... or not it would seem. DH says no but I NEED to do something before I go mad (long, sorry)

[Pennies]

In the days BC (before children) I used to work in HR. I loved it and had changed career to get my qualifications to do it (spent two years doing evening study - nightmare). But then I got pregnant and had DD1, stayed off for a year during which time I got pregnant again with DD2. I went back to work full time for 3 months inbetween kids so I could qualify for maternity pay . DD1 went to nursery five days a week during this time. When DD2 came along DD1 dropped from full time down to 3 days a week at nursery.

Then we moved and DD1 now only does 2 mornings a week at our local nursery and DD2 stays at home with me.

DD1 is 2.6yrs and DD2 is 16months.

In the past DH and I agreed in principle that we feel it is best for our children to have a parent at home until full time education starts. DH can't do it (breadwinner) so it is me.

OK. So here I am doing the whole SAHM thing, in a new place with hardly any mates. I'm more than at little bit bored and totally miss adult company. I feel my conversation focuses solely on my children and I feel like two dimensional being. So whilst I still maintain that ideally kids benefit from having a parent at home until school it seems that in practice that is not working for me.

Anyway, I thought that I would return to work to get some intellectual stimulation, some money of my own, some adult company and also I think that my clingy DD2 would benefit from some time in nursery.

There are some jobs going locally in local government that I could do, are at my level of seniority and pay quite well so that we could cover childcare and not make a loss. Local governemtn work is great because the options for flexible work are huge which would mean I could do part time work pretty easily. I am not considering full time work at all.

DH says no. He says that as a parent it is his duty to put the kids welfare first (as if I don't WTF???) and that with that in mind and his traditional views then he doesn't want me to do it. I will have to "find something else to do".

So, here I find myself, a little wifelet and mother at home, bored to dry tears, lonely, financially dependent, craving some brain food.

So does anyone have any ideas for what I could do???? I have no major hobbies - my work was my passion - although I go to the gym and love reading.

(BTW - this is just about how I feel - I don't want to open a debate about the whole SAHM / working mum thing.)

I personally do not think it is necessary to have either person at home fulltime BUT if you both do then why not work out your financial liabilities and then work it so that you both work part time ? He could then have some fun time wiping bottoms and cleaning the bathroom....yummy.Or you could think about getting anothe DH ? Or both just work full time ?

Here in France it is illegal for either spouse to prevent the other from working - both have a right to a paid job outside the home.

But if the man says "no" and the women says "ok, then I won't" then whose choice was that?

That's an interesting point Anna. There is a legal obligation within marriage in the UK for a husband to support a wife and vice versa so if say I worked and my husband didn't but I gave him no food and he was starving he could apply for money just as couples do in the middle of a divorce when one cuts off the money but they are still married. You can't say - go and get a job - you have to pay the other one (unless you've left the country or have no money of course).

In a marriage in England if a husband did not let his wife work or did not let her have a child I don't think she could get a court order requiring him to let her work or requiring him to give her a child. She'd had to leave or divorce. I suppose if he locked her in the house (as does happen sadly to some women in the wrong sorts of marriages and cultures in the UK) then physically she couldn't get a job but that's false imprisonment - no legal right to tie up your wife in the UK.

But it's not a question of law here - it's about agreeing between you these things. Most couples before they marry if they have any sense discuss these kinds of things. We did before we were engaged so we got a feel for whether we each expected the other to work when we had babies etc.

i know usborne has already been mentioned, but just wanted to say that this is what keeps me sane. Usborne works for me as i have no child care so do everything either with them or in an evening. I still see it as a business though and am looking forward to having some childfree time to enable me to contact more schools/libraries and build the business so i am still available and can choose my hours whilst they are at school.
Perhaps you could set up a small business of your own? Especially if you have the option of childcare for a few hours a week. These may be of interest
direct selling agencys
mum and working

Best of luck
Gemma

..and here she married a traditional man whose views were clear to her and it seems like she is changing the deal so arguably the default position should be what they agreed to start with - that she stays home.

Surely we all have the right to change our mind as none of can predict how we would feel in a circumstance that we have never encountered before? I would never hold my DH ransom to something he promised me prior to children or sme other circumstance.

People grow up, evolve and change because of what happens in their lives.

Xenia - I wholeheartedly agree that couples need to discuss a lot of issues about the workings of their family life before getting married. But life is not a predictable thing and people grow and change a lot.

Just last night my partner and I were discussing how what people decide for themselves at, say, 25, may often no longer be relevant by, say, 40. Surely one of the major life skills is renegotiating the terms of marriage/relationships in order to keep both parties content over time? I don't agree, therefore, that there can be any kind of "default position".

Agree wtih other posters that agreements aren't necessarily indefinite. It the situation is making one party unhappy then the situation needs serious reassessment. One person'\s contentment cannot be obtained at the expense of another's misery (as opposed to mild inconvenience).

