how do i convince my husband

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2004
how do i convince my husband
1841
Mon, 07-18-2005 - 4:09pm
how do i convince my husband to let me at least job-share so i can take care of our 3 month old dd? he grew up with his mom working & all his friend's moms working. we can afford it if we cut back on some things, but he doesn't want to cut back & just doesn't understand someone wanting to be a stay at home mom...it doesn't help mycause that the grandmothers will babysit. i'm so unhappy about having to go back to work...he wants me to work full time 1 more year & just doesn't get it! i feel like my heart is being ripped from my chest every time i hink about it.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 07-31-2005 - 9:21am

...Likewise- if someone told me that I couldn't have those first months with my baby, they wouldn't get anything from *me* and life would be miserable around *this* house. Bottom line is that *someone* has to make the final decision and IMO I think she has just as much right to do that in this situation as he does.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2004
Sun, 07-31-2005 - 11:08am

In real life, have you ever seen a father have a strong opinion about his wife working and it not really be necessitated by REALISTIC (vs unrealistic) financial assessment?

I have met plenty of guys who don't want their wives to work - almost entirely for selfish reasons.

Mondo

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Sun, 07-31-2005 - 2:09pm

I agree :)

And one thing that I can't help but point out is that there is a huge amount of "working" scenarios. It doesn't mean that she'll be putting in 50 hour work weeks, didn't she say something about job sharing?

Job sharing is great when you have a young baby, because you still keep you "foot in the door" so to speak, get that bit of adult time, etc. And it doesn't have to be that many hours. Depending on her job she can make up other work from home via computer, etc. If she has the opportunity with her employer, and it's financially feasible, I'd go for it.

You are bang on about looking farther down the road. In our situation, had we not done that, we wouldn't have been prepared for when dh was laid off and my job became our only source of income.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 07-31-2005 - 4:13pm

***His *financial* situation would change and it appears that he thinks it would change in a significant manner.***

So his financial 'situation' takes precedence over the mother-child bond, his wife's mental health and the overall family happiness?

***Anytime your decisions will have a significant impact on others, you owe it to others to consider those impacts. And in the case of a lifelong, mutually-agreed upon, mature, married relationship, i think you owe it to those others to get their support of that decision.***

I agree- but it sounds as if she *has* considered the impact of her decision- she's looked at the situation and claims that they can afford it. As for support, yes, he should support her in this decision, or give her a very good reason why he doesn't. I suppose ones opinion on this matter really all boils down to how important being with their child in the early months/years is to them and their family situation. Granted, they should have decided on these things before even getting married, much less having the child/ren, but regardless- someone has the final say, we just disagree on who that ought to be in this situation.

***Okay, if you want to look at it as his and hers, then she should quit her job, but not expect any financial assistance from him. After all, it is his money and it's his decision as to what to do with it. Hmmm, maybe he'll decide not to pay her car payment or her cable bill.. after all it is *his* money from *his* job.***

That isn't what I was getting at. I'm not saying that money should be divided along a 'his n hers' line, but rather that she's the one putting in the time and who is giving up those 12 months with her child- unless he's expressed an interest in being a sahd? I guess what my disagreement really is is that it sounds as if you are placing far more importance on finances than on family. What I disagree with is that he is trying to force her to go back to work at a very sensitive time for both mother and child- if he were more amicable to her staying home for the first year, or even better- three, and *then* going back- I'd be more inclined to favor *his* position.

***He shouldn't. They should reach the decision *together*.***

It sounds like they -haven't- and given her feelings on the matter, aren't going to so long as he remains rigid and 'parental' in his stance. In the end, *somebody* has to make the final decision if, after discussion and mutual sharing they cannot come to a compromise/agreement.

***What about the situation as he would describe it?***

I don't see him posting here, do you?

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 07-31-2005 - 4:21pm

Sure she'll 'be there'- but face it- alot of her time will be eaten up at work, and possibly commuting. I don't know of *many* WOHM's who wouldn't *rather* be there more and/or who didn't have an excruciatingly difficult time leaving their child with someone else (other than their partner) during that time. *shrugs* And yes- perhaps she should have planned it better, but the point is- the child is here *now*.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Sun, 07-31-2005 - 4:31pm

***Not necessarily. That depends on their finances, financial goals and prior discussions about financial responsiblity doesn't it? If my husband wanted to take 12 months off, to make life easier on him, and I said no, would I be unreasonable or immature?***

If it meant the difference between his happiness and his being miserable? I know *I* couldn't say no- I'd make it work.

