To think that lots of men think this way

[Flynnshine]

Recently a good friend of my partners has split from his wife of 15 years, they have two young children between 10 and 13.
The husband has decided he isn't happy and wants to end the relationship.

Last week he came over to our house in the evening and I left him and my husband chatting in the living room. I wasn't eavesdropping but I was only in the next room so could hear their conversation. Basically the husband has been planning this split for a while, 6 months before he announced he wanted to end things he sold their beautiful big house and they moved into their much smaller starter home which they had out on rent - they moved the kids out of their private school education and into a state school local to their new home.

They've always had a very comfortable life, beautiful house, nice cars and very fancy holidays a few times a year. They both had good jobs when they first met but when the children came along the wife stopped work and dedicated her life to them. They've done amazingly well at school, both top of their classes, sporty and do two sports for their local borough. They are polite and thoughtful and genuinely lovely children.

The conversation I overheard was the husband complaining that even though the wife hasn't paid towards the mortgage for over 10 years she will still be entitled to half of what the house is worth - he seemed bitter and angry and said he'd been hiding money for ages so she wouldn't get anything when they divorce. He's even planning on quitting his job and becoming self employed so he can fudge his earnings so his maintenance payments could be less. My husband was agreeing with him, I don't know if just to placate him or if that's really how he feels!

This man honestly thinks that because he has been working and paying a mortgage that his worth is so much more. He thinks he has enabled her to not work for over 10 years and that she has been having a jolly all that time. It's like he gives zero shits that he has two wonderful children that he has never had to lift a finger for and she has given her all to those children while he reaps the rewards of that.

Do all men deep down think like this, even if they won't openly admit it? Is money really the be all and end all of everything!?

@TooSassy
Biology did not come up once. This was simply a lifestyle they wanted, that they viewed as what was right. Man goes out to work, they take care of the home and DC. Societal expectations or biology?
A mixture of both I imagine.

My point about biology is that it drives women as a class to be the primary care giver for their children. This is true whether both parents work or there is a SAHP, in most cases the primary carer will be the mother. It therefore follows that the mother is the most likely to sacrifice her career (whether that be by becoming or SAHP or reducing hours etc) for the perceived benefit this may have for their family and children. Of course there are economical and societal factors at play too, but I do think that biology plays a big part in establishing the mother as the primary caregiver and consequently putting her in the frame to take any career hit.

The problem is that once a woman becomes a SAHM then it can be very difficult to go back to or re-establish a meaningful and well paid career due to range of economic, practical and social factors. Your friends may well revel in their current lifestyle and believe that this is the "correct" model to live by, but this does not mean that biology did not play a part in their decision making to become a SAHM in the first place.

@LisaSimpsonsbff
I really don't think modern, western parenting is as 'natural' an activity as you think
I think HOW we do some elements of parenting may have changed beyond recognition, but ultimately I think the fundamentals of parenting remain the same.

nor do I think childcare is one, distinct skill. I think it's lots of them, some of them maybe gendered, others very much not. For instance, I was surprised at how physically knackering I found carrying and lifting DS around all day, especially as he got nearer six months (and 20 pounds!). I asked DH if his back had been hurting since he'd been home and he looked surprised and said no. Arguably, as the physically stronger one he's better suited to that - but no one ever considers childcare, or adult care work, or cleaning, as physical labour because we code that as male
Of course childcare requires a combination of skills and I agree that physical strength can be an advantage. I do also think though that when you compare all of the different traits observable between men and women that it would be difficult to argue that the female traits weren't better suited to a primary carer role. I don't think aggression and risk taking are as desirable in such a role as someone having empathy and an interest in people over things, do you?

Let me ask this, when I had my DC, if I had said to my then DH, I don’t want to return to work and I want to be a SAHM, are we saying that my rights as a mother (because I carried that child and gave birth) superceded those of my DH? Even though I took 10 months ML and had long stopped BF’ing? Or as a father, does he have rights that have a place too? Is the expectation here, well I’m a woman and I’m biologically programmed to do this better, the trump card that gets pulled?

TooSassy, I don’t have a problem with the father stepping up parenting and doing more of the general sh£& work which is created when you have dependants. What I do have a problem with is women doing lion’s share at home and caring for the kids while also being expected to WOH full time. While the father ‘helps out’ if you’re lucky.

