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?

I agree with this. I’m equally supportive of women who want to work or SAH or a combination of both. It’s a terrible shame that MN is typically so aggressive to SAHMs.

However, in this particular case OP finds herself married to an arsehole. If it were me I would get out. Presumably OP wants this to work in which case she needs to both call her DH to account and protect herself financially.

He’s treating her like shit as he sees her as “just” a SAHM who’s underperforming. If she too has a city law career and the childcare is done by nannies and the cleaning by cleaners - he would be forced to change his tune.
And if he doesn’t - she has the financial means to leave.

@SleepingStandingUp hence me saying we don't know how many times they have had this conversation. If he's raised that he feels she's not pulling her weight numerous times and nothing has changed, maybe this is his last resort.

Given that OP has agreed to go along with it, I'm kind of swaying towards the idea that he might have a point.

It's one thing for Mumsnetters to respect SAHP.

The problem in the OP is that her DH doesn't respect her.

No amount of respect from internet strangers is going to make up for that.

True SkyandSurf! That's why she came to us for support.

I think she deserves our support.

People who do not approve of SAHMs should keep out, this is not a debate about the pros and cons of that, whatever they say.

Here we are giving our support, views, experience and advice about the OP's experience of her DH deciding to give her written 'duties' and to check each day if she has performed them.

I would say,
This is horrific!
He needs to explain why after 15 years he has decided she needs this. Because 'others' do it is not satisfactory!
He needs to know what being at home with a 3yo and running the home and family of 5 entails. and that she is in charge of it, not he, and she sets the 'lists of jobs, things to do etc.' which are flexible according to need/circumstances and he is not her boss and neither is he qualified to make decisions concerning her area of authority.
I would also, if I were her, say that I needed at least one morning a week of a Cleaner and at least 2 hours a week of a Gardener to come and work at the house under her authority.

She needs to build up her self-esteem. Stand up for herself. See that her job is extremely valuable, extremely expensive to replace, and nobody could do it in the way she can.

Gosh I'm back on page 1 again but I just wanted to comment on this. Women quitting work after having kids is often because caring for the children IS their part of the financial responsibility. (Childcare costs money!) As with the OP, situations happen where the husband decides he cannot do both his job and participate in childcare/family management, so that is left to the wife. Sometimes, the wife doing all of that alone is not practical and that is often when women quit work to look after children. "All the pressures of being the only income" is the excuse made by the man AFTER he has edged his wife out of the job market. Before that, when she was working, he was not the only income. And yet, he was ok with her quitting. Why?

I think you really have to be aware of how men's reasoning process can change in a subtle way between the time when their wife is working and the time when she is not. Before she quits work, he says "But our family life is just so hectic, it will be so much more relaxed if you stop working, and my salary brings in plenty of money for us both." After she quits work, he says "It's a lot of pressure on me being the only income, you know I need my weekends away to do my hobbies." A few years later, he says, "What do you do all day? I feel like I'm the only one contributing to the family."

I know there are women who don't want to work and consider having children to be an excuse to quit work and eat bon-bons all day, or to become "yummy mummies" who play tennis and drink mimosas with their friends, I don't know. But most of the women I know who quit work, liked working and having their own income, and quit because it was the choice that optimised things for the family as a whole, and often the choice preferred by their husband.

Mirabai
Many thanks.

You made the valid point, "He’s treating her like shit as he sees her as “just” a SAHM who’s underperforming. If she too has a city law career and the childcare is done by nannies and the cleaning by cleaners - he would be forced to change his tune."

Your "just" says it all. The job, probably the most important in the world, certainly the one we all are affected by the most in our childhood and even afterwards, is cast down by that "just", reduced to something unimportant and suggests it's probably a thing we can manage without. I do not think you were implying that women should stay at work in order to maintain respect from their husbands, but unfortunately this is the logical result of the choice between staying at home to look after her own baby or having a Nanny and going back to work.

True emancipation, true equality, has been achieved only when the position of SAHM is given equal respect and status by everyone as any job of going out to work. Women need to be respected equally, whether they return to work and become somebody in a high position there, or stay at home and care for the family. The only true measure of whether a man has a decent respect for women is if he respects all normal women no matter what they do. (I'm not talking about people who break the law or are cruel, hence I added the 'normal').

Anyway it's definitely time that the position of Full Time Mother and Home-Maker automatically gave rise to the same status as CEO, Head Teacher, Bank Manager etc. A decent person respects and regards equally another person whether they go out to work as a Brain Surgeon or Street Cleaner, or works at home caring for the family, whether they be male or female.

