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?

My point was that if the partner was not as he is then the SAHM bit would be irrelevant! In THIS case then absolutely the SAHM aspect is a significant issue. But my previous comment about the quality of the partnership was in response to someone saying that noone should choose to be at SAHM. That is NOT the case, in the right partnership it is not a problem!

Yes re potential vulnerability but plenty of decisions in marriage can make one or both more vulnerable. Absolutely should be a consideration but it still does not mean that it should not happen.

I agree about the societal level "usually the woman" bit ..often an even wider issue because it's often earning power that leads that and there is still a gender pay gap...

I don't think it's just earning power. It's an attractive proposition for many to give up the stress of a corporate career but still continue to live a decent quality of life. Maybe even to never need to work full time ever again. Of course there is risk that comes with that reward.

For me it does, mainly because of societal reasons but also because a woman should never make herself financially vulnerable.

and a SAHM doesn't help the gender pay gap.

@Mirabai

Exactly. The key is to make a good choice of man, not to panic that if you want to be a SAHP for a bit you can’t in case he turns out to be an arsehole.

But this simply isn't something you can guarantee, as a PP has pointed out.

It's not simply a case of finding someone who isn't an arsehole (although that's a big one).

The entire SAHM model has baked into it the assumption of one person being financially dependent on the other.

You don't have to marry an arsehole for this to go badly wrong. It might go badly wrong because you just drift apart. It might go wrong because you decide you want different things. It might go wrong because the SAHM is bored out of her tree or just wants to do something other than looking after children. It might go wrong because the person bringing in the money (usually the man) develops a sense of being entitlement and starts to assume they are in an authority position (as appears to be the case here). You can make a "good choice of man" on paper and wake up one day and realise that spending the rest of your life with this man fills you with horror.

If you don't work or have any of your own money you have no power in any of these scenarios and have to either suck it up or divorce, get some money but still have to start again but from a much more difficult baseline.

The way people talk about this it's as if you choose a man like you choose an insurance policy: identify his future earning potential, take the temperature of his personality, give him a few tests and then he's cleared and off you go. Life is just far far more complicated than this.

Even if you have picked a "good choice of man", becoming a SAHM is like playing Russian Roulette. Yeah it might work out. A bit like playing the lottery. But you wouldn't want to base your entire lifetime financial plan on buying lottery tickets.

Exactly. The key is to make a good choice of man, not to panic that if you want to be a SAHP for a bit you can’t in case he turns out to be an arsehole

I agree. I accept that there is vulnerability in the decision but in a good partnership it's not there! Ofcourse there are no guarantees but frankly there arent in many aspects of partnerships. And mutual choices about the kids and who looks after them in their youngest years are part of the issue as well.

I suppose my concern is that SAHM(P) IS a valid choice that people are entitled to make and it is wrong that it can be dismissed as "should never happen" etc because of examples of where it has failed. It is wrong that a choice many parents make if they can should be judged as "stupid" or "naive" when people are absolutely entitled to make that choice and both parents are entitled to make choices for their young children. And there are many cases when it works!

There are never guarantees in partnerships/marriages but it still in the end comes back to the quality of the partnership ...which probably does rest on neither partner being an arsehole!!

Russian roulette is the perfect comparison. It's so true.

Yup all a possibility thepeople But still a valid choice if partners choose to make it.

This is self indulgent rubbish. There are a lot of legitimate reasons why a spouse can refuse to agree that their partner stays at home rather than work. Family finances might not stretch to allow it; it can expose the working spouse to unreasonable demands in the event of divorce (when suddenly staying at home transforms into a mutual decision); the stay at home partner might just be a cock/fanny lodger with no intent of keeping the home, the SAHP might be too careless with money to budget in a single income household or a combination of all four.

My ex-wife was a SAHP. She still expected me to do half the domestic chores after work; she constantly complained her life was harder than mine; she constantly spent more than I could earn (presumably out of boredom); she spent half the day watching TV and playing games on her phone whilst the house got dirtier and dirtier and when the children were old enough she still refused to get a job. Her multiple affairs finally killed the marriage but really I should have exited much sooner. She got more than half the assets for her "equal" contribution.

I think giving someone a chore list means the respect has already gone but it wouldn't surprise me if he works a damn sight more hours than the OP.

@SummerDuck I wonder how this is going? Did you start the week trial?

Have you considered getting organised to start retraining, e.g. teacher training, and doing that? You won’t earn a fortune but a steady wage and pension too.

It would safeguard you as well if your DH’s demands grow or if he is drifting off.

BETTERFUTURE1985

It is NOT "self indulgent rubbish" Your experiences are just another example of when it didn't work. That DOES NOT mean it never can or is the wrong decision

BTW as you might have seen in my first post on this thread I was a SAHP for 6 years. My partner earned more so went to work. It was a mutual agreement. I did not EXPECT him to do more.( I also didn't have a load of affairs like your ex wife!! Not a great partnership then but I doubt the SAH bit was the most relevant part of that!! ) We just worked out a balance around his work commitments and my commitments with the kids (it was hard work I can assure you) ..who were the reason we chose SAH as an option in their early years. It worked for us because it was mutual, based on our children, neither of us were arseholes and neither resented the other. You appear to have resented your setup!! The OPs partner appears to be over controlling and untrusting and lacks understanding of effective but very demanding childcare!!

