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?

But it's also temporary. It is a hit when they are little but they don't stay little for long and when they no longer need full time childcare, you still have your salary which is at a higher level because you didn't give it up.

Actually, after taking into account travelling, work clothes, extras that occurs at work like whip rounds and drinks/lunch for birthdays, plus the extra work you often take home as I had to, the return to work hardly balances the the expenses. There is also the tug of guilt as you have to say you cannot attend Parents' evenings and school plays, and do not have time to make things for the sale or show or whatever.

Some decades ago, as a Teacher, I and colleagues often remarked there was quite a difference in behaviour and turn-out between the young children whose mothers were back in full time work and those whose parents were both much more available to drop off and pick up or call in to school if necessary. It may not be what you want to hear but it was true. I wanted to research it when I later changed careers but I went into the health side of Psychology and did research into health conditions instead.

As " but they don't stay little for long" you could equally say why not stay with them and not miss out on this amazing and irretrievable stage in their lives?

I think the "outputs" depend on what the couple have agreed between them.

My dd was "happy, fed, clothed, entertained and educated" with two WOHPs so I would definitely have wanted DH to take on the lion's share of domestic tasks if he had wanted to be a SAHP. (Thankfully he didn't!) As the higher earner in our relationship, I simply wouldn't have been prepared to agree to having a SAHP who saw their responsibilities as childcare only. Others may be quite happy to agree to that, which is their prerogative.

My point is that, while the WOHP certainly doesn't get to unilaterally define the specific duties of the SAHP, the SAHP doesn't unilaterally get to decide these either. It's a negotiation, and if you can't reach a mutually agreeable split between tasks, then the default is that you share everything - earning a living, housework, childcare - equally between you.

But again, the question of whether the return balances out the expenses will depend on how much you earn and what the expenses are. For me, it was absolutely a net financial gain to stay in work, even in the short term, let alone once you factor in longer term career progression, pension etc.

And I never felt any tug of guilt as my work was very flexible and I never had to miss any important school events etc. DH and I shared all of the school pick-ups between us and we were always able to go and pick dd up if needed. So it might not be what you want to hear but sometimes teachers probably have no idea of which parents are both in full time work and which aren't.

And does this apply to other conjugal 'duties' as well?

Making the difficult choice between being a sahp or going to work doesn't really apply to your specific circumstances @MrsBennetsPoorNerves. I'm sure you early every penny and thoroughly deserve your flexible work and ability to do both well paid ft work and attend every school function. I'm sure you don't need it pointed out that isn't the case for everyone.

I work ft btw but I have to miss quite a lot of the school stuff as my work isn't very flexible unfortunately. I'm fine with that and we need the money tbh, but if I win the lottery I'll be staying at home!

I also don't think either DH or I is financially independent as we use both our salaries to run just one home. If we split and had to run two, we'd struggle and if one of us passed away, we'd rely on life insurance pay out tbh 😬

That's the reality for lots of people. We are both degree educated as well, DH has a MEng degree in fact and we both went to a well respected uni. But neither one of us could cover everything where we live on our own. There would need to be some big cut backs.

So I'm a bit more neutral about the joys of staying in work! Slightly different perspective

Yes of course, it will be different for every family. I am certainly not arguing that everyone's circumstances are the same as mine, I'm just objecting to the blanket statements from people who assume that everyone's circumstances are the same as theirs!

Each family is different, so each family needs to decide together what is going to work best for them. I don't think either partner should be able to unilaterally dictate what that arrangement should look like.

