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 don't think fathers are equal to mothers when it comes to babies,they are a good second though and i wouldn't leave any of my kids with anyone else other than him when they are under the age of about 4.

my husband also feels that way,as after reading something about mothers biological feelings to their baby being a myth,i did wonder,but no,i don't believe that.

if me and dh split up,i imagine we would share are of them provided they were all of the age where they could cope without me for a few days.

Brilliant post kungfupannda.

My ex h was around and involved in dc1's life. He was a good dad.

He left me when I was pregnant with dc2, although did not move out from the family home until she was 8 months old, so he did form good attachment to her too (long story but I think I was hoping he would change his mind and not want to go )

However, I was still BF her and during those 8 months, she always wanted me in the night, always wanted me for comfort and would not be settled by exh. When he left, he therefore did not have her overnight. He agreed with this so all was fine. I think she was about 14 months when she went over night.

I think for me, and call me selfish and not putting her interests first, I really could not handle another woman cuddling her and changing her nappy. Me and exh had created this baby (after years of struggling with infertility no less) and then he just left, and brought this stranger into her life who would act like a mummy figure to her. This, for me, was SO hard to deal with.

So although he is an equal, other reasons came into play.

FWIW, the dc are now 8 and 11, he is remarried to her, they have a great relationship with their dad and are going to the USA in the summer for THREE weeks!! Now that is a looooong time, but I would never stop this from happening. (even though I am slightly dreading it, I will miss them lots).

The 50:50 thing often doesn't happen in families who have not split up, due to the dh working and the mother on maternity leave, so to expect 50:50 to work just because you have split up is unrealistic afaic.

Birdsgottafly Tue 29-Jan-13 00:18:13
""Why can't it be two people, assuming that they are both responsive?"

People smell/taste/feel different, a lot of research was done via the old orphange set up and the deprortees, where various care givers saw to the baby's needs."

Surely you can't compare an orphanage, with busy and changing and often indifferent carers to a family setup with two consistent carers who are the child's parents and are able to focus on that child (talking now of a family unit, not split custody)? What does the situation in an orphanage tell us about a situation where two responsive and bonded parents share the care from birth? Very little, I suspect

Or do people imagine that in historical times, before the 50s, most mothers had the time to spend all their day nursing a baby for its first year, with no help from others? That older sisters/unmarried aunts were not filling a vital role because mother was often needed elsewhere. Working class mothers were needed to earn money, farming mothers were needed to look after the pigs, the vegetable garden, the chickens and often to help out in the fields. Upper and middle class mothers had representational duties which are difficult to imagine these days;care would have been shared with the nurse. In the lower middle classes, the care of a small baby would have been shared between the mother and the maid, and the child would often regard the maid as a second parent.

Did everybody before 1900 grow up with attachment problems?

What about other primates, where mothers are often seen to share the babying with younger female members of the flock?

I do believe in the importance of consistant carers. But I do not see any evidence that this has usually, historically, taken the shape of one single carer to the exclusion of others; I suspect a far more common picture I (if we look beyond the 20th/21st centuries) is two carers.

In Sweden, extended paternity leave/shared parental leave is more common than here. Though successive Swedish governments have regarded it as a bit of failure because the whole population did not take it up (they like everybody to do the same in Sweden!), there is no doubt that many families have taken it up and that there are few signs of damage in their children.

My db and SIL were both at home in the early days: she breastfed and studied, he did the other babycare and ran his own business. This type of arrangement is not that uncommon in Sweden- are their babies more damaged than the average British baby? They look well enough at 9 and 11.

Ime even Swedish fathers who do work FT tend to spend their leisure time (evenings, nights, weekend) closely involved with the babycare; if the mother steps away a little at those times, you don't have to be far off 50%, given that babies often sleep for a bit during working hours anyway, and are awake at awkward hours in the middle of the night.

I am not for interfering with breastfeeding or forcing a young baby into a situation that is new and frightening, so I could see problems with suddenly imposing an overnight stay with a father who maybe hasn't been all that involved from the start.

I am just uncomfortable with the argument that a family that genuinely shares the care between two loving, involved, constant people (whether mother and father or -in earlier days- mother and maid) are doing some kind of Roumanian orphanage damage.

I think they should be equal in an ideal world. But a lot of the trouble starts when the new partner gets involved and wants to have a big say in the decision making about the children. This must be especially difficult when the partner was the OW. Or even reverse the sexes. From what I've read on MN that is when the trouble starts. When the new partner wants control and a big say in the children's lives instead of taking a back seat and let the parents make the decisions.

cornflowerb good points, well made IMHO.

