I don't think anyone will be able to change my mind on this.. mums love VS dads love

[footballinterferingagain]

I honestly don't see how a dad can feel the same about a child as a mum..

You carry that child for 9 months, push them out, breast feed them, spend 24 hrs a day with them..

How can a dad possibly feel the same intensity of love for a child

(I know there are exceptions to the above and not all mums bond/ breastfeeding/ stay at home etc etc, I just mean generally) and also, my kids do have a loving dad.

Does anyone agree with me, or am I alone?

@Jellycatspyjamas

But it’s not fair to diminish the connection between a new mother and baby just to appease other people.

What you’re unable to hear is that for many people, for many reasons, that connection just doesn’t happen. It’s patently untrue for say that all biological mothers love their children more than parents who didn’t give birth.

And what your unable to hear jelly is that the people your talking about are in the minority.

Otherwise why aren’t all babies given up for adoption at birth?

This thread is about bio mothers and fathers but it’s irritated you so much you’ve tried to turn it in to an adoption thread.

But the few families that you work with are not a true representation of the entire world. Im sorry but they are not. They are in the minority

The OP is saying that the biological processes of pregnancy and birth mean that bio mothers will always love their children more than bio fathers. If that were the case there would be no “minority”, because the biological process means maternal love is inevitable. The exceptions, the minority examples prove that maternal love isn’t bestowed by something inherent in pregnancy and birth because some mothers give birth to children that they don’t love in any demonstrable way.

Some mothers may feel like no one could love their child the way they do, that doesn’t mean all mothers love their children more than their father, and some mothers don’t particularly love their children.

I’m that you think pushing and breastfeeding equate to love. I am DS’s biological mother but did neither of those. I’m sure no one who did would dare to suggest that the bond of love between them and their DC is in any way greater!
I do agree that Mums’ love is different to Dads’ but I don’t think it’s because of that as much as that men and women are different.
Why do you want love to be so competitive?

I was adopted. I honestly don't see how my mother (or indeed my father) could have loved me more. I have no doubt she would have loved to have given birth to me and experienced pregnancy etc but I cannot see how that experience would have changed the quality of her love one iota. I don't see any difference in my experience of loving my biological children than my mother's experience in loving her adopted children. In fact, I strive to be the kind of mother she was.

I've no way of knowing, I suppose. But I've always felt more understanding from my dad, it always felt like we were the same, whereas although my mum loves me like crazy, she can be terribly judgemental.

Some people seem to be confusing 'unique relationship' with 'loves DCs more'. Dh and I definitely have 'unique' relationships with our dcs - because we share different interests etc with them. But we definitely love them equally. Dh definitely has a 'unique' relationship with his mother. But that relationship is not based upon love. It's clear that she loves her other ds's, adores them in fact, yet can barely bring herself to speak to dh unless he can be of use to her. She would probably claim that she loves him, but he doesn't recognise it as love.

But it’s not fair to diminish the connection between a new mother and baby just to appease other people

fair do's - there is of course an incredibly important relationship, physical, emotional, relationship, more complex than we can know, in the dyad of the mother and baby. It is very important that this is not diminished. Agree that statistically mothers tend to display more self sacrificing behaviours, both probably innately and in socialised ways. But how helpful is it to define that as love?

At the same time it is also important to respect the many bonds that exist outside that. How helpful is it to define those as love? Dunno.

I don't think it's a zero sum game but if we say "who loves the baby most?" it turns it into that.

My earlier point, as a thought experiment, was that arguably people who don't get the inherent happy drugs but still choose to nurture a baby could be said to love the baby more!! But who cares, I don't, I think lots of people love babies, and that's as it should be.

Many animal mothers go through that and we're still aware that they can become violent and uncaring towards their young. Humans aren't an exception to that - neither a person's sex or any of those steps automatically lead someone to have intense love. Making these assumptions or comparisons between people as if they can be made universal or objectively not only doesn't make sense, it's dangerous.

The premise assumes the mother has not only done all of those things, but that pregnancy and constant ongoing care of the child was wanted and loved by the mother. That's a big assumptions to make and is part of the damaging concept that children are always better off in the care of their mother and abusive mothers are always still trying their best/love their kids/not really that risky. Kids have died because of that assumptions, some of us survive the attempt by our mothers. It's not as much of an exception as some might like it to be.

I actually believed this, until I had children. It does seem to make biological sense.

It's bullshit though. DH loves the kids every bit as much as I do. His love for them completely overawes me (neither of my parents was really the parental type). I love them more than I ever thought possible, but it isn't more than him. It's total, for both of us.

That's a big assumptions to make and is part of the damaging concept that children are always better off in the care of their mother and abusive mothers are always still trying their best/love their kids/not really that risky. Kids have died because of that assumptions, some of us survive the attempt by our mothers. It's not as much of an exception as some might like it to be

This, the premise suggested by the OP all too often leaves children in incredibly harmful, sometimes dangerous living circumstances for far too long.

My DSis had adopted children with acute needs. The effort they put into those children is astounding and the only driving force is love (with a side order of stubborness). You cannot tell me she loves them less than I do my biological children. In a funny twist those DNs are my favourites, over biological DNs and DNs by marriage.

DH loves my girls as much as I do. He picked a career to give him more time off in the year; does overtime in term time to take off TIL during holidays. There was one point years ago when DD2 said she looked forward to the times he leaves to work away and it was incredibly upsetting for him. I asked her about it one day and the thing she likes about him going away is the excited feeling when she sees him again. Proper tears of relief from him when I passed that on. He's an awesome dad who puts as much time, effort and love in as I do.

Of course you could argue that adoptive parents just don't know what they're missing. Except that many parents- mine, for instance- are both adoptive parents and biological parents and are actually in a position to say that it makes no difference how you bond as long as you bond.

