To find this entitled?

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaahh]

This doesn't apply to people with childcare or caring responsibilities, any sort of illness or disability which means they cannot work full time.
But I've seen a few people on here or social media basically saying 'I can do supply/care work/0 hours work and sometimes only get a shift or two a week, because my husband earns well.'

So they're pretty much choosing to swan about and avoid full-time work, because they assume their husband or partner will carry on in their high-earning, full time role.

What happens if this husband loses their job, becomes sick, or just decides they're sick of having to be the breadwinner?

I see it all the time on supply teacher pages,'Oh I've only had 1 day of work in 2 months but it's fine because my husband is the breadwinner!!'

There are other jobs where you could make a living, you just don't want to do them, yet you still want your dream forever house and luxury lifestyle. If it were the wife full-time and the husband taking the piss there would be uproar.

I think a lot of the time they do all of the housework/life admin/cooking etc and the husband is happy with the situation because he barely has to lift a finger at home. Sometimes it's better to have someone who isn't exhausted from working full time so they can keep the house running and the person who does work full time then has lots of time to relax at home.

I don't think it's entitled at all.

It's understandable when someone's looking for more hours and can't find it

I fall into your disabled category so it doesn’t apply to me but regarding your concern of if the breadwinner loses their job . We have income insurance.

Not all doing supply has a rich husband or a luxury lifestyle.

Probably not much more to say, I just find it a double standard and it comes from the idea that men are expected to be the providers and work full-time. Men will be slated for this most of the time.

I've previously worked with people who would happily claim they didn't even need to work because their spose earned enough that they didn't even need the money. As someone who did need the money it would annoy me, I'd think "well don't work then and I'll take your shifts so I can actually earn more as I desperately need it!"

It’s up to the individual arrangement between the couple concerned. Traditionally the woman stayed at home raising the kids and the husband worked to support the family. That all went out the window when mortgages hit silly interest rates. I’ve worked when I’ve had to (retired at 58) but I’d have had no compunction not working and my husband being the breadwinner. I was at home with our sons. That’s what he wanted.

'I can do supply/care work/0 hours work'

Could leave it at that.

But if you want to show off, you add...

'...and sometimes only get a shift or two a week, because my husband earns well.'

Agree. Pointless boasting. Piss off then.

Because usually it turns out that the woman is still doing the lions share of housework/childcare and the husband is just dossing about.

If i was in a well paid job I would be more then happy to financially support my partner if it meant they did all the cooking, cleaning, childcare, and just generally carried the load.

Why?

Should people in other jobs piss off too if someone else need the job/money?

There are plenty of SAHD or PT working dads with the woman as breadwinners.

It’s the 21st century.

I went part-time long before having a child. It was a mutual decision, and took the pressure off us both. It wasn't "sponging". I had previously worked full-time while he was studying, so there were times when I was the major bread-earner. Now we're both part-time, and that's suiting us too.

Surely it depends what works for the couple/family and how everything is split: paid work/childcare responsibilities and unpaid work.
If they are both happy with the arrangement then I don’t see an issue.
i was a sahp for years and did everything a home and for the dcs and dh had a very demanding job. All money shared and most in my name.
now we are retired and I work as an invigilator and he does not do any paid work. Again all money shared.
We were/are happy with these scenarios.

Ok, so imagine we force everyone to work when they can afford not to. What do you think happens to an already dire job market? It becomes even more competitive and people like you will end up whinging that you’re unemployed because people who don’t need jobs are taking the jobs you could’ve got.

You need to think further than, “It’s not fair”, I’m afraid.

Maybe because the working partner likes working and doesn't want to be bothered with whatever household stuff the stay at home person takes care of? Who knows why but I haven't seen many women who chose not to work and don't have some childcare responsibilities - going back to work after a career break is easier in some professions rather than others. Even when the children are at school it would require someone to work from say 9.30am to 2.30pm in a job that is close by in order to avoid pre and after school care. And anyway, it's up to them I guess. And if the husband lost his job, they'd have to re-think but that isn't your problem to solve - again, that's up to them.

So, did you start the thread because you're jealous? Other couples' financial arrangements really are nobody else's business. The way they choose to live their lives - nobody else's business. As long as they are not cheating anyone out of anything, claiming benefits when they shouldn't etc - nobody else's business. For what it's worth, my sister worked full time and her husband worked a few hours here and there (latterly, not at all). It suited them and was nobody else's business.

Completely different if you have children I think.
And I'm sure I'd be 'happy with the arrangement' if I barely needed to work and had someone paying for me to live in a nice house and a nice car!
It isn't whinging, it's pointing out a double standard. I'm sure there are some men, but nowhere near as many.

Green eyed monster OP?
If it works well for some couples, what’s the problem?
You don’t know the dynamics of the relationship, perhaps the partner who works part time does more around the house. Perhaps the full time worker really enjoys their job and likes to have meals cooked, clothes washed and house cleaned by the other partner.
Perhaps one partner has caring responsibilities.
Maybe one partner has mental health struggles.

Other people's domestic arrangements are none of your business.

People aren't "taking advantage" of each other if they agree one of them does the childcare, caring responsibilities and household stuff allowing the other to pursue their career. They are just living their lives in ways that work for them.

Well nothing is really anyone's business, but many threads on here don't take that into account.

As I said caring/childcare is completely different

It’s not entitled if both parties agree to it, no.

If you’re so happy to pay your way and not be a “sponger”, why does this bother you? Not only are these women working minimal hours supported by their high earning husbands, they’re living rent free in your head.

This is the kind of attitude that means I have to spend my days screaming internally instead of living my dream of being a housewife.