Mothers, fathers, children and the family heirarchy

[Ormirian]

Thread obliquely about a thread. Sorry.

But as I read more I got and then and finally downright .

I have always thought that having children was a joint project. Both parents have as much invested in the child, both care equally about the outcome. I always beleived that was a given. With good decent men anyway.

When children are small they come first. Always. Simple logistics demand it for a start. The parents gets what is left over in terms of energy, time and affection. In a solid relationship with similar attitudes that is absolutely fine because it's temporary and for a worthwhile goal.

I have heard about fathers being jealous when a new baby arrives. I can understand that I guess - mother's do tend to get wrapped up in newborns, exhausted and emotionally drained. However I always assumed that jealousy of a baby (who also happens to be their child) is something that would be regarded with embarrassment and shame. Something a man would fight against and certainly not mention seriously to his partner. If he was jealous of his own child he'd do his damndest to sort it out himself and not parade his ego in front of his partner and demand she massage it for him!

Have I been suckered by the myth of the New Man? Do most men really feel as if their infant children are 'in the way' and taking up too much of their partner's time? How can you be jealous of the affection your partner shows to your child and the time and energy she gives them? And what happened to supporting your wife/gf in what is a hard time for her too? When she needs your support and love? When she doesn't need more demands?

BTW when I say 'children come first' I don't mean that every waking hour has to be spent gazing in rapt adoration at the infant. I mean that if the baby needs feeding, changing, bathing, entertaining, that comes first even if it is inconvenient. And most things in the parents' lives revolve around that. You don't leavea baby screaming in a cot whilst DP gets his Sunday morning BJ and if a child is sick one parent might well sleep in his/her bed with him or the child comes into the parent's bed without daddy getting into a strop. BOTH PARENTS have one end in mind - the welfare and happiness of the child - the rest is secondary - for the first few years.

It does rely on the man looking after the relationship too! Communication is the key.

Completely agree with your last post Ormirian.

totally agree with exotic saying being devoted to your kids isnt a virtue.

I think you can make time for each other. Is it really the end of the world if the washing up doesnt get done tonight, you dont go down the shops or the place isnt really tidy? I dont think it is so I would spend my evenings relaxing with my husband instead.

I also agree with the posts saying some women treat the husband like hes incapable. My husband was home for 4 months when our DD was born whilst I was at uni so he was used to looking after her from day 1 on his own. I dont understand mums who say oh he wouldt do it like me, he doesnt know how to change nappies/do feeds etc so I cant go out.

'I am devoted to my DCs' makes me cringe, of course we all, are but you are not the only person who can care for them. It takes a village to raise a DC and it is good for them to make their own relationships at a very early age.

A lot of women have to be in control, as if they are the baby expert and have to show DH how it is done, instead of learning together. If he doesn't do it 'the right way' he is labelled 'incapable'. I agree that a lot of men may be jealous, but a lot of women make him a third DC by having to 'be in charge' and are quite pleased to be the only one to settle the baby etc-instead of going out and leaving him to sort it and learn for himself.

For a short time DCs come first-you are not free to do what you want to do, when you want to do it-but it goes very quickly. You and DP are the ones there for the long term.
As ilovedora says,the washing etc isn't important-remembering why you are together is central-or you are left with nothing once the DCs have gone.

exotic - do you think the culture of women having to be in control comes from centuries of men refusing to contribute to this arena? I see it as a form of women taking ownership of their responsiblities by saying if we have to do it we'll do it well and make it exclusively our domain.

Like you I see it as counterproductive to what we really want - which is men and women both taking an active role - but I think women pushing men out of the childcare arena is a response to having it all dumped on them for centuries, rather than a resistance to modern men becoming involved. It will take time to change.

I absolutely agree with Sunshine

About everythng, it seems.

I expect that you are right sunshine but you won't have equality until you delegate. You have to be able to leave DH to find their clothes and close your eyes to the fact he is taking them out in an odd combination! Or not mind that he isn't plaiting DD's hair neatly or that gives them a knife to chop onions for him etc etc.

I think it's one of the greatest tricks of the Patriarchy.

Make women feel responsible for childcare and housework and to make them feel guilty for not working and guilty for working.

The threads I've read about he doesn't do it right, or he's not allowed in the kitchen or he's not hanging out the washing he'd do it wrong fill me with disbelief.

I DO think 'oh you're so much better at this than me, you do it" is an evil trick of the patriarchy. ANd women who buy into that and don't let their husbands near - well it's such a shame for all of them. One male friend confided to DH "I feel like I haven't had a baby so much as lost my wife" -and he wasn't jealous or making it up - this lady wouldn't leave the baby with her H even for an hour to go to the shops...

