Stepdads vs Stepmums feelings about stepchildren

[SandyY2K]

I was thinking how it seems like more SMs than SDs don't quite like or prefer it when their DSC aren't around I didn't want to hijack the other thread, so started this one.

Can any SD say how they feel about their SC? Do you prefer it when they're not at home?

As I don't expect many SDs are on here, if you have a DP/DH who is a stepdad to your kids, has he said he prefers it when your kids aren't there? Or if he hasn't said it, do you think he feels this way?

I said I wondered if that's because women tend to post on forums like this more, as I noticed an increasing amount of SMs have negative feelings about DSCs visitation.

The feelings vary, but can include, anxiety, resentment, feeling uncomfortable, on edge or just a preference for them not being there.

There was a feeling that it's different for Stepdads for different reasons on the other thread.

I found this comment (below) provides an alternative view from a Stepdad's perspective. Obviously, this is just one person's view.

Perhaps they've just resigned themselves to the fact they their options are limited.

If my DW and I split up, I would want another relationship. I still wouldn't really find childless women appealing because most of them want to have kids of their own and I am 100% done

That means I'd just be trading one set of annoying SC for a different set of annoying SC
It's not like I'd meet the woman with magical non-annoying children. That's just how children are, tbh.

So, my totally best move is to be happy with where I am, stop complaining and work to make this situation the best I can.

Are men just more practical about it?

Loads of stepfathers prefer not to have their stepchildren around - they just aren't likely to tell their wives that. The only reason so many women on MN claim their husband adores his stepchildren, while making it clear that they view HIS children as an inconvenience, is that this is a women-centred forum. The reality is that when a child is abused or murdered, it's usually by a stepfather/mother's boyfriend. Obviously those are extreme examples, but it's pretty unlikely the world is divided into abusive stepfathers and loving ones. There must be many who fall in the middle of the spectrum.

@ZoeCM

Loads of stepfathers prefer not to have their stepchildren around - they just aren't likely to tell their wives that. The only reason so many women on MN claim their husband adores his stepchildren, while making it clear that they view HIS children as an inconvenience, is that this is a women-centred forum. The reality is that when a child is abused or murdered, it's usually by a stepfather/mother's boyfriend. Obviously those are extreme examples, but it's pretty unlikely the world is divided into abusive stepfathers and loving ones. There must be many who fall in the middle of the spectrum.

Agree.

I think a key difference is also the gulf in expectations between SM and SF when it comes to the children. Stepfathers aren't usually expected to put themselves out doing the daily care of the children, whereas stepmums often are expected to take on loads of the care. Or just do so by default because they do those jobs in the house outside of the children being around.

So it becomes more frustrating and a chore for the SM than it ever is for the SF.

I think a key difference is also the gulf in expectations between SM and SF when it comes to the children. Stepfathers aren't usually expected to put themselves out doing the daily care of the children, whereas stepmums often are expected to take on loads of the care. Or just do so by default because they do those jobs in the house outside of the children being around.

Yes, but on the flip side, stepmums aren't generally expected to have their stepchildren around most of the time. I've seen threads on here where women say they're horrified at the thought of their stepchildren moving in full-time if their mother died.

@ZoeCM

Loads of stepfathers prefer not to have their stepchildren around - they just aren't likely to tell their wives that. The only reason so many women on MN claim their husband adores his stepchildren, while making it clear that they view HIS children as an inconvenience, is that this is a women-centred forum. The reality is that when a child is abused or murdered, it's usually by a stepfather/mother's boyfriend. Obviously those are extreme examples, but it's pretty unlikely the world is divided into abusive stepfathers and loving ones. There must be many who fall in the middle of the spectrum.

I think this is very true, and also have the same thoughts whenever women on here say "my DP adores my kids and I would never be with him if he didn't". The cynic in me can't help but think "well he's not going to be honest about it then is he."

