Anonymous
03/01/2017 10:50
Subject: Re:Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
Of course you are happy, you dont' have to work!
Anonymous
03/01/2017 10:46
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either of you is being ridiculous, but the "No" always wins in this particular argument. Sorry.
+1 And being SAHM doesn't mean that your "yes" has more weight than his "no." That is not a healthy way to look at having a child.
His no means more than your yes because he's paying for everything. He would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn on a child he didn't want. No means no.
This is ridiculous and rude to all SAHMs. You may not like the OP but there is no reason to be this insulting to SAHMs in general.
How is it insulting? She is a dependent.
NP. It's incredibly insulting. I am a dependent, if you look at it that way, but "he would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn" is such a crass way to describe a family situation. What my dh earns is OUR money, and what I spend is OUR money. It's not even to do with the 4th child, it's your seeming inability to view a marriage with only one wage earner as an equal partnership. I'm sorry you can't imagine it, but I'm fortunate to have just that.
NP. Do you not discuss large purchases? Would you buy a vacation home while you're a sahm and he's the sole earner, and he doesn't want a vacation home? I'm sure he'd enjoy it when he can get time off to spend in it. Otherwise it won't affect him, because he's working anyway. And when he's ready to retire in 30 years it'll be paid off, so what's the big deal?
You're talking to me - as is the poster before you who replied to my comment - about things I didn't say. I said that for me, this POV is insulting, completely separate from the discussion about a 4th child. It's about the suggestion that a SAHM is spending her dh's money and I find that offensive.
I'm 19:42. If you don't earn, you are spending someone else's money. If you want an equal partnership, earn some money (probably a lot, in your relationship). If not, earn your own money and spend that.
I'm sorry you wouldn't have an equal partnership if you didn't "pull your weight" financially. That only makes me more grateful to have found a man 25 years ago who doesn't feel that way. I do far more than he does around the house and with the kids, and he knows my unpaid work contributes immensely to our family and thanks me regularly for my contributions, as I do him for his.
But as long as you and I are both blissfully content with our spouses and our marital relationships, it's all good. Of course, I can't speak for you, only myself. I hope you are, too!
Anonymous
03/01/2017 08:19
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
He has to work for "like 30 more years?" Okay.
He doesn't want a fourth baby-- for reasons you haven't articulated, but they don't relate to money, so let's assume it's for the other valid reasons PPs have presumed.
But you want what you want, and you want it now, because the baby stage is so fun! I think your DH already has a 4th child...
Do you even know, in detail, why he objects to a 4th? Maybe start by exploring that instead of coming here for ammo to convince him.
He doesn't want a fourth baby-- for reasons you haven't articulated, but they don't relate to money, so let's assume it's for the other valid reasons PPs have presumed.
But you want what you want, and you want it now, because the baby stage is so fun! I think your DH already has a 4th child...
Do you even know, in detail, why he objects to a 4th? Maybe start by exploring that instead of coming here for ammo to convince him.
Anonymous
03/01/2017 08:01
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either of you is being ridiculous, but the "No" always wins in this particular argument. Sorry.
+1 And being SAHM doesn't mean that your "yes" has more weight than his "no." That is not a healthy way to look at having a child.
His no means more than your yes because he's paying for everything. He would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn on a child he didn't want. No means no.
This is ridiculous and rude to all SAHMs. You may not like the OP but there is no reason to be this insulting to SAHMs in general.
How is it insulting? She is a dependent.
NP. It's incredibly insulting. I am a dependent, if you look at it that way, but "he would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn" is such a crass way to describe a family situation. What my dh earns is OUR money, and what I spend is OUR money. It's not even to do with the 4th child, it's your seeming inability to view a marriage with only one wage earner as an equal partnership. I'm sorry you can't imagine it, but I'm fortunate to have just that.
NP. Do you not discuss large purchases? Would you buy a vacation home while you're a sahm and he's the sole earner, and he doesn't want a vacation home? I'm sure he'd enjoy it when he can get time off to spend in it. Otherwise it won't affect him, because he's working anyway. And when he's ready to retire in 30 years it'll be paid off, so what's the big deal?
You're talking to me - as is the poster before you who replied to my comment - about things I didn't say. I said that for me, this POV is insulting, completely separate from the discussion about a 4th child. It's about the suggestion that a SAHM is spending her dh's money and I find that offensive.
