DP wanting to take baby out without me

[roseroses]

Baby is 4 weeks old. A few times DP has mentioned taking him out without me. Example today he wants to take him to his brothers, I suggested he calls in here instead but it's just caused a bit of a row. I am not ready to be separated from him and I have explained this to DP but he seems to think I'm being ott. It's not that I don't trust him, I do 100% and he's great with the baby but I just don't see why he seems to want to take him places without me so much, there's been a few occasions where he has wanted to. He says he wants to be able to parent him without me 'hovering around' all the time. He keeps asking how long before I will allow him to do this, I really can't give an answer to that. Am I being ott?

YANBU. It’s a biological fact that up until approximately 28 days ago, your baby was physically part of your body. I certainly didn’t want to be away from mine at that age. I needed him to be near and I have no issues saying it.

For the record, his father has a great relationship with him and as I was the primary carer, I obviously did have a different and greater bond initially. If the father of your child decides to withdraw from parenting because you want your tiny baby close, then you have a DP problem in a major way.

As for the arguments about feminism, 1930s and 50% ‘ownership’ of a baby, I have this to say. Feminism should support, not undermine women. The OP knows that she wants her baby close to her. It’s the opposite of feminism to say that she’s wrong and that she should ignore her feelings (based on biology I might add) and let the father make himself happy. Secondly, in the 1930s, if the baby was born in a hospital, it would have been brought to visit it’s mother regularly but primarily cared for by someone else for approximately a week. After that, once they got home, baby would have to fit into father’s lifestyle. House would have to be cleaned, food cooked, shopping done, laundry done and after a long day at work, the man would expect everything to be nice and peaceful. These days, when you give birth, you keep your baby with you. You do skin to skin, feed on demand, co-sleep (keep your baby beside your bed at least), breastfeeding is promoted, baby psychology studied, etc. All of these things are for the benefit of the baby, not the parents. It doesn’t bloody matter how much DNA you contributed, baby comes first. So, who’s needs are met by the father taking the baby to his brother’s house? Baby’s needs? No. Mother’s needs? No. Father’s needs? Yes! A resounding success for feminism.

He just wants to do what he wants to do, if he wanted 1 on 1 time he could suggest many things other than going to his brothers probably for a few hours.

Yes I understand what he's proposing, but you have no idea what's going on in his head anymore than the rest of us do. The fact he's mentioned OP hovering around suggests she already micromanages his interaction with their baby and he'd like to parent without her doing that for a while, which isn't unreasonable on his part imo.

@MurkyGloom

YANBU. It’s a biological fact that up until approximately 28 days ago, your baby was physically part of your body. I certainly didn’t want to be away from mine at that age. I needed him to be near and I have no issues saying it.

For the record, his father has a great relationship with him and as I was the primary carer, I obviously did have a different and greater bond initially. If the father of your child decides to withdraw from parenting because you want your tiny baby close, then you have a DP problem in a major way.

As for the arguments about feminism, 1930s and 50% ‘ownership’ of a baby, I have this to say. Feminism should support, not undermine women. The OP knows that she wants her baby close to her. It’s the opposite of feminism to say that she’s wrong and that she should ignore her feelings (based on biology I might add) and let the father make himself happy. Secondly, in the 1930s, if the baby was born in a hospital, it would have been brought to visit it’s mother regularly but primarily cared for by someone else for approximately a week. After that, once they got home, baby would have to fit into father’s lifestyle. House would have to be cleaned, food cooked, shopping done, laundry done and after a long day at work, the man would expect everything to be nice and peaceful. These days, when you give birth, you keep your baby with you. You do skin to skin, feed on demand, co-sleep (keep your baby beside your bed at least), breastfeeding is promoted, baby psychology studied, etc. All of these things are for the benefit of the baby, not the parents. It doesn’t bloody matter how much DNA you contributed, baby comes first. So, who’s needs are met by the father taking the baby to his brother’s house? Baby’s needs? No. Mother’s needs? No. Father’s needs? Yes! A resounding success for feminism.

100% This.

I would say that it would be ok,for your partner to take your baby out for a while, now that you have mentioned that you live together. and that he is good with baby care. He probably feels good, and proud, to kind of show off his new baby to family, as if he works away in the week, he doesn't get much chance to do such things.

@Fetarabbit
I had no problem switching off being carer of my newborns. I personally think it is much harder to be sole carer all week while the partner is working FT and then continue to be sole carer all the other hours of every day, night and weekend.

It is also stupid because you’re grinding yourself down with no time to be a separate human being, you’re denying the baby the 1:1 time needed to bond with another primary carer, and you’re setting the stage for a DH that “can’t” really settle the baby, or get the toddler to sleep at bedtime, or is not wanted when they have a nightmare or are sick or being bullied at school and so on. The decisions now to make baby focus on mum and only bond with mum have a ripple effect that lasts their entire childhood.

It is really difficult to be away from the baby to start with.

