It is not natural for men to look after babies and possibly young children.

[TheYChromosome]

I shall start by saying I’m not asking for advice. Also before people pile in and either start bashing men or suggesting solutions this thread is not actually for that.

I have a baby 9m and DH has been looking after her since she was 8 weeks. I’m back at work.

So he is really the main care giver and spends with DC most of the time. Despite of that, she in general settles better with me and now we hit the separation anxiety it’s me that she clings to.

Really ideally there would be men on here and I would be interested to hear their take on it l. But as there aren’t many men perhaps the army of women can share their observations and experiences how there DHs find being around babies.

Really the point of this thread is to get a window into how men feel when they look after young children.

I find DH although he loves our DC he finds it difficult to look after her. As an extension of that when ever I’m not working he prefers me taking care of her as I think he finds it draining more than I do.

So again, point of this thread is to get some more insights into how easy or difficult men find it too look after babies. If there are men reading this please do comment.

I know, I know - we are a modern society and generally quite forward thinking, but…. Are there some natural biological inclinations that just will never fully change. All we can do is try to understand better and facilitate better.

But you would still have a baby - why does it have to be that one if there’s no link or relationship between you both at all? Surely any baby would fulfil the same role you wanted when you got pregnant? You as mother a baby as child?

But why specifically do they want to keep their own babies if as these posters are saying there is absolutely no biological or other connection or bond between them and the baby?

In the case of the poster above who says they went through hell in pregnancy as they wanted a child - they would still get one just a different one and as according to them there is absolutely no link between them and the baby I don’t see why that would matter to them. Whisk one away without them even seeing it so no relationship or bond can be formed. Replace with another baby. Bond with that baby, everyone is happy no?

(Still haven’t gotten an answer to that as it’s fairly obvious there is a link between mother and baby before the baby is born despite posters trying to kid themselves that it’s all post birth!)

You’re pivoting. You were arguing there is some mystical connection or bond between mother and baby on an emotional level of attachment before birth.

Now you’re switching that up to say I’m arguing there is “no link or relationship” which is an illogical extreme. There is a family link.

What I’m actually arguing is that the baby has NO attachment to me whatsoever at birth. None. The attachment bonding is created after birth and can be done with any caregiver. That’s biology. That’s a fact. There is no mystical bond that forms before birth.

And no, I don’t want a different baby. I want my baby, the one I made. The fact I want my baby instead of any old baby is not evidence of a mystical bond. It’s no different from painting a picture in Art class and saying, I want my painting the one that I painted and not some other students painting to take home. Or you order shoes online, do you want any old shoes shipped to you? No you want the shoes you picked and paid for. It’s possessiveness pure and simple.

@Anymanyall
Still haven’t gotten an answer to that as it’s fairly obvious there is a link between mother and baby before the baby is born despite posters trying to kid themselves that it’s all post birth!

Obvious how exactly? And if there is a mystical bond long before birth where the baby and the mother are emotionally connected and communicating with each other, when exactly during gestation does this bond form? And how do you reconcile this belief with abortion? After all a pre-birth relationship and attachment requires two self aware, conscious, feeling beings to exist…when does that happen? At 12weeks? 18 weeks? 24 weeks? When?

Clearly men are just as capable parents as women.

Clearly in the op's case, the issue is that her dp is not doing a great job and needs to step up a bit, and work out how to settle his dc.

Dp and I have always done half and half childcare (both doing flexi working around each other) and honestly the dc treat us pretty interchangeably. Strangely dp's penis has never stopped him being able to bond with and settle his own dc.

In gorilla troops, the dominant males will happily take care of any child, regardless of whether it is his own or not. They will cuddle them, play, show them which leaves to eat, how to make a sleeping nest and so on. If a silverback can do it then so can a human male. Human females need to stop making excuses for them.

Thanks for updates OP. It's an interesting thread.

I realise you only used night time waking as an example (cited by a PP) and it's good you've found it relatively easy. I really, really struggled, as I'm sure many of MN do, regardless of biology and it took everything to drag myself in and out of bed as I was exhausted mentally and physically.

Nothing hormonal helped in my case, what made me get up was the rational responsibility of a having a baby with no understanding of what's happening and totally dependent for survival. I was conscious of not allowing myself to switch off totally and be on alert. I'm sure a man is capable of the same, especially as we know of brain plasticity.

The unborn child can hear and later have a familiarity with its father's voice if the father is around. It can hear outside sounds. The familiarity with smell is only once they are born. If BF, obviously there becomes the association with the smell and feeding, which is the only potentially biological factor as mentioned.