I'm 19:42. If you don't earn, you are spending someone else's money. If you want an equal partnership, earn some money (probably a lot, in your relationship). If not, earn your own money and spend that.
PP, do you bring such black and white thinking to your workplace? Do you always view the world in such concrete terms? Why are you refusing to consider a different viewpoint or perspective? Why such divisiveness?
Anonymous
03/01/2017 07:40
Subject: Re:Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
I wouldn't go back to the baby stage for anything. Babies are nice but not everyone loves the 24/7 intensity, and despite what OP implies, parents who work outside do bear the weight of that- at night on weekends, on vacations that aren't vacations because they're just complicated baby care scenarios. You can love your kids and be ready for the next stage.
OP said it's *only* two years of the intense baby stage. Anyone who thinks in those terms - that forcing two years of life changes on another person is minor- really doesn't get relationships.
And as others have said, it's not a two-year change. It's six more years in the preschool stage, six more years as breadwinner for several dependents, apparently six more years until spouse shares earning responsibilities.
OP said it's *only* two years of the intense baby stage. Anyone who thinks in those terms - that forcing two years of life changes on another person is minor- really doesn't get relationships.
And as others have said, it's not a two-year change. It's six more years in the preschool stage, six more years as breadwinner for several dependents, apparently six more years until spouse shares earning responsibilities.
Anonymous
02/28/2017 23:25
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either of you is being ridiculous, but the "No" always wins in this particular argument. Sorry.
+1 And being SAHM doesn't mean that your "yes" has more weight than his "no." That is not a healthy way to look at having a child.
His no means more than your yes because he's paying for everything. He would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn on a child he didn't want. No means no.
This is ridiculous and rude to all SAHMs. You may not like the OP but there is no reason to be this insulting to SAHMs in general.
How is it insulting? She is a dependent.
NP. It's incredibly insulting. I am a dependent, if you look at it that way, but "he would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn" is such a crass way to describe a family situation. What my dh earns is OUR money, and what I spend is OUR money. It's not even to do with the 4th child, it's your seeming inability to view a marriage with only one wage earner as an equal partnership. I'm sorry you can't imagine it, but I'm fortunate to have just that.
NP. Do you not discuss large purchases? Would you buy a vacation home while you're a sahm and he's the sole earner, and he doesn't want a vacation home? I'm sure he'd enjoy it when he can get time off to spend in it. Otherwise it won't affect him, because he's working anyway. And when he's ready to retire in 30 years it'll be paid off, so what's the big deal?
You're talking to me - as is the poster before you who replied to my comment - about things I didn't say. I said that for me, this POV is insulting, completely separate from the discussion about a 4th child. It's about the suggestion that a SAHM is spending her dh's money and I find that offensive.
I'm 19:42. If you don't earn, you are spending someone else's money. If you want an equal partnership, earn some money (probably a lot, in your relationship). If not, earn your own money and spend that.
Anonymous
02/28/2017 23:11
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either of you is being ridiculous, but the "No" always wins in this particular argument. Sorry.
+1 And being SAHM doesn't mean that your "yes" has more weight than his "no." That is not a healthy way to look at having a child.
His no means more than your yes because he's paying for everything. He would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn on a child he didn't want. No means no.
This is ridiculous and rude to all SAHMs. You may not like the OP but there is no reason to be this insulting to SAHMs in general.
How is it insulting? She is a dependent.
NP. It's incredibly insulting. I am a dependent, if you look at it that way, but "he would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn" is such a crass way to describe a family situation. What my dh earns is OUR money, and what I spend is OUR money. It's not even to do with the 4th child, it's your seeming inability to view a marriage with only one wage earner as an equal partnership. I'm sorry you can't imagine it, but I'm fortunate to have just that.
NP. Do you not discuss large purchases? Would you buy a vacation home while you're a sahm and he's the sole earner, and he doesn't want a vacation home? I'm sure he'd enjoy it when he can get time off to spend in it. Otherwise it won't affect him, because he's working anyway. And when he's ready to retire in 30 years it'll be paid off, so what's the big deal?
You're talking to me - as is the poster before you who replied to my comment - about things I didn't say. I said that for me, this POV is insulting, completely separate from the discussion about a 4th child. It's about the suggestion that a SAHM is spending her dh's money and I find that offensive.
Anonymous
02/28/2017 23:01
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
22:51 here. I just saw in posts above that you are a SAHM with 3 kids and you can afford to have another because your DH has a great income and HE has another 30 years of working life ahead.
