Oh dear. A split.

Oh no...stepmother's yes can also be dangerous....I see the context now, thanks.

Generally I think non bio lesbian mums & dads who use sperm donors etc are safer bc they commit to the child before birth, but there seems to have been little study.

This thread is so old it’s almost like an archaeological dig!

Arthur Labinjo-Hughes- his Dad and step mum were found guilty of killing the six-year-old about a fortnight before that comment.

Star Hobson who's mum's new partner Savannah Brockhill was instrumental to the child's death was also in 2021 I think.

What about fathers & mothers who use sperm or egg donors? Are they more dangerous as not biologically related? Oddly I can find v little research on thus....

I know this is an old thread, but I'm trying to understand what you mean....what kind of unrelated females are you thinking of? Do you think non-bio lesbian mothers are a danger to kids?

Both men and women are expected to do more of the things that used to be seen as not their role. (As ever the stereotypes never reflected the actual picture).

Men home children
Women work

Irl in plenty couples seems men step up a bit ish with home kids.
Women widely ending up doing most or all home kids, plus working.
Widely studied and definite phenomenon.

Good point Nonny

Another issue is the cost of housing. Previous posters have raised it too but I don't think it can be said too often.

I think the era of women having a genuine choice about going back to work lasted the blink of an eye. I probably caught the tail end of it as I had my child in the late 90s, when childcare was an established thing and just before the housing market went crazy. There was an assumption that I would go back but part time work was a real option because we didn't have a huge mortgage and so living on 1and-a- half salaries was affordable.

Looking back, I think I was very fortunate and I really feel for young colleagues now who look at you gone out if you talk about reducing hours or taking a career break.

I think more is expected out of men today in terms of childcare out of practical necessity as well.

People used to live in joint families or have extended family members live very close by. In parts of the world, this is still the case.
Childcare is something that is predominantly carried out by all the female members of the family. A woman will have her mother, sisters, aunts, female cousins etc around to turn to for advice and help. This is/was a very valuable network. Men don't really get involved except in general play or teaching children skills as they get older.

With nuclear families becoming the norm and more isolated as people move away from their home towns and cities, women are cut off from the other women they would usually have relied on for advice and help. Which is probably why there's more pressure on men these days to lend a hand otherwise it's pretty impossible for a woman to do it all on her own (and plenty men still don't bother to lift a finger).

So yes, it's a good thing that men are more involved in childcare, but it's more of an inevitable and pragmatic result of family structures being fragmented over time.
A bit sad that mothers have lost the invaluable network of female family members that helped take the stress and pressure of childcare.

Some cultures still try to find ways to maintain this support network for mothers but the pressures of capitalism make it harder with time.

The poster who started this conversation was posting about raising babies/ children, all over the world and for all human history.

That's the context and so that's what I'm thinking about, don't want more cross purposes!

Given that, Santa just checking is that what your post is based on? Don't want to end up talking about different things (again!).

I think you could make a general statement that in most societies women have been the main carers of small children, and as boy children came to a certain age they came more into the care of fathers.

I think that was a largely entirely practical division of labour. Women were more tied down with being pregnant and breastfeeding, so the care of small kids and staying closer to home also made sense for them. While very heavy and dangerous jobs, or those that took people away from home for long periods, have tended to fall to men. Some jobs of course included everyone and people had to make do in some instances too, but that's a general pattern.

TBH I have a hard time seeing that as anything other than wholly practical.

Hello Razzli

It's a long thread, which post / point applies to trans people? There's so many different topics and opinions been posted.

That applies to trans people. But that hasn't stopped people from trying to demonize trans people collectively.

I'll do my best to make my posts a bit clearer, noted your comment and I know I go on a bit!

Two points there.

1. The second thing you mention is about general attitudes around children.

I think there has been a massive societal shift around the whole area. And I think it's happened relatively fast. Last 20 years maybe. I'm sure others will disagree, it's just something I noticed.

Up till recently, the general societal view about children was that they were important for society as a whole, and vulnerable because reliant on others when young.

General view was responsibility for feeding, looking after, protecting from harm etc. Was with the parents. The father and the mother both contributed to that responsibility to their child/ren. If they couldn't, or wouldn't, do those things for their child/ren.Then society should step in and make sure kids got basics.

