Anonymous wrote:

I would like him to just be a more active member of our family.

So, who walks the dog with him?
Who goes with him, spends the time with him. A perfect opportunity. If anyone's interested. A walk and talk. Perfect time to bond with Dad.

Dogs and inanimate objects and screen time are nice because none of those talk to you or ask you things or have requests. Easy peasy.

I would like him to just be a more active member of our family.

So, who walks the dog with him?
Who goes with him, spends the time with him. A perfect opportunity. If anyone's interested. A walk and talk. Perfect time to bond with Dad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Why not dial back the hours on the $300K job? Oh, because you think it's so important that they couldn't possibly do that? I make over $300K and let me tell you, my job isn't that important. I would never ask my husband to dial back his job just because he made less than me.

It's just less efficient. If the problem is not enough combined hours in the week to finance the household and put in the labor required to manage it, you can yield more hours for less cost if you cut back the lower paying job.

That's not necessarily the case. A school teacher can't just cut down their hours. A lawyer who decided not to pursue partner could. Also, people have feelings and opinions, so even if your mathematical equation were true, which it's not, it fails to take into account about a million important things.

Sure. It's a rational starting point. But there's no need to be dogmatic about it. If the other variables don't make it a good solution, then the couple needs to adapt.

In any event, I started down this conversational path back before I'd read more of OP's story. With them, it doesn't sound like it's really a matter of having too few hours to secure the finances and do the non-financial work. Sounds like her husband really just doesn't want to be engaged with the family -- which is a different problem. His excusing himself because of his financial contributions is kind of a red herring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Why not dial back the hours on the $300K job? Oh, because you think it's so important that they couldn't possibly do that? I make over $300K and let me tell you, my job isn't that important. I would never ask my husband to dial back his job just because he made less than me.

It's just less efficient. If the problem is not enough combined hours in the week to finance the household and put in the labor required to manage it, you can yield more hours for less cost if you cut back the lower paying job.

That's not necessarily the case. A school teacher can't just cut down their hours. A lawyer who decided not to pursue partner could. Also, people have feelings and opinions, so even if your mathematical equation were true, which it's not, it fails to take into account about a million important things.

Like delegating more and managing people better at work

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t bother Op. don’t bother talking about feelings with someone who clearly doesn’t want to nor can handle it. He’s emotionally stunted.

Focus on yourself, your kids, your friends & family, your career and activities.

Outsource the cooking, cleaning, yard work.

You’ll still have to do all the household’s thinking, organizing, planning, problem solving.

View you spouse as dim-witted arm candy.

Consider changing your PoA and health decisions to someone who gives a damn and is reliable.

Teach your kids to set boundaries w “takers”.

To be sure, this kind of attitude is likely why he is detached in the first place. Men withdraw when their women henpeck, nag, and make it obvious they "view" them as "dim-witted." Who would want to engage with such a person if you're being treated that way?

Lol.

If someone showed me my consistent track record of dimwittedness I’d sure show them… more dimwittedness!

Oh that’s right! There’s no such thing as a dim-witting, slobbish man.
It’s all the woman’s fault for not accommodating and coddling him more! Right. Yeah. That would make him finally start picking up after himself and not hiding at the office or on his IPhone!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t bother Op. don’t bother talking about feelings with someone who clearly doesn’t want to nor can handle it. He’s emotionally stunted.

Focus on yourself, your kids, your friends & family, your career and activities.

Outsource the cooking, cleaning, yard work.

You’ll still have to do all the household’s thinking, organizing, planning, problem solving.

View you spouse as dim-witted arm candy.

Consider changing your PoA and health decisions to someone who gives a damn and is reliable.

Teach your kids to set boundaries w “takers”.

To be sure, this kind of attitude is likely why he is detached in the first place. Men withdraw when their women henpeck, nag, and make it obvious they "view" them as "dim-witted." Who would want to engage with such a person if you're being treated that way?

#DARVO

I think you need to really sort out what the real issue is, because I sincerely doubt the issue is that you need him to quit working an hour earlier once a week to meal plan and make some fajitas.

If the real issue is involvement in family life, then you need to very specifically consider what that might look like to you. I’m the big earner in my marriage, and I have a husband with his own business who likes to sleep in and then work late. I need him to log off between 6 and 9 and fully participate in family life 2 or 3 times a week. If he wants to work until midnight after I go to bed and then sleep in, fine by me. But “full participation” means connecting with us and just sort of doing whatever needs to be done. It isn’t ever going to be him cooking a meal. He has never learned how and takes him 3 hours when he tries because he can only do one thing at a time.

