Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is bringing up income in the context of household responsibilities a dick move?

If she works outside of the home as much as he does but makes way less, that seems like an opportunity for her to do fewer hours working - because the household finances won't take so much of a hit - and reduce her overall workload.

If her lower income is a reflection of fewer hours worked outside the home, then its fair to consider that in terms of equitable overall workload.

That shouldn't be the whole discussion. I can totally see guys blowing off any concerns at all about equitable contributions to the household. (Sounds a lot like OP's husband is doing just that.) But I don't see why relative income is off limits entirely.

Because it is a dick move. I work full time. I make more than my husband, and still do more at home. It never occurred to me to bring money into "division of labor" talks. One, even though he makes less, he is working hard and his job simply doesn't lend itself to working fewer hours. It's always men who feel that simply because they bring in a paycheck, they can do little or nothing at home.

I don't get this. Maintaining a household requires a certain combined level of effort. Part of that effort is doing the sort of work that generates the money necessary to finance the household. It's arbitrary to ignore that slice of the effort when discussing overall division of labor.

So, in your mind, even though we both work 40+ hours outside of home, one of us gets a pass on a whole lot of stuff because one of us brings in a bit more? So let's say I'm a nurse working on my feet all day long and bring in 70K (I'm not a nurse and don't really know how much they make, just using it as an example) and he is a lawyer working in house making 300K, he gets to come home and prop his feet up while I have to take on a second job at home becasue my profession is not as lucrative. I can guarantee that a nurse is working 10 times harder than an in-house lawyer.

It's not a matter of getting a pass. But if one person works 50 hours to make $300k and the other person works 50 hours to make $50k and the couple is overwhelmed between the effort required to work both jobs and take care of the house/family, it would be rational to dial back the hours spent on the $50k job and devote those hours to household effort. Cut back expenditures to account for the lost income.

OP here. Yes the teens help, and yes we can afford to outsource. That’s not really the point. I would like him to just be a more active member of our family. He used to be more involved, when the kids were younger and he worked fewer hours (but still a lot.)

And no I don’t pressure him to work this much, we live on significantly less than he makes and I’m fine with that. My income is basically irrelevant - I do it because I like it and it helps keep me sane.

I feel like Jen Anniston in that movie where she screams “I want you to WANT to do the dishes!” except it’s not dishes. It’s more that I want him to WANT to have a more active role in our lives. He’s leaned too much into almost a Don Draper/1950’s mentality and I don’t like it or want it.

Men don't care about feelings. Just hire a cleaning service. Best money ever spent.

Two teenagers?

Do they do laundry? Do they walk the dog? Do they help with meals? Clean up after family meals? Do they do yard work? What about things like vacuuming or mopping the floor?

Sorry, but there is no excuse why two teens in the house can't help. Not to mention household skills need to be learned in order to be self-sufficient as adults.

Oh, and saying the teens need to focus on school and extracurricular activities doesn't cut it. Plenty of kids do all that AND help out in the home. Plus the lower income kids are also holding down part-time jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is bringing up income in the context of household responsibilities a dick move?

If she works outside of the home as much as he does but makes way less, that seems like an opportunity for her to do fewer hours working - because the household finances won't take so much of a hit - and reduce her overall workload.

If her lower income is a reflection of fewer hours worked outside the home, then its fair to consider that in terms of equitable overall workload.

That shouldn't be the whole discussion. I can totally see guys blowing off any concerns at all about equitable contributions to the household. (Sounds a lot like OP's husband is doing just that.) But I don't see why relative income is off limits entirely.

Because it is a dick move. I work full time. I make more than my husband, and still do more at home. It never occurred to me to bring money into "division of labor" talks. One, even though he makes less, he is working hard and his job simply doesn't lend itself to working fewer hours. It's always men who feel that simply because they bring in a paycheck, they can do little or nothing at home.

I don't get this. Maintaining a household requires a certain combined level of effort. Part of that effort is doing the sort of work that generates the money necessary to finance the household. It's arbitrary to ignore that slice of the effort when discussing overall division of labor.