So my answer to your question is nobody’s rights should be superseded. If a father is willing and able to do 50/50, I can’t see many women objecting to that. However, the thing to watch out for is men’s version of 50% of housework/childcare often doesn’t match the true 50% (which the research clearly demonstrates), so women don’t find themselves in the lose-lose situation.

I’m not a single mum, far from it. My EXH, despite making a few mahoosive mistakes in our marriage is a very hands on dad and has our DC about 40% of the time.

I think these women also assume I got ‘given’ the house and am sitting pretty with spousal maintenance. I didn’t and I don’t.

I agree biology may not be the reason now, especially since I think everyone at my table certainly has kids in school. But as they reasoned, how does anyone cope with school holidays, sickness, inset days. I responded ‘we cope by having plans akin to military planning’. Where possible have every eventuality covered.

But as I say. Clearly I’m missing that piece of the biology because I just didn’t have that need. And if my DH had said at 6 months, I’ll take over, I would have been out that door faster than road runner if he’d seen coyote.

This is why I focussed in on the concept of choice because I really think this is critical. Currently I believe the generally accepted view is that women should not be recompensed for taking on the primary carer role as this was a choice and they could have chosen to not be a SAHP/work PT/BF/take the mummy track career wise like so many other women do. However, if you say that at a population level women are biologically driven to make these choices then this challenges the accepted view as you are effectively penalising a woman for their different biology.

Bumpity, your posts are excellent and I agree wholeheartedly with every word. It is a fallacy to think of pregnancy, birth, feeding and child-rearing are purely choices one makes. So many things are out of the woman’s hands and she can’t have absolute control over any of these aspects. Some get pregnant without actively choosing to, some have difficult pregnancies, some have easy babies, some have babies who never sleep or feed round the clock, some have children with additional needs. All these things aren’t rational choices and women absolutely end up bearing the brunt. They need to be protected accordingly. And if you ask me, if anything, they still aren’t protected enough.

Funny that lisasimpson I literally just said that on another thread, how being on your feet and caring all day is physical exercise. It's hardly a desk job.

So, saying noone ever.. probably really isn't the case. Surely most DMs recognise the physicality of caring for littles ones, the carrying and the being up and down stairs, to the floor etc, and the shopping, if no delivery, and washing (not putting in tumbler though!)

I think that physicality is recognised.

I've been thinking about this and bumpity I think we can continue to fundamentally disagree about whether men and women are naturally fitted to childcare, but actually it doesn't matter - surely what we both want is for people who choose to prioritise childcare over career to not suffer for it - whether that be through corporate policies, government benefits, etc. At the moment that would clearly mostly benefit women - in the longer term I would hope it would lead to more equal divisions of childcare between the sexes. But either way, lessening the penalties that individuals pay for being primary carers can only be positive.

Very interesting discussion that I’ve been reading over a number of evenings....

Two points I’d like to add in (although I recognise the discussion has moved on somewhat).... earlier pp kept making the point that once DC are past the baby/preschool stage and in school then SAHMs are lazy and should get a paid job etc, not seeming to recognise all the weeks of holiday that need to be covered. 13 weeks or more so with the avarage amount of 5-6 weeks a year both parents couldn’t cover it between them, even if they agreed to never have any kind of family holiday for a decade or more?!

Secondly this concept of choice that keeps coming up. When in relation to things like BF... I find it sad when the discussion tends to focus on maternal choice firstly because BF is the biologically normal way to feed a baby: it isn’t a case or A vs B it should be
A. But if A not possible then B.... I feel like this element of choice ends up making things harder for BFing mothers eg pressure to leave the baby “why don’t you just pump or give formula, you don’t need to BF”

But more importantly no one has mentioned the infant themselves in all this. Where is their choice?!

Maybe it’s controversial to say although I don’t see why it should be if we are discussing biological realities, but as mammals, human babies want to BF. It would always be their choice. They come out of the womb wanting to suck, to latch on. They derive a great deal of emotional comfort and attachment from it let alone all the physical/neurological/cognitive benefits.

To deny the important and necessary maternal and infant bond that has evolved over millennia as unimportant or a choice I think is denying a fundamental part of our mammalian make up

I hope that makes sense? I never get my points across in written word like I’d like to.

