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?

Why are you assuming women only earn a pittance?

because a lot of jobs that are available on a part time basis seem to be pittance pay Jobs?
Most mothers I know work in Supermarkets or as TA's....things like that...or do Caresupport work....

Often serious Jobs are not open to women who want to work part time hours that still enable them to give the full level of "commitment" as a mum.....commitment is not the right word...but can't think of anything else....!

There are an awful lot of mothers on MN who do a whole range of jobs, I think you'll find. Including, like the OP, teaching.

What I meant is, that highpaid Jobs usually also ask a high commitment to the Job...iykwim

Btw...obviously I know that many women have high powered careers...but they either have to give that up in order to be there for the family, or they will go back full time early on....so, those would not be the mothers that would chose to be SAHM's....before anyone things I am judging anyone....I don't...

There are also plenty of women who work part-time hours on MN. On different deals. Sometimes for quite a lot of money.

Those deals are quite hard to get, though....and like I said, those women probably wouldn't choose to be SAHM's anyway...

Georgimama we meet again, I am pretty certain the arrangement suits my husband just fine.
BTW I was not quoting from you with the "underclass"comment, just stating how I am been made to feel by quite a\ few working mother aquintences.

Susie not all SAHM have an amazing lifstyle. By staying at home I do also agree to a small house and no luxuries. Are we talking about normal people of Footballers wifes( as in the series, no offence to real footballers wifes...)

rantalot, you make a lot of assumptions

A huge generalisation, I think you'll find.

I work part-time, I certainly don't earn a pittance, although I am certainly not an astronomically high earner, either.

I was very lucky to be employed in a full-time role that lent itself very easily to flexible working, which I negotiated on my return to work. I know lots of women in the same position as me.

I would love to be a SAHM, but I think that the chances of me finding similarly flexible role after time out of the marketplace are very slim, so I am happy to work 20 odd hours a week in return for future job security.

Sorry OP, this has rather gone off on a tangent. I hope you are nearing a compromise. You might find that you enjoy four days a month as a way of getting some time to yourself.

Maybe he's just feeling the unfairness of it all - and would like to take time out to look after your baby?

Have you offered to swap roles for a while? So you can pay the bills and he can work 4 days a month?

Even if it's just for 6 months it might help?

I possibly do...I go by my personal experiences, I suppose.....
anyway....I am NOT even arguing here....I was merely saying that sometimes NOTHING is won by the wife working aswell...fgs....
I never said that ALL WOMEN are in low paid Jobs and that NONE can get good paid JObs....etc...I was just saying that for a fair amount of women this might not be true....

I can NOT see the benefit, I tuely can't...if in the end it would not actually mean that the hubbie could spend less time working and more with the family....
I know, that, of course I could have chosen to keep on nursing , but we chose that as my dh was in the Army, we didn't want both of us to be working shifts, etc...it would have been a complete organizational nightmare and we would have had to spend so much on childcare, there would have been NO benefit....for us it made more sense that I would SAH , even though it meant less income...but it saved stress, for both of us...
So, when I did work it would be in support work, less responsibility and I would either do bank work or work that would enable regular working hours that worked around the children....I am sure I am NOT a completely unusual example...but of course I am just assuming...

hmmmmm
I am going to go against the grain and say, yanbu.
I think to say "4 days a months isn't a lot" is quite beside the point. the OP doesn't want to up her hours, she doesn't want to spend more time away from her baby, she doesn't have to financially, so it makes absolutely NO logical sense whatsoever to say she should because lots of other women have to, because she is very lucky, because her dh might be feeling under pressure (though we have absolutely no evidence that this is the case WHATSOEVER).
If the OP's choice is that 4 days a month is more than she is prepared to be away from her child, then really, who are we to say that she is being unreasonable. it is her choice and she should be allowed to make it, and we should be a little more sisterly about supporting her choice rather than pointing out hos lucky she is (she knows!) and suggesting that she should work more than she wants to or need to because other women have to
OP I hope your dh stops being a twat soon

Also, it may NOT be a possibility for teh hubby to stay home for a while...my dh would NOT have been able too, unless he retired prematurely from the Job he loved....

maybe just a wee bit unreasonable.

i don't see the problem with him wanting you to work 4 days a month but maybe his delivery was such that it immediately put you on the defense. and just because you aren't on the breadline doesn't mean you shouldn't go back to work for four days a month (ok, a bit facetious). the thing is though is that one day you may find you spent too much time with your children (shocking, i know) then on who you are as an individual. i also think that children learn independence better and develop a better respect of others when they get to spend time with other adults on their own, specially if it's family. your DH may be experiencing stress at work and because you are the closest person to him you get the brunt, no matter how unfair it is. maybe he's jealous of all the time you get to spend with the daughter you both created. maybe you should go back part-time and maybe DH could take 3 days off a week. that to me would be ideal.

