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?

@Tiredoftattler I take personal offense to the notion that a SAHMs add more value in terms of child rearing or household management. I was not a SAHM and yet I managed to meet my children's needs and maintain a well managed household. nowhere did I ever denigrate a working mum. However it is OK to say that motherhood, parenting is important and valuable, that is what I’m saying.

I wonder if that is also part of the problem here. We as women make many difficult choices. Often there seems to be a SAHM vs Working Mum. No need really - there is nothing ‘less’ about a working mum and nothing ‘less’ about a SAHM. No one needs to prove that wrap around childcare or whatever is absolutely just as good as a parent in order to respect both sides surely?

@SandyY2K I agree and I think much of the discourse here is showing how we as women usually do shoulder too much of the burden, too much of the guilt, basically too much!

Also just read a bit more of your post @Tiredoftattler where you say that SAHM or a parent being there for their children is never better than a woman working and managing this.

That is not true in all cases, I’m not arguing yours. Many children at different stages of life can cope fine with wraparound care, but some do need more. Also the quality of the care totally depends on earning power.

I did have wrap around care for my oldest when she was very small. I had a hugely demanding job and a very good wage. I was able to provide good childcare and she was settled in school. It also meant that as a single mother I didn’t have to rely on maintenance quite so much. She thrived on after school clubs etc. However it did take it’s toll, as I was the one always taking a day off if she was sick, and even though my employer was very family friendly, I had to do some evenings and weekends. After some time I felt like I was hardly seeing DD and when I was, I was knackered.

So I decided to cut my hours drastically. Best thing I ever did. DD’s wellbeing was important. I’m not saying that any working parent is less at all. But these are tough decisions and the balance is fragile.

Now I’m a SAHM and my child is disabled, without doubt I am the absolute best person to provide care. I’d need to be earning a fortune to replace what I’m doing.

@SandyY2K

I think that another reason that step mothers might feel a bit of resentment is that they are often blamed for their partners poor behaviour.

I think people do wonder "how can you be with a man like him" When it's obvious he's kind of useless.

I do think women (digressing) are blamed from men's behaviour in other areas too.

Example..Meghan Markle is blamed for the strained relationship between William and Harry.

Women are blamed when their serial killer husbands are caught "How could she not know?"

As women, we're held to a higher standard than men, so if you're with a man perceived as a crap dad...you'll get..."How could you...how can you"

You genuinely believe this to be the case?

Issue is it’s an agreement within a couple. One works, on takes on the load of home and children.

When that couple splits, it is generally unreasonable to expect the NRP to continue completely funding the sahm.

I totally agree - the decision for one person to become a SAHP is usually jointly made with agreement from the other parent and based on the funding of only one household and set of bills...not to mention the fact that someone agreeing to financially support their partner is not to say that they want to continue to do the same if that person becomes an ex.

Once a relationship ends, obviously it's unreasonable to expect one person to finance two separate households, children or not. Both parents need to financially support the children AND themselves after a split.

The problem here is that the SAHM is likely to have taken a hit in her career, she will earn less and likely be a lot less skilled than when the initial decision was made and not have the same earning potential as the man.

10 years out of the workforce puts her at a big disadvantage.

I agree that 10 years out of the workforce would put someone at a disadvantage but this is a huge part of the argument isn't it - as you said Sandy, there is no reason why most people (excluding additional needs etc) would need to be fully out of the workforce for 10 years just because they had a child.

I do think SAHMs are undervalued, but I also think being a SAHM when your kids are in school is just laziness.

I wouldn't say laziness but I would say that for most it's a privilege and is based on having a partner who is willing to pay for you (as well as their child) during that time. It's not a right that lasts forever, even after that relationship has ended, but so many seem to act like it is.

I think SMs become resentful of the SC when the Ex refuses to work, even when all kids are in school. The feelings for the Ex, because the Ex annoys their DP and he's stressed about the finances...then transfer to dislike for the kids...because if the kids didn't exist...the Ex wouldn't be an issue and they could have had a clean break settlement.

YES to the above, and even more so where the SM has to work full-time and leave her own children in order to indirectly end up supporting another woman to stay at home.

