To not want to work.

[kahase72]

Hi. I’m a housewife currently. I have 3 DC, youngest 15. I’ve been out of work for about 18 years to take care of my DC. My DH wants me to go back to work now theyre more independent but I don’t want to. We don’t really NEED money, but it would be nice to have it. AIBU to not go back?

I work from home as does DH. No issues with forgotten kit and school runs etc as we are able to do that. Although making yourself available for ferrying in forgotten stuff just cultivates snowflakes who have no responsibility for self. Work places are becoming more and more flexible and are in the majority happy to accommodate time off for appointments etc. there’s no stress here about sports day as we just book in advance. Sometimes I let work know with short notice and I don’t think I’ve ever had a request refused. I never feel the so called “ guilt” you allege that working parents feel walking out the door because I’m still at home and even if I worked out the home I wouldn’t feel guilty. I’m proud to be a working woman and my kids are proud of me too. As for getting the time to chat to my kids- yep I have that in bucket loads. I’m here and we have long chats .

My husband also mainly WFH these days. It's not about people needing to justify 'mum guilt' or lack of it. Nor is it a competition. I don't doubt for one second that people manage without SAHMs or cleaners or whatever. This is how the vast majority live anyway these days. What I'm saying is, if you don't HAVE to, then you don't have to! It's as simple as that really. Nobody sets out to make life more complicated and hectic than it needs to be. Different financial contexts; different amount of children; different jobs; different locations - all these things impact how families organise themselves. There are many paid jobs that, to an outsider may seem pointless and 'redundant.' Doesn't mean people won't still choose to do those jobs. As long as they see the point of what they're doing and it works for them, who cares about anyone else? What relevance is it?

If you had a husband who travelled a lot with no fixed schedule, no fixed hours and this type of thing, you may have made different decisions to if you have a husband who works 9-6 for instance. Kids need some routine and stability and not everyone can WFH or work 9-5 or predictable hours. it's a cost / benefit analysis, like anything else. In certain financial contexts, the 'benefit' of the wife's extra income will be negligible in terms if the overall household finances. So in these circumstances, there seems no point in working and paying someone to do a poorer version of what you are doing yourself. It makes no sense. Things like pensions and 'financial vulnerability' can be sorted. I wouldn't recommend any woman making herself financially vulnerable. Tbh, the SAHMs I know are not exactly in that category.

It's a little sad to think of all of these working parents who seem to use the excuse of having a SAHP to opt out of all parenting responsibilities other than providing financially. Parents who apparently never spare a thought for where their child is, what they are doing, what's going on in their lives etc. I could never respect a partner who had so little interest or emotional involvement in raising their children, and I could never be that parent myself. How sad for the children to have only one parent who is actually engaged and involved, with the other being little more than a cash cow.

Personally, I much prefer an arrangement where both parents have a lot of hands-on involvement in all aspects of parenting, where the responsibilities and rewards of bringing up children are shared equally. It makes for more balanced relationships in my view, but each to their own.

One of the reasons we both work and both share the childcare is exactly that we both should worry and care what's going on with DC. One of my best friends is SAHM and in their household indeed the DH never thinks about their children, their friends, activities, issues. I think he is vaguely aware what school they're in, but maybe not. And what can she say, she's a SAHM, kids are her job, he is 'working hard so deserves the weekends to relax and do his hobbies', as he says.

Don't the SAHPs with uninvolved WOHP partners worry about what would happen to their kids if something happened to the SAHP? Isn't it all a bit precarious if only one parent is actually doing the emotional labour of parenting and the other doesn't really know what's going on? That would fill me with fear tbh.

I really don't think it's as binary as people make out on here. People are just faced with different choices. Unless you've been in someone else's marriage, circumstances or financial set-up, you can't say what you would have done yourself. It's rarely as binary as SAHM = 'disengaged husband.' It totally depends!

Sometimes, if one partner in a marriage has certain opportunities it makes sense to go for that for a given time. For instance, there is a couple we've known since uni. They got married quite young (about 25). She has not worked since she was about 28 when they had their first DC. He founded a company and would work abroad one week, home the next. They moved out of London to a very rural location so work options for her would have been limited, even if she'd wanted to work. So, some might call him a 'disengaged parent' because he worked away a lot and had a SAHW. If you met him though, he's the most lovely down-to-earn guy and has a brilliant relationship with his kids.The payback for his work focus and her making this easy for him, is that when he was about 40 he made a life-changing amount of money - I'm not sure how much exactly, but about £200 million I think. So since 40, he hasn't really had to work. They still live in the same house as they always lived in and have a very simple life really. But my point is, they had certain opportunities and knew what they were doing as a family. They did it together with the common aim to change their children's futures. Now they are about 50. Not only do they not need to work, but their kids are more than set up for life.