@ZoeCM

I think a key difference is also the gulf in expectations between SM and SF when it comes to the children. Stepfathers aren't usually expected to put themselves out doing the daily care of the children, whereas stepmums often are expected to take on loads of the care. Or just do so by default because they do those jobs in the house outside of the children being around.

Yes, but on the flip side, stepmums aren't generally expected to have their stepchildren around most of the time. I've seen threads on here where women say they're horrified at the thought of their stepchildren moving in full-time if their mother died.

That's true. But then I wonder if that is also related to the amount of involvement a stepmum is expected to have when the SCs are around as well?

I feel like for a lot of stepdads, they live with a mum and her kids, who she looks after and he interacts with. Let's face it, even in many bio families the woman does the lion's share of child-related work, let alone where the man in the house isn't even the children's father. I doubt many mums expect much in the way of practical assistance from stepdads.

Whereas stepmums...loads of blokes expect them to be making dinner, helping with bathtime, doing washing for the kids, and in particular handling a lot of things when it comes to female children. As well as just generally being 'around', not just doing her own thing when the kids are about.

But I do agree that SFs generally are mainly full-time while SMs are not, and that must be hard for SFs too.

@Bibidy

I actually do think you have a point re finances, TiredofTattler.

I wouldn't expect people to necessarily be prepared in advance just in case their marriage failed as it's just not doable for most - not least women who are SAHM or very part time in order to look after the children, they just don't have the money to put aside.

BUT I do note that a lot of women expect to continue with the same financial support from their ex as when they were still together - ie be able to continue not working/working only 2 days a week (or whatever) and also continue living in the family home and also continue with everyone doing the same activities as before...and for a really long time.

They don't consider that their ex's financial contribution is meant to be for 50% of the child's expenses, not a contribution towards the child(ren) and her. RPs still have a responsibility to support themselves, even if it means sharing the children's dad more equally to facilitate work.

I agree that Tattler has a point about finances.

As a society we do seem stuck in a man provides financially/woman provides the care model. And lots of women absolutely do not take financial responsibility for themselves post-break up. In various ways the system encourages this.

It's not good. And we should be insisting that parents are able to support their families. It is not at all good for anyone to have large numbers of women financially dependent on their exes.

Yes, but on the flip side, stepmums aren't generally expected to have their stepchildren around most of the time. I've seen threads on here where women say they're horrified at the thought of their stepchildren moving in full-time if their mother died.

This would be me, and feeds into what I said in my initial response to this thread, if I remember rightly.

Having to be in a relationship with the RP will naturally whittle down the sorts of people who become SDs, to an extent, whereas it's very possible to live a happy life as SM with a NRP with potentially many misgivings about the situation, because comparatively it's a small proportion of your life so seems "worth it". If it were going to affect your life full time then you'd be less inclined to get involved.

@MangoSeason

The majority of step children spend more time with their mum than their stepmum. The majority of step children also spend more time with their stepdad than their dad. This might be significant.

You have hit the nail on the head. Also stepmums often seem expected to help care for the SC but step dads don't seem to be expected to be involved in the same way.

As a society we do seem stuck in a man provides financially/woman provides the care model. And lots of women absolutely do not take financial responsibility for themselves post-break up. In various ways the system encourages this.

I genuinely think it doesn't even cross a lot of women's minds that their ex doesn't have an obligation to continue to support them not working and that that was an agreement they had made based on the being together as a couple in one household. They don't even question whether they should actually be contributing more to their own household finances rather than relying on CM to cover a chunk of their rent etc.

Having to be in a relationship with the RP will naturally whittle down the sorts of people who become SDs, to an extent, whereas it's very possible to live a happy life as SM with a NRP with potentially many misgivings about the situation, because comparatively it's a small proportion of your life so seems "worth it". If it were going to affect your life full time then you'd be less inclined to get involved.

God that's so true! Never thought about it that way before.

Whereas stepmums...loads of blokes expect them to be making dinner, helping with bathtime, doing washing for the kids, and in particular handling a lot of things when it comes to female children. As well as just generally being 'around', not just doing her own thing when the kids are about.

