So, apparently men mustn't involve selves in pregnancy

[ReshapeWhileDamp]

Or childbirth. Here.

Apparently, the expectation that they 'must' play an active and interested part in their partner's pregnancy, attending antenatal classes, and then be an active birth support, un-mans them. They realise - too late! too late, alas - that since pregnancy is, apparently, nothing whatsoever to do with them and takes place internally and inscrutably inside Woman, that they simply can't be a part of it. And therefore inevitably suffer feelings of failure at being a dad, almost before their child is born. Not only that, but these feelings of paternal failure can lead to a lack of bonding with their baby.

I can honestly say I haven't read anything so insulting towards both women and men in years. And where is the evidence base, ffs? This guy is working entirely on supposition and anecdotal account. At least, I presume he's working from anecdote, and that this isn't coming entirely off the top of his head.

Of course men shouldn't be forced to attend childbirth if they hate the idea. Some women don't want them there, either. But even if there is a problem with today's fathers bonding with their new babies (purely on an anecdotal level, I certainly haven't noticed this - very much the opposite) how on earth can you pin it to men being expected to be there at the birth? Jonathon Ives (who is this idiot, anyway? Anyone heard of him?) says "Men should instead be told that it is not their duty to attend antenatal classes and be encouraged to wait outside the delivery room as their child is born" (that's the Guardian paraphrasing). Will that really help, if there is indeed an actual 'problem'?

Oh go on, read it - it's a doozy!

I can't actually work out how he arrived at that conclusion. I'm going to look him up tomorrow when I regain the will to live.

'Whiny inept twats wanted for biased controversial study' HEH at this.

My DH would be really upset if I said he wasn't to involve himself in my pregnancy - he has come to all my ante natal appointments, even though he doesn't really need to, just because he wants to be involved, loves me and the baby and wants to know what is going on.

I know he's a bit nervous about attending the birth (me too!) but he wouldn't dream of missing it.

And he is very manly.

"Of course men shouldn't be forced to attend childbirth if they hate the idea"

Maybe they should. We have to, and I'm sure a lot of women rather hate the idea of childbirth themselves.

From the article:

"The disappointment and feeling of failure experienced by men expecting to have an intimate and proactive role as their baby gestates, only to find their function is largely one of passive support for their partner, can cause emotional shutdown".

What exactly would an intimate and proactive role in gestation look like? I mean, frankly, my role in gestating my daughter felt fairly passive. Were these men planning on time sharing the foetus?

I know - I think the expectations of a proactive role themselves are entirely unrealistic, IF men really do have those expectations. I'm sceptical that they do.

Sometimes I think it would be better if there were no more articles about anything to do with child rearing/gestating/conceiving - just let us get on with what is by and large a natural process.

Obviously medical advances are great in infertility etc, but I mean these endless articles on what's good for babies/mums/dads etc.

Could someone write the definitive article saying "You're probably doing fine if you love your baby and try your best".

Any man who gets emotional breakdown from any of that is just a fucking pussy, excuse my language.

I mean I couldn't be arsed to go to one NCT class (out of two) and i only went to the NHS one for an hour and a half out of five and I wont read any of those fucking stupid books - having said that I love Harvey Karp as he's so camp.

That's because it's all bollocks.

This stuff (the study) is so western 21st century angsty nause-up crap. If you don't want to attend the birth of your child you're a fucking dick, what did cavemen do, wait outside minding the Mammoths?

I never wanted a baby, I knew what would happen, I'd be here expected to look after it because I am the lowest paid out of us.

I wanted to adopt, the world is over populated and I don't like babies, I wanted to give a good home to a kid old enough to feed and poop without assistance.

my dear fiance was dead set against adoption, he wanted his DNA passed on, he wanted to go to all the Ante-natal stuff but couldn't due to work being rather inflexible, he was determined to be at the birth, he stayed with me at the hospital about 10+ hours a day, he does most of the night feeds and changes most nappies, he would have gotten pregnant if he could.

