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?

[sakura]

I suppose the ideal would be for your children to know you're always there if they need you, and there's always a bed for them in your home, but they are under no obligation or duty to look after your emotional needs.. because (as they will tell you) they didn't choose to be born

[exoticfruits]

The term 'devoted mother' just makes me cringe. Maybe people are not using it in the same way as me, but to me it seems smothering and the mother expecting a lot back -as in -'you owe me-I am devoted'. It think this is probably just the first thing that comes to mind-I can't stop it. It also makes me cringe when people say 'I want a baby to love me'-it is projecting far too much onto the DC.
My mother and I have a strong bond, if you were to ask us how much we love each other we would both get emotional and cry! I know she is always there for me-whatever-BUT I like her having her own life-I would hate her to be 'devoted'. My love for her is unconditional and my love for my DH is conditional, but if she was to force a choice it would be DH (not that she would).
You have summed up my thoughts sakura. My DCs know that I am always here if they need me. There is absolutely nothing they could do (even if I hated it) that means that I wouldn't be here, but they are not responsible for me-and my emotional needs are not their responsibility. I have already told them that they are not to feel responsible for me when I am old. They have no duty to me, I gave birth because I wanted to, I brought them up my way and loved every minute-they do not 'owe me'.
Luckily they keep in touch, have fun when we get together and keep coming back. The best thing for them is that I have a full life, their father is central in it and since we could have another 40yrs with the empty nest it is just as well! DCs seem for ever when they are small but it is over in the blinking of an eye almost-looking back! Of course they come first at the time-but you also have to make room and work on the relationship with the father-or you will find it difficult to let go of your DCs.

[Ormirian]

"it's her partner who is at fault for being a selfish idiot"
Yep. 100%.

exotic - I take your point about mother's needing to disengage gradually as the children grow up. I think that is a given. But IME the women who fail to do that aren't neccessarily the ones with weak marriages but the ones who have NO LIFE outside the family. Any woman that lives through any other human being be it offspring or partner is heading for a fall and will probably make others miserable along the way.

And an obsession with the 'primary relationship' makes me antsy too...... no-one person can fulfill all your needs. Look how many 'good' marriages founder to universal shock - 'but it was such a strong marriage'. I think it's just as dangerous to devote yourself to any man as it is to children. And I speak from the fortunate position of a stable marriage (so far).

[Ormirian]

sakura- what you said. That is how my parents and I are now. It took mum years to get there after I left home mind you - why? Because she had nothing outside her family and she had a good marriage.

[Ormirian]

"I was getting at the idea that the heterosexual bond is in no way as important as the mother-child bond no matter how hard the patriarchy tries to change that"

Yes. Sorry but that is how I feel too. The patriarchy want lots of nice little economically useful man-dominated nuclear families.

[HerBeX]

i can understand why the term devoted mother makes you cringe, but don't you think that that's the result of the negative connotations with which patriarchy has invested it? A mother who is not devoted to the welfare of her children, is vilified, a mother who is, is mocked

[exoticfruits]

No I don't HerBex. I would take it as a given that both parents are devoted to the welfare of their DCs, and I find it a bit offensive to think that my mother's love should be stronger than my father's love for me.
I am not vilifying a mother-I just can't stand the term 'devoted' and I hate the way some women are so possessive and it is all my baby and they think they can control not only what they do but what they think. Whereas they have given birth to a unique human being and they have the gift of nurturing them to an adult-all the time knowing they are 'on loan' and the parent's job is gradually to let go and make them fully independent.
It much better for the security of the baby to know that it has 2 parents who love each other and love them, than a mother who is living through them, won't let them stay with granny, st

[exoticfruits]

Posted too early and now lost another chunk!
I was trying to say that the DC is part of an extended family and community. I don't understand why there would be a heirarchy in the family, I don't have one-neither did my parents or grandparents. Even my grandmother would have laughed at the idea of 'the patriarchy', she was a strong woman. I think it is a shame all men seemed to get labelled-regardless of what they are like.

[exoticfruits]

I have 3 DCs. They are all male- it seems unfair that they are labelled 'the patriarchy', just by accident of birth-regardless of actions and views.

