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?

"Of course it should all be discussed in PSHE but discussed, not told that all men are shits and how to avoid them."

Where has anyone suggested that that's a sensible approach? Point to it on this thread. You can't, because no-one has said that. Why do you feel the need to set up Aunt Sally's?

"Women have free choice. The woman is bringing up a DC from birth-they should be the one changing the cycle-even if they have the 'wrong' partner."

That is an extraordinary assertion. Men have free choice too. They too can choose not to be abusive or to continue the cycle, or to be the wrong partner. Why are you so anxious to absolve men of any responsibility whatsoever, for child rearing, while at the same time saying that the only right way of having children, is to have them with a man with whom you live? What is that about?

sunshine - yes. Changing men's behaviour is the most important thing, although the easiest way to do that is for women to stop putting up with crapness/horribleness, so it all becomes a bit circular.

I wonder if 'good' men should also be a bit more explicit about what they see as decent behaviour - I get the impression (perhaps wrongly?) that even nice men tend to be quite forgiving of other men's limited parenting commitment/lack of consideration to their partners.

The culture aspect is also very relevant as there are clearly masses of people who are terrified of not being in a relationship so put up with lots of shit. This really does need to change.

Feminism would be a lot simpler if all men were shits.

But how can you expect women to stop putting up with crapness when society and the law is loaded against them? It wouldn't be so bad if the legal framework was in place to foster a cultural shift about attitudes. But it's not.

If a woman throws out her partner for DV, the police can do very little to prevent him coming back and continually making a nuisance of himself.

Courts tell women all the time that the man's right to see his children trumps her right to live a life free from harassment. It's all dressed up as being in the children's best interests but how can it possibly be in the children's best interests for them to see their mother abused and harassed by their father?

If a woman talks about how pissed off she is about her partners refusal to do his fair share around the house, so much so that she's thinking of leaving him, she if usually told not to over-react and that to break up a marriage because of housework is ridiculous. I see that played out on MN time and time again, let alone in real life.

I agree that the best people to bring about this change is parents. Good, non-sexist parents will do it anyway. But for those children born in less than ideal relationships, don't we have a responsibility as a society to try to teach them the skills they are not getting at home? And shouldn't the law be encouraging good behaviour by cracking down on bad behaviour?

I always fail to understand in these arguments why the woman's behaviour and reaction to bad behaviour on the part of a man is held up for scrutiny. Why should the onus be on the woman to spot and police the "red flags", get out of a bad relationship etc when it is the man behaving badly. Why is the onus not on the man to stop behaving like an abusive prick? Why is their behaviour not tackled properly from parents to school to the police? Why is the man not removed from the relationship?

Messages are sent out everywhere via media, peers, police, courts etc that it is the woman's job to please the man and a man's bad behaviour is excusable so it is up to women to gatekeep. This is a hard myth to break.

Spotting red flags, recognising abusive behaviour early on is a useful tool, unfortunately not one that many have (despite the assertion by many women that it wouldn't happen to them). If it were that simple, why do women find themselves in these relationships?

Exotic - you mentioned confidence. I agree, a confident woman is less likely to end up in an abusive relationship. But confidence is fluid, it isn't constant. Things happen to us in life which knock our confidence, which leave us vulnerable. Can you really not see that? You probably have confidence because you have a good relationship, lovely children, had a great childhood etc. Some people aren't blessed with having being brought up with self-worth and even if they are that can be eroded by things that happen to them e.g. unemployment, being attacked, bullying at school, being receptive to the mass of misogynist messages out there etc.

The problem of tackling abusive behaviour lies with the perpetrator not the victim.

God I am a slow typist - x-post with a number there!

"If a woman talks about how pissed off she is about her partners refusal to do his fair share around the house, so much so that she's thinking of leaving him, she if usually told not to over-react and that to break up a marriage because of housework is ridiculous"

And it's her fault for not making him change and pull his weight! But it's hard to change an adult and she shouldn't have the task as well as the task of bringing up children.

Yes, of course men shouldn't behave like abusive pricks, but if they get away with it they'll go on doing it.

So - how can we stop them getting away with it? I know very little about the police/court system in this respect, are there concrete things we can change so that men come up against the consequences of their behaviour?

Re self esteem, self confidence etc., yyy to scallops' post.

Even if you have really loving parents, a good home, good role modelling, life can shit on you. Being bullied, being raped, having a bad academic experience, falling in with an unfortunate friend or boyf.... there are so many things that can damage the good work good parents do and as a society, we support the damage, rather than backing up the good work.

I think there's quite a lot we can do, much of which feminists and other groups are campaigning for. The main trouble is that we're meeting with a lot of resistance from the patriarchy.

In cases of abuse, the law needs to be changed. Actual violence needs to be treated as seriously as stranger assault is. Most men never get reported, but those who do usually just get a caution. A woman usually has to be beaten up quite severely before a prosecution results. In fairness to the police, this is down to the law rather than them not taking it seriously.

Governments could run campaigns about abuse and sexism, showing the full spectrum rather than just physical violence. I see many women who are treated dreadfully by their partners but don't see it as abusive because they haven't been punched. Abuse affects far more people than smoking related diseases and traffic accidents and money is spent on campaigns about those. I think the social cost of abuse is far higher than both these things so it is just as worthy. I have no truck with the argument that this is telling people how to conduct their lives and government should but out. We don't say that about child abuse do we. Abuse is wrong, at whatever end of the spectrum, and we should not be afraid to come out and condemn it.