Because I don't feel like I am missing out
Because it contributes to inequality in society
Because it perpetuates sexist gender roles
Because men aren't expected to give up their careers
Because it's important for my child to grow up seeing both parents contributing equally, both financially and at home

Tug of guilt?absolutely not. I miss events due to work commitments, disappointing but no biggie
I have been asked by teachers Why I wasn’t present, my male partner who has missed equal amounts has never been asked by teachers. Disappointingly the focus is on the mother missing events not the dad. The palpable disappointment reserved for the mother not the father

I have also anecdotally heard multiple teachers say the children of FT working parents are more able,driven and focussed.Teacher reported that more Prizes are awarded to the children with FT parents who attend Afterschool etc

As you know there’s no definite reliable study that demonstrates working parents impact upon child academic performance

No tug of guilt here either. Though he's only 6 months so not in school yet but we can both be flexible so one of us should always be able to make it to a school event one way or another.

Apologies if I've touched a nerve which I seem to have done. I haven't slurred anyone, that's quite an exaggeration, no?

Your earlier post earnestly appealed to decent men to not feel hurt by what was said about (other men) on this thread and you seemed subsequently to understand why it was unnecessary to say this and why it irked people.

But you then used Jordan B Peterson as your example of people discussing the complicated , nuanced feelings of women regarding working / parenting etc.

I found this rather cringe in a similar way to your first post, as it seems strange to me to specifically reference a (controversial and divisive) man in relation to this topic rather than one of the many, many, many women who have publicly spoken perfectly eloquently about it over the years.

Peterson would have more credibility if his solution to these problems didn't involve a return to the 1950s and an unwillingness to redefine men's roles.

My response to that would be “haha no”

Achwheesht

Nope. It just came to my mind that he'd caused a stir on it.

monsteramunch
you said:
"But you then used Jordan B Peterson as your example of people discussing the complicated , nuanced feelings of womenregarding working / parenting etc.

I found this rather cringe in a similar way to your first post, as it seems strange to me to specifically reference a (controversial and divisive) man in relation to this topic rather than one of the many, many, many women who have publicly spoken perfectly eloquently about it over the years."

So you only like it if someone you favour is quoted? You do not like having a quotation fro someone you do not like?

Surely, the very fact that you dislike him, shows how this topic is something many people are concerned about, even some who you do not favour.

I think I thought of him because he is controversial and because he is forthright. Eloquent women do not have sole rights over topics to discuss.

It is quite amusing to see so many people moved to show their annoyance at the mention of Jordon Peterson on MN! Maybe you should think about why. He doesn't hold any authority over you, he's just another person who contributes to YouTube, amongst other things. Why do you let him bother you?

SouthLondonMum22

I am interested to see that your reasons for returning to work despite "they don't stay little long" and taking the financial hit only mention your child in the final reason and that concerns wanting to indoctrinate him/her into your beliefs: Thus you say:
Because I don't feel like I am missing out
Which is about you
Because it contributes to inequality in society
About 'society'
Because it perpetuates sexist gender roles
About an ideal of your belief
Because men aren't expected to give up their careers
About your feeling aggrieved that men are not usually the SAHP
Because it's important for my child to grow up seeing both parents contributing equally, both financially and at home
So you leave the home to force this into being, it could equally work if you stayed at home while "they don't stay little long'.

Thus your child comes last in the reasons and only so they see both parents go out to work, bringing in money and then share home chores. Whether a small child takes this in is a moot point. I'm guessing they see women caring for them and possibly doing housework.

None of the reasons came to your mind as being advantageous for the needs or long-term well being of your child, except possibly the last, that they grow up to believe it right that mummy and daddy go out to work full time etc.

I am merely looking at your points. I take no sides. As I've said, I returned to FT work when my first child was three months old.

Maybe. But that wasn't the point. The point was he - yes even he - talks about it.

Whatever his views, which I just find interesting, the point is even someone we might not go to for answers talks about this.

He's a Clinical Psychologist btw, and I've come to be able to listen to him from nearly breaking the computer screen the first few times I came across him. He does use research data which I find interesting. I think he mellowed over something -but that's another topic.

You said that it only saves the family money if the mother is low earner, but it saves money on childcare whatever the mother earns (and why is only the mother’s income relevant). Now you’re saying it’s only temporary. It’s not that temporary.

