It's what men of today are prepared to sacrifice not women

[CatMumBat]

This is something I'm thinking through but probably haven't got right yet so very happy to hear other opinions...

The thinking seems to be that women could or could not have it all. A job, children, hobbies, self care etc. Actually in my life, it should be more about what my partner is prepared to accept. Hear me out... I'm lucky enough to have a part time job that pays full time wages but my partner seems to think that I should be putting half the bills in financially and doing all the grunt work. So, my question is, should he be prepared to be the provider and pay the majority of the bills whilst I do the majority of the grunt work or should I be doing half the grunt work and pay half the bills? I think that feminism regardless, he can't have it both ways?

Until what is or has been seen as traditionally women's work is valued in a way that men understand ( £££ ) they will not accept it as a worthy contribution, this labour has no status to them.

in good relationship both partners should be looking our for each other - to me the bargaining is the first sign that something is off and whatever deal will get worked out, someone will either be taken advantage of or feel like they are

I had a very sad reminder of it recently when I was looking for some old documents and my old payslip fell out - straight out of uni I was working part time and earning peanuts (0hours contract, taking all hours I could get, mostly physical labour, and my payslip literally was just short of 600 a month). I was contributing 500 of that payslip to household expenses and I still see red when I think of how my ex gave me a stern talk that he feels he should not be contributing more than me and be able to spend more money on himself. The kicker? He was contributing 100 pounds more than I did, but he had a full time desk job and stable salary. Years later, however, when I out-earned him by a lot he had no issues taking money from me for petrol and fast-food.

Back then I thought I had to contribute exactly half of all expenses, while I failed to see that this lazy ass did nothing around the house

Division of labour and responsibility does not mean that everything has to be divided 50/50, but if you feel like someone is taking advantage of you then it is a big red flag

I think the grunt work should be divided on the basis of how much non-work time each partner has, not on the basis of how much they earn.

Interesting- we have landed up with a 50s set up here with me at home with the kids and him paying for everything because one of our kids was unwell and I managed all the appointments and accommodations and the three siblings, school, house and his extended family. 20 years on and I can’t go back to my career as it was, and he is resentful of my lack of earnings. I am resentful of his lack of insight.

Funny how hes only become resentful now

I don’t think the proposition that you have made is feminist. It is more you assuming the head of the family role under old patriarchal rules. That since you are the higher earner, you shouldn’t have to do as much grunt work as your partner. That isn’t feminism, that is a gender swap where inequality now benefits you instead.

We have operated on the idea of contributing our time equally, and ensuring we each have equal time not working where working is defined as time in paid employment + time doing grunt work.

Time is the most valuable resource, not money.

So I don’t think it is fair for the higher earner to think they can work fewer hours of grunt work than the lower earner.

Each partner’s paid work hours + grunt work hours should be roughly equivalent. This means yes you need to do more grunt work hours to even out the extra hours he works as an employee.

But OP says she works 30 hours a week, while children are at school. It seems likely that OP is doing school runs and childcare in the 2 hours (max) extra a day that her DH is at work. Beyond something like putting a load of laundry on and maybe cooking dinner, I don’t think there is anything more OP should be expected to do. She is already caring for children. It doesn’t sound like she has more time off than her DH. She spends those extra 10 hours a week caring for their children. Then I think while they are both home, jobs and childcare should be split 50/50. Both should have equal time off and equal money to spend. Regardless of how much anyone earns. That’s a partnership.

Was replying to Str8talkin then, quote didn’t work!

So he should pay proportionally more of the bills because he earns more. But he should do 50% of the "grunt" work when he is working part time but the OP is working part time?

Thats equality for you.

So this is some interesting responses. To clarify, and only in my personal example, he gets up and goes to work. I get up, get everyone up, make breakfasts, pack lunches and get everyone to school then I go to work from home but still work. He finishes work, goes to the pub and comes home for dinner, which I cook and tidy up from. During the day I do the washing and, one day a week, do the meal planning and go to the supermarket. Which means cleaning out the fridge, for example and putting everything away. This is just my personal example but I feel that most of the ticking the family over, grunt work goes to me. Then in the evening, I do my hobbies, which takes up a reasonable amount of time. Some of my hobbies I do in the day time but then work later.

it does seem like he has more time for himself and you are always skivvying

You both start at roughly the same time in the morning, but while he is at the pub, you are cooking dinner and probably helping the DC with homework. Then you are even clearing up after dinner. And you are doing the weekly shop.

(Doing laundry and the odd thing while working from home isn’t really extra work.)

It should be equal time for yourself to be fair. I think he should be making up the time he is at the pub doing ‘grunt work’ of one sort of another. Perhaps he comes home 3x a week and does dinner and washing up? Plus weekly shop?

She should be financially independent and an equal contributor, and be no drain on the man's resources and financial freedoms. And work. While also keeping herself looking nice, running the house, running the kids, being a good wife in providing that side of their lives. And if he wants to leave, it should not affect his finances or assets.

The thing is that once women achieve this they usually realise they are carrying deadweight, shed the useless man and have no interest in dating again. This results in a much happier life infuriates such men even more, as an added bonus.

@CatMumBat question of fairness could be resolved by one question: would the household be run with the same efficiency if you spend proportionate amount of time at a pub?

If the answer is "no" then its not fair because you could not rely on him to pull his (and everyone else's) weight while you go for a cheeky pint - not to mention that for him to do it everyday he really has to have a lot of free time

and even the odd jobs you do while working from home are still things that need to be done - so they cannot be dismissed because he won't put on the washing when he's at work or at the pub, right?

He wants you to do all of the earning, and do all of the other work, because he is a man and therefore more important than you. He likes the gender role bit about you doing all the work, and is happy to overlook the "not gender role" bit about you doing all the earning. If he allows you to do this, he is empowering you. If you complain about it, you are a Karen (convenient word allowing men to ignore any emotion or behaviour by a woman that a man doesn't like).

I just can’t see how this is a ‘partnership’, OP. You are not two halves of a whole thing, you are two individuals who are sharing some living arrangements (and rather to my surprise when it came out , some children!). One of those individuals seems to be contributing rather less overall than the other, in terms of money and in terms of non financial effort. This individual is not contributing ‘soft benefits’ either ( I have a friend whose husband is a bit useless practically, financially underwhelming, and he’s not the tidiest person in the world, either - but he ‘cherishes’ her, no one could doubt that if there was only one life belt on the sinking boat, he would be strapping it on her and asking her if it was comfy - and telling her she looked wonderful in it.).

You run the household, he goes to the pub. Hmmm, if this was a business, would you still hire him?

Bit late to this but all through the thread I keep remembering the saying ...

If you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

All these men have been historically accustomed to privilege, and now women want real equality, the men feel oppressed, hard done by.

Some men get it, a lot have a long way to go.

Dad mucked in from the very start with us kids and housework. He was pretty unusual for a man born in the 1930s. He never made a fanfare of it either - he just saw it as a practical matter. I think I never saw housework as woman's work because of him. One contributes to the mess, one does their share of the cleaning.

On money, I'd say each partner should pay in proportion to what they earn. If one earns £50k and the other £25k then the respective contributions are 67% and 33%.