To want to be a stay home mum?

[wanttostayathome]

So I've got about 6 months left of my maternity leave, and I already know for a fact I don't want to go back. I love being a mum and I want to take another year or two off to raise my baby before she starts school.

Financially, it would be tight and although probably doable we'd have much less disposable income. My DH thinks I should go back for the money and also to have some balance between mum life and the old me.

I however disagree. There's nothing more I want from my life than to raise my baby but I don't know how to approach this conversation with him, as I know my POV isn't the done thing and I should want to be able to juggle career and family.

So, AIBU?

So funny when these posters bang on about 'hamster wheels', 'wage slaves', 'materialism' and 'money isn't important to me'. Their brain just doesn't make the connection that these things must apply equally to their husband (or whoever else earned the money that enables them to stay at home.)

Clearly in their universe, daddy working = big important man with fascinating high flying career; mummy working = monotonous hamster wheel job which (bizarrely) she only does to pay for handbags.

Tragic!

Stop the bullying towards the few posters brave enough to say they enjoy being a SAHM.

So stunning and brave

Also why does it always get mentioned that people who work outsource stuff like cleaning, I don't know anyone that does?

@RobinPenguins

There seem to be a lot of assumptions on here that the woman’s salary is just pin money that can be made up for by cutting back on takeaways and Netflix or not going for Saturday shopping trips. Well yes, if that’s all it meant to the family finances then I can see why it was an easy decision. That’s not the case for plenty of families though, I earned almost the same as DH before I dropped a day when returning from maternity leave. I’ve since been promoted so don’t think I’ve been sidelined as a previous poster asserts is what happens to all working mothers she knows. If one of us was to stop working it would mean a complete change of lifestyle including moving to a significantly cheaper area with fewer opportunities for all of us. That’s a bit more than just trimming a few luxuries.

This really frustrates me. The idea that men are working to provide for their families yet women work for luxuries. Like you, losing my salary would mean a significant drop in our household income. I've also not been sidelined in my career. In fact, my career has progressed well and I'm on track for further promotions.

Clearly in their universe, daddy working = big important man with fascinating high flying career; mummy working = monotonous hamster wheel job which (bizarrely) she only does to pay for handbags.

God it's so depressing, isn't it?

Clearly in their universe, daddy working = big important man with fascinating high flying career; mummy working = monotonous hamster wheel job which (bizarrely) she only does to pay for handbags.

It's a really common narrative on threads like these. It makes you realise how little progress we've made

But no one is saying women should just work for luxuries or that men should always provide.

We are saying that one partner at home (man or women) should be considered a valid life choice if both parties want it. And that the sneering at stay at home mums or assumption that the only acceptable path in life is two highly paid professionals with childcare should stop. (Because yes, if you believe having two highly paid professional parents is the ONLY way a family can live happily you probably are materialistic and living in a bubble. Not to say this option isnt fantastic for some, it’s just not for everyone).

Oh and the poster that was accused of not appreciating her husbands money because she dared to say money isn’t important to her - that was obviously taken out of context - ridiculous!! Of course she appreciates her husbands financial contributions - her family have just decided instead of an extra income they’ll have mum at home. You are really twisting what was said there. Again some don’t really care about what was written but just want any excuse to bash SAHMs.

We are saying that one partner at home (man or women) should be considered a valid life choice if both parties want it.

In the full knowledge we're just going round in circles now, no one is arguing with this.

However as you well know, in this case both parties don't want it.

One or two years wont change anything dramatically in your work life (decades of work ahead), but will give solid foundation for your baby. I would fight for that year, it's not like you plan to stay at home till she is 18. You could live very modestly in that period to burden your husband less. It would be worth it.

We are saying that one partner at home (man or women) should be considered a valid life choice if both parties want it.

OP's husband doesn't want it.

@Babysharkdududududu

But no one is saying women should just work for luxuries or that men should always provide.

We are saying that one partner at home (man or women) should be considered a valid life choice if both parties want it. And that the sneering at stay at home mums or assumption that the only acceptable path in life is two highly paid professionals with childcare should stop. (Because yes, if you believe having two highly paid professional parents is the ONLY way a family can live happily you probably are materialistic and living in a bubble. Not to say this option isnt fantastic for some, it’s just not for everyone).

