Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

that 50-50 res is AWFUL for kids & mothers and women should fight back?

375 replies

rageagainstthe50res · 16/12/2009 22:58

OK, hands up, i name-changed, because this is so emotionally charged and I don't want to be alienated from my usual threads.

BUT, AIBU to think that actually 50-50 parenting is fucking awful for kids? I mean, can you imagine living your life between two houses? Just how disorientating and unsettling it would be?

And AIBU to think that women have given away too many of their own rights in the name of 'fathers' rights?' I LOVE my father, and my DS loves hers, even though we're not together but in 99% of all parenting cases I know it is the woman who does the laundry, the packed lunches, the kiss it betters, the costumes for the nativity.

We don't have gender equality in this country - salary discrepancies, violence against women, flagrant misogyny in the media etc. Yet the few rights we do hold - that we should be the primary parent because we grow our children inside us and feed them from our own bodies, we now glibly throw away to 'fathers'. I AM NOT SAYING FATHERS SHOULD BE DENIED ACCESS TO THEIR CHILDREN. But I do think 50-50 is too much. And you're telling me that women don't HATE having their kids only 50% of the time? I'm sure most of them are absolutely miserable. A weekend off, great, but 50-50 just sounds heinous.
REally, I'm not being an arse, I'm just massively curious.

OP posts:
Greensleeves · 17/12/2009 10:45

"BTW, "She strokes my breasts for comfort"? At six years old??? I hope you're getting plenty of alimoney for all the therapy this kid is going to need."

is a stupid and ignorant remark

I agree with solidgold on this, there's no way of creating a one-size-fits-all position - too many variables. Parents can be shitty and vile to each other when emotions are running high due to a split - children can be used as footballs by either parent and it's terrible when that happens, whether it's not enough contact, custody disputes, the wrong kind of contact for that child and that family etc

it HAS to be worked out on a case by case basis - turning it into a blunt instrument of a gender issue is ridiculous

yummyyummyyummy · 17/12/2009 10:50

"BTW, "She strokes my breasts for comfort"? At six years old??? I hope you're getting plenty of alimoney for all the therapy this kid is going to need."

morningpaper · 17/12/2009 10:52

I always feel a bit sorry for women who feel this way becasue when I look at my DH with the children I know that there is no way I love them more or need them more. They are the su around which the universe revolves for both of us. He doesn't do any less parenting than me; he isn't a worse parent than me according to any scale. He can't bear being apart from them.

Personally I think that 50/50 parenting with two loving parents is ideal.

Chrysanthemum5 · 17/12/2009 11:33

"Look, I would LOVE to meet this superdad, who as carmen says, does the cleaning, priortises kids over pub etc. I see lots of attempts at that, but i generally observe that the woman do most of the work. And it's shit, makes my blood boil, but it makes my blood boil more to see women make all these sacrifices then see their exHs demand 50-50 when the marriage breaks up."

This isn't a super Dad, it's just a father and there are plenty of men who behave like this. They just don't get written about on MN because threads about how useless someone is behaving will always be more interesting. My DH is a fully equal parent to me, and my FIL was also really invovled with his children and is amazing with his grandchildren - even though he has had comments about how he should let his wife do everything!

morningpaper · 17/12/2009 11:40

Agree with Chrysanthemum5

I have lots and lots of friends whose partners are like this

the Relationships talkboards gives you a funny idea about men...

Tortington · 17/12/2009 11:59

you see, DH has always been hands on - he had to be - as a family we had to work as a team. we have both always studied/worked full time - and to ensure kids got to school and got picked up - we both had to do the school run.

Dh didn't drive until 2 years ago - he walked the kids a helluva long way to school - then arranged his working pattern so he could pick them up as i wasn't working close by.

we divided homework. we divided the remembering of the PE kit, trainers, books, pens and other equipment.

DH deffo spent as much time with the kids as i did during their school years. He had to - to make it work as a family unit.

the kids love him - a lot.

he was there.

we have both been shitty parents at one time or another.

He is almost as effective at me!

but i think i get where the op is coming from, i think if as a family unit - the father doesn't have that hands on approach - works from early til late - it doesn;t mean he doesn;t love his kids, its just that i can't imagine there being the same bond that dh has with our kids. becuase that takes an investment of time

if i were to kick dh out, i am fortunate in that my kids are old enough to go see him whevever they want.

if this were to happen - i think i might get jealous at the time they would probably spend with their dad. which in itself is a compliment in a backward way!

FolornHope · 17/12/2009 12:00

i know of oen that works

StrictlyKatty · 17/12/2009 12:04

I the OP is just in a crappy mood. It does take 2 people to have a baby so why should the Father be pushed aside after a divorce, he loves his children too!

50/50 is fair and to suggest the Mother is needed more makes the OP as much of a bigot as those who suggest a womens place can only be in the home. Women don't actually own their chidren you know

inveteratenamechanger · 17/12/2009 12:16

XP and I have an arrangement that is close to 50:50 (although I have more nights than he does). DD is in childcare 3 days a week and we both look after her 2 days a week. She was 1 when we split up.

