Dh resents my lack of ambitions… DS is 3 yo

[Blipblopblap]

Dh and I have a 3 year old son who is due to start morning school nursery soon. I currently work 2.5 days a week and Dh is full time self employed. He earns a lot and we’re comfortable at the moment but we don’t like where we live and want to move to a different area and get a bigger house. Dh actually hates our house… it’s a new build and the neighbours are a nightmare, the parkings atrocious, the house itself is pretty naff… it makes him super angry every single day.
I have an ordinary type of job and the money is poor. I don’t pay anything towards bills but I pay for childcare and bits and bobs like clothes and toys and the like.
Recently arguments have been brewing. He’s clearly resenting me that we rely so heavily on his earnings. He says for us to move to a bigger and better house I need to be working and earning more to help cover the bills should he be out of work (his work is contract based).
The only thing is then we would need a lot more childcare. And i love the routine I have at the moment and the thought of seeing my son a lot less literally makes me cry. I’m sure other mothers will understand this but he really doesn’t get it.
It’s all come to a head and he has threatened to sell up and get a divorce due to my “lack of ambition.” I don’t want this. He gets frustrated because Im not a career person but he has known this since he met me 14 years ago. But he is so unhappy in this house it’s making him ill, he’s desperate to move which is why there is so much pressure on me. I’ve told him I’ll do whatever it takes so I’m going to start looking at better jobs/courses etc. I just wanted to see what you all thought. As a mother to a young child it just feels wrong. But clearly it’s what my relationship needs.

I feel the same as @SueVineer but I think your entire first paragraph is projection. For some, being 100% responsible for any one aspect (in this case, financial survival of the family) builds up pressure and resentment. I'm sure the SAHP feels an equal amount of weight on their shoulders re: childcare & housework as well. This doesn't mean any one aspect is worth more or less than the other.

My dad got laid off when I was young but thankfully my mum still brought a decent chunk home. And 2 of my siblings had high needs but my parents BOTH stepped up, shared duties, and handled it together.

It would've been so draining if my dad had the weight of the family's financial survival on his shoulders alone (not just during the layoff but in general, everyday), and my mum had all the children's wellbeing and survival on her shoulders alone. I think both would have had awful mental health.

And 2 of my siblings had high needs but my parents BOTH stepped up, shared duties, and handled it together. - sorry I mean even when my dad was working. He got headhunted quite soon after his layoff but thankfully my mum's career was there to buffer all stress and panic about family finances doom.

@lilymani that may be true (as I'm sure it is) and the situation illustrates the advantage of that set up... But none of that contradicts or takes away from @Ngmi entirely valid point that if you resent your partner who is putting in as much time as you, but in an unremuneratid role, then you essentially just don't value that contribution. Even though you are both fundamental to the well-being and function of your family set up in different ways.
There is no one size fits all, so why are we pulling each other down. I have been the higher earner, the sahm needing support for study whilst parenting, and the part time lower earner... and in all those roles I've never felt like DH and I are doing anything other than standing shoulder to shoulder and making our family work whilst meeting the needs at the time. We are a unit and we adjust to circumstances arising, together.
If at any point either if us starting bean counting the others contribution it would never have worked. As it is we see each other as equal partners in life... All this arguing who is right and who is adding in more than who, screams lack of trust to me.

@PimpMyFridge yes, it's a real example from my teen years, and it's why I will always work! That being said, my parents and my DH and I have all had different roles to play (eg SAHP briefly) at different times – I think the crux of it is flexibility and willingness to meet shared needs.

Resentment is complex imo. It's not necessarily from looking down on the other person. In fact, you can resent someone whom you feel looks down on you / your role! So for example a SAHM could resent her husband for not respecting the value of her work, even as she respects his work.

I know traditionally stay at home parenting is undervalued. But equally, if my husband unilaterally refused to work (plus moralised about not being materialistic blablabla), I might feel he was undervaluing & dismissing the burden on my shoulders, the scale of my contribution, my fears and desires for family stability, etc. I would resent him for that, yes. I can resent him while appreciating that taking care of kids is bloody hard – but that is a role I would prefer to share equally.

Yes resentment takes hold when empathy, communication, understanding and respect fails. Both ways.

It isn't about whether a career is as important as your children. That's just a ridiculous comparison. It's about the fact that you don't actually have to choose between the two.

