are fathers equal to mothers?

[tittytittyhanghang]

Regarding parenting babies/toddlers. I thought they were? If a mother and father are no longer together they surely it is important and right for that child to maintain an equal relationship with both parents (given that both parents love the child and want as deep and loving relationship with the child as possible). Bars breastfeeding then, i dont understand how mothers are somehow superior to fathers and a baby/toddler 'needs' to be around the mother at all times, (I actually find this argument deeply insulting to mothers who have went back to work and left their babies in the care of childminders etc) whereas it would only need to be around the father a couple of hours a week. AIBU to think this is more to do with the mothers insecurities and that in fact a baby would be cope fine spending more than a couple of hours/overight with the father.

This probably is a thread about a good few threads i've read on mn, so flme me if you feel the need but im a bit irked (and shocked) that the likes of this can be said - 'That aside don't talk about your rights as you don't have any, she as the childs mother & primary carer calls the shots so the sooner you get your head round that the better you'll get along.' and hardly anyone challenges it.

I would say that I am more physical with my kids, I'm always cuddling and eating them up. Chucking them about and loving every minute iyswim.

Dp is very formal with them, they very much enjoy the whole being chucked about and kissed and loved and tickled.

That is probably why they prefer me, more tactile.

Donteven, that's quite a leap you made there. Complete waste of a confused face!

50/50 is not fair to children, full stop. They should not be constantly switching between homes. That's not fair whether they're a small baby or a school age child who doesn't want to be split in two.

The gender of the parent they spend the majority of the time with is largely irrelevant, as long as that parent has been the primary carer. What sense would it make to have a child spend 50pc of the time at a working parent's house when there is a SAHP in the equation, for example?

"Do posters who are saying that a 50/50 isn't good for DC's think that the carer who has primary care should normally be the woman and not the man"

It isn't a question of should, but what usually happens, because women have to be signed off work to recover from birth (ignoring bf).

For a change in policy to take place, every man would have to be given extensive paternity leave, to give equal rights to all fathers.

Individually any family can do what they want, but for the courts to interfer with parenting from birth wouldn't be helpful.

It would need a full change in law, especially for unmarried couples.

"50/50 is not fair to children, full stop."

So it's more fair to deprive a child of time with one of their parents needlessly then?

"They should not be constantly switching between homes."

The alternative being what exactly? If the parents aren't together then the child should only be with one parent all the time?

What matters is what is best for the children.

They are not property to be shared.

Parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities.

No one arrangement is going to suit all families.

Both parents should have their children's welfare at the top of their list of priorities, not making sure they get their 'share'.

Well yes, that would be the ideal. But the ideal is rarely acheived when there is abuse/recalcitrance/downright fuckwittery going on, as so often happens. By both/either parent.

I've seen both sides, a dear friend whose ex really is a total cunt (and the courts have seen through his lies) and my own DS, whose ex has denied him contact because she didn't like his gf, tbough she herself had a new dp.

If the ex is a cunt who is not putting their children first, then clearly the partner who is doing so needs to try to limit that person's access to the children.

It doesn't matter who the parent is whether mother or father. Both are equal in those terms and children need them both equally.

Sometimes they can't have them both equally because that isn't in their best interests.

It is complicated, 50/50 might be the best choice for some kids, 80/20 for others 100/0 for others.

My point is neither the mother nor the father has any bloody 'rights' only the kids do.

Reasonableness seems to just disappear out the window when relationships break down, it has to be about the Dc's and that is very much age dependant.
50/50 shared care, I'd be bloody insisting on it but it makes me laugh that most married women don't have that so do we have to break up with them for the men to do their share of arse/face wiping. Probably.

Yes we certainly were and still are now were apart. Me and exdp have joint custody, in fact he's had him even longer this time as I've not been coping very well with life.
So for the time being he's probably the better parent. I wish we could drop the stigmas around it all cause it really does make me feel worse. It's like a woman's not allowed to struggle, get down or need time off or she can't be a good mother. I really struggled when we first split with letting ex have it joint and I think a small part of this was because I felt it made me less of a mother, this is what society has conditioned us to feel

By the way it refers to the custody not my ds just reread and it could be taken either way. I'm not THAT bad a mother I swear

Yes, that's an irony I've noticed Mosman: friends of mine have recently split up... He's a loving and involved dad, but she's still the one who works part-time and has done most of the childcare. Now she's left, and they're working out a 50:50 arrangement, and she suddenly has time for herself that she has never had before...

IME there is no pressure or societal expectation on fathers to do anything more than the barest minimum. If I spent as little time with my kids as XH, I would be seen as a trrrible, neglectful mother. But his 2 nights a week and state-set child support make him father of the fucking century apparently.

Parents have no rights, just responsibilities. In my personal belirf system, BF is important. therefore, XH did not have overnights with DC3 until he stopped BF at 2 years. Luckily, he also believes BF is important.

I think it's imperative for a child's well being (in the absence of abuse) that a child have a solid relationship with both parents.

And this works best if both parents are highly involved from the outset.

If Dad starts off on a footing of barely seeing his baby, don't be suprised when he turns into a classic Disney Dad.

