Mothers - who’s is more important?

[MrsRose2018]

Is the first time mothers “right” or “need” to see their mother/have them around post birth more important than the first time fathers?

No MN rage please, I’m not saying I believe this is true, This is just the conversation me and my husband have been having and I’m curious of your thoughts?

It does happen, though, @saraclara, so it is relevant.

My MIL (who is the mother of the one of us who gave birth) has barely bothered with DD after a brief initial flurry of competitive grandmothering. I'm sure if you asked her, she'd be full of complaints about how she was not given enough access, and her 'primal' urges to be there weren't respected.

But the bottom line is, what she wanted was control. She wasn't interested in what was best for her daughter or her granddaughter. She just wanted everything to go her way. Some people are like that. Whether it's your mother or your MIL, if you are the person who gave birth, you should have the right to say you perhaps don't have the energy for it when you've just had a baby.

@SarahAndQuack

Did I say it did?

Yes. You said some people who now think they'd be considerate to a new mother would change their minds if they had sons (and came to be in the MIL's position).

Whatever you think of the rights and wrongs here, you are implying that it's purely self interest that would motivate them to change their minds. That is selfish. I don't see what that has to do with having sons.

What I actually said was...

Some of you with sons will change your minds

Your interpretation is utter fabrication.

But the bottom line is, what she wanted was control. She wasn't interested in what was best for her daughter or her granddaughter. She just wanted everything to go her way

Again, that's YOUr MIL. YOUR experience. You're talking as if every MIL is like thta and every DIL absoutely justified in choosing her (perfect) mother over (evil) MIL.

I maintain that as a starting point, the grandparents should be treated equally, and the new father's feelings shouldn't just be ignored because he just doesn't matter.

you seem determined to make this about people who don't like men. Why?
I'm not saying people hate men.
I'm saying I think there are a range of views linked to sons and family that come up on here that probably feed each other and it's not healthy.

For example, it's not hard to see the link between women deciding that their families come first and before their husband's family, and the number of people expressing gender disappointment at having a son because you don't get this special bond/a daughter is a daughter for life but a son is a son until he has a wife.

It's one thing to say 'I'm not having house guests after giving birth because I need time to recover without hosting' (and then plan your visits based on family dynamics)and another to decide 'my family can visit but DH's can't for an arbitrary amount of time that I'm deciding in advance'.

Wow ... ok, @Sertchgi123. If you say so. I just read it the way it read to me. But I'm sure it meant something else to you when you wrote it, and tone is hard to figure out on the net.

...ad it's so funny to read all the posters who are mothers of sons saying that of course they won't be like that.

You know those non-parents who say they know how parenting should be done? Then when they become parents, suddenly they change their minds? Those posts remind me of them. You don't know how you'll feel about becoming a grandparent until you are.

I can't even think of anything else to say to you, as I'm mystified as to what you're on about. @SarahAndQuack

@IrelandsIndustry I totally understand wanting to see him. I think I misread your post as her coming to take care of him - almost like nursing him - after his surgery, I can see that’s not what you wrote.
But this kind of links to the ‘mums/vs MIL’ visiting theme. Some people seem to be implying that mums need to come around to almost nurse their daughters and help around the house (which to me just seems really OTT and bizarre if you have your husband at home, besides which you’re not an invalid or a child, quite the opposite since you’ve just had a child yourself). It seems a bit unkind to exclude a MIL from seeing her grandchild for weeks on the basis that she’s not also coming to wait hand and foot on the mum.

@saraclara, you are reading very selectively.

I have already said that my first MIL was an absolutely lovely woman, and many people I know have good relationships with theirs.

I've also made the point that my DP gets on fairly well with my mother, who is the 'MIL of a post-partum woman' described in the OP.

What makes you think you can lecture me about how a father should be treated in this situation? I would really like to know that.

You don't know how you'll feel about becoming a grandparent until you are.

But it isn't about how you 'feel'.

As a mum, I felt all sorts of things when my DD was born. Some expected, and many unexpected.

None of those things stopped me from recognising that the person whose feelings mattered, at that point, was my DP who had just given birth.

I imagine it is a little similar when you are a grandparent. You presumably care hugely, and feel a visceral connection to this child and to your own child who has suddenly become a parent.

However, you are not the person who has just given birth. You are not bleeding, trying to establish breastfeeding, feeling your hormones go haywire, or any of the other things that many new mothers go through. Therefore, you can be expected to sit on your hands for a bit.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that your own mother can come and visit and your husband’s mother can’t, it’s also his child and she’s also the grandmother. I don’t think you can make unilateral decisions on who can meet your child or come to your house when you’re a couple without good reason (e.g. she’s abusive) “needing your mum” is not a good enough reason to exclude his when you’re a grown married woman, it’s spiteful and rude.

I just wanted to add because I've seen bits of this mentioned but not in this way:

In my opinion, no grandparent has any 'rights' to see a baby^^ so soon after birth. Any more than somebody has a 'right' to see you whenever they want to. The decisions that are made about who will see a baby in the first few weeks of life should be solely based on the baby's wellbeing.

Sometimes, probably even often, this means doing what is right for the mother, because if the mother is struggling to cope, the baby will suffer in some way as a result. This is the case for so many parents, it's very seldom that a man is primarily responsible for feeding the baby and learning the baby's cues the way the mother that gave birth to that baby is.

So if, for whatever legitimate reason, the mother is highly uncomfortable about ANYBODY visiting, then it is nothing to do with how fair it is to the person who can't see the baby. If she needs her mother while she learns to breastfeed, learns to read baby's cues, learns how to do her new job after DP/H goes back to work in a couple of weeks.

