Wives... were you glad pubs weren't open today

Shenshen

RuMan wrote: »

Well if the only alternative was spending all day every Saturday and Sunday cleaning I think I'd take the "dirty" house.

Couple of hours a week, anything more is excessive. How dirty could a house be if everyone's at work most of the week ?

Once stuff crunches underfoot, or I find myself sticking to the floor, I feel it needs cleaning...

RuMan

Shenshen wrote: »

Once stuff crunches underfoot, or I find myself sticking to the floor, I feel it needs cleaning...

Well if you're cleaning all weekend every weekend something is wrong. That's probably more time spent cleaning then you're in the house mon - fri (ignoring sleeping).

.......

This post has been deleted.

Shenshen

RuMan wrote: »

Well if you're cleaning all weekend every weekend something is wrong. That's probably more time spent cleaning then you're in the house mon - fri (ignoring sleeping).

I never said I was, I usually clean during the week. But I would spend around 1h each evening doing chores around the house (plus about 1h cooking, but that's a joy not a chore)

The weekend is for the bigger jobs - we had to fix a clogged gutter a few weeks back, we'll have to paint one of the garden walls one of the coming weekends, the paint on the shed needs touching up, my car needs washing, etc.
It doesn't take all weekend, but it does eat into free time. While my husband was home, this would have all been done during the week while I was at work (ok, minus washing the car, obviously), and the weekends just held more "free" time.

RuMan

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Cleaning/housework/chores whatever you want to call it.

I was referring to you as a matter of fact. I don't think I've misrepresented you based on below. You stated you spent most of Saturday and a lot of sunday on various chores (or whatever you prefer to call them) -

Weekends, hoovering, grocery shopping, general cleaning, house maintenance chores (theres always something!), washing bathrooms, kitchen floor, washing/ironing, generally have something there wasnt time to do during the week like go to post office, mechanic, diy shop etc...... Takes up most of saturday and then on sunday a lot of the day goes on cooking and prep for the week ahead.

andekwarhola

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If I won the lottery, maybe I would get bored of not working. It's something I'd be willing to test extensively, :pac:

Alma Weak Stabilizer

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Its basically scrounging and I certainly would be totally unwilling to fund this type of lifestyle from my salary.

Scrounging? From who?

Your partner? The partner that ensures you no longer have to give up your free time to do household maintenance/cleaning?

Is that not worth something?

If I'm not much mistaken, you posted earlier in the thread that people should do what suits them, as a couple - then you turn around and accuse the partner who doesn't work of "scrounging":eek:.

There are many arrangements that suit different couples at different times in their lives.

Your posts suggest a very rigid, uncompromising attitude - to the extent that I think you're either trolling, or feel your partner has to "earn" the right to be your partner.

Good luck with your present arrangements. (Not being sarcastic!).

I have a very strong suspicion that your attitude will need to mellow if circumstances change.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Scrounging? From who?

Your partner? The partner that ensures you no longer have to give up your free time to do household maintenance/cleaning?

Is that not worth something?

If I'm not much mistaken, you posted earlier in the thread that people should do what suits them, as a couple - then you turn around and accuse the partner who doesn't work of "scrounging":eek:.

There are many arrangements that suit different couples at different times in their lives.

Your posts suggest a very rigid, uncompromising attitude - to the extent that I think you're either trolling, or feel your partner has to "earn" the right to be your partner.

Good luck with your present arrangements. (Not being sarcastic!).

I have a very strong suspicion that your attitude will need to mellow if circumstances change.

Fair enough scrounging was not the right word to use. It was more that personally I would expect people to work and earn a salary if they are able to. Giving up work to look after kids is a different story, giving up a job to try found a little business in something you like doing (that has potential to make money) or something along those lines would again be a different story (though I would encourage a person to keep their job until they were sure they could make money in their own business). In these scenarios (and possibly some others) there would not be an issue in helping to support the person but just deciding to quit work in order to cook the dinner and do your hobbies, no chance*. Yes of course people should do what suits them as a couple I just find it a bizarre choice.

As for attitude mellowing, I've already stated on a number of occasions that there is plenty of scope for compromise while still maintaining a general philosophy on how finances are managed. You cannot just say your way is right when there is in fact no right or wrong way.

*Unless of course you have lots of money and essentially retire young, totally different scenario then and by all means give up work.

RuMan

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you have kids you'll have all that plus numerous kids activities not to mention there'll be a much bigger mess with the kids.

If you need to give up work to manage all that now I've no idea how you'd cope with kids as well. Yet amazingly lots of people do manage.

Anyway my point was maintaining the home where there's only 2 adults isn't a full time thing. I stand by that.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Shenshen

RuMan wrote: »

...
Anyway my point was maintaining the home where there's only 2 adults isn't a full time thing. I stand by that.

