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

What do you class as being obsessed with your kids? I am with mine full time

That's not obsessed. I was talking about extremes. You can have sahp that smother their kids, helicopter parents and actually cause issues for the child. While you can have wohp at one extreme you can have sahp who are also extreme and not doing their kids any good.

The quality of parenting can be good or bad wether sahp or wohm.

I am not sure it is all healthy and it's becoming more and more common.

But why do you think this? There has to be a basis for your opinion on this.

The problem with your niece is that she has a shit dad. That will cause her more issues than long days, ever would.

He shouldnt be a sahp, if he is so shit. That would be far worse than a long day. A shit sahp would be horrendous for a childs mental well being.

We arent arguing, we are discussing.

Which government do you blame. I am 37 and worked full time with both my kids. One is 19 now.

When we had her, we did both need to work. We have had several governments since.

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.

This is an extreme case and is more to do with him being a shit dad not the fact the parents work.

Me and DH both work full time ( funny how his working pattern has NEVER been questioned) but still get to spend plenty of time with DS. We are an extremely close, tight knit family. We've never missed a nursery or school event and get to do school picks ups etc. Mainly because we've earned our flexibility at work.

I didn't want to take years out of my career. If had I wouldn't have been able to return. It's part of my identity. But that doesn't mean I love it more than my son. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Yes with both of us working it means we can afford luxuries but our biggest luxury is our house and the place we live. it's not a huge house but the location means we live in a lovely village where everyone knows everyone and we have access to an excellent nursery and schools. That was important to us.

Ans i'm not sure what the government has done/not done...there's been a fair few!

I find it interesting all this talk about 'being there' for children is centred around the 0-4 year old age group.

It's because those are the formative years and are thought to be critical for social, emotional development etc.

Economically and socially all governments for the past 50 years have been bound to encourage working adults, it's not left vs right.

The OP is the main breadwinner but her stopping work would only impact on foreign holidays and a car

That does not add up

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.

Quite. I used to work at a company which was ridiculously flexible - you do your hours, and if you do over, you make the time back later in the month. Everyone left at 4:30 and office was locked at 6. Yet there was one bloke (dad of 2, SAHM wife) who insisted on always working late and replying to clients late in the evening, even though senior management told him not to, because he was encouraging them! When they said things like "it would be nice to have the work in this week but DW if you can't", he would take it to mean it had to be done TODAY. Senior management then gave him every project going (while other people had no work on) because they knew he would do it, what with being a workaholic.

His wife probably thinks it's "one of those" companies where he'll get fired if he doesn't stay late, but it's literally the opposite. He admitted he's been the last one out of the office in every company he's worked in. Also moans about his kids all the time...

Also, I also think it is far better to have 2 parents around some of the time than a primary caregiver all of the time and other parent very little. Absolute bollocks that you should bond with the 2nd parent "later in life"!

I find it interesting all this talk about 'being there' for children is centred around the 0-4 year old age group.

Are these not the most important years for development. After this they are off to school and you have less input into educating them.
But we found there was always something they needed from you whatever the age.
Depending on your philosophy of course but some have a sahp throughout the children's life until 18.

@nalanoodle but what do you expect the government to do? They can't legislate for families like your sister and BiLs.

@Nalanoodle now read your post as if you were a mum who has to work to keep a roof over her child's head. As I said before, annual income is irrelevant, as the end result for the child is the same.
You're either saying that all families with two working parents are damaging their children, or families with two working parents don't damage their children. A 2 year old won't understand the difference in motives (fancy holiday Vs paying the bills next month) so will be impacted by the absence parents either way by your logic.
Perhaps have a think before you throw out your rather hurtful opinions. Many of us don't have a choice and don't appreciate people who have absolutely no idea about our situation judging us so harshly. Wtf do you expect us to do?

I'm fully aware of child development theories. And whilst the early years are formative years developmentally, in terms of how emotionally invested our children need us to be? For me, and most of my friends, our children have needed us far more as teenagers when they have all the stresses of schools, exams, friendships, mental health etc. Of course, I'm not saying that early development isn't important, but I think if people are criticising working parents of pre-schoolers so harshly then I don't understand when they consider it OK for both parents to go to work full-time? When does it stop being the greedy, selfish thing it's been portrayed as over the last 20 pages by some posters?

What I mean by that is that we can't always be there for our children, however much we would like to be; so we all just do our best and people should be more empathetic about that, because not one of us is perfect.

I’ve been a SAHM for a long time to be honest (well my eldest is now 16 and I had him at 30, put it that way). Even though this is not unusual at all in our area, I fully accept that, these days, it’s unusual on a wider, national level, so I see why some people in here might find us odd. But our circumstances are that we had 4 DC (planned)! so it was 10 years before they were all in reception. We have no family support.