It might be incumbent on us women to teach the rest of the population to respect this job and give it the status is deserves. Never say "I'm just a mum". Always regard your position in the home as an executive role. You are in charge.

The only criteria for assessing a person should be personal qualities of decency, honesty and kindness towards others.

Sorry my bad, I meant to tag the person who you quoted, apologies.

aloris · and Freefall212

Thanks! That was really enlightening!

It's a very common problem on MN expressed in different ways - child care arrangements between couples, financial arrangements, mum's working or not, who contributes most towards child-care, who does all the house-wordk etc.

It's true that in the 1950s, after WW2, most women were 'Home Makers' of the image in the Ladybird Books. The fact that there was not really a choice may have made it less stressful perhaps.
The 60s saw women getting better educated, better qualified and wanting to keep their careers. It saw some women having difficulties with husbands who expected 'the wife' to be at home looking after him.
Ever since the role of women has put the burden of change on women imho. Despite the many good men who support their wives/girlfriends with love and respect, it's still the women who take the burden of decision about career versus motherhood.

That's not fair.

But I do not have any answers. Sorry.

I can only suggest, make sure the SAHM is respected (see my previous rant above).
The Family is seen as a Unit and is the priority of the parents.
Society should learn to support Women's choice of SAHM or go back to work, whatever they choose.
Educate boys and girls early in the realities of family life - equal responsibilities.
Once married everyone's income is joint and belongs to the family. Individuals get pocket money (to buy presents etc) but not for essentials (sanitary needs).
Work = hours spent, not jobs done, equal work hours for mum and dad then share the jobs.

I know there's masses more. I have to stop as my eyes are getting blurry. Sorry.

SummerDuck Good luck OP, I sincerely hope your DH comes round to seeing he is not your boss at home. You are the CEO of the House and have been for 15+ years and if he has a request for a job to be done for him he may politely request it. It is high time he respected you for yourself and saw what a massive job you do and thanked you for it!
Most of all OP please recognise your own worth! You wrote here, you are a great person, intelligent, looking after 3 children and DH, giving great daily education to your 3yo, you work hard! Please raise your self-esteem!!

It's not just about raising boys who understand how to support women, it's about also acknowledging how finance, law, etc are very misogynistic careers and let's face it, the DH in this story is a classic example. At some point the nasty culture sneaks into their mindset, and suddenly unless you make money by whatever it is you do, they think you're not worth anything, and their mates, and culture of the job will support that. That's what's happening here.

We should try to educate our girls about this, what happens realistically at the having kids stage, so they can have these hard conversations early on with their husbands so they can deal with this before kids come along. I think as a culture we are generally way too reactive to the problem.

Achwheesht ·
I'm not quite sure if I've offended you. I'm really sorry if I have, it was unintentional. I agree with what you say. I think you put it very well. "It's about the woman being made vulnerable by the set up though. True value would be a written contract with a husband outlining financial retribution for the sahm perhaps, legally binding." sums it up. It's rather like my idea that in a marriage all wages go into the family account with adults (mum and dad) being paid 'pocket money which they can spend on what they like but not have to use for necessities. A marriage that ends must see the SAHM given the financial support from the ex's income to maintain her life and the children's as she did while married. But that's already more or less what happens.

I think we're both of a very similar mind, wanting some respect for the important job of SAHM and equal financial footing and ongoing security for her too. I would add to that the State Pension should be available to SAHMs.

Sorry if I clumsily said anything that offended you. I am getting a bit exhausted and my eyes get 'fuzzy' so by this time of day I have to stop using the computer. Many apologies though, I certainly did not intend to hurt you and I found what you said very helpful.

Outofthepark Absolutely!!! 100%!

GeriKellmansUpdo I'm the numbskull - I think. As I said before - I grovel with apologies (again) for the cringingly high squirm quotient in it. I hadn't read it through, was thinking of 2 friends horribly treated by ex wives treated really horribly, and reading other's comments about how men are getting blamed all the time....
I smelled my dinner burning, hobbled out, (am disabled) t'dog obviously followed via stepping across the laptop which sent my message.

SORRY! I hope you recover from the squirming. 😧

darjeelingrose Would that be me? The utter idiot who made you squirm? I did send apologies, I hope they arrived to the right people.
I too find what I wrote cringingly awful. Sorry! I was thinking of something else...
I just explained to GeriKellmansUpdo above.
Please accept my humblest apologies for causing you to cringe and squirm at my words. 😧

We need to educate both boys and girls to be financially independent, if they do want to depend on someone else financially then we need for men and women to be making that choice more equally and it not just be a choice aimed at women.

