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?

How hilarious. How is paying my share of the bills masculine? What sort of planet do you inhabit? Is it masculine of me to work? To drive? To vote?

echt...

Yeah, like that one who bitched about her nanny in the papers the other day (google's it: Katie Hopkins).

She even references 'men' all the time. Everything she does is 'just as well as a man', she's obssessed with it.

I think of women like that as a bit masculine, and that's perhaps an insult to men because lots of men are nicer than her. She's more like that horrible macho boardroom persona that seems to consist of equal parts selfishness and competitiveness.

Whenever i meet women like that, they seem to recoil in genuine disgust at the idea of a woman taking some time off work after birth. I'm not a fan of those sorts of women.

Just read the first post- he's horrible! And you're not compatible then if you're not on the same page. Don't get pg again until it's sorted. If hes earning plenty you should def stay home if that's what you want. To put money before your kids when you don't need it is selfish. Poor kids.

Krumbum, please don't put words in my mouth, i did not say that working mothers are masculine.

I just said that those who take a dim view of the prejudice in society that sees women as mothers and men as workers, tends to be either the people suffering (the men) or the people who have a chip on their shoulder about feminist issues (such as 'masculine' executive board "My nanny is pregnant and i'm far from happy" type women*).

• • And just because i know it'll go down this road, no, i don't think that all high achieving women on executive boards are like this, nor to i think that every women who takes a dim view of traditional gender roles is masculine.

Cogpsych, while being no fan of Katie Hopkins, I can imagine plenty of reasons why she'd compare her success/ability to a man's: because that's what so much of the world still does to women.

Doesn't make her masculine, though. Men don't have the market cornered in unpleasant behaviour.

I'll leave you to it, OP.

My own particular view is that all individuals should be able to support themselves and their children. If they are not able to support either themselves or their children (as you, a grown woman, can seemingly not) then they have to live at the expense of someone, and it is preferable that this person is not the taxpayer.

For me it always works well to reverse the gender of the OP. Read it and imagine the OP is a bloke. insisting that his female DP should support him. He'd have been vilified.

Good luck, OP, with finding a man to keep you and I hope that in the process you do manage to stay off benefits.

Hopefully recovering, that is a shocking attitude. The truth is that a partnership between two people is required to support a child. Sometimes this means that responsibilities are split, sometimes they are divided.

Hopefully - with all due respect you are a bit blinkered.

I was one of those people whose circumstances changed between conception and birth. I was a SAHM to DS whilst DH worked and earned enough to keep us, at 36 weeks pregnant with DD he was made redundant. It took him 6 weeks to find another job if it had been much longer we would have had to start claiming benefits. Luckily the job he took meant we can still afford for me to stay at home as as I have stated earlier in the thread there are no teaching jobs available within about 50 miles.
Life is not as clear cut as you think.

"For me it always works well to reverse the gender of the OP. Read it and imagine the OP is a bloke. insisting that his female DP should support him. He'd have been vilified."

Really? I see no problem with a man being a house-husband while the woman is the breadwinner.

My reaction would be the same if the gender is reversed - YANBU to want to and it's a valid choice, but it's a choice that you have to make together and really should have discussed at an earlier point.

I love the way that the consensus on this thread has completely changed. Op was villified at first.

I believe that children were never meant to be financed and cared for by just one or two people, but by extended family and friends. The reason the welfare state,has to step in now is because this wider group is not available to many people. I think it is a necessary evil that we have to pay strangers to look after our dcs sometimes, not something a society should set up as a proud expression of its success.

I agree FedUP.

A family friend who had a large family in the 1960s in a traditional set up - dependent wife with no money within the context of a close community - has enormous sympathies for the families she comes into contact with nowadays as a social worker (She went to university in her 40s by the way Hopefully. She didn´t write herself off in her 20s as you would seem to do and has now worked for decades). She has enormous sympathies with the people the DM-believers are constantly villifying and is not surprised at their inability to cope. Large screen TVs and washing machines are no substitute for friends and family and community.

I also believe that Thatcher´s deliberate crushing of working class communities like the coalminers has a large part in the break down of society and communities. Oh, but I forgot, that was Thatcher´s policy: "There is no society". Well now we see the results.

Agree with Kuros

A stranger is a friend you've yet to meet and I think most people who have children in good childcare would not call the people who work there 'strangers'. It's such an emotive word, and no doubt used deliberately in threads like this.

I am in agreement with those who say the OP should have had these discussions with her DP before moving in with him, though clearly she agonised long and hard about moving in as she posted about it a lot in recent months. Why on earth did you, OP, do it when youhad yet to sort out the financial sie? Did you give up benefits to move in with your DP or have you been existing entirely on your savings/working while studying/getting help from your ex? It's not clear how you managed to end up in this situation at all.

