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.

Jealous much? 😂

It’s goady to those that have no choice isn’t it.

But if they have mutually agreed to take on those roles, that’s their choice and it doesn’t mean the roles can’t be reversed. Dh retired at 53 and dd was still at school. He ferried her about, picked her up from the school bus, did a lot of housework etc and I worked as an invigilator during exam periods.

How do you know that? Are you in all of the private conversations between those husbands and wives?

How do you know the husband isn’t being given the option?
And how do you think he has to work the hours he does to pay the bills?

Of the 15 years working a corporate job my DH wasn’t earning at all or much for 3 of those years. Then I earned more for a bunch of years, now I don’t work and he continues to. He could easily drop to part time financially and the bills would be covered but we both like the savings and he doesn’t want to be off some days in the week.

I think “double standard” is also another term you don’t understand OP

Surely that’s between the two spouses - if the husband is comfortable/happy with this set-up - who are we to be annoyed on his behalf?

Makes no sense.

What is goady? People having a job?

Sorry but you can’t possibly know that. Every chance there have (as in my house) been discussion about the lower hours person working more hours and what that would mean for the family, if it were needed etc. Quite possible the higher hours person has agreed that this set up is best for them as a family.
Friend of mine doesn’t work at all, supporting a high earning partner. Without that he wouldn’t be able to fly out of the country at very short notice or stay late in London without warning. So her not working supports his career too.

I think we’re a quite few generations away from worrying that men wouldn’t “get away with this “. Don’t worry about men. Men are fine.
Id love it if I earned enough to cover my wife and I, and one of us could do all the stuff that benefits us both.

How do you know the husband has not been given the option? Who told you this?

Isn't the whole point of marriage combining two lives together - including finances - and deciding together how they want to live their life?
If that means one of the couple is the "breadwinner" and one doesn't work or barely works then that is their choice.
Who cares how other couples decide to live?
None of your business @Aaaaaaaaaaaaahh .

But you don't know they even want that option. You're making assumptions again that they're not happy working or in that particular role. As you've pointed out many people like to work and earn well so they know that if the marriage fails they'll be ok, makes them feel safer. Not everyone dreams of giving up work. Lots of people have workaholic tendencies or career ambitions and would go mad pottering around doing family basics of life. Lot of people never truly retire because working is their "thing" that gives status, purpose, a sense of achievement, pleasure and socialising.

What the fuck's any of this got to do with you? You sound incredibly bitter and over-invested in other people's financial arrangements and marriages.

Wind your neck in.

That is certainly the view Dh and I take.

So this just another misogynist SAHM bashing thread?

I do wonder whether someone is doing a MA or something on attitudes to that issue and starting these threads every couple of days to invite one group of women to pile on another for the sport.

But just in case this is real: if it’s not your husband that is funding them, it’s none of your business how they conduct their relationships or finances. Go and do whatever work it is you claim to do to pay your way.

Envy is a hell of a thing, isn't it?

No more goady than saying to a single person that if you were made redundant it’s less of a concern as your partner still has an income.

It’s only “goady” to jealous people.

My DH can afford to work part time. He works in sort of spurts, say for six weeks, then he will have six weeks off and be around more to pick up the slack at home (we have four young DC)

I don’t work at all, but I have a high passive income. It works really well for us. I can’t imagine why anyone else would consider it any of their business.

I agree with PP, you sound jealous.

I guess it’s the female equivalent of being a cocklodger - letting someone else work to pay for your lazy lifestyle. Each to their own I guess but I wouldn’t do it.

DEFINITELY misogyny. OP must be bored.

Because 9/10, the woman is also doing all the other shit.

I don't think I've ever read about a man picking up occasional zero hour shifts while being a SAHD/house husband. I've only read about them doing the sum of exactly fuck all while claiming to be a SAHD.

The reason you're only getting those sides of the story is because this is Mumsnet, and the posters are heavily skewed towards female posters.

I do find it mildly irritating that people think as long as they are not on benefits, there is nothing wrong with choosing to work as little as possible. Everyone complains about the state of the country but someone has to pay tax for the government to spend on NHS, infrastructure, the whole long list. As long as perfectly capable people choose to be economically inactive, there is less money to go round and the burden falls disproportionately on people who can be arsed to get out there and work.

On benefit bashing threads, I have found that the most vitriolic and vocal women about benefits have been those who are bankrolled by their high earning husbands.
Take them as they are on their own, and they are just as "grabby" as the people they are complaining about.

I think people usually point it out when that is the case.