Ok, this is maybe an extreme example, but obviously, there are people out there who have opportunities to make life-changing amounts of money and it's very apparent if you know or are married to someone like this, that they don't generally achieve that by working 9-5 and keeping a tally on who does the laundry! This kind of conversation doesn't even come into it. You may have an average / well paid job, but this may seem irrelevant in the overall financial context. It's no coincidence, that many men around here who have SAHWs also work flexibly or retire quite early eg. in their 40s. By this time, it's not about salaries. The family have made investments and this kind of thing. Ok, it's not 9-5 or 'routine' parenting, but it's not 'detached' either. The kids see and understand what the parents are doing for them and why.

It's rarely as binary as SAHM = 'disengaged husband.' It totally depends!

Oh, I quite understand that, and I'm sure that there are some very involved parents despite having SAHPs at home. Indeed, I'm sure that most WOHPs would choose to be involved and engaged with their kids over and above just making a lot of money.

I was referring specifically to the type of arrangement that you described in a previous post, in which the WOHP never seemed to give a moment's thought to their child's wellbeing, never knew what was going on for them in school etc, walked out the door without even giving a thought to where their children were/what they might be doing, because all of that was dealt with by the SAHP. That seems to me to be rather an extreme set up that I wouldn't personally regard as being desirable.

Sometimes, if one partner in a marriage has certain opportunities it makes sense to go for that for a given time.

Agree with this, @SAHMonMN . But it’s not just the people with opportunities to become a tech millionaire - it’s the decision lots (not all - but many) people take when one parent goes for partnership in a City law firm, or a senior role in the City or business. Because when you have two people doing that (long hours, unpredictability, lot of travel, working weekends etc) your kids have a very different sort of life and family experience. Not everyone wants that - and if you don’t, you have the money to choose a different lifestyle and family set up. (And you’re far, far better off financially than people where both parents have average 9-5 jobs, albeit in a riskier position. But anyone smart understands this and saves some of that money for a rainy day.)

Oh I see, Anothernamechangeplease. I wasn't really talking about having less concern for their children's 'well-being' as such. I don't mean to imply that. I rather meant the different 'headspace' that comes from that knowing your child is always with the other parent.

And yes, I do totally agree that women, even if they are working, still have a tendency to carry this 'mental load' more than their male counterparts.

There are pros and cons to anything. You just have to work out for yourself in your own situation which pros outweigh which cons for your particular family.

Surely it’s not a huge job co-ordinating around two working days a week?

One of the reasons we both work and both share the childcare is exactly that we both should worry and care what's going on with DC. One of my best friends is SAHM and in their household indeed the DH never thinks about their children, their friends, activities, issues. I think he is vaguely aware what school they're in, but maybe not. And what can she say, she's a SAHM, kids are her job, he is 'working hard so deserves the weekends to relax and do his hobbies', as he says.

I was raised with a SAHM and a FT working dad. The above certaintly wasn't my experience and he was doing shift work. Far from it. If a parent doesn't care, they just use working as an excuse, it's not the default.

Yes I'm sure many working parents can be very much involved in their DC's life. I am and I work more than full time. Just that this argument was used on this thread, that it's great if the working parent never needs to even think about anything domestic and child-related

I’m not bothered if someone doesn’t want to work but just say you can’t be arsed/want to chill at home everyday. ‘I need to help my 15yo make life decisions, cook up big bowls of food, and host their friends’ is just a bit weak.

It does amuse me when people here talk of 'managing the household' as if they are the CEO of a FTSE 100 multinational rather then living in a three bed semi. My favourite essential 'chore' listed on a previous thread was 'checking local Facebook groups for anything that might affect the house/family'.

Your husband is telling you to go to work, which means he's not happy with current situation in your relationship. You should think about that. Besides, what harm does it do to go part time? You can still enjoy housekeeping duties plus it might be good for both of you.

