Husband still not working. What would you do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ft is full time. As in sahm. As in honorable position. OP apparently has something different. As in sahd. As in leech. Got it?

Op's post isn't about what's honorable or not honorable. Her post is about what is going to assist in financial distress. It's only honorable if jointly agreed to. If it's not, it's leeching. I don't care if you're a mom or dad.
P.S. All parents are full time parents. There's no such thing as part time parenting. But you already knew that.

Parenting is a hands on doing job. Hard to be doing it when you don't see the kid for ten hours a day. Unless the kid's in school, you need to pay someone to do the work for you, while you sit at your office desk.

[Anonymous]

OP, I have a question first...Since you are the breadwinner, does your husband do all or the majority of the housework/cooking/laundry/shopping + childcare duties? If so, does his not working bother you perhaps because you feel that it is a man's job to work and provide for his family vs. keeping the home fires burning?

Or:
Are you not only supporting him, but are you also tending to the house and child as well while he is simply living off of you?

If is is the latter, then I wouldn't take it anymore. After three yrs., he most definitely should have found some type of work and be contributing. If he hasn't and hasn't even been trying, then I don't see how staying w/this man is in any way benefiting you or your child unless like I mentioned before he is pulling his weight regarding helping out around the house and w/your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sorry you're in this situation. There are a lot of very taxing situations that a family can find themselves in, and this is definitely one of them.

When talking with your husband about this, I wouldn't use "you are a leech and I am embarrassed by you" even if that is true. I would focus on the degree to which your family is struggling financially in ways that can't be fixed by his family giving a swift infusion of cash. I think it's GREAT that he has family who is able to help when you need help. Many people do not have that ace in the hole.

That said, I think that your attitude that he must provide for you financially or else you cannot respect him is a complete crock of shit. Your husband is trying to grow a business. He is caring for your child. You say that he needs to contribute? He IS contributing, the same way stay at home parents with part time jobs contribute to the family. I think your attitude is sexist and materialistic and I can't say I blame your husband for responding to you in an angry way.

Staying at home is something that should be agreed upon by both parties. He needs to take her feelings into consideration. There is a lot of pressure associated with being the only person bringing in money into a household.

He is not contributing in the way that they agreed upon and is taking advantage of his family especially if they are strapped for cash.

PP here. Yeah, I get that. I agree that it should be agreed by both people. I just find OP's attitude of "he was supposed to provide for me and he doesn't and now I'm embarrassed by him and don't respect or love him because he is not a good provider" to be sexist. Because that's what her attitude is. He's a lazy man who is failing in what she believes to be his primary duty.

Unless you are in the situation, you need to stop throwing around words like sexist. I am seriously feminist in belief and action. My husband lost his job while I was still bleeding from childbirth, and I had to cut short my leave and bonding with my newborn to go back to work. Reality is reality, and the different sexes aren't the exact same. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sorry you're in this situation. There are a lot of very taxing situations that a family can find themselves in, and this is definitely one of them.

When talking with your husband about this, I wouldn't use "you are a leech and I am embarrassed by you" even if that is true. I would focus on the degree to which your family is struggling financially in ways that can't be fixed by his family giving a swift infusion of cash. I think it's GREAT that he has family who is able to help when you need help. Many people do not have that ace in the hole.

That said, I think that your attitude that he must provide for you financially or else you cannot respect him is a complete crock of shit. Your husband is trying to grow a business. He is caring for your child. You say that he needs to contribute? He IS contributing, the same way stay at home parents with part time jobs contribute to the family. I think your attitude is sexist and materialistic and I can't say I blame your husband for responding to you in an angry way.

Staying at home is something that should be agreed upon by both parties. He needs to take her feelings into consideration. There is a lot of pressure associated with being the only person bringing in money into a household.

He is not contributing in the way that they agreed upon and is taking advantage of his family especially if they are strapped for cash.

PP here. Yeah, I get that. I agree that it should be agreed by both people. I just find OP's attitude of "he was supposed to provide for me and he doesn't and now I'm embarrassed by him and don't respect or love him because he is not a good provider" to be sexist. Because that's what her attitude is. He's a lazy man who is failing in what she believes to be his primary duty.

Unless you are in the situation, you need to stop throwing around words like sexist. I am seriously feminist in belief and action. My husband lost his job while I was still bleeding from childbirth, and I had to cut short my leave and bonding with my newborn to go back to work. Reality is reality, and the different sexes aren't the exact same. Please.

Did your husband assume the role of primary caregiver?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sorry you're in this situation. There are a lot of very taxing situations that a family can find themselves in, and this is definitely one of them.

