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?

@MilkywayMonarch22

Also *@PlanDeRaccordement* are you saying it's faux biology that a woman's brain and hormones change post birth/pregnancy? That is widely accepted knowledge, hence the watch for PND/PNA/PNP

Dear god no. I’m saying that the existence of pregnancy hormones do not create a biologically driven desire or necessity for the mother to be close to her infant 24/7. Which is what many seem to be arguing by waxing lyrical about natural this and instinct that and primal urge whatnot.

Hmmmm ok then @PlanDeRaccordement

Similar to how the biological fact that women have smaller brains than men does not mean that men are smarter than women or that women are stupid compared to men.

It’s the taking of a biological fact and then attributing completely unrelated behaviours or abilities to that fact.

Some of the response here are bizarre, please don’t be bullied into doing something that reasonably makes you anxious and uncomfortable OP.

She’s not saying that he can’t take the baby to see it’s uncle, she’s objecting to her demand that she doesn’t come along. How can anyone think he should have the right to demand she doesn’t come when he takes the baby somewhere?

@PlanDeRaccordement

Similar to how the biological fact that women have smaller brains than men does not mean that men are smarter than women or that women are stupid compared to men.

It’s the taking of a biological fact and then attributing completely unrelated behaviours or abilities to that fact.

Perfectly summed up!

It’s the taking of a biological fact and then attributing completely unrelated behaviours or abilities to that fact.

Of course, the mother and child bond seen in every culture throughout history is entirely unrelated to anything biological and was probably invented by the Victorians or something .

Honestly it's fine if you don't get it, if you didn't experience it like that, and you were comfortable with a different approach. I didn't instantly fall head over heels in love with my baby when I had him and that doesn't make me any less of a mother. I also don't think I was ever particularly possessive of him on that primal level that some women seem to have. But I don't think there's anything feminist or enlightened about making a new mother doubt her instincts about wanting to be close to her four week old baby. Everyone is different, but many many women feel like this and there's nothing wrong with that. Babies wouldn't survive if we didn't have some pretty powerful biological instincts too be close and protect and care for them. And four weeks is still so tiny.

@SparrowNest

Some of the response here are bizarre, please don’t be bullied into doing something that reasonably makes you anxious and uncomfortable OP.

She’s not saying that he can’t take the baby to see it’s uncle, she’s objecting to her demand that she doesn’t come along. How can anyone think he should have the right to demand she doesn’t come when he takes the baby somewhere?

But by demanding she goes along too, by default, he’s not allowed to take his baby on his own.

No one is saying she shouldn’t go if she feels she must, but they are saying it’s then hypocritical to take baby somewhere on her own, without DH.

@TableFlowerss but why should he take baby on his own? I don’t understand this at all. As far as I can tell she’s not banned him from being with her and the baby in any situation.

It’s unfortunate he’s had to go back to work so early, but that’s not her fault. I was lucky that my husband got 6 weeks off, in that time I don’t think either us left with or without the baby for more than an hour - to go to the supermarket or something.

It’s perfectly reasonable for him to want to play an active role, to do some feeding (given the baby is bottle fed) and holding and comforting, and it’s obviously reasonable to want to show the baby to family, but I can’t understand why you think it’s reasonable for him to insist on the mother not being around no matter how distressing she finds that thought. My husband wouldn’t have dreamed of demanding that. It’s just not how either of us were thinking of any of it. Now our daughter is older, she does a lot of stuff just with her daddy.

I think there will always be a subgroup who believe that the only real parent is the one who carried and birthed the baby. That the biological process of fetal development and birth gives the biological mother a whole different status than any other parental figure could ever have. That fathers are supporting cast and their role is to just support the mother, cater to her needs, and be grateful when she allows them to be involved. These are the people who talk about mothers allowing, permitting and letting a father do x or y. This position really puts mothers up on a pedestal as supermom or hero or martyr who does it all and sets up unrealistic expectations for mothers. That they must always be perfect and that they as women are the nurturers, the carers, and that there is nothing like a (bio) mother's love. That any crack means the father isn't supporting them enough and they just need him to do more in the background so they can stay perfect. It is so unhealthy and it saddens me to see so many still buying into it.

@Aspiringmatriarch

It’s the taking of a biological fact and then attributing completely unrelated behaviours or abilities to that fact.