Ps, very much agree with millions and bumpity

I don't understand that people put their career over the needs of their DC, they shouldn't have DC, as far as I'm concerned. DC need parents that prioritise their real needs.

choose to prioritise childcare over career to not suffer for

To the rest Abso , yes absolutely!

We can't claim men and women can be categorised in the same group when it comes to making babies hough Lisa as it is absolutely all about the sex and the biology. People don't give birth and breast feed babies, only women do that.

Saw the thread now. Back to OPs original post, my personal opinion is ABSOLUTELY NOT all men are like this! My DH was in the process of leaving his ExD(arned)W when we got together. Had 2 DC (13 & 3yrs old). Had a reasonably ok carrier, so did I. His exDW (4yrs older than him) had only ever worked at very low paid jobs (teaching assistant, etc), no ambitions. My husband was paying the WHOLE mortgage on the house, plus bills, school fees, left her a car, provisions for pension,etc, etc. Literally came just with the clothes on his back, so I ended up supporting her by default too. This continued even after she re-married and the youngest DC was 14 (chose to leave with us). It was never enough in her eyes, though. She even contacted DCS who laughed in her face and said that she was getting way above anything the courts would have awarded. When their house was sold, he gave her 75% of the profit even though by then she only had 1DC under 18. We both agreed that we should do right by her and DC, even though we got non-stop hate and abuse (20yrs on still going). Luckily, as soon as the DC were old enough they could see the rights and wrongs for themselves and are now almost NC with her. So, yes, you get decent men as well as crazy money-grubbing women - it's humanity at it's best and worse...

Oooo, we’re moving back (if we’re not careful) into incredibly inflammatory territory. A perceived sucker punch (very emotive for some women who already suffer enough guilt) for WOHM’s. Oh not only to say the guilt non bfeeding have. I think it’s a deliberately inflammatory post and quite unkind in its motivation actually.

So I’m going to very carefully back away (even though I’ll confess my levels of offence were zero but my levels of amusement were pretty high) so thanks for you Earth mother post there smother

1. some parents don’t have a choice and both parents eventually have to return to work because they can’t afford not to
2. millions of families around the UK figure out a way to handle the school hols. Yes it’s hard work, but if gets figured out.
3. I have yet to read anywhere on here that anyone is proposing a mother who has just given birth Chuck the baby in the air and run off back to work a week/ 2 weeks later, completely denying the ‘needs’ of the infant. Again it’s a post designed to divert the conversation from the topic in hand and provoke emotional responses. I was happy to bfeed my DC until they were weaned. As it was at about 4 months both DC started to show that they did not enjoy bfeeding. They wanted to look at the world, so no sooner had they had enough milk to take the edge off their hunger they would unlatch. An hour later they’d be hungry, grizzly, out of sorts. So I started bottle feeding an I had happy content, full DC who would feed until they were full but happily be able to look around to their hearts content. So this whole notion you seem to draw of this deep connection DC have with their mothers. IME, is utter rubbish. My DC never gave a monkeys who gave them their bottle, me or their father.
4. Putting the infants/ children first, their primary source of happiness is if their home Is happy. Therefore that means both parents have to be happy. A happy mother = a happy child. Yes I agree, there is no way becoming a SAHM would have fulfilled me. Not one bit. I find it tedious, repetitive, mind numbingly boring and would probably be depressed within a year. Does that mean I shouldn’t have had children? Not one bit.

My DC, through my job are in the utterly enviable position of learning business etiquette, politics, negotiation, presentation skills and way more on a daily basis. We talk about the important skill sets they need in the future. And because I work and they know I’m good at what they do, they listen. They absorb it all. They are learning first hand what it will take for them to grow in this world.

So in answer to your highly emotive post, I am putting the needs of my children first. By showing them first hand what I think good parenting looks like. Co-parenting. And I hope to god that when they pick a partner, it’s a person who says ‘balance is important, do you plan on helping equally with childcare?’ Then I hope they say ‘i’d Have it no other way’.

I think it’s a real shame that you’ve posted such an emotive post on a thread that has remained balanced.

My abject apologies smother I was categorically not referring to your post but the one previous abso. Sorry.

I will also add thinking about it that I have friends that are probably much closer to the world you describe abso and based on the behaviours I have seen, the mothers are engaging in gatekeeper parenting.

