I am feeling really really angry, so I just need to have a little rant!
We always agreed before we had our daughter that I would stay at home and look after her and not go back to work until she was older or until we moved to a larger place, with a higher mortgage. The baby is 8 months old now, and my maternity pay is nearly at an end.
We live in a small flat and my husband's salary pays the mortgage and the bills. I am a teacher, so I do tutoring once a week to make a little extra, for holidays and treats etc. We manage to save a tiny amount each month, we are not rolling in it, but neither are we living on baked beans, I'm just very careful with the shopping money! But it is a sacrifice we felt was worth it whilst the baby was small.
I mentioned to my husband today that from January I would be able to do supply work at school for a couple of days a month, and either my aunt or his mum would look after the baby. He now says that he thinks I should do 4 days a month to earn even more money, to make up for months lost due to school holidays.
I'm really really cross with him though, as I feel that he has gone back on what we agreed. Just to reiterate, we don't need the money desperately, as we aren't on the bread line. Obviously, if we were then there would be no question of it, I would go back to work gladly. We have a decent standard of living, and don't really want for anything. We just have less luxuries. I understand that we are in a very lucky position.
Am I really that unreasonable to only work 2 days a month-he said that I was spoilt. Is it so wrong to want to enjoy the time with our baby?! I'm loving being with her, and it's time that I'll never get back with her. Also I consider looking after her, the house and tutoring to be a decent amount of work!
His parting shot was "I'm going to work, to pay the bills!" I think he's being a prick quite frankly, and I'm disappointed in him. So tell me, am I being unreasonable?