To not want anyone there whilst in hospital with DS?

[PayingMyWayYouSay]

Apart from DH of course.

I don't want MIL/SIL visiting whilst I'm there. It's against my wishes tbh. I want House visits only.

DH is a bit at me but that's how it is. I will be in quite a vulnerable position, regardless of how easy or not so my birth ends up.

I would 100% have my Mum there when DS is born but, she lives too far away, and she won't be able to straight away. She will also be visiting once we're home.

Why does there have to be all this drama? IF the mother has had a traumatic birth and is recovering then of course she can withhold visitors if she so wishes but if everything goes ok then it's normal for people to want to visit the baby, not just the MIL. Friends and family too.

I have never known such drama and I've had many friends and family given birth and those who weren't discharged after 6-12 hours were more than happy to receive visitors.

I pity young men, their wishes count for nothing. It is hard to believe they can be equal parents now a days. The attitude of some on here is hard to understand all this about your recovery and how it will be affected by your MIL seeing your baby.

As already mentioned, my DP also does not want visitors (we will both be tired) and we are both happy with that plan. And the people that matter whilst still in hospital are the actual patients - mother and baby. Baby won't know who visits so mother gets to decide whilst she's still a patient! Father can have as many equal rights as he bloody well likes once mother and baby have been discharged from the hospital.

Unless what you are really trying to say is 'oh no, poor MIL not getting their own way'?

I am talking about loving committed fathers who might want to show their parents their baby.

So good husbands deserve it, but not bad ones? Either it's about the "baby's father' and his rights or it's rewarding good behaviour.

On the same note how would waiting a couple of days affect the grandparents?

They have waited 9 months so why is another 48 hours such a hardship if it's what their DIL wants?

I pity the women with IL's who are hell bent on getting their own way regardless of the circumstances - Especially they ones who are unlucky enough to have partners who don't put them first.

Weebo, I was talking about the husband's feelings, not the ILs. If he is happy and proud and wants to share that with his parents then why not?

kaytee87, you are obviously very mature from that post. Explains alot.

pengwyyyn

Firstly, please don't feel I'm picking on you! Your posts are the ones that are the pithiest in terms of the attitudes I've seen on MN many many times and which this thread raises.

You find my posts condescending - why? Is it the explanation of "bonding"? If you know all this already, then you'll already know that separation for 30 minutes a day or so after it's born, especially when the mother is busy doing something else, will really make no difference. Indeed, some might say that not allowing a grandparent to see the baby even when the mother isn't with the baby would be downright petty.

Is it the reference to unicorns and fairies and rainbows? I use these terms because "bonding" is so often uttered in hallowed terms, as though it's an impregnable, magical, exclusive thing between a mother and her baby. Which it simply isn't! Ask this of any father who wept when he held his baby for the first time; of any parent bowed over their newborn's incubator for days on end in the NICU; of any parent of a stillborn baby. Bonding is a precious thing and it will happen IMMATERIAL of any grandparent spending 30 minutes with the baby a day or two after it's born. And, you know, it may never happen at all.

You also refer to your 'preference' for visitors being disallowed. We all have preferences. Hell, I'd have like to have given birth in the lap of luxury, not to have had C-section after C-section etc etc. Nobody's stopping you from having a preference. You're talking about a diktat. One that overrides other people's wishes - not random strangers, close family. Including the mother of your DH!