When talking with your husband about this, I wouldn't use "you are a leech and I am embarrassed by you" even if that is true. I would focus on the degree to which your family is struggling financially in ways that can't be fixed by his family giving a swift infusion of cash. I think it's GREAT that he has family who is able to help when you need help. Many people do not have that ace in the hole.

That said, I think that your attitude that he must provide for you financially or else you cannot respect him is a complete crock of shit. Your husband is trying to grow a business. He is caring for your child. You say that he needs to contribute? He IS contributing, the same way stay at home parents with part time jobs contribute to the family. I think your attitude is sexist and materialistic and I can't say I blame your husband for responding to you in an angry way.

Staying at home is something that should be agreed upon by both parties. He needs to take her feelings into consideration. There is a lot of pressure associated with being the only person bringing in money into a household.

He is not contributing in the way that they agreed upon and is taking advantage of his family especially if they are strapped for cash.

PP here. Yeah, I get that. I agree that it should be agreed by both people. I just find OP's attitude of "he was supposed to provide for me and he doesn't and now I'm embarrassed by him and don't respect or love him because he is not a good provider" to be sexist. Because that's what her attitude is. He's a lazy man who is failing in what she believes to be his primary duty.

Unless you are in the situation, you need to stop throwing around words like sexist. I am seriously feminist in belief and action. My husband lost his job while I was still bleeding from childbirth, and I had to cut short my leave and bonding with my newborn to go back to work. Reality is reality, and the different sexes aren't the exact same. Please.

Did your husband assume the role of primary caregiver?

You would have to explain what you mean by "assume the role of primary caregiver" and the significance you think it holds. What if I was planning to be a SAHM? What if we had agreed to it? What if we both worked full time and I seriously shortened my maternity leave? Perhaps you just like to talk out your ass. Feel free but do not call the poor OP a sexist for doing what she can to keep her family afloat. That just makes you sound sad and confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sorry you're in this situation. There are a lot of very taxing situations that a family can find themselves in, and this is definitely one of them.

When talking with your husband about this, I wouldn't use "you are a leech and I am embarrassed by you" even if that is true. I would focus on the degree to which your family is struggling financially in ways that can't be fixed by his family giving a swift infusion of cash. I think it's GREAT that he has family who is able to help when you need help. Many people do not have that ace in the hole.

That said, I think that your attitude that he must provide for you financially or else you cannot respect him is a complete crock of shit. Your husband is trying to grow a business. He is caring for your child. You say that he needs to contribute? He IS contributing, the same way stay at home parents with part time jobs contribute to the family. I think your attitude is sexist and materialistic and I can't say I blame your husband for responding to you in an angry way.

Staying at home is something that should be agreed upon by both parties. He needs to take her feelings into consideration. There is a lot of pressure associated with being the only person bringing in money into a household.

He is not contributing in the way that they agreed upon and is taking advantage of his family especially if they are strapped for cash.

PP here. Yeah, I get that. I agree that it should be agreed by both people. I just find OP's attitude of "he was supposed to provide for me and he doesn't and now I'm embarrassed by him and don't respect or love him because he is not a good provider" to be sexist. Because that's what her attitude is. He's a lazy man who is failing in what she believes to be his primary duty.

Unless you are in the situation, you need to stop throwing around words like sexist. I am seriously feminist in belief and action. My husband lost his job while I was still bleeding from childbirth, and I had to cut short my leave and bonding with my newborn to go back to work. Reality is reality, and the different sexes aren't the exact same. Please.

Did your husband assume the role of primary caregiver?

You would have to explain what you mean by "assume the role of primary caregiver" and the significance you think it holds. What if I was planning to be a SAHM? What if we had agreed to it? What if we both worked full time and I seriously shortened my maternity leave? Perhaps you just like to talk out your ass. Feel free but do not call the poor OP a sexist for doing what she can to keep her family afloat. That just makes you sound sad and confused.

is the baby healthy, happy, receiving steady love and attention from regular caregiver? Asking 'cause if you think it's really gonna be all about which parent is more whatever for the next 18 years you are both in for a rude awakening.

[Anonymous]

I would accept him as a SAHD.

Then we would move to a smaller house and try and cut other expenses so that things are better financially.

These things happen. Hopefully your marriage is stronger than this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sorry you're in this situation. There are a lot of very taxing situations that a family can find themselves in, and this is definitely one of them.

When talking with your husband about this, I wouldn't use "you are a leech and I am embarrassed by you" even if that is true. I would focus on the degree to which your family is struggling financially in ways that can't be fixed by his family giving a swift infusion of cash. I think it's GREAT that he has family who is able to help when you need help. Many people do not have that ace in the hole.

