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?

And being anxious about childcare is just as valid an emotion as being anxious about finances. It’s a real thing!

@paloma2

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.

Lots of people feel like they don't want to leave their babies at first as it's been so long. However you soon get into a routine. If OP wanted to stay at home this should have been discussed prior and money should have been planned and saved.

If you cannot afford to be a SAHM that is very different from OP affording it and her DH saying no!

@paloma2

And being anxious about childcare is just as valid an emotion as being anxious about finances. It’s a real thing!

I would say being anxious about running out of household money is a different league of magnitude from someone feeling initial separation anxiety putting their child into childcare.

All parents find putting a child into childcare generates a degree of anxiety when they first do it. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. Millions of children do it without any harm or damage -- many find their families benefit on a net basis. It's subject to negotiation of course but its not a given that its always the worst option.

Few households benefit from being very financially stretched.

Of course we can't know exactly how stretched the OP's household would be if she chose to remain at home for another few years. But the idea that the SAH partner gets automatic right of veto regardless of the financial circumstances of the household purely because they don't want to put their children into childcare at one moment in time is clearly unfair.

Can’t believe I even need to explain this.

You don't. Every single person on this thread understands.

We're just acknowledging that not all couples can afford to have only one parent working.

@paloma2

And being anxious about childcare is just as valid an emotion as being anxious about finances. It’s a real thing!

Nobody has said it isn't. You're the only person being very black and white about this. Most of us are capable of understanding a range of viewpoints.

Although, I would say being anxious about not being able to pay the mortgage or buy food is on a different level than being anxious about childcare.

‘Although, I would say being anxious about not being able to pay the mortgage or buy food is on a different level than being anxious about childcare.’

We don’t know they wouldn’t be able to pay the mortgage or buy food. The OP has not stated that, or anything like it, so please stop presenting it as fact.

Things bring ‘a bit tight’ could equally mean a cheaper holiday or less meals out.

In the later case ( which I suspect it is), I would argue her anxiety about using childcare should take precedence over his anxiety about a few cutbacks OVER A LIMITED TIMEFRAME.

Some women just have this set mindset that being financially supported is an entitlement if it is what they want. Probably stems from their childhood. They call this feminism because of their right to chose.

Others have the mindset that they are individuals and responsible for themselves, and their independence and self reliance is what feminism is all about.

Men don't owe women to support them. Many men do still believe in their role as sole owner but many more now believe in equal responsibilities.

For those women who believe they have a right to demand to be sahm, how would they feel if their husband came home one day, said that they had enough of their job that caused them mental distressed, missed their child too much and had decided it was their time to be the sahp and so they had to now be the one to become the sole owner regardless of the financial implication. Would that be acceptable! I very much doubt it.

@paloma2

‘Although, I would say being anxious about not being able to pay the mortgage or buy food is on a different level than being anxious about childcare.’

We don’t know they wouldn’t be able to pay the mortgage or buy food. The OP has not stated that, or anything like it, so please stop presenting it as fact.

Things bring ‘a bit tight’ could equally mean a cheaper holiday or less meals out.

In the later case ( which I suspect it is), I would argue her anxiety about using childcare should take precedence over his anxiety about a few cutbacks OVER A LIMITED TIMEFRAME.

Likewise we don't know that she will suffer severe anxiety by putting her child in childcare so you need to stop presenting that as fact.

She has, on the other hand, admitted they can't actually afford for her not to work.

I have a number of friends who are SAHM but it was a joint decision and they can easily afford it.

Their husbands are contributing to a pension for them and they are financially very comfortable.
Two of them are now looking for work and are actually finding it quite challenging after so many years out which should be a consideration for anyone planning on taking a significant amount of time out of work.

If I knew my husband was dedicated to being a SAHP and I was not of that inclination but we could afford to live off my wage, then yes absolutely! I’d be skipping out the door and saying thank god we can afford the privilege of my child staying at home with a parent. I wouldn’t be worried about them in the day, I’d be relaxed. Wouldn’t be rushing home for pick ups. If the child is sick - no problem. I would be more than happy to facilitate that.

If I knew my husband was dedicated to being a SAHP and I was not of that inclination but we could afford to live off my wage, then yes absolutely!
But what if you were still inclined to be a sahm and didn't want to be the sole owner, then what would happen?