They have to do all the feeds, all the nappy changes, bathtime, skin to skin, bedtimes. I can reel of 3 of my uni friends who flipped overnight on the birth of their DC to women who suddenly believed in attachment parenting. And yes, in those scenarios I would witness the father trying to spend some time with the infant on the weekend, who would then scream for their mother. Why? Because the father had never been given the time, the space to bond with their own child and it was utterly heartbreaking to watch.

That’s not the infants needs. The infant at that stage just wants to be warm, full, dry. A father can give skin to skin. A father can give a bottle (with expressed breast milk if you think formula is Satan’s work). A father can pace the floor at night with a baby who has colic. If he’s given the opportunity.

In these very extreme scenarios of gatekeeper parenting, where and how to you do think the marriage fares? Do you think the husband doesn’t feel excluded? Do you think he doesn’t feel resentment towards his wife who in his eyes doesn’t trust him with his own child? Do you think he doesn’t feel lonely and isolated?

It’s all very good to talk about biology and where we’ve come from, so fine let’s talk about it. If women are designed to be the parinary care giver, men are designed to procreate and spread their seed. Do you know how common extra marital affairs are in the older generation? Most men (when I was in my 20’s) who worked in the city had a crash pad in London and wife was ensconced the arse end of nowhere with the kiddies spending the money. They all had mistresses. All of them. Young girls my age whom they took shopping and to dinner. Then they went home and played family having had their egos stroked, sexual needs fulfilled and made to feel important, needed and listened to. But that’s ok right and we should expect that, because that’s what men are biologically wired to do.

I’ll also add that I know for sure one of the three friends husbands is having an affair, is utterly miserable in his marriage and it’s all because his wife is on the very extreme version of what she thinks her role is in the childrearing.

Apologies if I offended anyone. I genuinely wasn’t trying to be inflammatory or guilt inducing.... you can advance search me if you like to see I’ve been on here years and am not trying to inflame or GF any one.

I know the subject of BF always turns into a bun fight on MN. I wasn’t trying to start a sideline BF vs FF argument. Honestly. And I don’t think Formula is the work of the devil etc. I used to work in HV and know what a lifeline it can be for some babies and mothers for a whole variety of reasons.

But I do think it’s relevant to the discussion of choice. The very fact that formula exists creates a choice that wouldn’t be there otherwise and while some people might view that as progress from a women’s liberation point of view I disagree. Let me try my best to explain....

What I’m trying to say is that I feel that western society has its priorities all wrong. The capability economic model values paid work and profit making above all else as the only valid contribution to society. People who cannot “contribute” this way through old age, disability, learning disability etc are devalued and sidelined by our impatient and often unempaththeic society. The lifetime of wisdom and experience of the elderly for example is ignored. They are essentially invisible to wider society and have little influence. I’ve worked in my nursing past with both elderly and learning disabled adults and these groups (sorry for my clumsy wording I can’t think of another way to put it) have so much to offer in terms of enriching society. In the same way that sahms can be seen as lazy or invisible because they’re not “working” only “draining” resources or the same way that people on benefits are often viewed. Their contributions are not valued because there isn’t a price tag attached. The caring work that stay at home parents/grandparents and other full time carers do “saves” the government millions of pounds that would otherwise have to come out of the national pot.

I also feel that western society constantly tries to break down the very natural and normal mammalian infant-mother bonds that are supposed to occur as has been designed by evolution over millennia. This is where he concept of infant feeding as a “choice” comes in. I’m sorry if it offends anyone or induced guilt and I’m not judging people’s personal circumstances. But what I’m trying to say is that we should be able to say that as mammals, breastfeeding is the biologically normal way to feed an infant and is the biologically optimum way - as nature has designed it to be. It’s just scientifically factual. Female mammals are designed to be the primary carers as far as infants are concerned. Does this mean that fathers and wider family don’t serve important roles? That infants don’t form important and necessary bonds with them too? Of course not!

We are kinship group mammals. Designed to live within large extended family groups like our closet relatives the chimpanzees. We are also carrying mammals designs to carry and nurse our infants over a protracted period of infancy - the most protracted out of the entire animal kingdom in fact! Human infants are basically completely “incapable” at birth, they can’t really see, can’t walk, can’t cling to mothers back, can’t run, can’t feed themselves they can’t even sit up! They require and demand and indeed need 24/7 care for years and years in order to develop optimum neurological/cognitive/emotional/physical development.