As somebody said up the thread, he has really stepped up to being a hands-on father and his relationship with DD has improved a thousandfold.

I have massive respect for him for making it work under quite difficult circumstances at times. And I have no doubt that this would not have happened if he was only seeing DD one day a week.

yangymac · 17/12/2009 12:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

GothAnneGeddes · 17/12/2009 12:34

I think there is an underlying cultural conditioning to the OP.

In the U.K, women generally get main custody, hence anything else is seen as unusual, or worse, unnatural.

In other parts of the world, the father (or father's family) gets custody, especially once the children are slightly older.

Awassailinglookingforanswers · 17/12/2009 12:37

you know I've been thinking about that comment somewhere on the thread about "superdad".....I think I fail miserably at being the "supermum" - as I'll be the first (between DH and I) to leave the cleaning, and childcare to go out to the pub

mayorquimby · 17/12/2009 12:39

God i feel sorry for the op's husband io wonder if he knows her true feelings about him.
I am also absolutely astounded by the evolutionary progression of a small number of women on here who have managed to become self-reproducing and have somehow found out a way in which women bring life into this world independent of them.

mayorquimby · 17/12/2009 12:40

*independent of men

tinierclanger · 17/12/2009 12:50

YAB massively U.

I don't understand how you can take this position. My parents split when I was 7 and I would have LOVED it if my dad had taken us 50/50. We would actually have built a proper relationship then, instead of waiting till I was in my late 20s to do so.

If, God forbid, DP and I ever split, I would want the same for my DS.

And I also know children who have grown up with 50/50 and been very happy with it.

bossykate · 17/12/2009 12:50

i agree with the OP in that 50/50 is designed as sop to fathers* and is in no way in the best interests of the children.

i totally agree with your second para.

  • speaking generally
nannynobnobs · 17/12/2009 13:10

It should depend entirely on the individual situation IMO.
If my brother and his wife ever parted ways I would expect him to get at least 50/50, he has always done the lions share of parenting and is by far the more tolerant and caring role model. (I do like my SIL, but she IS incredibly lazy and leaves him to it which he is happy to do).

katkit · 17/12/2009 13:12

As an adopted person, I am not sure that I agree that this should be part of the debate:

"we should be the primary parent because we grow our children inside us and feed them from our own bodies..."

besides, this is not the father's fault- they don't exactly have the option to grow a baby inside them!

AnitaBlake · 17/12/2009 13:23

Speaking as I remember it from when I was 12. My parents explained to me that Mum and Dad didn't love each other anymore and so we were moving house. Dad could see us EOW for one night and would pick us up from school and give us tea every other Friday. Going from seeing both parents every day to seeing my dad for a few hours a week was bloody awful for everyone involved.

I missed my dad terribly and when he started seeing other people I hated that too, because I didn't want to share the less than 24hrs per fortnight I was allowed with him.

Regardkless, if 50/50 can work, then it should be allowed to. If a viable plan can be made and put forward it should be the default. We live 20-30mins drive from SD at the moment, BUT DH works in the same building as his ex. He is in that area everyday, and his family are there.

Lets not forget it's not just about Mum and Dad, its about all the family. A good, working agreement where there is a generous amount of time for both families means the cjhild gets all of their family, and no-one is second best.

bossykate · 17/12/2009 14:59

oh gah! in my post below i meant i agree with your fourth para not second para. eejit.

Bonsoir · 17/12/2009 15:00

Also, the OP works on the assumption that all children have a single primary carer, their mother.

But that is not always the case at all. In the case of DP's exW, no way could she have ever been considered "sole primary carer".

yangymac · 17/12/2009 15:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Snorbs · 17/12/2009 15:17

"the father doesn't have that hands on approach - works from early til late - it doesn;t mean he doesn;t love his kids, its just that i can't imagine there being the same bond that dh has with our kids. becuase that takes an investment of time"

I think there is some truth in that. On the other hand, and provided the father is committed to making 50:50 work (which may mean changing work hours), looking after the children half the time is a fantastically effective way of for a father to build that bond.

Being a EOW dad just means you get to do the fun things. Being a single dad for a week at a stretch means you get to do everything. Taking the kids to the cinema every couple of weeks doesn't build a close bond anything like as effectively as being there to comfort them when they've had a nightmare or kissing it better when they've scraped their knee.

Bonsoir · 17/12/2009 15:21

My DP and his exW always both worked and the DSSs were with their nanny and their paternal grandparents in the week when they were little. However, whenever there was an emergency of any sort, DP was the one who dropped everything. ExW never saw that as part of her responsibility.

People have so many cultural assumptions about who does what...

SolidGoldpiginablanket · 17/12/2009 15:23

My DS' dad and I don't live together but he sees DS at least twice a week, every week. 50-50 living in alternate homes would be utterly unfeasible for us all - DS dad lives at the other side of town so there is no way DS could go to school from his dad's house.
The arrangement we have works very well for us. Having some fucking box ticker come in and meddle with it would make everyone unhappy to no purpose.