married someone richer who would just look after me and the kids without question. Someone who wouldn’t expect me to work, but also if I didn’t work wouldn’t quibble over what I was spending.

Part of my reason for wanting to earn more was my husband’s attitude to money. I am not a spendthrift. I don’t shop really, or do beauty treatments or anything. I bought a £12 lamp once for the front room from wilko and he went ballistic on the front step in front of all the neighbours when he saw the shopping bag, saying I should “make some f-ing money before you go spunking it away all the time!” (He later apologised for that).

My point is, I work because I can’t stand him getting all stressy with me about money, not because I want to.

AIBU: Is it anti feminist to just want to raise my kids and be looked after?!

I feel guilty even writing this because it’s not who I used to be. I was Ms Ambitious - but I’m not anymore. Also I know a lot of people have it worse and I don’t want to be ungrateful. I’m sorry if it comes over that way.

Maybe I’m just a bit depressed?!

What's rhe female version of a cockloger

gold digger

He sounds like a prick...id work on getting out tbh

oh ffs why does every little spat on mn come back to this advice?

I also just don't understand the attitude of expecting someone else to be rich enough to pay your way. Pay your own way. Your a grown woman, you have two dcs to think of, you don't need to be paid for

I don't agree with this, many women would stay at home with the kids rather than work if the money was there, nothing 'wrong' with it as the mum gets to bring up her kids and keep house. Yet on mn the women are looked down on.

I work full time but I don't see anyone else bringing up my kids

No, you don't sounds like a dickhead. It's a variation on the fantasy of winning the lottery or suddenly inheriting a pile of money from a long-lost relative that gives the financial freedom to live your life exactly as you'd wish.

May I recommend that fantasy as superior to the rich-husband one, though? A) the lottery win doesn't make you dependant on someone else and B) doesn't risk breeding resentment in your real life as it's really not your DH's fault that neither of you have a wealthy ageing aunt in the background (as far as you know...)

He was being a complete dickhead about the lamp, though, and what he said was an unacceptably nasty thing to say to the mother of his children. Only you know if it was a total one-off that he's ashamed of or a pattern of behaviour that you need to get away from.

@TheViewFromTheCheapSeats

‘The days of men handing over their salary to wives to manage (like my grandparents) are gone, but the attitude that women should continue to place themselves at his mercy has stayed.’

@TractorAndHeadphones you can’t speak for everyone. I pretty much manage all finances in the joint account. Obviously everyone can see them, but I have a bit more time to do things like insurances, savings etc and organise the outgoings. Mutual trust and a healthy relationship hasn’t died as a concept, people still live happily in traditional set ups because they can and want to. It’s ok to be different, for me that’s the big thing- choice. Women do what they want.

But do the majority of people do that? In my grandparents’ day it was a given and expected. Nowadays it’s the minority.

FlowerArranger, while I don't disagree at all with the principle of the importance of protecting women's interests, I do wonder if we all need a massive shake-up of how we view and treat work (of all kinds, including raising a family and running a house) and the economics and the social meanings of it.

I cannot agree with the characterisation of a woman (or a man for that matter) who is at home looking after children as 'not working and being entirely dependent on a man/partner'.
It IS work. People pay for childcare and housekeepers, cleaners, cooks...

And the partner out at work is just as dependent on the partner who is at home looking after THEIR shared children and THEIR shared house; if that person wasn't at home they'd have to pay someone for that work.

We need the world of work to be more flexible and to not reward men (largely it is men) simply for not going off on parental leaves. And work culture needs to respect parental leave more; pay properly and make it smooth for people to re-enter at the same level. Not to mention making it completely equally shared between men and women.

@Anonymouseperson Its not good or bad and tbh peoples opinions are irrelevant. Its what you want, and its hardly selfish is it. You want to be with your kids more. Maybe if you said you didnt want to work, not have the kids and go off on daily shopping trips maybe that would be different.

And the partner out at work is just as dependent on the partner who is at home looking after THEIR shared children and THEIR shared house; if that person wasn't at home they'd have to pay someone for that work.

Without in any way trivialising the very real work of homemaking and child rearing, this simply isn't true. The first and most immediate need is money. The working partner is not just as dependent at all. With that money, they could indeed pay someone to do the work they can't do themselves (and for most people, the only thing is likely to be childcare in working hours, which becomes a lot more affordable once kids are at school). If your income is suddenly cut off and you don't earn, you're much more stuffed than if you do earn but suddenly have to pay for some childcare and do your own housework.

Look at how many women on here are in miserable relationships but don't leave because of money.