[sunshineandbooks]

I would take it as a given that both parents are devoted to the welfare of their DCs

Well I don't take it as a given. I know plenty of fathers who are equally as 'devoted' their DC as the mother, but for each man like this I know plenty more who are not. You have to assess each father on an individual basis in RL terms, but if we're talking about gender patterns then men as a group don't seem to care as much about their children as mothers.

You only have to take a look at parental contact and maintenance arrangements following relationship breakdown to see that once the parents' relationship has broken down, the non-resident parent (male in all bar 8% of cases) does not put in the same degree of investment as the mother. 60% don't pay maintenance, and as far as I'm concerned a parent who chooses not to pay maintenance is a parent who is incapable of putting a child's basic needs first.

Take a look on the lone parents sections and you'll see that there are loads of NRPs who are completely inconsistent and unreliable with contact, often letting the children down and messing the other parent around. While I would never deny that there are parents who do use their children as pawns to 'punish' the NRP for whatever, I fervently believe these are in a minority and they myth of the mother blocking contact is just that - a myth, deliberately perpetuated by the patriarchy.

More often than not, when an NRP claims the other parent is blocking contact what they mean is flexible contact on their terms to pick and choose and drop at a moment's notice as it suits them. When the resident parent gets fed up with being messed about and seeing the disappointment on the DC's faces at yet another cancellation or no show, they try to enforce a fixed contact schedule only to be then told they are unco-operative, inflexible and blocking contact.

Interestingly, in gender reversal cases, it seems that male lone parents experience just the same issues as female ones, which suggests that it is nothing to do with biology and everything to do with cultural norms. In this society it is seen as acceptable for a man to invest less in his DC or to walk away from them completely. Good men, of course, don't do this but there aren't enough to go round.

[sakura]

I find it a bit offensive to think that my mother's love should be stronger than my father's love for me.


I don't take it as a given either. It is overwhelmingly men who sexually and physically abuse their children, which is shocking in itself, but when you couple it with how little time men-as-a-group spend with children compared to women-as-a-group... then it becomes a real shocker.

IT's as though the small amount of time men do spend with kids is not spent nurturing them. Quite the opposite..

Now, of course there is male exceptionism .. i.e my son/brother/father/partner wouldn't do that... but when you look at male aggregate behaviour, it's not good.

[sakura]

I really can't get over the fact that nobody ever points out how little men have to do with their kids, compared to women.

[sakura]

exotic
our sons will benefit from universal male privilege and our daughters will be destroyed by it (unless they're lucky or unless the revolution happens in our generation!).. there is not a man alive who doesn't benefit from male privilege.

[Ormirian]

The patriarchy isn't just MEN! It's the status quo that favours one gender over the other, propped up by men (and women) who don't question things and help to reinforce the old patterns. If our sons are brought up to see how appallingly unfair and anti-women the patriarchy is they don't have to be part of it. Neither do our daughters for that matter.

Your granny certainly wouldn't recognise the patriarchy - it was just the status quo, accepted and unquestioned.

[sakura]

hmmm.. I'm afraid I disagree there. WOmen aren't the patriarchy... although a lot of them do what they have to in order to survive, and if that means becoming a handmaiden then they do so because it serves men's needs. Men have always allowed a few male-identified token women into certain professions in order to uphold the status quo... it is hardly women's fault if they decide to play by men's rules if it means they can be economically independant, for example

Men are pulling the strings... men have powers- political and economic powers-- that women don't even know about

[sakura]

THe biggest shocker for me was realizing how much power men have compared to women, and how ignorant women are of this disparity.. Don't worry, I'm not calling you ignorant!! I mean we're kept ignorant of it, all of us women.... except sometimes you get a glimpse of it...
Last year I travelled through China the very weekend they were holding the EXPO... it was men, all men. men from England, Germany, America, China everywhere.. all men... there was the odd female secretary, translator or waitress but that was it. Men were making huge decisions about development, business and international trade. Women were nowhere to be seen

[sunshineandbooks]

Thanks for no one pointing out that where I said "male in all bar 8% of cases" should have actually read "female in all bar 8% of cases"

[HerBeX]

I think you have got a bit of a hang up on the "devoted" word, exotic. Yes it's got Virgin Mary and 1950s overtones so it's cringemaking, but it's just a word.