If you want to celebrate putting your career on hold for a bit while your children were little, then fine, celebrate that all you like. I accept that that suits some people and I'm happy that it worked out for you. Personally, I would prefer to celebrate the fact that I was able to parent just as effectively without having had to give up a career that is meaningful and rewarding to me. We are all different.

You asked why I am angry. I have explained this already. I am angry because I have a daughter and I don't want her to have to contend with these tired old sexist stereotypes or to feel judged for wanting more from life than the domestic sphere can offer. I'm angry because I see what those same old sexist stereotypes did to my lovely mum. And I am irritated by the smug ignorance which makes you so confident of your own rightness when you clearly don't know very much about what you're talking about.

You might like to pretend that your comments are innocent and that you don't understand why anyone thinks they're outrageous. I think they are deliberately designed to goad and provoke. Foolishly, I have allowed myself to rise to the bait, but I should take a step back now and recognise that you will no doubt have your reasons for needing to make those comments.

Definitely, in this case both parties need to respect each other's desires. E.g. he shouldn't just write her off as workshy, and she shouldn't write him off as materialistic.

But I think what strikes me is that such situations feel a bit unequal or manipulative. One party (whichever gender) who doesn't like working can just stop working or not work, without any real agreement between the couple. The non working party effectively traps the other into funding them. There is an implicit threat that if the working party ever stops or reduces work, the family (literally in some cases) goes hungry. And the accusatory line "you don't appreciate SAHP" is always trotted out, even though the "SAHP" title was unilaterally decided.

And it's really not fun watching your entire paycheck vanish immediately into thin air, with zero savings even after years of working like a dog. They can't exactly withhold money either because it would be deemed "financial abuse of an SAHP".

I guess the flipped scenario would be one party just going to work all the time because they hate childcare/housework, and want to leave it all to the other party. Tbf I think that does happen often with men, and shouldn't happen. Both are toxic and manipulative situations because you're trapping someone in a situation against their will.

Wow, I have no words.

I think that’s the nub of it, that some seem to give the impression that only paid work outside the home can be “valued”. Perhaps some people have a straightforward home set up and no elderly parents who require looking after but others don’t.

Must confess I’m surprised that my DH who was home at 630pm so we could have supper and spend the evening together and plays no golf / tennis or any activity that took him away at weekends is regarded as somehow being absent from our children’s lives. Surely a 530pm finish and a 45 - 60 minute isn’t that unusual. Would a woman who got at home at 630pm on weeknights be regarded in that way? My children would find this concept very funny as he has always been a very hands on dad.

Yes he wasn’t around in the mornings but with 3 children at 3 different schools (and all out of the house by 8am) we weren’t exactly sitting around the breakfast table bonding over pancakes.

@Hippyhippybake I'm totally with you. It's a really individual thing as to what works

@Hippyhippybake i dont think weekly commute adds up to 60h weeks, especially as for most people it's an hour a day at most (in reference to your earlier post)

there is no need to be so defensive - this set up clearly works for you. Some people just pointed out that it would not work for them. The more details you're describing the more Im convinced this would be a nightmare for me

I am actually happy that with both of us working my gusband and I have time for family lives and our separate hobbies. I don't think either of us would have been happy if we lost that.

also, 6:30 is VERY late for me...and after 12h day i'd be ready for a nap and Im sure so would be my husband. But we're different people to you and your husband, hence the different set-up.

Also from financial point of view - I do very much enjoy the fact that if one of us suddenly lost ability to work, the other would be able to support the entire family. Sure it would mean we would need to cut out some "luxury" spending, but the mortgage and bills would get paid. I wouldn't feel good without that safety net.

Our mortgage and his income are both protected in the event of death / incapacity. I certainly work in the home for 12 hours a day but then we do have a lot of animals and I have no outside help - my choice.

Exactly - it is a choice. We too have life insurance etc, but I still feel better knowing that there would be a stream of income regardless of what happens to one of us. But that's my own preference / source of security. A bit like when my grandad had insurance

Like I am a kind of person who had to save up money before going on maternity - even though I have a really good package from work!

Again this boils down to what people want from life and what they need to feel secure and comfortable. In the OPs scenario, husband pretty much carries entire burden of financial support on top of wanting to move to a better house / location. This can create a LOT of resentment if he blames her minimal earnings or, as he unkindly put it, lack of ambition for this situation.