This is a very big issue and I think it's enormously common.

It is often exacerbated by a NR father's ideas that the SM cannot decide anything or tell his children off. So she's responsible for all the drudgery, expected to be around and participate, but not allowed to have any day over anything. That's hard to live with. And easily places her in a scapegoatable position.

OTOH, stepfathers (and many NR fathers who have passed the drudgery on to their new wives) are often proceeding with really superficial involvement in the work of child rearing. They may well be out playing golf or at the gym during contact time and so on, because there is a woman around to act as default carer. Where the man is a stepfather rather than a father, this would be how everyone would agree it should be. They're not his kids; of course it falls to their mother to look after them and be grateful for any help she gets from him.

I recently discovered that my husband's resentment that I will no longer do any of the work for him is rooted in his totally ridiculous ideas about what parenthood should look like. Apparently, it's not about being responsible for children all the time. 'Normal parenting' is being able to go for drinks after work, for long bike rides, to the gym, for weekends away with friends. It's all about passing your kids off on to someone else and not doing all that boring dinner and bath and bedtime stuff.

He's pissed off that's not how it works EOW and during holidays because I've told him that he needs to step up and do all the parenting work while his children are here. I'm still there, looking after my children and doing everything for them (as I would have been anyway). And he's even eating the food I cook, benefitting from my household labour via washing, cleaning etc. I'm doing it all for out shared child too. But the fact he has to feed his other children, to clean up after them, do their washing, entertain them, do all the basic stuff like bedtimes, and just be in because he is responsible for them (I'm not) is far too much and unfair. He 'feels like a single father'. Wah. Wah.

The thing is, I almost think that it's fair enough that he leaves it all to me for his stepchild. Even when it's petty and vindictive and means I have to take our baby along (because his father won't look after him to help me with something for my DS). Less so then, but he gets away with it because I don't expect anything from him as a stepfather. But he's hugely resentful that he doesn't get the same freedom in relation to his other children. No. As a stepmother I should be acting like they're my children. 🙄

That is to say, my personal experience is that people do expect stepmothers to act like mothers (albeit without any say or any of the positives) and stepfathers to act like fathers (which may or may not position his contribution as largely financial with a bit of fun thrown in - although in many cases it's just the fun bit). So the experience is very different indeed.

I feel like for a lot of stepdads, they live with a mum and her kids, who she looks after and he interacts with. Let's face it, even in many bio families the woman does the lion's share of child-related work, let alone where the man in the house isn't even the children's father. I doubt many mums expect much in the way of practical assistance from stepdads.
@Bibidy spot on & I think this is key as well.
When exdp 'lived' with me it was a massive issue for his exw & dc; he was living with my dc & abandoning his own. While he may have been living with my dc he wasn't parenting them and there's a massive difference.
I did all drop offs & collections, I cooked and cleaned for them. I dealt with them emotionally, physically & financially. I tailored my work around them & if I needed assistance & their dad wasn't available I got childcare. I relied on exdp for nothing regarding them.
Now I would imagine if his dc had been in the frame weekday wise I would have been expected to cater for & to them as I had already organised my working life & the household around my own dc. This would not necessarily have been because exdp was using me; it would have been because he would still have been the one 100% financially responsible for his dc & given the type of work he does a reduction in hours would not have been possible. IF his exw would have worked & contributed to their dc financially then he could have reduced hours to accommodate his dc when with him.
So again, a SD who is with a financially independent woman generally has a way easier time than a SM whose partner is the sole provider for his exw & dc.
If his new partner is a sahm he also has an easier time of it as she will (generally) already getting maintenance from her ex & she will be doing all the house & childcare. However if a sm is a sahm with small dc & her partner is also carrying an EXw, that sm will be in a very precarious financial position.
Also - if the sm is working she often ends up carrying the whole house on every level because her partner is trapped trying to fund his exw.
It's basically crap for women/sms no matter what way it's looked at.