So, in your mind, even though we both work 40+ hours outside of home, one of us gets a pass on a whole lot of stuff because one of us brings in a bit more? So let's say I'm a nurse working on my feet all day long and bring in 70K (I'm not a nurse and don't really know how much they make, just using it as an example) and he is a lawyer working in house making 300K, he gets to come home and prop his feet up while I have to take on a second job at home becasue my profession is not as lucrative. I can guarantee that a nurse is working 10 times harder than an in-house lawyer.

DP

In general, I agree that number of hours worked is more relevant than income. But this is a bit different - in this specific scenario, she's asking him to finish work in time to help with dinner, ie, earlier than he's finishing already.

If there is one person dominating the income (let's use your $70k/$300k example) then, yes, asking them to leave earlier brings the income into the conversation. If you're supporting the bulk of the family's economic need, then you may need to stay as late as you need to stay, and asking that person to step out at a particular time to make dinner for fairness reasons seems unwise.

I agree that asking to leave work early to start dinner would be a non-starter in our house too. But in general, simply bringing in more money doesn't excuse one spouse from participating fully in the home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is bringing up income in the context of household responsibilities a dick move?

If she works outside of the home as much as he does but makes way less, that seems like an opportunity for her to do fewer hours working - because the household finances won't take so much of a hit - and reduce her overall workload.

If her lower income is a reflection of fewer hours worked outside the home, then its fair to consider that in terms of equitable overall workload.

That shouldn't be the whole discussion. I can totally see guys blowing off any concerns at all about equitable contributions to the household. (Sounds a lot like OP's husband is doing just that.) But I don't see why relative income is off limits entirely.

Because it is a dick move. I work full time. I make more than my husband, and still do more at home. It never occurred to me to bring money into "division of labor" talks. One, even though he makes less, he is working hard and his job simply doesn't lend itself to working fewer hours. It's always men who feel that simply because they bring in a paycheck, they can do little or nothing at home.

I don't get this. Maintaining a household requires a certain combined level of effort. Part of that effort is doing the sort of work that generates the money necessary to finance the household. It's arbitrary to ignore that slice of the effort when discussing overall division of labor.

So, in your mind, even though we both work 40+ hours outside of home, one of us gets a pass on a whole lot of stuff because one of us brings in a bit more? So let's say I'm a nurse working on my feet all day long and bring in 70K (I'm not a nurse and don't really know how much they make, just using it as an example) and he is a lawyer working in house making 300K, he gets to come home and prop his feet up while I have to take on a second job at home becasue my profession is not as lucrative. I can guarantee that a nurse is working 10 times harder than an in-house lawyer.

DP

In general, I agree that number of hours worked is more relevant than income. But this is a bit different - in this specific scenario, she's asking him to finish work in time to help with dinner, ie, earlier than he's finishing already.

If there is one person dominating the income (let's use your $70k/$300k example) then, yes, asking them to leave earlier brings the income into the conversation. If you're supporting the bulk of the family's economic need, then you may need to stay as late as you need to stay, and asking that person to step out at a particular time to make dinner for fairness reasons seems unwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is bringing up income in the context of household responsibilities a dick move?

If she works outside of the home as much as he does but makes way less, that seems like an opportunity for her to do fewer hours working - because the household finances won't take so much of a hit - and reduce her overall workload.

If her lower income is a reflection of fewer hours worked outside the home, then its fair to consider that in terms of equitable overall workload.

That shouldn't be the whole discussion. I can totally see guys blowing off any concerns at all about equitable contributions to the household. (Sounds a lot like OP's husband is doing just that.) But I don't see why relative income is off limits entirely.

Because it is a dick move. I work full time. I make more than my husband, and still do more at home. It never occurred to me to bring money into "division of labor" talks. One, even though he makes less, he is working hard and his job simply doesn't lend itself to working fewer hours. It's always men who feel that simply because they bring in a paycheck, they can do little or nothing at home.

