To not consider this a treat?

[Helpmechooseausername]

I was having a 'heated discussion' with my ex and at some point I made the comment that he never treated me to anything. He replied that he treated me to being a SAHM.

It's really floored me and I don't know if I'm being unreasonable. I gave up my career to bring up our three kids, although TBF it wasn't the kind of job you easily could do with a young family (long hours, lots of travelling, unexpected late nights...). I had a weekend job in between having each kid and then when the youngest started school I got a term time job. I was lucky enough to leave my career via voluntary redundancy whilst on maternity leave and all of my redundancy money went towards the bills.

When I was pregnant with our first, we discussed the pros and cons of childcare/my being a SAHM and we both agreed that we preferred the idea of me bringing our kids up and not a childminder.

He's implying that I had a dossy time of it and that I should be really grateful to him for allowing me to be off work for years. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to be with my kids so much when they were little, but I don't consider it to be a treat.

AIBU? Thanks, I need some perspective...

It sounds like he was not honest at the time about how willing he was to be the breadwinner and he ended up resenting you. But rather than be mature about it and talk about it at the time when you could do something about it, he chooses to throw it out in an argument.

My DH has always said from the start that he does not want all the financial responsibility on him (I don't want this neither), so both have retained our jobs. I prefer that frank honesty.

Since when do childminders bring people’s kids up for them?

He sounds like a nob. However, it is a luxury to be a SAHM. And it isn’t essential to have a SAHP in order to have a successful career so whilst it may feel like you facilitated his career, he absolutely could have done the same without a SAHP at home

Or you treated him to free childcare (and likely chef, maid, laundrette and persoanlf assistant if your experience of being a sahm is like most others)

I'd consider it a treat to be a sahm, could never afford it. But I get what you mean, you mean he never thought of you in those little meaningful ways that matter.

However, he's your ex, why are you even in a position to be arguing with him about anything? Move conversation about the children to a parenting app and don't engage otherwise.

They don't.

I think the OP just wanted to start the usual bunfight on the subject of SAHMs.

Not surprised they haven't been back either.

I'm sorry but he's not wrong. I would hate to have to support another adult for an extended period. It is a very privileged thing to be able to do, especially when it's a struggle and you have to downgrade your lifestyle so your partner can skive off work for 3 years or longer. Work isn't much fun. Being home with kids is a ballache but much more relaxed than work.

You say it was a joint decision but sounds like he didn't really want it. He's your ex so you shouldn't have been complaining about your former relationship to him. Just ignore him.

such an ignorant thing to say, well done to get rid of him

You treated him to being supported in his career. Nob .

it was an option, your salary would’ve paid for it and kept you in work, but you chose not to do that which is fine and what you wanted so own it. I hate the ‘wiped out my salary’ argument which always makes it the wife’s responsibility. The childcare costs come from both partner’ earnings and the idea it doesn’t is exactly where the ex is coming from. That she swapped her job for being a SAHM and all the money was his, treating her thereafter.

However it’s a daft argument at this point, OP. He’s your ex so will have reframed a whole bunch of things since the love went away. Who knows what he really thought at the time but it’s only going to cause conflict now. He may be deliberately trying to wind you up and if so, it’s worked. Better not to rise to it if you know you did the right thing, and forget about why he didn’t treat you, he didn’t want to and that’s one reason why he’s better off an as ex.

Oh hi honey, I’ve really treated you today by vacuuming, keeping your kids alive AND I’ve cooked dinner. Also, I’m looking to go back to work so I’m not going to be able to treat you like this everyday, you’re going to have to be a dad who picks up the kids and cooks them dinner. I know you won’t mind.

bleugh.

being a sahm is a massive privilege very few woman have. so I sort of see his point. your (end his) life would have definitely be a lot harder if you would have to had to work full time. So I can see his point (but no doubt, he hugely benefitted from you being a sahm too).

and YABU for stating that working families let childminders bring up their children.

He needs to appreciate that a SAHP simplifies working life. It's easier to maintain stability and progression when you're not the priority contact to deal with ill children. It's easier coming home from a long day working when you don't have to worry about food shopping, cooking, tidying, bedtimes etc. It's easier to have the logistics of school holidays, school admin, extra curriculars taken care of by default. It's easier when there aren't clashing work commitments and no scrabbling around to fill difficult gaps.

He's an ex for a reason.

Why are you even having this kind of conversation with him?

How long has he been your EX?

Long time SAHM here, youngest has now started school. This is turning into a SAHM vs working mum thread, so many different opinions on this topic, often strong!

We BOTH agreed I should stay home, we both agreed we did not want to use nurseries or childminders (we did do 15 hours free at preschool to get them ready for school). We have both benefited in different ways, I’ve had loads of time with the children and haven’t had to work in a stressful job, he’s been able to get up and go to work and hugely further his career without worrying about everything else, admin, housework, children, pickups etc. But, I have a big gap on the CV and we need to make our money stretch. He currently has sole responsibility as the main earner (he’s very ambitious and a high earner). We would still both agree to do it again though if we had the choice. It’s a joint decision and you both need to be on the same page and all finances need to be combined and transparent as financially there are sacrifices but you have the luxury of time instead

This is the most likely explanation, its on him if he wasn't honest at the time and when you were talking about having children. Still spiteful to bring up in a conversation, but I guess saying you never treated me to someone who was likely begrudgingly the only one bringing any money into the house probably riled up some tit for tat comments. He's an ex now, seems little point either of you bringing up the past.

This is such a pointless conversation to have with an ex. Bringing up that he never treated you to anything is a waste of time. And he’s an ex, so you get to completely ignore his opinions on things like this.

As for his comment, I think it depends on the circumstances.
If money was tight, he was stressed being the sole breadwinner, and then you complain he didn’t buy you treats, I can see him thinking “wtf - doesn’t she realise how little money we had. If she wanted treats she could have gone back to work!”
At the other end of the spectrum, if he had a very well paid job, as a household there were no financial worries, and he kept a financially abusive stronghold over the purse strings, just giving you access to the bare minimum, then he’s a cunt.

Either way, he’s your ex, so who cares.

There are different narratives about being a sahm - woman sacrifices for family vs. woman has privilege to be one. Both can be true to varying degrees depending on the individual. I still wouldn't call it a "treat" - a treat is a holiday, not doing all the domestic stuff. I've been a wohm all the way through and I'm happy enough about it, but I wouldn't use the word "treat" either. D
Don't let your ex get to you.

I suspect the language used was a direct result of OPs question though. It wasn't an out of the blue comment.

I see that @Boxplots , I'm just saying it's not a meaningful framing.

Well that would be the last conversation I had with him.
Cut him off, he is your ex, and there is a reason for that.
You don’t need to have these conversations with him.

Most women I know who are SAHM want to be and do not wish to to work, in which case, that is a treat. Not all men have high flying careers they love, many don't particularly like going to work.

Well obviously I didn't. But I wouldn't have if I'd been working either, and as a household we'd have had less money.

Christ get real. Cooking, cleaning, watching Paw Patrol 17 a day is not the ex treating the op,
A treat would be bringing in a take away. Buying her flowers, taking her to the cinema, booking a weekend away for the 2 of them. Buying her a bar of chocolate. It’s not hard.
Many, many people take their oh for granted then wonder why they get fed up.

No, your partner was able to earn money because you stayed at home with your children. That surely is a shared effort and therefore both your money?