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

You need to at least go very part time as the family burden is firmly placed at your feet, so already there is an inequality. This would even it up a bit.

Why don’t you both go part-time? Working 4 days a week each, either by reducing your hours or consolidating into four longer days? More time with your children, lower childcare costs. It doesn’t have to be full-time or nothing. It does sound like you’re doing most of the domestic labour, so a shift to part-time and splitting the parenting load would be good for all of you.

We rarely hear the perspective of the child here. While my sister and I were little prior to starting nursery my mum didn't work. Then she gradually increased her hours as we went to nursery and school. By school time I was being picked up by childminders from school for a couple of hours and spending summer holidays and half term with them. Mum and I both have very fond memories of being together when I was very little. I have quite bad memories of my time with childminders. I hated it. It was an exercise in just getting through the day, and I'm sure has had repercussions on who I became. I learnt to be quiet and endure life because mum and dad were busy. The longest serving childminder was Turkish Muslim and it was the most disgustingly sexist house I'd ever been in and not one bit of how they did life made sense to me. My dad had to explain to her that boys and girls were equal. It was just horrible. But I digress. My point is, wanting to raise your children isn’t a bad thing at all and I can't think why, if you could afford to do it, you wouldn't.

Exactly this. I was a full time mum to my 2 sons for the first 5 years. I had to put my career plans on hold (my husband earned more than me back then so it made sense for me to stay at home, not him), and yes we were absolutely skint, and took on some debt in the short term while we did this, but both me and my husband saw the value in our children being raised at home by me, rather than working all hours to pay strangers to do it and actually be left with next to nothing after nursery fees were paid. Me raising our family for those early years, and dealing with all the household stuff, was seen as an equal contribution to our household by us both. Nurturing our family (the next generation) is the most important job there is. When my eldest started school I started working 3 days a week, and later started studying in a profession and grew my career and paid off our debts. When they were teens, I went up to 4 days a week and now me and my husband contribute almost equally in terms of income (I actually earn a bit more than him now) and more or less equally in terms of household stuff (I'm at home one day a week so I do a load of household stuff on that day so our weekends are freed up). We have always treated all our earnings as joint money, including when my husband was the sole earner (as in effect he was paying my wages I guess). Our roles have always been valued equally by each other, and value had nothing to do with money.

He should read Erica komisars book “being there” evidence shows it’s best for your children for you to be there with them rather than having money for holidays etc. you’ll also be saving money on food and childcare but most importantly you’ll have happy joyful children!!

That’s a game of luck though, my childminder was essentially a second grandmother to me and I still visit to this day, well into my 30s.

Childminders and babysitters aren’t automatically a bad thing.

No I didn't say they are. But they can be. And your child doesn't know what's normal and may not complain or know that they can or should. It's only when I look back at that time that I realise how bad it was. I'm 45 now so I hope times have changed as well. I never had kids but if I had there's no way I would have left them with anyone else by choice. I can't get my head around the self indulgence it takes to say to yourself "I have to work for me". Why have kids then? I understand necessity but choosing to leave them with paid carers and hope for the best is insane to me.

For a point of reference my DH was supportive of whatever I wanted to do - full time, part time or SAHM. To be fair I tried them all. The money he earnt was family money and the years I was at home (I was retraining at the same time) he very much valued what I was doing.

You say you are an older parent OP with 2 young children. You have clearly worked for many years. It really wouldn’t be the end of the world for you to step off the hamster wheel for a few years to be with young children. Especially if you are not that happy in your job/career. Nothing is permanent and you could always retrain. But your DH needs to be more supportive and appreciative of what you do at home and with the kids.

You don't know that. I don't know of any man who would not agree to employing someone to keep house.

Probably not the level they need to cover them both working full time and him not pulling his weight though. That would cost a fortune.

What do you mean by ‘keep house’ a daily housekeeper’? They don’t do childcare so then a nannie/nursery is needed on top of that.

He’s not going to pay for all that when the OP has being doing that and working full time for years..

Hence why both things need to happen (and he won’t like it). He needs to pull his weight and they need to pay for a bit more help as it won’t ever be equal.

I don't agree. If the home help goes off sick, which may happen, but rarely does, the situation would not be so different from taking time off to look after a sick child. There is absolutely no reason why an arrangement where the spouse/partner employs someone to help in the house so that they can both continue to work would not work out well. Reducing to part time would have the same effect - half the income and boredom once the novelty of being at home wears off.

If they are mortgage and debt free and she considers they do not need the money enough for her to work, yet he wants her to work, that is something for them to work out.

Perhaps there are physical reasons why she no longer wants to work. Perhaps a GP could help. Giving up work is not easy when you are used to having a life beyond the family.

You never know what might happen in life, and the cost of living is not going down.

If she has been working full time for a long time, it is in her best interests to continue, because she could lose pension benefits as she says she is mature with young children.

You cannot make someone do housework if they don't want to. Such a system breaks down and breaks up families.

I am not saying it is cheap to employ someone to work in the house. I have been doing that for years. I am disabled, so need someone. If I could work I would. I enjoyed going to work and being with other people. I got up one morning to go to work and my legs gave way. It was as sudden as that.