Once a couple is not on the same page they can either try to negotiate or split. But one adult cannot stop their feet and demand that another adult supports them financially - that will never work out.

Yes I agree with that, “demanding” anything from a partner is probably not a good idea, better to discuss, ruminate and negotiate.

The husband is to my mind being unfair. The needs of the family must come first. He's quite entitled to feel and explain why he thinks a bigger home may be beneficial. He is entitled to explain why he needs financial assistance to support the family structure.
This has to be a plan, how can the two make this happen and equally valid is the opinion of the other spouse?
It's not conducive to a loving environment to threaten the other party with leaving. Marriage is pointless with the attitude of one can leave whenever one chooses, it's deliberately introducing instability.

I think both are being unfair actually if family does come 1st the OP needs to step up and stop be reliant on one person income for paying all the bills for the family, that’s clearly not fair

Also he is being a dick with his demands about moving etc, thats also not fair on the OP.

I think in this case this is out of realm of what is fair or not - and that was a big part of the discussion here. Once it gets to the point where one person wants out then the time for having calm negotiation may have run out.

Neither of them was fair, neither of them put family first.

I wouldn't even be surprised if meeting his demands wouldn't actually save the marriage.

From personal experience - I remember when I got to this point in my previous relationship, I was really one foot outside the door. Even if my ex did literally everything I wanted him to do over the years, it was too late, I had no warm feelings or patience left, and to this day I don't know if he tried to step-up. He claimed he did, and I still smacked him with divorce papers.

I agree in part, however, where does one draw the line with parity of income?
Do both parties have to keep pace with each other for the sake of material possessions or a sense of fairness?
If one starts at £20,00 when young and ends up earning £100,000 does the other spouse have to match that rise?

@Ohmygiddyauntie I didn’t mention parity of income but to quote the OP .” I don’t pay anything towards bills “

no matter what you might think, that is clearly not fair, or equal or even the basis of good marriage

40 pages of happy women loving working full time: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4835152-all-women-i-know-are-in-my-situation?page=40&reply=127229617

OP may not pay for bills, but she pays for childcare and clothes and toys for their DC. Like many not particularly high earners, childcare does eat up a lot of income, if she worked longer hours more childcare would need to be paid, so her upping her hours in current job is a zero sum game.

Should she get a better job ? Well who knows how feasible that is with a young child and DH who presumably works long hours.

It would be different if OP was refusing to work, but it sounds like they have a reasonable set up like many families where one partner has a better paying job and the other takes on more of the caring and home responsibilities. It doesn't suit the H now because he wants to move to a nicer house.

For those posters who say this should all be settled before getting married / having children, have none of you changed over the years? I never thought I would give up work and actually it wasn’t until I had no. 3 that I began to think about it as a possibility.

Marriage (hopefully) lasts a life time, I’ve changed so much in so many ways in the 30 years since I met my dh.

"why HE needs financial assistance to support the family structure"?!

Yeah he just married himself, had a baby with himself, amd bought a house for himself. Any support she gives to this family she's not related to is charitable assistance.

Yes, it's dreadful, isn't it.

If only our society didn't keep perpetuating those old outdated stereotypes that teach people to see childcare and domestic work as women's work.

If only parents would model a fairer division of labour to their children.

Oh wait...

People do change, of course. And that's absolutely fine if both halves of a couple are comfortable with that change.

However, if you haven't signed up to be a sole breadwinner, then I think it would be pretty tough if your partner suddenly decided that they wanted to be a SAHP, and not unreasonable to say that you're unhappy with that. Same goes the other way - if you agreed before having kids that you would split the housework and childcare equally between you, then it would be pretty tough if one partner was expected to take on primary responsibility for all of that.

And indeed, same again if you agreed prior to having kids that one of you would be a SAHP, and the other person suddenly moved the goalposts and said that they were no longer happy with that, it might be pretty frustrating.

Ultimately, couples have to negotiate their way through these situations, but the bottom line is, nobody has an absolute right to opt out of paying their way, nobody has an absolute right to be absolved from any domestic responsibilities and no parent has the right to step back from their responsibilities towards their children. The default position if couples can't agree surely has to be that they share equal responsibility for everything.

In most cases, couples will hopefully have the communication and negotiation skills to work out a mutually agreeable plan between them.