That article is trash.

Oh I might add that my father wanted me aborted, when my brother was born he moved out for 6 months, he spent no time at all with any of us except to hit us when we annoyed him, washed his hands completely of any child rearing.

Everyone at school and the like though mum was a single parent because none of us mentioned dad and we never included him on childhood drawings.

Is that what a real man is? I'll stick to my un-manly one thank you.

I wrote a big post, but it went away.

Bascially, as far as I'm concerned, this is utter utter bullshit.

Of course all men are the same so this MUST be true...

...ffs the Guardian! They should know better and should have presented a balanced view with at least a summary of the methodology!

Was just going to write a big old 'that sums up my DH' and then I saw Ryoko#s post

sadly, I think my kids will be a bit like that.

Someone has their head screwed on right:

'However, Adrienne Burgess, head of research at the Fatherhood Institute, said: "That experience of helplessness that Ives is saying is so dangerous, is, in fact, the perfect preparation for fatherhood: there are times as a parent when you can't do anything to help your baby, when it's crying all night and can't be soothed. Part of being a parent is being there for your partner and child without doing anything except providing love." '

Ives implies that all men are whimps who can't cope with the slightest moment of helplessness or self doubt. Well, if the cap fits, mate....

There is a a version of this article in the Telegraph too which is even more insulting.

www.telegraph.co.uk/family/7794623/Men-are-better-off-building-the-cot-than-going-to-ante natal-classes.html

I told DH that if he was there at the conception he could be there for the birth. Actually, he wants to be there, but is nervous (as am I ffs). Nasty messy yucky birth, and poor wickle mensies who cannot cope. What shite. The truth is, i AM afraid that DH will find it hard to cope, but I know that I NEED him there. I need him to comfort and support me.

this crap is exactly why i am sat here at 37 weeks having missed another mw appointment, and havent been seen since 29 weeks and H is cancelling mondays already rebooked scan because he is too busy and not hisresponsibility and arent i demanding?

this crap is exactly why i am sat here at 37 weeks having missed another mw appointment, and havent been seen since 29 weeks and H is cancelling mondays already rebooked scan because he is too busy and not hisresponsibility and arent i demanding?

Also... this idea [comments in telegraph article] that men might go off their partners sexually if they see the messy reality of birth... well, it is just misogynist crap, buying into the idea again that the primary and most important role of women is to always be alluring and sexually attractive to men. That does not do men or women any kind of service.

But the whole idea that pregnancy and birth has to be 'secret women's business' is so insulting that I cannot adequately contain myself.

Hmph. DS' dad was not around for most of the pregnancy, did reappear shortly before the birth and offered to be there - and was told in no uncertain terms that this was a Bad Idea. However, nearly 6 years on he is a fabulous, loving father. However, what works for some people doesn't work for others, and the only tiny bit of sense in that article was the suggestion that it's a shame men are told they have to be at the birth when some men really don't fancy it and some women would really rather not have them there.

What I want is some sensible person telling us that women don't have to be present at the birth either . I could have done with being miles away on some exotic southern beach clutching a drink.

But as long as I have to be there, and as long as I want dh to be there to support me, then I think his sufferings and potential sexual hangups have to take second place.

When he was seriously ill I went with him to hospital: I didn't shoot into the pub with the motivation that seeing him suffer might give me sexual hangups! If he had been in an accident and was frightened and in pain, I'd stay with him and try to comfort him: I can't imagine anyone in that situation would worry more about my suffering than about his, or think I was justified to prioritise my own emotional feelings above the need to support him. So why should it be assumed that men have to prioritise their feelings?

'I could have done with being miles away on some exotic southern beach clutching a drink'

You really made me laugh with your post cory... So this Jonathan guy who wrote the article has probably badly disapointed someone and because he is a Dr. has to mend the mess with some research... I always wonder where the funds for some research come from...