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.

Do you feel that your DH didn't prioritise his children then because he continued to work?

I felt like your DH. Having children made me even more ambitious and want to progress because I want to do it for them, to provide for them and make sure they are taken care of. Maybe I'm biologically broken.

I agree with everything you have outlined in your post. We are not robots, popping out children and moving on to the next task.

Pregnancy is life changing, creating an entire human life, sometimes more than one is an enormous undertaking for most women navigating modern society. The impact can be enormous, to both the mother, her life and her circumstances and her finances.

What seems to be lost, whilst capitalism squeezes the life blood out of every human it consumes, young mothers and all, is the WELLBEING of the mother. What is best for her? Where does she need to be at this stage in her life?

Giving life, raising the young needs to be compensated far more by society, and appreciated - at a societal level we need to be doing far more to support young families, or we will simply cease to have them.

There is a difference between not wanting to be parted from a newborn which is driven in part by biology. However, you can now take a year's maternity leave in England (specifying England as unsure in other nations) which takes you beyond this stage. And biological programming does not account for not wanting to get a job when your child are school age. After all, most mothers do happily send their child off to school for 6 or 7 or more hours a day. And many working parents only use an hour or two of childcare on top of this - and often this might be at a club the child enjoys anyway, or with another family adult such as a grandparent. If biology is the overriding imperative, why do we not see more people home schooling?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Any excuse to grift more out of fellow citizens.

Get back to us when there is a shortage of human beings on this poor burning planet.

Same.

it’s back to the old nature/nurture again.

back in the “old days” and in a lot of cultures child rearing was done communally. Even now on her there’s talk about “it takes a village” and not having that support. Some cultures it’s very common to send young children to live with grandparents.

i don’t think I’m biologically broken. I think for me at least it’s my circumstances growing up. My dad died when I was young, my mum was a sahm, and I saw first hand how difficult it was to raise children when you had no income. I swore I would not have children unless I was in a situation where I could afford it on my own. So if my dh died or upped and left, me and my kids would be more than provided for.

i also have DD’s. They’re older now but o think the impact on them seeing me in the interesting, better paid role has again taught them they don’t need a man or relationship. My younger dd has had a couple of careers events at school and can spot the sexism at 15. Her friends don’t see it, as to them only men have the big jobs.

i also think men often have the same if not bigger drive to have and raise children, it’s just suppressed by our society and it’s assigned roles. My dad did, dh does.

like pp said, women seem more than happy to send children off to nursery and school at 3 years old. Often on here women are upset when grandparents won’t take their children off their hands for a bit. even bottle vs breast feeding, a big reason not to breast feed is so others can take the child, feed them etc.

I think the issue is that once they are school age you may have taken multiple periods off and that has impacted your career. Whilst in the same period the DH probably had been promoted and is earning more. This the gap widens.

I am not saying this is a good thing But it explains how it can be tricky for women. I always said it was easier when mine were at nursery because nursery was 7.30-6. School is 9-3.30 plus all the holidays. Yes you can get wrap around care but it’s not necessarily easier.

Family help and flexible working makes a huge difference but not everyone has this.

To be honest, I think the "it takes a village" trope is something that just gets wheeled out by women who don't find being with their babies as easy or natural as other women, so they need to bring in as many willing or paid others as possible. Village indeed!

Also, the boring "1950s" trope about SAHMs ..... Nobody in 2025 lives like it's the 1950s ffs. In the 1950s, the nation was recovering from war. Millions of men never returned. The idealisation of "the domestic goddess wife" was a push to get women out of the factories, etc to free up jobs for the men who did return. It happened to coincide with new-fangled domestic inventions like washing machines. Women probably thought they were living the dream, relative to the war experience, or what their mother's had gone through in the previous generation - ie. no vacuums, washing machines, plus probably having to work in some 'pin money' job to boot.

Today, being a SAHM is not assumed, nor is it fetishised in U.K. society as it was in the 1950s. It is a CHOICE for a privileged few who can still afford that choice. Governments now would rather have babies in childcare asap and both parents as taxpayers. That's the societal message we are all supposed to internalise and, in any case, most families now find they can only survive on two incomes, so what they actually may or may not 'want' is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, it's a long road to nowhere if we try to pretend there is no difference between men and women following childbirth and in the early years. There IS a difference, always was and always will be, as in all species. This needs to be celebrated as a strength, not an inconvenience or weakness. We don't need to compare ourselves with men all the time. Drives me mad on here when a woman says she wants to be with her children and the stock response is 'what about your DH?' Well what about him?! If he wants to SAH, he can speak for himself. Doesn't change how I feel or what I want. I'm not going to stop being honest with myself about my priorities, based on what men may or may not think. I am not responsible for men and they're quite capable of speaking for themselves.

