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

@G5000 spot on, it's pathetic isn't it. My DH works away a lot and people are full of admiration, saying how amazing he is for providing for his family (I actually earn more so he doesn't any more than I do). When I went back to work the same people were horrified that I would even consider putting DS in a safe, fun, creative childcare environment for 4 days a week that he really enjoys. The horror. I do find it interesting that people assume less money but more time is great, for some I'm sure it is, but having grown up constantly going without and missing out because of money, I'm not so sure.

I find it interesting all this talk about 'being there' for children is centred around the 0-4 year old age group. I know that is what the OP was asking about specifically, but the comments regarding SAHMs and working mums have - in the 20 pages since then - spoken solely about those ages.

I have three children who are 15, 13, and 10 - and I am lucky enough to be at home with them (due to a chronic illness, but I'm still at home) - and, without a shadow of a doubt, the oldest two need me far more now than they did when they were babies & pre-schoolers. Yet, the person arguing so vehemently against working mothers seems not to consider that might be a possibility? As if there's some magical cut off point where our children need us less... And then, and only then, is it anything other than frivolous selfishness to work? I can categorically say that just isn't true, and - as they will need us throughout their entire childhoods as they navigate their way into adulthood - we are all just doing our best to raise our children into decent, happy, human beings; to be able to keep a roof over our family's heads; to feed and clothe them; all whilst – hopefully – managing to keep a semblance of ourselves, our happiness, our health, and our sanity. Which, for some women means staying at home with their children and, for others, means going out to work.

Why can't we all just have the openness, intelligence, and empathy, to acknowledge that we are all doing the best we can, with the information and resources we have available to us? I know that is how I would want my children to view their peers; with kindness, empathy, and the benefit of the doubt. Something that it is possible to raise children doing regardless of if you are a stay at home or working parent, but is impossible to do unless you model it yourself.

@suzethestruggle you are right and i touched on that point earlier.

When someone was saying kids develop more, its only a few years to be out of work, once they get to 4, kids dont need you and develop less. Essentially saying you have your whole life to have career so shouldnt mind taking a few years out when they are young.

In my situation I returned full time after both mat leaves. When my marriage broke down and had to move etc, my career and savings enabled me to purchase a house AND take a year put to support my kids then who were 15 and 6. My kids are older now and doing amazingly. No mental health problems, came through the divorce well.

As you say we are all just doing your best.

I dont regret working, for a second. Because when I had to flea my home with the kids, it was so much easier when I could finance it with ease and make sure I was there for the kids. That's when they needed me most.

My career is far enough along now, that I can work from home as and when I want. Go to kids events, hobbies. Travel when it works for my family.

Given the choice to go back and redo it over, I wouldnt change my choices. Just like many parents (both sahm and wohm). Had I stayed at home until my first went to school, then worked, then took another 4 years off when I had my youngest, I would be able to do what I did.

Smell you do realise that working parents aren't only around 2 days out of 7?
They are there EVERY day. Mornings, evenings, night time. Some might even have a different two days off than their partner.
Obviously there is a good 8 hours 5 days a week that the parents aren't around but that's a small sacrifice to make.

Also I strongly do not believe that a child should have a primary caregiver and the other should just make a bond later in life. Life is way too short.

I’m full time but very senior which means I can dictate my own hours to a large extent. As a side point this is weirdly different to all the very important DHs who, despite being terribly senior and well paid, are unable to control their diary and mysteriously must miss every bedtime for years.

Anyway I digress, but I do think it’s paying off for me now DS is at school. I could never financially have been off work until he was an adult and by hanging in there while he was little (I did take a years maternity) I’m now in a position where I do see every nativity and I pick him up from school a couple of times a week and manage dinner with him probably 9 times out of 10. I’m also nearly in a position to have saved enough to really take my foot off the pedal in a few years and hopefully be term time only (because I’ll pick my contracts) for DS’ teen years.

I’m not suggesting that everyone has this option before I get jumped on. I just that you need to think about what you want long term and it may pay off to be a bit more strategic rather than just take as much off whey they’re teeny.

Does it really make people feel better about themselves if they can put everyone into boxes and make generalisations?