I believe based on everything that I have read in my psychology degrees, and seen in my years nursing etc that as mammals we are designed that the mother should be the primary care giver supported by a network of wider family where care is shared between everyone and children grow up surrounded by a wide range of ages from children to the elderly who all learn from and support each other.

Obviously most western families aren’t arranged like that anymore and in the capaltist pursuit I think society is becoming more individualistic. I think you can see the affect this has on people’s mental health.

As I saying that women should stay at home always and never work? Of course not! I appreciate we don’t live in tribal communities anymore and society is more complex than that. Of course I want to see female Drs, female teachers, female lawyers, politicians, company ceos etc etc. And not do I think only child free women should occupy those positions.

Rather we need a radical shake up to the way that we do things full stop so that the biological needs of small children as mammals are met, along side those of society. I’m thinking things like much longer parental leave (up to 3 years) and more shared care leave options after the first year. More families joining forces to create modern “tribes” where child care is shared between each other to cover work days/holiday/sick days etc.

I think MN threads (I’ve certainly been on quite a few!) can be staunchly anti-sahp/pro WOHP often to the point of arguing that babies don’t need a mother they just need a primary attachment figure and literally anyone who is competent/qualified will do. That babies can be bottle fed from birth by anyone, cared for 12 hours a day by anyone (honestly I’ve been on threads where people have argued that newborns don’t care less who looks after them and don’t show any innate preferences for their mothers) and effectively in full time childcare for their entire formative years without any ill affects whatsoever.... basically an Americanised model. Well I’ve lived in America and I can tell you they had some truely awful social problems. It is not a model we should wish to emulate in the quest for women’s liberation.

I think to deny the essential role of the mother in infant/parent bonds is to deny the very core of our make up. And I think we all loose something when we downplay it

*capitalist not capability

Agreed Abso

Anything that denies the depth, complexity, and vital bio processes to a developing new human life, minimises and normalises sidelining said developing life.

The attachment as primary carer, started in utero, should be supported in continuing and no, that was extreme to suggest anyone was talking about ripping 2 week old away .
All other roles are supporting, but yes, can develop into closser relationships, but those early years are vital for maintaining the primary carer attachment for the benefit of the developing human life

What's happening in law, in men's rights, is to try to make men and women the same, which denies the right of the developing life to their primary attachment, and psych research supports that one healthy attachment is what matters.

Having all those other influences (work, presentations, business life)/don't matter to a pre-schooler and primary too.

I also now wonder at the expression gatekeeping being one of blaming women for something that they feel right and proper in supporting and growing their attachments, for the benefit of the developing life.

I am not about blaming women for working, but DC should not be the losers, and our rate of DC poor MH has dramatically risen, that could be due to many factors, but certainly avoidant and ambivalent attachment behaviours in DC and adults causes a lot of escalating social problems/crime.

Just saying attachment shouldn't be eroded in any way, as it will always be to the cost of healthy development and impact on greater society.

Formula is life-saving! It's a fundamental essential as a backup to BF problems.

Babies curiosity stage of BF I cannot accept is a signal for stopping BF! Tbh that all sounded quite anti-bf.

I don't think it's about men and women becoming equal its about having equal rights whilst recognising differences, not annihilation of basic human functions.

It's not OK for babies to be left to cry (in order to make them go to strangers, etc) at very early stages and early years.

Thank you abso for coming back and explaining. That’s the problem with these forums, it’s hard to read the nuances in a post.

Here’s the issue. These are your strongly held beliefs, which you have every right to have. Of course you do. The challenge you have is as a woman, I haven’t felt these primeval biological urges. Of course when my babies were little and completely vulnerable, there is all the cognitive stuff that happens that is overdrive that kicks in when a baby is so vulnerable. Critical to ensuring that newborn survives.
But that was never to the detriment of my then husband being able to bond and care for his own baby. I never saw his role in anyway subpar to what I could provide our child.

As the baby grew stronger and my husband was allowed the time and space to bond with the baby, he was just as able and capable to settle our child as I was. Actually sometimes he was better as the baby couldn’t smell my milk.

My stopping breastfeeding. No excuse whatsoever. It’s what happened and I tried all the advice given to me. A quiet room with no distractions. A brightly covered scarf on my shoulder to occupy my babies. A toy behind me. None of them worked for long periods of time. Not to say that putting yourself in a quiet room with no distractions was very socially isolating. My babies would feed long enough to take the edge off and then start looking around. Getting them to latch back on became stressful for me and them. Then an hour later they’d be hungry again. So say I used it as excuse to stop breastfeeding suits your rhetoric but is as far from the truth as possible. It was on the advice of my friends and GP that I switched to bottle. And bang, immediately they settled and would take a full feed.

