DH wants me to get a job

[Missedp]

My husband has been pressuring me to go back to work, however I am happy with our current arrangement: I am a SAHM for our 3 children, a caregiver to my family and a local volunteer.
DH earns as good wage and we have money left over each month. I do the school runs and the children have a wonderful routine; I can also help friends and family with any ad hoc support.
DH wants to “accelerate” our savings and wants me to contribute financially but once you factor in a cleaner, the additional stress to of working and arranging care, it hardly seems worth it. I’ll be making slightly above minimum wage.

I think she obviously does not mean the ones that can't work for various reasons, but the ones who chose to.

Well, clearly the OP's husband doesn't think the supposed benefits outweigh the costs to his and his family's financial situation and future financial situation.

SAHMs are very costly. The earner has to provide all of the following: shelter, furnishings, appliances, heat, electricity, devices and technology contracts/subscriptions, all insurances, food and beverage, clothing, sundries, personal care costs, transportation/auto/fuel/insurance/parking costs, all leisure, entertainment, dining out, holidays, gifts, Christmas (if celebrated), etc. for a dependent adult. All along with attempting to save for emergencies and retirement.

AND they have to provide all of the above for the children, plus tutoring, extracurriculars, sport, gear, etc., and worry about uni costs.

That is a pretty sweet deal for the SAHM, to get all of the above for low-skill housework and school runs. Oh and of course the "life admin." Eyeroll.

I wonder if they'd like to trade places with the earner, if it's so easy to do?

Meanwhile maybe the breadwinner has a few dreams of their own, such as travel or attending events or hobbies or maybe just not working until they are in their late 60s. They shouldn't have to forfeit everything to accommodate a non-working dependent adult.

Why is it always the wife though?

if two people are earning comparable amounts, why is it always the wife that makes herself financially vulnerable?

if the man wants his kids doing well etc why doesn’t he ever consider sahp?

why is it always all or nothing. Two people earning comparable amounts- why does one have to stop completely? Why does no one ever consider both reducing to 3 days? Then both stay on the employment ladder, there’s more resilience should one lose their income, and the kids still get 100% attention.

it’s always the woman that is expected to give up her financial security.

that’s my issue. When men aren’t making the same choices as women at similar rates, it’s usually because the women are the ones losing out…

But that's the point isn't it? You can't assume that the OP family is a particular sort. There are all sorts of families. And btw I'm not in that 1%, but we know people who are.

Because many women are still socialized to think it's OK to not earn, but rather to live off someone else. Take a good look at Mumsnet, so many women encouraging other women to slack off and stay out of the workforce as if it's some sort of birthright.

Men are socialized to have pride in work and earning. They know from a young age that no one is coming to bail them out. In my family, everyone was socialized that way - every woman going back to my grandmothers born in the 1910s has ALWAYS worked out of the home for wages, and made sure of their own financial security.

It is senseless for anyone to make herself dependent. Give up the notion of the 1950s housewife, which was a tiny blip in the history of humankind. Everyone should work for wages. Or, don't gripe to me when the inevitable downsides occur. Choices have consequences. I don't want to hear about how "we need to faciliate getting back in the workforce/give special training & priority to SAHM/blah blah blah." Because frankly if someone steps out of the workforce for personal reasons, the consequences are not everyone else's to ameliorate. Any more than anyone is interested in funding and facilitating my personal lifestyle choices.

Because usually the woman earns significantly less. If both earn huge salaries they are much more likely to get a nanny. People with big jobs are unlikely to be able to go part time, and they probably don't want to. The job is too important. So one is going to have to give.

It doesn't always have to be the wife who is the SAHP.

For instance - some friends of ours. She earns about £500k probably, maybe more. She always had to travel quite a lot overseas. She took about 8 months off with each baby (they have 3). The DH was also a high earner, but less than her. They had a nanny who was with them for years and she did practically everything - school runs, baby groups, GP, haircuts, arranged play dates and had their friends over, homework, ferrying about to clubs and all the stuff kids do. This went on for years. She knew all the kids friends and their parents. She had daily contact with the teachers, football coaches, ballet teachers, music teachers, etc. The parents never met any of them really.

It was all fine for years until the eldest got to about age 9 and they realised he needed additional input at school or he wouldn't get into any of the secondary school options locally (independent sector). The nanny, amazing as she was, couldn't help with the maths, verbal reasoning, literacy expectations, practice papers, etc. So the DH left work and focused on the kids' education and extra-curriculars for about 10 years. The boy went from struggling academically to getting into one of the top schools in the U.K. Then the DH stayed as a SAHP to do the same for the other two into their teens, but he did a few investments on the side.

If you can afford to do this kind of thing, it makes sense.

When I was younger, there were lots of 'latch key kids' but it was different then, I think. We used to just come home and watch TV and there were only 4 channels. But now, they are online and god only knows what rabbit holes they're going down.

I always found the after-school pick up was the most important part of the day. It was a 15 min drive home and, if they were going to talk to me, that's generally when it would happen.

Is being a man a bad thing?

What if you hadn’t been able to earn enough to put those financial safeguards in place? You sound like you’re on a different planet to how many people have to live.

