To not want to work?

[jenrose29]

I have a 4.5 year old and a 4 week old. When I fell pregnant with DD1 I gave up a place at Cambridge University to stay home with her, my ex husband supported this and we spent the first three years of her life going to baby groups, the park, walking the dog, baking etc. We loved it :) When ex and I seperated I began a degree with the view of going into teaching when I'm done, I met DP with whom I have a 4 week old and I love him very much. However, though he wants more children, he expects me to work full-time. He earns well and could support us but is eager to have wages from us both coming in. At the moment I take DD1 to and collect her from school everyday, take her to lots of activities, to playdates etc and when baby gets a little older I want to give her the same childhood and attention DD1 had. I simply don't want children that I only see before/after nursery for a couple of hours when it isn't financially necessary to do so. I want the baby and any subsequent children to have the same opportunities/experiences DD1 has. DP wants to try for another baby straight away, which I would too if I could stay home to raise them. Am I being unreasonable?

hex if he has debts that he hasnt told her about then he has been dishonest.

OP, tell him he should be grateful he is not with my SIL. She doesn't work either, but neither does she look after her own children most of the time. She has somehow managed to persuade her DH to deliver them each morning before his work (she doesn't drive) to their grandparents, my Inlaws, so she can spend most of the day in bed/watching tv.

Perhaps a Wife Swap scheme should be intoduced so some unrealistic husbands can realise how lucky they are?!

geegee i knew a couple like that many years ago. In that case it was because she didnt want kids but he did.

Why oh why is no-one looking at the OP's responsibilities in all this?

The OP is, we are led to believe, a fully-functioning adult. One who has never worked and does not plan to for the forseeable. She has no plans to make realistic financial provisions for herself or for the children she plans to keep popping out.

In the meantime there is a bloke. Bloke #2 for the avoidance of doubt. He is already paying all the bills bar the childcare for what is looking like a vanity-degree with no expectation of any earning actually arising from this.

Not unreasonably, he is asking the OP to take some responsibility. And you lot are all here telling the OP that her DH is being unreasonable !!!

Words fail me OP. Yes, leave the bastard. Go and live on benefits instead. That'll teach him.

Hopefully - am glad that I am not the only one who read it that way. All the sahm seems to be a facade for some very odd lifestyle choices.

OP please do question the affairs excuse. I would seriously try to get in touch with his,ex to find out exactly what went on between them. Have you ever spoken to his parents in private?

What did you see in him when you both have such a different outlook on life?

I agree with Hopefullyrecovering. Every word. OP you need to take responsibility for your family too. I bet you wouldn't like it if he wanted to be a SAHD and you went out to work full time. And whilst yes, $40000 is a good salary, maybe he wants to earn some extra to save for the future and your children's future and have other options and opportunities in life?

im with fed up. that "affairs" explanation seems very hollow to me.

Hopefully, Gigondas,

Try reading the post before jumping in.

The OPs DP does not contribute financially or practically in any way to the OP. She lives off her own money. Her DP does not pay anything towards his own child´s upbringing. He wants to have a large family and for her to pay the price, in every sense.

The OP said she has worked in the past by the way. She pointed out childcare will cost more than what she would earn.

The OP has said she is training to be a teacher so she can fit in childcare with work. There has never been any talk of going on benefits.

So boring when folk jump in to shoot somebody down when they obviously haven´t read the post at all. It just looks like you´re trying to start a fight.

what kuros said. Every word.

No, I am not starting a fight

I am just pointing out that with children, come responsibilities.

The OP's DP already pays the rent and bills. The OP has no income and no realistic plans for having any income. In that circumstance, you have to look either to your DP kindly to support you (not my choice), Or live on benefits (again not my choice). The OP has decided that supporting herself is out of the question. And when it comes to supporting her children? Again, that's everyone's responsibility bar hers.

Words fail me. They honestly literally fail me.

Yes. Every word

As I understand it, your DP does not pay anything towards the cost of his child with you (apart from rent and bills he would be paying anyway). He does pay maintenance towards another child. Presumably this was reduced because of the new baby and the fact he now lives in the same house as your other DD? If so, has he just "pocketed" this reduction? I think you said you are currently using your savings. So you are essentially using your savings to enable him to increase his? Do you get maintenance from your ex for DD1? Or is it just savings and student loan?

If it is really right that you could not earn enough to cover childcare costs, then you have 2 choices. You can't stay with your DP and claim benefits because of his earnings, and he is not paying any "maintenance" towards his new baby. Hence, you either need to persuade him to your way of thinking with figures etc to back it up, or you need to split up with him. Then he will have to pay maintenance and (if you cant earn enough) you will at least get benefits.

I work full time, and although i think some of your comments on here about WOHMs are unfortunate, I actually think your DP is being the bigger arse here. At least if I have understood the facts correctly.

hopefully I am genuinely interested in what you would suggest then for someone if the childcare costs are more than they would earn? If they cannot do evening/weekend work as the DP cannot help with any childcare. What is the point of them going outside the home to work if the cost would break even? Surely in that circumstance it would then make no difference if they provided the childcare themselves or outsourced it.

