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?

paloma2 reread everything I said very carefully. You will lose an ally as I ain’t got time for this. You are NOT IN THE SAME CAMP AS THE LOT MARRIED TO LIMP LETTUCES. Re read

Have I just woken up in 1952?

You couldn’t make this thread up….

Just had to check.

@Anotherlongroad

Would be interested to hear your definition of “limp lettuce”?

I expect all men to open doors for me. 🤷‍♀️

@Anotherlongroad

AudacityBaby You definitely don’t need to be straight married to take part. You just are not being pointed at for certain types of behaviour eg woman bossing man around with trolley cos you clearly are not that person. Dont take mock offence.

This thread isn’t relevant to me because I don’t have a man to let push my trolley? This thread is truly a gift.

I’m enjoying the idea that it’s the independent, financially autonomous women who are making their men help them with the trolley. Who are even taking them to the supermarket, at all.

AudacityBaby - you may not be interested in having a baby, but ‘golden uterus syndrome,’ Teally? Ffs. Appalling. Who needs men for misogyny when it’s all here on MN!

This thread is so unbelievably angry-from the working mums side, it’s bizarre.
I’ve been both a working mum and sahm. I’ve worked and supported my husband/our family when he was made redundant, he’s worked and supported me/our family when I wanted to desperately stay at home with my dcs, not because I wanted to be provided for and sit on my arse, because I wanted to be with them and raise them and hated the thought of nursery. He felt the same and we worked as a team, being a Sahm was bloody hard work too and wasn’t a walk in the park.
We love one another and try to support and help the other the best we can. He knew how upset I was at the thought of leaving them, we were very lucky at the time that we had the option, we had to cut back on frivolous things and luxuries, but it was worth it, Absolutely no shame in being a Sahm, I was proud to introduce myself that way, I devoted 3-4 years of my life to my DCs solidly and I wouldn’t have changed that for the world.

@paloma2

AudacityBaby - you may not be interested in having a baby, but ‘golden uterus syndrome,’ Teally? Ffs. Appalling. Who needs men for misogyny when it’s all here on MN!

I’m infertile as it happens. Again, assumptions. Not good for you.

And, yes, GUS. An example - the view that if you’ve given birth, you can unilaterally decide that another person will be financially responsible for you, even if they don’t want to.

It is really hard if he's not on board. Could you show him some research about the effect of group care on under 2s?

I think it's fairly common to want to spend more time with small children. In my whole friendship group I only know 1 mother who went back to work full time after DC. So don't feel bad that you do t want to! I think mostly people do that because they HAVE to, not because they really want to be away from their babies all day every day.

They're only small for a short time and you have so many years left to work! Your DC would prefer to be with you for sure.

To be honest, if that footballer whatshisnsme, can be the ‘golden one’ or the ‘golden balls,’ then I’m claiming the ‘golden uterus’ for any women who expect men to respect childbirth and step up accordingly with the right attitude.

A question for the small group of very angry posters who have responded to literally every single response in support of OP staying at home - how long will you continue?

I mean will you still be here in your pack in a weeks time pouncing on every single pro OP poster.

You can’t deny that you have been aggressively shouting down every single poster that doesn’t agree on here, as a pack, until they leave.

Seriously why do you care so much?

At first I thought some of the hostility came from insecurity about your own choices (we all have it).

But now I think you actually just saw the word SAHM in the title and thought you would find some easy targets to unleash your aggression on. I mean some of the snide remarks and vitriol is crazy. There has been some from the sahm supporters too of course but usually only after they have been attacked multiple times by your gang and lose their patience.

I'm not angry. I'm baffled at the narrative created by some posters that the OP's husband is controlling/useless/etc. because he's concerned about the family finances. And the assertion that the OP should be able to decide to be a SAHM without his input or agreement.

OP probably thought mumsnet was a place to come and ask other mums for advice (hence the title).

Judging by this thread it’s actually a place for unhappy women to come and shout at people who aren’t conforming to how they believe others should live their lives.

@Babysharkdududududu

OP probably thought mumsnet was a place to come and ask other mums for advice (hence the title).

Judging by this thread it’s actually a place for unhappy women to come and shout at people who aren’t conforming to how they believe others should live their lives.

That really isn't an accurate depiction of what has gone on in this thread for the most part.

Judging by this thread it’s actually a place for unhappy women to come and shout at people who aren’t conforming to how they believe others should live their lives.