And I agree with everyone else, if you are going to claim that men and women are equally devoted to putting their children's needs first, then you need to provide the evidence. There is too much good evidence out there that says they simply don't. Women tie themselves up in knots about whether they are harming their kids by not breastfeeding, co-sleeping, BLW, blah di blah - men just don't, it astonishes them (even fathers) to find that women get angry with each other on websites about these issues. They just can't see what the big deal is about. Becuase the big deal is about our children, which they just don't see as being quite so important. What does it matter if he's breast or formula fed? Who cares if he cries for half an hour? He's just 2, why do his little concerns need to bother the adults?

I think you've to some degree bought into patriarchal myths that say that women being absorbed in their children while they are children is a Bad Thing. Which is why you keep on implying that those absorbed (ie Normal) mothers, are destined to turn into Ivy Tilsley-type MILs from hell.

[sakura]

Rewarding work and friends are what you invest in, not a man

[exoticfruits]

Your granny certainly wouldn't recognise the patriarchy - it was just the status quo, accepted and unquestioned.

What is wrong about all this is the fact that you can make sweeping statements about my granny, without knowing her- or a thing about her!

I wonder why some women want a man, other than as a sperm donor, and the DCs will be poorer for it- with just a mother.

Mothers being absorbed by their DCs is a good thing, but women being totally absorbed to the exclusion of all else ,in a possessive way, is not-especially for the DC (or not past babyhood anyway).

Absorbed is fine as a baby, at the stage the baby doesn't know it is a separate being, but it gradually becomes a millstone if the mother doesn't ease off, give benign neglect, let the DC experience the wider community, be given responsibility and independence, be set free from being responsible for mother's emotional state. They don't come in the world 'to love me'-they come in with a right to be loved'.

Parents need to move on. What is good parenting is very different- from a 2 month old, a 5 yr old, a 10 yr old, a 15yr old, a 22 yr old etc. The mother will be the most important at 2 months, by 5 yrs the father may be far more tuned in.

There shouldn't be a heirarchy, there should be a set of people living together in a loving unit with no talk of my.

I hadn't realised that I need to add feminist to my list of threads to keep off. Parenthood isn't a competition-it is a joint, equal enterprise.

[Ormirian]

" Parenthood isn't a competition-it is a joint, equal enterprise."

Which is what the thread was about in the first place. Glad you agree with me

sakura - I am a tool of the patriarchy. So are most women I know. Not deliberately though. When I catch myself worrrying a little bit more about what my DD looks like when she leaves the house than about my son. When I find myself asking DD to help with some tedious chore because she's near at hand and will do it without nagging . When I don't always challenge sexist comments and 'jokes'. When I don't pull DH up on the way he treats the children differently in certain areas. I agree that those aren't major in the grand scheme of things but they contribute.

[Ormirian]

I apologise for making assumption about your granny exotic. What I meant was that for women of my gp's generation at least (born round the turn of the century that is) the patriarchy wasn't an issue. You just did what had to be done without too much questioning. My granny (both of them actually) were pretty determined women too - they needed to be - but if you'd asked them what they thought about men and the way they had all the power I think they'd have told you not to be so ridiculous and get back to your drawing/embroidery/cooking etc.

[sakura]

well... I'm a tool of the patriarchy as well ORm... judging by my previous comment about marriage being the pillar that props the whole thing up... and me being married!!!

But it's not deliberate on anyone's part, I don't think (well you do get some extreme versions like those nuns at the Magdalene laundries... they did their handmaiden work very well indeed)... but even in those cases it's often women taking out their oppression on other, weaker girls because they can't take it out on the oppressors!

[TheAtomicBum]

Sorry for jumping in, I just accidently came across this thread. Just want to say: . Are some men really like this? Actually parading and making a point of showing this jealousy toward their own babies?

Maybe I am a bit naive in thinking that people had evolved just that a little bit.

When my DP had our first, yes it was difficult. Our relationship changed, our own needs had to be put down the list a bit, and sleep was not as abundent as we were accustomed.

But jealous of their own children? The closest I felt to this "jealousy" was feeling a little left out for a day or two, but found this was easily solved by joining in more. Taking over more baby care actually made me more involved.

Why doesn't this happen? Why are these people still behaving like this? Is this part of the reason for the current divorce rate now that you don't have to put up with sort of crap? I feel ashamed for my race at this behaviour.