‘Men don't owe women to support them’

Its attitudes like that which are responsible for all the men who have babies with various women and seem to Labour under the delusion that financially supporting their own child/ ten is somehow optional. They fight through the courts to pay the absolute minimum in child support and are outraged that the fact they’ve brought a child into the world should impact them at all.

Then you get the othef speciality - the men who stay with their wives / partners but insist on ‘separate finances.’ Oh yes. They are quite happy to watch their wife struggle with less disposable income (due to the impact of various maternity leaves, always needing to be there at pick up, going part-time), as they sail on in their careers - totally unimpeded. Because equality! Because ‘Men don’t owe women to support them.’

This is the future people! Isn’t it fantastic!

‘But what if you were still inclined to be a sahm and didn't want to be the sole owner, then what would happen?’

That would depend. If I earned a lot more than him, it would make sense for me to work. It wouldn’t matter. If the goal is that the child gets to stay home with a parent who loves them in those early years, then you make that happen if at all possible. I would be a SAHM if that’s what it takes. Or I’d be a sole earner if that’s what it takes. Doesn’t matter. It’s not about what I want, it’s about the child.

Its attitudes like that which are responsible for all the men who have babies with various women and seem to Labour under the delusion that financially supporting their own child/ ten is somehow optional.

The post said women..... not children.

Both parents have a responsibility to support their children. Women do not have a right to be supported by men. If they choose that dynamic for their family then that's fine. But it's not something we are entitled to.

@paloma2

If I knew my husband was dedicated to being a SAHP and I was not of that inclination but we could afford to live off my wage, then yes absolutely! I’d be skipping out the door and saying thank god we can afford the privilege of my child staying at home with a parent. I wouldn’t be worried about them in the day, I’d be relaxed. Wouldn’t be rushing home for pick ups. If the child is sick - no problem. I would be more than happy to facilitate that.

But surely you'd expect to have discussed this in advance of having a child?

Then you get the othef speciality - the men who stay with their wives / partners but insist on ‘separate finances.’ Oh yes. They are quite happy to watch their wife struggle with less disposable income (due to the impact of various maternity leaves, always needing to be there at pick up, going part-time), as they sail on in their careers - totally unimpeded. Because equality! Because ‘Men don’t owe women to support them.’

Again, that's different and not what we are talking about here.
Your contribution to the household finances should be proportional to your earnings. If you earn more, you contribute more. That's totally different to expecting someone to provide for you financially.

Women's careers are disproportionately impacted by having children- I'm well aware of that fact. It happens to be something I study and research for a living. But that is a completely different discussion to the one we're having here.

If you are a family it’s family money. Whether it comes from two incomes or one. It all goes the same way.

You do what you think is in the interests of the child. This may be keeping a roof over their heads. But assuming that finances are not that tight and there is some financial leeway, then if you don’t want your child in childcare, it doesn’t matter who is bringing in the money and who is looking after the child. You will do what it takes to achieve what you personally believe is in the interests of the child.

@paloma2 you were the one who said earlier in the thread that having a baby hasn't changed anything for the man at all. He's remaining with the status quo (continuing in full time work) whereas the woman has the apparently huge trauma of recovering from the birth and has a 'special bond' with the baby which he can't begin to understand.

Now you're slating men who just carry on after fathering kids as if nothing has changed!

Make your mind up.

FWIW, if you really honestly believe nothing changes for the man then by god it damn well should do. He is becoming a parent: it's a life changing experience. I was the one who physically pushed a baby out and breast fed, but in terms of our whole LIFE, of course it damn well changed for dh and me. Permanently. Not just for the few months I was on maternity leave, but irrevocably.

Seems to me that this whole thing can be encapsulated in a nutshell: either you believe that men and women are entirely different species and as soon as a woman has a baby, her emotions at any one point in time trump everything. Or you believe that men and women are biologically different but at the end of the day they are both people and there is far more they have in common than things which divide them.

My dh loves our children as much as I do. He was also just as capable of changing nappies, playing with the children, putting them in the car and driving them to nursery as I was. Astonishing as it may seem, I was just as capable as he was of going out to work, carrying out professional duties, earning an income.

