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 have a paid job of only a few hours a week, my husband is full time and we've been that way since our children were little (if fact from our oldest being born I didn't work a paid job until they started school) So by your definition I'm entitled and 'swanning around' all day?
I did all the everyday childcare when they were young (including sole parenting when he was away for days/weeks as part of his job) I did and still do most of the housework, planning appointments, holidays etc. When his parents were getting frail and needed help with shopping, going to hospital appointments etc I did a lot of that (so neither him nor his siblings needed to take time off work)
We have always relied on each other's personal strengths to make our marriage stronger, he had more potential to earn higher wages due to his qualifications but admits looking after the children and house everyday would drive him mad. Why does me relying on his earnings make me entitled but him relying on my practical abilities not make him entitled.

It’s completely different being a SAHP though.
Once your children are at secondary school, you should really be working. The majority of relationships fail - fact.
What on earth will you do when you are on your own? How will you cope financially? What will you do in old age? Why should the tax payer fund your lifestyle? Unless there is some law stating that your ex should fund your lifestyle then it simply isn’t feasible. Unless you are independently extremely wealthy then it’s not a sensible choice.

I don’t have a problem when people don’t claim benefits, but I don’t think it’s ever acceptable to claim benefits because you failed to protect yourself and work.
Trusting in a man to provide for you no matter what happens in the distant future is quite frankly stupid.
It doesn’t matter how many free services you provided to him, if he wants to sod off and leave you up shit creak without a paddle he absolutely will.

Thank you for this.

Many of us set out intending to just be SAHM until the youngest was settled in school but when DH’s job meant that they are literally away all week and only home at weekends, when both your children are diagnosed with SEN and one of them has such a severe form of their autism that their MH and ability to attend school is disrupted, that often cannot happen.

I have managed through sheer hard work and risks to my own MH to get both of my DC to HE eventually - with support, therapy, specialist appointments etc that have filled my days for 21 years and I may finally be ‘home’ alone without kids later this year. During my SAHM period I have picked up 3 additional degrees (finish a PhD in 9 months), run a small childcare business, and been a volunteer (incl district commissioner in Guides with responsibility for oversight of 100+ adults and the safeguarding of nearly 3000 children, some vulnerable and disabled). I am not stupid. I have not leeched off my husband - if I had insisted on going back to work, he would NOT have had the career he had [wait for the pile on of posters who think this belief - held by my DH - is entitled and arrogant and, on one thread I was told I was disgusting]. Without me caring for our children and their unexpected needs, being willing to go it alone in the UK while he travelled, he really would NOT have been able to take the promotions he has or give us all the quality of life we have [the money to buy the support my children needed as CAMHS and the NHS are utterly broken].

The pile on crowd will now say that it is my responsibility to get a job now - as if getting a job in your late 50s with no employment record for 20 years in this market as a piece of piss. The same crowd will say - oh, so a check-out in Sainsbury’s is not good enough for you then? And to that I can say - did that at uni so no issues, but if you have a high earning partner is it actually decent or moral to take a low paid job might actually help another person pay their rent, feed and clothe their children, just because the women of MN think it offensive to be at home not working once your children have left home and you are no longer ‘excused’ by being a SAHP?

Fortunately in real life my friends - the ones who could juggle childcare between their DH and locally based younger DGPs and were lucky to work and retain their careers - do not see my life and achievements as less than theirs. Women are supposed to support women in the choices they make for themselves and for their families with their partners. Here on MN, that just doesn’t seem to be the case.

Totally agree... why the hell is it bothering her...? why should women have to work if they don't need to. Being a mum and running a home is a job on its own anyway. If the husband earns well and the wife doesn't need to work then that's her business.

Well people make all kinds of choices as long as they are happy to live with the consequences and it doesn’t affect your life then it is fine.

There have been periods where I have not worked, initially visa issues, then child care etc.

Currently I earn 1/3 my husbands salary, he is a high earner, I work full time but just don’t earn as much, public sector role and I manage the kids, do the bulk of the house chores, life admin etc. This works for us.

If my husband left me I would still be fine. I have a very low pension due to all the gaps in my career and I worked abroad initially so that pension is abroad. Regarding our savings in the UK, they are joint so I assume he would give me half. Even if he didn’t share, I own a property abroad so I would then sell it and be able to live on it very comfortably as I would have atleast half a million pounds. We also jointly own our house in the UK so I would be entitled to half that. I also have savings in my own name of about 40K other than the joint savings mentioned previously. Money I earned and saved some before I met my husband and some after. So I have a plan B in case things ever went wrong. I also know my husband would provide for his children as he loves them very much.