Well you'd think that @Kanaloa but the amount of events schools seem to put on is unbelievable! I feel like I'm always there. End of term is particularly busy...I have 4 events in the next two weeks. Dh wfh and picks up our youngest dd11 from school when I'm at work but if he has meetings or needs to go into the office then we need to sort childcare. It's just an adjustment really from me always being available.

@SAHMonMN

Sometimes, if one partner in a marriage has certain opportunities it makes sense to go for that for a given time. For instance, there is a couple we've known since uni. They got married quite young (about 25). She has not worked since she was about 28 when they had their first DC. He founded a company and would work abroad one week, home the next. They moved out of London to a very rural location so work options for her would have been limited, even if she'd wanted to work. So, some might call him a 'disengaged parent' because he worked away a lot and had a SAHW. If you met him though, he's the most lovely down-to-earn guy and has a brilliant relationship with his kids.The payback for his work focus and her making this easy for him, is that when he was about 40 he made a life-changing amount of money - I'm not sure how much exactly, but about £200 million I think. So since 40, he hasn't really had to work. They still live in the same house as they always lived in and have a very simple life really. But my point is, they had certain opportunities and knew what they were doing as a family. They did it together with the common aim to change their children's futures. Now they are about 50. Not only do they not need to work, but their kids are more than set up for life.

And every SAHM in a scenario like that, there are thousands, maybe millions, whose husbands are working themselves into the ground to keep a roof over the family's heads while their wives stay at home because "too busy doing life admin'..." or "sorting out pet insurance", etc.

Don't the SAHPs with uninvolved WOHP partners worry about what would happen to their kids if something happened to the SAHP?

Actually that's an important point. .A colleague of mine suddenly realised that God forbid anything happened to his SAH wife he would have to outsource a lot of what she did as his job involved long hours and a lot of travel. We had life insurance through work, he hadn't even thought about life insurance for his wife. My DH didn't have life insurance either once our endowment matured so we took it out for the same reason. Worth thinking about.

My bigger worry would be about the emotional impact on the kids if so much of their care falls to one parent. If the WOHP doesn't really get involved in the day to day stuff, then how will they really know their kids well enough to support them if something awful happens to the SAHP? Some of these parents sound like virtual strangers to their children if their partners are to be believed.

As a WOHP myself, I would hate for someone else to do all of the stuff that I do for my dd while I slogged away for a few more hours at work. I love my job and I've been lucky enough to have a very successful career, but that's only one aspect of my life and I would never be prepared to sacrifice everything else for the sake of it. I honestly don't think that's a healthy approach for anyone. I see doing stuff for dd as an integral part of parenting and essential for our relationship. Why would I want to miss out on that just because I have a career?! It is really important for me to know exactly what is going on in her life, who her friends are and what they're like, what she's working on, what she's struggling with, what she's looking forward to, what she's worrying about, what her likes and dislikes are etc. I would not thank another parent for taking all of that responsibility from me, nor would I respect another parent for leaving all of that stuff to me. My child has two parents and I want her to have a proper relationship with both of us!

I am not going to sports day. I organised something at work and did not realise it was sports day when I did. my kid wont care at all but it bothered my partner who is going. Lets not put all men and all women and all kids in stereotyped buckets…

Lets not put all men and all women and all kids in stereotyped buckets…

You must be new here

The thing is, very few parents are ever going to have exactly the same jobs with exactly the same hours; do exactly the same tasks with the kids and so on so on. This is not realistic. Children don't need two clone parents! Even where two parents are working, you'll personably get one who tends to do the ferrying to whatever club / activity at the weekends, one who gravitates more towards helping with the maths or whatever; one who tends to cook more; or if the packed lunches or whatever. All parents, working or not, have different personalities and will naturally gravitate towards certain things.

I can only speak for myself, but I never felt as if I needed my husband to be doing exactly the same things as me (parenting-wise) day to day. That would just be inefficient. I know he could make a packed lunch; or get the PE kits ready or whatever the day to day stuff is, but I didn't particularly NEED him to be doing that. Why would I? He did other things with them - sports on the weekends; lifts, plays various video games; bike rides; camping trips; computer / tech related homework help ... so many things that weren't my particular forte. Just play to your strengths basically. Similarly, he didn't NEED me to be making money, so all that side of things I didn't have to worry about. It's still a partnership snd of course you are equal parents, but you allow each other to focus and play to your strengths and natural inclinations. Ok, I might have been more involved in the kids academics and schools, but they wouldn't have been in those schools were it not for money he was able to generate (and I sound never have been able to put 4 kids through school on the type of money U was likely to make). So different roles, but the same common goal which is the kids education. Then we have shared ventures - eg, properties we've bought and renovated. He will sort the finances, I manage the renovations on site. It's still teamwork, but it's a better use of our time and resources. It's easier for us to have our own roles than be doing the same things day to day. Also, things change over the years and these days he's WFH and as visible to the kids as I am anyway. It's rarely as clear cut as people may think. That's my experience anyway.

