to be angry that she's changed her mind about going back to work

[Zealey]

OK. I'm a man, (so that immediately probably makes me disliked here ;) But, I'd genuniely like a female perspective on this.
I wasn't fussed about having a baby, but my partner was so desperate that I wanted to make her happy. Now baby is here I'm glad I did. BUT. As we are both on low-incomes I said I'd be happy to have a child on the understanding that when our child started nursery she would return to work.
Now our kid has, she's arbitrarily decided that no, she enjoys being a stay at home mum, and if I don't like it I can go shit. No discussion, no compromise.
We will now struggle to survive financially. I'm unhappy about the sexism angle as well: why can't I stay at home having coffee mornings and walks in the park with friends whilst the kid spends the day at the nursery? Why do I have to be the one to go back to work?
Am I being out of order to feel mislead and pissed off?
Thanks for listening, I just needed to vent somewhere...

I think everyone is missing the point here. The important point is the child, and both parents should be supporting each other in doing the best they can for their child. For some families, that is one parent staying at home, for others it is full-time childcare while both parents work, and for yet others it is a balance between the two.

'Lifestyle choice' is a somewhat pejorative way of describing this. It sounds rather sad that OP and his wife cannot talk to each other to work out what's best for their family as a whole. From OP's post, it sounds as if his wife is trying to get a cushy ride, and he is resentful and jealous. It sounds as if neither of them are sparing 'the kid' (as he describes his child) a thought.

I cannot believe this is really true - if it is, then I feel very sorry for their child. I would suggest that they just talk. Family life is all about adjustment and change. And compromise.

But redriding, if there is no actual discussion of what is best for the child, or for the family as a whole, and the wife just says that she is going to SAH because she hated her job and was "born to be a mother", then surely that is a lifestyle choice. She clearly has no ethical concerns about childcare as the child already goes to nursery two hours a day, and she wants to increase this.

Anyway, it isn't just for a mother to decide what is right for her child, it is for both parents to discuss and decide together.

So I don't think people are missing the point.

YANBU - I'd call her bluff and say you understand - your views have changed as well and you're going to pack up work so that you can both be at home and enjoy this special time. Tell her that you will both have to make sacrifices financially but it will be worth it

Honey I don't think I said it was just for a mother to decide at all. And I agree that from the OP, the mother sounds as if she is just going for an easy life without regard for her child.

But, the OP doesn't sound at all concerned about his child either, only about his own lifestyle. So either they are both rather unpleasant people (poor child) or the OP doesn't fully represent the true situation. In which case, they need to sit down and talk about their chlld and what's best for the family as a whole.

I think what I'm saying is that the OP is criticising his wife for being selfish, but also sounds selfish himself. Still can't get over his reference to 'the kid'.

Well yes, he does sound a bit of an arse as I said in my first post on this thread.

In RL, though, I think it can be tricky to separate the interests of the child from those of the parents. Women who want to stay at home are far more likely to feel that childcare is damaging than women who want to go to work. And women who want to go to work are far more likely to feel that their kids will benefit from time socialisation at nursery/the extra income than women who don't want to go to work.

Perhaps it's those who genuinely have no choice about the matter who see it the most clearly, and who will acknowledge that there are pros and cons for the children on both sides. :)

I've re-read the OP's posts, and not once does he say he wishes he could spend more time with his DD or anything like that. The only thing he does is complain about his wife's easy life, and how they need more money (though can afford, what, £80 a week for unnecessary nursery? That'd feed a family of 4!)

Now I realise different things are important to different people, but if your priorities are that way round, I suggest you'd get more sympathy on the Money-Saving Expert boards than on Mumsnet?

"Even if her salary wouldn't be enough to cover childcare costs, that doesn't necessarily mean that she should become a SAHM - what if the OP would prefer for them both to go PT and share the childcare, for example."

Is that an option OP?

Honey I think we are of the same opinion! :o

boulevard 'if your priorities are that way round, I suggest you'd get more sympathy on the Money-Saving Expert boards than on Mumsnet?' :o think you have hit the nail on the head there.

I don't think he's taken a hammering.

Compromise is what's needed. The nursery at this point is not an essential. Maybe you will be better off than you think with tax credits if low paid or maybe she could get a PT job.

I've not read the whole thread but I don't think you're being unreasonable going by your OP. A couple has a joint responsibility to care for a child and make sure there is enough money. She can't just throw the towel in because she's decided she prefers not working.

I have no idea how you are managing the nursery fees - they are as expensive as private school fees these days, if not more. Most people I know who are stay at home mums don't send their children to nursery until the SS funding kicks in after the child's 3rd birthday.

