To think that mothers just care more about the kids than fathers do? In most cases?

DH loves our kids and loves being a dad, but he’s always wanted kids. A lot of men have kids because they think they have to or to keep/trap a woman.

My dad loves me and my siblings, but I know he struggled when we were babies. He doesn’t really like babies, but he loves kids. My mum fucking LOVES babies though, that’s why there’s six of us. Realistically I think my dad would have been happy with two, maybe three but he wanted my mum to be happy. I realise saying my mum loves babies sounds like she didn’t love us once we stopped being babies - that’s not the case, but she’s one of those women who always wants to interact with babies and smile and them and tells their parents how cute they are ect. You know the type.

Why?

WC women have been working alongside their husbands for a longer time than MC women. They've had to feed their own babies in small homes in front of their partners opposed to a "wet nurse", formula feeding once that was avaliable or taking themselves off to privately feed the baby in their nursery.

WC men have been forced to be more hands on and present while women are caring for themselves and their babies. They have been more likely to be raised by a single mother and therefore help with the childcare for younger siblings than their MC counterparts.

Who do you think is more likely to have changed a nappy by the time they are 16? A boy from a MC, 2 parent household with a SAHP and one younger sibling. Or the eldest boy of a single mum of 6 kids on benefits?

Read this thread i contributed to a while ago:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5560164-aibu-to-want-my-husband-more-involved-and-to-feel-like-a-team?reply=153826375&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Yep. Exception here too.

My son. Dad at 19. Stepped up. The mum f...d off.

It’s fairly obviously true in general based on how few women abandon their children compared with men.

Good for him. But as you yourself say, he's the exception.

Bleak, but not necessary wrong. A quick ask of the friends I’m presently having lunch with and they all remember initiating the question of TTC.

I’ve been on MN for nearly 20 years. I’ve read thread after thread where posters complain of the way their partner approaches childcare. Often it boils down not to unwillingness from male partners so much as not meeting expectations of the mother. If the kids are bathed for instance, does it matter how that’s done?

As to mental load, best not to get me started 😆

I think I've come across about 4 other dads that are doing it all.

X

Yeah I'm not sure this is the case for many men. Maybe just the odd one.

Don't put yourself down. Your children are very lucky.

This. Time and time again. And all too often it's the kids caught on the middle of the hatred.

I disagree in our house. I have never questioned my partner's commitment to our family. I'm also currently the main 'breadwinner' and he does more school runs, so that also includes liaison with teachers, supporting homework, seeing other parents etc.

He is a bit skatty and less likely to remember dates, but we have a calender that helps with that!

I would also say similar for our brothers- all are very committed to their kids, albeit have varying financial situations/ childcare roles- but for one it includes a term time contract so all school holidays (and he often has mine then too!). And I see similar at school. We are in a pretty middle class area so there is a lot of home working/ flexibility which I think helps families.

My partner and I were together for 10 years prior to kids (now 20), and I have a professional career which he actively encouraged.

Valid point.

Wow, that's a lot I've never met any men who were sole parents. Lots of women though.

Some women also make it very difficult for the dad to have a relationship with the children.

Harsh

True but I suppose because it's the situation my family are in I notice it more.
I'm very proud of him. GS is 8yo now.

X

You do realise this site is a microcosm of crap stuff ? So it’s not statistically representative

In my experience yes you are correct in your assumption.

Thankfully (not that I would have ever let it happen) not in my case. However, it does seem to be the case quite commonly.

@GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing "But it’s not a question of nature, it’s socialisation, in my opinion."

I strongly disagree. The only parent guaranteed to be present at birth and who directly invests time and energy for in utero development and is then equipped to provide post-natal feeding through lactation, is the mother. She will then provide protracted care to her offspring to ensure its survival until reproductive age. She also risks her life with every birth. Females therefore form the strongest social bonds with their offspring and this is evidenced through the vast majority of mammalian species, of which the human race is one. Yes, human males can be better at child rearing through education and social adjustment, but they will never have the same bond with the offspring as the mother. It's evolution and biology pure and simple.

I think this is a little reductive, we are more than just primal beings. Humans are more complex than this and capable of being far more progressive. I choose to hold men to account.

I agree op. I think in general women put their dc first, and men put themselves first.

Correct.

Fundamentally, Homo Sapiens is just a mammalian species like any other. The social changes of the last 60-70 years in certain developed societies haven’t changed our basic biological roles at all.

Yes I agree, we are capable of being more progressive and we are one of the most complex mammals on the planet. But no amount of progressive ideology will align male and female instincts towards offspring. I also agree with "holding men to account" but whilst it may produce some material change, it cannot possibly result in emotional or evolutionary change.