@DrSbaitso

And the partner out at work is just as dependent on the partner who is at home looking after THEIR shared children and THEIR shared house; if that person wasn't at home they'd have to pay someone for that work.

Without in any way trivialising the very real work of homemaking and child rearing, this simply isn't true. The first and most immediate need is money. The working partner is not just as dependent at all. With that money, they could indeed pay someone to do the work they can't do themselves (and for most people, the only thing is likely to be childcare in working hours, which becomes a lot more affordable once kids are at school). If your income is suddenly cut off and you don't earn, you're much more stuffed than if you do earn but suddenly have to pay for some childcare and do your own housework.

Look at how many women on here are in miserable relationships but don't leave because of money.

I don't disagree that many women are trapped in relationships because of money. I just think we as a society need to change the way we think about work that isn't going out to work in a job. Many of the comments on here I find so deplorable/offensive are along the lines of 'you need paid work to respect yourself', which is an attitude I really object to. I also wonder if we could as a society a) come to respect home-making/childrearing more and b) enshrine that in law and/or the way we as a society manage family money. Totally thinking out loud and throwing things out here, but for example is there a way to ring-fence money for at-home partners? The equivalent of a family having a shared bank account and separate personal ones, but formalised somehow? As I say, that's just thinking out loud. But I hope you take my point.

And the partner out at work is just as dependent on the partner who is at home looking after THEIR shared children and THEIR shared house; if that person wasn't at home they'd have to pay someone for that work

Childcare maybe, but they’d just do all the house stuff after/before work or at the weekends just like the rest of us. We don’t pay to have a cleaner/housekeeper etc, we just fit it in when we can.

It’s fine for one person to stay at home and do housework and child stuff and the other person to be the sole wage earner IF they are bath happy with it. If the person going out to work doesn’t want to be solely responsible for financially supporting the household, then I don’t think the other person should decide to not bring any money in.

If the person going out to work doesn’t want to be solely responsible for financially supporting the household, then I don’t think the other person should decide to not bring any money in.
I never suggested people shouldn't agree on how they run their finances

I also wonder if we could as a society a) come to respect home-making/childrearing more
It comes down to the same outcome. If both parties agree and have a joint happy arrangement, all is fine. The problem is when they don't.

Some of the messiest, dirtiest houses I have been too were sahp's. Not all sahms are amazing home makers, cooking lovely meals, keeping the house clean and the kids well disciplined, stimulated, educated.

The working husband has no control over it and indeed, might think a paid cleaner would do a better job.

What happens then?

I also wonder if we could as a society a) come to respect home-making/childrearing more

What would this respect look like in real terms? Bearing in mind that whatever you do, you'll never get universal approval.

Iv been the sole wage earner and I never realised how much pressure comes with it until I was in the situation, even if its unintentional.

Me and dh find a written down budget with everything split into savings pots helps so if we need to buy a lamp or a rug etc and theres money in that pot then either of us can.

@vivainsomnia

I also wonder if we could as a society a) come to respect home-making/childrearing more It comes down to the same outcome. If both parties agree and have a joint happy arrangement, all is fine. The problem is when they don't.

Some of the messiest, dirtiest houses I have been too were sahp's. Not all sahms are amazing home makers, cooking lovely meals, keeping the house clean and the kids well disciplined, stimulated, educated.

The working husband has no control over it and indeed, might think a paid cleaner would do a better job.

What happens then?

I don't know what happens then. No solution is 100% going to apply to or suit everyone.

@DrSbaitso

I also wonder if we could as a society a) come to respect home-making/childrearing more

What would this respect look like in real terms? Bearing in mind that whatever you do, you'll never get universal approval.

Well, as I made clear, I'm just thinking out loud, and throwing out vague ideas. But I did mention ring-fencing money for at-home partners. Again, I don't know how.

@IntermittentParps in the absence of SEN childcare and home making is as much work as one makes it. It’s not in itself difficult.
You can choose to clean every day or not. Drive kids to various activities , or park them at home in front of TV.
How many sole breadwinners really care about how clean the house is for example? Or whether laborious meals are made as opposed to throwing something together?

I very much agree that a lot of women are ‘forced’ into being SAHP, lack of work flexibility and part time jobs etc but I don’t believe that the majority of SAHP add as much value as Workinf partner once kids in school

I very much agree that a lot of women are ‘forced’ into being SAHP, lack of work flexibility and part time jobs etc but I don’t believe that the majority of SAHP add as much value as Workinf partner once kids in school
Many SAHPs take on the bulk or all of the school admin (washing clothes, sorting bags, homework, lunches, being the parent the school calls in an emergency...)