It's true, of course, that some women aren't particularly maternal. That's fine and valid and it is what it is. But just because some women find it relatively easy to put their kids in childcare, doesn't mean they get to dictate to other women who fundamentally do not want to do this.

Being a SAHM in 2025 is nothing to do with housework, or baking bread or wafting round with a duster a la 1950s. The fact that some women can't see the actual value of wanting to be around for your children - well, if you really can't see it, nobody can explain it to you.

The point is no one gets to dictate to anyone.

No one gets to trot out sexist trope about ‘women are x, they want to do x’ just because that’s what reflects them personally. With a head-tilt about anyone who doesn’t their ideal.

I personally find it bizarre that many women are willing to have less money, pension, security than men all in the name of biology/ gender stereotypes. But they are adults and are making their own decisions so can crack on. As long as they aren’t being pressurised into it and it is what they want.

I think there is also massive benefit in men taking an active role in raising their children also. It’s presented as ‘mum dumping them in nursery’ ‘the benefit of women spending time with their children’ when there are usually 2 parents and men can equally drop hours - this leads in the longer term to more equality in earning power and security. And the kids having a more equal view of the sexes.

Some women aren't particularly maternal, some are. But equally some have high anxiety, mental health issues, which mean that staying at home and focusing on getting through the day, is all they can manage.

I adopted two children with special needs who needed a lot of support and I was the parent who stayed at home. Our choice.

But anyway, I know loads of SAHMs because I'm in that world. There are the ones with extremely high earning husband's, the ones with kids with additional needs, those caring for elderly relatives, and a bunch of highly anxious women who can't cope with the demands of the workplace.

I have been shocked by the attitudes of some other women to me staying at home. The assumptions! The derogatory comments! One woman said to me "so you're a kept woman?".

My husband earned enough for the family, topped up with dla and carers allowance. Before I adopted I had a big fancy job in the City.

Anyway, I want to make the point that you aren't a better person because you work. And many people use work as a crutch. They identify so hard with the job role, they are lost without it.

It's fine to work, but some people can't, and I would just urge some of you to think about how you speak to/treat people like me and women who aren't as able, who are making contributions to the community in other ways.

The point is that different people make different choices based on their circumstances. But in no way do these make them better than others. For people to comment on SAHP is just ridiculous and rude - but probably that’s from the type of person who would comment negatively if you were working too. A woman’s place is in the wrong after all.

Some women aren't particularly maternal, some are. But equally some have high anxiety, mental health issues, which mean that staying at home and focusing on getting through the day, is all they can manage

why is it only women though? Afaik mental health issues and anxiety aren’t an exclusively female issue, so why is it only women staying at home and focussing on getting through the day?

which brings me back to the point where I genuinely feel women are losing out choosing to stop work, for whatever reason.

if there were real, tangible benefits then more men would do it.

bottom line is the vast majority of people will be better off long term remaining in some sort of work. The fact that it’s nearly always women who don’t reinforces this- if something is a good choice, men would do it.

after all it must be nice going to work, coming home to not having to lift a finger, dinner cooked, kids and everything all sorted. No wonder men don’t want to change the default parent. And keep all the money knowing you’ll be ok financially if you wanted to walk away tomorrow.

Men do it. Being a stay at home person myself, I know men who stay at home while their wives work. They all have mental health or physical disabilities.

My point is that work can be difficult for some people and their family is better for them staying at home.

"after all it must be nice going to work, coming home to not having to lift a finger, dinner cooked, kids and everything all sorted. No wonder men don’t want to change the default parent. And keep all the money knowing you’ll be ok financially if you wanted to walk away tomorrow."

Keep all the money? As if anyone is a SAHM with a man who 'keeps all the money.'

Ever heard of joint assets?

I always think it's interesting that people go on about women being biologically programmed to want to be with their children 24/7 when in fact this contradicts what evolutionary biologists say in that if we hadn't relied on on others to care for our babies, we wouldn't have survived as a species.