That said, I think that your attitude that he must provide for you financially or else you cannot respect him is a complete crock of shit. Your husband is trying to grow a business. He is caring for your child. You say that he needs to contribute? He IS contributing, the same way stay at home parents with part time jobs contribute to the family. I think your attitude is sexist and materialistic and I can't say I blame your husband for responding to you in an angry way.

Staying at home is something that should be agreed upon by both parties. He needs to take her feelings into consideration. There is a lot of pressure associated with being the only person bringing in money into a household.

He is not contributing in the way that they agreed upon and is taking advantage of his family especially if they are strapped for cash.

PP here. Yeah, I get that. I agree that it should be agreed by both people. I just find OP's attitude of "he was supposed to provide for me and he doesn't and now I'm embarrassed by him and don't respect or love him because he is not a good provider" to be sexist. Because that's what her attitude is. He's a lazy man who is failing in what she believes to be his primary duty.

Unless you are in the situation, you need to stop throwing around words like sexist. I am seriously feminist in belief and action. My husband lost his job while I was still bleeding from childbirth, and I had to cut short my leave and bonding with my newborn to go back to work. Reality is reality, and the different sexes aren't the exact same. Please.

Did your husband assume the role of primary caregiver?

You would have to explain what you mean by "assume the role of primary caregiver" and the significance you think it holds. What if I was planning to be a SAHM? What if we had agreed to it? What if we both worked full time and I seriously shortened my maternity leave? Perhaps you just like to talk out your ass. Feel free but do not call the poor OP a sexist for doing what she can to keep her family afloat. That just makes you sound sad and confused.

I'm the original PP who you instructed to stop throwing around words, and I stand by what I said. The OP's belief that it is a man's job to provide financially for his family - his childcare and housework contributions do not count as pertains to the respect she has for him, which she has stated is decreasing as a result of his lack of paid employment - actually does reinforce sexist gender roles where a man's job is to provide financially for his family, while the woman's job is to be taken care of financially by a man and tend to the home and the children. This is a completely separate issue from the family struggling financially. If your ability to love and respect your spouse is directly tied to them living up to a gender-based obligation, the way the OP has said many times (by being embarrassed by him because he's unemployed, not respecting him because he won't get a job, etc.), then yes, I will call you a sexist. Because it's true.

That said, I think the OP's husband sounds like a loser. Lost his job when his child was born and has not had one for her entire life. He reacts violently to his wife's attempts to talk about it by throwing things around. I think the OP sounds frazzled from being the only person bringing in any money into the family, and is sad because of the choices she's forced to make as a result of this (fewer hours of childcare for their daughter, accepting money from his parents, etc.). But I also think it sounds like they both have a lot of pride that they could stand to let go of. The husband could take a job that isn't the best job ever. The OP could get over her attachment to the idea that a man is obligated to provide money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ft is full time. As in sahm. As in honorable position. OP apparently has something different. As in sahd. As in leech. Got it?

Op's post isn't about what's honorable or not honorable. Her post is about what is going to assist in financial distress. It's only honorable if jointly agreed to. If it's not, it's leeching. I don't care if you're a mom or dad.
P.S. All parents are full time parents. There's no such thing as part time parenting. But you already knew that.

Parenting is a hands on doing job. Hard to be doing it when you don't see the kid for ten hours a day. Unless the kid's in school, you need to pay someone to do the work for you, while you sit at your office desk.

I know, working to make money to buy things like food is so selfish....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ft is full time. As in sahm. As in honorable position. OP apparently has something different. As in sahd. As in leech. Got it?

Op's post isn't about what's honorable or not honorable. Her post is about what is going to assist in financial distress. It's only honorable if jointly agreed to. If it's not, it's leeching. I don't care if you're a mom or dad.
P.S. All parents are full time parents. There's no such thing as part time parenting. But you already knew that.

Parenting is a hands on doing job. Hard to be doing it when you don't see the kid for ten hours a day. Unless the kid's in school, you need to pay someone to do the work for you, while you sit at your office desk.

Parenting is a lifetime job it never stops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sorry you're in this situation. There are a lot of very taxing situations that a family can find themselves in, and this is definitely one of them.

When talking with your husband about this, I wouldn't use "you are a leech and I am embarrassed by you" even if that is true. I would focus on the degree to which your family is struggling financially in ways that can't be fixed by his family giving a swift infusion of cash. I think it's GREAT that he has family who is able to help when you need help. Many people do not have that ace in the hole.

That said, I think that your attitude that he must provide for you financially or else you cannot respect him is a complete crock of shit. Your husband is trying to grow a business. He is caring for your child. You say that he needs to contribute? He IS contributing, the same way stay at home parents with part time jobs contribute to the family. I think your attitude is sexist and materialistic and I can't say I blame your husband for responding to you in an angry way.

