Husband won’t let me be SAHM or part time

[Bernetteyog]

Hello! So.. me and my husband are really struggling at the moment. I have one child and I have been back to work 18 months (also ttc no 2). I’m the main earner in our household but I have a highly stressful managerial job.
Since having my daughter I have want to be a sahm or part time. My employer was happy for me to do part time hours on full pay (which was great) but not I have more workload and I need to do full time hours plus travel (I’m still bfing). The additional workload will bring a large pay rise. I am highly stressed in my job and it’s effecting my health. I have explained this to my husband but he does not want me to leave my job as it is flexible but doesn’t understand the stress and desperation to spend more time with my daughter.
We have massive arguments about it. He said I will ruin our lives as we will have no money, have to get a cheaper car. He say the situation is making him ill. We could afford to live on my husbands salary but would have to make cut backs but my husband likes nice holidays etc. I really don’t know where to go from here. Thank you

So your husband would rather stick your child in nursery rather than give up his holidays and nice car for a few years? What a prize. Please don't have another child with his man.

Telling a mother to do what is best for her and baby is suddenly a.....bad thing? I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe.

Telling one parent it's her sole decision what's best, and the other parent has no say but is fully responsible for the consequences of that decision is not how most families oparate.

@saphfireRose

I agree with you

I am amazed at the amount of people who act like it's a crime to be a SAHM, and that they couldn't afford to do that

I'm a SAHM because we cant afford for both of us to be working. Due to where we live and my husbands working hours we would need to run a second car for me to work. The cost of a second car plus child care costs cancels out my wage (my husband always paid half of these when I was working but it comes out of the household pot so it still cancelled out)

The difference here being it was a conversation me and my husband had together. I don't like to say I resent being home, because I love my kids and the time I've had in their early years really has been precious, but my god are the days long. Theres weeks where I go several days without having a conversation with another adult. I really loved my job, and now I'll really struggle to go back. I'll be starting from scratch again, not picking up where I left off.... never mind the difference of where I could have been in terms of progression if I hadn't taken the break. It's hard. It sucks sometimes. But it was the only thing feasible for our family. My husband is now under more pressure being the sole earner.

There are definitely positives. As a family we have more time together. We eat meals together now which we never could do when I was working. when my husband finishes work he now has nothing to do about the house except help with the kids which means he is getting more quality time with them too. And when we were both working neither of us had any time because it was straight home to catch up on housework etc.

Theres definitely positives and negatives. It works for us because we both acknowledge each others struggles and sacrifices. My husband knows I resent the dent in my identity that was once connected to my work, and that I hate being "just a housewife." Or that I "dont work". Theres a lot of judgement these days about being a SAHM. It just was our only option. I'm pg with DC 3 (will be our last) and in the conversation we had before ttc we agreed that if I had a third, my husband would support me going back to university to retrain. Because I NEED something outside of my kids. And it benefits my husband, when I qualify I'll eventually be on higher wage than him, and he can take a step back. All of what we do only works because we works as a team and communicate and work through our problems together.

You are in a luxurious position where you have choices. We didnt. I think you are both being unreasonable because you arent talking through what you both are feeling and what your options are.

From your OP, You can afford to both work full time, one (or possibly both) of you part time or one of you not at all. All of these options will require sacrifices of some sort - time, money, stress etc but each of them has their own advantages as well. I am so jealous of the choices you have before you, we dont have any of those. Please dont waste them by being at loggerheads with one another, blinded only by what your own personal wants are. You need to work it out together, you are supposed to be a team. You need to have each others best interests in mind as well as your own.

@Igotthemheavyboobs I specifically said if you can afford to. It should have been quite obvious I wasn't talking about those who need to.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a sahm. There is nothing wrong with having a life that is more simple.

Obviously I don't spend all day feeding ducks with mine either. But I am here. When they are ill etc nobody would have them for me so therefore I could not work right now. 13 weeks of the year the kids are not in school. Plenty of families are still setting their kids up for the future without needing to work to do that.

My kids have one holiday a year. £150 for Christmas £100 for birthdays. 2-3 days out a year. Then the rest is free trips to woods and parks etc. They have new clothes and shoes and don't want for anything.

We don't get nights out. We rarely go for a meal as a family. We don't have loads of holidays. My child does swim. We are sensible. My partner earns 30,000 a year. We have a mortgage. I stay home and do school runs and clean up etc. I did ten years of work before my kids. I will return part time when they are both settled in school and don't get poorly throughout winter. It's absolutely doable for people if they can live off one age.