Ideally you adapt but if you marry an old fashioned traditionalist man who has always said women belong at home with small children it's not very fair on him suddenly to become a new age feminist who wants him to put on an apron and stay home just to keep you happy. Just as if he married you for your earning power and you decide to cop out at home for a bit and he loses the meal ticket he wanted it's not fair either. Obviously if something isn't as you had anticipated or you change then ideally you do discuss it and come to compromises that you can both live with but I do agree with some default positions.

If you marry someone who is adamant he never wants children or who married you because you were Jewish or Catholic and would accompany him to religious events, keep a kosher home etc it's a bit of a major thing if you suddenly give up your religious practice etc..... I suppose also if you marry someone fit and slim who gets to 18 stone that might not be very fair on the other half - male or female.

Speaking morally, not legally, I don't think it's right to discard your spouse because they are not as young and beautiful as when you first married. That's not "for better, for worse".

This is a long way from the OP but it's a sad truth that people often do abandon their spouses when the going gets tough. My cousin has had MS for 20 years and her husband, who is perfectly healthy and IMO v attractive, has stuck by her. But among MS sufferers she is in a tiny minority in that respect.

Elasticwoman - I agree.

Xenia - how about a wife who gets breast cancer and so loses her physical appeal to her husband? I suppose you would argue that he is quite entitled to abandon her for another woman who is not ill, since he married a fit woman...

I believe that commitment made in marriage is "for better or for worse" and those words are intended to prevent one person from breaking the commitment on the basis of the other somehow deteriorating.

Peoplewho leave their partners because they got fat or ill or aged as normal humans do are weak. I have little patience who people who file for divorce just cause they up and changed their mind. If the spouse was abusive or committed adultery, ok those are serious offenses. She got fat or his hair fell out, come on...

It's a balance. If you really love someone you stick with them when they're sick. I know two men who nursed their wives for the last few years, both wives died last year. There are other people who become unbearable to their spouse who I don't think then should stick with them - may be a spouse having repeated affairs or who is virtually never there at home or the woman who turns from erotic pretty kind lover to fat ugly nagging awful person who no one could expect to stay with. In sickness and in health yes - but may be if he or she changes some absolute deal breaker fundamentals embraces Islam and moves his second wife in etc you might not stick it out.

Should we bring back the ducking stool for the nagging wife, Xenia?

Can't believe how much this thread swings from the OP to other opinions!

What about looking for some voluntary work as an interim solution? This can be very rewarding, gets you back in the work environment, you meet new people, often get childcare costs, and best of all there's far less of a guilt trip if you have to phone in sick/take inset days and holidays off, as you don't have the same contractual agreement. i volunteer a lot - this has been my way out of the SAHM trap and the difficulties of going back to work even part time as DH has such long hours/demanding job. Maybe if your Dh sees how much happier you are helping out somewhere one morning a week this may change his mind about work? You can find loads of volunteer opportunities on www.do-it.org.

Women in Governance info. Worth a look.

Your DH sounds sexist to me. Marriage is about mutual respect and working in partnership. If you are feeling "a little wifelet and mother at home, bored to dry tears, lonely, financially dependent, craving some brain food" then that is not healthy.

Why is he so adamant that he has the final say - shows lack of respect to me.

I think if you go back to work part time it would be fantastic for you and also have benefits for the children.

If you remain the way you are, feeling the way you are then it will be destructive and the relationship will become strained and resentful and possibly not last. How is that putting the kids welfare first?

People's relationships differ. Some do give the final say to their other half.

eleusis - I agree with you. I think marriage vows should be taken seriously and that the only excuse for separation/divorce is when those vows have been broken. If you are not going to be able to keep the vows, either do not marry or else change them.

My sister and her husband have been having a tiff recently about who makes decisions in their family. Apparently he thinks she promised to obey him, she says she didn't (and I'm sure she's right, my sister would never undertake to obey a man).

I took the bit about " obey your man blah blah blah" out of the ceremony. DH only realised later whe recited it to me (jokingly) and I pointed out that those words had been removed from my vows.

I said obey in my vows thoygh at the time it was the 'in thing' not to.

You need to look at the vows as a whole as cherish means that a man should not make or force you to do anything that is unreasonable or harmful in the first place

Anna888: thing is, people change and their circumstances change. If a longstanding agreement (or any agreement) is no longer working for one, both or indeed all of the parties who originally agreed it in good faith, then any one of those parties is perfectly entitled to ask for some kind of renegotiation. AN agreement which suits one person but leaves another feeling hard done by, ignored and ripped off is not an agreement that will (or indeed should) last for very long.

I think that an unahppy mum at home bored to bits can easily end up in enjoying alcohol too much, taking ad's or having affairs.

Seen so many cases of those bored city wifes around here.

Just a thought, if you work in the voluntary sector- does it help contributing towards your pension? I guess this also an important point!

Good luck Pennies! You sound like a very intelligent woman and hope you resolve your dilemmas soon.

Haven't read the whole thread Pennies, so sorry if someone's already suggested this - but how about being a charity trustee? With an HR background you'd have a lot to offer. I think there are various organisations (possibly the Charity Commission itself?) who run board bank services to match volunteers to charities, or you could approach some local ones?