If a couple truly both want to take on polarised roles of one being at home and one being the earner then fine- I don't think a single person on this thread has disputed that. But honestly, why is it such a surprise that many women and men don't want that? Why is it a surprise that a man whose wife has always worked, who may well have had just as good a job and earned equal to him, doesn't want to overnight become solely responsible for earning? It makes much more sense to many of us that if anything, the man might actually want to take his foot off the pedal a little. Maybe not work late nights or chase promotions. You know, actually spend time being a hands on parent. Obviously a radical idea to some!
And how lovely for the child too, to have parents who don't pigeonhole themselves into 'earner' and 'carer' but who both do both.

‘Your contribution to the household finances should be proportional to your earnings. If you earn more, you contribute more. That's totally different to expecting someone to provide for you financially. ‘

That attitude I don’t understand at all. It’s a marriage and a family. Not a business arrangement. Any money earned by anyone is all one and the same!

@paloma2

‘Your contribution to the household finances should be proportional to your earnings. If you earn more, you contribute more. That's totally different to expecting someone to provide for you financially. ‘

That attitude I don’t understand at all. It’s a marriage and a family. Not a business arrangement. Any money earned by anyone is all one and the same!

You really struggle to understand that people might do things differently to you don't you?

Some people go down the route of 'family money' whereas others pay a proportion of their income into a joint account..... you do what works best for you and your family.

And how lovely for the child too, to have parents who don't pigeonhole themselves into 'earner' and 'carer' but who both do both.

@BettyCarver hear hear

To be honest, if people are in households where there is separate finances, it makes total sense why they would think having a SAHP and a ‘sole provider’ is such a massive issue worthy of such discussion. It’s a totally different mentality altogether.

@paloma2

To be honest, if people are in households where there is separate finances, it makes total sense why they would think having a SAHP and a ‘sole provider’ is such a massive issue worthy of such discussion. It’s a totally different mentality altogether.

I think it would help if you didn't have such a polarised view on the subject. Most people are a combination of things being discussed.

For example, we have a joint account which we both pay in a certain amount which is proportional to our salary. We have a saving account which we both contribute to. We also have our own accounts to do as we please.
That's not separate finances .... that's just one way of dealing with it 🤷🏼‍♀️ it works for us.

BettyCarver - where did you get the idea that I think having a baby should but impact the man? I’m arguing the total opposite!

We are talking about a specific case. If the H was prepared to cut his hours or be a SAHP, then that would be a different matter. But he is not.

Yet people are apparently appalled that he might also have to be ‘sole provider’ for a stint in time - as if this is something beyond the pale for a man to be expected to do

So -

He’s not going to cut his hours
He’s not prepared to be a SAHP
He’s not prepared to be a ‘sole provider.’

Sum result - no impact on the H.

Linked result - the OP is the one who has bear the brunt and adapt (either through going part-time; or putting her child in childcare against her instincts).

Amazing!

@paloma2 by your logic, given that the status quo pre children was that the OP and her DH were both working full time, then surely the 'least impact' in terms of change would be to both return to full time work!!

The OP doesn't want to do that. Which is a valid feeling- we're all agreed on that. But it doesn't automatically follow that she has the right to insist she doesn't work and that her DH assumes full financial responsibility. There is a massive difference between sharing the task of funding the home and family and doing it single-handedly. You really can't see that a shared responsibility feels completely different from one carried alone?

We keep saying, discussion and compromise are key. I think the OP is long gone now, but she was going to look at going back to work part time- which is great! And as part of that discussion, it's quite reasonable of her to expect her DH to do more in terms of domestic stuff than if she was home full time. So, it could pan out that he does some childcare drop offs, or cooks half the time - whatever. There are a million ways of carving things up. All the DH has said is that he doesn't want to be solely responsible for earning. And I don't blame him. I wouldn't so neither did I expect it of my dh.

Likewise we don't know that she will suffer severe anxiety by putting her child in childcare so you need to stop presenting that as fact.

This is what I find bizarre. It's being taken as read by some posters that putting a child into childcare is automatically the worst case scenario and to be avoided at almost all costs. In fact paid childcare its a perfectly routine solution for millions of families probably the majority without any evidence of any long term harm at all.

It's totally understandable that many families find the idea of putting a child into paid childcare induces some anxiety and hesitancy at the start. And if people can comfortably afford to avoid this of course one can understand they might seek to do this. But to extrapolate from that to the idea that is always worth avoiding paid childcare, even at the cost of your family's financial wellbeing, seems to me to be an example of unrealistic catastrophising.