Mortgage free but DH wont let me give up work

[ChristmasSpirit99]

Hi all,
Just looking for advice. We are very fortunate to recently become mortgage free, due to a mix of my husbands savings, stocks & wage. We both work full time & are older parents… we have 2.5 & 3.5 year olds who are at nursery. Im generally shattered working full time & looking after kids when we have them, I asked my husband if I could give up work as we dont really need my salary. He got extremely annoyed & said absolutely not, the spare cash is needed for major works on the house & the kids futures. It was only due to his hard work that we’re here. Im just annoyed & disappointed, what do you think? Is he right? Xx

those posts didn't say she should do everything at home though. I think posters quite unanimously agree their domestic workload sharing is not fair. First post also didn't mention that aspect.

Eventually but the first page is quite disparaging. She says she’s exhausted working full time and doing all the kids stuff. The posts are very pro the DH when it’s clear he is the problem. He is where he is in his career because she picks up all the slack at home. That’s why she’s exhausted. You have a pile on saying she’s unreasonable. She accepts she is and disappears.

She probably hasn’t seen the rest of the thread and is now resigned to working full time and still doing most things at home. Brilliant- well done Mumsnet. The DH is happy!

She did leave it saying she was going to push him to do more kids stuff, so she'd definitely taken it on board that the division of labour was unfair.

Whether she succeeds is anyone's guess.

I hope they do find a better balance

Lots of people are saying get a cleaner.
Why can't she just stay home?
Saves on cleaner and child care?
Money saved is like money earned right?
And no more worrying about who needs to be home if kids are ill, who's gunna take them if they need doctors.
Pretty sure OP had to do that anyway!

As usual there's a very noisy minority.

Because her husband doesn’t want to financially support an able adult partner. As is his right.

Or maybe he could pull his weight more.

Not his right to do nothing at home when they both work full time. Or do people on here think the higher earner gets a free pass to do nothing at home?

At least in the 50s the rules and separation of responsibilities were clear

now we are expected to have a handle on everything including working at the altar of a man who high paying job and investments means a mortgage is paid off - not only that the children are expected to handle nursery etc as well

Well said I agree. I was fortunate enough to be able to raise my kids until a certain age. My husband was the main breadwinner and was totally on board. Maybe if you stay at home until the youngest starts school.

If you give up work surely it will save money on nursery and then out of school and holiday care once they're at school? Have you mentioned that to him? I think you should tell him that if you stay in work he needs to start doing 50 percent of everything to do with the kids, no wonder you're exhausted when he isn't doing his fair share.

Go part time? Otherwise all the gains you’ve made will be lost effectively on you not working for next 10 years or whatever. Plus think if your pension and kids only get more expensive as time goes on

Apparently that. Whilst furthering his career - probably having a lovely work/ life balance and pursuing hobbies.

Meanwhile the OP is running herself ragged working full time and doing everything at home (with 2 very small children) and everything that goes with the kids. Yay equality!

No one has advocated for him doing nothing at home.

probably having a lovely work/ life balance and pursuing hobbies.

Or working hard late nights and weekends to pay off their mortgage?

Except nobody has suggested that that would be fair.

How is she not supporting him financially too?
He certainly hasn't valued all her admin and childcare and house keeping?
Can't believe people of today actually playing into the hands of misogynists!
Unpaid labour not valued and yet saves the family 1000s a month.

I think the issue is most of us don’t consider doing normal daily chores as a financial work effort, if we work or don’t. We all clean our houses, care for our kids etc, it’s just life. Very few of us see that as paid work as you’re suggesting. Yes they should do equally. But I’m really not supportive of any woman putting herself into the position of staff. Often also the woman earns less than the man, as in this situation and if he then totted up how much he spent on her, home utilities, car etc, it would usually out weigh it. So it’s a foolish game to get into.

Oh, come on. "Unpaid labor" is what we all do to manage our households. It has no value out in the world. But the family would be on the streets without the breadwinner.

Try going to Tesco and saying "I've done two school runs, cleaned the toilet and made some doctor appointments this morning, so I'd like a buggy full of grocerires, please."