How about you turn it on it’s head. You don’t want dad to take the baby out but what happens if you go out and leave them at home together. Start off really small and just go for a walk for 20 minutes. In time perhaps you could build up for a longer walk or to the shops or pop round to a friend’s house with the aim to maybe go out for the evening.

I remember going out for the evening for the first time when Dd was about a month old. I left dh with my phone number (written down on a piece of paper in case his phone broke and he couldn’t remember the phone number I had had for nearly a decade!), all three friends numbers and the restaurants number.

I got to the restaurant with my lovely friends and announced “I’m not aiming to enjoy tonight but if I make it through then on the future I can have nights out and I will enjoy them”. Luckily my friends laughed!

I phoned home twice, texted 3 more times and was gone for less than 2 hours but I survived it and quickly moved to really enjoying nights out with friends. These days (my kids are 11 and 8) I saunter out the house with a brief “see ya” and barely a backward glance!

I think you need to explain to your dp that it isn’t that you don’t trust him but that being away from the baby is really hard after 9 months of being with them constantly (whether you liked it or not!) And that you would like to be able to work up to going on nights out but he needs to be patient and let you work up to it.

I think there are a few things to unpack here.

Your DP works away from home so despite loving his child and wanting to be an involved dad, he has no choice but to be away from his baby for 5 days of the week. Yet what he hears is you can't be away from the baby for even an hour. It sounds like he feels he is making a big sacrifice- missing out on all that time with the baby and time to bond in order to meet the family's financial obligations. I don't know what work you do or what your financial situation is - but it might be worth a discussion about him finding work close to home so he can be part of baby's life on an everyday basis.

I think when resentment grows it is often the dynamic that is the issue. There are two concerns he is raising that I think you need to work through. One is that he feels you hover - you need to understand what that means to him. How can you let him bond at home on the only two days a week he has in a way that works for him?

The second is the dynamic of one person needing to ask their partner permission to do things and the other one allows or disallows it. This is a really unhealthy dynamic to set up and always breeds resentment. It would be better to validate his concerns and talk about how you each feel. At the end of the day your conclusion might be that I just can't do it, I just can't be away from baby right now vs No, you are not allowed to take the child out, I have decided that that is not allowed.

She’s only solely cared for the baby 1 week out of four, this is his first week back, so out of 4 weeks his missed 5 days so asking for some one on one time. They both done the first 3 weeks together.
Would it be best if he packs his job in and they go on benefits so he can not be away five days a week to soothe the ones who think he is going to work for fun, not because he is supporting his family?

Not being the sole carer doesn’t mean one parent is better than the other. Both parents are a team, their working together, caring and providing. Not one caring and one swanning off! They are both playing a part that is vital to their child.

Firstly you are not a lone parent Monday to Friday - you have emotional and finacial support from your DP.

Secondly this is a bizairre thread in itself..
Everyone is talking about the baby been a poseesttion.

It is a bay who Mum is at this time doesn't want to be sperate from..Not she doesn't want him involved , she doesn't trust him. Family time is important.

she has said she gets on with housework etc so he can spend time with the baby. it doesn't have to be out of the house or without Mum..

My advice would be let him know how it is about you seperating from the baby you are not ready for but let him know there bond is important.

I don't understand why anyone seems to think babies can only bond with Dad's whilst they are seperated from Mum.

I think you know you're not being quite rational here. But it's a common reaction to dislike being parted from your baby or to see someone else tending to her. I absolutely HATED seeing the nurses in the hospital handling my first baby. Of course there was nothing wrong with the nurses - the problem was me so I kept my mouth shut. Same with my mother - I had to go in the kitchen while my Mum cuddled her on case I yelled 'Put her down!' Fortunately my reaction wore off quite quickly.
Now your husband is proud of the baby
He wants to show her off to his brother, to his parents
. That's only natural. Why not be glad of the time alone? He could be out for 2 or 3 hours - you could have a nap, or tea and a book, or watch TV uninterrupted. Or if you can't settle to that, go visiting with him.

@MurkyGloom
The feelings are not based on biology. They are caused by socialisation in the belief that mother is best for baby. Your entire post is based on this outdated belief. Which is why you think the following:

“So, who’s needs are met by the father taking the baby to his brother’s house? Baby’s needs? No. Mother’s needs? No. Father’s needs? Yes! A resounding success for feminism.”

Having the father coparent does actually meet the mothers needs and and baby’s needs. The baby needs to bond with other primary carers. The mother needs to not be a mum 24/7 but herself as well.

Yes, you're being OTT. Don't you want the baby to bond with its father?

I think the fact DP is away 4 nights a week means he probably does understand exactly how you feel because he'll feel the same way.

But he'll also know it's fine. And because he's away those nights he'll have a greater urge to build that bond.

No one's feelings are invalid. But it's about realising feelings are emotions and sometimes we need to personal set emotion aside to look at what's best for everyone by looking at everyone's emotions.