@IntermittentParps

I very much agree that a lot of women are ‘forced’ into being SAHP, lack of work flexibility and part time jobs etc but I don’t believe that the majority of SAHP add as much value as Workinf partner once kids in school Many SAHPs take on the bulk or all of the school admin (washing clothes, sorting bags, homework, lunches, being the parent the school calls in an emergency...)

But working parents have to do all this as well.

I'm not denying that it's work, and important work at that. But it's not incompatible with paid employment, as evidenced by the fact that most parents work and don't have a SAHP. And we know what this school admin involves, because we do it.

Some of the messiest, dirtiest houses I have been too were sahp's. Not all sahms are amazing home makers, cooking lovely meals, keeping the house clean and the kids well disciplined, stimulated, educated.

I can't put my finger on what bothers me about this statement. It all just sounds a bit Stepford-esque - as if you have to pay your penance from not working by scrubbing the house to within an inch of its life or spending all day in the kitchen.

SAHPs are at home to look after the children. Whatever else gets done is a bonus, really. When mine were tiny and I worked fewer hours than I do now, I used to hate the feeling that I had to justify how I spent my time and be constantly on the - as if working parents didn't take lunch breaks or have the odd skive on the Internet or sit down in front of the tv as soon as they got home

@vivainsomnia I’m currently at home with my Dd, 3 after working all my life 45 plus hours per week. Yes, my house IS dirtier and messier now I’m a Sahm, she’s a messy bugger and we’re home a lot of the day, doing crafts and learning and yes cooking very good meals. Housework is the one thing that I’ve let slide a little. When I worked, none of us were in the house all day, we only had ourselves to look after…the place was immaculate!

@themuttsnutts

Some of the messiest, dirtiest houses I have been too were sahp's. Not all sahms are amazing home makers, cooking lovely meals, keeping the house clean and the kids well disciplined, stimulated, educated.

I can't put my finger on what bothers me about this statement. It all just sounds a bit Stepford-esque - as if you have to pay your penance from not working by scrubbing the house to within an inch of its life or spending all day in the kitchen.

SAHPs are at home to look after the children. Whatever else gets done is a bonus, really. When mine were tiny and I worked fewer hours than I do now, I used to hate the feeling that I had to justify how I spent my time and be constantly on the - as if working parents didn't take lunch breaks or have the odd skive on the Internet or sit down in front of the tv as soon as they got home

The discussion at this point is about treating SAHP as a job. In that case yes, you have to justify what you’re doing.

There are many combinations and reasons for being SAHP. For some their wage is less than childcare, other have SEN kids, or partners with unpredictable schedules etc etc. All fine.

What is not fine however is pretending that an SAHP is always doing a very important job and adding value to the house, with no other possible solution. Just like some people are shit at work some people are shit at being SAHP. Or are SAHP because it makes their life easier. It’s not always a decision made solely for the good of the family.

No matter what strangers on the internet think the only people whose opinion matters are the SAHP and their partner. Whether the partner thinks having an SAHP is of value is based on their evaluation of what they think is needed. A lot of earning partners undervalue what the SAHP does. But equally a lot of SAHP martyr themselves with a whole bunch of stuff that earning partner doesn’t care about.

FTR I think SAHP should be given their own money, pensions etc just like earning partner. Or at very least significant financial control.

But if you want such formal rewards then you have to justify what you are doing. And just as work pays you a salary based on what they think is your value. Your earning partner considers whether it’s worth funding you based on they value they think you bring. It’s a team effort. Nobody should unilaterally decide. All expectations and standards should be discussed before one decides to be a SAHP.

[quote Hesreallyshort]@vivainsomnia I’m currently at home with my Dd, 3 after working all my life 45 plus hours per week. Yes, my house IS dirtier and messier now I’m a Sahm, she’s a messy bugger and we’re home a lot of the day, doing crafts and learning and yes cooking very good meals. Housework is the one thing that I’ve let slide a little. When I worked, none of us were in the house all day, we only had ourselves to look after…the place was immaculate![/quote]
You’re doing crafts and cooking meals - as long as your partner agrees that this is the best use of your time all good :)

Well, the earning partner is funding the family, not the sahp. Take the children out of the equation and both would be working AND both would be splitting the housework and paperwork 50/50, which is considerably less arduous without offspring.

When one partner stays at home to care for children (not the house nor ironing a partner's socks ), that partner ought not to be put in a role where they answer to the earning partner, since it was a joint decision and it was considered mutually beneficial