Don't pay council tax, send them a note saying "I batch cooked a stew and ironed my spouse's shirts and drove my kids to football practice, so please credit me as having paid council tax in full."

Tell your lender "I won't be paying the mortgage this month as I've organized two birthday parties, walked the dog every day, booked the kids a half-term holiday and mopped the kitchen floor. Consider my account paid for the month."

They’re both breadwinners!

Yet she’s doing additional unpaid work on top that he is not.

If she walked out tomorrow would he be able to hold down this job with 2 small children? Would work allow him to take unscheduled days off for child’s illness? Hospital treatment? Parents’ evenings, school plays etc.

Totally agree. And those articles that try to compare being SAHM with being a chauffeur, chef, nurse, engineer, teacher, etc. all rolled into one and worth a couple hundred grand a year always overlook several things:

a) they aren't performing such roles full time
b) they aren't performing them to professional, objective standards
c) applying a plaster doesn't make one a nurse; cooking a vat of chili con carne or putting some babybell and carrots on a plate doesn't make one a chef, etc.
d) there is zero accountability for outcomes, either with the children's development or the state of the house
e) most important of all, the SAHP gets an incredible amount of stuff paid for them, including dwelling, taxes, heat/light/internet/TV etc., mobile and subscriptions, food, beverage, clothing and sundries, personal care/appointments, furnishings/appliances/repairs/maintenance, vehicle/fuel/transport fares, hobbies, leisure spending, gifts, holidays, Christmas, on and on. Not to mention emergency savings, retirement savings, and other long-term goals.

Providing all of that for an able adult is a HUGE burden not offset by housework. Providing all that for one's children AND an able adult is stressful.

This is true. But he may or may not be doing additional hours for his paid employment over and above the standard full time contract, in order to bring in the level of income that he does.

Certainly, a number of posters have been keen to emphasise that the H has only been able to earn what he does because the OP is picking up the slack at home. Given that the children are in nursery every day, that would suggest that these posters are assuming he is putting in extra time in outside of his standard working hours. I.e. he is working more hours than the OP.

Of course, he may not be doing any extra hours at all, and he might be sitting around at home in the evenings while the OP does all the work. If that is he case, then obviously, the division of labour is very unfair and needs addressing. But in that scenario, it can no longer be argued that she has enabled him to earn a higher salary.

didn't you post the other day that breadwinner means sole earner? While I would say it's usually understood as sole or main earner, she's not the latter either, she admits her financial contribution is small.

If she walked out, he could get a live in nanny/housekeeper. Not sure about the school play argument - if DH said that he wants to be a SAHD so he can go see school plays while I work to support us all, I wouldn't really see it as a win for me?

If she opts out of the paid workforce, they both are not breadwinners, by definition.

Currently, they could make it on his salary alone, but not on hers alone. That also pretty much makes him the breadwinner. But it's not fair to lump all of the financial responsibility on him, without mutual agreement. Nor is it fair for her to do most of the childrearing and housework.

But I do think people invent busywork in the home to justify being an sahp. There is no need to have excess possessions, to create "must do" things like birthday parties, seasonal decor, excessive kids activities, etc., to fill the time. Focus on the children's education and simple family time with a minimum of possessions.

They should review all of the domestic tasks together, decide which ones can be jettisoned or how the house can be decluttered/streamlined to make maintenance easier, decide on whether to outsource anything (cleaning, gardening, hire someone to do school runs, etc.) and then divide up what is left.

If he won't help, the obvious is to drop the housework to bare minimum for herself and the kids, NOT to drop out of the paid workforce. That is the road to ruin.

It does. It means the person who earns the money to feed the family. There is no sole earner in this house, they’re both working FT.

However, it’s an archaic term from a time with a traditional family model, and it’s used incorrectly so widely here I accept the meaning has effectively shifted.

It still doesn’t mean the higher earner though.

And I see no reason to diminish OP’ contribution as ”small” - she works FT, so that’s super insulting. Working contribution to a household should be quantified in hours not pay.

If she walked out he’d have to pay 40k+ a year for a nanny and he would be able to reckon with her contribution in monetary terms.