No, they're not equal. Not in my view. Which won't go down well here, I know. But I absolutely, 100%, do not believe that fathers can parent in the same physiological way as mothers.

I think there can be terrific fathers who can learn how to respond to the needs of their children and can be great parents. But I don't think that men have the same instinctive nurturing as women. There's a reason that women's hormones change in pregnancy and after childbirth. There's a reason that oxytocin floods the mother's bloodstream.

We are fundamentally mammals and I've yet to see many male mammals nurturing their offspring in the same way that female mammals do. And before anyone starts citing the examples of seahorses - as has been done on other threads - seahorses are not mammals.

I'm pretty sceptical of the idea that nurture will somehow override nature and that by having men take paternity leave etc will suddenly mean that they can be equal caregivers to women.

Of course, there will be exceptions to this rule. There are crap mothers and excellent fathers. But, in general, I believe that a mother's love and nurturing abilities outweigh a father's.

cory I agree with you, I don't think the literature on attachment (some of which is quite dodgy and outdates anyway) suggests that there can't be multiple caregivers, indeed, this type of set-up with more than one stable loving caregiver is also better as it is likely to protect if there is PND with one of the caregivers, which is extremely common mainly in mothers.

My dd's had three primary caregivers, me, my mother, and my husband. It varied who was most commonly with them, depending who was working/what else was going on. My dd2 also had another caregiver, her sister, although very close in age, my dd1 spent so much time caring/playing/speaking to her, I would count her as well, even though she didn't care for her in the sense of getting food/physical needs.

My husband looked after my dd2 on his own several days a week, once I was out of the breastfeeding stage. If I hadn't been there, they would have been just fine, which in itself was a little upsetting.

I think breastfeeding is a bit of a red herring these situations, given the very low breastfeeding rates at 4 months (isn't it less than 10% or even a smaller number). So, 90% of mothers are not breastfeeding by four months and there's no reason that other caregivers can't play a full part (and in most cultures, older siblings, mothers, grannies, any spare pair of hands do).

viven

as horrid as it sounds and seems though - if a man has " moved on" and wants his new partner to be part of the babies life - (after all she will be bringing this child up also) - isnt it also very crucial for the happiness of that child to bond with its new step mother as quickly as possible.

It can be hard when people break up when children are older.

You could view it -that if the parents break up BEFORE the baby is born this is even more advantageous....so while the newborn is like a little blind mole - snuffling about and wanting food and to be held -ALL the new parents can get in on this - so it never knows any different.

whilst BF may or may not be an issue - the mother could at least try to express so the father - primariluy and maybe even the new partner could also feed the baby - if that was possible so they can all bond with baby?

My mum and dad shared the childcare when I was little and organised their work lives around it, so it was possible for one of them to always be with me. I love my parents equally and am not more attached to one than the other.

That said, in most cases it is the mother who makes the most sacrifices in order to do what she considers to be the right thing for her children - she is the one most likely to lose out in career terms, to get up in the night, take time off to look after a sick child.

On MN you read all the time about feckless fathers fucking off with other women and leaving their kids/not paying proper child support. The mothers are not doing this - it is rare for a woman to abandon her child. That indicates to me that women, on the whole, are better parents who put the needs of their dc above their own more selfish desires. Men seem to think of themselves as good parents, while simultaneously doing things which are clearly not in their children's best interests.

I accept that this is generalising and there are lots of lovely men out there who are equally devoted to their dc (my dad, for one). But, if you look at society as a whole it is generally the mother who puts the kid's needs first 100%.

Nature makes it so that there are 2 genders and only one can have babies - it is this way for a reason.

eliza if the couple split up before baby is born then once its born the baby needs to be loved and secure and form.a bond with its mum and dad. It does not need to form.a bond in those early months with its fathers new girlfriend who may or may not be a long term fixture!! She isnt tge babies parent and nor will she be. She can if the relationship last be anothertrusted adult and have a good relationship with them but unless there is a formal agreemwnt that gives her parental rights etc she isnt that childs parent and she doesnt need to form a relationship with it in the newborn stages.

I never understand why people start relationships and insist on introducing their new girl/boyfriend to their children so quickly. Surely you take the time to get to know them and then when you.do i troduce them you do it gradually and carefully making sure the child is happy. If a man leaves a woman when she is pregnant and has a new girlfriend by the time the baby is born he needs to think if the babies needs which are to form a loving bond with its mum and dad, to do thar he needs to have an amicable relationship with its mother, insisting the mum expresses milk so he or his girlfriend can feed the baby is not likely to help encourage an amicable relationship.

Yes fathers need to be involved their new girlfriends do not, ditto.if its the other wat round.