I do think things are changing quite a bit now though, most of my friends who've had babies are in professional jobs and while they may have reduced their days for now they are retaining their careers and intend to go back FT once their babies are a bit older.

I know it’s different for everyone, but I do think that Step Dad’s get an easier time on the whole. Step Mum’s are stepping on Mum’s toes - and that is a vicious minefield! Especially if there are step daughters.

Mum’s and women are often the social hubs, the home centres, and even if not they are the female top dog in the home which doesn’t always go down too well - it’s like taking over another females territory.

I agree, I think on the whole women are a lot more territorial over their roles as mothers and runners of the household than men are over fatherhood, and that massively impacts the step-parent dynamic.

And that goes for both mothers and stepmums. I think it's hard for mums to contemplate another woman being closely involved with their children, and hard for stepmums to feel like their own household and schedule are being impacted hugely by children that aren't her own.

I think people do wonder "how can you be with a man like him" When it's obvious he's kind of useless.

I actually do think there is some truth in this, lots of people (on here anyway) seem to expect SMs/GFs of people with children to base their own feelings or attitude towards their partner on the way he interacts with his ex and his children with her, rather than how he interacts with the SM/GF. I've always thought that was a bit strange.

I think that the choice to be a SAHM pretty much disappears when you decide to end a relationship. At that point you are doing it in your own, and I do think adults should be financially responsible for themselves. It's no longer about honouring commitments made in the past (where there has been an actual agreement - it's not always a properly bilateral agreement that a woman will be a SAHM).

It is hard if a woman has given up a career to be a SAHM. But you do know that last what's happening when you decide to do it. Financial settlements should reflect that in the split of assets but there does also need to be some acknowledgement that it is a risk to give up your personal earning capacity on the basis of your partner's.

Child maintenance is a different thing. But it's a mess in the UK too, because it's got nothing to do with the actual costs of children. It's a bit like trying to square a circle though. The system is always going to be problematic in some way.

@FishyFriday

I think that the choice to be a SAHM pretty much disappears when you decide to end a relationship. At that point you are doing it in your own, and I do think adults should be financially responsible for themselves. It's no longer about honouring commitments made in the past (where there has been an actual agreement - it's not always a properly bilateral agreement that a woman will be a SAHM).

It is hard if a woman has given up a career to be a SAHM. But you do know that last what's happening when you decide to do it. Financial settlements should reflect that in the split of assets but there does also need to be some acknowledgement that it is a risk to give up your personal earning capacity on the basis of your partner's.

Child maintenance is a different thing. But it's a mess in the UK too, because it's got nothing to do with the actual costs of children. It's a bit like trying to square a circle though. The system is always going to be problematic in some way.

I agree. I think most women who make the decision to be a SAHM are happy to do so because it is their preference, they would rather stay at home with the child than go to work. Nothing wrong with that but equally I think you do need to appreciate that it is done with your partner's backing - once you split, that insurance is no longer there and nor should it be.

I think it's a shame that it only seems to come down to the 'DC's standard of living' when it's in relation to the mother's household - many don't seem to mind their kids trekking off to a bedsit or grandparent's house whenever they're with their dad, as long as they get to stay put in the family home or don't have to work full-time.

Yes child maintenance is a hard one but I guess % of income seems fairest as you just can't take what people don't have to give.

I find the argument that childcare is just not ok for some school age children (obviously not where there are significant disabilities here) really offensive. Lots of women have no choice at all but to use childcare. The idea that it's ok for their children, but others are just too sensitive or whatever and need their mum to stay at home is insulting really.

Being a SAHM is generally a bit of a luxury. When a relationship ends and you find yourself a single parent, it's not reasonable to see paying for you to not work as an extension of 'providing for the needs of the children'. Fair enough if your ex is willing to keep paying for that. But few are really. And I don't know why you'd want to be dependent on your ex.

Tbh, my experience is that DSC's ability to cope with all day away from their mother is determined entirely by whether it suits their mother. She is happy to organise things so she gets whole days of them being at school/nursery (even when it was just one toddler, she still needed a full day of childcare because being a FT SAHM was too much). But if it suits her ex, then it's too much for them. Sadly, this kind of gaming the system plays too well in the english system.

