Bad feeling about my earnings in marriage

[yellowpdfdocuments]

Can anyone help me think about this. When I met my husband I was on an average/low salary. He is a decade older and earnt more. I then had two kids and had a year of leave with each, then went back part time. Meanwhile his earnings have skyrocketed. Now, post pandemic I am left in a very uncertain position on a contract that soon ends while he is at his peak. The pandemic was hard for me: childcare, bereavement and serious illness. I am applying for jobs.

There’s a mood in the marriage that I’ve seriously let the side down with my career/earnings. That I am earning too little, that I’ve made us poor.

What do you think? I did choose to look after the kids part time (this has paid off massively in terms of how they are) and I am also just younger, less ambitious, less capable of stress and endurance jobs….

I’m trying to work out of my husband is being unfair making me feel like this. Thanks.

@Mouseonmychair you have a very simplistic view. What happens if (as in my case) you have a child with health issues that means the child cannot be left at nursery all day. Who stays at home? What’s your provision in this case?

[quote yellowpdfdocuments]@Sakurami you sound so well adjusted and confident! Thanks for posting. Was it this issue or something else that caused you to split?[/quote]
That was part of the reason but also he was controlling, jealous, financially abusive. And men think that just because we take some time out to raise our kids, that our academic and career achievements banish. I had a break in order to raise the kids, not because I had to. I am much more qualified and experienced than him. He used to tell me that he paid me lots every month. He didn't pay me, it was money to pay for shopping, kids stuff etc.

The thing is, families should be seen as a team. Everyone's input is valuable and necessary and should be appreciated and everyone should do what they can to help.

Also, what I never understood is that pre kids I worked full time and yet I still had to do all my housework and cooking. I don't understand why many men think that if their wives are sahm they should also do everything else. And most of my female friends do all or most of the housework and childcare whether they work or not.

And I think if you're being treated like that then split and you'll have time for a job, time for kids, you won't have to do it all and you won't have to look after a man child on top of it.

Both parties can't be responsible at 50% from birth.
There's a material biological reality that mothers have to face in early childhood and the date that 50% can start is different for each child. Irrespective of what laws say.

No contract can accommodate the sheer number of exceptions, exemptions and alterations which are necessary to live as a family.

Family is about compromise but you can't compromise if you don't know the value of what is being bartered.

I'd prefer better education and promotion of the value of work and family life and of what it means. We all know what office vs manual labor is from a young age and I am of the generation that was taught that "to work is to pray" and "work is the path to self fulfilment" but what is the equivalent in the home setting?

When everyone is aware of values then it is possible to negotiate what family life could look like.

Anyone naively taking the traditional route, both male and female, is in for a rude awakening.

@Mouseonmychair you say you’re a high earner. Not everyone is. What is really needed is cheaper childcare so that it’s possible and financially reasonable for someone to return to work. You know what teachers and nurses earn right? Admin assistants, like me? We’re talking in the region of 20,000 a year not 200,000. You as a high earner are unusual and therefore laws cannot be made to accommodate unusual outliers like yourself. Laws have to me made to cover the majority population like nurses, teachers, basic wage earners, people that work in Tesco.

My husband also told me 5 years ago when our son 9: 'Get a proper job!' :)

By that he obviously means a well-paid starting from graduate salary pure money after-tax from £1500-2000 a months job.

As having a family and becoming a Mum was my number 1 priority in life, I made my choice and we are both very happy we have our lovely son who is 14 now (I am 42).

I am planning to earn more and have started studying for that. But I look at it realistically and I won't be earning from £2000 pure money any time soon. I'll try my best but we'll see.

We have to know what we want and aim for it.

I went back to work full-time when our son was 5.5 months. My husband really wanted me to go part-time against my will when our son started Reception School at 4 y.o. but I compromised and did it to please him. It was good because I took our son to many useful clubs and saved on childcare. So it was done at the expense of MY potential successful career. In 2007 we paid crazy money for nursery 50/50 that full price cost 80% of my salary.

At 55 my DH has now dropped 1 day and works 4 days a week. Semi-retirement so to say and I am trying to catch up on my possible earning and career because I am naturally ambitious and want to achieve financially too.

Don't take what he says personally.

Follow your heart and live how you like it.

@Mouseonmychair

I would like a situation similar in places like Sweden with excellent gender equality this is not an issue as there is full shared parental leave plus preschool opens at 6:30am with provision for babies so both parents just work with no excuses really available as to why not.

This is why I can't marry and risk funding the lifestyle of someone else. For me a very high earner I could easily have paid for childcare so they could work similar hours with similar effort and focus on their career. I could manage 50% of childcare responsibilities. Marriage doesn't taking into account someone who coasts once they are in it or decides to take less paid employment or spends money instead of putting in their pension.

I would like to see the law changed in two ways. Firstly both parties are responsible for 50% of the childcare. they can either sub contract it out but not to the other party (unless a formal nanny job) this way nobody is giving free childcare. And secondly marriage should be an enforceable contract including what should happen if someone chooses to give up work or reduce hours. So people know what they expect from their marriage partner. Breaking of the contract would the affect asset splitting.

You are talking as if marriage and children are a transaction WHAF IF the mother or father want to stay at home to look after their children?

He is being unfair. Marriage is not some kind of transaction or money making scheme, and he would do well to realise this. You raised his children essentially, surely it is obscene for him to make you feel bad for needing the money to do so. Ultimately, money in a marriage can only work if it is viewed as a pooling of assets. I earn a lot more than my partner, but I don't view it as my money - everything I earn belongs equally to myself and my partner

He sounds like a workaholic, you are perfect cover. Also think he may have a roving eye. Ducks in a row, don't be caught out

Yes, a total workaholic

I do wonder why we value women working so much, and caring jobs so little - but then it's alright to want to do childcare as a job, but wanting to look after your own under 5s means you lack ambition?