My parents are very wealthy, and own multiple properties and have a lot of investments, they have already told my sister and myself what we will be inheriting so even though my husband earns more I am definitely the one with a lot more security long term though no one would guess that ever and people keep telling me how lucky I am to have a high earning spouse. At one point I earned more than him and eventually I am going to be the one providing for our retirement!

because that's what would work for YOU. Can you not see that not every person, every partnership, is the same?

oh its ok if you make the same choices that they do or if you make different choices and they go wrong.....but making different choices successfully and being happy with them is NOT allowed!

well I am not and never have been extremely wealthy but I had the unicorn (RTFT) married life until my late husband died and I am now living on the moderately comfortable pension that he left me plus my own state pension.
And who are you to tell others what they SHOULD do?

Most of the time they are not taking advantage because you are assuming men are doing equal share of the the housework such as cooking and cleaning and this just isn't the case. It is well known fact that women to this day are still doing majority of the housework, cooking, laundry etc which is all unpaid labour and also carry all the mental load of organising and arranging everything for themselves husband and children. So you are not being fair in assuming the women are just not doing anything.

I think if the husband and wife have an agreement then who are you to judge you don't know the ins and outs of everyones relationships.

I do think many men who are happy with this setup have more traditional views and probably don't do as much around the house amd even if she worked they probably still wouldn't so it balances out and is actually more fair on those women rather than having having to work and then do everything at home for herself and her husband also.

yeah I bet you mean that too!

More self respect? wtaf are you talking about?

You are still talking about the "how" though. Is your point that nobody should ever do it because it could go wrong? If that is the case then there are shedloads life choices that nobody should ever make because they "could" go wrong.

No, I'm demonstrating that your whatif-ism is unrealistic, impractical and unenforceable in a real world scenario.

I mean, you may as well ask what if the non earning party won the lottery? that's about as relevant to the discussion.

Of course it's not an exhaustive list.

But it's the most common examples. The exception(s) prove the rule, after all.

You only have to read through a couple of MN threads/Reddit forums etc to see how common, yet vulnerable these methods are.

Well I wouldn't say its unrealistic and impractical because so many of us do it. I do agree that, like many other things, it needs certain special circumstances that not everyone can have.
As for unenforceable, again, so many life choices do involve unenforceable aspects....should no one ever be allowed to choose any of them?

Yes, obviously uinderstand all that...but when she /any partner ( and I agree it could also be the other way around) can just decide to freeload on the other then you must see that can't be right. That is the only scenario I am talking about.

Then we are in agreement. NO ONE should be able to freeload on anyone. What I, and others, are talking about is a mutually beneficial way of life which suits both parties and any children.

You described your own long term happy marriage as a unicorn - so I'm not sure 'so many' matches your own perception?

Divorce rates are at ~50%. Separation of unmarried couples (both with or without children) is higher. Separation is more common in the early years of children in relationships. Separation is higher amongst lower-income families. If you had a greater than 50% chance of getting into a car accident, wouldn't you wear a seatbelt? I'd also want to make sure I was personally responsible for buckling my own as well.

It's a risk. An obvious risk. This isn't personal, this isn't a reflection of happy or not you were in your marriage. A spouse can die earlier on into their career and not give the surviving partner the comfortability of a fully paid in pension, for example. I've been with my husband for 25 years and married for 17 years so far, however he has a health condition that will require major surgery in the next couple of years, so his long term health and ability to continue to work FT is not guaranteed (like any of us, I guess) so for my own and my families' sake, I'm grateful to give us the security of my own means of earning.

This is about a clear risk where any party is financially dependent on another in a relationship, with far fewer long-term earning opportunities (should the relationship dissolve for whatever reason). This is a statistical fact.

Envy

I fall into the category of childcare and caring responsibilities .
Won’t go into details but not been able to be in full time work .
I did absolutely all chores / housework / errands / shopping/ cooking / clearing up / laundry/ ironing / caring for pets / dog walks etc and my youngest disabled child wasn’t in full time school ( therapy sessions weren’t outreach )
If the person at home does all that without help and makes everyone else’s lives easier then I don’t have an issue with that .
I do have issues with one or 2 women I know who don’t have any of my responsibilities + they have housekeepers but still make the comment that I am not making the effort .
They’re on a different planet to most of us

I wouldn’t call it entitled. It’s between the people involved how they set their lives up. If someone wants to abdicate their financial wellbeing to someone else that’s on them too. Not my personal bag, we see the consequences of doing so here on MN all too often, but each to their own.

Yup. Any life choice should be made after considerinf the pros and cons. My unicorn comment was picked up from anothe dubious poster.

Who do you think is doing all the housework I. This scenario? Do you think he gains nothing from someone at home taking care of everything. It would certainly make my life easier if I had a housewife.

You assume that in this scenario financial decisions have not been made to protect both parties:
I will have a full state pension due to voluntary contributions
have a private pension
the tax payer (of which I am one) will not be funding my life at any point.