DH says I am a minion to this woman

[Salvatoreseraphino]

I'm 35, currently a SAHM with 4 DC (all under 6.)

Before I had DC I used to work for a charity run by a very strong, successful woman who I admire very much. She is nearly 70, unmarried, with grown up children of her own.

I got to know her (will call her A) quite well but not as a close friend, just from work. She also took me on from university and I was there my whole working life.

Since having DC and having to stop work I have kept in contact with her and still go to work-related events and deal with work-related issues when I have the time. The charity and the people in it still constitute the main part of my social life, and free time (away from the DC and DH,) as I don't see it as just a job that I should let go of. The charity world is not like that.

Sometimes when they need me I do end up going back into work mode and resuming my job sometimes. And on some level I want it, but like to be able to dip in and out and take on my old role when I have time and leave it when I don't. Obviously I don't get paid for this, or for the hours I put in to help, as I don't officially work there anymore.

Unlike other sectors there is always a great need to do more, even if the basics are met, so even though I have been officially replaced in my job by someone else , there is still stuff that needs to be done.

For me working for the charity, even on a voluntary basis is important for those it benefits, and it has loads of perks, it's incredibly interesting, means I get to meet lots of interesting people too. And I know it so well - I worked there since university, so 15 years. Also because A runs it, she is very successful and inspiring and I have had lots of opportunities through the charity that I have not been able to have in other parts of life, especially as a mother of 4 where my daily life is quite monotonous.

A also asks me to give advice to her friends regarding my specialist area ( law), so I do give a lot of advice for free, or find myself spending a whole afternoon with a different charity run by another friend of A's giving them free advice - which I don't mind and it allows me to flex my intellect as the children grow up.

DH says that A condescends me, takes advantage of my willingness to help, and says that i am deferent and compliant around her. He says that in return she now gets the role I was previously doing, for free, for her friends as well, and does not pay me. And worst of all, he says, she does not even treat me like her friend after all these years. He says she treats me as staff, and that I delude myself thinking I am her friend, or that she and I are equals and she needs me. And that I should have some respect for myself and live a more realistic life with the DC and him and not go to any more events or work for free.

I am very confused about this because I do know that I am very drawn to older women because my DM died when I was a toddler. I am always searching for the elusive mother figure and maybe I have attached something maternal to A who is a very strong, admirable, successful older woman, who I feel has to some extent taken me under her wing. I have done this in the past with other older women, but I don't necessarily see it as a problem for me.

If I am very honest with myself, there is part of me, I think, which would quite like to be more of her friend than she allows, perhaps talk about more general things rather than work and know each other's lives better, or her to know my DC better, or to have more of a "mother/daughter" dynamic after all these years,for eg I have never been invited for dinner at her house and she has dinner parties all the time. I have invited her to mine but she always declines, mainly because of geography and because she is busy. But I don't waste time mulling over this, or resenting it not happening or pushing to make it happen. And I am quite happy with my situation, and the level at which A regards me. DH would argue that I wait like a little minion to be called or asked to help and then I drop everything in the hope of approval from "mummy."

To be even more honest, I do think some of my self esteem rests in being needed by her or performing a function for her. There is something about the relationship that makes me feel secure. DH always knows when I receive an email from her as he says my face "lights up." I'm aware that sounds a bit weirdly romantic, but it's not. And if it's not causing me any harm, surely it is okay?

My loyalty and voluntary work for her does not get in the way of family life or caring for the DC. DH says it Has an impact on the family because I am giving my time and not getting anything back. Not even friendship. But isn't that what charity work is anyway? And if I enjoy it and being around thsee people, surely that would be like a hobbie anyway?

Can anyone relate? What do you think? Do I sound crazy?

If it makes you feel fulfilled continue.

I really don't think it is the place of our partners to treat us as if we were underage and censor our friendships.

Maybe not, but it is the place of our partners to care about us, surely. And if I saw that my partner was being taking advantage of by someone, I would probably point it out to them.

And A isn't the OP's 'friend', or she wouldn't be pimping out her services to all her mates free of charge.

