Mums v Dads

[Mitzicoco]

Genuine question. Why is it that most children end up living with their mums when parents seperate?

I don’t think posters are man-bashing on here. They’re just stating the facts. More mothers than fathers would be considered their children’s primary carer. That’s just a fact. And actually, I’m not sure that children do always love their parents the same. I know my 2 year old far prefers me to her dad (who I’m married to and we live with) so her suddenly having to spend 50% of her time with him, without seeing me, would be cruel.

OP as @Whatisthisfuckery has already indicated, in partnerships where both partners pull their weight in regards to the children you are unlikely to find them posting on forums for advice on or ranting about their relationship.

I think for a number of men, not all obviously, they see the kids as something for the woman. TBF I think a lot of women think this way as well, but if you’ve been raised in a society where the men think the kids are the woman’s responsibility I’m not surprised. How many of us grew up with a dad who uttered the phrase, ‘ask your mother.’ I know I did, and my dad was in no way absent or uncaring.

The other thing is, when couples split, it’s not uncommon for the man to say something like, ‘why should I pay you maintenance?’ Like it’s for the benefit of the mother, not the child. I know I had this, not that I get any maintenance for DS. Some men think they’re doing their ex’s a favour by paying, completely forgetting that they were instrumental in creating the child. It’s sad to say, but I think many men just forget about the kids when they’re not with them.

Add to that the fact that most of us were brought up to expect to do all the housework, family admin etc, where as our brothers were expected to go out and get a job to support a family. It’s no wonder that mothers bare most of the childcare both in functioning partnerships and after they break down.

People make the mistake of thinking that just because family setups have changed, both parents working etc, that attitudes have changed as well. It takes more than a generation for ingrained attitudes to change, especially when one half of the population has a vested interest in keeping them the same. 50 years ago a family could live on one decent wage, the man would go out to work and the woman would stay at home with the kids. The only thing that has really changed is that the woman has to go out to work now as well, little else is different. Womens’ work has always been of little or any value, whether it be staying at home and keeping house or working on the farm, so it gets overlooked as not being work.Capitalism has made it a necessity for both parents to work, but capitalism is a financial model, not a social model. All that’s happened is that now everyone has to work, nothing else.

@rwalker

”Massive genralisaltions 70% of replies on here are man bashing.”

No, it’s crappy parent bashing. My husband does more than half of the care due to my health problems and disability. In the event we split, my heart would feel smashed into a million pieces to let go but he’d probably be the best parent to have residency.

Statistically, women are more likely to be left alone holding the baby. Statically, women are more likely to be working lesser paid and/or part time jobs to undertake childcare and this is often not by choice. Statistics don’t lie.

Only in the ‘Western World’ - across the Middle East / Asia it’s the Dad who is expected to be the resident parent of young children when their ex-wives or partners remarry.

Teddybear45 but is that because the dads have been taking on at least 50% of childcare or is it more likely the fact women have fewer rights?

*See early posts with such gems as

"Good proportion of dads have no interest"

"Because the dads don't want the hassle"*

Well statistically aren't those statements often spot on? I think some posters are being deliberately obtuse. Yes there are some wonderful dads out there who provide just as much care for their DC as the mum but on a societal level these dads are an anomaly. Everyone knows this, it's glaringly obvious in virtually every child-centric setting: school gates, soft play, birthday parties, doctor's waiting room etc. it's overwhelmingly the mums who will be there with their DC.

If DH and I were to separate (it's on the cards) there's no way I would agree to 50:50. Personally I'd love that set up, but for the children it would be detrimental as he's not in that minority of "great" dads who share equal care. I'm pretty certain he wouldn't even consider asking for 50:50 - he's in the shitty majority sadly!

If money was absolutely no object then I think the absolutely ideal situation would be the children staying in one house and the parents taking turns to spend time there with them.

This hardly ever happens for various reasons, but would in very many cases be a truly child focused arrangement.

Research suggests that 50/50 arrangements only work for children where their parents are able to communicate well, be civil without conflict, and to parent in a consistent way. Not that common. EOW provides the child with a secure base during the week, consistent routines on school days etc. It needs to be about what’s right for the child.

Court system very bias to woman
Funny how it’s mostly men who say this, whereas women will often say the opposite. The focus isn’t on the parent, though, it’s on what’s best for the child.

Also, I have known cases where 50/50 hasn’t been done in the children’s best interests. It’s been done, or requested, so the NRP (all dads in the cases I know of) doesn’t have to pay CM- often to spite the RP.

Most of them are also unmarried

How can you know this and what is your point? Many unmarried people are still in committed relationships and have children within them. What difference does it make when responding to this thread?