Also, while the OP seems to regard it as a given that mothers spend 24 hours a day with their children and fathers only spend a limited time, this is not necessarily the case in all families or in all cultures.

To me, coming from abroad, the acceptance of non-engaging and flaky fathers seems incredibly high in this country compared to what I have been used to. In fact, even my grandfather was shocked when he visited his emigrant brother in the UK in the 1930s and saw how he had gone native in this respect. My dad was completely hands-on from the start and spent all the time he could find connecting to his babies: I can't imagine any love being stronger than his.

Evolution specifically designed us so that normally a new mother and her new baby would be completely attuned to each other to ensure that the baby survives.

If I were a biologist I would be tearing my hair at all the people who seem to think evolution is a finished process of which we are the perfect end product. Not to mention the idea that evolution designs things on purpose. That is not how things work.

Otherwise why aren’t all babies given up for adoption at birth?

There are many other options between intense automatic biologically-driven love described in the OP and wanting to adopt a child out (and wanting to do so can be driven by love, it's pretty nasty to think a birth mother making that choice musn't love her child enough).

The whole concept of instant-mother love is pretty modern and cultural specific - not everywhere makes that assumption. For some, kids are expected to be a burden that will hopefully be worthwhile, pregnancy a risk, and you do your best as a responsible adult no matter how you feel about it.

Even in this culture, many parents view their children as their responsibility even if they don't get the stereotypical rush of intense love. It's a common remark to those who don't that the love will grow. Sometimes this happens, sometimes it'll be a caring love but not one that fits the media image (I think this is the most common), and sometimes it never happens at all. The latter is more common if the child wasn't wanted by the mother in the first place - none of those steps are automatically going to change that.

In most places, in a married couple, one parent cannot give a child up for adoption without the consent of the other and in many communities it is socially unacceptable to adopt a child out (it's noticeable in some places how married women have a higher rate of abortion). The child is viewed as a social commodity and it is viewed as a failure particularly on the mother if even mentions she wants that option. There becomes more pressure in communities where it is assumed kids will provide long-term care and a woman's worth is connected to her ability to care for kids and pass on community traditions.

Mothers are generally viewed as monsters if we say we don't intensely love our kids more than anything from birth. Look at the recent 'do you love your OH or kids more' thread. If I say my spouse came more naturally to parenting, that he's more maternal than I will ever be, it's assumed something is wrong with me or that I must hate my kids. I don't, he just enjoys parenting more than I do, even when he was a SAHP.

Sure, those mothers who turn murderous are in the minority, but it wasn't something corrupt in their biology that made them that way anymore than any other animal mother who tries to kill her young, it wasn't that they didn't all and more than the OP's list, it wasn't that evolution failed in all of them (like evolution has some sort of plan here). Far more factors are involved in it. I don't think insta-love should be considered the standard for most mother's to live up to or that a cherrypicked view of biology should be viewed separate from the many environmental factors.

@footballinterferingagain

I suggest you go to the Relationships Board and read threads by people about their relationships with their mothers. Especially the Stately Homes threads.

I think you will find there are plenty of mothers who don't actually like or even love their DC. Despite carrying them and feeding them. There are significant numbers of toxic, narcissistic women who view their DC as tools to use. There are single parent dads on MN who love their DC enormously.

How many mothers have gone to jail, because they didn't love their DC? Remember Daniel Pelka's mother? Baby P's mother? And there are more if you want to look. These women aren't just an isolated few. There are many, many more women, who for whatever reason haven't seen the inside of a court.

Mothers come in all shapes, sizes and personalities, and it's actually naïve of you to assume, as you have in your OP, that mothers must love their DC more than the dads could, just because they carried and fed them.

I very much doubt that anyone could have loved my sister and I more than my father. He always said he wanted two girls which is what he got and as much as I know my mother loved us - I don't believe it was possible for her to love us more than my father.

When I was old enough to date I set my relationship bar by him - he was kind, gentle, funny, honest,generous, loving. I soon realised few men if any met that bar so had to lower it somewhat over the years or I would still be celibate in my old age.

It might be a different kind of love, but I’d argue that in most families it’s an equal amount of love.

My dad is an amazing father, despite working 90 hour weeks for most of our childhood. He adores his children to the ends of the earth and back, but I think in a more balanced way than my mum. She’s more keen to keep us close and connected, whereas my dad wants us to thrive and enjoy our lives to the fullest, even if that means not seeing him as much.

Interestingly enough, the roles have been reversed now I’m an adult; my hopes for my daughter are similar to my dad’s, whereas my OH is much more protective and coddling. We both love her equally regardless, with every fibre of our beings.

@Crankley Ditto re the relationship bar - it had to be lowered when I realised men like my dad aren’t commonplace!

The OP doesn't specify a new born 'bond' she says child.

ooh, this is getting interesting. You should all read this book!- it shows how our assumptions about childhood are really limited compared to the scope of human society.

www.amazon.co.uk/Anthropology-Childhood-Cherubs-Chattel-Changelings/dp/0521887739?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

The question is, OP - has your mind been changed from the vast majority of people who have responded who say that you are wrong?

The fact that 90% of single parents are mothers is not solely down to patriarchal societal expectations

So 100 years ago, when women who left marriages were not allowed to take their children with them, or even see them again in many cases, because the children, as future heirs, “belonged” to their father, would you say that was due to different societal expectations, or did Victorian men just love their children more than Victorian women did?

I don't have my own children but I grew up MUCH more attached to my dad. My dad was the one who tucked me in, played outdoors with me, took me swimming. He was the one I would go to. He showed me more love and affection than my mum did.