Erm....why is it up to you to solely support financially a child that belongs to both of yiu?

I know it sounds bizarre. and i'm not sure what profession your DP is but some people have no real contact with actual reality in these terms, and are then very surprised and it does take time to filter thru. Every male i know in their early 30's (all without children) presume nursery is free and mat leave is full wages etc

This.

I understand that his career is such that he can't make a contribution to childcare duties with his time. I know plenty of men who work in jobs like that.

I also understand that in spite of this he still wants children. Fair enough. But he has to participate in their upbringing somehow, and if he can't offer his time he's going to have to offer his money, because otherwise the numbers just don't add up. I'd sit him down and work out a plan that works for both of you, as well as for the family as a whole.

And I also agree with all those who are telling you not to forget about your own career either, even if you think it's not a priority in the immediate future.

I don't understand why you have never discussed and agreed such fundamental things before with your DP. You phrase it as if its come as a big shock to you. But surely most reasonably intelligent people plan their lives in advance a little, and think about these things and how they will impact upon their partner?

I also don't understand how you are able to pay all the costs of the DCs when you don't have a wage, and pay for a degree.

I think the lack of sympathy arises from a possible worry that you have moved on from one man so young and so quickly having a child with them and being a SAHM, having the freedom from work constraints that many long for, to another and expecting as of right, the same freedoms. Surely, having had one DC with one man, you would think about these things when having a child with another (and considering a third?).

You've had 4 years at home with your first child. You don't mention when you split up from DC1's father, but unless you got together with your DP, there must have surely been some gap in between. Perhaps you gained some employment experience then?

Is it possible that your DP is simply concerned for your future, as you show no interest in working, and he wants you to have a future where you do more than raise children? 40k is not a lot to raise 3 children on, yes of course its possible, but perhaps your DP has ambitions towards a more affluent lifestyle and would like you to contribute? Do you share similar values?

Well, they are discussing it now, prior to planning the third child.

It seems to me that OP is actually doing more than her fair share of the planning. Her partner indicated that he'd like more children, but he doesn't sound very clued up on the financial realities of raising 3 kids. We only know that his work responsibilities won't allow him to do any of the childcare or housework himself, and that he's also somewhat reluctant to take on more financial responsibility. If anyone, I think it's him who should do a little homework on how exactly it is going to work before embarking on having a bigger family.

OP gets maintenance for DD1, child benefit and student loan. If her partner is paying the rent and most of the other outgoings that doesn't seem too unfair - presumably he will have high maintenance payments for the children from his first marriage and as they are in rented housing he cannot be that flush. DD1 is at school so only a little expenditure for CM there perhaps and how much does it cost to keep a 4 week old breastfed baby? I'm not sure that either of them is being unreasonable at this very instant but they do need to sit down very soon and make frank disclosure of the full financial situation, and work out where the go from here.

OP doesn't come across as very work orientated, for most bright young things the early 20s are a time to get your degree and get established at work to get financially set up for having children later.

For those of us who are in our 40s and 50s we have the ability to see what happened to those of our old friends and colleagues who took different paths in life. Sure there is always the odd one who goes to uni at 40 and gets a good job but on the whole a career and work are the foundation of a happy and fulfilled life and there are some compromises to be made.

I'm not trying to promote it as the be all and end all but I went back to work when my children were 8 weeks old, I did not "hand over" responsibility to the nanny and childminders and the odd student who helped me out, I shared their upbringing with others who became good and enduring friends, and remain part of our family circle. Quite frankly when you look around my odd assortment of female friends some of whom were SAHMs others had careers and some just muddled through on a mix and match basis some years down the road all our children turned out OK, and they joys of SAHMish or the heady highs of the glory days of forging the career are no more than a memory now.

You both need to sit down and work out what you want for the future. You obviously want to be a SAHM whilst your children are young. I notice you rent a house. Perhaps your partner wants to buy a house which is a perfectly reasonable aspiration and hopes you will contribute financially. But I don't think he has much idea about how taxing working full time is going to be for you and looking after two or three children and keeping a house. If he can't contribute any help because of his job.

Perhaps he wants to be able to afford some luxuries like going on nice holidays, going out for meals and nice car and so on. Many people have to forgo these things if one partner wants to stay at home with the children. Not all of course.

OP doesn't come across as very work orientated

No, but I don't see it as a problem in and of itself. In fact, given the kind of work her husband does, it's probably a good thing that she isn't very work orientated. With a partner who works full-time, plus has to be on call most evenings and weekends, I think it would be extremely difficult for her to pursue a high-profile career even if she wanted to, and that's before children even come into the picture. Especially with no family around to help. That's not to say she couldn't get a job at some point, in fact, most of us agree it would probably be a good idea, but it seems unlikely that her career will ever really be a priority for this family.

