Think too much emphasis is put on time working rather than what that work is on Mumsnet

[Dacatspjs]

Time after time on Mumsnet when people come for advice on their relationship and there is a disparity in earnings and people are frustrated posters say that the financial contribution doesn't matter so much as the time spent working. I.e it doesn't matter if your bringing in three times as much as your partner, if you're both working full time then your home contributions should also be equal.

For me this misses a huge point about different types of jobs and the levels of stress, satisfaction and time you may need to decompress bring.

I had a previous partner, where I earned double what he did, I also worked from home, so ended up doing most of the housework. It was absolutely draining. But he tried to say I had more free time as I wasnt commuting. Thing is his job, was a thing he was passionate about (sports coach) he would happily spend hours at work because it was also his hobby. He would proudly tell people he was happy to sacrifice earning potential for work fulfillment, whilst I was picking up the slack.

Similarly I've worked with men who expect their wives to pick up the slack at home because they are "working" 50 hour weeks, in reality hours are spent at lunches, dossing around the office- they could leave earlier, but choose not to because they enjoy spending time with their work mates and not having to go home and get stuck in with childcare (they laugh about this, and will look for opportunities to extend the work day)

I'm not saying everyone is like this, or every disparity of earnings should be viewed through these lenses. But I am getting quite tired of advice to OP's being it's time spent at work that is important, not financial contribution - it fails to recognise that the emotional effort of working and stress of different roles can be massive.

Not sure I fully understand your post, OP.
It doesn’t matter who earns more or what job they do, isn’t it about who has more time?

My husband and I both work full-time. My hours are more flexible and some of it I can wfh. I earn more than him but I also have more time at home than him (when I am not working) so it is much easier for me to put a load on to wash, renew the car insurance and do a lot of small tasks throughout the week that can add up to a big admin burden if left.

I think she is saying imagine you did an 8 hour shift that involved walking 20k steps, had to do some really indepth thinking, someone attacked you , and then your patient died whilst you did cpr And then someone else did 10 hours but it was something really easy, that they enjoyed.

Its possible that person A might need sit down with a glass of wine and person B has the energy to do the washing up.

I absolutely agree with this. Theres a big difference between coasting in an undemanding 9-5 job and holding down a super demanding, results-driven leadership role.

You often see on here the scenario where the man does a low-earning full-time role with no flexibility and the woman works 4-days and flexibly in a leadership role earning much more than him. And shes expected to pick up all the chores and childcare on her day off - while he has no incentive to advance as his wife is the one worrying about the mortgage and the schooltrips.

I think if you provide 80% of the household income, your partner should be handling 80% of the household work.

Summarised and explained what I was trying to get at perfectly.

My DH and I had the ‘big’ job and I had a ‘teeny tiny’ job and did all the house stuff. That worked perfectly for us as we both had the weekends free to do fun stuff with our DC.
We have never had one argument or disagreement about money or who does what. I think we both think we’ve got a good set up.

No I disagree. I think it's crazy to say that if one person works three days a week they should be able to spend the other days playing golf or getting their nails done because they are a higher earner and their job is more stressful. Who decides what makes a job more or less stressful? Even if you love your job it doesn't mean there aren't aspects you hate or find really stressful.

That doesn't mean they have to spend every waking minute they're off doing chores of course, but it does make sense for them to do some of the stuff that needs doing around the house.

I think though this sounds more like a case of 'my job pays more so is more important and harder than yours'.

This.

”Hard” is subjective, there isn’t one easy way to decide who has the hardest job or had the hardest day, and being the higher earner doesn’t automatically mean you have the hardest job.

I think once youre a family (so have children/dependants) its less about who has it harder as an individual and more about the contribution to the household.

Being a breadwinner is a huge responsibility, even if you love your job. Its the burden of knowing youre the one keeping the family afloat. If one partner bears the bulk of that load, i dont think its reasonable to also expect them to bear the bulk of the mental load of running the household. I think this scenario will always lead to burn-out and resentment, except in very exceptional circumstances. And i think this applies regardless of the gender of the parties.

I know what you mean @Dacatspjs, but it becomes a bit subjective doesn't it? With some exceptions at the far ends of the scale, it's usually quite hard to compare two jobs and decide which is more stressful than the other, because it depends on so many factors. So the "hours worked" formula is simpler and more objective and is probably fairly accurate in most cases.