Tis a good question. It never occurred to me to have children before I could support having children, IYSWIM. That's the bonus of living in a developed western economy. We have reproductive choice. Tara! And it empowers women. It is the single thing that really empowers women. WE HAVE A CHOICE.

So throw me back 100 years and I look at the OP. Here we have, we are led to believe, an intelligent woman. With no more forethought than a fish. Really it's ridiculous in this day and age. But still, here we are. What to do and all that. Woe is me. Hand-wringing. The bloke won't play ball. Wah Wah, he won't support me and my untold numbers of children.

This is all hypothetical because it would never have happened to me, and should never happen to any woman in a developed western economy. I would take stock and pull my socks up. I would work now in some godawful minimum wage job to have some self-respect. I would finish my degree and I would get a job. And I would flick two fingers at the world and say 'I can look after myself'.

That's what I'd do.

To win him 'round to your way of thinking, give him a taste of it.

You go and work full time, and let him stay at home for a couple of years. Then he'll appreciate how great it is and maybe you can then both work part time and be home with the children an equal amount.

I presume hopefully has such a well paid job that the notion of childcare costing more than her income is simply impossible to comprehend.

And I still don't understand why the OP is getting such a hard time when she seems to be paying for everything bar rent.

Are we to believe all these posters were accepting no financial support from their OH's when they had newborns? Because that's not how it was for me or any of my friends.

No Hopefully. And I´ve no idea why words fail you.

The DP pays the rent and his share of the common bills only. The OP pays all of her own expenses, including expenses incurred from the child they have had together. He pays nothing for this family. But according to you the OP is somehow irresponsible? When she has been supporting herself and her 2 children until now?! NO state benefits, NO help from her DP!?

The OP has an entirely realistic plan to qualify as a teacher. She is 2 years into a 4 year course. Why then do you think she has no realistic plans to get an income?

Are you offended by the idea of a mother not being forced to work? Others have voiced their opinion on this thread that if they have to struggle and go to work then the OP certainly deserves no better. ( ie. get into the ?real world? comments?)

The OP sees her responsibility as bringing up her children herself. This is not a judgement on folk who prefer to or who have to continue working when they have children just to put a roof over their head and food on the table. This is just another valid possibility when her DP earns enough to enable her to stay at home. Although, as I said earlier, in her particular situation I think she would be crazy to allow herself to become financially dependent on him.

So basically if your wages don't amount to £55 per day (what it is near me) x how many children you have you should never have children? The male who wants the children doesn't need to contribute at all? That's so depressing.

My DP (and ExH if i had stayed with him) earns more than would allow me any credits/assistance. But because of the job i do i earn a lower wage. I would never be able to afford to have children without the support of my partner and neither would anyone i know. So are we never allowed to have children?

And you say you would work a min wage job, but how would that help if the childcare took all the money?

I don't get those people who suggest both parents work part time for equality in sharing childcare and work. It is not practical. There are very few part time jobs that pay enough or equal to one person's full time wage. If it was practical financially I would jump at it but it is not

The OP has an entirely realistic plan to qualify as a teacher. She is 2 years into a 4 year course. Why then do you think she has no realistic plans to get an income?

The OP is 26 years old. You could be a fully qualified teacher at 22. At the OP's rate of progress she will not be a fully qualified teacher until she is 27. She has yet to get any form of job. She is not, with respect, taking any form of responsibility.

The only good thing about this thread is that she is not expecting me (the taxpayer) to support her. It's down to a succession of blokes. That's fine and all that, but hey, this is the 21st century.

Hopefully, you´re just not living in the real world. You live in a world when contraception is 100 % effective and where highly intelligent women behave more rationally than those of average intelligence. This is not reality.

Reality for many women is also salary that does not even cover the cost of childcare. Therefore they do not even have the option of childcare.

Success is a young woman of around 18 who brings a much loved child into the world, enjoys taking care of her and would like to do the same again. And who at the same time gets herself back into education with a view to jumping on the career ladder a few years later than her peers.

Failure is a man who absolutely refuses to take any kind of responsibility for his own children or partner.

You refuse to read or see the facts, completely blinded by your own view of the world.

Did she not say she was working full time toll the 4 week old was born. Have I misunderstood? And I don't see the problem in qualifying at 27 when she had a (presumably unplanned) baby at 18.

Hopefully,have you got down from your soap box yet?

Men have a choice as to how many children they have. Self respect, respect even is gained from demanding the man/father takes some responsibility for the situation he has jointly created. It is expecting that he shares both the practical and financial efforts in lookng after his child, it is not letting him dictate these things for his convenience.

Sorry, I should say that the OP is not going to be a fully qualified teacher until she is 29, and then has yet to get a job.

Why is this so difficult? You don't have children until you are sure they can be looked after? Emotionally, practically and financially.