Mothers, fathers, children and the family heirarchy

I really can't get over the fact that nobody ever points out how little men have to do with their kids, compared to women.

I find it a bit offensive to think that my mother's love should be stronger than my father's love for me.

I don't take it as a given either. It is overwhelmingly men who sexually and physically abuse their children, which is shocking in itself, but when you couple it with how little time men-as-a-group spend with children compared to women-as-a-group... then it becomes a real shocker.

IT's as though the small amount of time men do spend with kids is not spent nurturing them. Quite the opposite..

Now, of course there is male exceptionism .. i.e my son/brother/father/partner wouldn't do that... but when you look at male aggregate behaviour, it's not good.

I would take it as a given that both parents are devoted to the welfare of their DCs

Well I don't take it as a given. I know plenty of fathers who are equally as 'devoted' their DC as the mother, but for each man like this I know plenty more who are not. You have to assess each father on an individual basis in RL terms, but if we're talking about gender patterns then men as a group don't seem to care as much about their children as mothers.

You only have to take a look at parental contact and maintenance arrangements following relationship breakdown to see that once the parents' relationship has broken down, the non-resident parent (male in all bar 8% of cases) does not put in the same degree of investment as the mother. 60% don't pay maintenance, and as far as I'm concerned a parent who chooses not to pay maintenance is a parent who is incapable of putting a child's basic needs first.

Take a look on the lone parents sections and you'll see that there are loads of NRPs who are completely inconsistent and unreliable with contact, often letting the children down and messing the other parent around. While I would never deny that there are parents who do use their children as pawns to 'punish' the NRP for whatever, I fervently believe these are in a minority and they myth of the mother blocking contact is just that - a myth, deliberately perpetuated by the patriarchy.

More often than not, when an NRP claims the other parent is blocking contact what they mean is flexible contact on their terms to pick and choose and drop at a moment's notice as it suits them. When the resident parent gets fed up with being messed about and seeing the disappointment on the DC's faces at yet another cancellation or no show, they try to enforce a fixed contact schedule only to be then told they are unco-operative, inflexible and blocking contact.

Interestingly, in gender reversal cases, it seems that male lone parents experience just the same issues as female ones, which suggests that it is nothing to do with biology and everything to do with cultural norms. In this society it is seen as acceptable for a man to invest less in his DC or to walk away from them completely. Good men, of course, don't do this but there aren't enough to go round.

I have 3 DCs. They are all male- it seems unfair that they are labelled 'the patriarchy', just by accident of birth-regardless of actions and views.

Posted too early and now lost another chunk!
I was trying to say that the DC is part of an extended family and community. I don't understand why there would be a heirarchy in the family, I don't have one-neither did my parents or grandparents. Even my grandmother would have laughed at the idea of 'the patriarchy', she was a strong woman. I think it is a shame all men seemed to get labelled-regardless of what they are like.

No I don't HerBex. I would take it as a given that both parents are devoted to the welfare of their DCs, and I find it a bit offensive to think that my mother's love should be stronger than my father's love for me.
I am not vilifying a mother-I just can't stand the term 'devoted' and I hate the way some women are so possessive and it is all my baby and they think they can control not only what they do but what they think. Whereas they have given birth to a unique human being and they have the gift of nurturing them to an adult-all the time knowing they are 'on loan' and the parent's job is gradually to let go and make them fully independent.
It much better for the security of the baby to know that it has 2 parents who love each other and love them, than a mother who is living through them, won't let them stay with granny, st

i can understand why the term devoted mother makes you cringe, but don't you think that that's the result of the negative connotations with which patriarchy has invested it? A mother who is not devoted to the welfare of her children, is vilified, a mother who is, is mocked

The term 'devoted mother' just makes me cringe. Maybe people are not using it in the same way as me, but to me it seems smothering and the mother expecting a lot back -as in -'you owe me-I am devoted'. It think this is probably just the first thing that comes to mind-I can't stop it. It also makes me cringe when people say 'I want a baby to love me'-it is projecting far too much onto the DC.
My mother and I have a strong bond, if you were to ask us how much we love each other we would both get emotional and cry! I know she is always there for me-whatever-BUT I like her having her own life-I would hate her to be 'devoted'. My love for her is unconditional and my love for my DH is conditional, but if she was to force a choice it would be DH (not that she would).
You have summed up my thoughts sakura. My DCs know that I am always here if they need me. There is absolutely nothing they could do (even if I hated it) that means that I wouldn't be here, but they are not responsible for me-and my emotional needs are not their responsibility. I have already told them that they are not to feel responsible for me when I am old. They have no duty to me, I gave birth because I wanted to, I brought them up my way and loved every minute-they do not 'owe me'.
Luckily they keep in touch, have fun when we get together and keep coming back. The best thing for them is that I have a full life, their father is central in it and since we could have another 40yrs with the empty nest it is just as well! DCs seem for ever when they are small but it is over in the blinking of an eye almost-looking back! Of course they come first at the time-but you also have to make room and work on the relationship with the father-or you will find it difficult to let go of your DCs.