I think all this concentration on the needs of babies is something of a red herring. Yes, the baby years are important but there's a lot more to raising children than just the babyhood part.

To cast fathers as second-class parents purely because they can't breastfeed completely discounts the importance of both parents for the 15-odd years when the children are no longer babies.

Dear god I can't believe the posters who are blithely announcing that babies should be ff or forced to take a bottle just so Dad can have a go at feeding.

Let's face it, babies don't need to be born at 40 weeks+ really. If the couple split up, then the mother should be induced and the baby forced to be born at, say, 38 weeks (technically full term) just so that she can stop hogging the baby and let the dad have a go at caring for it.

Anyone up for that? Anyone want to argue in favour of something which is obviously not in the baby's benefit just so dad gets his fair share? Bfing is biologically proven to be best for the baby, expecting that to be taken away from it for the selfish interests of the father is ludicrous. Expecting a mother to force a baby onto bottles and spend time expressing when she doesn't want to is also selfish. (Incidentally I bfed for 17 months and couldn't express a drop despite a good few attempts).

I have a friend whose DH forced her to stop bfing because he wanted to have a go bottle feeding their baby. He also turned out to be an abusive twat - I suspect the two are linked.

I don't know about FF but I did express my breastmilk every day with both DC so that DH could do one night feed.

Nothing to do with his needs as a dad. Lots to do with my need to sleep.

5mad

if a father of a baby has a baby over night where do you think that baby will sleep, or be taken if its fretful...there is a chance it will be taken into bed as you would with your own baby.

therefore a new baby ie one wherre the parents have split up - should have a relationship with the new mum.

if the dad has the baby - who will hold that baby while he goes to the loo -change him/her while the dad is occupied....
its naive to think the new partner wont be doing anything at all with teh baby. If she also loves babies she is even more likely to be hands on. its only natural to think that she should have room to also bond with baby?

otherwise you have a new born being exposed to a third party they dont know.

as ugly as it is - a man leaves a pregnant woman but wants contact with his child must be facilited to do so.

they should discuss bf - and whether this will allow him to bond or wil it be used against him.....if they are agreed on BF so be it - if they are happy to express or FF so be it- but a couple breaking up before a child is born should disccuss these things.

if there is AW invloved - her role will need to be discussed too. if the man has the child over at 4 months and the baby is fretful that baby will pronbably end up in bed with them - maybe co sleeping - again things to be dicussed.

yes but why shouldnt dad get his " fair share" the child IS his " fair share!!!

Oh good grief a baby isn't a possession for people to take turns on, it is a vulnerable human being whose rights and interests need to be protected above those of the parents. It is not in the interests of the child to be removed from a breastfeeding mother just because the dad wants it to be.

Maybe if the dad wants his 'fair share', he should not leave his pg partner and shack up with ow? He has already demonstrated at that point that he is selfish and will put his own desires ahead of what is best for his child.

In addition, the father should have no say, IMO if the baby is to be bf or not.

Not all fathers leave to shack up with another women. Sometimes the women decides to leave the relationship

Quite. A man who would say no to bf, so he can get his own way, is a man whose opinion should never be sought on anything important!

That's true Moomin and for those men I have a great deal of sympathy, because the choice to be with their child as much as they want, has been removed. I would hope that the mother would recognise this and facilitate a good relationship between the dad and baby, but I know that doesn't always happen and it must be heartbreaking for the dad who wants to do everything possible for the baby too.

Oh good grief a baby isn't a possession for people to take turns on, it is a vulnerable human being whose rights and interests need to be protected above those of the parents

THIS.

I think mothers and fathers are equally important as parents, but they're not necessarily equal at every stage in a child's life and in every situation.

Tiny babies are biologically designed to be with their mothers. Breastfed babies are used to getting both food and comfort from bf so to just withdraw that every few nights seems somewhat cruel to the baby.

freckledleopard I totally agree with all you said in your post. Also agree with noblegiraffe.

A man who isn't prepared to wait a few months and build up his relationship with a little baby, but is determined to force the issue in terms of His Rights is going to be a shitty father.

My DS is 8 now and has an excellent relationship with his dad, however when DS was a newborn, his dad saw him maybe once a month or so (for various circumstantial reasons) and DS main caregivers were me and my parents. DS thrived, and still does.

Yes, men can be great parents and often are. But the men who are insisting on Their Fair Share at all costs are often the ones who have done fuck all in the way of nappychanging anyway, and in fact intend to palm the work of caring for the baby off on their mothers/new partners - they are just interested in point-scoring over the baby's mother. A man who intends to be a good father will put the effort in to keeping a civil relationship with the baby's mother, and will not be putting pressure on her for more than reasonable regular contact until the baby is a little older.