A lot of times full participation is doing something fun like watching a movie together. It isn’t arguing about chores we can outsource because I make a crap ton of money. When you have a lot of money, you likely need to prioritize connection, not chores. I got tired of cooking 21 meals a week and now have someone in my home who generally makes breakfast and dinner for us. That is what you do if you have lots of extra money. Meanwhile, I can go to a movie with my husband or the whole family on a random Tuesday night.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Why not dial back the hours on the $300K job? Oh, because you think it's so important that they couldn't possibly do that? I make over $300K and let me tell you, my job isn't that important. I would never ask my husband to dial back his job just because he made less than me.

It's just less efficient. If the problem is not enough combined hours in the week to finance the household and put in the labor required to manage it, you can yield more hours for less cost if you cut back the lower paying job.

That's not necessarily the case. A school teacher can't just cut down their hours. A lawyer who decided not to pursue partner could. Also, people have feelings and opinions, so even if your mathematical equation were true, which it's not, it fails to take into account about a million important things.

Make him take the kids with him on the dog walks. Every single time.

Anonymous wrote:Don’t bother Op. don’t bother talking about feelings with someone who clearly doesn’t want to nor can handle it. He’s emotionally stunted.

Focus on yourself, your kids, your friends & family, your career and activities.

Outsource the cooking, cleaning, yard work.

You’ll still have to do all the household’s thinking, organizing, planning, problem solving.

View you spouse as dim-witted arm candy.

Consider changing your PoA and health decisions to someone who gives a damn and is reliable.

Teach your kids to set boundaries w “takers”.

To be sure, this kind of attitude is likely why he is detached in the first place. Men withdraw when their women henpeck, nag, and make it obvious they "view" them as "dim-witted." Who would want to engage with such a person if you're being treated that way?

Don’t bother Op. don’t bother talking about feelings with someone who clearly doesn’t want to nor can handle it. He’s emotionally stunted.

Focus on yourself, your kids, your friends & family, your career and activities.

Outsource the cooking, cleaning, yard work.

You’ll still have to do all the household’s thinking, organizing, planning, problem solving.

View you spouse as dim-witted arm candy.

Consider changing your PoA and health decisions to someone who gives a damn and is reliable.

Teach your kids to set boundaries w “takers”.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Why not dial back the hours on the $300K job? Oh, because you think it's so important that they couldn't possibly do that? I make over $300K and let me tell you, my job isn't that important. I would never ask my husband to dial back his job just because he made less than me.

It's just less efficient. If the problem is not enough combined hours in the week to finance the household and put in the labor required to manage it, you can yield more hours for less cost if you cut back the lower paying job.

Anonymous wrote: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.

But it kind of is the point. There are only so many hours in the day, so if he figures he's spending 1 hour a day walking the dog a couple of times, he could instead spend that 1 hour doing something with or for the family and you could hire a dog walker. Now, if he likes walking the dog, then maybe the dog walker only does it once a day and he does it the other time, thereby freeing up 30 minutes for him to do something with the family.

Fundamentally, if he doesn't WANT to spend time with you or your kids, then you need to come to terms with that and decide what you want to do in that environment. If he feels overwhelmed with the things he HAS to do (work, dog walking), then maybe you can have a conversation to see how you (as a couple) can take some things off his plate. (I'm being a bit tongue in cheek here if all he does is work and walk the dog...).

You seem to have these vague notions of how things SHOULD be, but if you both don't want things to be that way, then you have a real problem. My husband and I have structured our life in a way that works for us. We sleep in separate bedrooms, for example, because he snores and I need sleep. It doesn't affect our lives on other levels (such as intimacy), and it works for us. Might not work for you, and that's ok. We also do order food out at least once a week. Is Chipotle as healthy as something we could cook at home? No. Is it easy and enjoyable for us and our kids and does it make our lives easier knowing we don't have to plan to make anything that night? Yes. You might be offended at the idea of feeding your kids take out, in which case, that plan isn't for you. But if works for us.

Bottom line - you need to figure out where you and your husband stand on all thins and how far apart you really are.

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.

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.

Why not dial back the hours on the $300K job? Oh, because you think it's so important that they couldn't possibly do that? I make over $300K and let me tell you, my job isn't that important. I would never ask my husband to dial back his job just because he made less than me.