Incidentally, temporarily claiming benefits one is entitled to through years of paying into the system isn’t ’relying on handouts’, it’s legitimately availing oneself of the system for its intended purpose. But I suspect I’m wasting keystrokes here.

Hmm, I’m not so sure tbh.

No - but the derogatory comments about women are..

@TheHerboriste - you are almost certainly a man, but that's ok. Anyway, if you want a wife who works, just find a wife who works. No big deal.

If, on the other hand, you actually wanted several kids while maintaining a job that requires frequent, unpredictable travel, and no 'cut off' in terms of time commitments, you might well realise life is A LOT better if you have a wife who is prepared to SAH. Many people are workaholics and this is how they are. It's all very well counting each others hours and being equal 50/50 even-Stevens in all things, but in the real world, nobody is going to really accelerate with that mentality. Sometimes people are in a position to make a lot of money, perhaps life-changing. Do you deny them that? Do you deny your children that? Or do you tell them they can't travel or whatever may be required, in which case you remain two working parents, plodding along and obsessing about 50/50 this and that as if it's the end all and be all to life. Only on MN!

By the way, normal families don't think in terms of 'my money' when they have a family. It all goes the same way - it's family money, regardless of who earns what. When you can afford to, families may well prioritise a certain quality of life, rather than quantity of income. That's for them to decide. No family is going to make their lives harder than they need to be.

Again though, why always men?

why do women never want a sahp who does all the domestic stuff while she works? To make her life easier?

i find it interesting that it’s taken as a given that it’s the mum who sah, and the man who needs all his domestic tasks taken care of. if the woman wants to work, she has to employ cleaners to do it as the man isn’t going to reduce his work to pick up the slack.

it just all seems too one sided to me. I have actually seen men who are sahd, and my cousin and his wife are both hospital consultants- they both work part time so provide the same income/share the domestic tasks. so it is possible. But it’s rare.

like with it always being women who change their names, I suspect it’s because it’s a system that strongly benefits men to the detriment of women.

Exactly. Assistance for those experiencing involuntary misfortune such as illness or accident is the decent thing to do.

Producing four children in a shaky marriage is a deliberate choice, not an "involuntary misfortune." Nor is being left by one's husband. It's despicable on his part to not support his children, but divorce/breakup are very common and should be considered as a potential scenario when doing family/financial planning.

I am so tired of people saying that very common circumstances "couldn't have been foreseen." Divorce is very common. Breakups are very common. Everything thinks they are going to be the exception, and that "society" will bail them out for the consequences of their lack of planning.

I agree it is more often women who SAH, but I do know some families where the wife is very high-earning and thrives in her role and the husband becomes a SAHP. It certainly happens, like in the example I gave above. They were our neighbours. I know another dad who SAH because his wife earned a lot and the eldest son was quite complex in that he was kind of a genius, but also prone to having breakdowns and some social issues too. They could easily afford for the DH to SAH so why not? He gave his son the specific, tailored support he needed and this boy kept it all together and is now at Oxford. An after-school nanny just could not have given the same type of support.

I completely agree, the only caveat being that some of those main breadwinners are women and so it might be that for them, the father stays at home and completes the domestics.

There are high flying women and men that simply can not even consider 50/50 or even 80/20. There careers are so demanding there just isn’t the space/time or energy. So of course in this instance two people gunning up the career ladder simply isn’t going to work even with 247 help.

You can’t replace loving parents with staff, you can try but yoyr children will suffer and most people want to see their children and have one present parent around some of the time.

The utopia of equal work loaf, equal division of labour etc etc usually works with only children or at a push two children, but you add multiples into the family unit, any kind of disability or health issue and it quickly falls apart.

Er he is also "funding" his children's childcare!!

But he'd rather a spouse who is building up a pension, work experience, a professional network, contacts, job history. NOW, not 10 or 20 years from now when savings don't have the same impact. He's not obliged to support an able adult if he doesn't want to.

And kids in school all day don't need childcare. Millions upon millions of parents manage when both work.

I'm not a man, and your post is filled with trite, mindless, broad generalisations. It's not 1950 any more and the vast majority of two-income families are far more secure, well off and prepared for emergencies / downturns than those with one earner while the other adult faffs around baking bread and packing lunches.

I think it's you who is stuck in the 1950s @TheHerboriste . Or stuck somewhere.

If it makes you happy to think SAHPs bake bread all day, you do you. You literally have no idea.

Yes millions do but that doesnt man one of them has to do the majority of the work. And sometimes the balance changes because of need eg building a business. I said previously...that's true partnership ...I stand by that

I have 3 children and it hasn't fallen apart for us.

Both of our careers are demanding, mine more so than his as I'm at a more senior level and the higher earner but what saves us is flexibility and in our industry, the more senior you are, the more flexibility you can get, not less. Lots of negotiating too, you know you are valuable to your company so at a certain level, you have more pull. It isn't possible in every industry but some men absolutely use their high flying careers as an excuse to avoid childcare and housework.

The first thing people in high flying careers do is get a cleaner!

Why does "usually the woman earn significantly less?" Do men marry women who have lower earning potential? Are women looking for a breadwinner?

I married a man with similar earning power. I wanted an equal. Obviously not all women want the same, but why not? Feel like societal conditioning.