Good, we all agree, then. Nobody ever said it was a full time thing, anyway.
What was said was that it's nice having the extra time, both for the partner staying at home and for the partner still working.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Alma Weak Stabilizer

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Fair enough scrounging was not the right word to use. It was more that personally I would expect people to work and earn a salary if they are able to. Giving up work to look after kids is a different story, giving up a job to try found a little business in something you like doing (that has potential to make money) or something along those lines would again be a different story (though I would encourage a person to keep their job until they were sure they could make money in their own business). These scenarios there would not be an issue in helping to support the person but just deciding to not work to cook the dinner and do your hobbies, no chance. Yes of course people should do what suits them as a couple I just find it a bizarre choice.

As for attitude mellowing, I've already stated on a number of occasions that there is plenty of scope for compromise while still maintaining a general philosophy on how finances are managed. You cannot just say your way is right when there is in fact no right or wrong way.

I think it's fair to say that those of us who have debated with you were not suggesting that their way was "right", so much as pointing out that rigid structures such as those you have so rigorously defended are unlikely to last a lifetime.

I'm glad you recognise that there are circumstances where one partner provides most of the income can still mean they are an equal partner in the relationship.

One last question, though!

If your partner decided to stay home and look after children in the future (or needed to, due to illness, or whatever) - would you still believe the disposable income wouldn't necessarily be shared 50/50?

RuMan

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair enough.

You gave up work. To do what I cant really follow.
Personally doing chores comes a very distant third to kids/work.

We're all different though so best of luck anyway.

.......

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you are happy to do so then fire away but I wouldn't do it unless I had enough money to maintain a certain level of lifestyle and support another person (i.e. if I had a lot of money).

Deleted User wrote: »

If your partner decided to stay home and look after children in the future (or needed to, due to illness, or whatever) - would you still believe the disposable income wouldn't necessarily be shared 50/50?

Yes I still believe that it would not necessarily be shared 50/50, I don't see why it automatically should be. That does not of course mean that one partner is left with nothing and the other is living a high life or other such scenarios being painted by some.

.......

This post has been deleted.

irelandrover

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can see how for ye having one person at home can make a huge difference. You seem to spend your entire life doing chores, cooking, or working, except for one hour in the gym every day.

That isnt normal for most people that dont have children.

irelandrover

irelandrover wrote: »

I can see how for ye having one person at home can make a huge difference. You seem to spend your entire life doing chores, cooking, or working, except for one hour in the gym every day.

That isnt normal for most people that dont have children.

Exactly I get in from work around 6:30 or 7pm and go to bed around 12:30am or so and I would barely spend 30 mins of that time doing any form of chore (dinner prep and putting stuff in the dishwasher really being the only thing).

Cyrus

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Yes I still believe that it would not necessarily be shared 50/50, I don't see why it automatically should be. That does not of course mean that one partner is left with nothing and the other is living a high life or other such scenarios being painted by some.

why not 50/50?

ceadaoin.

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

But they basically would be sitting at home scratching themselves as there would be nothing to do most of the time and look at all the money that would be given up (especially if both were high earners) and all that could be bought with it.

Lots of people don't care about constantly buying more stuff. For them, the benefits of a less stressful lifestyle outweigh the financial benefits. I know someone like this and it works for them.

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Yes I still believe that it would not necessarily be shared 50/50, I don't see why it automatically should be. That does not of course mean that one partner is left with nothing and the other is living a high life or other such scenarios being painted by some.

Because by choosing to stay home and look after children, they are enabling the other person to further their career and earning potential unhindered?

Personally, I don't work. I don't have to, my husband earns more than enough for us. Originally I intended to return to work after maternity leave, even though childcare would barely be covered by my salary, but we moved to another country for his job and I cant work here anyway. That was the best choice for our family

Am I a scrounger? Am I not entitled to equal access to the family income? (and yes, it's family income, not just my husbands) I suppose I could have vetoed the move, and continued working, but we would be in a significantly worse off financial position if I had

Cyrus

Cyrus wrote: »

why not 50/50?

Because its the earners money. I'm not saying it should be split 99/1, in fact I'm not so sure about actually splitting anything rather giving money when its wanted for something rather than automatically giving access to the pot.

Alma Weak Stabilizer

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Yes I still believe that it would not necessarily be shared 50/50, I don't see why it automatically should be. That does not of course mean that one partner is left with nothing and the other is living a high life or other such scenarios being painted by some.

Hmm. If I were your partner, I'd be inclined to make da*n sure that I wasn't the one to give up work, if it ever became necessary - especially if it was to look after a sick child that we both created.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

irelandrover

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i read them, you get up early, go to the gym, go to work, come home, do chores, cook and sit down for 45 minutes.

On the weekend you spend most of it doing chores so you apparently be an adult.

What was wrong with what i said?

.......

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't get married to someone who has a very different philosophy to financial management (like some posters here) would probably be a more accurate statement.

RuMan

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But what do you do all day ? You don't work and you've no kids to look after.

You claim you're busy, doing what I''ve no idea.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Alma Weak Stabilizer

Alma Weak Stabilizer wrote: »

Because its the earners money. I'm not saying it should be split 99/1, in fact I'm not so sure about actually splitting anything rather giving money when its wanted for something rather than automatically giving access to the pot.

So, if in future your OH has to stay at home & mind a child /children, you believe she should have to come to you and ask you for money to buy anything?
Seriously, it's like the 1950s in your world!