You can tell yourself this if it makes you feel better. It doesn’t make it so.

I'm not angry. I'm baffled at the narrative created by some posters that the OP's husband is controlling/useless/etc. because he's concerned about the family finances. And the assertion that the OP should be able to decide to be a SAHM without his input or agreement
Same here.

Even from my first couple of posts, I've no issue with people structuring families in a way that is best for them and their families.

I just object to one person in a relationship thinking they can unilaterally change the goalposts, dictate that the other person has to pick up sole financial responsibility for the household once the baby has already arrived, and then use guilt tripping to get their way.

Bizarrely, a handful of posters seem intent on trying to turn this into a SAHM vs WOHM thread and seem oddly driven to twist people suggesting both of a couple are on board with whatever works for their family set up equals hating on SAHM/having a go at people who are SAHP.

Once more for people holding the all these working mums hate on SAHM pity party: it's not anti SAHP to say one parent doesn't get to unilaterally change the goalposts and expect the other to become the sole working parent for the household.

Judging by this thread it’s actually a place for unhappy women to come and shout at people who aren’t conforming to how they believe others should live their lives.

But that's not what's happened at all.
The only person who is telling people how they should live their lives is paloma but I think she's using this thread as some sort of creative writing practice as she's concocted so many scenarios I've lost count.

What most people are saying is that both staying at home and going out to work are valid choices. However, these choices are not made in a vacuum.
In order to be a SAHP you need both parties to agree and you need to be able to afford it. Unfortunately, this isn't the case for the OP so she's looking at a compromise of part time hours.

I just object to one person in a relationship thinking they can unilaterally change the goalposts, dictate that the other person has to pick up sole financial responsibility for the household once the baby has already arrived, and then use guilt tripping to get their way.

This.

If the roles were reversed and a man unilaterally decided to opt out out work for whatever reason he would rightly be called a cocklodger. And yes even if this was to raise children.

In this scenario a small handful of posters appear convinced that any man has a moral obligation to support a woman who bears his children totally and in perpetuity, without any consultation.

This isn't about bashing women who choose to stay at home as part of a mutually agreed decision or even about feminism or equality. It's about the old fashioned and unworkable idea that any man who has children signs up to be sole breadwinner for a two decade period, no questions asked and his failure to do so makes him abusive.

Also the idea that some women are so traumatised by having their children in childcare that they can't function is just insulting. Some of you need to grow up, tbh.

‘I just object to one person in a relationship thinking they can unilaterally change the goalposts, ‘

So you keep saying. But what goalposts?

You seem to assume the default for all couples who have a baby is that both will return to work when maternity runs out.

This is NOT the default and there are no ‘goalposts.’

They are where they are. They have had a baby and her whole outlook in life has changed in a way you can never predict. ‘Goalposts’ indeed!

Why are you so insistent that she is changing the script. She’s not. She has her feelings and he has his. His view was never the default or ‘the goalposts’ in the first place!

Why are people so hell bent on supporting this man and insisting his views are ‘the goalposts.’ I just don’t get it.

Nobody is saying going out to work is the default position..... nobody.

The goalposts people are talking about are individual to the OPs relationship not all relationships and they relate to the fact that she had planned to return to work. Her DH is well within his rights no to be on board with her changing her mind, especially if they can't afford it.

Nobody is defending men unilaterally.

It’s extremely common for women to indicate to their jobs that they will return after maternity - just to keep their options open.

Also extremely common for them to change their minds as the time to return approaches.

We don’t know what conversations the OP and the H had previously. Maybe he just assumed she’d be returning?

People on here are carrying on as if they drew up a legal document

If we are all irrevocably locked into so-called ‘decisions’ we may have made prior to having children - god help us!

Life is not static. Having kids changes everything. The OP is seeing the world through her child’s eyes now. Her whole perspective and priorities will have changed. Can’t believe I even need to explain this.

Why are people so hell bent on supporting this man and insisting his views are ‘the goalposts.’ I just don’t get it.

No one is insisting that his views are the only goalposts. People are pointing out that one partner in a relationship cannot unilaterally insist that the other partner take on sole financial reasponsbility for an entire household in perpetuity because they're basically anxious about using childcare.

A healthy relationship between consenting adults does not allow one person to make decisions which have such significant ramifications unilaterally.

in perpetuity? She just wants a year or so