(That idea of family mum dad roles etc. It was a Victorian ideal. Not real life for most. But many Victorian ideals settled in society and have persisted).

Last 20 years or so has changed enormously IMO.

• Anything to do with, or related in any way to children. Is the sole responsibility of the mother.
• In society, the group that wants children, is women. Specifically, women who are in the age range to have a baby. They are the ones that want children, choose to have a baby. It's only to do with them. No one else.

Then onto things I've seen a lot like.

• Women who struggle, having failed to predict the future, well it was their choice and they made the wrong choice. Should never have had kids. Her choice, her responsibility.

• It's selfish/ reckless/ environmentally damaging/ a luxury... Etc. For any woman to have a baby. You did it anyway. Just because you wanted to. Help? You're having a laugh.

• Why the hell should I pay for someone else's kids??!!

And so on.

Imo this is a major shift and a really concerning one.

Ok, I am trying to say that dads weren’t required at births, weren’t required as practical parents, and that yes I agree they provided amusement and fun times which is different (aka ‘Disney dad’). They were frequently absent either for long days or longer periods of weeks or months so barely present or not present at all. I’m not arguing they didn’t love their children, but their active role in their children’s life often didn’t include doing anything for them beyond entertainment, providing financially/materially and teaching male adult skills. It’s very different from today’s expectation; while you say today’s expectations are much lower of dads I think they are much higher. I honestly think I have made that fairly clear in following posts so I don’t feel I need to reply further. I don’t see any examples from you of today’s expectations of dads/men being lower, re your starting post of it’s now moved from being about families/couples to To anything to do with having babies and raising children, it's just women. The men have been written out pretty much entirely!

The above is your initial post. Dads, babies nope, not seen as parent to baby before they were about 8yo.

Latest post it's babies only, and of course dads loved, cared about, enjoyed them etc.
And comments are about mothers doing the bulk of looking after the baby.

I've been responding to what your posts said. And tbh I said right at beginning, really good to be sure what your posts are saying as don't want to get cross purposes.

Thing is generally when you replied, you changed the parameters, and then said you couldn't understand why I thought as I did, given the (altered) situation.

How can I be expected to answer based on your post after I answered?

Sorry to be so blunt. The experience of being expected to know what you meant before you told me, and then getting irritation when I failed to take into account things you hadn't said yet.

It's really hard!

Maybe start again?

I can answer more about the men invisible point if you would like.

And also happy to continue talking about male humans and babies, making sure we both understand what we're talking about!

That ok with you?

No watching them while mum went anywhere ever? Never holding? Never handing to male relatives, friends, etc to have a look at? Never trying to make them smile, or... Touch? No feeling of affection, connection, pride, love, wow it's a whole baby and it's mine? Never giving it a little tickle while mum holding in evening?
For goodness sake, that’s why I specified personal care. I’m sure they gave them a cuddle and a smile, and enjoyed that and thought they were beautiful. Yes men wanted children, of course they did. Even men who never wanted to see that child before they could say a polite please and thank you wanted them to carry on the family name. That aside I’m sure men loved their babies and children, and were anxious when they were sick and died, but their personal care was not a male role. Baby and child rearing was an extension of women’s biological role in child bearing. My grandpa was loving and caring. It’s not that they were unloving, many were great dads according to their time. My grandpa didn’t cook clean or change nappies. He went on lecture tours while my grandma moved 8 children internationally in the 50s. My fil has never changed a nappy. My great grandpa never changed a nappy. His dad never changed a nappy. Go back a hundred years and that’s what happened, and a hundred again and a hundred again. Things are different now and I’m so glad to live in today’s world despite its faults. I’m not dead because I’m female and fell pregnant, I can go back to a good job after having a baby, I can expect my husband to do housework and even take paternity leave (next year, and I am building it up in my mind as the most amazing time ever where I can just waltz off to work leaving him home to care for dc)

It's in your view, unusual to find a society anywhere/ ever. Where men had anything at all to do with their babies whatsoever until say 1yo?

Seriously?

No watching them while mum went anywhere ever? Never holding? Never handing to male relatives, friends, etc to have a look at? Never trying to make them smile, or... Touch? No feeling of affection, connection, pride, love, wow it's a whole baby and it's mine? Never giving it a little tickle while mum holding in evening?

Just zero interest?

