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

We wanted to spend time with our kids, aren't into buying stuff, can pay our bills out of the small amount coming into our home.

Not everyone can afford to do that though

There are households where both parents work full-time (and then some) and they still need to use foodbanks.

Some parents want to spend their time working, others want to spend it at home with their kids, hardly earth shattering news.

We wanted to spend time with our kids, aren't into buying stuff, can pay our bills out of the small amount coming into our home.

Well aren't you just perfect

So nice that you can afford everything you need without having both parents work long hours. Maybe one day you'll realise that isn't the case for everyone.

Some parents want to spend their time working, others want to spend it at home with their kids, hardly earth shattering news. We wanted to spend time with our kids, aren't into buying stuff, can pay our bills out of the small amount coming into our home.

I'm hoping this is just phrased awkwardly and not as disingenuous as it reads. It's not a case of all working parents wanting to work and all stay at home parents wanting to stay at home. It's a case of what you're able to do.

By adding not being into "buying stuff" into the mix you're clearly marking yourself as somehow less materialistic as two working adults. It's snarky and needless.

This has descended into posts with such a nasty undercurrent to faux naivety like the above as if it's a black and white choice of wanting to be at work versus wanting to be with your kids, that makes working parents feel shit. I can see that and I'm not even a working parent!

Tornbakers - I can quite understand why you would take offence at the comment that you don’t want to spend time with your kids..

Nevertheless, there are some people who freely admit that they need to hi to work for “stimulation” because being at home is mind- numbing etc. So, you can see where that comment might have come from too, hopefully.

The point is, generalisations never work.

It’s not at all U not to want to be sole earner. DH wouldn’t be willing to do that and nor would I, barring ill health or DC having additional needs.

“ Dp doesnt need to work”

Unless they have independent wealth they do, if unmarried, unless they want to take huge personal financial / economic risks.

People are free to find the type of relationship that suits them. They are also free to find the home / work balance that suits them.

It is totally obvious that there will be as many manifestations of this as there are women in the world!

If I dare say it, my husband is from a background where, as a man, you should not think about having a family until you’re in a position to financially support that family. This is your primary role as a husband and father because, on a biological level, you are not the one giving birth to or feeding the child. That might not be popular on here, of course, because certain people will want to misunderstand this attitude, or twist it into a negative when really, it’s just seen as common sense., It’s not about stopping mothers going back to work. It’s more about recognising the physical and emotional toll that is unique to women following childbirth; respecting that and being proud to play your part, as a man, in facilitating your child being with its mother. Again, it’s NOT the case that women are forced into a certain role necessarily, but more that there’s no expectation for you to rush back to work before you’re ready. So a scenario like a breastfeeding mother being expected to work full -time and travel away from her child, when she didn’t want to, would be an embarrassment, to be honest.

I’m just explaining this, because there are different perspectives, that’s all. It’s only a problem when two people in a marriage have opposing perspectives, as is the case with the OP and her DH.

Some parents want to spend their time working, others want to spend it at home with their kids, hardly earth shattering news.
We wanted to spend time with our kids, aren't into buying stuff, can pay our bills out of the small amount coming into our home.
You live how you want to live, that's the freedom we have in this country.

I'm amazed at how personally offended people can be at comments like this! Many people think it's best to spend as much time as possible with young DC, even if it means struggling financially a little (or a lot in some circumstances).

For those that don't have the luxury of the choice at all, then I think that is when comments like this will piss people off.

I wonder for how many people, the choice of whether or not to be a SAHP is decided for them, I.e. childcare too expensive to both work so only option is a SAHP, or a single parent who needs to work, or you literally need two full time incomes to pay the bills (the latter may be less common given childcare costs).

drabarni yet another person completely missing the point.

Childcare is a shared cost: if one partner earns less than childcare costs, SAH may still not be the best option.

I work around my kids. It’s great when they come home from school I can hide in the kitchen and read crap on the internet. Far far better than any childcare provision

Childcare is a shared cost: if one partner earns less than childcare costs, SAH may still not be the best option.

The higher earner would have to earn a decent amount for the couple to be able to choose to take an overall negative hit on the childcare.

Loonatnoon it is a false dilemma - wanting time be at work and wanting to be with your children are not the only options. Should we all home educate to maximise time with them? Is wanting the stimulation of work the same thing as saying being at home is "mind numbingly boring"? Of course not.

Unless they have independent wealth they do, if unmarried, unless they want to take huge personal financial / economic risks.

Well, plenty of women with kids dont work and rely on their dp. So my dp could too. We can afford for him not to work.

Oh and also apparantly pointing out that not being married and financially depending on your dp, is having a dig a sahm, according to some.

You cant point that out.