@Madamum18

still a valid choice if partners choose to make it.

It's interesting that this turn of phrase "valid choice" is always wheeled out when people talk about becoming SAHMs.

It's technically accurate of course, its not an "invalid choice" but its also a completely meaningless phrase. Any choice that's legal and doesn't hurt anyone else is a "valid choice". It's a "valid choice" to leave home at 17 to join the circus. But not a very sensible one.

I have no problem whatsoever with women choosing not to work, as long as they can afford to do so. But I do think it's absolutely bizarre to think that "finding a good man" is a more sensible approach to financial self-protection than having a job. It's a very strange and in my view utterly misguided approach to risk assessment.

But I do think it's absolutely bizarre to think that "finding a good man" is a more sensible approach to financial self-protection than having a job

I agree that the above as an "across board" view is ridiculous! I have not said that and certainly don't think it.

What I AM saying is when 2 people together make the choice that one of them will stop working in paid work for a while to bring up their mutual children in the way they feel is best for their kids, and they are lucky enough to afford it, THEN it is a valid choice for that partnership! And that if there is a strong partnership it can work!!

And yes there are no guarantees etc etc. Partnerships always have an element of risk as do one hell of a lot of other things in life. Choices have a risk. If no risk is taken ...doesnt bear thinking about how boring life might be!!

This is thickly twisted.

A decent husband is win win. It’s better protection against marrying an arsehole than simply staying employed.

Are you really equating SAHParenting with joining the circus?

You can guarantee you’re marrying a decent man if you’re intelligent and you look at what you’re buying.There’s no guarantee that he won’t have a midlife crisis and run off with someone else, but that’s not the same as actually being an arsehole.

Lifelong SAHPing is increasingly rare. But it’s common for one or other partner to do it for a while when the kids are young.

Relationships can include phases of relying on the other financially - redundancy, retraining, ill health - that can work find if you’ve got a healthy relationship.

Any relationship can go wrong regardless of whether both working, one working etc, that’s a given. If the SAHP gets bored then they get a job no? This is not rocket science. If the working parent develops entitlement then you’ve married a twat, see not marrying an arsehole above.

If a man is only a good choice on paper and not in fact, then he’s not a good choice.

I honestly don’t know why women on MN find it so hard to find decent men. Choice is not a gamble if you’re discriminating and you do your research properly. Life always involves the unknown but it doesn’t have to be a life or death risk.

@Mirabai

A decent husband is win win. It’s better protection against marrying an arsehole than simply staying employed.

Where to start: first of all how are you defining a "decent husband"? Do you mean one with high earning potential? One who appears currently not to want to cheat? These are not guaranteeable commodities.

Also supposing you do meet and marry a "decent husband" (whatever that may be) doesn't guarantee you will remain in love or continue to want to live together. There are plenty of reasons marriages break up which don't involve cheating, abuse or neglect.

The whole point about staying employed is that it doesn't matter if you find a "decent husband" or not. You can look after yourself if your husband turns out not to be decent and if he does your income is upside.

I honestly don’t know why women on MN find it so hard to find decent men. Choice is not a gamble if you’re discriminating and you do your research properly.

Leaving aside for one moment the fact that this is an appallingly smug and goady remark which is borderline offensive to women who have been in abusive marriages: you do realise that arseholes don't come equipped with a tattoo on their forehead which says "Beware: arsehole at large." The vast majority of non decent men present as decent in the early stages. On thread after thread on these boards men only show their abusive colours at the point where their wife or partner is pregnant, unemployed and trapped.

And what do you mean by "doing your research"? What do you want: an interview with all previous partners, school reports, classified references from work? This is fantasy.

I think it is often short sighted and not a great risk assessment. It's also problematic on a societal level due to sexism and inequality because it is almost always the woman who makes herself vulnerable, not the man.

You seem very perplexed as to how to tell a decent person. (No it is not related to ‘earning potential’). Falling out of love or in love with someone else can happen to anyone as can developing depression, anxiety or addiction or ill health etc. But fundamentally knowing that the person you’re with is a good person - it’s not the rocket science you make out.

Arseholes are not that hard to sniff out even if they’re superficially charming and crafty.

In abuse there are always red flags - they tend to get missed or ignored. And if not, the first abusive incident is the red flag, then the second and the third. I know some women get trapped in abusive relationships but that’s a separate issue.

The parents I know were all amply competent to make their own risk assessments. Taking time to parent FT in childhood whether male or female (far more men doing it now than you admit) is not as problematic as you claim. Many families manage it perfectly well without any major drama.

It’s weird that you’d focus on the societal impact over the personal, individual one.

More men are doing it but still many, many more women. That's just a fact.

Also, working parents are still FT parents.

The societal impact is important. Why is it weird to focus on that?

I've been a SAHM for 13 years now, my DH wouldn't dream of suggesting something like this. It's soo disrespectful.
You don't interfere with his "job" therefore he shouldn't interfere with yours.
I have lazy days where I do nothing but then I have days where I do absolutely everything. I've tried routines but they don't work imo. Family life isn't predictable and it doesn't keep to a timetable. Do what you can, when you can. He can like it or lump it.
Good luck x

Oh my goodness. Why does your husband want to treat you like you are a paid member of his household staff? This would be totally unacceptable to me. Does he treat you poorly in other areas of your marriage? I just can't understand this mindset.