Now we have another convenient stereotype of “the “men who work long hours and never see their children because they are in “senior” positions” well what does that even mean? How can you speculate that they don’t make a bond with their kids? Utter nonsense.

Many highly paid people may well be self-employed. They don’t have “working hours”. They don’t even think like this or keep track, but they do need flexibility. So, for instance, my DH may be home some days and working intermittently. Other weeks he could be away at very short notice. There’s no pattern to it, in other words. My working or not working would make no difference to his “working hours” because this is the nature of what he does and you can’t do it otherwise. He used to be in the navy a long time ago and still knows some who now have children who go away for months. Families are all so different and it’s hypocrisy to say “my working has not affected my relationship with my children at all” while in the next breath castigate the “men who travel and never bond with their children” Nobody sets out to make life harder than it needs to be. For some people this will mean having a parent at home. For others it will mean both parents working. No more needs to be said.

In real life AND on mn you do see

'My husband cant do more because his job is very senior and he works alot and isnt home until 8pm every evening's

I remember a thread on here that illustrated it well.

One poster saying he husband was a gp so no flexibility, long hours so she stayed home and did everything. Another poster said her and her husband shared everything because both were gps and so were lucky to be able to work flexibly and around eachother.

Lots of senior men and women manage to work and spend time with their kids. But there does seem to be a lot of men who use it as an excuse, not to be at home.

I would imagine in the group, there are some that feel they must work like that because they are the sole breadwinner.

I managed a senior job while as a single parent. Many do. Yet men doing my job alongside me insist the flexibility isnt there.

I also dont think you can dismiss people posting on this thread that feel they missed bonding with one parent because they worked so much, so that one parent could be at home. Bonding in later life isnt always that easy, especially if the relationship breakdown at a later point.

As I said my personal feeling is that both parents should bind with the child early on. Wether that means both work part time or one at home and one makes sure they do plenty outside work with them. I think the ideal is to have 2 parents equally bonded to the kids

smellbellina do you think f/t working parents only see their children 2 days a week?
Why can't people understand that working patterns vary.
I work f/t but manage two days WFH meaning I can do the the school run. The other days we use the school wrap around care ( which he loves). He's collected by 5.30 at the very latest on those days by either me or DH. It worked in a similar way when he was at nursery. Don't make assumptions.

Lots of senior men and women manage to work and spend time with their kids. But there does seem to be a lot of men who use it as an excuse, not to be at home

For me (and this is only in reference to my situation), I didn’t want to have to “manage”. I see a lot of use on these threads of words like “manage” and “cope” and that wasn’t what we wanted for the family - we wanted an easy life

Shady I remember 2 threads running pretty much parallel

• 'I am a teacher so of course I am doing most of the childcare'

versus

• 'DH can't do any childcare because he's a teacher'.

Odd, isn't it, that women with senior high pressured jobs still somehow manage to find the same flexibility that's totally impossible for those high flying men. In fact, I ben I'm more senior and make more money than 90% of those high flyinh MN husbands whth SAHMs, who just have to be SAHMs because of their DH's career..

Exactly Jacques. People don’t want to just “manage” and why should they if they can make life easier on each other?

Shady - there will be all types of men doing all kinds of things. I don’t really see the relevance your point?

No problem wanting an easy life. Non at all.

But as established. You situation is very unusual. A self funding sahp, is extremely unusual. The working parent will have to manage their diary, efficiently to spend meaningful time with their family.

I honestly think people should choose, with their partner what is best for them. If you can self fund being a sahp, do it. If your partner is happy to being the sole earner do it.

I do think people need to think about ten possible consquences of staying at work and staying at home when making the decision. For most people there are pros and cons to both.

But the 2 adults should make the decision that suits them better.

While I would say that I manage to have a senior job and spend lots of time with the kids. The use of manage isnt a negative. It's like saying I managed to get my connecting flight to Bali.

Managing means I get everything I want. Most sahp manage their lives to. They manage to get their kids to school and do the supermarket shopping, meet friends have playdates, have a nap or whatever they are doing that day.

With a baby it's all about managing. It's a good day if you have a newborn and manage to get dressed some days

I bet, not ben.