DH has not had a fixed job as such since the eldest was born, but he has founded and successfully sold a .com company in this period and nowadays he’s also involved as a non-exec director for about six other companies, plus he has another company he still runs and various other business interests. He is an entrepreneur and lives and breathes all this regardless. So it’s never been straightforward as to what his working hours actually are and invariably, his work has blurred into evenings and home life. But this has become our norm and overall, I’d say it was worth it. It’s paid for the schools and the kids now have financial security for their futures they wouldn’t otherwise have had if DH has been more curtailed in pursuing his business opportunities. So this is why we did it this way. The kids understand that we’re both doing our best in our different ways.

I’ve never felt financially vulnerable because of the way we have things set up, but I do sometimes feel judged on MN as being “just a mum”. But the way I see it, nothing is ever set in stone. I’m training as a psychotherapist and one year into an MSc and this will be the “new me” for my late 40s / 50s. It’s never too late and fortunately, I think some jobs are actually more suited to older people I spent a decade in this field pre-DC when I was working with children and families. So, because of the way I approach life and my interest in developmental processes / attachment theory, etc, I never found being at home with my kids dull or I never felt trapped as some might do (and I fully understand why they might). If I’d wanted to get back into work for my sanity, or for the money, then we would have had to organise ourselves differently. We wouldn’t have had 4 for a start! We would have maybe had a nanny and DH would have maybe been more limited in the focus he could give to work opportunities. I might have gained something in terms of having a career and all that comes with that, but in other ways, life would have been a lot more hectic for all concerned. It’s hectic enough as it is! And I fully agree with the PP who said the teen years make the early years look like a walk in the park

@loonatoon love your post.

@Biancadelrioisback as apposed to the people who have called people vunerable for staying home. The ones who have said people are too obsessed with their kids. The ones who have made stay at home mums sound lazy and unambitious. I'm sorry that you don't agree. I get people must and need to work in many situations. That's not an issue. That still doesn't change that children due to this are not getting enough time with mum and dad. They are out in all weather's and expected to go to nursery with colds and coughs and all-sorts. They don't get a sick day unless it involves puke or high fevers. It's exhausting. They are very small people who are just months into life. Look how tired reception children are after school. It's exhausting. They get 4 short years of being babies. To be with family. To play and explore. To develop. Ofcourse it's a positive part of the toddler years to play and learn and explore in a nursery or ore school. Also no it won't harm children being in this environment some of the time. But really it should be in the middle. for the child and what's best for them. Not saying it's best for their parents financial situation. I'm saying it's best for a developing child.

You only have to look at how sick a child gets when they are exposed to such settings so young. Mine had virus after virus after virus doing 12 hours a week in preschool. Ofcourse they need to build the immune system up. Ofcourse colds are a part of life. But it's also not good for your immune system to take a huge bashing over and over again. My son went to hospital for 3 days after his sister brought home so many bugs. That's another reason I don't feel full time is good. Not enough time to rest and recover.

I know it's not a popular opinion and that's fine with me. I'm not digging at workers. I'm saying children are expected to do too much too young. Having children is a blessing and you won't get the years back.

Obviously at 4 they go to school. Then you have a chunk of your life back and they are older and stronger too. Also able to tell you how they feel and have more stamina in general. Just my view. Just like it's other people's views that I'm fucked for life for not working right now and if I get dumped I'll be in a mess. It's just opinions. None of us are necessarily right. They are just our views. I can't change your opinion and you can't change mine.

You only have to look at how sick a child gets when they are exposed to such settings so young

Again, more and more assumptions. My DS is 5 and started nursery at 10 months. I can count he days he's had off due to illness on one hand and that's not because we send him in ill ( both me and DH have generous dependent leave and grandparents nearby if needed) I know other children who are the same. People do what works best for them and their family unit - it would be nice to do that without judgement and opinion-passed-off-as-fact

Why are you TTC if you can't even handle your life as it is and while your relationship is on the rocks? If your husband doesn't want to support you then that's his decision.

Nalanoodle I wasn't trying to change your opinion, just pointing out that you've come onto the thread making sweeping generalisations about people and families that you haven't backed up. I haven't said a single thing about SAHP, I don't look down on them or pity them. I think what they do is fantastic and at times I am jealous! But I do what I do to keep my family alive and together. Your whole post screams judgemental snobbery and, as I said, you've made hurtful judgements without giving a shit who might be reading them or what they might be going through.

The ones who have said people are too obsessed with their kids

It was me that mentioned obsession. And you have totally twisted what I said. A poster mentioned an extreme situation where the parents work. I said there are extremes on both sides, which arent healthy. If you are going to quote, quote correctly.

That still doesn't change that children due to this are not getting enough time with mum and dad. They are out in all weather's and expected to go to nursery with colds and coughs and all-sorts. They don't get a sick day unless it involves puke or high fevers. It's exhausting. They are very small people who are just months into life. Look how tired reception children are after school. It's exhausting. They get 4 short years of being babies

Bollocks. My kids never went to school or nursery with a cold. One of us stayed home or worked from home if possible. Not that either of them got that sick. Very rare. Your child getting sick isnt proof of anything.

Do sahm not take their kids out in bad weather? How odd, why?

