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?

@Goldbar

He is paying the going rate.

He's paying for everything.

I'm not defending the giving lists and doing inspections. Thats ridiculous.

But the idea that the op can charge him when he already pays for everything is just as ridiculous

And there's a simple solution

If women don't want to be put in this position, don't be a sahm.

Don't allow yourself to be though of as the employee

Youre his partner not his employee!! He can fuck all the way off. I would be back to work ASAP.

@Poppy297

really??

how so?

We have no evidence that he is paying the going rate. Meeting family expenses is not the same as paying "the going rate" to an employee.

Should I suggest that to the nanny we're looking to employ? "How about we don't pay you or give you time off, but you can live in our house, eat our food, drive the car, come on holiday with us (but you'd have to help with the children) and we won't bother paying into a pension for you?" I'd be rightly laughed out of the agency and, if I did find someone desperate enough to exploit in this way, I'd be committing a criminal offence.

Assuming you have a live-in nanny and housekeeper, you will generally pay:

• Their board and lodging.
• Salary of £30-60k based on hours and experience.
• NI on behalf of the employee.
• Pension contributions.
• There may also be other benefits such as gym membership and use of a car.

The employee will work set hours (usually 8-6 but some will work 7-7 for additional pay) and will be entitled to overtime, sick leave and paid holidays. So you'd have to cover the rest of the time yourself.

There are very few families who could afford to "employ" the equivalent of a SAHP.

In this case, by paying for their living expenses, the husband is barely scratching the surface of the real cost. I think that's the point people are trying to make.

Are you coming back to the thread you started, and a lot of people have been supportive to you on, @SummerDuck?

@Goldbar

But a sahp isn't providing a service in the same way that a nanny is.

Youre not paid to look after your own children.

You're not paid to cook your own dinner or do your own housework

So yes, if the dh wants an employee, the op can suggest he gets 1 and stop funding her. Or he can pay her as an employee but she'd have to deduct her half of childcare and housework responsibility from the fee

She can't suggest he pays her for being a sahm other than as the current arrangement where he funds her entire lifestyle

Willing to bet this is the tip of the iceberg, and the OP has no access to money and he decides everything.

Tell him to fuck off

Start looking around for a rottweiler solicitor to represent you.

He sounds like an utter twat.

I really disagree with all these 'divorce him' comments at this stage. He's asked for something, you can choose how your respond and negotiate.
He is probably frustrated at the state of the house and doesn't understand how things don't get done. Men are solution orientated and he probably thinks he's being helpful trying to write a list as he might be blaming it on disorganization - I would feel that way too if I was working full time and the person at home didn't seem to get anything visible done (although we know typical pink jobs like cooking and cleaning up and invisible, whereas typical blue jobs like paint the dense or mow the lawn are more noticeable) By working together to look at what needs to get done and what time you both have available (including the list of all the child related chores you do like bathtime and meal prep) then it would be more transparent and maybe you could both agree to do things on certain days. It would probably make him realize he does need to commit to taking on more himself

There's a difference between him saying "would you mind mowing the lawn today love" and checking off a list of duties like a sergeant major.

Yesterday my 5 year old moaned because some of the other kids didn't have a sun hat on and she didn't want to wear hers. I said tough, that's not you. You're wearing a hat. Same principal.

'Ohhhhh but all the other partners get to subjugate their wives, it's not faaaaairr!' - that what he sounds like.

It may be complete bullshit btw, however what a horrid thought if it's true. Big boys work misogyny club, all talking about how they keep the little woman at home under control, how fucking depressing.

Sounds like double standards to me. Lost count of the times I'm told that "lived experience" trumps all, especially on this forum. Turns out there's a double standard and we can criticise from afar and with imperfect knowledge after all.

In which case I'm going to do the same thing as you are and conclude that because my ex-wife used to spend all day in front of the TV, all SAHPs must do this too and therefore they need to be given schedules to make sure they do their fair share. I've never actually been a SAHP but I don't need to be, I can see it. I don't need to do it everyday to see whether someone else is a tosser or lazy.