I recently split up with my boyfriend but he has been having some difficulties at work and them messing him around and taking advantage of his good nature. He knew something wasn't quite right, but was in a "can't see the wood for the trees" situation for various reasons. I was quite blunt with him about his work taking the piss because I care about him and didn't want them to take advantage of his good nature.

It got sorted, but wouldn't if someone who cared about him hadn't given him the confidence to see that someone who didn't was taking the piss.

Some people take the piss.

Some people care about their partners.

What he actually said as per the OP is that a more 'realistic life' was for the OP to be with him and the children..

All of the rest of your post Oliver - is wild wild speculation. First, voluntary work can often lead to paid work, secondly, there's no reason to think the charity wouldn't re-employ her at a later date FT, thirdly, it's very good for OP's CV to have kept up work while she had her children.

Finally, there is precisely zero in the text about being open to other friends, just he doesn't want her going to 'events' with those friends - as if it was any of his business.

If you cared about him Annie I'd hope you would put it more caringly and respectfully, and less controllingly.

She's just using you its glaringly obvious. She probably laughs to her mates about how she gets free work out of you and she can send you anywhere she likes to do the same. The fact that she doesn't want to see you socially speaks volumes, sorry.

If it was my wife in that position I'd be mad too - if you care about someone, you don't want to see them being taken advantage of.

Also, giving legal advice without indemnity insurance is incredibly risky and could be extremely costly.

What he actually said as per the OP is that a more 'realistic life' was for the OP to be with him and the children..

But we dont know what he means by realistic. He may just mran that her chasing a friendship thats never going happy is unrealistic.

All of the rest of your post Oliver - is wild wild speculation. First, voluntary work can often lead to paid work, secondly, there's no reason to think the charity wouldn't re-employ her at a later date FT, thirdly, it's very good for OP's CV to have kept up work while she had her children.

The assumption that he wants her at home is also wild speculation. Her op says that he said she should be charging. Not, not doing it all.

The Op can charge for her services and keep a hand in. There is no reason for her to it for free. Especially when this woman is using her as a consultant for all her actual friends.

Finally, there is precisely zero in the text about being open to other friends, just he doesn't want her going to 'events' with those friends - as if it was any of his business.

There is zero text about him not wanting her to have friends at all either.

Maybe you are rightm maybe he is a twat. Or maybe he isnt and is fed up of seeing her be used. There is no way the Op is this invested in this woman and isnt effected by the womans rejection of friendship.

The fact is that we dont know. Interpretation is is speculation. Peoplr are just interpreting it differently.

Finally, there is precisely zero in the text about being open to other friends, just he doesn't want her going to 'events' with those friends

Actually in the op it does say that

Since having DC and having to stop work I have kept in contact with her and still go to work-related events and deal with work-related issues when I have the time. The charity and the people in it still constitute the main part of my social life, and free time

As for this arrangement making the op fulfilled.
If it was making her fulfilled she would not after 15years still be chasing a mother daughter relationship with this woman.

In all honesty how many of us go back to a previous job and do it for free when our previous employers ring us up and say they need our help. How many only go out with that companies personnel. Only going to parties put on by the previous employer. Drop everything as soon as the previous employer calls and then at the behest of the previous employer do jobs for free for the previous employers friends.

If you cared about him Annie I'd hope you would put it more caringly and respectfully, and less controllingly.

Yes. I would. And maybe the OP's husband did too. To begin with.

But I can imagine a point where, years down the line, I would feel for my partner who was obviously being taken advantage of and I might get to the point where I'd say "FFS, they're taking the piss!"

Oliver It doesn't matter what she means by realistic, whatever realistic means is a life with DH and the children according to the text.

I didn't say anything about 'home', he said he wants her with him and the children - that is not speculation it is purely based on the text.

Nor did I say anything about not wanting her to have 'friends' - please read my post more carefully. What I said was that he said he didn't want OP going to the charity 'events'. However, the OP makes clear in a previous paragraph that 'the charity and the people in it still constitute the main part of my social life'.

You just need to weigh up in your mind if you are personally happy with the status quo or not.

If you feel used then change things.