*I do think SAHMs are undervalued, but I also think being a SAHM when your kids are in school is just laziness. I know people won't like to hear that, but when your kids are in school, get out and join the workforce. You gain more respect and it's a good example to your kids. I say that, but in situations where you may have a SN child, then I totally understand a return to work may not be possible.

I always saw both my parents working all my childhood, so the SAHM thing was never in my reckoning. I see little point in me going to university or encouraging my DDs to, just to end up being a SAHM. I raised my children and I worked too. It's not impossible to do both.

I think SMs become resentful of the SC when the Ex refuses to work, even when all kids are in school. The feelings for the Ex, because the Ex annoys their DP and he's stressed about the finances...then transfer to dislike for the kids...because if the kids didn't exist...the Ex wouldn't be an issue and they could have had a clean break settlement.

Women staying at home preschool is understandable, but I personally don't understand why as a woman, you would want to be fully financially dependent on a man...and I'm not talking about CS.*

@SandyY2K I think you are so spot on with all of this. I'm not sure sms necessarily transfer dislike to the scs though, but I do think it can be hard to separate the scs from their dm especially if the sc's behaviour & attitude to money begins to mimic that of their dm.
I think it is completely archaic thinking for a woman to assume she is entitled to stay at home once dc reach later primary years & most definitely secondary years.

@FishyFriday where there has been an actual agreement - it's not always a properly bilateral agreement that a woman will be a SAHM

I have approx a dozen male friends who have openly confessed to me that pre starting a family, they had spoken with the wives re continuing to work post children. Maybe reduced hours/ the husband themselves actively participating in childcare etc. Wives agree. Baby arrives (no SN’s/ disabilities). Their wives made the decision unilaterally to resign and refused to return to work stating that they were becoming SAHM’s.

For some of my friends this was the start of a downhill slope to divorce, huge breach of trust that they never recovered from (although all are now paying spousal maintenance). Others have bitten the bullet and stepped up to replace the income gap loss - but with huge amounts of resentment and stress. And they are very vocal about how much the expectations from aforementioned wife is breaking them.

All of the men asked. What could I have done? And the truth is they couldn’t do anything.

@sassbott I also have several male friends who have had this happen to them.
My own DH’s ex gf decided to quit her job completely a few years ago, 8 years after they split and DH was already living with me. SD was 9 at the time.
She hasn’t worked at all for the last 3 years and expects my DH and I to fund her being a SAHM. It’s bizarre as I have my own DD who is a year younger than SD and I work full time but she claims it’s too much for her to have any job at all?!

She also thinks we should up CMS as I’m a high earner and she has no job. Erm no, it doesn’t work like that love!

Stout01

You genuinely believe this to be the case?

What part are you referring to? You copied my entire post with a number of different points.

@Bidiby

I agree that 10 years out of the workforce would put someone at a disadvantage but this is a huge part of the argument isn't it - as you said Sandy, there is no reason why most people (excluding additional needs etc) would need to be fully out of the workforce for 10 years just because they had a child.

No reason I agree, except that some men actually want their wives to be a SAHM.
If indeed they were persuaded to be a SAHM or have become a trailing spouse because of his career, then I'd say, he should pay spousal support for a certain amount of time.

I actually do think there is some truth in this, lots of people (on here anyway) seem to expect SMs/GFs of people with children to base their own feelings or attitude towards their partner on the way he interacts with his ex and his children with her, rather than how he interacts with the SM/GF. I've always thought that was a bit strange.

People can act differently in different relationships, but I think what happens here, is that if a man is objectively not a good dad to his older kids, sees them say 24 days a year/once a month for example and doesn't pay CS or pays a pittance... People think that if he's like that with his other kids, he'll be the same with yours one day. Or they wonder why you'd want to be with a man who doesn't seem to care much about his kids.

@Magda52

SandyY2KI think you are so spot on with all of this. I'm not sure sms necessarily transfer dislike to the scs though, but I do think it can be hard to separate the scs from their dm especially if the sc's behaviour & attitude to money begins to mimic that of their dm.

The separation of the two can be difficult for many people and the SC is seen as a mini version of their DM, especially if it's a girl.