We need to offer men a better parental leave so they can be as equally involved as possible from the get go.

We need to stop automatically viewing women as the default parent.

How are you meant to mow a lawn with a 3 year old there? Let him make the list of jobs, and put his name next to 50 per cent of them.

"I greatly respect the role of sahm! It's very valuable.

It's about the woman being made vulnerable by the set up though. True value would be a written contract with a husband outlining financial retribution for the sahm perhaps, legally binding."

Restitution, I think you mean. In our culture prior to divorce, I think marriage was meant to be that anyway, but with a significant disadvantage to the woman: yes, they would stay together but if he was abusive or cheated or gambled away the family money, she had no recourse. It was just understood that if he abused her, it was probably her fault for not obeying properly, etc. Any bad outcome was somehow her fault.

And, it also meant women never retired, because how do you retire from cleaning up after him, cooking everything for him, doing whatever he wants, and caregiving for whomever. When you're a young woman, you're caregiving for your own children; when you get older, you're caregiving for your father-in-law. Then for Uncle Richard. Then for Cousin Martha. Then for your own husband. Eventually you get old (if you're not worn to death in middle-age from all that caregiving) and maybe your daughter or daughter-in-law will be caregiver for you. Your son, however, would go on to have his own family and a job and a woman to look after him while he controlled the family money.

Research has shown that all the caregiving that women do, actually takes years of healthy life off of our lifespans (we may have the same or slightly more total longevity as men, but more years of disabled life than them, so I believe the end result is they get more healthy years than us, if I recall correctly).

So divorce and the shift of women into the workforce has insulated women financially as a group, but it's also taken away some of the protection if someone does need to be home looking after children, which is always a possibility depending on the situation of the children. Some children are more disabled and benefit more from a parent caregiver, for example.

So yes, I think contracts are the way to fix that. But they would have to be prenuptial, that's the thing, once you're married and have kids, what's your leverage to get a man to make a contract saying he'll compensate you fairly for the sacrifices you make for the kids and his career?

Achwheesht ·
Sorry!
I didn't address the financial insecurity of being a SAHM.

You said,

"No matter who respects or Revere's the role, respect doesn't pay bills"

That sentence really does encapsulate how what we pay somebody actually does, no matter what we say, actually really speak for what we truly think of that person. It tells you how much we value people. In the same way we look up to those on the big incomes.

I once went to a talk from a man known as a Prophet! ?Honestly! He was very interesting. I remember him saying, "Money speaks the most truth about people. How you use or think of or what you do with your money is the most honest truth about you." It was a long time ago but I think of it so often!

It is time that the role of Home Maker or whatever we choose to call it, is legally regarded as a job to be paid for. Only when this role is on the pay roll will it gain respect. I can't think how couples work this out but maybe there should be a legal requirement to acknowledge the role by a salary paid out of the total income of the family. Maybe couples should think about it before getting married!! Perhaps all people in work should pay into the special Tax for paying HomeMakers and the State pay them. [That would be popular says she.] Maybe qualifications may be gained and recognised by increased salary. The Home Maker has to gain status somehow and only by paying her/him will the job be seen as having any kind of status.

Thanks Achwheesht ·

Women are made vulnerable by being financially dependent on someone else, yes. You’re dependent on them still loving you, and if they don’t, you become a financial burden.

I don’t think most men set out to do this deliberately. Many men marry a lawyer or a PA or an occupational therapist only to find themselves married to a SAHM - often with no discussion.

And those who agree to SAHM thinking that the house and DC will be run better, can find themselves married to someone who expects them to do 50% of everything at home as well as 100% at work.

I do agree with a pp who commented that “the assholery is insidious” - but I think this can happen when he just doesn’t live his wife any more and suddenly sees her as a financial chore.

People need to do proper marriage courses before getting married which spells all these possibilities out clearly to BOTH parties.

Doesn’t LOVE his wife any more, that should read.

Looking after your own children and cleaning your own house is simply what the majority of adults do. Offering a salary for it for those who don't also have a paid job would be ridiculous.

It doesn't have any kind of status because it's just living your life.

It would also set society back because it would largely be women giving up their careers to be paid to stay at home. It isn't something that society should be encouraging.

SummerDuck

How has day 1 gone of the trial?

Did he give you many tasks?

Did you pass his inspection?

Remember, you don't have to do this. It's your home and your job. You are in charge. Ant tell him you need a Cleaner and a Gardener!

Please keep in touch. Good luck.

Arseholery is not insidious in people who are not arseholes.

Agree. Other people shouldn’t pay you to look after your own house and children - get real.