Staying at home is something that should be agreed upon by both parties. He needs to take her feelings into consideration. There is a lot of pressure associated with being the only person bringing in money into a household.

He is not contributing in the way that they agreed upon and is taking advantage of his family especially if they are strapped for cash.

PP here. Yeah, I get that. I agree that it should be agreed by both people. I just find OP's attitude of "he was supposed to provide for me and he doesn't and now I'm embarrassed by him and don't respect or love him because he is not a good provider" to be sexist. Because that's what her attitude is. He's a lazy man who is failing in what she believes to be his primary duty.

Unless you are in the situation, you need to stop throwing around words like sexist. I am seriously feminist in belief and action. My husband lost his job while I was still bleeding from childbirth, and I had to cut short my leave and bonding with my newborn to go back to work. Reality is reality, and the different sexes aren't the exact same. Please.

Did your husband assume the role of primary caregiver?

You would have to explain what you mean by "assume the role of primary caregiver" and the significance you think it holds. What if I was planning to be a SAHM? What if we had agreed to it? What if we both worked full time and I seriously shortened my maternity leave? Perhaps you just like to talk out your ass. Feel free but do not call the poor OP a sexist for doing what she can to keep her family afloat. That just makes you sound sad and confused.

I'm the original PP who you instructed to stop throwing around words, and I stand by what I said. The OP's belief that it is a man's job to provide financially for his family - his childcare and housework contributions do not count as pertains to the respect she has for him, which she has stated is decreasing as a result of his lack of paid employment - actually does reinforce sexist gender roles where a man's job is to provide financially for his family, while the woman's job is to be taken care of financially by a man and tend to the home and the children. This is a completely separate issue from the family struggling financially. If your ability to love and respect your spouse is directly tied to them living up to a gender-based obligation, the way the OP has said many times (by being embarrassed by him because he's unemployed, not respecting him because he won't get a job, etc.), then yes, I will call you a sexist. Because it's true.

That said, I think the OP's husband sounds like a loser. Lost his job when his child was born and has not had one for her entire life. He reacts violently to his wife's attempts to talk about it by throwing things around. I think the OP sounds frazzled from being the only person bringing in any money into the family, and is sad because of the choices she's forced to make as a result of this (fewer hours of childcare for their daughter, accepting money from his parents, etc.). But I also think it sounds like they both have a lot of pride that they could stand to let go of. The husband could take a job that isn't the best job ever. The OP could get over her attachment to the idea that a man is obligated to provide money.

I would dump my DH if he was like OPs also. I'm sorry but women do marry for financial reasons and there is nothing wrong ith it. I'm sure a ton of women on here would refuse to date a broke or unemployed man. People have their wants and needs. Marriage is too hard to be with someone who doesn't bring to the table what you need. OP knows she needs a man that works and brings in money. Her DH is no longer that man. I think she should move on for her own happiness sake.

[Anonymous]

Why is it that men can easily (and so so often) abdicate most if not all child rearing responsibilities to women and that's fine, but when women then expect to have someone else work, that's sexist? Who the hell is paying the bills in these families?

Staying at home is a luxury. If people didn't learn that jobs are fleeting and temporary and can't be counted on during this recession, government shutdown, and sequestration, they'll never learn.

[Anonymous]

OP, I've BTDT. To answer your question, yes, a good counselor will call your DH out on his behavior (all of it - the unilateral decision making, the unfairly directing anger at you and making threats, the refusal to communicate, the mooching off of mom and dad, etc.). However, the question is how will he respond? Does he have it in him to change? In my experience, when someone has gone this far down the road of not taking responsibility for his life and being enabled by his spouse and parents, its not likely he'll turn back.

So the question for you is: Can you accept him as he is, not bringing in income and not doing full-time SAHD duties? And if not, then you need to leave.

[Anonymous]

Counseling or leave. The situation sounds intolerable to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would accept him as a SAHD.

Then we would move to a smaller house and try and cut other expenses so that things are better financially.

These things happen. Hopefully your marriage is stronger than this.

This is actually a great solution, but only if:

1) It's feasible financially. The OP doesn't get into details (and I don't blame her) but she sounds a little more upset about finances than a few cutbacks would solve. If they have significant debt, a slightly smaller rent/mortgage alone isn't going to cut it, you know? You have to be very well-paid to be comfortable here with a family on one salary, even if you deliberately try to live cheaply.

2) It's feasible emotionally. Some people can deal with a SAHP for a spouse, some people can't - and the OP seems to fall into the latter category.

But yeah. If there is a way to make these pieces all work (and that's a big "if") it's better to accept the free childcare and other SAHP benefits for what they are, unless she wants a divorce. She's never going to be able to change him.