DH wants to take newborn out without me - response to reverse

[StarFleece]

I have been having some issues with my DH since our daughter was born two weeks ago. He doesn't believe me that this is a "thing" so I attempted to post a reverse to show him people's responses but it has been deleted. I would appreciate people's take on this situation so I can show my DH in an attempt to make him understand what I'm going through.

Basically - he thinks he should be able to take our 2 week old daughter out alone without me and is annoyed with me that I won't allow this. He says it shows I don't trust him. I have explained this isn't the case and being away from her causes me extreme anxiety for now. He wants to take her to visit his relatives without me. I've told him this is cruel and he needs to give me a few weeks. He says he will but he doesn't think it's right and he's doing it because I've said so but he doesn't agree with it.

I'm going to show him responses to this thread, I don't know how to help him understand. If anyone has any helpful links I would appreciate it.

Tbh, OP, it does not matter one tiny jot whether 99% of mothers would jump at the chance to be rid of their newborn for a few hours. YOU don't want to be without baby, it would cause YOU stress and there's nothing unreasonable about that at all.

Also large gatherings of strangers and being passed around is stressful for baby. As is being fed by someone other than the primary care giver/s in the early days.

(As is being away from mum, but because newborns can't vocalise how they feel as effectively, some people presume it's fine to pass them around like a parcel.)

Comments in most threads like this indicate that it’s fine to not want to be parted from your baby at 2 weeks old. I’m surprised that people are saying the contrary. Half an hour for a walk around is fine and something you’re happy to do. But I could understand you wanting your baby close and not taken off somewhere in the car. Dh never suggested this. I was breastfeeding and he didn’t have local family. It just wouldn’t have occurred to him to force separation. He took dd for walks and I wasn’t overly possessive of dd at all. Her place was around me. I was the source of nourishment.

Op you need to find out why he wants to do it without you. Without knowing that no one can help. Some people would be fine with letting their 2 week old go (I imagine many of these posters have more than one child) and some would not. Both are ok. Both need to be respected. But the real issue is why your dh is adamant it should be without you against your wishes...

Sexist conditioning is real.

It is indeed, judging by some of the replies on this thread. Even in the twenty-first century, when fathers are expected to play an equal role in parenting, so much of what is said here confirms that as a society we are still trapped decades ago in a time of "Mummy Knows Best".

Anyway, since the OP came back and still refused to provide any more context, it's clear that there's something she's keeping back that she thinks will change the fact that currently the overwhelming majority are on her side and judging her DH like mad.

Don't you dare twist my comment into crying "sexism" against men. We live in a patriarchal society. Men are privileged. I am talking about sexism against WOMEN, you idiot.

Our society is so sexist AGAINST WOMEN that many people do not respect and value the role that mothers play. Biology dictates that MOTHERS gestate, birth and breastfeed babies. A mother has a strong bond with her baby for good reason.

Fathers can and should develop a bond with their babies too, but NOT at the expense of the needs of mother and baby.

I really wish you would give more info op. I would have allowed my dh out to visit relatives, even with my pfb. However I am quite sure he wouldn’t have wanted to go without me. I ebf so couldn’t be away for too long anyway but I would have happily expressed a bottle to allow him to take the baby out.

I’m concerned that your dp is so insistent that you must stay behind. What reason has he given for this?

I don't understand why the fuck he would not want you to go along too?
You're the baby's mother, are his relative so fucking thick that they don't want to see you and congratulate you too on your beautiful baby, or are they of the "you're not blood so you don't matter" persuasion?
You've said you get on well with them, so there's no obvious reason for you not to go too!

I think he's being an insensitive dick.
At 2 weeks, DS1 was still feeding for 2 hours at a time and I had trouble being away from him for more than an hour for various reasons - I could go to hospital appts by myself without him, but I wouldn't have been able to countenance DH taking him off for hours at a time without me, no chance!

I don't care if he thinks you don't trust him - that's just so much "me me me" bollocks talking - it's not ABOUT HIM!!

Jeez.

AnotherEmma no need to call people idiots.

I agree that mothers will be the primary carers to newborns. But how then you can't keep pushing men to be 50:50 parents and still take the view that the mothers needs come first and it's their decisions only that matter. 50:50 parenting to a newborn is practically impossible, but we are coming to expect it.

The role of mother isn't being disrespe Ted or devalued. The world is changing. Mothers are not automatically the primary carers, some women go back to work asap and are the main earner.

Yes, with this shift in society, the role of 'mother' will change.

If you want to go and see the relatives as well the only reason he can have for wanting to leave you behind is to mess with your mind and cause you upset and anxiety. What a tool.