Well shadyshadow, one of the most strident “making memories not money” posters on this thread said partner instead of husband. You’d hope that she had taken the required steps to protect herself financially in the event of a split but her rather shortsighted views would imply that she hasn’t.

You would hope, but she hasnt.

It's ok though, she paid towards the mortgage and he has loads if savings. And she can worry about her pension later. So it's all good

It beggars belief that people think they are financially secure in this situation and have planned well.

Tom - it is a false dilemma because people work / don’t work in all kinds of configurations.

Another false notion on here is that if you don’t return to work within a given period, you are “financially vulnerable” for ever. Well, this may be true in many cases, of course, but there will be just as many cases where it’s not true at all.

Women are not stupid. I live in an area where most of the women are SAH for long periods. To be blunt, it’s an area of London where there’s a lot of wealth and they have husbands who are very high earners, even by London standards. These women are all highly educated, confident and articulate and could walk into a job, but they have the luxury of choice to be around for the DC. They take things on regarding the kids that they wouldn’t otherwise have time for. These families have busy lives and tend to do a lot. They become very involved in their kids education as competition for schools is fierce in this area and quite unlike anywhere else in the country. It suits the DHs who tend to work very long hours and travel a lot. They have no need to use childcare, though some may have a live in nanny as well.
These women are hardly drudges at home. They have full access to family funds, properties and investments - there is no question of this - and they know where they stand in the event if divorce. The point is, even if they were working, it would make little difference to the overall family wealth. SAH just means that life is smoother and everyone benefits. If they want to go back to work, they do just that. If they can’t, because they’ve been out of the loop too long, then they retrain. This happens all the time.

Obviously, this is a very privileged position to be in, but like do many things in life, money buys choices. It’s no coincidence that there’s a preponderance of SAHMs in areas like SW London. None of them would recognise the portrayal of them on here as bored or vulnerable, etc. It’s precisely because they are are not bored or vulnerable that they can make the choice to SAH!

So the OP didn't come back?! I have just read pages and pages .....

I have no desire to comment but I second pretty much everything that @Shadyshadow has said.

There are many different set ups. Me and my oh discussed our sotuation when I was pregnant. He earns 36,000 a year. I was earning 12,000 a year but there was no reason we couldn't live of his wage.

We knew childcare would cost a fortune. We also looked into how we would collect the kids if nursery rang. How sick days would work. We worked out that I would stay home. It's a good job I have too. Lost track of how many days I'd of been off work with sick bugs, tonsilitis and general fevers. Hospital stay with the youngest too. Id be an awful employee at the moment.

Op it's a worthwhile experience if you can agree on something. I'm so greatful for these years and it's a rewarding job.

When my children are older I'd like to become a health support worker so my dream is to work in a hospital setting. I don't like to think I have ruined my future by taking 8-10 years out of work. I won't ever have a career but we do ok. We have a holiday each year. The kids have all they need and we are buying a house. We've cut back on things we did before kids. Like meals at Frankie and Benny's and a cinema trip. We used to go to London for weekends twice a year. But I know we can do these things again in a few years. I am actually looking forward to the kids tagging along.

Make your life what you want it to be. Ultimately only you know what makes you happy and what's best. Time goes so fast when they are small. I know it's not everyone's idea of fun being with kids alot of the week. It's what you make it though. I keep busy taking mine for walks and to parks. Meeting friends. There is an adventure playground near is too. I have no regrets! Good luck xx

Oh you misunderstand, money isn't a bad thing... As long as the man earns

Ah yes sorry.

Working father - works hard to provide for his family; great, loving dad. We are so blessed that he works hard and we can have a nice lifestyle.

Working mother - evil, greedy woman who should not have had any children. She clearly does not want to spend time with them and has given them to some random strangers to raise, so she can buy more handbags.

Even worse than sweeping judgements such as those are threads like this that cause women to pander to those stereotypes and reveal their deep insecurities by turning against at each other.

The irony of "we thought our child should have a parent at home" is always that the husband "works long hours and travels a lot", so they see absolutely 0 of the dad.....

The point is having a consistent primary care giver in the formative years, it doesn’t matter whether it’s mum or dad etc

I think having two parents around for a good chunk of time is better than having one around all the time and one briefly at the weekend.

I’m not sure I would consider 2 days out of 7 to be a good chunk of time. But two parents working part time to cover the childcare would be consistent. Also not all families with SAHP have one working parent who is only around briefly at the weekend. And it could be argued that as long as the primary caregiver is there to consistently meet the needs of the child, the secondary relationship with the other parent during those early years is very much secondary (admittedly this is from the DC’s point of view not the SAHP’s!) and a broader relationship can be established in later years.