Or is it still that we just don't value carers after all, it seems to be that way for op's Dh.

The world gone slightly mad. I'd rather we let parents either have the nursery subsidy or the tax rebate so that a parent can work less to be with them.

@yellowpdfdocuments

I’m not asking you to be me *@over2021* or ‘agree’ with my choices. Sorry things are such a pain for you.

I think that is very relevant about your choices. You are part of a couple but you seem to have made a choice that he didn't agree with. It isn't right or wrong to work full time part time or in the home but I don't think it seems very fair that you decide you can afford to take time off work or work part time and he isn't even allowed an opinion on it.

I guess it is something you probably need to agree on before children but even that wouldn't be 100% as feelings can change.

I've been the wage earner for 30 years as my husband is disabled and can't work, I don't think you should underestimate the pressure of being responsible for the family finances.

@janefitzjane

He is being unfair. Marriage is not some kind of transaction or money making scheme, and he would do well to realise this. You raised his children essentially, surely it is obscene for him to make you feel bad for needing the money to do so. Ultimately, money in a marriage can only work if it is viewed as a pooling of assets. I earn a lot more than my partner, but I don't view it as my money - everything I earn belongs equally to myself and my partner

Surely they aren't just his children, she was raising her own children.

I think if one of you isn't going to work or is going to work part time it is something that should be agreed on. Deciding that another person has to house feed and clothe you even if they aren't in agreement isn't much of a partnership.

It's difficult if you have different view points but then you negotiate and find a place where both of you feel heard.

WHAF IF the mother or father want to stay at home to look after their children? What if they both want to stay at home with the children? Is that OK?

I know it’s an emotive topic as everyone makes different choices about this stuff

@PrancerandDancer

Me and DH have recently fallen in to similar whereas he earns a very good full time wage with long hours and I'm stil part time on a modest wage whilst DD has just started school. I had concerns but my DH reassured, it's fine the flexibility I have helps out immensely during school holidays and the time I have off during the week means I can get on top of stuff at home leaving the weekends free for quality time. We don't need two high earners and it works for us. Sounds like your DH is been unreasonable and lacks insight on how much you really do for the family

Maybe the difference is you had concerns, discussed it with him and he had some input. Communication is so important, it is easy to make assumptions about what is right or normal and not realise that the other person might have different ideas.

@yellowpdfdocuments

I know it’s an emotive topic as everyone makes different choices about this stuff

But that is fine as long as the two people directly involved get to make choices.

That’s right ancientgran, but you’re imagining my DH’s position is the default that I’ve (unauthorisedly) varied from, and I don’t think that’s necessarily so. We could afford all this and fwiw he agreed at the time,

@ancientgran

WHAF IF the mother or father want to stay at home to look after their children? What if they both want to stay at home with the children? Is that OK?

Well then you work something out where both have part time jobs or something. Right? It's not rocket science.

I have never more wished that the "if I had kids brigade" actually had kids.
I just know it won't be fair on the kids so I have to let the shooting star just keep going.

I'm the higher earner and I carry the mental load of my household. My husband pulls his weight but there's a lot of list making and directing involved. That's our compromise.
In my case, I could have been a whole lot further with my career had I not had children.
My partner was always full time as was I. It was my work which was flexible and paid the burden of unpredictable childcare situations and burn out from trying to juggle it all.
The bottom line is no matter how you turn it someone is footing that family care juggling bill and it is huge. The nursery fees are just the visible part.
In my case, kudos goes to my employer. And I'm not going to berate them for not being a ftse 500 because they were too caring and not ambitious enough.

@ancientgran

WHAF IF the mother or father want to stay at home to look after their children? What if they both want to stay at home with the children? Is that OK?

Well clearly they can’t both stay at home at the same time, common sense tells you that, surely If they both wanted to spend time with their child and take it in turns in terms of the SAHP role, then one parent working three days, whilst the other works two would be the most obvious answer.

[quote yellowpdfdocuments]@sjxoxo Thanks. I just don’t think I could ever have agreed to wraparound childcare, it wasn’t for me- I had a strong feeling about it.[/quote]

Isn't this the issue.

You weren't aligned when you chose to stay home and he would've preferred you to work, increase your income & build your career.

He may feel taken for a ride as you've opted to stay home knowing you could spend the money he earns.

Being the sole earner should be a discussion, not a unilateral decision because you want to stay at home.

@MarshmallowSwede

You have taken him for a ride? By raising his children and keeping his home?

Men like this should be cursed with their penis falling off and balls shriveling up to raisins.

The audacity of a man who has been able to progress in his career because he has had childcare from his wife never ceases to amaze me.

Your husband sounds like an asshole.

He may be comparing them to his colleagues. Two high earning colleagues will have a much nicer lifestyle & he may not see the value in being a SAHM if she could have utilised nurseries & a cleaner like many couples do.

I think people should respond based on what they'd say if a msn wanted to stay home instead of working.

Past the 0-2 year old age, he may not see the value in her being a SAHM v earning to contribute to a dual income household.

This one is more nuanced than posters are suggesting.

@MilitantFawcett

You can “catch up” if you want to (google Nikki King from Isuzu). But that will mean putting yourself first. He needs to be aware that if he wants you to prioritise your career then that means you can no longer prioritise his or indeed him. He will need to find & pay people to do all the things you’re doing now. I remember seeing a calculation years ago that employing people to cover the tasks a SAHP does would be around £65k per annum. I’d imagine it would be over £100k now. Just as well his career has taken off eh?

This just isn't true. A FT nanny in London is 30k. SAHMs constantly talk as if women (& men) who work full time don't also cook and clean their houses. Most the "home" stuff really isn't rocket science!