And fair enough Jacques, from that perspective it is indeed easier to do just one job, not work and childcare both. On the other hand, for many people this would mean that they have to 'just manage' financially, instead of having an easy life and not worrying about the bills.

My husband has a senior role & I work also,

I have to say we to the most extent share the parenting drop offs /pick ups. This is probably because he has had to as I worked BUT he now gets annoyed if he can’t get home in time for a family dinner around the table as it’s something he enjoys that bonding time with his children etc Yes there are times he is away - like this coming half term and as others have said we manage I’m taking a couple of days as leave & WFH.

I’ve never really understood that my husband senior & possibly cant do it. I know a few of my husband colleagues refer to him as a ‘family man’ so check with him whether days work & meetings starting /ending late work for him? This then means we can then manage it so children come first. It hasn’t affected his promotion opportunities at all.

It could be that my husbands Dad was the one who picked him up from school as he did early morning shift work? So to my husband he would like that relationship with his own children? Out of 60 odd children in my daughters year I would say around 10 Dads regularly pick their children up which is sad.

It’s opportunity cost at the end of the day. The successful long-term SAH set ups that I can think of (and it’s quite a lot tbh) are such that the impact of the extra salary would be fairly negligible to the overall family finances and lifestyle - eg why go out to work for £80k or whatever if your DH makes or loses multiples of that on the City Index every day? Especially if you have more than a couple if children. As for the long-term pension plan / security, well, yes, some SAHPs may be vulnerable, but equally, many know that they could walk away from the marriage a lot more financially secure that’s they entered it and this is precisely because of the decisions both parents have made together.

OP and most SAHMs who have posted here are not millionaires though - most posts are about managing and how they don't want any holidays anyway. So an extra income would make a difference. And there would not be much to share in case of divorce.

Hmmmmm. Unhappy breadwinner wife alert. Avail of your flexibility. Work from home one or two days a week. Drop a day and get DH to do same. Much better with kids especially when small. I think if you don't go 4 day you will be stressed and unhappy. Less than 4 days sounds problematic financially.

Katharina - of course the vast majority of families don’t fall into the category that I’ve described above, but I was just trying to say that, for a high proportion of families who do have a SAHM long-term, the reality is they will fall into this category and that is precisely why there is a SAH. It’s not always “SAHM = financial vulnerability” and I wanted to challenge that generalisation.

However, many families these days need two incomes and so it’s a different context for these decisions. But even then, people will just do what makes most sense at a given time. There’s no right or wrong here.

Anyway, the OP is long gone so who knows?

The majority of sahms are not financially ok after divorce. Many sahp are so because its choice and they can just afford it, child is disabled, they might have a disability. Very few are are sahm because their other half is a high earner. The higher earners, where the sahp gets loads in assets and spousal support and lots of child maintenance are rare. Because high earners are rare.

In divorce now, the non working parent may get more assets, but are also expected to go find work. Clean breaks are preffered. Very few divorces end with the sahp being able to stay at home for the time they planned, had they have stayed together and then walk into a decent paying job when CMS finishes.

Sorry not majority. Wrong word. It's not a high proportion of sahp that end up well off after divorce.

Shady - that may be true, but a lot of women will struggle anyway after divorce if they were the lower earner. Buying a house a single person is a very different proposition to buying one as a couple.

Ultimately how financially vulnerable you would be after a divorce is down to so many factors and your salary is just one of these. For instance, how many children do you have; how much will you receive once family assets / wealth have been split; how easy will it be to keep working as a single mum; are you staying in the family home; how flexible is your work; how easy is it for you to return to work if need be; what even is your work; are you well paid; will you receive maintenance; will you have 50/50 custody..,,? There are so many variables in other words. A SAHM living in a house with no mortgage and various savings schemes / other assets in the family name, may not necessarily be worse off than a woman who works for a reasonable wage but receives next to no settlement after divorce because they had a massive mortgage and no savings or even debt.

I’mm just saying, you have to look at the wider picture because every family’s circumstances are unique.