I really can't see how it's right to focus on the 'rights' of the grandparents. I'm struggling to see how somebody is entitled to visit despite someone's wish for them not to, solely by virtue of having raised one of the parents.

Neither... my husbands father died before I met my husband and my mother was too busy working to see either of my children before they were a week or more old.

Honestly? It’s the mums choice. If you have to choose between one or the other then the mother who has just gone through pregnancy and delivery and now recovering gets to choose. Whether she would prefer her mother or MIL depends on family dynamics.

Surely the mother of the child gets more say since shes the one thats just gone through birth and is feeling uncomfortable in her body.
It's not about it's his baby too. It's about who's leaking from their nipples with an ice pack against their privates.

I agree with this. Who ever the mother of the baby feels most comfortable with and will be the most support/help. Not saying it's not the dads baby too but he hasn't just gone through childbirth

Both mothers are important, the baby will grow to love them equally (unless it is overhearing bad things about one grandparent). I'm sure both mothers are excited to meet their grandchild and if the Mil wants to travel 3 hours to see a baby from a 2 meter distance and then travel home again then surely that is up to her. If your friend tries to stop her she'll be in for a World of hurt because it will absolutely have a knock on effect. Especially as you said her husband is close to his mum. She can't stay in the house anyway and your friend will still be calling all the shots at this stage. It can't be easy with a strained relationship but it's unfair to keep any grandparent away.

No one is more important than the other. I think it comes down to you and how you’re coping and also your relationships with your mother in laws. So many factors to consider.

I think the mother’s choice of who she wants (mum vs MIL) trumps the father’s opinion on this one. This could be either of them depending on her relationship with the two of them.

As others have said, in addition to allowing a guest to ooh and ahh over the baby, the person chosen should be there to support the mum just as much, if not more. Mum has been through something both mentality and physically huge. She may not be feeling great and her hormones are a bit out of whack. She shouldn’t need to feel pressure to “host” or pretend to be on her best behaviour when she isn’t feeling well. Also, as a new FTM, I needed a little extra help with latching for breastfeeding. Personally, I have a very strong bond with my mum but wouldn’t dare show my MIL my breasts and ask for help in positioning the baby on my nipple.

So to summarise, it could be either, but I believe it should be the mum’s decision.

I think the new mum gets to decide and new dad needs to back her up. She is the one who will be going through labour and vaginal birth, or having major abdominal surgery, and then be expected to immediately take charge of a helpless baby, whom she will have to feed from her body for an hour every three hours while recovering from said childbirth/surgery. Also, blood loss, cracked nipples, hormone cocktails, engorged breasts, etc. It's HARD. And yes, it's hard for dad too, but not nearly as hard. So new mum gets to say who she wants around, on the basis of who is going to be supportive and useful and make her feel comfortable. Odds are that will be her own mum, whose opinion she doesn't have to worry about, and who she won't mind asking to wash her blood-soaked nighties and who will know how she likes her toast. But it could be the MIL too, depending on the relationships and personalities.

Either way, this is a thing to be practical and clear about. The babymoon needs to come before the baby arrives. When you bring the baby home, mum's needs come first.

@IrelandsIndustry

Some of you clearly didn't have very nice mothers.

My husband and I are both really close to our mums. He actually did have surgery a few years ago and she came to be with him afterwards. Why would I have objected to that?

Guess it's just me then but I find it very strange that any adult, living with a partner, needs their mum to come and look after them after an illness or surgery.

I find it quite infantalising of women as well to assume that we need looking after following childbirth. And all of this talk of walking around topless, ice packs, leaking and needing full time nursing care from our mums - really? I had really awful births both times and I mean really awful. I didn't need my.mum to look after me and nor did I walk around leaking, topless or sitting on an ice pack. Where has this come from?

Well in labour, my mum trumps MIL every time 🤷🏻‍♀️ In terms of my children, and how important they are in their life, they are completely equal and valued.

However, you are not the person who has just given birth. You are not bleeding, trying to establish breastfeeding, feeling your hormones go haywire, or any of the other things that many new mothers go through. Therefore, you can be expected to sit on your hands for a bit.

I went through all those things. Yet somehow managed to cope with letting the generation above me meet the new member of their family at some point in the first week, both times.

Women have been giving birth for as long as human life has existed. But suddenly it's the equivalent of climbing Everest without oxygen, and it's unthinkable that those who will love that baby almost as much as you, should have an hour or so to meet him/her.

The preciousness is astounding.

Love my mum, we are so close, best friends and always have been. However I didn't want her ds's birth nor did she want to be there. Only person there was my dh who we both wanted to be a part of it. I know it's common but from a personal point of view I find it really odd to have your mum there when you're gaining birth. I'm not criticising anyone though and each to their own.

*Giving birth

I had really awful births both times and I mean really awful. I didn't need my.mum to look after me and nor did I walk around leaking, topless or sitting on an ice pack. Where has this come from?

It’s enough to put anyone off having a child with what some people on here are saying - obviously some people might find themselves in these situation but it’s hardly the norm. I went to Nandos and had a pig out meal on day three, celebrating the fact that I no longer had excruciating heart burn after three bites of food... I didn’t leak milk or blood anywhere, I certainly didn’t get my top off You’d think from reading this that it was normal to be housebound or unable to get out of bed or off the sofa for two weeks after having a baby I hope there aren’t any expectant first time mums reading this thread.