Childcare isn’t just about little children, you still need it between school and parents return from work until they’re old enough to look after themselves, whether from childminder or after school clubs, unless one parent’s work is compatible with school hours.

Some of it is about me but my child has to grow up in this society and I want to make it better for him so it is absolutely about him too.

Lets not pretend that most SAHM's sadly and reluctantly give up their jobs purely for the benefit of their child, they also do it because they want to do it which is no different to mothers who want to continue to work.

Of course you take a side and it is obvious which one so I don't know why you are pretending to be neutral. It is twice now you've accused me of not putting my child first.

It was me who said that it only saved money if the mother was a low earner. And I said the mother because I was responding directly to the pp who said that a mother who looks after the children while her spouse works is saving money for the family.

And yes, technically it saves money on childcare regardless of what either parent earns, but that's pretty meaningless for the family's financial situation if the cost of having a SAHP exceeds any nominal savings on childcare. Sure, there might be other reasons for wanting to have a SAHP which make it worth that extra cost as far as some families are concerned, but from a purely financial perspective, it's a net financial loss.

And yes, many people use paid childcare when their kids are at school too, but for most the costs will be greatly reduced. In our case, we didn't need childcare once dd had started at school as we were able to work flexibly to share pick ups and drop offs between us. I know many families who did similar, or who were able to at least do quite a lot of the care themselves with a bit of paid childcare to supplement.

I didn't say that, that was a pp. I talked about how it is often short sighted because the big chunk of childcare happens during the early years which isn't very long when you consider the loss of income, earning potential, career progression, pension etc.

I agree that both parents salaries should be taken into account for childcare but it often isn't.

We currently pay £100 a day for full time nursery for one child. Breakfast club and after school club if necessary are nowhere near that much, the early years are the most expensive years when it comes to childcare.

We worked out that we would be worse of financially if I went back to work. It hasn't been a choice for me. The cost of childcare and travel would have meant I earned nothing. We would have been worse off. We live in London and childcare is ridiculous. My job had very limited career progression so apart from an annual pay rise I haven't really missed out on any promotions. We did discuss my DH bring the SAHP but I know 100% he wouldn't have taken them anywhere. They wouldn't have gone to baby groups or play dates. He wouldn't have done messy play. My youngest is starting nursery in September and I've started to apply for jobs. It feels very scary but I'm really looking forward to being me again rather than mum.

SummerDuck ·

As the OP is not responding, possibly she's too busy doing the 'duties' and getting them marked, but it's been a while so I think her predicament has become a general conversation.

I find the topic seriously important and wish mums had more support emotionally whatever choice they make.

While it's marvellous to see the fantastic child care and mat leave now in place that I couldn't enjoy at first years ago, we clearly still have a long way to go.

I've been a bit tough in my replies but they don't constitute opinion, just a look at the other side. Also I tried to explain when you read something into what a person has said you often make a big mistake. It reminds me of when I was angry with a taxi driver whom I knew had ripped us off taking a route in the opposite direction etc. I told him I had known this area long before he had. My friend accused me of being racist! I was stunned, and told her, 'He's young enough to be my son! Of course I knew the place before he did!'

Not everything is what it seems, and when we make baseless assumptions about someone, such as, 'she must like Jordan Peterson', we are saying more about ourselves than about anyone else.

I'm going to stop following now as my time's getting eaten into.

I sincerely hope SummerDuck and her children come out of this well.

Good luck to you, OP and to all Mums.

I don't think there is anything wrong with some of it being about you.

My own mum was miserable as a SAHP - bored and unfulfilled. I felt dreadfully guilty as a teenager for having got in the way of all her aspirations and would hate for my own dc to ever feel like that.

I am very happy that I have been able to model a different approach for my dd which has shown her that it's possible to have a healthy balance between being a loving and involved parent and pursuing personal goals and ambitions. I would hate her to feel that women have to sacrifice their own aspirations if they want kids, or that she might have to choose between family and career in the future...I want her to know that she can have both.