I don't understand the logic to having a family and both parents being away all week working. I think kids need collecting from school by a parent some days. I think kids need days at home under school age. I think a parents presence is very important in the pre school years. Mental health is absolutely changing. Along with people being too busy! Which is why kids suffer. Parents are unavailable now. They work long hours.they are on their phones. Ofcourse nursery is positive in many ways. But a child should be going to nursery to socialise and enjoy the play. It's sad when it becomes there home 10 hours a day Monday to Friday. They have adults there. But they can only focus on your child so much and be there for them. It must be hard for them to express how they feel aged one or two and feeling sad or under the weather. Just craving time with mummy or daddy.

My niece has been woken up every morning at 5am to go to nursery for 7.30. the nursery gave her all 3 meals. She was collected at 5.30. She's now at school and is taken and collected by a child minder every day. She falls asleep on the sofa after tea. She's so tired. Then she does it all again the next day. Yes her parents are hard workers. She has a six bedroom house and 3 holidays a year. But she never gets to see her mum in the playground. The days are fat too long for her. She barely sees her parents. Yes the weekends exsist. But a 5 year old needs more than that. I have always felt sorry for her. She's never had the experience of just being with mummy. She fits in around her parents. They are wealthy and she was an IVF baby too. I think they will regret it in the future. They have missed out on alot!

Shady - that may be true, but a lot of women will struggle anyway after divorce if they were the lower earner. Buying a house a single person is a very different proposition to buying one as a couple.

Oh yes definitely. Theres pros and cons to every situation. In some ways I was lucky. Mum had several divorces where she came out in the shit because she gave up work or worked very part time every time she got married (3 marriages and counting) so being able to finance myself in the event if a relationship breakdown was always important to me. That's why my kids have a big gap. It was one or waiting until I could be financially independent if we split. 2 youngs kids in childcare would not have worked. And yes, I picked my jobs carefully. Mums divirces really impacted me, but in ways it worked out well for me in the end.

We do all make choices and have to weigh it up. As I said before, when making your choices you have to weigh up pros and cons.

It does concern me, though, how many women still think spousal maintenance or the right to live in the family home until their kids are adults is still a common thing, when making these choices. Or, like pp, paid her partners mortgage, then gave up work to look after their child, he has savings, her pension can wait.....with no clue how vulnerable they are.

Of course being a sahm does always mean you are vulnerable. But it's worth thinking about.

Nalanoodle again theres no proof that theres a link between working parents and children's mental health.

20 years ago children's mental health wasnt paid attention to. Kids were just 'odd' or 'difficult'

You nieces situation sounds hard on her. But have you considered that most people dont do that? Both me and exh worked and there was one pick up a week we didnt do. We did all drop off and the other 4.

Theres extremes on both sides. For every child in that situation theres another whose sahp is shit but does all school runs. Or is that obsessed with their kids its unhealthy

The majority of sahp and working parents manage to find the balance.

I dont know anyone who gets their kids up at 5am to start their day.

Also lots of kids dont get the experience of just being with daddy. Or second and third kids may not get the experience of just being with mummy or daddy. They do fine too.

What do you class as being obsessed with your kids? I am with mine full time. For reasons such as no village to support us and childcare costs this was the right choice for our family.

I agree and there's nothing wrong with parents working. It's not that it's bad. It's just children are often going into childcare from 9 months old and they are still babies and very dependant on mum. I am not sure it is all healthy and it's becoming more and more common. The cost of living is going up and I feel more should be done so parents and children can spend more time together. Often parents have no choice which also isn't fair. We should be able to raise our kids without feeling we have to be at work to survive to an extent. It's incredibly shit all around.

Yes my niece has a rubbish situation.her mums a medical proffesional.her dad was supposed to stay home but he's lazy and always at the pub. He changed his mind when she was one and got himself a job that requires nights away too. They have an income of £130,000 a year. There's no need for him to be working full time but he's put himself first as he doesn't like parenting. Won't even wipe a high chair. It's an individual case. I'm not saying everyone is the same or anything. I just think in her case.her parents have money and cars etc. But sometimes the free things are what counts. The family presence etc.

I don't know. I don't want an argument but I just feel the government has alot to answer for!