To hate how mums always have to sacrifice their career...

Why wouldn't I be able to protect myself? If I couldn't for whatever reason then of course he wouldn't just stand there and watch me get attacked but I also wouldn't just stand and watch if he got attacked either.

I don't expect my husband to do anything just because he has a penis. I don't need to be financially provided for and I certainly don't need to be protected.

Wish the narrative around this would change

What I love about my relationship with DH is I don't need him.
I love him and he enhances my life more than anyone I've ever met and I want him.... but I don't need him.
That's the dynamic I want in a relationship.

What has that got to do with anything?

If you were out on the street with your DH and god forbid you were attacked. Wouldn't you all expect your DH to protect you? As in DH is the one fighting off the attacker.

You don't have to 'gamble' though. You build a life together. So you have a house in both your names, you make investments together (in both names) over the years that provide passive income, this kind of thing. You do it together. It's not like anything is 'in his hands' particularly. If a man makes you feel like that, it's financial abuse.

It doesn't have to change the power dynamic, no, it's a gamble and sometimes a gamble pays off. But who would want to gamble on their financial health by leaving it all in the hands of someone else?

You're essentially relying on someone continuing to find you as attractive, useful and life-enhancing at 55 as you do at 25 for your financial health. Why wouldn't you build in a bit of insurance to this?

Carrying the financial load alone can be stressful. I would never expect that of my husband and no, I don't think it would be fair. I also don't expect it simply because he has a penis.

I don't think it's strange at all.

Being a SAHM (or SAHD) really doesn't need to 'change the power dynamic.' Of course, I can see how it could do, but it's by no means inevitable.

In my case living off a man would literally have been devastating. My ex husband had an alcohol-induced mental breakdown and unilaterally decided to stop work without telling me. If I had been financially dependent on him I would have been homeless within weeks. Not a day goes by when I don't say a silent prayer of thanks that I didn't stop working.

Obviously it's not always as black and white as this. But a version of this still happens pretty often and it is pretty important for many of us not to be reliant on a man long term. Of course there are scenarios when it makes sense for either partner to downgrade their career for months or years due to the demands of childcare and often that's the woman and that's fine. But over the lifetime of a marriage, if a dynamic develops whereby one party is wholly dependent on the other party for their finances it is a very precarious position to be in. Yes you can do certain things with marriage to mitigate this but marriage is no substitute for being independent financially.

It also does, whatever you may think, change the power dynamic. The bottom line is that the breadwinner can at any moment decide they want to withdraw financial support. That changes the power relationship in the partnership. It may suit the husband really nicely not to have to worry about childcare when he has three children under ten and is working really hard. When he has adult children and his wife is still financially dependent because she's been unable to restart her career its a very different ballgame.

I think what many of us are (rightly) concerned about is that society still makes it much much harder for women who do stop work for a bit to restart again later. It's still very much the default position that the woman will downgrade her career and many men don't seem to question this (such as the OP's husband). What could be a reasonable short-term solution can draw itself out into a lifelong vulnerability for a woman because she is unable to regain a foothold in the world of work. This may not be the be all and end all but it's pretty important.

I do understand that most families need two incomes Spacemannn, not to mention the COL crisis.

Circumstances are what they are, but, aside from the practicalities, there is also this attitude of "I would never live off my husband, over my dead body would I be funded by a man, being 'the provider' is not fair to him, we are equals..." Why do people think like this? What is not fair to him? He's your husband and you have a baby - what does he expect? You wouldn't be living off him any more than he's living off you. I find this attitude strange.

"chattels"? What are you on about?

The issue with that though is that these ''strengths'' are usually based on problematic and sexist gender stereotypes.

Also, no one said anything about proving themselves. I love my career, it never occurred to me to give it up. Why would I? Financial independence is important to me and I would never feel equal living off of my husband.

My older child’s key staff at childcare babysat him while I was having our second. She had the first cuddle that wasn’t us when we came home with our 23h old baby and counted down the days till he was enrolled in her room at childcare. I’d have felt like I was robbing my baby if I hadn’t enrolled him in childcare with her!

No, you asked when did putting your kids in childcare become the default.

I was explaining why it's the default for a large proportion of people.

Not everyone is married to super high earners, no matter what you read on mumsnet. Mortgages these days more often than not need two salaries to finance.

Plenty of people bristle at the idea of a SAHM, Scalottia. I understand why this would be and some if the concerns are valid.

I was responding to pps asking "Why didn't you put your kids in childcare - it's not about them, it's about you" etc. But why would we pay for something that we didn't want or need? There are lots of reasons people use childcare and this is obvious. I just find the "I went back to work asap because I need to prove I am equal to my husband and I will never live off a man who would not respect me and why can't he do childcare, why should I do it ..." a bit OTT because I don't think you have to be feeling / doing the same as your DH at all times to be equal or to have respect. You can respect each other just as much because you bring different strengths into a family.

Quite bizarre viewpoint - a bit faux innocence. Clearly the pp has a "rich" husband and didn't need to work (although I'd argue all women need to work, even if it's voluntary work).

Presumably they also home educate.

Your posts are full of guilt tripping and judgement - especially the last sentence of this one. Maybe try reading your posts objectively to gauge why people are bristling at them.

No. We've moved on since the 1950s and we don't want women being the chattels of men because they either don't work or work in low wage jobs.

Then why ask about why it's the norm for people to use childcare? Some people have a choice, of course but the fact is most people don't.

Yes of course.

You do realise most people have to work to pay for things, right? Mortgage, food, bills, etc etc.

But when did putting your children in childcare become 'default?' We didn't want to put our kids in childcare and there was no need to so we didn't. That's not anxiety really, childcare was just something that never even occurred to either of us, to be honest.

I totally accept childcare can provide a good balance for many families though. Of course it can. And it's essential for some families.

Why is your kids spending time with another woman awful for them? Hating that is not about them, it's about you.

And, here we go again, working, or using childcare, doesn't mean you don't spend time with your kids.

Essentially this is reflection of your anxiety about leaving your kids. I'm sorry it was tough, I struggled leaving DD too initially. Luckily she thrived with the arrangements we had and seeing that calmed my anxiety.