I think her husband will have to accept that, too, and, frankly, I don't think he's being that hard done by. If he wants children but cannot take time away from work to raise them, then he has to be generous in other ways - or forgo the dream of a big family. He can't have his cake and eat it. If finances are too tight for him to "support" a non-working wife and three children, then he'll have to make it possible for his wife to dedicate more time to her studies and work - but that could only be done to the detriment of family life. Again, he has to take a good, proper look at the family balance sheet and see how far they can stretch themselves. Maybe three children are beyond what they can afford. Maybe he could downsize his career and spend more time with the children. Maybe she could prioritize her career for a few years before having more kids. Either way, he needs to consider it his problem, too. I think a lot of this thread focuses on OP's choices without really looking at the context in which they are made.

I hadn't thought of it before but 3 children is more than most people can afford to support now - maybe that is what they are both being unreasonable about? Bringing up children isn't just about early years, it is about 18-21 these days too. If you take the extra child out of the equation it becomes easier for this couple to find a solution. The husband has some children with his previous partner too - how many does he want?

I have read this thread with interest since Sunday, and as there have been lots of views expressed, I didn't feel there was anything to add.

However, last night I heard some news about a friend, here's what's happened.

She had a job, met a guy who lived in a different part of the country and gave up her job to go and live to be with him. She quickly got pregnant so didn't bother getting another job, he was happy to support this.

She ha been a SAHM to their 3 year old, she has started various courses but never finished any. Last night, she found out he has been seeing someone else.

She now has a 3 year old, no job and as they were not married will now have to support herself. She is 25.

I know another SAHM who never had much of a 'career' (her words) so when he fell pregnant, she and her husband decided she should stay home and raise the baby. Baby has just gone to school, and despite being unsure as to whether she wanted any more children, she is now pregnant as no job to return to. But, they're married and she has her husband's support. This works for them. and as they are married, their equal contribution would mean she would get half of their equity. My other friend did not have this protection.

Personally, I have worked hard, degree, professional qualification, qualified 6 years now so I have a good job. Married last year. I would like children in the next year or two, after which ideally i'd like to work part time, but this may not be an option unless my husband earns more or we move to a cheaper place etc. but we have agreed that we would work something out that suits us both and our kids, us as a family basically. I like my job and would not like to take a very long (5-10) year break as it would be very difficult to return to my profession if that were the case. I also want to know that should we split, I would always be in a position to support myself and any children, which currently I am. I earn what your DP earns, and where we live this would not be enough for my DH to stay at home and be a SAHD, for example.

It's ok for you to not want a job OP, if this has been agreed with your DP, but I would suggest that you take steps to be able to support yourself and your children should you need to. These might include marriage, but should definitely include the skills, then the experience to support yourself. Not short term perhaps, but definitely long term. Your children, no matter how many you have, won't need a SAHM forever, and as you don't have a partner to support you not working, you have to be realistic. This is not to say that he has to meet his responsibilities too, which he isn't currently doing - as has been said, you need to talk and agree a outcome.

My friend, this time last week, was in a loving relationship with the father of her child. This week she is an unmarried, single mother with no means to get a job and support herself

how many does he want?

Good question! especially considering he doesn't seem to be raising any of them.

Well I agree to some extent that the DH does sound as if he is being unrealistic. He's on his second family and is talking about having more children, yet he has chosen to have those children with the OP who is (not yet) in a career. Some men do try to mould women into what they want them to be.

Its just the OP's thread title, combined with the statistics. 4 1/2 years so far as a SAHM with her first DC, wants the same for second DC and third not yet on the way. For most people this would be a luxury. And whats the point in the OP doing the degree if she, as by her thread title, doesn't want to work? It also strikes me as a little bit sad that someone's life experience in their early twenties should so far have consisted of childbearing and rearing, when there is so much else out there, but each to their own. If she has the same time at home after DCs2 and 3 as after DC1, she will have spent possibly 15 years childrearing, without having any experience as an independent adult first.

And why is there so much criticism of the DP being unrealistic as to child costs? I know families where one wage is eaten up by child costs, but the longer term benefit of career development compensates for it. And no-one has mentioned that, unless the DP is in a job with high career progression, that 40k salary is going to only afford a 140k or so house (buys a 1 bed new build round here but not for much longer...) or increasing rent as they need a bigger rental property for their growing family.

Of course the OP might find that if she does start to go out to work, she might quite like it!