-Maybe you are being selfish. Why don't you want to go back to work?
-Maybe he doesn't want to be the only income earner parent for another 6 years at least. Talk to him about this.
-Maybe you just love baby and toddlerhood-having another won't cure that. It will come back when that one is older.
- Yes, this is very different from someone with one child (I thought that was the issue in this thread)
No Matt what the answers above are, if one person doesn't want a baby, don't do it! Do not forget or delay or otherwise mess up your contraceptive. That's unethical and if you do get pregnant again and then you divorce for some other reason in a couple of years, life may be by hard for you managing 4 kids and having to go back to work. Any couple can get divorced so don't think it can never happen to you.
-Maybe you are being selfish. Why don't you want to go back to work?
-Maybe he doesn't want to be the only income earner parent for another 6 years at least. Talk to him about this.
-Maybe you just love baby and toddlerhood-having another won't cure that. It will come back when that one is older.
- Yes, this is very different from someone with one child (I thought that was the issue in this thread)
No Matt what the answers above are, if one person doesn't want a baby, don't do it! Do not forget or delay or otherwise mess up your contraceptive. That's unethical and if you do get pregnant again and then you divorce for some other reason in a couple of years, life may be by hard for you managing 4 kids and having to go back to work. Any couple can get divorced so don't think it can never happen to you.
Anonymous
02/28/2017 22:51
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
Sorry I haven't read all the posts. Two questions.
Why do you want another child?
Are you SAHM and if so do you want to go back to work, ever?
Why do you want another child?
Are you SAHM and if so do you want to go back to work, ever?
Anonymous
02/28/2017 22:35
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either of you is being ridiculous, but the "No" always wins in this particular argument. Sorry.
+1 And being SAHM doesn't mean that your "yes" has more weight than his "no." That is not a healthy way to look at having a child.
His no means more than your yes because he's paying for everything. He would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn on a child he didn't want. No means no.
This is ridiculous and rude to all SAHMs. You may not like the OP but there is no reason to be this insulting to SAHMs in general.
How is it insulting? She is a dependent.
NP. It's incredibly insulting. I am a dependent, if you look at it that way, but "he would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn" is such a crass way to describe a family situation. What my dh earns is OUR money, and what I spend is OUR money. It's not even to do with the 4th child, it's your seeming inability to view a marriage with only one wage earner as an equal partnership. I'm sorry you can't imagine it, but I'm fortunate to have just that.
NP. Do you not discuss large purchases? Would you buy a vacation home while you're a sahm and he's the sole earner, and he doesn't want a vacation home? I'm sure he'd enjoy it when he can get time off to spend in it. Otherwise it won't affect him, because he's working anyway. And when he's ready to retire in 30 years it'll be paid off, so what's the big deal?
Anonymous
02/28/2017 22:31
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either of you is being ridiculous, but the "No" always wins in this particular argument. Sorry.
+1 And being SAHM doesn't mean that your "yes" has more weight than his "no." That is not a healthy way to look at having a child.
His no means more than your yes because he's paying for everything. He would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn on a child he didn't want. No means no.
This is ridiculous and rude to all SAHMs. You may not like the OP but there is no reason to be this insulting to SAHMs in general.
How is it insulting? She is a dependent.
NP. It's incredibly insulting. I am a dependent, if you look at it that way, but "he would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn" is such a crass way to describe a family situation. What my dh earns is OUR money, and what I spend is OUR money. It's not even to do with the 4th child, it's your seeming inability to view a marriage with only one wage earner as an equal partnership. I'm sorry you can't imagine it, but I'm fortunate to have just that.
The problem with most, not all, sah relationships is that the wife lhas lost the means to support herself independently and the husband has more power in the relationship as the sole wage earner, some men resent the stress even if there is plenty of money, It is quite clear that you feel there is enough money for another child, but perhaps your husband disagrees. Perhaps he doesn't not enjoy the baby toddler stage as much as you do. Perhaps he thinks the relationship between you and him is better without the drudgery of caring for small children. There are many reasons not to have a fourth child, you are just not willing to hear them.
Anonymous
02/28/2017 22:23
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either of you is being ridiculous, but the "No" always wins in this particular argument. Sorry.
+1 And being SAHM doesn't mean that your "yes" has more weight than his "no." That is not a healthy way to look at having a child.
His no means more than your yes because he's paying for everything. He would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn on a child he didn't want. No means no.