On the issue of SMs being blamed/judged for men's bad parenting, there is a thread in AIBU where the majority of posters are saying they judge women who are with men who don't see their children. Admittedly I would not want to be with a man who didn't bother with his children but there is a huge amount of vitriol for women on the thread, as if it's women's responsibility to ensure that men pay for their children.

@KylieKoKo

On the issue of SMs being blamed/judged for men's bad parenting, there is a thread in AIBU where the majority of posters are saying they judge women who are with men who don't see their children. Admittedly I would not want to be with a man who didn't bother with his children but there is a huge amount of vitriol for women on the thread, as if it's women's responsibility to ensure that men pay for their children.

Yes agree, plus the expectation of woman-to-woman solidarity from new gf back to ex, but not the other way round.

One part of being a SAHM is being a hands on parent though, which I do feel is devalued and much to the detriment of women. They are looked down on and labelled lazy. The other option is working but most of the time, still the ones running around organizing childcare, taking calls from locked out ‘forgot the key again’ teenagers, kids off sick etc.

I juggled all of that for years, single parent, job, main resident carer. I decided to work part-time instead otherwise I was going to crack up, and also just be around for my child most days picking up from school. He was struggling, ADHD and not learning to read, so I could chat with the teachers, go through the ladybird books etc.

This isn’t to in any way devalue working mums and childcare - it works for many and it did for me, especially when I was living with DP.

However I wonder if one of the reasons SMs have a worst time than SDs, is that we do tend to sabotage each other as women sometimes - working SM vs SAHM for example. Which I admit I did a bit, (but his Ex really was lazy!... sorry half a joke!)

expectation of woman-to-woman solidarity from new gf back to ex, but not the other way round. this I do get. SMs are always, always supposed to be humble and put themselves second. But portrayed as selfish ‘first’ people. I looked after my SDs whilst their Mum was supposed to have them really - and of course DP said yes, or forgot and there they were. I really did feel Iike their mum should be a bit appreciative that I was looking after her kids (after all she wasn’t working, but DP was and paying maintenance... ) I still to this day feel a bit resentful that I wasn’t acknowledged for basically being parent number 3 - and stopped it after a while.

On the issue of SMs being blamed/judged for men's bad parenting, there is a thread in AIBU where the majority of posters are saying they judge women who are with men who don't see their children.

Tbh, I think in life generally, people are judged for the company they keep and their partners. It's not specific to stepparents.

People are judged by association, because the belief is that if you disagreed with whatever their actions/behaviour, you wouldn't associate with them, much less be in a relationship with them.

@SandyY2K I think it's a gendered issue. In my experience women are judged far more harshly and are blamed for men's behaviour in a lot of ways, not just in step-mother situations.

But in the context of this thread what we've found is examples of bad behaviour causing issues in a step parent dynamic.

It seems to be a territorial thing and also what I've witnessed first hand. The matriachy figure needing to have their way and if not all hell breaks loose.

Someone mentioned Megan Markle up thread. Suggesting that she had no bearing on the strained relationship Harry has with some of his family. Really? You invite someone to a wedding that you don't know and then years later appear on a TV interview with them and its in no way contrived? Even the bbc calling her out as full of BS.

In the context of this thread it appears that some aren't even prepared to acknowledge this.

Thats not to excuse bad Fatherly behaviour or lazy Fatherly behaviour as I've mentioned.

Another example of ridiculous expectations on women when it comes to step parenting is the current thread where some posters think the step mothers mother should be looking after the step children while she's recovering from giving birth. Despite the fact that her mother has never met them ....

@Stout01 in fairness you're bordering on a lot of sexism there in your last post.
We can all argue & discuss whether women are more territorial than men but which or whether the majority of issues that exist in the blended situations we see on here are as much caused by men having NO ability to take charge of themselves, their relationships with their exes/dc & their new relationships, as they are caused by women appearing 'territorial'!

And honestly, why Meghan again?
I can't see how one woman should become the scapegoat for an entire dysfunctional family?
Oh I forgot - she's a woman who doesn't play by the rules ergo she must be nasty and conniving!
Maybe she is, maybe she isn't, but which or whether she's no more or less 'conniving' than the rest of them who also use the media to gain advantage.

Don't you know @Magda72, Megan Markle is to blame for everything.