I suppose the ideal would be for your children to know you're always there if they need you, and there's always a bed for them in your home, but they are under no obligation or duty to look after your emotional needs.. because (as they will tell you) they didn't choose to be born

Yes, devoted mothers are kind of a joke in patriarchy aren't they. how many derogatory words do we have? Mummy's boy, wrapped up in cotton wool, suffocating, smothering etc.

I do think that there is a problem with women being unfulfilled (thanks again, patriarchy ) and that sometimes this manifests in a preoccupation with children and grandchildren... women need positions of economic, social and political power.. that will cure it, then they won't be unfulfilled will they! But that's not what I was getting at at all.

I was getting at the idea that the heterosexual bond is in no way as important as the mother-child bond no matter how hard the patriarchy tries to change that.

It probably boils down to men's jealousy of the mother-child relationship.. that's why so many societies have got hang-ups about breastfeeding

there is also preoccupation in the media of grooming children to leave you (especially daughters.. this serves patriarchy very well indeed because daughters are groomed to be "independant" which actually translates into "living without a support network" which in turn makes young women easier to manipulate, and they are more likely to get trapped in a relationship)

Kids do need to be independant, yes, they do need to beat their own path.. but there shouldn't be anything shameful about having a close bond with your mother or children!!!

expect them to even

Exoticfruits, why are you so obsessed with mothers continuing to be devoted when their kids have grown up?

YOu seem almost disapproving of devoted mothers.

Like the men who invented boarding schools to stop that sort of nonsense. It's OK, most women are sane - they know their sons are going to love their wives more than their mums, they expect them too and are happy t hat's the case.

blackcurrants I wasn't thinking of you. I didn't see anything smug or self-congratulatory about your posts at all. No need to apologise.

Sorry if my posts have sounded smug, sunshine - honestly not my intent, more that I'm musing on what's worked (and what hasn't) so it's kinda thinking out loud and rambly.

Sorry.

I think the state of your relationship with your partners is completely independent of the state of your relationship with your DC.

I left my XP yes but even if I were still with him and he wasn't a twat I don't think I'd feel any differently about my DC or my priority to them. But I am a laissez faire type of parent who very much encourages my DC to learn from their experiences and to be independent thinkers. Putting your DC first is not the same thing as being unable to let them go.

I can see that some women are with the wrong man but it still means that even though you have the storngest bond possible with your DC, you have to let them get on with their own lives as adults and accept that they have other people who come before you. If you go on 'being devoted' after they have their own family you will be deeply resented-you have to be there but in the background. If you are with the right man it makes sense to nurture the relationship because ,even if it is conditional love, he is the one there in day to day life. If he is the wrong one-don't stay for the sake of the DCs-it won't make anyone happy in the long run.

Why didn't I think of that?

A lot of men don't show you their true colours until you are in a vulnerable position. In my case, DV started when I was pregnant - that was after 6 years together previously.

I think the point is if he's selfish and lazy hes not going to change is he?

Once a twat usually always a twat.

My point being that it is about MALE behaviour. It is NOT the woman's fault if a man is a lazy, uninterested jealous partner/father. I

Yes, in a good relationship a woman should NEVER be forced to choose between her child's needs and her partners, but that IS the reality for a lot of women, and even though the woman can be accused of bad judgment, it's her partner who is at fault for being a selfish idiot.

OrmIrian I am not directing this post at you because I never find your posts smug or self-satisfied and I think you show considerable empathy to other people's situations.

However, for those posters whose tone of superiority is raging in their posts about how it all comes down to choosing the right man to have children with, can you please stop it? I am really pleased for you that you did, and I admire that you had the skills to do it, but some of us didn't and your thinly veiled talk of 'well it's your own fault really for choosing the wrong man' is really unhelpful and quite inappropriate on a feminist board I feel.

Besides which, none of it addresses the fact that while I may have made a bad choice of partner, I am also the one living with the consequences of that decision day in day out while my male XP gets off scot free.

And certainly my personal experience and those of every other single mother I know in real life is that they and the DC had to leave the house because they couldn't afford it. In some terrible cases, the XP deliberately witheld money in order to 'punish' the woman for having the temerity to leave.

I think it is frequently mothers who devote themselves wholly to their children and forget about their adult relationship with their partner who can justifiably be accused of being spoiled children.