I don't get this. Maintaining a household requires a certain combined level of effort. Part of that effort is doing the sort of work that generates the money necessary to finance the household. It's arbitrary to ignore that slice of the effort when discussing overall division of labor.

Not PP, but there are earnings and there are hours worked. In my view, the earnings are not really relevant to a discussion of division of labor. Yes, I suppose that the lower earning person could try to work fewer hours to take on more at home, but there are issues with that, including a lot of jobs don't let you do that.

What OP hasn't said is how much her DH works compared to her, and what the overall workload is. I would be annoyed if I worked like crazy at my job and was supporting the household, and then was told that I should be more involved at home.

Exactly, it's not like the lower earning person can just decide to work 10 hours less in most cases. They both work full time and a lot more has to be considered other than just "I make more, so of course you should take on most of the household chores."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is bringing up income in the context of household responsibilities a dick move?

If she works outside of the home as much as he does but makes way less, that seems like an opportunity for her to do fewer hours working - because the household finances won't take so much of a hit - and reduce her overall workload.

If her lower income is a reflection of fewer hours worked outside the home, then its fair to consider that in terms of equitable overall workload.

That shouldn't be the whole discussion. I can totally see guys blowing off any concerns at all about equitable contributions to the household. (Sounds a lot like OP's husband is doing just that.) But I don't see why relative income is off limits entirely.

Because it is a dick move. I work full time. I make more than my husband, and still do more at home. It never occurred to me to bring money into "division of labor" talks. One, even though he makes less, he is working hard and his job simply doesn't lend itself to working fewer hours. It's always men who feel that simply because they bring in a paycheck, they can do little or nothing at home.

I don't get this. Maintaining a household requires a certain combined level of effort. Part of that effort is doing the sort of work that generates the money necessary to finance the household. It's arbitrary to ignore that slice of the effort when discussing overall division of labor.

So, in your mind, even though we both work 40+ hours outside of home, one of us gets a pass on a whole lot of stuff because one of us brings in a bit more? So let's say I'm a nurse working on my feet all day long and bring in 70K (I'm not a nurse and don't really know how much they make, just using it as an example) and he is a lawyer working in house making 300K, he gets to come home and prop his feet up while I have to take on a second job at home becasue my profession is not as lucrative. I can guarantee that a nurse is working 10 times harder than an in-house lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is bringing up income in the context of household responsibilities a dick move?

If she works outside of the home as much as he does but makes way less, that seems like an opportunity for her to do fewer hours working - because the household finances won't take so much of a hit - and reduce her overall workload.

If her lower income is a reflection of fewer hours worked outside the home, then its fair to consider that in terms of equitable overall workload.

That shouldn't be the whole discussion. I can totally see guys blowing off any concerns at all about equitable contributions to the household. (Sounds a lot like OP's husband is doing just that.) But I don't see why relative income is off limits entirely.

Because it is a dick move. I work full time. I make more than my husband, and still do more at home. It never occurred to me to bring money into "division of labor" talks. One, even though he makes less, he is working hard and his job simply doesn't lend itself to working fewer hours. It's always men who feel that simply because they bring in a paycheck, they can do little or nothing at home.

I don't get this. Maintaining a household requires a certain combined level of effort. Part of that effort is doing the sort of work that generates the money necessary to finance the household. It's arbitrary to ignore that slice of the effort when discussing overall division of labor.

Not PP, but there are earnings and there are hours worked. In my view, the earnings are not really relevant to a discussion of division of labor. Yes, I suppose that the lower earning person could try to work fewer hours to take on more at home, but there are issues with that, including a lot of jobs don't let you do that.

What OP hasn't said is how much her DH works compared to her, and what the overall workload is. I would be annoyed if I worked like crazy at my job and was supporting the household, and then was told that I should be more involved at home.

OP - look up the term DARVO

You should be able to bring up concerns without him turning it into an attack on you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is bringing up income in the context of household responsibilities a dick move?