What's with this partner's providing for his family or her family being wrong? We are a team. It shouldn't matter who earned the money. The parent at home raising kids, doing school runs and housework and cooking and cleaning deserves alot more credit than not contributing financially.

I'm sorry but it is not unambitious to want to be at home with the kids whilst they are young. It's a reasonable option and choice. Just like working part time. I don't think any child should be in nursery full time. It's too much. They need calm and one on one time too. Just my view.

So your husband would rather stick your child in nursery rather than give up his holidays and nice car for a few years? What a prize. Please don't have another child with his man.

EXACTLY!

and

*Scaredmumxx
@saphfireRose

I agree with you*

Thank goodness for common sense. I was beginning to think I was orbiting a different universe or something.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a sahm. There is nothing wrong with having a life that is more simple.

Sure. If both of the couple are on board.

SaphfireRose

Chucking in a courtesy 'if you can afford to' does not hide your obvious disdain for families where both parents work full time. Especially when followed by your opinion that most people should be able to afford to live on one salary because you can and most people you know can!

That's amazing for you, well done for winning at life. Unfortunately the rest of us can't afford to just live on one salary, no matter how much we would love to be at home with our children all day or how many 'luxuries' (in my case the internet and a phone contract) we decide to cut.

I actually feel sorry for women who think they have a right to stay at home.

That they cant be independent in their own right.

If its your choice, fair enough.

But allowing yourself to become financially dependent on someone because you believe you have the right to it, means you dont live in the real world.

I hope non of you get divorced. Cause you are fucked.

@LaurieMarlow yes as long as bills, food and house is covered and they are not struggling. I would expect people should be able to manage on one working full and the other 3 days or something in this case.

Everyone's situation is different. But the attitudes towards sahm is shitty on here at times. Saying things like women might want to be more than a cleaner and scraping by. Ofcourse we all want to be happy and feel fulfilled. But to actually word it like staying home is unambitious and settling for less is rude. Some of us have no choice. Some of us are happy and some of us want to be around in the early years. It is like you can't say it without people jumping on you.

I actually for jumped on on here before and was asked how the hell is provide for myself if we break up. That doesn't justify me going to work and leaving my kids with other people. Just incase my partner leaves me. Even if he did leave me I'd struggle to work because my kids need looking after and picking up from school etc. As well as the 13 weeks a year they are off school.

The op is right to want to enjoy her baby for a year or two. When she starts school they will need to consider school runs and holidays anyway. It makes sense for one parent to be available for the kids sakes. They should come first after all

It doesn't feel completely clear from your post what you actually want to do. I don't think anyone should be forced to stay in a highly stressful job which is affecting their health just so their partner can continue enjoying nice cars and holidays. Part time seems a sensible compromise. Becoming a SAHM needs to be a family decision.

When I had my first child I changed jobs to a less well paid job and went part time. The one I was doing at the time was a huge commute and I was miserable. The new job gives me enormous flexibility to spend time with my children. It means we have had to cut back on luxuries and my husband thankfully supported that. I can go back to full time/more money when the kids are at school

I actually feel sorry for people who think a mother doesn't have the right to stay at home. Who don't understand that marriage is a team, and one who does 50% of the work by staying home, raising a family, attending to the household etc is somehow 'lesser' than a man who does the other 50% by earning.

Staying at home is as much if not more so as taxing as 'earning', and I can only presume those that smugly insinuate a SAHM is a bludger, don't have kids and have no idea what it is to be the one at home raising the family.

The job is just as valuable as earning actual money. Isn't that what we women have wanted RECOGNISED?

Shadyshadow

What a load of rubbish! You sound bitter tbh.
In Op case she's talking about her health and wanting to spend more time with her DC. She can afford to go part time. It's not a crime to actually like spending time with your kids and to put your career on hold if you can afford to. Different scenarios work for different people.

Thank goodness for common sense

Poster: X is the truth!
20 posters: we don't agree
1 poster: 1 agree
Poster X - See! Finally some common sense!

@Shadyshadow

There is more to life than work and money. Some people have a strong family unit. What's best for the kid! Most would choose a parent to be around some of the week over five days of nursery. It's sad people don't consider what's best for the child over the luxury of money and 2 cars etc.

Not all working parents are like that. But some are. The best way is one working and one home. Or both working part time. Or one working part time and the other full. 2 parents working full time means they spend most of the baby years being raised by other people. Nursery workers won't love or raise your child the way you will. They are looking after several kids. So I disagree it's important they have days with parents aswel as in childcare. They are our kids and our responsibility at the end of the day. If you can't spare a couple of days a week then why have them at all? They are people. They need your time!