If I were you I would say that if she doesn't want to go back to work then your child needs to come out of nursery - that's just common sense. I can understand your frustration as in the current climate she has a job to go back to and is refusing it.

Haven't read the whole post so maybe I'm jumping in here!! No YANBU - all the parenting decisions my DH and I have been made have been made together. I don't think one parent is more "entitled" than the other - parenting is a joint venture. We are in the fortunate position that I only work part time and so assume the role of primary carer and housekeeper :). In my experience these things have to be negotiated, not imposed. It's not about right and wrong, it's about a joint decision. She has removed this - and she is wrong.

I was on this thread yesterday and have followed the OP's posts.... I find it very telling that at no point in any of the discussion has he or, according to him, his wife, considered or made their choice based on what they feel is best for their DD. Its all about their lifestyles etc.

Surely surely we make decisions as parents by first thinking about what is best for our DC and what our priorities are in terms of child rearing, then together, we think through the practicalities of how the "parenting team", between them, can make that work....

So, if you decide that a SAHP is important and what you think is best for your DC, you decide between you how that could work and, if it can't financially, you work out how to get as close to what you think is best for your children as possible?! (e.g. one of you working p/t etc) No?

I don't get the OP's attitude frankly. He cares about whether his wife is expecting to be supported and getting an easy ride (which incidentally is an understandable annoyance)... but is that really the point? I also don't understand his wife needing a to send a 16 month old to nursery when she is at home f/t, but perhaps my DH (a SAHD) would!

OP - what do you think is best for your DD and, given the realities of life, finances etc, how can you, between you, get close to that?

Seriously - isn't this what everyone does?

OP, I am still mighty about the apparant extended mat leave she has been granted, but I do just want to say that YANBU at all.

Shes being a cheeky cow putting the kid into nursery when she is at home anyway - dont get me wrong, if its affordable then I think nursery is a great thing for youngsters, gets them used to being with different people and it can be a great start for them (I am currently on mat leave with DS2 and DS1 is still in nursery part time because its so good for him). But if it means money is tight then its totally not on.

I understand those saying womens feelings can change when baby is here, but sadly feelings dont earn money. Ive chnged totally from being career minded to longing to be a SAHM but we cant afford it, Id never dream of disrespecting DP by just 'announcing' that I wasnt going back to work.

Shes taking the piss big time, and Id be tempted to just stop paying the nursery bill tbh

Totally - I do get the real desire to have or be a SAHP despite being convinced that you wouldn't want that before having a baby (this was me and DH - DH is now a SAHD)! BUT, if money is tight then putting your DD in nursery while your wife is at home f/t is a joke and is an unfair demand.

As I said upthread, if the issue is that, for instance, you too want to be at home with DD (although your posts do not suggest this), then you need to figure out a way to make it work between you as a team.

If the issue is simply that you don't like the way she has "announced" that this is what she wants so it is happening, I would say that is a valid gripe and you need some sort of marriage counselling as this is a wholly inadequate way for a marriage partnership to work.

I do understand where you are coming from in terms of having agreed how things were going to work out. Myself and DP had always agreed that he would stay off with the baby and I would be back at work (bit of a no brainer given respective salaries) - I 'd also said I would go back at 6 months.
In the event I did do this but I felt a lot more ambigous about it and I did feel that i had to fulfill my part of the bargain (even before the baby arrived he was concerned that I would resent the fact that he could stay off and I couldn't- I said I'd be fine - I wasn't!) - and to be fair it was still my call rather than his.

I do think a lot of it depends on whether your partner takes up the rest of the slack- she should be responsible (given the baby is in nursery) for the household chores/cooking/shopping etc as well - then you'll feel you will get some benefit.
But it is tricky - the easy thing is that because she is at home you work more and then it becomes a lot more entrenched (esp if you have more children)- you work/she is at home - which I think doesn't work for some couples especially where they have always worked equally

"OP, I am still mighty about the apparant extended mat leave she has been granted,"

I do know someone who worked in a big retail company who has been granted 2 years leave obviously with no pay - and as long as she goes back in that time they give her an equivalent job where they have a vacancy ie it could be in another department.

Yes, i had two years off with my eldest, although this was over 10 years ago, the first year was basic maternity leave, the second year was with no pay. And this was with big retail company.

A friend of mine who worked for the civil service was able to take a 2 year "career break" instead of just 12 months maternity leave. They didn't guarantee her old job back though, just that they would find her employment at her grade.