Funnily, it did also help my husband be, not a more involved parent, because he was always pretty equally involved, but our life and both our parenting became more fun and relaxed because we weren't always one step ahead of chaos

Fully agree with that, @Mummyford . People are mixing up “not having to worry about the domestic stuff” with “not being an involved parent”. And the two are not synonymous. My DH was hugely present for the kids when he got home from work, at the weekends, in the holidays - and would always prioritise getting to school concerts etc. He just wouldn’t have to worry about who was picking them up from school, what they’d be doing in the school holidays when he wasn’t off or whether they had school uniform.

Plus - the threads on here are myriad. “How do people cope with two FT working parents?” is a pretty common topic for discussion. And the answer is always to be very organised at the weekends: kids’ clubs, batch cooking, washing uniforms etc. Which is fine - nothing wrong with that and all very sensible. But to me, the real value of one of us being at home was that didn’t have to happen at the weekends: we had the time (and were fortunate to have the money) to be able to do loads of fun trips and activities as a family, because the cooking and shopping could wait until Monday.

It’s a choice borne out of privilege, absolutely. But it’s a lifestyle choice which works really well for some families. Two people in very senior City/legal/business jobs may well earn 7 figures between them, but they won’t have much at all in the way of time with their family. If you both love your jobs, then maybe that suits you. If you see it as more of a means to an end, then maybe it doesn’t…..

Of course parents will have different strengths and preferences. Nobody is saying that they have to do exactly the same things with their dc. However, in my personal opinion, it's preferable for both parents to have a similar level of hands-on involvement and time with the dc so that both can build equally strong relationships. For that reason, I have always felt it important for both DH and I to maintain a good work-life balance and for both of us to be fully involved at home. Just because I happen to be the higher earner in our family, I don't see why that should mean that I would want to sacrifice my relationship with my dc. And I would question his values if the situations were reversed and he was happy to leave it all to me.

of course YABU, why should he fund your whole life on his own? That's so selfish

Watched this thread with interest. I have something of the reverse problem.

I love DH and we have been married for nearly 30 years. We studied the same courses and worked initially in the same field. However, he found working life difficult and would always find himself leaving employment after say 6 months to a year having fallen out with Management or on occasion colleagues. When I became pregnant, he wanted to spend time with the kids and we agreed that he should do this initially until they went to nursery and then to school. I asked at this point when he would be returning. His answer was that he would but he would do so when he found a job which was worthwhile- he was not just going to do anything.. Roll the clock forward a decade and nothing had materialised of this nature. I had a sizeable row when the kids went to college along the lines that this would be expensive and he could not look to me to do this on my own. He returned to work and I was proud of him. However after 18 months he came home earl having quit- falling out again with Management. Since then nothing. I may get shot down for this but he did do stuff at home. He did washing and ironing and some cleaning and about half the cooking and he did take the kids to a very local school and put them on the bus later on. IMO though this is only about seven hours work a week.

The rest was his own time and it seemed really pleasant. Pilates and yoga classes, lots of Netflix and at least one lunchtime trip to the pub a week. He also has sports hobbies as well.

Over lockdown (I am now largely home based), things have got worse. He has pulled back from cooking and at least once has asked when I will have his dinner on the table. Notably he has also pulled back from other things over the years as well. All organising and finances are down to me and he laughs with my children when I sit down to budget or check our bank account to make sure we can afford something.

IMV being a stay at home parent after the kids are at school is not fair unless you both honestly and freely agree. If you have a DC with special needs I fully understand that this will not be the case. I love DH but this gets to me and it has impacted the respect I have for him. OP there is a risk your DH may feel the same as I do and I think you need to consider going back to work. For me I would settle for part time hours, but I feel abused and it does leave me seriously thinking about if I want to retire with a partner who acts like this.

On a recent form he had to declare his occupation. He put retired. He is in his mid 50s.