If we want to talk about biology, in hunter gather tribes, it wasn't women staying at home witqh the children and both women and men went out to hunt. Other care givers looked after the children about 50% time and even now in some areas in the Congo, children have up to 8 caregivers a day.

Obviously we don't live in hunter gather tribes now, but women have always been biologically programmed to go out and seek food and shelter and to me going out to work and my son being cared for by other caregivers seems a more natural arrangement than the 24/7 care of a baby solely falling to one person.

If people want to be a SAHM, fine but to say it's the natural way of things or how we are biologically programmed is wrong and false. This idea what a mum and only a mum can provide care to their children is in fact out of step with history. Women have always needed other caregivers (and this does not always need to be immediate family) to help support them. Its why I have zero guilt going to work or don't support this narrative that men can't be equally good at childcare as women.

Joint until one of you wants to leave. Then it’s his, and he has the earning potential and career while the sahm is left with UC and CMS.

Or he decides it’s his wage packet and wants it paying into his own account.

if you don’t earn it it’s out of your control. If he chooses not to share it there’s fuck all you can do. You can’t call up is HR and insist it goes in the joint account.

My poor mil stayed married for 40 years. It was only when he died she said she was relieved because she’d wanted to leave for decades, but only had the money he gave her as an allowance. At least we do have support now for women who want to leave, but it’s much easier if you have the income to do it.

with 1 in 2 marriages failing, it seems naive at best to assume you’ll have “joint” assets for ever.

There are a fair few on mumsnet by all accounts. It’s frightening the lives some people lead.

The point is, you are not reliant on 'his' earnings in the event of divorce. You have assets like shared property, savings, investments in BOTH your names and you know where you would stand. You know how much you would have and you make a decision accordingly. Some women may never need to work again after divorce. For those who do, some will find it easy, some less so, but the fact is, every woman is making decisions in HER own context.

It's like some people on here just think, "Well I'd be financially precarious as a SAHM and my DH wouldn't have joint finances" and assume this is the case for everyone. When clearly, it's not!

Which is why I made the point earlier that women should only consider sah if their dh earned enough to make pension contributions, and set aside significant savings to cover several years of not earning, plus money in her sole name in the event of a separation- joint accounts can be moved by either party.

it’s a rare situation where a couple’s assets can be split into two and provide two homes, two pensions, two sets of savings to give both parties a comfortable life.

going back to the o/p she say his salary “has a bit left over” after all their needs are met. Which doesn’t sound like enough to save and pay pensions, so if she continues to sah it’s likely they won’t build assets and they’ll be trying to build two new lives out of one average house and no other assets.

I’m aware of that but the OP hasn’t even bothered to look for anything yet, so she doesn’t know what’s available in her area. There is nothing in her OP to say that her husband isn’t willing to take on responsibility. Maybe he would like to cut his hours so he can do the school run once or twice a week. She’s hasn’t said so we don’t know.

The only thing that is clear is that her husband wants her to contribute financially and as she is volunteering and helping friends out throughout the week she clearly has the time to make a financial contribution. Sometimes it’s not just about the amount you bring into the household. He is a high earner so can clearly support his family on his wage. He probably doesn’t expect or need her to start earning £40k a year. Her earning minimum wage will bring in more to the household than her currently doing nothing.

This. It's one thing to assert "She'll get half of everything!" without pondering what that half consists of.

For a youngish couple, likely not much if they've got multiple kids on one income. The equity in one house isn't going to magically cover the purchase of two houses or flats in the same area. The pensions may be skimpy and they won't be accessible for a long time.

Once the financial agreement is finalized, the person without a decent-paying career to fall back on is going to be in a very diffuclt position. Spousal support is fast becoming a thing of the past; judges expect adults to support themselves and to provide 50/50 support of minor children.

Someone who's been out of the jobs marketplace for years, not building seniority, work history, skills, network/contacts, awareness of current trends, etc., is truly at a disadvantage that will ripple forward for the rest of her/his life. Meanwhile the earner will go merrily along, building on his existing career, contributing CM but very unlikely to be supporting the ex financially.

Home schooling is often not in the best interests of the child unless you are incredibly academic with a broad knowledge of all subjects, and can devote 5/6 hours a day, every day for 14 years….

I have no interest at all in homeschooling! None.