It's basically crap for women/sms no matter what way it's looked at.

I think this is often the case.

Jeez FishyFriday, your husband's attitude is beyond belief, especially given he refuses to return the favour!

@aSofaNearYou

Jeez FishyFriday, your husband's attitude is beyond belief, especially given he refuses to return the favour!

Isn't it just?

Genuinely though, I think that assumption that looking after kids is just women's role in life runs deep.

but on my own I can adequately support and educate 2 children

@Tiredoftattler
This sentence may have an entirely different meaning in your country. In the UK, that would mean funding private education from the nursery through to qualifying as a medical doctor. For each and every one of the children. It would also have implications for the type of house you need to provide so that your children are comfortable inviting friends back home. This would be impossible on a teacher or nurse's salary, for example. You'd be looking at law, finance, medicine, very specialist IT etc to fund this, and probably another income as well.

Some of these accounts. Honestly. Makes my head shake in disbelief.

Like @Magda72 I have the majority of responsibility for my DC. Feeding. School runs, after school care, etc, etc. The buck stopped with me and continued to stop with me. My exh has them overnights 40% of the time but I’m the one where the world of organisation stems from. Going on holiday with their dad? They pack and take stuff from me. Now they’re older they do it themselves, but for years even stuff like that fell to me.

My exp didn’t have to think about any of those logistics around my children. He breezed in and out based on his social/ work stuff. Total navel gazer. All he had to take care of was himself. And when he stayed at mine a lot of the domestic stuff got taken care of.

Then when I got to the weekends and got respite from my DC, my exDP would have his DC and suddenly there was huge pressure for me to be there, spend time with them, etc etc.

I would ask him repeatedly, you have your children 3 nights out of 14. 2 of those three nights are my nights off from my own DC. It’s my only downtime from my own hectic life. You have no responsibility re my DC, and yet somehow you think I want to spend that downtime helping you parent your children? Why would I want to do that?

The blunt reality is that day to day parenting is hard work. When they’re young, it’s boring as hell and exhausting. One of my male friends texted me yesterday after he had picked up his 5 year old. 9pm. I’m exhausted and going to bed he said.

Yes it is exhausting. And boring. I could not fathom why my exp simply couldn’t admit and own that. Grit his teeth and get on with it.
Instead I got a myriad of rhetorics varying from ‘I want us to be a family’ (no you don’t, you just want some help and relief from the tedium of parenting your children), through to ‘other women would do this, what’s wrong with you?’ (You’re welcome to leave this relationship and find that other woman, doors right there). My favourite to this day remains ‘you’re just jealous of my children.’ (No and no. I just don’t particularly enjoy their company and they are not the people I am going to bother giving up valuable child free time myself).

Honestly. In over 4 years at no point did he get any pressure or expectation from me regards my children. No exH / exp pays me any maintenance. And my exp didn’t pay a penny (even when staying at my house).

Yet he simply couldn’t happily parent his children away from me on his own. It was actually what his children needed and wanted given how high conflict their mother was against me especially.

So the differences for me?
I didn’t expect another man to parent or pay for my children. In any way.
My exp? Absolutely did. He will meet another woman and I put money on the fact that she will be child free and very quickly enmeshed with his children. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy.

The lazy is not a comment re the new woman. I feel sorry for her actually as he will expect her world to pivot around HRH when they visit.
The lazy comment is re my exp.

No man needs to help me raise my children. Aside from their dad. That’s the difference.

@SpaceshiptoMars
So is your point that women should have children for whom they cannot afford to provide.

I have 2 children because I can afford a nice home, private school education, travel experiences and pay for college education at the schools of their choice. I can do this comfortably on my own; fortunately, I do not have to do it on my own . However, I limited the number of children that I chose to have to 2 children, because on my own I might not have been able to do the same for more than 2 children.

