SAHM- DH wanting to give me ‘routines’ and ‘duties’

[SummerDuck]

So I’m a SAHM with DS1 (15), DS2 (9) and DD (3). DH works full time. He has recently started moaning about how I’m not doing enough around the house.

DD is at home full time other than being at nursery one day a week. I do most of the cooking, cleaning and general household admin. However, DH has said there is no not enough ‘output’. He therefore wants to introduce ‘routines’ and ‘duties’ whereby he will set out what needs to be done on a particular day and carry out checks upon returning from work.

So Monday will be garden day for example and the lawn will need to be mowed and leaves sweeped. Tuesday will be bathroom cleaning day and so on.

Is this level of micromanagement normal for SAHPs and should I just be grateful?

Get a job. I think you are going to need your independence.

Of course half of the chores are her responsibility. She has to eat, live in a maintained home and care for her children, so she doesn't perform the tasks solely for his benefit, which is what is implied by the idea she could invoice him.
People are totting up the cost of professional cleaning, childcare and gardening and arriving at a figure that he could be asked to pay her, when in reality, the most he'd be liable for is half of that. Off set that against the loss of a second income for what seems to be the best part of 20 years so far, and he's not doing that well financially from the arrangement. Its certainly not one I'd go for personally (I'm a woman).
I don't for a moment agree with how he's gone about it, and it raises serious questions about his character; but here's nothing misogynist in challenging the claim he is the financial beneficiary here.

@Pallisers

Why wouldn't we be?

It does, doesn't it? So if posters (not just the op) want the role of housewife respected, they need to respect the role of wp.

Which lots seem not to. Despite ot literally being the hand that feeds them

I’d go back to work if I was you

@Nanaof1

I'd imagine a well paid lawyer wouldn't struggle to find or pay for a nanny.

Asthma who hasn't worked for at least 15 years being able to find a job that will pay her mortgage?

Not so much.

on bathroom day I'd be tempted to sleep the contents of your kids nappy all over the wall and let him inspect that. Prick

Did he fall through a hole in time? He's a dinosaur!

His first return home to check my chores would result in finding divorce papers.

Just no.

But she might not need a mortgage if she buys a smaller house with her share of their joint assets.

@Goldbar

And the oh might not need a nanny.

Who knows

Trying to pretend he is more dependent on her than she is on him is nonsense.

As is pretending that he isn't already 'paying' her

Have you been a Sahm the whole time. You have a age gap that means I assume you were at home and eldest at school.

I would say to him you don’t care other wives have it you aren’t his employee

I was in this role for 14 years. Dh's approach was anything that makes me happy is cool with him. The house was kept fairly clean, the food was mostly from scratch, the kids were generally happy, well cared for. Occasionally he enquired whether we needed a cleaner (I did not want this), he had to remind me he was running out of shirts (sending them out to be laundered was more hassle IMO) and a few times I got lists which are more like reminders of stuff that needs to be done like book holiday etc (I gave dh these lists too on stuff he had to do). But never would he ever consider implementing duties and routines to be checked by him - maybe he's confused on the lists thing that I assume all couples give each other?

I like this. There's no revenge like a really good passive aggressive revenge. 😂

No OP it's not normal. You're not his employee

I agree. I think while well meant it's harmful to lead the OP to believe otherwise.
She is very vulnerable here, and all the posturing in the world about how valuable she already is to him doesn't change that. If he feels he's getting a poor deal the OPs in trouble.

But she's not totally dependent on him either assuming they've built up a reasonable amount of joint assets. She is legally entitled to a share of those assets too, including any pensions. Yes, her earning power is much less than his probably, but that's something a court would take into account in dividing the assets. So she's not completely vulnerable and she doesn't have to say "how high?" to his "jump". Isn't this precisely the situation people envisage when they say don't give up your job or cut your working hours without the legal protection marriage gives you?

@Goldbar

I havent said she is totally dependent on him. Ir that she has to say how high.

I was responding to all the coments about charging him. She already does. So while he might need her for childcare for the next few years, she definitely needs him to pay for everything. So he already is paying/being charged

There might not be any assets, he might have mortgaged the house 3 x to pay his gambling debts, who knows?

Maybe she can’t afford the degree.
Maybe she’s got dependents.
Maybe she doesn’t want to.
Still don’t need a qualification to see whether someone else is a tosser or lazy.

She's not "charging" him. If she was, then we'd start to get into discussions about the value of her labour and how much a 24/7 nanny/housekeeper costs.

And also whether, as her de facto employee, he's been meeting his NI and pension obligations relating to her employment.

So no she hasn't been "charging" him and he hasn't been "employing" her. If we started to view SAHPs as employees, that would open a real can of worms around exploitation, modern slavery and employee protection in many cases.

That’s for OP to decide though.

If she’s been out of the workforce for 15 years then him taking the instruction to ‘fuck off’ literally could cause her very significant problems.

She may decide those problems are worth it to be free of his shit. Or she may decide to keep quiet and tolerate his behaviour in return for a comfortable life outside the workforce.

Or there’s a middle ground which is talking to him, telling him she doesn’t find the way he’s behaving acceptable and trying to find out what’s causing it. If he’s behaving like this because he’s having an affair then yes, fuck off is probably the appropriate response. But if he’s behaving like this because he’s feeling resentful about carrying the financial burden alone, there’s potentially something that can be done about that.

@Goldbar

You seem to be missing the point. Have you read the thread?

People absolutely are saying she should charge him and that her labour is worth more than his.

Sahms aren't employees but nor are they providing labour for free. Their lifestyle is funded by the wp (or the state)

They aren't hard done by

This is an absolute lie

Do not let him convince you that this is the norm. Being a SAHM if far harder than being a solicitor. promise! No sane human is suggesting a chore chart to their spouse when said spouse is acting as full time child care. That’s a horrible controlling disrespectful thing for him to say.

Maybe he would respond well to a breakdown of what a nanny, chef, gardeners, chauffeurs etc cost?

you could also point out that if you were to leave him over his misogynistic controlling comments and criticisms you would be entitled to child support, spousal support (probably) and 50% of all your assets. Then perhaps he truly would understand your value.

Same posters as usual trying to twist this into their own obsessive irrelevant nonsense about who is worth this and who is worth that. Meanwhile the OP has posted twice. Are people this gullible?

@Poppy297

'Being a SAHM if far harder than being a solicitor.'

How do you know?

I have RTWT.

What people are saying is that if he wants to treat the OP as an employee, he needs to pay the going rate and give the OP the protection which employees usually have (including paid holidays, sick leave, working time protection etc.). Then they're calculating the going rate for the services provided by the OP.

SAHPs are only not "hard done by" when they are in a mutually supportive and enriching relationship where they have autonomy over their time and access to family money.

What the OP's husband is proposing is that he treat the OP as an employee without giving her any of the legal rights associated with this status. There's a word for keeping people in servitude and exploiting their labour without paying them fairly.