Yes, kids take 4 years to reach 4. Why do you think they are automatically ready at 4 for their parents to both work?

You talk about kids getting sick at nursery. That happens when they go to school too.

And you absolutely are having a dig.

You will have a shock when you go back to work and have an amazing career and then realise your 8 year old/13 year old needs you more than you expect.

You state it's not good for children, can you back that up?

Cause my opinion is people like you that like to judge people as not doing the best for their kids, are so insecure about their choices they like to try and make others feel shit and like the are neglecting their kids. It says more about you, than working parents.

'My opinion is 2 working parents is bad for your children...but it's just my opinion...doesnt mean anyghing' is rubbish. What you mean is 'this justifies what I want to do, so I will judge and then try and cover the fact that I am judging'

You made your choice to be sahm. Own it.

I have no idea if you are financially vulnerable or not. But it is a fact that most people without their own income or independent wealth are vulnerable. Not just sahp. That's a fact. Not an opinion.

You only have to look at how sick a child gets when they are exposed to such settings so young. Mine had virus after virus after virus doing 12 hours a week in preschool. Ofcourse they need to build the immune system up. Ofcourse colds are a part of life. But it's also not good for your immune system to take a huge bashing over and over again.

• Multiple citations needed

@Nalanoodle, your post it's so judgemental and it is so obvious you are convinced it is much better for the children to have a sahm, your judgement is letting you believe it is fact.

I don't know what's best, I believe some kids who've been in nursery from a young age will benefit great and others won't just like kids whose one parent was a sahp.

In my family, we've done as well in both situations. I was with a babysitter from a few months to a ft working mum and I am a happy well adjusted person and always have been. My kids were also with a childminder and then nursery before they were one and are doing great. The eldest is about to finish medical school, the youngest daughter is in her first year at Uni studying Economics. Im very close to both and they don't seem one bit unhappy with their childhood.

It really gets to me when working or stay at home mums criticize eachother convinced that their choice has to be the best one and feel sorry for the kids of the other. It's so condescending!

Shade you seem to be annoyed at people having a different opinion to you and expect them to back it up with evidence, but don't see any problem with not backing up your own. I'm not asking you to link research but I don't see why you expect others to either, just acknowledge that you also are stating your opinion, which is fine!

This isn't a debate that's going to be solved on MN after all.

theendoftheendoftheend I dont mind anyone having an opinion.

But that post isnt expressing an opinion they are judging and then were misquoting me. So yeah, I am going to challenge that

You want me to provide a study that says, if you dont have your own income or wealth you are financially vulnerable?

Really? that's the definition of financially vulnerable.

And yes, if you are going to claim that all kids of working parents are damaged, dragged into nursery ill, made poorly and generally neglected.....of course you should have some factual evidence to back that up. The fact that one posters on got sick alot, isnt proof.

And the whole 'I am not having a dig' when you (that poster not you perosnally) are show a lack courage aswell as being dim.

If I was saying 'well being a sahp is to blame for the rise in the number if children with poor mental health' I would expect to back that up.

Ok your right. It's much better for a child to be at nursery all the time and both parents working. They will turn out beautifully with no attachment issues. I'm sure they are glad they never see you much. Also you will never regret not spending a couple of days a week with them. You will never look back and wish you had enjoyed your children more whilst they were little. Ofcourse little people are strong enough to be away from a main carer all week. It's a brilliant situation for them to be away from you up to 55 hours a week. I never even worked more than 39 but yep that's great. Also you are right staying at home is a terrible idea. We are all making ourselves vunerbale. Not thinking of our pensions or consequences. We are absolutely irresponsible and don't have any plans for the future. This is it now for us we are wasted. When we get dumped we will rely heavily on workers like yourself to pay our benefits etc. You have backed up all your pointers beautifully whilst refusing to read that I've said there is nothing wrong with parents working but one should be around more for obvious reasons.

Also yes when they are 4 they still need you for...... Drop of at school and pick up. Sports days. Parents evenings. Homework. Sick days. School projects. Clubs. School plays. Making them team. Reading with them. Friends advice and support. Love and all the rest of it too. They will continue to need that until forever. What I meant was when they are actually of school age you can get a job in school hours. Maybe even pop them in after-school club for an hour. That's a perfectly acceptable thing to do after spending a couple of years at home or part time. That's my view. This has turned petty and as soon as people don't agree they are like back it up with actual evidence. Let's see how children are in 20 years. Because the product of the last 15 years has slowly got worse and worse. Disrespectful and rude. Loads of thrives and knife crime. Loads of random attacks and gangs. Mental health is going higher and higher. I actually did read something about unavailable parenting the other week. You might think grabbing 3 hours in the evening is good for your child. But it's actually not what's best for them daily. They really do need a parent raising them.you heard the saying. Give me the bot for five years I'll show you the man? The first five years are when they will develop more than ever! It's fact.

Give me the boy for five years!

I will contraversially perhaps put a wager on the fact that many of the children involved in knife crime etc weren't sent to nursery because both of their parents worked.