If gets ill. Not worried, concerned, dad and mum comforting each other?

Nothing?

And given a choice, do you think that would be the preference still?

You can't see how I wouldn't know that's true?

'When was having babies and women’s functions ever including men? '

In those posts I was talking about sex. Male/ female (sperm egg) both needed. Women can't get pregnant by themselves iyswim.

Also that it's not true that it's women who want babies and men don't really.
Stacks of men want to have a baby / babies. Want children.

In the last maybe 20 years or so, though. Society has shifted the way anything to do with babies/ children is seen.

Change from couples/ families having babies/children.

To women wanting babies/ children.

Also change from babies/ children being important part of society and so children who need it are helped.

To women choose to have babies, if struggle then that's on them. Having babies/ children is solely woman's choice, anything go wrong invariably because of her poor/ selfish/ reckless choices. Any difficulties are on her. Nothing to do with society.

(Lots of media and general people. Not all obv!)

To me this is a huge shift.

Well, around the world and human history was all populated by men and women so it’s not surprising there are some similarities. Obviously there will be exceptions just like there are a few matriarchal societies out there but they are exceptions.
Babies: Everything.
Toddlers/young children:everything to do with personal care, men might entertain /teach.
The age is not precise at which point children enter adult work, but if the menfolk regularly leave for periods of time / spend all day out at work, in the fields etc then the children are left with the women until old enough to go along/ out to work themselves. Obviously in some places this was at 5 or 6 and in other ages older, puberty being the upper limit.
Do you have any examples it wasn’t like this? Where men wiped bottoms and washed the children’s clothes and nursed them through fevers and cooked the food for the children as a norm? Or even carried them around? I’ve always wondered about that one- even when I’m not recovering from pregnancy and birth carrying a baby and toddler is work for me but a total non event for my bigger stronger husband, why was that so women centric too? (See history of baby wearing- women all the way, North America, South America, Africa, etc)

Oh sorry xposts.

Around the world and through human history that's a huge statement though.

I want to make sure I get what you're saying or we'll be at cross purposes and both confused!

Are you thinking of children under 8ish, or just babies? Under 1, 2, that sort of age?

Do you have specific things in mind when you say babycare?
Or anything to do with the baby?

Why do you not think this? Who do you think looked after babies and children? Along with cooking and cleaning, all the ‘keeping the home’ role? What evidence do you have that this has been a strong male role in history? If you go back to primitive times men were often away for months, be it war, hunting, trading, looking for work. Men taught skills to their children, often only to the boys, and imparted wisdom. At some point boys became old enough to join the men’s world. There are obviously lots of nuances at play but as a general theme this is pretty consistent so I’m confused by your seeming like it’s a wholly new theory. I do find your posts quite hard to read by the way.

Really interested in the dads bit.

I found reading that really depressing tbh. I don't understand why/how you came to think that. Getting a bit more into it. It's even more stark!

In blunter terms, it suggests that dads have no interest in/ no desire to interact with their babies/ younger children.

If global and through history I think it follows that this is a fundamental, natural behavioural feature of male humans.

And therefore men getting involved with their babies/ children under 8, being seen as parents too. Is going against millennia of fundamental male human behaviour?

That's a really dismal thing to believe about men. Why do you think this?

By dads yes I mean men generally had no role in baby care.

I am not sure what you are getting at. Do you think dads had a big role in baby and small child rearing? I’m far from a sociological expert but about 50-70 years ago maybe I am judging that western parents became more engaged, might have been earlier but for significant war periods. You don’t have to have been on mumsnet for long to know that plenty of dads still do literally no actual care for their babies or are even in their life.

I interpreted your comment as saying it’s recent to align babies and children with women as a role, and before that fathers were expected to be involved, and I disagree with that.

Which societies, all of them everywhere through history of humans? That was pretty much constant, irrespective?

It's only relatively recently that dads did anything parental at all for children under about 8.

Can you give a rough date you're thinking for when men being parents to under 8s came in?

Sorry another question.
When you say dads, is it just them who were as you describe, or grandads, uncles, etc as well? Men in general rather than dads? Or specifically dads?

And one more question, just want to be sure not misunderstanding. Dads were never expected to pick up a baby (context implies weren't expected to so didn't? So... Didn't want to, so didn't?). More or less?