Whatever else you decide, you cannot possibly hope that this situation will improve by having a second baby, so stop ttc immediately!

Whether or not your husband is a shallow arse who cares more about material luxuries than your welfare, or whether he's concerned about your family's longterm security will be jeopardised by you quitting work, is a secondary issue really against the aiming to bring ANOTHER baby into this already highly-fraught situation.

I knew a lady once who had one baby, took about 3 weeks off work and then came back 4/5 days a week. She seemed fine with it until she a second baby and then she quite work, because she'd missed out on so much with no.1 that she didn't want to miss out on it all with no.2 as well. She was lucky to have a supportive husband and enough disposable income to do it though.

Your husband would see you giving up work as curtailing his lifestyle, which he will massively resent you for, and possibly the child too. Not worth it - so don't have another baby until you've sorted this out.

I'm sure if we got rid of luxury by half plenty of mums could work part time instead of full

Because of course mums are just working for luxuries. it's okay for dads to work as they are providing but those cold hearted working mums are just working for luxuries.

ODFOD

I actually feel sorry for people who think a mother doesn't have the right to stay at home

Why mothers? If the jobs are equal then either parent can do either job, right? So OP's husband can also declare that he wants to be a SAHD and do the valuable job of taking care of home and children.

@Scaredmumxx that's your opinion, and the fact that you believe if both are working it's for fancy cars and holidays is incredibly naieve and frankly ridiculous. But even if they are, so what? Parents are still people too, maybe as a family they value travelling and having a safe car to travel in that's going to be more reliable and pleasant to drive. Childcare isn't a punishment for children where they are subject to adverse horror and distress, for some they love it. Fair enough some don't, but if you don't want judgement for SAHMs who are able to do so because effectively the man chooses he is happy to be the sole earner; then don't judge those who have to, or more importantly choose to go back to work. Their children are safe, being stimulated by activities, crafts, trips, socialisation and other things that many if they stayed at home wouldnt be able to afford. Your view is as valid as any of course, mine is that I don't believe children are necessarily better off being stuck indoors as the mum cannot afford to go anywhere or do anything with them, which would be the case for some if they stayed at home. I grew up in a poor household where we often when without heating and food, uniform was always secondhand and pretty grim, and my parents counted every penny. I feel blessed that I have the opportunity to work and we can save just in case and not have to be too cautious with every pound. I am still frugal, but maybe think of the bigger picture that people do what's best for them, you shouldn't dictate what's best for their children.

@KatharinaRosalie I've already said or SAHDs. Numerous times. In at least 3 posts.

2 parents working full time means they spend most of the baby years being raised by other people.

Now this makes me really angry. Children in nursery are NOT being raised by anyone other than their parents.

It has been the default position for a long, long time - until recently. So I think it is still the default position that unless decided otherwise the man provides for the family and should want to do that, it's natural. Saying a man can get a woman pregnant and expect her to work to provide just does not sit right to my mind
Yes, got forbid the woman takes equal financial responsibility for the child she is an equal parent of.
Jesus fucking Christ, is it 1950 already?!?!

Scaredmumxx

You are missing the point. A mother does not have kire rights to stay at home than the father.

Who don't understand that marriage is a team, and one who does 50% of the work by staying home, raising a family, attending to the household etc is somehow 'lesser' than a man who does the other 50% by earning.

You dont know what a team is. Being part if a team isnt saying 'I know we have one arrangement. But I have decided I am giving up work, you will financially support because you obligated yourself to the role"

How is that trans work.

Team work is deciding these things and compromising together. I dont give a shit if someone wants to be a sahm. That's entirely their choice.

I wont pretend that forcing someone into the role of sole provider, when they dont want to be, is on.

I presume you think it's ok to force women to be sahp?

@sueEllenMiske

Well the price of childcare isn't cheap. So surely these full time workers give most of it away anyway. Once the child turns 3 they get some hours funded. Then the mum could work 15-20 hi ours a week and keep a wage.

Having a child in nursery full time would not make financial sense. It cost me £106 a month for my 2.5 year old to go Monday and Friday for 3 hours a time. So if she went full time we are talking £700-£900

It's great if you have family helping for free. But unless you have a fantastic job anyway it's not worth it for the sake of keeping £300 out of £1200 a month. That's another reason sahm choose to stay home. It's expensive to go to work!

Op should invest a couple of years into her child before she goes to school. She won't regret it. These years won't come back