'Taking on my children'

[tinkerbellone]

I’m a single mother to four. I have heard this phrase so many times from people when I’ve been dating, ‘well he’s going to be taking on four children’ like he deserves a medal. One exBF actually said this to my face, almost like I should be thankful to him!
My children are great kids. Not perfect. But funny, independent and bright.

AIBU that if I did ever meet a man who I wanted to marry etc, no one is ‘taking on’ anything and they should be happy to become part of my family? Rather than implying it’s a burden?

Or am I seeing this from the wrong point of view.

I can understand why you feel defensive. "Taking on" implies a burden which is not how children of a partner should be described but inevitably 4 children will require enormous understanding, commitment and financially will be expensive. It also begs the question would any new partner also want children of his own and would you be prepared to give him that given you have already had 4. The right partner will do it though.

Tbf I only had relationships with men who had no kids when I was a lone parent, double standards I know, but I couldn't be doing with the whole 'blended family' thing.

NotAsGreenAsCabbageLooking "I couldn’t be a step parent. I was a different male mum of two for a few years, but I wouldn’t date a man with kids"

I can't work out what that means.

I think most people would filter out prospective partners where the fit wasn’t right on paper which will include whether kids are part of the picture. Whilst I didn’t say so in my profile, my limit was not dating anyone with kids younger than mine. I don’t think you should be grateful for someone getting involved with you with 4 kids but neither should they be grateful to you for letting them

Ballora I’m the same. I date men who have no children as blending a family often ends in disaster.

My kids are now teenagers, I’m not looking for someone to ‘take them on’, they have a dad and I don’t want to move anyone into my family home (for a few years anyway), you can have a relationship without moving someone in and expecting them to support your children?

OP it is great you are so positive about your DC but unfortunately others are not and will see them as a burden. Not a lot you can do about it but l can see the other persons point of view.

My friend has four teenagers. She has recently started a relationship with a lovely man who has embraced them all. He hasn't "taken them on". He loves the family life plus they are great kids. My friend is financially independant which I think is key here.

The problem with the term "taking on" is not only that it implies that your children are a burden but that it also suggests the man is doing you some kind of favour which is not the case. It is quite an old fashioned phrase and comes from a time when men were seen as the provider and women couldn't earn much and I don't think it has any place in the modern world. If a man marries a women with DC nowadays it will be because for him, the positives outweigh the negatives. It won't be because you can't look after them by yourself and need a new "provider".

Mrsharrison agree re financial independence being the key. I think if OP is requiring a partner to financially support her children then yes, he will be taking them on

Do people ever say that women are "taking on" children if they marry a man who has children?

Years ago I had it said to me, and that my DH and DSS come as a package.

I don't think 'taking on' is used solely for men is it? I've always used it for both sexes and always heard other people use it for both sexes.

YABU as that's exactly what any man would be doing. It's a huge responsibility and yes you should be grateful someone else is willing to finance them.

Many wouldn't want to and that's perfectly fine too. It not something I would take on or would want my children too.

I don't think 'taking on' is used solely for men is it? I've always used it for both sexes and always heard other people use it for both sexes.

I think it is generally used more when men marry women with children than the other way around.

YABU as that's exactly what any man would be doing. It's a huge responsibility and yes you should be grateful someone else is willing to finance them.

So women with children should be grateful to any man who marries them?

I love your attitude op!

Would anyone say a potential partner will be taking YOU on? I doubt it, it should be they are lucky to have met you and have you. So why should it be any different for your kids.

but they wont be his children so what else is he doing other than taking them on

i dont have dc i dont feel the same about my stepchildren(both adults) as my dh maybe i would have felt more had they lived with us but it would still be me and someone elses children

It's a huge responsibility and yes you should be grateful someone else is willing to finance them

Because no woman ever was able to finance her own kids? And whilst I know maintenance is a joke (am living that particular dream myself), children generally have two parents to finance them. I certainly do it need a partner to finance my kids but it would be great to have a partner to share my life with - including my kids.

I get it op i hate it when people say my dh has taken on my 3 dc.
He has but it's the phrase I don't like not sure of the alternative though.

I tend to tell people we took him on

Well they are taking them on. Taking them on could be much wanted and a delightful thought or it be seen as a burden, but they are being taken on either way.

I agree dragon but op’s second post does state he’ll be making a financial commitment. If my partner chooses to spend money on son then that’s his choice and an indulgence, but my son is fully financed by me and his father.

It’s not a judgement on you or your children as individuals. It’s an acknowledgment that four DC that aren’t yours are a big responsibility both financially and emotionally.

I imagine it’s used more about men taking on their partners children than vice versa because in the majority of cases, children stay with their mother for the majority of the time. A woman being with a man who has his DC every other weekend is not in the same situation as a man being with a woman who has her DC full time or nearly full time.

I’ve taken on two and it’s brought me a lot of positives and I adore them both but the costs are great too and my life isn’t my own. I’ve taken on responsibility, exhaustion, loss of freedom and independence, massive financial outlay, I can’t move area, the house we bought is one which suits them and is bigger than I’d otherwise need, every decision is based around them, work is affected, holidays, I have less of my own money, my downtime is limited.

It’s worth it because I love my husband and my DSC but the biggest fallacy is you know what you’re getting into when it’s clearly impossible to do so and I’d never do it again.

DH is very grateful. He and the DC haven’t taken me on, they get far more concrete benefits from me than I do from them. He gets time with them individually, my wage helps afford us the house, them clothes and gifts and outings, I’ll take your day off if they’re ill and he has to work.

We have a good balance and everyone is happy but his life is considerably easier with me in it “taking on” his ready made family while mine is much much harder than if he’d been childless. It’s just a fact.

The potential man would be taking on four kids. He would be looking for a relationship with a woman. If in order to have that relationship he had to become a stepdad to 4 children he most certainly is taking them on. If he simply wanted children he'd adopt them or whatever. The children aren't what he's after hence the phrase.

@InsomniacAnonymous

NotAsGreenAsCabbageLooking "I couldn’t be a step parent. I was a different male mum of two for a few years, but I wouldn’t date a man with kids"

I can't work out what that means

Neither could I for a minute!! 😂
‘Different male’ should actually read as ‘single’...I should really proof read before posting 😬

Four children are a huge financial commitment - one which might well preclude whoever marries you from ever having children of their own. Would you automatically and happily accept that, OP, if you were the childless one? How about if you met a single father of four children - would you happily create a family of eight without thought for the complications of a suddenly huge blended family? Of course it's a lot to take on if you are going to do it properly and successfully. Falling in love with a single adult is one thing, falling in love with a large family something else altogether. And of course, on your logic, you could also argue (just as naively) that if you marry someone, you should see becoming part of their extended family as something to be happy about, but the amount of dislike shown towards pil proves that to be a load of bollocks, too, unfortunately! Loving one person does not mean you love the whole kit and caboodle.