Part of what I find strange is how many people seem to have babies with people they haven't discussed these things with. I realise the odd accident happens due to the not 100% effectiveness of contraception but the numbers on MN and RL make me wonder a lot!

In answer to the OP parents are and should be equal. Given there is much better paternity leave these days parents should be able to be there together from the start. I did find it hard for me to leave my DC when she was BF which was much more down to hormones than her need for food.

Once I had to leave her for childcare there was no reason it shouldn't have been 50 50. It wasn't entirely but that was more out failures than anything else.

depends what youre talking about. A man who inseminates a woman then fucks off is NOT an equal parent.

A man that lovingly raises a baby to a child IS an equal parent

My ex and i were together years. He left me when ds1 was 4. He is very involved in ds' life and is a good parent.
My dp has been a hands on dad from the start and if anything happened to us as a couple, he would have equal rights as a parent.

This is nothing to do with biological reasons. I dont rely on my partner or my ex for anything, but they all have a sense of responsibility.

Some guys expect equal treatment when theyve done fuck all, just because it came from their moment of fun. Like in that thread where yesterday where the guy left his partner during pregnancy and shacked up with the mistress and now is complaining she wont let him keep the young baby for any length of time alone. In that case if i was the woman id tell him to fuck off

Every family is different.
My DH is as important to our son as I am, but he's certainly not the same as I am. We fulfill different roles that are dynamic and often overlap.
Often the equality issue is only raised after separation, which raises debate about parental rights and equal shares of children. As someone else has pointed out this is unhelpful,as the priority should be the rights of the dc and the responsibilities of the parents.
I think equality is complicated and not defined by "sameness"
My dh and I bring different qualities to the life of our ds. Maybe sometimes they are not equal in some ppl's view but what's important IMHO is that those different contributions are valued.

This thread is depressing. I would be even more depressed about it if I was a bloke and I would be extremely depressed about it if I were a seperated bloke.

I think that fathers are hugely important to a child - but in the first few weeks, biology should be the primary consideration. Babies are wired to cling to their mothers - there have been all sorts of test done that show that a newborn can identify the smell of its mother's milk as opposed to someone else's milk. I'm a great believer in the 4th trimester theory - warmth, food on tap, cuddles, not too much stimulation.

Once the baby starts becoming more alert and interracting with the world around him, that's when I think it is most important for the father to become much more hands-on.

Both DSs slept on me, fed from me, were carried around in a sling by me. They bonded with their father and grandparents and have very good, strong relationships with their whole family (in fact Gran is currently streets ahead in the "Favoured Carer" race!) but I was the one they came back to when they had a comfort-related need to be met. DS1 is 3 1/2 and is confident and independent, and currently all about daddy. DS2 is 1 and is also massively into his dad at the moment, but still wants to fall asleep on me and will resist any attempt by DP to cuddle him to sleep.

Parenting is a lifetime responsibility and, over the course of that lifetime, both parents are ultimately equal, but there will be times when the balance tips one way or another and, in my opinion, the responsibility is tipped heavily towards the mother in the first few weeks. That's not to say that the father can't be involved, but he should respect the fact that the baby is, at that time, programmed to be attached to his mother.

What kungfupanda said.

My DP would never stop me breastfeeding just so he could have one of our DC over night. If we ever split up I mean.

My DD is now 17 months and she NEVER took a bottle. Many babies are bottle refusers so how would you get round that problem?

Also, I am the only person that can get my DD to sleep. Other people have tried but she just screams. Even for DP. So letting him have her over night, at this age, would be cruel. Me and DP have discussed this and he agrees that waiting until DD is older would be more beneficial for her.

Obviously if a baby/toddler can be put to sleep by others and is happy to have a bottle/sleeps through the night, then there is no reason why they shouldn't stay at their dads over night.

But I really do think this is going to be different for every child. You can't just say that all children benefit from overnight stays. It's not that black and White.

Great post kungfupanda, pretty much sums up what I was going to say about newborns. My newborns were all FF but they still clung to me in the way you describe. I think a father who tries to force his way between a mother and a newborn really doesn't have his child's best interests in mind.

I don't think equal parenting is a given, but I think all parents have the potential to be equal, if that makes sense. I don't consider my XP to be an equal parent, but I would if he had behaved differently. As it is, my children actually thrive without him and are better off spending 100% of their time with me than they were when it was split more equally.

Actually this thread reminded me a bit of the scene in "life of Brian" when the guy chages his name to Loretta ...... We should support his right to have babies, even though he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans............
Showing my age

wow I agree with worra

Can't be arsed to read the whole thread because of the obvious 'hidden' agenda but I am just loving the idea that you can 'simply' give a baby expressed milk in a bottle. Yes, like it is really that simple. Expressing milk can be utterly soul destroying - hours of pumping for a small amount of milk that the baby won't even take out of a bottle anyway, or that the baby will take for a while and then suddenly refuse to take. I am going to totally flamed for this but it is such a male, black and white, lack of nuance perspective. Oh yes JUST (god I hate that word) express the milk and give it in a bottle. I tried for a month to get my DD to take milk in a bottle so that I could be a non-BF bridesmaid (seems so foolish now) and it was just impossible. Lots of babies just prefer boobs because, let's face it, that is what mammals have evolved to have milk from.