to expect my husband to not demand that I go back to work when we agreed that I would look after the baby!

[RNW]

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?

georgimama, my DH is currently on holiday for the week so has seen for himself how hard it is to look after our twins. I have just asked him whether he would like to be a SAHP and he said 'no, going to work is much easier'.

sorry i cant see any real difference between 2 days and 4 days a month, its hardly returning to a 10 hour a day 5 day week so i do think you're being a bit precious.

i totally agree with NT's comments - i actually feel sorry for your DH. he's working full time (if he's actually working 9-6, i assume he's out of the house for longer than that - maybe 10/11 hours a day) & probably hardly sees your dd except at weekends when i expect he's knackered; if i was in your position i'd want to do more hours either so that you had more money available to take the pressure off dh, or to pay for a nice hol or some other luxury, or even so that maybe he could vary his hours to have 1 day a week or so when he got to finish early & spend time with dd.

the financial situation now is much worse than it was a year ago - or even 6 months ago. i know very few people who consider their job not to be even slightly at risk.

Sorry to jump in here...but....just because the wife works does not always mean the man works less....i.e. my dh works what he is contracted for...and wiht the army he would work sometimes more (be away even) and sometimes less....

OP did mention that financially they are fine....

Exam marking is a great idea. I'm primary school, so could mark SATs, I'll definitely look into it. My husband has always made it clear that he would not want to be a full time SAHD, and said although he loves being at home with the baby, he would be driven mad not going to work for some adult conversation.
Georgimama, in response to your charming post, I do bring in a small amount of money each money, so although he is the main breadwinner, he is not the sole one.

Hey georgimama, feeling a bit green with envy over there???? Get over it!

"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."

"Am I really that unreasonable to only work 2 days a month"

This is a joke, right? You're not serious? You are serious? My word.

Just tell me why you feel a sense of entitlement not to make a financial contribution? Because that's the bit I don't get. Why shouldn't you work?

Quattrocento, thank you for your post. If you read back, you will see that I have stated clearly a number of times 1.) We both agreed that whilst the baby was small I would stay at home and look after her. 2.) I do work 8- 10 hours a month and contribute £100-£150. Hope that clear things up.

I'm a Pampered Chef consultant as well as working pt - it means that I have an evening or two a week out 'working' (actually, enjoying myself, meeting new people and socialising really, but I call it 'work' to dh!) while he holds the fort at home - does supper and bathtime. It is, and still is, financially beneficial - some people do it as their 'full-time' job based on two evenings a week - and you can make it bring in a full-time wage based on that - it does take work, but it is achievable.

Something similar to this might enable you to hand over care of dc to dh perhaps one evening a week - so that he can benefit from the bedtime routine while you go out and help to bring in a bit more money - without having to spend any additional days away from your dc.

I think that (a) if you are seriously contemplating full-time work any time in the next few years it is a very good idea for all sorts of reasons to keep a reasonable-sized toe in the employment water (b) you do know that if you take on a serious amount of work from home, you'll need childcare, don't you? 'Evenings and naps' only works for the most ad-hoc flexible projects.

I agree that he has handled it badly, but I don't think it is unreasonable to work 4 days a month.

I work part time for many reasons, but one is that I know that dh feels under alot of pressure to be the sole earner in our house, particularly in the current economy. (it is slightly irrational as I don't earn enough to provide for us all if he does get made redundant etc).

There are lots of other advantages (imo) of working too, but I think if you can keep your career going by working 4 days a month you are lucky! (I have to work a minimum of 3 days a week really).

Frankly, all my conceptions about work have taken a bashing over the past few years. I've worked four days a week since both my children were four months but assumed I'd work FT outside the house when both were school age: I changed my mind - and had some furious rows with my partner as a result. I've also - as we all have - faced a completely different economic climate, and made various decisions accordingly.

I don't think he's being a prick I think he's jealous and probably feels burdened by having to work to pay for it all. He also probably feels isolated, he's working while you're having a lovely time bonding with your child. I think you also need to empathise with how he is feeling and give him more support. 4 days a month isn't working is it really?

Georgiemama I do not like what you are saying. It is desrespectfull in several ways.

Dhs are most of the time valued members of the family not "sperm donnors" or "milking cows."
As a SAHM of four, I do not make unreasonnable financial demands to my DH and we both accept to live on a lesser amount of money because it is the right thing to do for our family, not because I am a lazy woman who does not "want" to work.The fact that I do not get payed for my contribution to the family does not bother me one bit nor do I feel less valuable than a woking mum.