I really don't like the idea that 50/50 is the starting point. I understand that it what seems fairest to the parents when both have been equally involved but it's awful as the child. I grew up with this and however well managed, it makes you feel baseless.

So Queen you’re saying mothers who aren’t sahp aren’t central to their lives?

No thought not.

Not working doesn’t make you any more important in a child’s life. Tbh you’d need to get a job anyway. So it’s a moot point.

Also kids go to school at 4 so really don’t need a sahp then.

The primary carer continues to be the primary carer and the other parent has regular contact, or 50/50 if neither were the primary carer. (bth working ft and sharing 50/50

When DH and I separated there was no question that the children would live anywhere but with me. The children were 6 and 10 and we both worked full time. However, I am their mother, their primary carer, I gave birth to them. Their father may love them immensely but their attachment to me and me to them is not comparable

It's really intersting reading all this. I can't shake the feeling off though, that a lot of men get screwed by the system.

It's really intersting reading all this. I can't shake the feeling off though, that a lot of men get screwed by the system

As a matter of interest, what’s your particular interest in the system - what’s your position?

Take a look at the amount of unpaid maintenance for a a start. Who is screwing who there?

OP, what is your situation? Many of the people posting are giving their own experiences.

Are you a dad who has separated from your child's mother?
Are you a woman involved with a non resident father?
Are you a mother worried for the situation her son and grandchildren are in?

I very much doubt that you are a mother separated from your children's father as I suspect your point of view would be very different. Unless of course you would rather NOT be the resident parent.

I'm a mother in a rocky marriage which from the outside looks like 50-50 care for our child, but in reality is more like 70-30 with me doing the majority plus carrying the mental load while working full time. If We ever separated I would have to do s breakdown of the time we spend with her who does most of her physical and mental care. E.g. he has washed her clothes about 10 times in 6 years.

It's really intersting reading all this. I can't shake the feeling off though, that a lot of men get screwed by the system.

What's your solution when a family / household breaks down irrevocably, and needs to live apart?

Who should be given primary consideration?

The child/ren?

Their primary carer?

Their secondary carer?

Their absent parent?

Men?

Interested to know how you think it should play out.

I don't know how it should play out, I guess that was part of the reason of posting the thread, FWIW I grew up with my father as pretty much sole carer as my mother was in hospital so much until she died in my teens.

Lots of stuff on here about kids needing "the primary carer". It's as if kids are incapable of loving two parents at once!

Just because a couple voluntarily both agreed to set up their lives while married so that one does more work outside the home, and the other does more work inside the home, why should it follow that the same setup should apply once they're separated?

Women in this position are very quick (rightly) to point out that they should be entitled to their fair share of the money the man made, because they both agreed that she should focus on the kids and he should work. And yet, simultaneously argues that the man should be denied an equal parenting role because that's not how it worked when they were married. Can't have it both ways!

I'm the first to admit that my ex wife did more around the house and had more parenting time than me when we were married. That's because we jointly agreed that was how we would do things. Doesn't mean I wasn't incredibly hands on when I was home (which I made a point of being as much as humanly possible), or that the kids and I weren't incredibly close - we were, and still are.

We now have a 50/50 arrangement. According to the logic on here, I shouldn't be allowed to be that involved in my kids lives any more - I should be happy seeing them every other weekend. Well, bollocks to that! We worked things the way we did when we were married, because we were married. Once we weren't, we changed how things worked. My career has taken a back seat, and I've changed my working arrangements to ensure 50/50 works on a practical level. That's not me belatedly stepping up - I was always a great dad. It's a response to changed circumstances. In turn, she has had to go to work. And the kids are very happy with the setup - astonishing news to some of you, but they're actually quite capable of lovong two parents and not just one "primary carer".

To be honest, as long as attitudes like those on here prevail, no man should ever agree to his partner going part time, or giving up work, to look after the kids. Because that will only be weaponised against him in the event of a split.

When two people split up - somebody has to lose out.

Right?

Unless you can find a way to live together harmoniously, you split, which means one parent loses out. Or should, because 50:50, while theoretically 'ideal' is not necessarily practically ideal for the child/ren.

So given the split was nothing to do with them, and any reasonable parent would want to mitigate the fall-out on them as much as possible, one parent has to lose out.

If, during the marriage and partnership, both parties pulled their weight, co-parented and did their equal share of the shitwork, then there's absolutely no reason to assume that one party will get more or less 'screwed over'.

Lots of stuff on here about kids needing "the primary carer". It's as if kids are incapable of loving two parents at once!

You’ve misunderstood totally. Nobody is saying that at all.

And yet, simultaneously argues that the man should be denied an equal parenting role because that's not how it worked when they were married. Can't have it both ways!

Not one person has said this.