I have a wee bit of a problem with this 'return-to-work' business. The OP does work: she is a full-time mother and housekeeper.

Those of you who have posted that the OP is spoilt or similar are just bringing your own stuff to the thread, not helping the OP imo.

This was posted on a thread recently:

"Actually, I've just done a quick calculation, based on a ft nanny @ £400/week, a night nanny 7 nights a week, a ft housekeeper and a cleaner for just 5 hours a week. Figures from various googled agencies and er, even without prostitution it works out at £71k. And that's the rate you'd have to PAY (i.e. earn net) so you'd have to earn considerably more than this gross. Ooh, more than £150k atually.

And that £71k would get you:
f/t childcare at nanny rates, which would be 37.5 hours/week
f/t housekeeping, ditto, 37.5hrs
f/t night nanny at £80/night for 7 nights(Ok, so you might not need to get up every night if you're a sahp but actually, often every night for the first year or so)
a cleaner for just 5 hours/week at a tenner an hour.
Take out the housekeeper and it's STILL £52k, without any prostitution involved at all. So actually, if you measure a SAHP's contribution to a household in pure monetary terms it IS worth half of £150k a year."

(Apologies: don't know who posted this originally).

And he should not have dropped that puerile parting shot.

lol at the OP needing to spend more time away from her children and her eight month old baby needing "independence"

lolololololol
some of you are bringing so much of your own baggage to this thread, I think we may need to impose an excess baggage limit.

the OP wants to stay at home with her baby. who are you, who are any of us, to say we know better than she does what is best for her and her baby?

Not sure I like the prostitution bit... I am happy to be a full-time nanny, night nanny, housekeeper and cleaner but I am not a prostitute. i do that for free.

I just think that often given the chance many dps (who moan about the luxury of being at home with a baby and their responsibilities for the bills etc) would like to do all the childcare even for a short while.

And it would also help the OP as she'd get a term at work and her dd would be cared for by her dp? So dd would not be in childcare of any sort.

OK FairLady, completely ignore the part I posted about the burden of being sole wage earner, and the contingency a working mother provides in the event of a financial crisis (such as the illness of redundancy of the husband). Fine.

This is not thre situation the OP is in. Ther is no mention of redundant husband or ilness.

No, but it is a situation anyone could find themselves in at any time.

Fairladyrantalot said she couldn't see any benefit to the wife working if it didn't mean the husband could work less hours. I just explained a benefit.

I think the point is you don't know that that won't happen (redundancy and illness). If you are out of the workplace for 4/5 yrs you can become de-skilled and therefore unable to support your family should the worse occur. All the pressure is on the man to work, not get ill or made redundant.

Not suggesting all SAHMs have a great lifestyle, I know many make huge sacrifices to do so. Not the ones married to the men I work with. One commutes for 3 hrs twice a day because his DW MUST live in a particular area of the country as the horse-riding is so good.

Thanks Susie, I'm glad someone gets that I am not just having a random envy motivated pop at SAHMs.

I know women like that too. They are terribly surprised when their husband starts shagging the secretary and leaves them....

(no I am NOT saying all SAHMs deserve to be left by their husbands before someone starts. Just the lazy cows who don't give a toss about said wallet on legs. They do exist).

My dh loves his job and is very pleased that I am the one at home with his children. Maybe if he didn't love his job as much then he might resent me being at home - afterall I get to see our ds all day every day and I do get some free time for myself as ds gets older.

Maybe the OP's dh is generally unhappy with his job and that is making him feel that the original "deal" is worse for him. I agree that it needs discussion.

Btw, Georgimama, I know of career women whose dh's have buggered off with the secretary (or someone else)and they were pretty shocked and didn't see it coming so I think that you are generalising to make a fairly unsubstantiated point.

I have been out of the workplace for 4 years and I have become de-skilled in a particular field, so it could be a problem if I wanted to get back into it. I am not naive enough to think otherwise. However, I am starting some teaching work in January and keep involved in voluntary organisations, so, while not the same as professional development and experience, I do feel that I am always expanding my ability to function in lots of different environments.

I think the OP's problem is not really relevant to the SAHM/WOHM debate that plays out weekly (without ever resolving itself) on MN. Rather, it seems that it is a personal relationship problem that needs discussion with BOTH sides being open-minded and trying to put themselves in the other person's shoes.

Personally (and this is just me) I think that it would be nice to have the option of working one day a week, without having to pay childcare costs. Keep your skills up to date and get to do the vast majority of raising your child yourself too. An option that was never there in my line of work - it was work full-time or stay at home so I chose the one that I wanted...

Good post, Bluebutterfly.