At the moment I have 8 hours standard which costs me £200 a week - £10K a year. That is not so much out of two full time jobs for peace of mind, a well kept house and company at work.

I disagree with you.

Also the situation is completely different as you seem to be forgetting/disregarding the fact they have two young children!!

A man that wants his wife to stay in work as he is worried about long term financial security is not suddenly going to agree to spending an extra £200 a week on help. As they will already be paying £££ for nursery fees. So he does need to step up.

And I’m guessing you live alone? So the housework for one person will be hugely less than a family of 4 with young kids. Then you have all the cooking on top of that (and all the other stuff she does on top of a full time job).

The only answer is that he steps up. They can pay for a bit of extra help but he’s not going to hire a housekeeper!!

What difference does it make living alone? I had help when the children were at home. I budgeted for it.

Why are posters being so nasty when half of Mumsnet are SAHM? And most are on benefits with it.

I bet the poor OP has to work FT and then come home and do the equivalent of another FT job cooking, cleaning, life admin and child rearing whereas the DH does his job and nothing else and justifies it because he earns more.

OP, if your DH refuses then fine but make sure that every single job around the house is categorized and divvied up and you do no more than 50% under any circumstances. Show him what “fair” looks like.

You are being so vague - ‘I had help when the children were at home’

Yes, we all have to pay for childcare full time if we work full time. And that cost for 2 pre school children is not insignificant. I spent £2300 per month on nursery and after nursery care when I worked full time. Then there’s still all the house work and cleaning and cooking.

My argument is - let’s not underestimate all this. If OP wants to work full time (and she doesn’t seem to) then all that other stuff needs to be covered either financially or the DH needs to step up.

Otherwise, they can discuss, as a family whether she does part time for a few years whilst the kids are young (it’s not unheard of). There are also plenty of SAHMs with 2 pre school children with a DH who supports that decision as they see it’s best for their family.

The problem is the DH wants his cake and to eat it. He wants to work like he has a wife at home picking up all the slack. Only the wife is actually working full time too…

Whilst I understand your wish to give up work with two small children to care for, it might be more pragmatic for you to reduce your hours (either in your current position, or find a part-time role elsewhere). That way, you could still contribute to the household income, but reclaim some time for less work-related matters.

I do think that when women meet a man and want to marry him, they should find out whether he is prepared to do a share of the homemaking. Falling in love with someone, finding the sex is great, is not enough. Is it always about sex? Is that the most important thing in life? Does anyone ever think they have to do other things together if a union is to be successful.

Before a woman marries she has to decide what sort of partner she wants. A woman or a man should not want to change the partner to someone else because it suits them. Something serious and accidental/unexpected would have to happen for that. If she doesn't like homemaking, then the partner to seek is someone who does. They won't want to go out to work and earn the lion share of the finance, but that has to be sorted out before commitments are made.

Some men are brought up in homes where a man is still regarded as the breadwinner only and when they have done a day's work, should not have to come home and start again, especially if they are commuting and leave early to catch transport and return late.

It is useless to think that is possible in this present day scenario. It is wishful thinking. It doesn't just happen because a woman wants it.

To find a man who will do that and share the homemaking is as rare as hen's teeth. To pretend otherwise is useless. Men are not physically made for that in most cases. Why should they be? I am not on the side of menL why would I be? The fact is that their hormones are not the same. Their abilities are not the same. Look at all the experiments that have been done in the past: no matter how many dolls you give a male child to play with, it will not make him grow up to be more feminine and do the housework.

Before marriage there has to be decisions to make as to who plays what role. It is too late once the union has begun. To try to change a partner after marriage is not just unkind. It is showing that you rule the roost from now on. That is how partnerships end in marriage and business.

If a woman meets a man she wants to marry she should accept him as he is. If he doesn't want or cannot do a share in the homemaking, then don't sign anything with him. Find a man who loves cleaning and cooking after a long, hard day's work, or have him be the homemaker and earn enough to pay all the bills yourself.

When half way through a union one of the partnership is fed up with working and decides they don't need the money, and the share of the homemaking they do is too much, so then starts nagging the other partner, knowing that they cannot take that sort of responsibility, then the union is breaking down and families break up.

...and go on pension credit after retirement?

Good lord I’m not made to do the house work either…! It’s society not hormones.…!

Of course people need to change when they have children. Most people don’t spend their 20s cooking and cleaning and doing childcare. That’s not a personality thing. My natural default is to be a messy sloven. Unfortunately I’ve had to change that. Men kind of need to too.

I know plenty of men that step up and do their share. I do agree with you that it’s something that should be discussed before having children.

what hormones do you need to cook a meal and scrub the bathroom? All single men do not live in dirty hovels only eating frozen pizza.

Find a man who loves cleaning and cooking after a long, hard day's work

Who the hell loves cleaning and cooking after a long, hard day's work? It's adulting. I don't think one of the adults in the household should be able to opt out because they have 'hormones'

That's a lot of words to say I have a low opinion of men and I've a low bar that like.

Functioning as an adult is fuck all to do with hormones.

Reduce your hours, go 3 days

Well they may not do the childcare but surely they have to cook and clean? Unless of course they live in a midden and starve