My point is that money earned or time spent at a job shouldn't be the only consideration when giving posters advice on the equitability of their home set ups.

If one is working 50 hours a week in a dream, low stress role bringing in 6 figures; but the other is working 45 hours in something that brings in half the amount but is absolutely draining then that level of drain and stress needs to be taken into account.

Some people know they have the capacity to earn more -whether they are brining in £20k a year or £100k, but choose not to because they choose to prioritise something they enjoy or quality of life. Others don't have the earning capability to earn anymore and have sacrificed quality of life to bring as much to the family pot as they can regardless of whether they enjoy it or not.

It seems bonkers to me that when one partner is really enjoying their work and their career at the expense of their contribution to the family pot, whereas the other is prioritising earnings and family quality of life over their own enjoyment- we aren't recognising that stress and emotional effort at work is more important than simply the number of hours you spend doing a role.

But couldn't person A have sat down with a glass of wine, indeed had a little nap or watched some TV and still have done the washing up in the two hours of additional leisure time they had compared to person B that day?

I think you are talking about a very specific case, @Dacatspjs - I assume the case of you and your partner - and trying to turn this into some sort of generalisable law or way of calculating overall effort is pointless and confusing. If you think he should do more because your job is hard you need to discuss that with him.

It is. But too often someone will come here for advice, or validation and are told that their partner is contributing because they are working full time, without any attempt or interest from posters in understanding what that full time work actually looks like.

Yes it's subjective, but most things on a discussion board are. To me it seems lazy and superficial to respond to a post to someone who is burnt out and exhausted with - well you're both working full time so they must be pulling their weight- when quite often that may not be the case.

All jobs are different, and people handle them in different ways and have different motivations for doing them. To simply reduce a family contribution to "you both have equal amounts of free time" or "you both are employed for 40hours a week" so the contribution to the family is equal seems lazy and is a damaging position to give advice from.

They could. Then one can wash and one can dry. It can be shared.

But the prevailing view seems to be they should spend that 2 hours doing chores as they have more time, then they both get equal time off in the evening, all chores done by person a.

Plus what if person a needs a 3 hour break. Life just doesnt neatly form logically.

@wfhwfh I totally agree with what you said " Theres a big difference between coasting in an undemanding 9-5 job and holding down a super demanding, results-driven leadership role."

I used to have a relatively undemanding job, but for the past few years have been in a very senior role and the stress and pressure is unbelievable! Even though the hours in both jobs were similar, now I do not get a second all day and my head is fried by the time I finish work. That's very different to coasting in an undemanding job.

I'm a lone parent, so all the child/house work is on me too - but at least I don't have to argue with someone over who had a busier day.

I think if you provide 80% of the household income, your partner should be handling 80% of the household work.

I couldn't disagree more.
Given the systemic gender pay gap in society and the maternity penalty, in most cases the woman will be earning less. Her low-paid job might be extremely tiring and stressful. The man might be earning a fortune in a job he loves, sitting around in meetings and delegating the actual work left right and centre.
Why should she do 80% of the housework, on top of her job, just because he earns 80% of the income?

No, I am talking about cases where people come here for advice and posters reply that working contribution isn't on money brought in, rather hours spent working and equal free time. Whereas I think there should be an allowance for the stress and enjoyment someone actually gets from their jobs.

I have worked with men who regularly clock up 50 or 60 hours a week, with a good portion of that being lunches, pub visits, team outings (darts, go-karting and the like) as client entertainment. They've hugely enjoyed their work and could go home earlier but choose to socialise. I wouldn't then say that they need to go home and decompress. In the case of my colleague whose wife was a nurse, I would say despite him being at work more hours, she had the more stressful and exhausting job and that would be a case where it potentially should be recognised that hours worked isn't the right metric for comparison.

In the case of my ex he was a sports coach, and would probably spend 1 or 2 a day getting to train at his hobby. Spend time chatting to others i who shared his interests and acting as an ambassador for his sport. I don't think I ever saw him come home stressed. Despite him working longer than me, I dont and didn't see his contribution as equal. Not because of money, but because of effort.

I think I am sensitive to it because I have lived it. But I see repeatedly on here people asking for advice and being told their partners contributions are equally valid simply because of time spent working, without any understanding or attempt to understand what that time spent working actually entails.

I think people are overcomplicating things. Who does the housework/childcare? The person who has the time. Not the one who earns less money.