The challenge you have is that you feel strongly about this and you feel strongly about this primeval biological urge etc. I dont. And I feel joyous about the fact that I in fact live in a society where I am not relegated to this outmoded badge of being the parent who has to fulfill the primary carer role. So I celebrate this society. And I celebrate that men are evolving to step up and take more of a role in child rearing.

Gatekeeper parenting? To me it’s a way of exhorting control. And it’s more about the mothers needs than the child’s needs. I agree it is an entirely natural biological response in the first 6 (even 12) months that a hugely instinctive overdrive of protection kicks in the from the mother. But when it continues past that, to the detriment of the father playing an active hands on role in their child’s life, then no. I don’t believe that benefits the infant. And I think there is something slightly amiss in the mothers make up. Whether it’s a deliberate ploy to control and about self validation or whether there is an emotional/ mental health issue that needs looking at, I’m not clear. But my personal make up is I just don’t think it’s balanced or healthy.

And that’s for nothing to do with society

Not once have I said that infants should only form one attachment bond to the mother to the exclusion of anyone else. I don’t agree that’s healthy or optimum for the infant either.....?!

The mother being the primary care giver/primary attachment figure doesn’t mean that everyone else should be excluded. The infant can and should fork multiple attachments to multiple care givers, and this is entirely possible whilst still respecting the primary attachment relationship between infant and mother.

I do believe that during the fourth trimester all the infant needs and wants is mum. But after that period of time of course other family members like dad and granny should be allowed to form close supportive and loving relationships with the baby

Also I never said anything about your stopping BF or “excuses” for stopping??

Abso the comment re bfeeding was in response to smothers post.

I agree with you on what you say Re the 4th trimester. Whole heartedly.

Just returning to this thread and all I would add to all this is that, regardless of all reasoning on the subject, people feel the way they feel. If a woman feels she is not ready to be separated from her baby, then that’s how she feels. Nobody can persuade you otherwise. It’s irrelevant what other women may or may not be doing. People are different and we subconsciously gravitate to partners that complement our instinctive behaviours - whether that be attachment parenting or a more 50/50 approach. Nobody can tell someone how they should or shouldn’t feel, or try and categorise instincts or relationship models. It won’t make any difference anyway. People will just carry on. If I was a “gatekeeper mother” or whatever, well DH never complained! What we did seemed totally natural to us. If not, then obviously we would have done things differently. If I’d felt the urge to WOH, then obviously, I would have done exactly that. Everyone needs to find their own way and if a mother / DH are happy in their roles then this is the biggest factor in the DC’s happiness.

I am not about blaming women for working, but DC should not be the losers, and our rate of DC poor MH has dramatically risen, that could be due to many factors, but certainly avoidant and ambivalent attachment behaviours in DC and adults causes a lot of escalating social problems/crime.

This is the most disingenuous paragraph imaginable. 'I'm not saying women shouldn't work, but I am strongly implying that if you work your child will become a criminal'!

I'm leaving this thread now - it's been an interesting discussion but I'm happy with my choices and I'm not really interested in hearing about how I'm damaging DS/somehow deficient in all my natural instincts or whatever. I will say that I don't think people who are happy with their own choices make statements like that - note that I haven't criticised anyone else's very different parenting choices at any point.

Gatekeeper parenting. It's funny. We all just want to judge other people's parenting by asserting the way we did it was better. I will make no bones about it - I followed the attachment parenting model. I bf'ed for two years. I Co sleep. I wore a sling. Etc. Did my husband have a more indirect part to play, especially during the first year? Yes. Does it mean he doesn't have a bond w our 3 Yr old. Hell no. He and I both decided that the way we approached parenting was best for our child. I'm very glad he was a big enough person to realise that I was a more central part of our sons life for the first year, becuase we believed this is what was best for son. I am glad he saw his role as facilitating that bond, forged in no small part through bf, and forging his own bond slowly in other ways. I'm so suspicious of people who want to label other people's parenting and belittle it. Honestly! You did it your way. I did it mine. Can't we bloody live and let live?