Couple of other points, not exclusive to pengwyyyn:

• there's been many references to 'needs' on this thread. 99 times out of 100 they are actually wants. A baby NEEDS milk, love, warmth, comfort. The mother may NEED stitches, a transfusion, a drip, drugs. Without these things the mother may die. The mother does not NEED privacy, space, time, for her wishes to be respected. I won't give the oft-used example of women giving birth in the bush because no doubt people will say it's not a fair comparison. But the woman who gives birth in the hospital waiting area, in the ambulance, on an airplane, on the motorway on the way to hospital - they had none of these things. Replacing wants with needs does nobody any favors

• absolutely, no way on earth is a loving father who has supported the mother right through the pregnancy and been there throughout, looking forward to the birth of his child, a fucking VISITOR. This is absolutely infuriating to read and does a huge disservice to millions if not billions of hard-working, devoted men. To suggest as much is such a profound insult

• finally, "bonding" is not exclusive to a mother. Fathers experience it, grandparents experience it etc etc. As exciting (or almost as) for a woman to become a mother is a woman to become a grandmother; for a man to become a father; for a sister to become an aunt; for a child to become a sibling. It's all good, happy, pure, joyous stuff, of which there is so little in the world as it is. Why be so parsimonious about it?

I pity young men, their wishes count for nothing.
I don't. All of my sympathy is for the woman who gives birth. It is not a bad thing for young men to learn that sometimes their DP's wishes come first.

And the MiL needn't be a monster, more likely she is a run of the mill PITA, whose presence will cause unecessary stress to a woman who has just given birth.

Pengggwn, because why would a loving partner start about her rights being more important than the father's rights or indeed saying he has no rights. My husband and I have never talked about our rights in relation to our children, I've never thought for a minute I have more of a right than him in regard to children. Doesn't sound loving or caring to me. I wouldn't think it was loving and caring if he insisted on you sitting entertaining them for an hour either, it works both ways.

The mother is the patient, and the father is there as a visitor. I am strongly against fathers having rights in hospitals, as the only ones who would need to use them are the exact people you want to keep out.

My PIL weren't the people I really wanted to see when I was completely knackered and wearing a huge hospital nightie, and finding breastfeeding painful, but I felt up to visitors and thought it would mean a lot to them to be there on the day DD was born. However, that was me, and I know other people who wouldn't have been up to it. My friend was happy to see her PIL but not up to seeing her parents, as they are quite difficult, and having them there would have been too much.

The final decision needs to be the mother's, just as with the birth itself. Most couples will be on the same page about visitors, though so I expect it's rarely a problem.

smitff
Ugh!
Thank god you're a woman, no man could ever be this self-hallowingly sanctimonious. They are capable of representing themselves, certainly better than how you did

Smitff brilliant post but just to add I think it is insulting to adoptive parents to make out that is you miss out on five minutes on the first day then something terrible has happened to the bonding process.

A woman I know recently gave birth to very prem twins, one was rushed off to another hospital and she didn't see him for nearly a week. She is as bonded as any mother I have ever known.

granny I'm mature enough to realise that a woman who has just given births feelings are more important at that point in time. While she's still a patient in hospital.

As I said I had visitors at hospital but again I'm mature enough to realise that everyone is different and has different feelings.

Pengggwn but if your husband doesn't want visitors that is totally different to you forbidding it. Can't you see the difference. If he desperately wanted his mother to see the baby for 5 minutes would you say no?

kaytee87 no one is forcing the woman to have visitors just for her husband to have 5 minutes showing someone the baby. Unless she has reason to hate the person he wants to show the baby to why would that bother her?

I've already said why that wouldn't be possible in a lot of hospitals.

Pengggwn, no not your MIL wants to see the baby, your husband wants to show his mother the baby. Can you see the difference?

I think the ward has corridors kaytee87 even if it hasn't got a dayroom or waiting room.

In my hospital we weren't allowed to take the baby out into the corridors. Certainly wouldn't have been allowed to put chairs there.

If he desperately wanted his mother to see the baby for 5 minutes would you say no?

You talk about men having equal parental rights - but then you are trying to appeal to the man getting the final say in the matter.

Why does his wants override the mother (the patient who is in hospital)? Because you certainly aren't treating women fairly in this scenario.

Granny you are effectively advocating bullying a new mother into something shes uncomfortable with at one of the most important junctions in her and her partners ( not your) life. You would be exceptionally unreasonable to force the issue, stop sulking.