This is ridiculous and rude to all SAHMs. You may not like the OP but there is no reason to be this insulting to SAHMs in general.
How is it insulting? She is a dependent.
NP. It's incredibly insulting. I am a dependent, if you look at it that way, but "he would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn" is such a crass way to describe a family situation. What my dh earns is OUR money, and what I spend is OUR money. It's not even to do with the 4th child, it's your seeming inability to view a marriage with only one wage earner as an equal partnership. I'm sorry you can't imagine it, but I'm fortunate to have just that.
Anonymous
02/28/2017 21:01
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Um the gain of another person to love? Another person to round out our family who will be our children's sibling for the rest of their lives? I don't look at it in financial terms, I think that is silly. I don't look at our existing children and add up what they cost us.
I'm not postponing returning to work. That has nothing to do with this. It's a separate issue but he doesn't really want me to work anyway (work travel).
But what you are doing is postponing when he can retire. Maybe if you commit to going back to work and fully supporting you two and your youngest child through her middle and high school years so that he has the option to retire when she leaves grade school. Tell him that you'll support the family so that he can retire on his own schedule and that in your youngest's middle and high school years, you'll do what it takes to allow him more freedom to pursue other activities.
You are completely discounting the fact that he wants to be done with dependent parenting in 12 years and not 18. I think the only realistic way to convince him otherwise, is if you make the commitment now that you will assume the financial and parental responsibilities for a new child after the 3rd goes to college. That may mean you have to work and juggle work and errands and shutting the child to after school commitments, etc largely on your own. Because that time is what you're trying to take away from him. How will you feel when you are working full time, doing all the household errands, shuttling your child around and he is retired and playing golf or going out of town with the guys or taking up a new hobby? That's the type of commitment you need to make to convince him. Otherwise, you are just putting your own wants ahead of his. This is why most people say that the No always beats the Yes vote. Because you don't get to commit another person to the extra years and work of raising a child. And despite your hand waiving, there is still a lot of parenting that goes on from ages 4.5 to 17.
You and so many of the posters on this thread are so hung up on the fact that OP is a SAHM that you're ignoring the fact that it's not a financial issue for their family. They have enough money to support another child - the DH just doesn't want more children. That's a much harder issue to address. If it was just about money, the easy solution would be for OP to go back to work.
No, that's not the point. The point is that they can afford a child while he is working. But she has said nothing about whether they can afford the last six years of a new child's childhood without her husband actually producing an income. Retirement income is lower than working income. Are they still able to afford to pay for the child's middle and high school years, plus college on their retirement income? Or are they going to live on savings and investments for those 6 years? The supposition that they cannot afford to pay for a child's last 6 years of middle school, high school plus college on a single retirement income without significantly eating into their retirement is not just blaming a SAHP for staying at home. The point I was trying to make is that he may have plans for what to do when they become empty nesters and she's now delaying when that happens.
The point is that many parents who are done, make plans for when to retire and enjoy their golden years. It's hard to do that when you are looking at an additional $200K (or more) worth of college tuition payments not to mention the cost of raising a child through their teenage years. If you aren't working, that's a good chunk of change to be pulling out of savings/investments or retirement.
? We're 36. He has like 30 years left of working.
Maybe he doesn't want to work until 66! We are 36 also and my DH would like to retire in 20 years not 30! Harder to do with a child still needing college and other financial support. When we are 56 our youngest will be 25 and our house will be paid off.
Anonymous
02/28/2017 20:50
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think its selfish to have 4 kids as its hard to give each the attention and support they need.
I know that we can do it though. We're doing a good job with the three that we have now. By the time the baby was born, our youngest would be six and in school full day so I'd be able to have lot so one-on-one time with the baby and not have it affect them.
He wants you to get a job. Not restart your SAH clock.
Anonymous
02/28/2017 19:42
Subject: Is this ridiculous? DH and I disagree over whether to have another child
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think either of you is being ridiculous, but the "No" always wins in this particular argument. Sorry.
+1 And being SAHM doesn't mean that your "yes" has more weight than his "no." That is not a healthy way to look at having a child.
His no means more than your yes because he's paying for everything. He would be paying for you to spend money you didn't earn on a child he didn't want. No means no.
This is ridiculous and rude to all SAHMs. You may not like the OP but there is no reason to be this insulting to SAHMs in general.
How is it insulting? She is a dependent.