Congratulations on your btw

So, who’s needs are met by the father taking the baby to his brother’s house? Baby’s needs? No. Mother’s needs? No. Father’s needs? Yes! A resounding success for feminism.”

I'd be interested to know why you think babies needs aren't being met in this situation.
Mum isn't breastfeeding so baby's feeding routine won't be affected.
Baby will be with his dad not a random person so will be comfortable in the presence of someone who loves him.
Assumably dad knows how to change nappies, so baby will be dry.
Baby will be visiting his uncle in an indoor setting so he'll be warm and cosy.

I'm yet to see a reason why baby's needs won't be met.

As hard as it may be for you, I really would let him take DC. The sooner he bonds and learns how to look after baby on t
His own the better and if you say no he may feel shut out. In the future you will be desperate for some alone time, but if you have refused him in the past it may cause resentment fir you both x

In English culture there is a huge huge drive to separate mothers from children very young. I noticed this so much when dd was tiny.

Now DD is older, I notice that the oarents who didn’t respect the infant bonding process are the same parents who aren’t close to their children and say things like “I just don’t understand her.”

Follow your instincts OP.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@Fetarabbit
I had no problem switching off being carer of my newborns. I personally think it is much harder to be sole carer all week while the partner is working FT and then continue to be sole carer all the other hours of every day, night and weekend.

It is also stupid because you’re grinding yourself down with no time to be a separate human being, you’re denying the baby the 1:1 time needed to bond with another primary carer, and you’re setting the stage for a DH that “can’t” really settle the baby, or get the toddler to sleep at bedtime, or is not wanted when they have a nightmare or are sick or being bullied at school and so on. The decisions now to make baby focus on mum and only bond with mum have a ripple effect that lasts their entire childhood.[/quote]
Have you read OPs posts out of interest? He does bed times when he is back, although he won't be there for the majority of them unless he should be travelling back a few nights a week just to make sure he does it half the time? . OP has also said that they have time alone when she's having a bath etc, if he feels he is being hovered other then be needs to talk about why he feels that and what they can do as a couple to address that. At 4 weeks I don't think it's going to have a huge effect on the dynamics if he goes to his brothers or whether his brother comes to him though really.

Interesting how the man is being painted as the poor hard done by one having to be away from home to financially fend for the family, when he knew what he was getting into and in most cases could have found something else if it was that important to him to be home all of the time. Many enjoy being away with little responsibility, full nights sleep, able to go out in the evenings if wanted and not have the same mental pressures and mental load from working with them. Obviously not always the case, but it's a very naive and odd view.

Urgh as if the baby is not going to bond because he doesn't get to take the wee one for a few hours at four weeks old!!
Honestly 🙄

Biology, 4th trimester, human nature.
They are the reasons you're uncomfortable with this.
This isn't and shouldn't be a debate on what's expected of women as mothers from fathers.
We're talking 4 weeks post partum.
It's basic, simple maternal instinct. Don't ignore it!

Interesting how the man is being painted as the poor hard done by one having to be away from home to financially fend for the family, when he knew what he was getting into and in most cases could have found something else if it was that important to him to be home all of the time.

He is hard done by in terms of time available to bond with the baby. And I think it is laughable that you think “if it were important to him” he could have “found something else” to be “home all of the time”. There is no job on the planet that pays you to be home all of the time not working. How do you expect them to survive on OPs maternity pay alone?

And if OP had said she’s on maternity leave but they have no money because her DH has decided he wants to be a SAHD because “it’s important to him to be home all of the time” Everyone here would be rightly saying he’s a useless cocklodger.

I don’t think men are painted as being hard done by, by having to go to work to provide for the family, in fact I think it’s quite the opposite. Seems now it’s the best/easiest/most stable/grass is greener thing to do, being as so many women now go back to work once maternity leave is finished. Some women even share their maternity leave with the other parent too. I don’t think women think they are hard done by, I think women think, “well I want that too”.

Even women know that whilst money doesn’t bring happiness, it certainly brings choice!

Your feelings about not wanting to be separate from your baby are 100% natural. Your baby is only 4 weeks old! You do not need to feel bad about this it's normal and does start to ease after fourth trimester.

Your partner can bond with baby in so many other ways. Start small with dad taking baby a walk around the block

4th trimester is a social construct designed to make women not use shared parental leave after childbirth but continue with outdated maternity leave. There is no biology to it. It is all based on the belief that mother is best for baby.

Interesting how the man is being painted as the poor hard done by one having to be away from home to financially fend for the family, when he knew what he was getting into and in most cases could have found something else if it was that important to him to be home all of the time.

Christ on a bike, are we still reeling out this old chestnut?

You are not being at all unreasonable. The baby is only 4 weeks old and your instinct is to be near him.
I'm shocked at some of responses to this. Fair enough if some of you felt comfortable being apart from their baby at this age - but I know I didn't and other mothers don't. There's plenty of opportunity for bonding without dad taking the baby out. I actually think 50:50 parenting isn't desirable for newborns - they are normally best being mostly with their mothers.