I wasn’t apart for my DC1 for more than thirty mins or so until they were six or seven months old. I would have felt I was missing a limb. But DH and I were a team and did most things together with the baby and it was an incredibly happy time. I would be devastated if my partner wanted to visit relatives with our child and without me so early in the baby’s life.

It's true I shouldn't have said "idiot", no doubt my post will be deleted, which is a shame. I am angry that my post was twisted. It was very clear that I was referring to sexism against women. I hate it when people cry "sexism" against men or "racism" against white people. It's nonsense.

I wasn't actually saying that mothers will always be the primary carers - most are but not all - all I'm saying is that there is a biological and hormonal bond that must be respecting, and if there is a move towards 50/50 care or the father becoming the main carer, this must be done with sensitivity to the needs and feelings of mother and baby.

This father is not trying to be an equal carer. He is trying to assert his authority, control and "ownership" of the baby. It's abhorrent. And what's just as abhorrent is the fact that people - women! - are siding with him.

If the Op had asked him to take the baby out for a bit so she could have a break, then it'd be a different story.

I wonder why he is so insistent on doing this even though he knows you are unhappy. A good man would try and be understanding and sympathetic to his wife's feelings.

To me, this seems like he's deliberately trying to hurt you and cause you distress. That doesn't make him a very nice person, does it?

Cross posts. I was replying to Boysandblues.

@TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross

There is a biological element to it with new mothers though. Try and take babies from any nursing mammal and you'll see the distress it causes- it is innate and women shouldn't be expected to make themselves miserable by denying it.

Also, and a controversial opinion, to me women and men are not equal parents at the newborn stage. The mother has sacrificed nutrients for months, denied herself various foods, drinks and pharmaceuticals deemed unhealthy for foetuses (hopefully), suffered morning sickness and other discomforts and given birth. Her body bears the lasting impact of that. Her brain will actually alter so that she will be more empathetic over the next five years, alongside other changes, to make her a better mother. Hormones are coursing through her body as a result of all this. At the time of birth, all the dad has done is have unprotected sex. So yes, in general, I think the mother should come above the father in priority during the newborn stage where they disagree (provided the mother isn't harming the infant or putting it at risk). At this stage the mother is (massive generalisation) more invested as she's been providing for the baby for nine months longer and is still the primary caregiver. She's also at greater risk of suffering from poor mental health if she's put under undue stress.

As the baby gets older and relies less and less on the mother, parenting gradually becomes more 50:50. At the newborn stage, however, baby wants to be with mother and this mother wants to be with the baby. My DH would not have suggested taking her on his own because it would have been for purely selfish reasons and not in the baby's best interests.

Op's DH ought to put his baby's best interests and his wife's mental wellbeing above any selfish desire not to have to share the 'glory' of being a new parent (which is the only reason I can think of for not wanting his wife there).

Unless OP is more forthcoming it is impossible to answer the AIBU question. Relatives could live 2 hours away or two doors away.

Anyway this scenario is a snapshot of a much bigger situation by the sounds of it.

@SmileEachDay that is beautifully written and explains really well how I felt after my son was born.

Has anyone considered that maybe he can see the OP is utterly shattered and thinks that if he takes baby out for a couple of hours she can get some kip. Maybe he thinks, kill 2 birds with 1 stone and then we don't have to put up with a visit at home when its naturally not going to be ultra tidy. And that maybe because OP is so tired she is over reacting. And that maybe if she pushes DH away from childcare now in 12 months time she is going to be complaining that he is unwilling to do it. No, much easier to just assume the bloke is a dick. Sexism works both ways you know.

I find this really hard to relate to - I would have jumped at the chance for some peace and quiet! I probably would have sulked in that situation because I felt left out of going on the trip but I certainly had no qualms about DH taking the baby for a bit - I absolutely encouraged it so he could see how hard things were for me when he was at work.

@countrygirl99

Doubtful that's the case. The fact she needs MN backup to convince her husband he's being unreasonable suggests they're arguing about it. If he were truly trying to be helpful he'd just see it was a bad idea and drop it.

As a pp put though-it shouldn't be such a big deal, should it?

Perhaps it's the language Op has used about not allowing him to?

He wants to take baby out-fine-Op doesn't want to be away from the 2wk old-surely also fine?

Especially as she could go with him!

It's not unsolveable, is it?

Some of the replies on this thread are shocking.

@VashtaNerada

See, I was totally the opposite. I'd have spent the whole time missing my baby and it would have been the opposite of relaxing! Different people, different experiences. I did leave DH at home with her at 6 weeks to go out for the evening, but that was when I felt ready. OP clearly doesn't feel ready yet.

@diddl

Agreed. If I'm reading it correctly, DH is insisting she not be there and that, to me, is problematic.