More and more interesting replies. I think at this point I would be inclined to conclude that based on what people say it is more societal rather than anything inherent in evolution. Of course it is all anecdotal and if there was some study it would be interesting to see the results.

To repeat, of course many man are capable to look after children (and I repeat again my post talks mainly about little babies possibly toddlers, definitely not older children).

And of course many women find it also very draining and hard to look after young babies.

Given everyone does find it hard and draining to look after young babies full time, and rightly so, why is it that women are more likely to pick up the slack (if there is slack). As people said, of course there are mother who are also neglectful, but we are talking on balance here.

Is it because a women, although drained, is more inclined to be tuned to the needs and wellbeing of the baby (albeit exhausted herself) whilst men might be more relaxed in that respect? Is it fully societal as the man knows the woman will always step in. Was the man to be alone and have no female to fall back on they would always get more involved in order to make sure that the young babies needs are met. Or on balance would they still be relatively relaxed?

It does sound some PP have their own experiences and are a little invested on personal level, and yes, MN is definitely not going to come up with a conclusion 🙂. But still very interesting to hear people’s thoughts and also good to hear the thoughts of some men on here.

For those who say views like the title should belong to a museum, I think this is a very interesting point. Of course world doesn’t work like this but in my opinion there is no harm to pose a question and explore it. I understand, though, there is the worry there are always people who catch a headline (everywhere not just here) and are more than happy to use it as an excuse not to do something. That is most likely never going to change in the society as a whole.

One more question, all very non scientific.

Say we have a large number of couples with a young baby going about the day. If there was to be a stand off once the baby needs something who would crack first, on balance, and tend to the baby. Would it be the father or the mother? What do people think?

I was a SAHD when my daughter was a toddler. Best job I've ever had. I got to spend mydays having fun with Play Doh and paints, playing, story-telling, going off to the park, feeding the ducks, adventures to the shops, mudpits in the garden... Children are full of wonder, curiosity and joy at the newness of everything, and it's an amazing experience to be part of their journey of learning. Really hard work (the lack of an OFF switch is a design flaw, for sure), but incredibly rich and rewarding. I felt gutted when our finances obliged me to return to work.

Sorry OP, I don't agree at all.

My DGS spends a lot of time with us whilst my DD works - he much prefers his grandad to me tbh. If he's tired he'll come to me for a cuddle, but the rest of the time he's all for DH! If he wakes through the night he settles better for DH.

Before he was born I would've agreed with you OP. I think women (or at least I) can read kids more - so I can feel with my DGS if he's getting tired/narky/upset way before he has a meltdown (ASD) and I try to distract/comfort him to avert it whereas it always seems unexpected to DH. I'm more 'in tune' with him I think.

@Anymanyall you seem to have trouble following the argument here.

I didn't want to bring any random baby home to bring up. Neither did my dh. We adored our baby the moment she was born and wanted to care for and raise her, not an random child.

The point is, there wasn't some mystical bond which meant that of the two of us, I was magically better at caring for her.

That's the issue that people are discussing: whether the mother is naturally better at looking after a baby/ child than a father.

God knows how you extrapolated from that, that we may as well all pick random kids from the hospital!

What's so difficult about understanding that mums and dads love and cherish their own children, and that they can be equally skilled at looking after them?

*One more question, all very non scientific.

Say we have a large number of couples with a young baby going about the day. If there was to be a stand off once the baby needs something who would crack first, on balance, and tend to the baby. Would it be the father or the mother? What do people think?*

Impossible to generalise. I mean, I could, and say either 'the father' or 'the mother' but it would be meaningless. There are just so many variables.

I had my kids many years ago but I do remember when I was on maternity leave for 12 weeks first time round, I didn't always rush to pick up dd if she started crying in her crib, whereas dh would tend to go to her. I imagine this was perhaps because at that point I was spending all day with dd whereas he was at work so perhaps I felt more relaxed about not rushing to her the second she whimpered... but I also think if it had been vice versa and dh at home, he'd probably have felt equally chilled about not always rushing to the crib.

I do think a lot depends on those roles, as others have said. Being with a baby all day isn't difficult but it can be relentless... you're basically there to meet the demands of this little creature. You do learn when you need to respond quickly, if the baby is hungry, uncomfortable, overtired etc or whether the baby can be left a few minutes- and naturally the more time you spend with the baby, the more experienced you get at it. But that's it- experience; not some mythical bond that can't be replicated by the other parent.