Of course, the mother and child bond seen in every culture throughout history is entirely unrelated to anything biological and was probably invented by the Victorians or something .

Honestly it's fine if you don't get it, if you didn't experience it like that, and you were comfortable with a different approach. I didn't instantly fall head over heels in love with my baby when I had him and that doesn't make me any less of a mother. I also don't think I was ever particularly possessive of him on that primal level that some women seem to have. But I don't think there's anything feminist or enlightened about making a new mother doubt her instincts about wanting to be close to her four week old baby. Everyone is different, but many many women feel like this and there's nothing wrong with that. Babies wouldn't survive if we didn't have some pretty powerful biological instincts too be close and protect and care for them. And four weeks is still so tiny.

Historically men have always been the Hunter gatherers so there wasn’t the opportunity for men to bond like they do now. It made sense back then as Tesco didn’t exist to pop there for food…

That argument that babies wouldn’t survive if it wasn’t for the protection of their mother is only viable in the scenario whereby neither would physically survive, it it wasn’t for the father providing food!?

The point is, both parents are equally important but we don’t live 30000 years ago

@Aspiringmatriarch
Of course, the mother and child bond seen in every culture throughout history is entirely unrelated to anything biological and was probably invented by the Victorians or something

Close, the patriarchy hyped up the mother child bond to keep women pregnant and at home with the babies by convincing society that naturally, biologically, instinctively that is a woman’s place.

I also fell in love with my DCs at birth, as did my DH. You don’t have to be the one pushing the baby out to feel love and a desire to bond. Nor does being the one pushing baby out make your love or bond any stronger, deeper or better for baby.

[quote SparrowNest]@TableFlowerss but why should he take baby on his own? I don’t understand this at all. As far as I can tell she’s not banned him from being with her and the baby in any situation.

It’s unfortunate he’s had to go back to work so early, but that’s not her fault. I was lucky that my husband got 6 weeks off, in that time I don’t think either us left with or without the baby for more than an hour - to go to the supermarket or something.

It’s perfectly reasonable for him to want to play an active role, to do some feeding (given the baby is bottle fed) and holding and comforting, and it’s obviously reasonable to want to show the baby to family, but I can’t understand why you think it’s reasonable for him to insist on the mother not being around no matter how distressing she finds that thought. My husband wouldn’t have dreamed of demanding that. It’s just not how either of us were thinking of any of it. Now our daughter is older, she does a lot of stuff just with her daddy.[/quote]
Because the baby will be absolutely fine for an hour with their dad!! The baby doesn’t belong to the mum. The mum doesn’t get to dictate when and how dad spends his free time with his own baby.

If dad said ‘I don’t feel comfortable with you taking baby out for an hour on your own’ there would uproar on here!

@TableFlowerss We don’t actually know if they’re talking about an hour round the corner, or a half hour drive each way and the whole afternoon.

Either way, I agree the baby isn’t going to come to any serious harm, but there’s not actually a good argument for forcing the mother to be separated from it against her will. All the arguments in favour are way, way weaker than the simple fact that not coming along would cause her distress. It doesn’t stop the dad doing anything if she’s close by.

Babies wouldn't survive if we didn't have some pretty powerful biological instincts too be close and protect and care for them

But humans don’t have powerful biological instincts to be close, protect and care for newborns. The historically very common practice of infanticide that existed before we had contraception and abortion, indicates any such instincts (involuntary behaviours) simply do not exist. Caring, protecting and being close to a newborn is a voluntary behaviour that is learned. And what we learn as humans is different depending on our sex because society is sexist.

[quote SparrowNest]@TableFlowerss We don’t actually know if they’re talking about an hour round the corner, or a half hour drive each way and the whole afternoon.

Either way, I agree the baby isn’t going to come to any serious harm, but there’s not actually a good argument for forcing the mother to be separated from it against her will. All the arguments in favour are way, way weaker than the simple fact that not coming along would cause her distress. It doesn’t stop the dad doing anything if she’s close by.[/quote]
The way some people are going on, on here, you’d think that a stranger was coming to take baby away for a month. That, I’d completely understand the hysteria.

In contrast, It’s babies dad, who mum decided to get in to a relationship with and chose to have a baby with, so we can assume he’s more than capable of being a great dad and be trusted.

The two scenarios are polar opposites

And he only wants to taj navy for an hour or two….