If she works outside of the home as much as he does but makes way less, that seems like an opportunity for her to do fewer hours working - because the household finances won't take so much of a hit - and reduce her overall workload.

If her lower income is a reflection of fewer hours worked outside the home, then its fair to consider that in terms of equitable overall workload.

That shouldn't be the whole discussion. I can totally see guys blowing off any concerns at all about equitable contributions to the household. (Sounds a lot like OP's husband is doing just that.) But I don't see why relative income is off limits entirely.

Because it is a dick move. I work full time. I make more than my husband, and still do more at home. It never occurred to me to bring money into "division of labor" talks. One, even though he makes less, he is working hard and his job simply doesn't lend itself to working fewer hours. It's always men who feel that simply because they bring in a paycheck, they can do little or nothing at home.

I don't get this. Maintaining a household requires a certain combined level of effort. Part of that effort is doing the sort of work that generates the money necessary to finance the household. It's arbitrary to ignore that slice of the effort when discussing overall division of labor.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I feel like a task manager and household employee. I’d like him to participate more in family life. I’d also like him to show more interest in us as a couple and not just housemates/parents (although he has plenty of interest in sex!)

But for example if I ask him to be more involved (or really involved at all) in meal planning and dinner prep and to please finish work in time to do this I basically get told that he way out earns me (true) and that he is the main dog walker (also true but why does that have to do with what I am asking?)

This has a lot to do with what he is asking. Can he cover all of the bills and payments with just his salary or does he need a contribution from you? If he needs a contribution and you have to work the same amount of hours to get that contribution then he should be working the same amount of hours towards home stuff as you or contributing the cost towards a maid service to even out the hours you put towards home life.

Op - I don't think your expectations are reasonable or healthy.

Is your husband comfortable coming to you to point out a list of your flaws? And would you respond without getting defensive or emotionally reactive and just validate those flaws and change to conform to his expectations? That is what you are asking of him.

If yes and that is the pattern in your home, and you feel that is how you react when he comes to you with flaws but he doesn't react similarly - then it is time for couples counselling. Personally I think that is an unhealthy way to manage conflict. Viewing the other person through the lens of flaws and wanting to list those to them and expecting them to just yes maam, no maam you really isn't a healthy marriage.

Do you work the same number of hours? Do you have the same commutes? Basically are you both away from the home for the same amount of time.

Your first couple sentences are a little telling. You want to be able to tell him about all his flaws but you also will get upset if he responds in kind. It is only to be one direction. You tell him everything he does wrong and he just keeps quiet? Why if you feel you shouldn't have to suppress how you feel - are you then expecting him to suppress how he feels?

This sounds like two issues - one is communication and one is resentment over what feels like an unequal division of labor.

How much free or relaxing time do each of you have? Sitting around on your phone / tablet / laptop / TV / video games or going to the gym or meeting up with friends or doing puzzles or etc. How much time do each of you spend that is for you?

Your kids are older - are they as independent as they could be? Is there a disagreement about how much needs to be done as he feels you do everything for them and they should be doing some of that themselves? Does he agree that the tasks you are doing that are overburdening you need to be done?

You need to have a conversation that isn't you pointing out his flaws or telling him what to do or telling him where he is wrong. No one responds well to that. You need instead to have a discussion where both people get to talk about how they feel and what they are struggling with and where they are aligned and not aligned - and if you can't then get a neutral third party like a counsellor to faciliate that.

Anonymous wrote:Op, forget this blah blah blah about your feelings. Tweak how you do things. Put the teenagers to work. They should be helping you more. Some will some won't. A lot of it is personality. And also, you can't change your husband's personality.

So just figure out how to get everything done on her own? Sounds like he wins get to do nothing like he always wanted.

ORRRRRR

they pay a professional to sit down with them and discuss how to communicate with each other effectively. This is not about who didn't take the trash out today. This is about her telling him that there is a problem and he dismisses her without any consideration.