That's based on your logic, not mine.

I was talking about my experience of people I’d actually worked with, so not a sweeping generalisation at all. Prey tell what ‘qualifies you to accuse me of sounding ill-informed when you clearly have no idea what a legal secretary does or much experience of the legal profession? And wouldn’t you be snarky if you’d been repeatedly yelled at for something someone else had or hadn’t done? Law is still one of those professions where it takes a certain personality type to make it to the top, and being male and white gives you a head start. That’s why I can have a certain amount of confidence saying that, given his job role, OPs DH may as well have ‘TWAT’ stamped across his forehead, because that’s pretty much what it takes to get there!

Even at half the rate I'm willing to bet it comes out as substantially more than he's prepared to pay. And how many parents do you know who get three/four overnights and 12/13 days holiday off a year from parenting their own kids?

Her "lifestyle" is likely to cost significantly less than 50% of the cost of 24/7 live-in help.

@Goldbar

Even at half the rate I'm willing to bet it comes out as substantially more than he's prepared to pay.

Really? When he currently pays for everything? How'd you work that out?

Her "lifestyle" is likely to cost significantly less than 50% of the cost of 24/7 live-in help.

Doubt it

Especially as he wouldn't need 24/7 live in help.

He'd only need after school care and childcare for the 3 yo.

The rest he could do himself

How have you not laughed in his face?

I never said my lived experience trumped all, I simply shared my experience and you jumped on it with your condescending bullshit. For the record, it was option C, no amount of money would be enough for me to deal with all that on a daily basis. Like Famzonhol said, you don’t need a qualification to know that someone else is a tosser, so on that note I’ll stop wasting my time here.

What is the point of this obsessive diatribe about "he pays for everything." Er yes, it's kind of the deal if you have a SAHM. Get over it.

You’ve hit the key point there, he could mow his own lawn, but would he?

This doesn't make sense. He could be a SAHD, then OP could go out and work, roles reversed. But he can't and won't - I am sure that decision was unilaterally made by him at some point.

Let's not kid ourselves, he can't do a job like finance which usually seems to involve ridiculous hours without a wife at home doing literally everything for the house, family, pick ups, and mental load. If she had a FT I doubt he'd step and do 1 second more of anything so OP would then have even more shit to deal with.

OP your DH relies on your support and help to have his successful career. If DH is 'paying his way' then OP is certainly 'paying her way', too. The difference is that she values and appreciates what he does, whereas he is literally infantilising her, a grown woman, and treating her like nothing. It's completely disgusting.

Have to say OP doesn't surprise me for a second to hear he's in finance!

I don't know why you find it so hard to believe that having a SAHP is the "cheap" option for many families.

There are frequent newspaper articles about how parents (usually mothers) are "priced out" of working due to the cost of quality childcare.

You hugely underestimate the value of unpaid labour (mostly performed by women) imo. And the cost of replacing this unpaid labour within families if the SAHP was suddenly unable to provide it. Especially if childcare is required on standby 24/7 (most city lawyers work irregular hours).

A few years ago, when DC1 was a toddler, I went away to a conference for a few days. DH (a workaholic and in a similar job to the OP's husband) had an important work deadline and so couldn't "cover" for me. Paying to "replace" me for 3 days (not even a SAHP, but just a parent working part-time with set hours) cost us the best part of £1000.

@randomfriends

Who knows

@Outofthepark

Lots of people have (stressful)careers and manage without a sahp so of course its possible

'The difference is that she values and appreciates what he does, '

Does she? Where does it say that?

@Goldbar

I havent said having a sahp is a cheap option. It is.

If you paid 1k for 3 days childcare you were ripped off lol

The point you are refusing to acknowledge is that parenting is not paid childcare.

It's not the same.

Parenting your own children has no monetary value.

And having to pay the most expensive paid for service is not the only option

He who pays the pioer, calls the tune.

Sounds like he is fed up, after 15-plus years, of being the sole earner. Time for OP to start job-seeking.