Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

344 replies

Zealey · 27/02/2012 13:42

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...

OP posts:
ilovesooty · 27/02/2012 17:11

I take issue with the assumption that a woman can just decide unilaterally that she will just stay at home with a child and that's OK because she's a mother, and the other partner just has to suck it up

So do I. And I agree with the earlier poster who wondered if some of the responses would be different if the genders were reversed.

SaraBellumHertz · 27/02/2012 17:14

I would strongly suspect that the OP's wife has a far better understanding of the fact that her "low income" won't get anywhere near covering the cost of a London nursery and is therefore sick to death of the OP banging on about how sexist it is that she gets to go for a coffee with her "mummy friends", and thus refuses to engage.

GlueSticksEverywhere · 27/02/2012 17:15

Ilovesooty nothing in the way op has been on here suggests to me that he would be open to discussion. i would bet money that he just keeps repeating the agreement and doesnt listen to a word she says.

AbbyAbsinthe · 27/02/2012 17:15

Exactly! It would be an entirely different story if the genders were reversed. If the father of the child had agreed to be WAHD after a certain period and then point blank refused to go back to work, and left his DW to pick up the tab financially... he would definitely be classed as lazy.

SaraBellumHertz · 27/02/2012 17:16

Orm the trouble is that the OP hasn't actually said much at all Hmm

GlueSticksEverywhere · 27/02/2012 17:16

Orm but the finances may very well not be better if she were at work. you keep assuming that they will.

Chandon · 27/02/2012 17:17

but sara, it would surely be better, financially to work AND have kid in nursery, than to have kids in nursery and not work????

Guess it depends on the amount of hours.

guess it also depends on how much responsibility the OP takes for childcare and housework if DP goes back to work.

ilovesooty · 27/02/2012 17:18

He says she's refused to discuss it. We have no knowledge whatever of what has actually taken place and it doesn't seem appropriate to make the assumption that she's tried to engage in discussion while he's refused to listen.

AbbyAbsinthe - exactly.

SaraBellumHertz · 27/02/2012 17:21

Chandon exactly it depends on the hours.

And the OP's not saying so we shall all just argue hypotheticals amongst ourselves.

toddlerama · 27/02/2012 17:26

Anyone think the OP might have actively encouraged 'the kid' starting nursery because he assumed that it would mean DW going back to work? Except DW isn't ready, and now he resents the nursery fees? More communication needed between you both and on the the thread. We can't judge hard enough help without more details!

GlueSticksEverywhere · 27/02/2012 17:38

Ilovesooty i can assume that he wouldnt be open to discussion based on the things hes written on here.

NowThenWreck · 27/02/2012 17:40

See, if the OP and his wife have a house in Holloway which they don't have to pay for, I think that they should be able to afford, even on one wage to have a child in nursery a but, say 6 hours a week.
Housing costs are so massive, espeically in London, that that must free up some money.

I don't think it's fair if OP's wife won't discuss the matter, of course it's not.
But, he is coming over as rather nasty.
If I do reverse the situation, and I think, OK, I am a working mother, with a 16 month old baby and no mortgage.
My Partner is at home with the baby all the time, except for two hours a day. I come home to, presumably a clean house, with the laundry done, the dinner made (in London few working people get home before 6 pm),the shopping done etc, I really don't think I would resent that.

In fact, I would bloody love it! (Where so I sign?!)

OP's attitude to looking after a child in general is a bit odd, and it strikes me that he may never have done it himself for a whole day.

If my fantasy partner did spend some of his time having coffee with other parents of small children, and going to the park, then great! I wouldnt want my partner to be miserable and without friends.

Imo, it the lack of communication about this that is the issue, not the money.

ilovebabytv · 27/02/2012 17:41

YANBU, you and your dp agreed to have a child and the understanding was that she would go back to work after maternity leave. For her now to say she doesnt want to go back to work is unfair. Its not about whether you can afford it or not imo but what you both agree is fair. I get that you are on a low income but can afford some luxuries (childcare for 10 hours a week) because you dont have any rent/mortgage to pay. If you both agreed to it then great, she could be a SAHM but you made your feelings clear at the start what was expected. And I dont believe anyone who says that being a SAHM is hard work. I was off on maternity leave for 13 months and I enjoyed every minute of it, and it was coffee mornings, walks in the park etc. Imo since your wife cant financially support herself by being a SAHM, and you don't agree to be the sole financial provider, i think she needs to suck it up and go back to work.

HoneyandHaycorns · 27/02/2012 17:42

But I take issue with the assumption that a woman can just decide unilaterally that she will just stay at home with a child and that's OK because she's a mother, and the other partner just has to suck it up.

Well said.

ilovebabytv · 27/02/2012 17:44

^^I agree with this also.

callmemrs · 27/02/2012 17:47

She sounds really selfish and unreasonable.

However- I think you were wrong to have a child with this woman if you 'weren't really fussed' about it. Having a child is a huge commitment and you should have not agreed to have one until you were totally sure you wanted one, and until you had agreement in advance about how to manage the caring and earning

You are not at all unreasonable in wanting to share the earning- I think being sole earner must be an enormous burden. I wouldn't want it myself so have never foisted it on my husband. Often being sole earner pushes that person higher up the ladder with longer hours and more stress, so they have less time to enjoy the home stuff anyway.

So YANBU in wanting a better and fairer balance in your life.

ComposHat · 27/02/2012 17:47

If the situation is as the OP describes it seems he is quite frankly being played for a twat. It seems that his wife wants little more from him than his sperm and to continue paying the bills.

This isn't an 'anti-SAHP' thing (not on my part anyway.) Of course I can see the value in their work, but I would expect that the minimum that a 'Stay at home parent' would do is to stay at home and err...parent, rather than dumping their child in a nursery on someone else's dollar.

Iteotwawki · 27/02/2012 18:01

There's a lot of assuming that the DW does other things during the day like cooking, cleaning etc while the OP is at work - I assume because most functional families who think of themselves as a team split life this way (if one person woh, the other does the house work).

However upthread the OP made a comment that it was just "her and the baby" while he was expected to "earn money, do the cooking and the house jobs" - this is more about fair division of labour.

OP, I don't think you're being unreasonable to want your partner to pull her weight, whether that's by getting back into paid employment or picking up the slack at home so you don't have to.

If the genders were reversed you'd be advised to stop washing her clothes, stop cooking for her (just you & baby) and only clean up your own areas.

GlueSticksEverywhere · 27/02/2012 18:06

Well said nowthenwreck

OriginalJamie · 27/02/2012 18:06

I agree with Quint

OP - surprising to be out at such an early stage?

OriginalJamie · 27/02/2012 18:07

This all just pissing in the wind because the OP has no interest in engaging properly.

Wonder if he is like this with his wife?

ENormaSnob · 27/02/2012 18:08

If she had a penis she would be a cock lodger.

Leave her.

ilovesooty · 27/02/2012 18:10

If the situation is as the OP describes it seems he is quite frankly being played for a twat. It seems that his wife wants little more from him than his sperm and to continue paying the bills

I'm afraid that's how I read it too, and if the OP isn't coming over too well I suspect that's because he's pissed off. And don't forget the fact that she's nicely set up in a rent and mortgate free house that came out of his money, while she's doing precious little to contribute, if he does cooking and housework as well as working full time.

ilovesooty · 27/02/2012 18:11

If she had a penis she would be a cock lodger

Yes, I suspect that's what most posters would be saying.

OriginalJamie · 27/02/2012 18:12

He's not coming over at all. He does the classic posting of a few short, implicatory (is that a word?) posts, then says he's buggering off .

I suspect we are being had.