D'you know, I wonder if the whole 'mum's the expert, don't let dad mess it up' thing happens with more mat leave? Not that I"d say a word against mat. leave, I wish I'd had more - but the fact that it's MAT leave, not 'family' leave?

Because I live in the USA, I was back at work (part time, but still NOT THERE) when DS was 6 weeks old. And DH was, and still is, the one who drives him to the nursery. Even though he's EBF and I had to lug bottles, etc, to work, DH was in charge of everything to do with getting DS to nursery - that means making up his bottles, his food, now - putting spare clothes in the bag, making sure they have adequate nappies, wipes, suncream etc there. I'm very sad about how soon I had to go back to work, but I didn't have a year, or six months, to become the preferred/expert in things. Apart from BFing, there was nothing I did for DS that his dad couldn't do, too.

I was very deliberate about making some things DH's speciality. DH does the bath and has lots of fun there, and last story of the night and tucks DS into bed, because I BF so get lots of snuggly time with the baby, but DH wanted, and therefore created, a special moment too....

I am very aware that I have an outlier of a husband - a man who longed for children and loves (almost!) every moment with our baby - but the fact that he does all the things he does ( and is primary carer during the summer holidays, as he's a teacher) means that looking after a baby is something either parent can do.

arg, missed last line of post

It's something either parent can do, but you have to WORK on it, both in advance and day to day, to prevent yourself becoming the default carer. And I don't know if it can be done without your partner on side.

It probably helps that my H was raised by his dad, so he doesn't think "this isn't something I can do" - rather, he thinks "this is what a Dad does."

I dont think its rare to find a man who longs for children and loves almost every minute with their child for a minute. I know lots of broody and family men tbh.

blackcurrants - absolutely agree that lots of this phenomenon is down to the fact that there is no sensible period of paternity leave.

The other side of the 'can't do it right'/incapable thing is that there sometimes IS a 'better' way to do things though.

If I started a new job, and someone else had been in sole charge of one task or set of tasks, and had a way of doing them all really smoothly - I wouldn't come in and take offence if they tried to help me by sharing what worked for them.

Which is different to both parents learning to parent from new. And yes, over time in a new job I might find that actually doing xyz works better for me than doing abc, but I wouldn't assume I knew it all from the start if I had no/far less experience.

You're right about that, ana - sometimes I did know better due to having figured out what worked. And the clever thing to do was not jump in that very moment with "NO! do it LIKE THIS!" (am not usually tactful) but to mention, in passing, later, "hey, something that worked well for me yesterday was..."

it IS annoying that you have to protect the ego with tact, but then, it's the same for me. DH has often been the one who knows something cool that I needed to learn, and I hate being told "Don't do it that way, he doesn't like it. He likes this way better" because it makes me feel like a fool and a bad parent.

Because of breastfeeding, when DS was very little I always had a magic way to stop him crying. DH didn't have that and so had to learn other things to do the same job - which meant that DH could swaddle, shush, sway and sing better than I ever could in the first four months.

But regardless of there being a 'better' way of doing things, unless a child is at risk of injury why does it matter if someone does it a different way? There are always more than 1 way to skin a cat - or change a nappy. For all the new ways that are slower or less efficient, there will be one or two that are better.

But maybe it does matter to the child? Or to the household running smoothly? If it's difficult for (taking a standard house situation JUST as an example) a mum who's returned to work after mat leave to get out to work because her partner who's now staying home 2 days a week won't take her advice based on her experience then it does matter to that family and to her directly.

Would he refuse to listen to more experienced workmates? Or a sports coach if he wanted to learn a new skill? Why will a grown man (or sometimes woman) then allow him/her self to ACT on feeling hurt and pushed out because their partner has more experience in this area? How do we deal with that issue rather than once again blaming women in general for it? (I totally agree about the parental leave thing, but don't think it's a magic solution)

dunno exotic... you're children are your children for life.. and for many women it will be the closest bond they ever have with another human being. All this stuff about women suffocating their children... well I've realized it all comes from male psychologists who have had a vested interest in severing the mother-child bond... because severing that serves patriarchy in a lot of ways.

So I think heterosexual pair-bonding and putting all this effort into working on the relationship is a waste of time... You might grow apart anyway, or one of you might meet someone else... and then you would have put years of energy into a man when you could have been having a blast with your kids or friends instead.

Kids leave, that's inevitable yes... but as long as a mother has other things in her life, such as fulfilling work, good friendships, then she won't suffer from empty nest syndrome...