Oh and the poster that was accused of not appreciating her husbands money because she dared to say money isn’t important to her - that was obviously taken out of context - ridiculous!! Of course she appreciates her husbands financial contributions - her family have just decided instead of an extra income they’ll have mum at home. You are really twisting what was said there. Again some don’t really care about what was written but just want any excuse to bash SAHMs.

if you believe having two highly paid professional parents is the ONLY way a family can live happily you probably are materialistic and living in a bubble.

I feel there is an irony regarding living in a bubble on this one. Do you think all families in which both parents work are highly paid professionals? Or do you think perhaps the decision is made on what's affordable as well as what both parties want to do? In this case OPs husband thinks she should go back for the money, which is valid; the decision impacts him too, and perhaps he doesn't want to to scrimping by.

We are saying that one partner at home (man or women) should be considered a valid life choice if both parties want it.
That's literally what most people on this thread have been saying, the key part there is that BOTH people want it.

Unfortunately minority of posters seem to have spent most of the their thread contributions arguing that people hate on SAHP, don't value SAHP, that MN is an area where nobody supports SAHP, with a healthy side order of stupid comments about working mums being on the hamster wheel, snide comments about people's CV, high fliers, and the rest (all whilst hilariously claiming to be supportive of women, but there we go).

It's all well and good people saying money was tight for them but it was worth it, or they're a SAHP and their husband is totally on board and it was agreed before they had kids, but that isn't the OP's situation.

If OP and DH went into having children with a view of both parents working in some capacity, then wanting to be a SAHP after baby has arrived and wanting the partner to be a breadwinner is a substantial change. If OP's husband doesn't want to be a breadwinner, it's totally irrelevant that someone else's husband agreed to be a breadwinner before having kids.

If finances would be tight, not everyone wants their household finances to be tight, let alone be tight whilst having the sole financial responsibility for the family unit. It's irrelevant if someone else says finances were tight but they didn't mind and it was right for them, their DP, and family, because not everyone wants that to be their position.

Pointing out that both people need to be on board before making substantial changes to the financial situation of a family unit in the short, medium and long term is not some vendetta against SAHP. It is common sense.

Oh and the poster that was accused of not appreciating her husbands money because she dared to say money isn’t important to her - that was obviously taken out of context - ridiculous!! Of course she appreciates her husbands financial contributions - her family have just decided instead of an extra income they’ll have mum at home.

Yesterday you were accusing people of "speaking for the husband" when they merely repeated what he had told the OP. Today, you're speaking for another poster (trying to backpedal for her, really) because she said something very very telling.

Her post is there, people can read it for themselves. Would you like a husband to say that staying home with the kids isn't important to him? Would you make up a backpedalling story for him too?

We are saying that one partner at home (man or women) should be considered a valid life choice if both parties want it.
Nobody is disagreeing with this. The issue here is that both parties don't want it.

And that the sneering at stay at home mums or assumption that the only acceptable path in life is two highly paid professionals with childcare should stop. (Because yes, if you believe having two highly paid professional parents is the ONLY way a family can live happily you probably are materialistic and living in a bubble. Not to say this option isnt fantastic for some, it’s just not for everyone).

Who has said that? Nobody has said it's the only way a family can live happily but you are suggesting that those that do choose to have two working parents are materialistic. That's insulting.

My DH earns enough for me not to work. It would mean a different lifestyle for us but we could make it work.
However, I choose to work because I love my job, I find it rewarding, and I want to be financially independent.

That doesn't mean I'm materialistic.
I'm not working for luxuries- my salary pays for us to live too.
It doesn't mean I love my job more than my child.

We are saying that one partner at home (man or women) should be considered a valid life choice if both parties want it. And that the sneering at stay at home mums or assumption that the only acceptable path in life is two highly paid professionals with childcare should stop. (Because yes, if you believe having two highly paid professional parents is the ONLY way a family can live happily you probably are materialistic and living in a bubble. Not to say this option isnt fantastic for some, it’s just not for everyone).