^ Bruce not Oliver

Actually in the op it does say that

No it doesn't. Nowhere does the OP say she is not open to making other friends, she simply says that currently the charity world forms the' main part of her social life'. She obviously has other parts, and she also make clear that through this world she gets "to meet lots of interesting people", ie - it enables her to make 'other friends'...

The fulfilment aspect is the work itself and the people she meets through it, rather than specifically the relationship with this woman, which is only one element of the situation.

Many people stay in touch with their previous workplace and continue to socialise with that world and its contacts, particularly women who have taken time out for children and need to keep a foot in the door. That's as true of the charity world as it is of media - BBC - for example, as it is of journalism, to give a couple of examples. What OP describes is by no means uncommon.

I'm not sure why people are seeing the husband as either a selflessly concerned angel or a manipulative, controlling devil. It's entirely possible, indeed likely, that he both sees what is wrong with this dynamic between OP and A and worries about her getting more hurt, and is perhaps a bit resentful about the OP's unpaid absences and would prefer her to put the time into making his life easier rather than A's. He may well prefer her at home because that's more convenient to him. OP doesn't have to go along with that, and there's nothing to stop her being wise to ulterior motives of her husband's and making decisions accordingly, but it doesn't mean his points about A aren't valid.

OP, I understand this longing for a mother figure too. I'm not bereaved, but my mother became very abusive in my early adolescence (possibly earlier) and her behaviour eventually pushed me to cutting off contact. Milder versions of your experience with A have happened to me. Therapy is helping. Sadly, I agree with PPs that A is holding you at arm's length and probably exploiting you. You've gone along with this and justified it to yourself because you do in fact get positive things out of it. That's undeniable. But I also agree that now is almost certainly the moment to get your talents recognised in monetary terms. I work for myself in a similarly flexible professional field (not law) and while I have only just changed from being employed, I can already see the potential for it to work very well with my family responsibiltiies while maintaining the sense of a 'career'. I think you have some excellent advice above about approaching A, saying you feel it's time you restarted your (paid) career and you'd be delighted to continue working for her on this basis and for her to recommend you further afield. Her response will tell you a great deal, and IIWY I would be mentally and emotionally prepared for it to be disappointing and hurtful. If it turns out she's pleased and keen to promote you, it'll be a great bonus. But it really is time to step out of this relationship ane ensure your work and talents are valued, so that her importance to you can fade and your self-esteem grow.

It's entirely possible, indeed likely, that he both sees what is wrong with this dynamic between OP and A and worries about her getting more hurt, and is perhaps a bit resentful about the OP's unpaid absences and would prefer her to put the time into making his life easier rather than A's. He may well prefer her at home because that's more convenient to him. OP doesn't have to go along with that, and there's nothing to stop her being wise to ulterior motives of her husband's and making decisions accordingly, but it doesn't mean his points about A aren't valid

Which has been my line from the get go. I haven't seen any poster characterise him as a 'devil'.

But there is a lot of 'controlling', 'disrespectful', suspicions that he wants to trap his wife flying around, and on the other side a lot of 'aww, he's just concerned'. I think the most helpful point for OP is that the truth is somewhere in the middle. And that she needs to find her own voice/position among these conflicting interests in her good nature, iyswim.

No it doesn't. Nowhere does the OP say she is not open to making other friends

It actually says that when she has time it is spent doing the charities work, going to events. Nowhere does the op mention any other people in her life apart from her family and the charity and A

I actually wonder how the person who replaced the op feels when the op comes into the office and starts doing their job.

I get the impression that everything is about how the op feels and as long as she feels fine then that is ok. Their is nothing about how others feel or might view her apart from her dh.

Many people stay in touch with their previous workplace and continue to socialise with that world and its contacts

The op is not doing this though. She is only going to more formal functions that involve the charity. She doesn't appear to want to socialise (go out to dinner, coffee, host other people coming to her house) with anyone other than A and A doesn't want to get involved.

How many regularly work their old job for free after they have been replaced. Whenever they have time.

For those that have a job how would you feel if your boss kept bringing the previous incumbent in to help you out and had them work for free. Especially if that person thought they were riding to the rescue.

