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.

That’s a problem of how we fund things not people who have a partner contributing to their finances. (Plus if they are spending they are paying tax in some form - income isn’t the only form of tax.)

As long as I am not forced to pay for them who cares if they choose to do paid work or not.

Oh all the unfilled jobs in 2026...

i choose to work as an invigilator on a zero hours contract. I am also higher rate tax payer (just) and am happy with my decision not to work more.

Its not even a tiny bit “ entitled “

its rich
it’s privileged
its smug
its showing off
it rubbing your nose in it

but not entitled at all entirely wrong use of the word . The person is not asking anything from you , no extra effort or accommodation or taking anything from you at all , not asking or expecting anything that hurts anyone??

Well no, because cocklodgers are doing it without agreement, often moving in under false pretences or by stealth. Some are lying pretending they're looking for work when really they're loafing around. They also usually contribute nothing in the way of domestic assistance either. That's why they get the label. A man being a non-working partner in a relationship where both parties are happy with that and presumably he's bringing something to the table in terms of carrying the domestic load, isn't a cocklodger and wouldn't be called one.

But usually in these cases where the woman complains, there are children who need things and/or the working partner is resentful or struggling to pay the bills. It is different if they have agreed that one of them will stay at home to do domestic stuff and the other earns enough for the household. I have a friend who for 40 years was the reliable earner while her husband cooked and cleaned snd occasionally made a little money. She was completely happy with this and loved her paid work.

It wasn't me that said it first, however mumsnet is full of double standards. I just agreed. As I said, I don't have any issue with their arrangements.

My DH works long hours in a very high pressured job. I have worked PT only since having kids (now older teens). You ARE being unreasonable to consider me entitled, lazy or whatever. Why? Because I pick up EVERYTHING else to do with the family and home... dealing with all the finances, family stuff (including ageing parents), feeding and clothing everyone, keeping the house and garden clean and well-maintained, same with cars and pets. I even run DH to the station and since the kids have been old enough to leave unattended, collect him again at 7.30pm even on dark icy nights.
I'd actually have enough to keep me busy if I didn't work at all (in my low-paid "little job") but I do it to have a bit of cash myself, earn a state pension, and stop women like the OP sneering at me and branding me a shirker.
Oh, you do anyway.

And women who don’t contribute by either earning or picking up the domestic stuff despite having nothing else to do?

Even if they do the house stuff, assuming no caring responsibilities, it’s not comparable to going out and earning money.

I hear you, sister. I do.

Yep, I was the female version of a cocklodger... (what would it be called?).
My DP knew I was disabled and unable to work. He knew his income meant my own was wiped out so I literally had nothing financially to contribute.

That’s your decision. I would be bored witless with devoting my entire life to everyone else but you do you.

My dad works and my step mum hasn't worked since. They have two teenage dc. She isn't taking advantage. It works for them.

So how is that comparable if you were disabled?

And how was your income ‘wiped out’ by being less than your husband’s? Do you mean with childcare?

it worked for us. I was not earning, but he was.

This is not a double standard as nobody would criticise a stay-at-home husband arrangement if all parties were happy with it (and he actually was doing the SAHH role.)

is it really necessary to make this type of comment? To suggest that this type of role would be beneath you as it’s so mundane and lacking in interest and with the underlying suggestion that the woman has no self worth and does everything for everyone else. Is it necessary to make comments which diminish the value of this role?

Hmm...your language here isn't great If you go on supply, there's a risk you won't work everyday. But is that the same as 'lounging around'? Not so sure, personally. It suits many families to have one of the adults with a degree if flexibility. And mainly it works well for children. Sure, there are risks - that one partner gets fed up of being the breadwinner, that pension contributions are lowered, that in the event of relationship breakdown, you are left high and dry. People risk assess and do what works for them. No need to judge.

This absolutely....also why is it the OP's business?

The point is they are entitled

If the couple is fine with that arrangement then it’s fine.

Why does it have to be sponging though.

If I made enough money to sustain the life I wanted and for my husband not to work, for all I care he can stay at home. I would expect he makes my life easier with food and cleaning and taking on most of the mental load of the household in return…but so what.

If I could afford it I would absolutely not expect him to work, especially if he could only make a very low income in comparison.

Anyway as it is we both earn almost the same and so neither of us can take any time off. He is 3 years older though so I did tell him that when he retires I will too, so yeah I plan on having 3 years of sponging off him and his pension

I think the “double standard” is because, generally speaking, it’s the woman who takes on more of the caring/home/cooking/mental load/support role . I’m not saying in every case or a man never has but I’ve never seen it. Even without young children I have seen a lot of women supporting their husbands in all sorts of ways that makes it less desirable (for them as a couple) for the woman to work full time. Especially when a status quo has been established through child rearing years.

That’s not entitlement.

Surely that’s their lookout, and between them and their husband?

It’s only entitled if their husband isn’t happy with the arrangement but somehow feels obliged to go along with it.