Close, the patriarchy hyped up the mother child bond to keep women pregnant and at home with the babies by convincing society that naturally, biologically, instinctively that is a woman’s place.

Thanks for patronising me, I'm well aware of history. Gross oversimplification there but ok.

I also fell in love with my DCs at birth, as did my DH. You don’t have to be the one pushing the baby out to feel love and a desire to bond. Nor does being the one pushing baby out make your love or bond any stronger, deeper or better for baby.

And this still has nothing to do with whether a new mum should tie herself in knots trying to be comfortable with a separation before/ for longer than she is ready for. Once again, this baby was born just four weeks ago. And once again, there is absolutely nothing in what I said about fathers bonding with their children or any reason this dad can't do so, or indeed take the baby round to his family when he or she is a bit older.

take baby

@TableFlowerss I think that desiring to take the baby away from a parent, for no good reason, despite them telling you it would distress them, is being a bad partner tbh.

When mine was a week or so, my mum came to say and my husband took her to the supermarket to get some gluten free food. She insisted on slowly going round every fucking aisle, looking at everything, and he was getting really agitated at having left us. It didn’t mean he didn’t trust me.

@starrynight21

This is how you end up in a few months, wondering why your partner doesn't bother spending time with your child. You're making him feel like he isn't good enough or safe enough to be with his baby .

I'd suggest that you stop with the anxiety and let him take DS out. You say he is great with your DS, a good dad, so what's the problem ?

This. If you become the defacto parent you disenfranchise him and make a rod for your own back.

Thanks for patronising me, I'm well aware of history. Gross oversimplification there but ok.

That what I should have said to you, with your entire history every culture mother child bond comment which was patronising. But I chose to engage with the content. I guess you have nothing to say as you know I am right so accuse me of doing what you did.

In regards to the OP, there are several red flags. Her language of “allowing” her DH to take care of the baby without her. Her “hovering” over him when he is with the baby. Finally she doesn’t know when she would ever be comfortable with the DH taking baby out alone. Her feelings are real, but why does she feel this way? Is there good reason for this?

I personally do not think so. She’s feeling this because she’s been socialised to believe that she must be with her newborn all the time or she is failing as a mother. This is not good. This is bad. This is a path that leads to her doing everything and the DH nothing.

I have no issue with OP having a discussion with the DH and they both agreeing on outings at say 6 wks or 8 wks. But this whole dynamic of her with baby 24/7, hovering over him and “allowing” what he can and cannot do, and is not in anyone’s best interest.

He can be a parent with her nearby.
He can’t be a parent when he is away

Maybe instead if being away 5 days a week, he should start by organising his life so he can be there for his child instead. Then I suspect this huge need to be a parent without her around will be smaller. Nit the least because he would have many more opportunities!

He can’t complain when he is the one to go away!
And then expecting his partner to be uncomfortable just to make up for it.

But humans don’t have powerful biological instincts to be close, protect and care for newborns. The historically very common practice of infanticide that existed before we had contraception and abortion, indicates any such instincts (involuntary behaviours) simply do not exist. Caring, protecting and being close to a newborn is a voluntary behaviour that is learned. And what we learn as humans is different depending on our sex because society is sexist.

Who carried out the infanticide? I'm not aware of all societies that practiced it, but in the case of the Ancient Romans, the decision of whether to keep the baby or not rested with the father, not the mother. And I bet you many a woman sobbed many a tear as her newborn was condemned to death.

I'd say rather than drama, there's a lot of dismissing a new mums feelings at the expense of her father's wants which is pretty gross

What about the new fathers feelings though. Why is his completely dismissed? He’s not taking the baby for weeks on end, he just wants some bonding time and to give OP a break.

I wonder what the responses would be if OP came back in a few weeks and said he’s refusing to have the child on his own - would PPs still be saying it’s the women’s job to have the baby all of the time or would the then agree with her because the man is always in the wrong.

No op I don't think you are ott personally at 4 weeks I could bear to not have baby in the same place as I was and I totally trusted dad...I bf and formula fed and both my babies I felt the same at first. You only just given birth and carried the baby for so long. Not everyone feels like this and that's fine too it certainly doesn't mean someone loves their baby any less, if they are happy to leave them go off with dad for a few hours if he is competent etc. But if you feel you can't it's ok too and you are not wrong to feel like that either. But I would be willing to compromise and work up to doing what dad wants but it would take me a bit of time to feel happy with it.