Who is saying any of that? We could live (probably even happily) on one of our salaries but it would be a big lifestyle change so it’s not something I think either of us should be “persuaded” of against our will. That may well be less relevant for the OP, but if it was nothing more than a few little luxuries then why would her DP be citing financial concerns?

I must be reading a parallel thread to some of you. I’ve seen one post about Cosmo and weight gain that I’d count as offensive against SAHPs, compared to repeated assertions that WOHPs are materialistic, living in a bubble, on a hamster wheel, inflating our CVs, aren’t working for anything more than a Netflix and nail varnish budget and don’t prioritise our children. Work, don’t work, at the end of the day no one outside your family cares. I don’t know why you feel you need validation for your choices from internet strangers.

Do you think all families in which both parents work are highly paid professionals?

Quite! Then again on MN as there seems to be a lot of high flyers.. perhaps some need to get back to reality. There's a lot of us doing average paying jobs and less

@TheKeatingFive

Many are still incorrectly saying that SAHMs think only men should work, women only work for shoes and other utter bollocks.

I was reiterating that this is not what I or any of the other mums on here are saying.

But you insist on quoting one sentence out of context - to answer a point that doesn’t need answering. I think you would rather just have an argument than an actual discussion.

Even though it’s framed as defending women’s working rights (against enemies that don’t exist) I’m thinking some of you really just want any excuse to argue with SAHMs.

I mean some of the sentences that have been twisted out of context just so that another poster can come along and “defend the right of women to work” (when no one is attacking this) is mind boggling. Some of you are clearly gutted that you missed the feminist movements in earlier decades. If you want a feminist cause maybe look at SAHMs - we are a pretty marginalised group these days and are openly slated online by some ( not all) other women for not doing what the majority do.

Whenever I see 'mn hates sahm' I often thing that what that poster means is 'I am a sahm and MN doesn't treat me as I see fit and hold me up as the ideal of parenting'.

The honest truth is, I don't give shit if you want to be a sahp or you want to work or which you do isn't a choice. Most parents are trying to do the best they can within their own family.

Being a sahp doesn't automatically make you a better parent or partner or person. Neither does wohp.

Talking about the practicality is completely separate to judging a sahp or judging a wohp.

If you want to do something and it entails something quite massive that will rely on another person and they don't want to do it, then you can't do it. Or rather you can and probably ruin the relationship with that person.

Both setups, wohp and sahp, have pros and cons. Whichever you do, you need support (partner, extended family, friends or paid) and everyone needs to go into it with theirs eyes open as to those pros and cons. Wether you chose it or not.

I can't see how pointing any of this out is having sahm. Which is why I believe people must be projecting their own feelings on to posts where the automatic reaction isn't 'yes sahp are the most wonderful people'.

Agree. Let’s leave aside the high fliers who seem to congregate on MN - most of us are working for more modest salaries and pensions but these are very important to the family finances and keep us out of precarious/tight financial situations.
I did like the idea that the OP should just cancel some subscriptions for a year and put that money aside though - I have no idea how many subscriptions that poster has but I would imagine it doesn’t come close to an annual salary plus pension contributions.

@Babysharkdududududu sahp are not a marginalised group.

My own sil told me working mothers should have been infertile. After returning to work full time, I got loads of crap from older women who had been sahp and then worked part time. Absolutely loads, including bei f told I must just not have bonded with my child like they did.

Its an attitude that still exists to this day. In real life, that impacts my life and career.

Working mothers are often passed over in the work place, because ita assumed we aren't as committed as people without kids or men that have kids.

That doesn't make working mothers a marginalised group either.

Whenever I see 'mn hates sahm' I often thing that what that poster means is 'I am a sahm and MN doesn't treat me as I see fit and hold me up as the ideal of parenting'.

And doesn't validate my choices, and has the gall to mention practicalities that might not work for everyone.

If you want a feminist cause maybe look at SAHMs - we are a pretty marginalised group these days and are openly slated online by some ( not all) other women for not doing what the majority do.

You’re right. Domestic violence, female genital mutilation, I’ll sack off campaigning against those and start a campaign for those poor marginalised SAHMs instead. Have a word with yourself.

