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.

My DP is an equal parent in all matters. He was not an equal during pregnancy, childbirth and the immediate aftermath and nor did he expect to be.

bertrand where is this 5 minute visit meant to take place?

"BertrandRussell

Why is that silly?"

Because nobody is suggesting anything of the sort.

Giving fathers equal standing during the post natal period is actually quite a scary prospect and open to abuse. I'm sure the majority of fathers are loving and supportive but there are many who aren't and they don't come wearing a sign. The only way to try to ensure women are protected is to allow them to call the shots during this time. I cannot believe this even needs to be a debate.

If MIL wants to visit the hospital and the mother doesn't want her to, and the father invites her along anyway it is the very definition of prioritising his mother.

"If MIL wants to visit the hospital and the mother doesn't want her to, and the father invites her along anyway it is the very definition of prioritising his mother."

Intereting that we are now talking about not being allowed to "visit the hospital" I thought we were talking about visiting the mother.

When did all this preciousness start?
It started when women realised it was OK to ask for their wishes to be respected post partum. They then talked about it and wrote stuff about it on the Internet, putting the idea into the heads of other women that you don't have to put others before yourself sometimes.

It was/is radical and is still difficult for those who think men's wants or the extended family's wants should be put before those of the woman who has done all the hard work of pregnancy and childbirth.

Yes visit the hospital to see mother and/or baby. Why is that interesting?

"BertrandRussell

They are in my opinion"

You were talking about when the baby was an hour old and you were being stitched and a man prioritizing his mother at that point. Nobody but you has suggested such a thing.

Hear hear Dione!

Good grief.

Unless it's the same posters again and again, I've never in real life come across so many people who can't see beyond themselves or even a little into the future. To feel condescended by my posts, or to take from them that I'm trying to tell mothers how to be mothers (!) requires such a self-centered view of things as to question what family has come to mean to some people.

If I just would rather hold my baby than give her to someone else, that is enough for me to make the decision. I do not have to justify it to my PIL, a meeting with whom would hold no benefit for my newborn whatsoever. They would be asking me of this purely to benefit them. Why would I put their feelings in the matter before my own

This says it all (took out the exclamatory bits about birth canals and handing baby over right after it was born, which nobody has once suggested on this thread). It is all about YOU, and the child's relationship with YOU. Why indeed would you put your PIL's feelings above your own? Can you really not think why?

Squeezing a baby out of your birth canal (as you put it - somewhat 'condescending' to those who have had section or become parents in any other way) does not make the child yours and yours alone. Again, assuming a loving and supportive father, what about him? Is that child also not a grandchild (lucky baby)? Or a cousin? Or a sibling?

I've said what I've wanted to say on this thread a number of times. It's been depressingly illuminating to know just how far selfish entitlement reaches and how little community and family have come to mean. And just so it's here for the record: I've never once advocated a baby be snatched from its mother in the immediate aftermath of birth, I've assumed a loving and supportive father (and wider family), I've assumed no special circumstances (these are the vast majority of cases). I've consistently spoken of a 30 minute separation in the 24-48 hours after birth, in the hospital.

"Yes visit the hospital to see mother and/or baby. Why is that interesting?"

Because I don't think anyone has suggested that a woman should have any visitors if she doesn't want them. It's this idea of the man not being allowed to take the baby to show his parents that's so very odd

^When did all this preciousness start?
It started when women realised it was OK to ask for their wishes to be respected post partum. They then talked about it and wrote stuff about it on the Internet, putting the idea into the heads of other women that you don't have to put others before yourself sometimes.^

Indeed.

Putting ideas in women's heads instead of letting them give birth then deciding if they're up to visitors or not.

It isn't odd not to want your newborn away from you in hospital.

"My DH would have been prioritising his mother if he had left me to do those things alone"

Yes of course he would. Can you point out where any one has suggested otherwise?

Why is the mother the precious? Why isn't the family member who can't wait a couple of days to meet a baby the precious one? Or the father who thinks he should have equal rights on a post natal ward? (Hypothetical people based on this discussion)

Oh don't be silly.

I understand the mother not wanting visitors.

I do wonder how many of those who think contact with baby must be tightly controlled and rationed ask 3 years later why they never had a night off and have no non-paid support, having bitten MIL and all others away?