Hetero - but by the OP's own admission she can't find her own position as she's blinded by her desire for a mother figure and she has fixated on A for this. She's asked for help finding that position as she accepts her viewpoint is skewed.

This sounds to me like he's sick of seeing her being used and jumping when A asks at the expense of family life. There is absolutely no suggestion that he's trying to chain her to the cooker.

OliverIt doesn't matter what she means by realistic, whatever realistic means is a life with DH and the children according to the text.

Her relationship with her dh and kids is more realistic than her relationship with this woman.

Op wants her to be a friend and mother figure. The woman is clear and doesnt want that.

Ive been in the charity sector for quite a few years and i see these svengali figures a lot. People often volunteer as they have benefitted from a service and these charismatic people can easily charm people and make them feel important (which they are). As others have said, when/ if OP were to put a price on her services, i think the relationship will cool off

I think OP can probably figure that out for herself Haybales.

'Controlling' and 'disrespectful' does not a 'devil' make.

Her relationship with her dh and kids is more realistic than her relationship with this woman

The 'realistic life' comment was as much in relation to her work and the events she goes to as the woman herself:

"live a more realistic life with the DC and him and not go to any more events or work for free"

It's not 'realistic' to expect educated women with careers to be happy solely in a domestic sphere with their husband and children.

Oliver if you read it more carefully the OP says that the charity world forms the 'main part of her social life' - ie there are clearly other parts - she doesn't say that it is the entirety.

She also specifically says that through this work and events she "gets to meet lots of interesting people" - ie people other than she already knows.

I get the impression that everything is about how the op feels and as long as she feels fine then that is ok

Invention.

The op is not doing this though. She is only going to more formal functions that involve the charity. She doesn't appear to want to socialise (go out to dinner, coffee, host other people coming to her house) with anyone other than A and A doesn't want to get involved

The OP doesn't say anything about 'formal' functions; and charitable functions don't only consist of the core staff, there will be many different kinds of people there and volunteers who come from all walks of life.

Nowhere does it say is that she doesn't want to socialise with anyone but this woman! She just said that this woman turns down invitations to her house.

I'm sorry I don't have any more patience with this.

ninon you are making assumptiond and making interpretations. Which is my point. We are all makimg assumptions. But different ones. No one knows who is right.

I interpret the comment 'more realistic life' to mean the relationship she is chasing and envisions having with this woman are not realistic. Op is doing things for this woman hoping to a mother/daughter relationship. Its not going to happen. Its not realistic to hope and work for that.

The relationship she has with her husband and kids is realistic.

It's not 'realistic' to expect educated women with careers to be happy solely in a domestic sphere with their husband and children.

This comment means nothing as thats not what the op said. Besides which many educated women ARE happy bring a sahp. Are you suggesting its only realistic for less educated people, to have their life revolving around their husband and kids?

The point is that all of us are interpreting the information given differently. You arent correct neither is anyone else. Because we dont know.

Even if you keep repeating what the op posted, isnt going to change interpretations.

Everyone has their own interpretation, but I'm sticking as close as possible to the text, and I'm not actively inventing things.

In the paragraph in which the phrase 'more realistic life' occurs: First he says that this woman is taking advantage of OP. Then he says that a more 'realistic life' would be 'with the DC and him', not going to 'any more events' or working 'for free'. Ie the 'realistic life is as much in relation to being with him and the children, not going to charity events and not working unpaid, as it is chasing a relationship with this woman.

I said educated women with careers, as the OP is trying to keep part of her career going at the same time as having a family. I did not say that educated women cannot be happy as a SAHM, my own sister is. But the OP states that she finds family life 'monotonous' (as a previous poster noted), which indicates she is not.

The op being educated has nothing to do with it. Some people are happy sahp some not. Education or previously having a career doesnt mean anything.

You are totally missing the point and keep posting the same quotes. That lots of peoplr have interpreted differently. We sre all sticking as close to the text as you. We just disagree.

But you are the one telling everyone why they are wrong. Rather than just excepting people are interpreting it differently.