Nothing wrong with putting most of your eggs in the "partnership" basket, but it shouldn't be frowned upon if a woman decides that her children are the No 1 priority in her life.

I also think to myself.. there is no way women should give up the control they have over children until men start to throw us some crumbs first.

And quite frankly they haven't thrown us anything in the grand scheme of things.
If women are invested in getting men to share their children 50/50 then they might be in for a shock when they realize that society already thinks all fathers are heroes, even the ones who do fuck all, and all mothers are found wanting even if they're saints.

Women are going to hand over their children without any obvious returns ... men are still going to hold all the economic and political power in their hands, except they get the fun parts of being with the children too. It's win-win for men, and lose-lose for women as far as I can see.

Men would absolutely love to still have the sheer amount of military, economic, social and political power that they have plus the power to take away women's children when it comes to divorce because they "helped out"

I also think it's rubbish to say, " well give up the children, then we'll give you some power.. you have to give if you want something from us.."

because it's women who are disenfranchised and subordinate and so the only way that position is going to change is if we demand our birthrights back... control over society, how it is run, the budget, our sons (the military) etc...

We're not going to bargain with our kids, sorry, not after everything men have done to us over the millenia and are still doing today.. killing their wives and kids left right and centre, wars, porn ,trafficking etc. Men are really the worst oppressors imaginable.

Women should retain full power over the kids THEY carried and gave birth to... that's the least men can do... if they try to make "deals" with women over their kids or pull these Fathers4 justice stunts then it proves they're not serious about women

But children are people, sakura, not just objects over which someone or other has power.

Children love having close relationships with their fathers, and every mother I have ever known has wanted their partner to take a proper role in looking after their children, including of course the shittier bits.

dunno exotic... you're children are your children for life.. and for many women it will be the closest bond they ever have with another human being

Of course they are your children for life but they will form closer bonds than you.They will have their own family and they will be be more important .Problems with MIL come when she tries to insist she comes first.

The thing that I want my DCs to have above all other is freedom and I don't want them thinking they couldn't move to Canada because I would be upset. (I would be upset but I wouldn't burden them with it).

The best you can do for them is live a wide, fullfilling life of your own and not make them dependent for your happiness.

I also think to myself.. there is no way women should give up the control they have over children until men start to throw us some crumbs first

The one thing that you should understand is that there is only one person in the world that you can control and that is yourself. Your DCs are people in their own right, yours for a short time. If you do the job of parenting well they will always want to see you.

Mine will always be 'my babies' and the bond couldn't be closer but they will have stronger bonds with DPs and their own DCs-they will and should come first. They have just such a strong bond with their father. There is room in life for lots of love, loving one doesn't take away from another.

I wouldn't have had DCs with someone who was 'going to throw me crumbs'(whatever that means) we are equal partners-the DCs are expressions of that love-the relationship was there before them and will remain long after they have gone from the central position i.e. out of the home.

What does 'Women should retain full power over the kids' mean?

I firmly beleive that it's the fact that woman have the power to create new people that the patriarchy treat us with such suspicion over the millenia. Hmmm...how to deal with them:

1. Turn wise women and healers into witches and our religions into satanism. Make men the keepers of health care and medecine even though they might know nothing about it. And turn their ancient goddesses into hideous monsters of sin and vice, wicked temptresses like Eve or milk and water asexuals such as the Virgin Mary.

1. Tell everyone that women are lust-ridden sex beasts who are little better than animals and who need 'churching' after their babies are born to make them fit company for decent men again.

1. Allow women to take part in respectable society if they become good wives and mothers and don't get uppity. And allow their husbands full and unfettered access to their bodies for any purpose.

1. Pretend that nice women are weak and feeble and need a man to keep them on the straight and narrow safe.

1. Make them the 'Keeper of the Home and Hearth' and pretend to respect them in that role (even whilst trying to get out of the place as much as possible).

1. Permit women to build careers and have a life outside the home but only as long as they have no pretensions to motherhood as well. After all we can't multitask can we?

All in all I think it would be easier if we outsourced the making of babies So much anger and fear it seems to have caused for no conceivable reason (pun intended). Once all the fuss has died down (in a few thousand years) and men have stopped resenting women and women have forgiven them I do think that life would be easier if we were like the society if Woman on the Edge of Time where men and women can be equal co-mothers and either can breastfeed and there are no more nuclear families. Time to put the ball away and find a new game to play.

What does 'Women should retain full power over the kids' mean?

It means the problem MIL on here- who insist on almost being in the delivery room with DIL, who expect a key, will read post and rearrange drawers etc etc Read any MIL thread and you will find the problem with the woman who thinks she must retain her closest bond.