If I may add, I do admire women who can manage a career and a family,but do resent the fact some of them do consider SAHM as "under class" citizen almost.

The OP says they had already decided that she would be a SAHM so she INBU.

By RNW - I do all the cleaning, shopping and washing ...

Tell him you'll do more work outside the home when he does some work inside the home.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with only working 4 days a month, I don't understand what people's issue with that is - you are covering all your bills and have some to save. You don't need to work so you have a choice - and you have chosen to have fewer luxuries and be with your baby. And this is what you agreed.

He has obviously changed his mind, and fair enough - maybe he misses some of the luxuries and you say he wants to save more. I think to put your foot down and say a flat "no" is unreasonable of you , I think you do need to consider his reasons for wanting more of a disposable income and maybe find a compromise.

Not envious actually, I have a very fulfilling home and working life and amnot interested in getting into a SAHM argument.

I don't think anyone who stays at home with their children is "underclass" and have never suggested that they are, not once. You can search if you rally care that much.

I simply feel sorry for any man whose wife has nabbed the primary carer role, won't talk about compromise and won't consider whether he is fulfilled by the current arrangement. There are quite a few out there.

If any of you fit into that catagory, yes I am having a go at you. I didn't say any of you do. If you feel I am talking about you and don't like it, maybe you need to consider your husband a little more...

I am with Georgimamma on this one. The men in my office ALL have SAH wives and the pressure on them at the moment is horrible to see. None of them will compromise and go back to work. Their wives have an amazing lifestyle and they slog 14 hrs a day and never see the chidren to keep it up.

So, but would the hubbies actually be able to work less hours? And would the wives be able to get Jobs that, even if they need childcare, would not mean a drop in income anyway?

Obviously, if the man is unhappy than it would be a sad situation....however.....imo/ime most men really don't seem to mind NOT having to do much childcare or housework, etc.....

I don't think it is an issue of the husbands being able to work less hours if their wives worked, mine doesn't (if anything he works longer hours thanks to the current economic climate).

The point is if the wife is working too, some husbands may understandably feel that the unrelenting pressure of being the sole breadwinner is lifted a bit. If everything went tits up (and as things are things can go tits up very easily) the wife could increase her hours, even temporarily, and he could stay at home while he looked for work.

I don't care what other people do, of course if both partners are genuinely happy for the wife (or husband) to be a full time SAHP then great! But I'm not convinced that every husband/male partner is as happy with this arrangement as their SAHW make out.

There was a thread a couple of months ago about a woman who had agreed in advance with her husband that she would be a SAHM. Some time down the line she wanted to go back to work, he didn't want her to. Not one poster on that thread thought it was unreasonable of her to change her mind. So many people on here think it is unreasonable of the OP's husband to change his mind (including the OP). Why? Well, apparently because he's a man and it's his job to provide and suck it up. I don't think that's fair.

He is being unreasonable telling you that he pays all the bills and that you are spoilt.
But then how exactly is he "demanding" that you go back to work. Four times a month is peanuts.
Just be glad you are not my friend who HAD to go back to work when her baby was tiny because her husband decided that she was "boring" and was only interested in the baby.
Lots of people out there have no choice and still have to pay most of their money on childcare which is a double whammy.
Can't you comprimise with him? And work lets say 2 days a week then it would take pressure off him as the sole breadwinner.

BUt georgiemama....why should a wife work if her income would eitehr worsen the finacial situation or owuldn't change it?
Surely, being a SAHM is important, too....and should be valued as much as going out to work? Yes, teh SAHM doesn't earn money, but she does provide a Home for her family and , tbh, when I still was a SAHM my dh had far less things to think about then now, that I am a full time student....or when I was working part time on a regular basis....!

I really can't see how , if the wife would only have a pittance-pay kinda job it would really have much impact if the hubbie was made redundent....it's also, as far as I know, not that easy to up the hours (unless the employer actually needs someone to work more hours)!
Obviously, if the wife in question would be able to have a job on equal pay level, than it might be worth a consideration....!

Btw.... I do agree with your point of, that it is o.k. to change your mind, even if you have agreed on xy&z beforehand.....but it needs to be disgussed and re-assessed and than a solution must be found that both parties are happy with, and that may well be a compromise....