***Women can and do breast feed while working. One does not negate doing the other. Sure, it's easier if you stay home but easier on mom may not be the right choice for the family in light of their expectations going in and financial issues.***

Unfortunately this is only partially true. Most women can and do *pump* and bottle feed while working, and most go on to feed at the breast at home. However, more than a few women do not respond adequately to a pump, and may work in situations where pumping is impractical, or even impossible. Also, baby doesn't receive the skin contact with mom during those feeding sessions while she's at work- which may not be important to some people, but to others it is more important than finances.

Wytchy

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-16-2005
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 7:18am
Thanks so much for that explanation! It really makes sense. I'm banking on the hope that delaying true "group" exposure until kindergarten should have similar benefits. Also, I wonder that the AAP only recommends breastfeeding for a year for the immune-building benefits but hasn't promoted early group exposure as having equal immune-building benefits.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 9:19am

I haven't heard of any particular benefits from from delaying group exposure, but you never know. In any case, the second your oldest child heads off to school, the youngest ones will, in effect, be dealing with group exposure. Dd was a lot more sick as a baby than ds, and I'm pretty sure it was because he was in preschool and bringing home everything.

"Also, I wonder that the AAP only recommends breastfeeding for a year for the immune-building benefits but hasn't promoted early group exposure as having equal immune-building benefits."

The benefits of early exposure is fairly new. It took the AAP a long time to come out with their strong support of bf, in spite of many years of clear research on the benefits. In any case, I can't see that it's done a thing for getting more people to bf in the US :-).

The fact that the immune system gets built up through exposure has long been known and understood. In the past, it was seen as a fairly equal decision as to whether the immune system got built up earlier or later, which is why there hasn't been a "promotion" of early group exposure as a way to build the immune system early on...it was just a given that earlier or later kids would would be exposed to illnesses and build up their immune system.

The argument that I know of has always centered on whether or not it was acceptable to expose a baby to others' illnesses. Many who argue against outside care under the age of 3 use the argument that it is not healthy for children to be exposed so much early on...that it would be better to wait until a child is older. Some of the new research is suggesting that this may not be the case.




Edited 8/1/2005 9:26 am ET ET by laura_w2
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 11:53am

"So I guess you could say that formula being only 138 years is a relatively new invention if you are comparing it against years we have been humans,"

Exactly.

"but if one compares it to the modern day sahp such as yourself......which really has only existed since much of the actual work was taken out of being a sahp in regards to the addition of technology that now does that work for you...it's pretty darn old."

That's your opinion.

"I only consider 1500 bc to be pretty darn old, but that of course is not your opinion?"

No, that is not my opinion, especially when comparing it against years we have been humans.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 08-01-2005 - 12:08pm

"Sahms as they are today, are a even newer invention than all. Point?"

Again, that is your opinion.

BTW, I disagree (see info and link below). Sure, SAHM's/WAHM's have evolved over time, but are they a new invention? I don't think so.

http://www.naturalchild.com/peter_cook/ecc_ch1.html

A carrying species

"Dr N. Blurton Jones studied the question of whether humans evolved as, or are by nature, one of the species of mammals that caches (i.e. hides) the infants in a safe place, returning periodically to feed them, or whether they are one of the carrying species like monkeys and apes, in which the mothers carry their infants wherever they go and feed them frequently.

He compared humans with members of caching species of mammals on the one hand, and with higher primates which are carrying species on the other. He concluded from a number of anatomical, behavioral and physiological comparisons, including the composition of the milk, that humans are indeed pre-adapted to be a carrying species. Such species breast feed their young frequently. He said that "if the implications of my comparative study are correct then the situation in which babies develop has been exceptionally constant throughout our evolution, right back into our earliest hominid phase some twenty-five million years ago and beyond throughout our entire higher primate ancestry of some forty million years". (Blurton Jones 1972)."

Also,

"In spite of a great deal of cultural and geographical diversity, all of the infants drawn from pre-industrial communities shared certain common experiences during the first year:

membership in an extended family system with many caretakers

breastfeeding on demand, day and night

constant tactile stimulation by the body of the adult caretaker who carried the infant on her back or side, and slept with him

participation in all adult activities, with frequent sensorimotor stimulation

lack of set routines for feeding, sleeping and toileting

lack of restrictive clothing in a (semi) tropical climate."

Pages