Slightly an aside here but I so wish shared parental leave had been available when dh and I had kids. I'd have loved that; I think it's the optimum scenario for children. Back in the day though it was 3 months maternity leave and sod all for the poor father!

My husband is the primary carer for our son and he's now two years old. He's always been far better at settling him, soothing him and by default my son has always wanted his dad. Even now in the night if my son wakes up upset it is dad he calls out for. Never me.

Even though we have a close bond (I breastfed for two years) since he was a newborn he has always been attached to his dad compared to me. His dad was also quicker to understand his different cries and needs. He has so much patience for our son, and has always done bath and bedtime since he was born. He very much adores raising our son and is more capable than me at this!

We have a 5 month old DD now and at the moment she prefers me!

It would depend on who, say, smelt the dirty nappy first. Neither of us would ignore something hoping the other one "cracked"! We might have jokingly said "That smells like yours...!" if we'd done the last couple. But women who complain their husbands ignore it so just get on with it, make me cross. Get them involved early if they don't seem inclined to volunteer and insist they stay involved. Having a baby should be a joint decision and a joint venture.

Having a baby should be a joint decision and a joint venture.

Hear hear.

It's so depressing to see threads about useless dads who don't lift a finger with their children. And equally depressing to see threads about mums who are uber-controlling and believe they're the only one who can change a nappy or dress the baby properly.

Children deserve better.

@TheYChromosome Say we have a large number of couples with a young baby going about the day. If there was to be a stand off once the baby needs something who would crack first, on balance, and tend to the baby. Would it be the father or the mother? What do people think?

You’re coming across very detached from the idea of caring for a baby imo. It’s not ‘cracking first’ I don’t know anyone who operates like that. On the weekends, periods of illness when DH and I are both home with DD all day we both just go about her care. There’s no agreement who feeds her or who does nappies, equally the one who does it isn’t “cracking first” as that implies neither wants to do it. We both just tend to her needs as and when they come up.

I think you find being around your baby easier in a way because you are working all day, not because you are a woman.
It’s easier to come in and play with a cranky baby or change a nappy when you’ve just had a few hours working and being away from the baby. You aren’t experiencing the same relentlessness of a young a baby that your partner is.

I honestly just think women who think on the whole women are better with babies have low expectations of men.

WTF? There’d never be a stand off unless the parents are abusive twats and the baby is a pawn in a battle of wills.

I believe it is fully societal. The man is raised from birth to think it’s not his role, and the woman is raised from birth to think it is her role. Especially here in the U.K. where we have

• the patriarchal mythos of the magic bond between mum and baby
• baby needs it’s mother belief, hence the long maternity leave and very low take up of shared parental leave
• mum knows best belief which has fathers being expected to wait for mum to give them a nudge or guidance or instruction rather than take own initiative
• fathers are supposed to work extra hours when a child is on the way or here to provide for them, taking them away from the baby/toddler
• the view that fathering is helping the mother or babysitting for the mother
• if the couple splits, again the view is baby/child absolutely needs their mother and it’s best for the child to stay with the mother and only see the father on weekends.

People want to raise their own biological babies because the reproductive drive is to keep your own genes going. Fathers feel this as much as mothers. This isn't 'love' as it exists in species incapable of the emotion.
Babies don't care as long as their needs are met and it's the meeting of their needs that creates the bond. They 'love' the person who feeds them, makes them feel secure and comfortable and exposes them to pleasurable sensations of touch and sound. Doesn't matter if its the woman who gave birth to them or the postman.

I agree with you @Onnabugeisha
Not to mention the attributing of any special relationship women earn with their children by dint of their hard graft, skill and sacrifice, to some biological imperative.
Can we at least not credit mothers for what they do to create this bond without minimising it with the myth its there by magic?

DH was great at the practical side and has more patience than me, so was a good carer when they were babies. However if I ever went away overnight or out for the day he would take them to his family or a big day out if older, he’s never just stay in or go to the park whereas I was more used to ‘pottering’ with them - although I did make a lot of play dates to keep us all sane!

Exactly. Because of this belief all our hard work is treated like it’s nothing. Like oh, well of course baby settles for you, you are the mum and that’s all the baby wants. But when the baby settles for the father everyone is falling over themselves to say “wow, amazing” and “he’s a keeper” and “lucky your partner is a baby whisperer” all this praising men to the skies.

We need to start praising mothers and fathers somewhere in the middle because in both cases you have to put in the same time and effort, and for equal numbers of men and women it may not be easy for them to do so.