I am a sahm and have been for nearly six years now (children and 5 and 3). I had a reasonable career (not mega bucks but higher rate taxpayer level) and I always said I wanted to be at home whilst the children were pre school. DH agreed entirely and has a well paying job which made it a much easier decision (and over the last six years he's been promoted and got pay rises which have almost made up for the entire loss of my salary).

Pros for us are:

• One parent able to be at home with children at all time, doing all the 'firsts' not missing anything
• Never having to worry about (or more importantly, pay for!) childcare, juggling school holidays, working around children being ill etc
• For me, being able to be with my babies all the time. For the most part, I bloody love it and I wouldn't change it

Cons:

• Less money initially
• It is relentless. I had relentless babies too (non sleepers, reflux etc) but the toddler years really are something else. Some days felt like weeks long when they were both around age 2 and the 3 year old still has her moments!
• Bit of a loss of identity for me personally. I never intended to go back to my previous job, it paid well but I hated it. But now, six years later I'm struggling to work out what it is I'd actually like to do. I am very very lucky in that there is no rush for me to go back to work and I won't until my youngest is at school full time anyway (2 more years) so I have time to retrain if I want to but I really don't know what to do.
• People judge the hell out of you. Bear in mind I am the most 'suitable' sahm person ideally - we can easily afford it, claim no benefits, are married, still pay into my pension, have private health insurance, have savings in joint and individual names, income protection for DH, and I obviously own half the house. I also have full access to all of our money, no 'allowances' or asking to spend we have a joint account and both use it sensibly. People still think I'm stupid and risk taking and the funniest one - they think I'm lazy for not working in a paid job. Hahahah! Being a sahm is not complex in the way working is, that's true, but it is definitely not for the lazy!
• I do most of the housework/cooking/general wife work . Which is fair as I am at home and DH is out 7-7 Monday-Friday. Makes sense. But it is boring and again, relentless especially when you have small people wrecking your hard work every two minutes

There is a lot to consider and it's a big decision. It is not all sunshine and roses where you just merrily care for your child. You'll have days where you can't believe your luck and you'll also have days where you're lonely, miss adults, miss your old life a bit and chuck the child at your DH the moment he walks in the door because your sick of the bloody sight of them (I love them really but who invented toddlers and their incessant whining?!).

If he's not on board and money will be tight I can see how it'd breed resentment. Tread carefully.

@Nyxs absolutely spot on.

The fact is, being a good parent (or not) is not about whether one, both or neither parent works. There is no specific family set up which is the 'gold standard' of parenting. Let's face it, if there was, all kinds of family set ups have been around long enough that we'd see some empirical evidence of what that looked like.

I said earlier, my children are all well into adulthood now. They are happy, successful, well adjusted. As are the adult children of my mum friends, some of whom worked full time, some part time, some stayed at home.

Be a SAHP if you and your partner agree to it - truly, no other family cares what you do. Just don't try to claim some moral high ground or imagine your children are going to grow into more well rounded humans than those of your WOHP friends.

I've always worked- for many reasons. I enjoy the job that I studied and trained for. It brings another dimension to my life alongside all the other aspects of life - parenting, hobbies etc. The money and pension are nice too but that doesn't mean they're the only things that matter. But I would never claim that working confers some kind of superior status on my children. I'm sure they would have turned out just as happy and emotionally well adjusted if I'd been a SAHM.

If you want to do something and it entails something quite massive that will rely on another person and they don't want to do it, then you can't do it. Or rather you can and probably ruin the relationship with that person.

Yes if, for example, my DH wanted to take a job that required overnight travel every week, or working away for long periods at a time, the idea that he should just “persuade” me out of my concerns about the impact on our family life would be just as bad as the idea I should just “persuade” him out of his concerns about me giving up work.

Literally all of the above comments just confirm to me that some of you will just twist anything that has been said - if it has been said by a SAHM. Not all of you though.

This does seem to be going in circles now,
And some of you repeating but the OPs husband just wants x or similar you have been banging the same drum for a long time now the discussion has moved on from just what the ops husband wants.