It seems bonkers to me that when one partner is really enjoying their work and their career at the expense of their contribution to the family pot, whereas the other is prioritising earnings and family quality of life over their own enjoyment

This encapsulates a very British, very Mumsnet and very martyry dislike of anyone who appears to be in any way enjoying their life. "Cushy", as opposed to the "drudgery" that everyone else apparently "has to" endure.

I have a cushy job. It's stressful and annoying at times like everything in life but I'm passionate about it and it earns me a wage I'm comfortable on. I did this deliberately (and went through many broke years to get here). I didn't consciously sacrifice my earnings for my passion, but I'm very aware - thanks to my mother, with whom I'm now NC - that someone with my academic intelligence could be raking it in doing a proper job rather than dicking around in the arts and media. (I would've burned out completely doing something I hated, so fairly sure that in the long term I'm better off.)

Don't take your resentment at hating your job out on people who've actually organised their life so that they enjoy it. You had the same options all along and just chose differently.

As for the "50% housework" aspect that's a nice idea but in practice impossible to quantify. Again I'm seeing the theme in this thread that if anyone actually enjoys a chore then it doesn't count and they're somehow scamming their partner. Ridiculous! Divvy it all up according to a mix of your strengths, your logistics and your preferences and no one should be drawing the short straw. These are once again choices you can make. My share of chores didn't land on me out of nowhere - DP and I have made deliberate choices about who does what so that we're both largely content with it.

@Dacatspjs Your idea is fine in theory, but how would it work in practice?

How can a person really know how stressful their partners job is compared to theirs? What if it varies a lot from day to day?
You might think you know, because he goes out to loads of lunches with clients and it seems like a doddle, but what if those lunches are actually really stressful because he has to keep the contract and will be castigated by his boss if he doesn't? What if her job is in a restaurant, which is often busy and stressful and on her feet all day, but actually some days are quiet and there is plenty of time to sit down?

To me, the fairest way is to measure equal leisure time.
If one partner is at work or commuting, the other should be working on housework or childcare. Then when both are home they get equal amounts of time sitting on the sofa, and equal amounts of time out of the house for hobbies, gym, socialising, etc.

The money each person earns is a totally separate matter and should not be considered at all when looking at the work/leisure balance.

My post was definitely not intended to suggest women aren’t doing enough for their families. I think the reverse is the reality!

I can't relate to all this 25% of this and 50% each of that.
My husband and I both work and earn money, sometimes I have earned more, sometimes he's earned more, manage to keep our child alive and maintain some sort of order in the house.

If one of us hates doing a job the other one does the job.
Once you're keeping score of who is contributing what to the family I feel like the marriage is doomed. Happily married people trust that their life partner is doing their best and does their best in return.

I fully agree with you. To me, it comes to empathy—lots of people are not willing to acknowledge someone’s job can be more draining and burdensome than their own and hence resort to the “50/50 if both partners work full time” rhetoric because it’s what they would say if the topic were to be brought up on their personal dynamics/relationships. Also, high earners don’t get much sympathy on MN (or anywhere) because people assume earning a lot of money makes up for the downsides of such job (spoiler: it doesn’t). Sadly, I think the reality is that if you are a high-earner/earn significantly more than your partner and you are both working full-time you have to either (1) be happy with a 50/50 or less split of housework even if your job is more demanding, stressful and/or draining or (2) spend some money on externalising as much of the housework as you can so as to decrease the volume of grievances with your partner.

But why hasn't the other partner got their dream job? You're acting like being a nurse or a midwife or a social care worker isnt the job that some people aspired to. Like they HAD to take that specific role and didn't put themselves through uni or equivalent to obtain it. Where does personal choice factor in here?

If I worked hard to have a cosy job in a warm office and someone else worked hard to be a ICU nurse, why should I compensate for their choices?

It always winds me up on threads where a woman on mat leave is told her husband can't share the night feeds because if he's tired, it might hurt his career.

1. The mum's career is affected by a year out.
2. I've never seen any man treated with anything but tolerant indulgence in the workplace when he moans about being tired because he has a baby.

Most men AREN'T neurosurgeons or HGV drivers, and are in careers where being "a bit tired" to stop their wife being crushingly tired is going to cause a problem that coffee can't solve.

And they are just as capable of going to bed a bit early like the mum does.