For me, I was unwilling to have more children than I knew that I could adequately support on my own should that become necessary. My children's father and I share expenses so I have never been forced to reach of exceed my capabilities, but I always felt that I had to be prepared to provide them on my own should the need ever present.

For me, doing it any other way would have been irresponsible, but obviously that is the way that mattered to me. That is not necessarily the way that matters to others, and others are not necessarily irresponsible for planning in a different way or for not planning at all.

Totall with you on that @sassbott, my DP spends time with my kids by way of being in the home, they get on fine because there is literally zero pressure to parent them. Everything always has been done by me.

DP’s son also gets on with doing his thing - very self reliant. Again, a nice relationship. His dd is whole other kettle of fish. She’s nearly 20 and made a song and dance (for example) about taking a cake out of a cake tin and walked last DP & looked to me to help her - sod that for a laugh!

Her behaviour is so awful and me and my kids can’t stand it. So now that we are resolutely living separately I’ve said there is no reason for this adult to be in my home any more.

And now DP is moping about on the issue of ‘what do do about his relationship with his kids’ and I’m like WTF! You’ve a house the same as when we met you can do this stuff separately!! Away from me. In your house like you did before we ever met! Except now that I’m on the scene there’s a distinct feeling from him that we should be ‘doing it together as a family’. I’m like no - just be a parent to your kids!!! Just do it!

Stepmumming can be totally gendered bullshit. There’s no equality. And DP’s dd is completely ‘undifferentiated’ and remains stuck in 8-year old child mode with little prostpect of ever functioning. Everyone tip-toe-ing and scratching their heads. Am baffled that DP ever imagined I would welcome the idea of step-mumming her. No siree bob. Mine is the step mum conundrum writ large.

It not for me.

I have 2 children because I can afford a nice home, private school education, travel experiences and pay for college education at the schools of their choice. I can do this comfortably on my own; fortunately, I do not have to do it on my own.

In the UK, few could afford all that alone before their child bearing years were all but over, so it is effectively the same as saying only the rich should breed. It's a sorry situation that that is the economy, but the fact is if we all waited until we could afford all of that alone we would never be able to have children.

Why would being able to pay to privately educate your children and fund them entirely through higher education be a pre-requisite for 'being able to afford children'? That's just silly.

State education is just fine for kids. And most young adults take loans and have PT jobs if they go to university.

@ZoeCM

Loads of stepfathers prefer not to have their stepchildren around - they just aren't likely to tell their wives that. The only reason so many women on MN claim their husband adores his stepchildren, while making it clear that they view HIS children as an inconvenience, is that this is a women-centred forum. The reality is that when a child is abused or murdered, it's usually by a stepfather/mother's boyfriend. Obviously those are extreme examples, but it's pretty unlikely the world is divided into abusive stepfathers and loving ones. There must be many who fall in the middle of the spectrum.

Yes this.

[quote Tiredoftattler]@SpaceshiptoMars
So is your point that women should have children for whom they cannot afford to provide.

I have 2 children because I can afford a nice home, private school education, travel experiences and pay for college education at the schools of their choice. I can do this comfortably on my own; fortunately, I do not have to do it on my own . However, I limited the number of children that I chose to have to 2 children, because on my own I might not have been able to do the same for more than 2 children.

For me, I was unwilling to have more children than I knew that I could adequately support on my own should that become necessary. My children's father and I share expenses so I have never been forced to reach of exceed my capabilities, but I always felt that I had to be prepared to provide them on my own should the need ever present.

For me, doing it any other way would have been irresponsible, but obviously that is the way that mattered to me. That is not necessarily the way that matters to others, and others are not necessarily irresponsible for planning in a different way or for not planning at all.[/quote]
So is your point that women should have children for whom they cannot afford to provide.

For the majority of women, your specific definition of 'afford' is beyond their wildest dreams. It's first world, top 1%.

So - for me, that would be just aspirational, with a back up plan definitely required. Extended family, child care network, whatever.

Very pleasant if you hit those targets, but remember that most people have to consider that they might not.