In cases of physical abuse I'd like to see changes so a woman is not scared of SS involvement but sees them as supportive. I'd like to see a system where instead of SS taking the children from the woman and blaming her for failure to protect, SS could forcibly eject the man and have the power to keep him away - with him ending up in prison if he flouts it. I'd like men to be removed from the house rather than women having to run to refuges.

Oh, and we could run classes in school teaching about healthy relationship dynamics to reach those kids in houses where sexism and abuse are rampant that there is another, better way.

Isn't it funny. I never really thought about this properly before - I have always sort of accepted that if DH didn't do his share (re housework) it was my fault for not making him do it. Or my fault for letting it bother me. Because that is how I have learned to think and how discussions on MN tend to go - "God, I wouldn't out up with that! Make him do his share". But that is incredibly hard to do. So I tend to get on with it myself and shut my eyes to the mess.

Life would be a fucking breeze if I he (and millions of similar, and otherwise decent, men) has been taught to do it for themselves. Just took responsibility for the things around them without being 'nagged'.

Wow! this has moved such a long way from the OP I need a telescope to see it. Sorry.

Sorry Orm, that may be partly due to me going off on one again about abuse and the way single mothers are treated. I didn't mean to derail the thread, but my point is that until we can show zero tolerance to abuse and rubbish NRPs, how on earth are we going to address the dynamics within a family setting, which is much more 'hidden' and entrenched in social norms.

I don't think that it has moved on all that far from OP. I still don't see why there is a heirarchy-just don't live with a man who thinks there is!
I don't see the need for women to be 'devoted' to their DCs, they should be letting go. Half the DCs are boys, maybe the problem is that the mother is 'devoted' to them at the expense of the father and they grow up thinking the father is worthless and fairly useful.
DCs do as you do and not as you say so if they see you doing all the housework and in charge of the the DCs as superior parent that is how they see life and it doesn't matter how much you are talking about the patriarchy- if you are the only one to clean the toilet, you won't leave DH free to do DDs hair to the best of his ability(and let her go out with the result), and you won't let the DCs stay with Granny while you go off for the night-that is the message they get.
The best thing that you can do for and DC is have 2 loving parents who love each other and them-beats any amount of co sleeping etc.
Life is a learning exercise-we all get hurt, have periods of sadness, learn to cope with anger etc. We are not supposed to be happy all the time-you wouldn't learn anything-how would you even know you are happy? Life throws things at you and you deal with them-it may make you stronger as a couple-it may break you up. You can't take short cuts-people have to do it themselves. Tell a 15yr old girl that the boy she thinks she is in love with will be controlling and abusive and all you will do is throw them together-there is nothing better than ill fated, romantic, misunderstood first love!

Back with my teacher of PHSE-not that it was called that in those days-we had two. One was Miss X -the Head, single, in her 50s and very intellectual. She listened and debated and she was a very clever woman, she would bring things in that we had never even contemplated and it really made you think. The other was MissY 22 yrs old and straight from university. She had the world sorted according to Miss Y and she was right! It was deeply resented.

"The best thing that you can do for and DC is have 2 loving parents who love each other and them-beats any amount of co sleeping etc."

Another unevidenced assertion

You're not really reading the posts are you?

I was going back to the OP and heirarchy-why have one?

Why have one?

Have you not noticed, this is a thread about the fact that objectively, for many families, there is one and the reasons for that.

It's not a thread that is arguing that there ought to be one.

If you don't like it start by not having one in your family-that is what your DC will learn-not what you say.

We've been through all this.

Have you not taken any notice at all?

exotic you are just repeating yourself as far as I can see, but I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that maybe we're not understanding you. So I've 'translated' your post to rephrase it as I am interpreting it and giving you my response.

EXOTIC'S POST PARAPHRASED WITH COMMENTS

1. The best way to avoid living in a sexist relationship is not to live with a man who is sexist, most men are not sexist and you are stupid if you can't recognise a sexist man.

How do you propose to recognise sexism unless it is blatant? Opening doors sexist? Some say yes, some say no. Many marriages do not fall intro traditional roles (when sexism then comes into play) until after a baby is born. Besides which, so much of what is sexist is considered perfectly normal in our culture, like the fact that women do the majority of the housework even in relationships where both partners work. Popular culture reinforces this message all the time.

1. Women should put their partners before their children because children grow up and leave.

Children are vulnerable and dependent on the adults in their life. A man is an adult who should be capable of taking care of himself. Surely you can see that is NOT saying that a mother should suffocate her children until her dying day. You are being obtuse if you insist it is.

1. You should model good behaviour for your children. It is the woman's responsibility to do this, not the man's.

Agreed on the first sentence. Not on the second. If you believe that all it takes to redress the balance in an unequal relationship is for the woman to 'stop putting up with it' you are living in a fantasy land. If ONLY it were that easy. Relate would be out of business for a start. Why doesn't the man have any responsibility not to take advantage of his wife? She can't just stop can she. Have you read the politics of housework? If not, please do. It will explain far better than I how a woman will nearly always cave before her husband when it comes to cleaning the house or feeding the kids and it has nothing to do with her biology!

1. It is unnatural to be happy all the time and people will be abused. This is normal and we should not try to do anything about it. It is up to people to learn for themselves.

Do you not guide your DC through life exotic? Do you not believe that people can be taught new skills? If so, why did you send your DC to school? Why have you taught them how to dress themselves, how to phone and say thank you when they receive a gift from a relative at Christmas? Some people have better guides than others. I'd rather live in a society where we try to equalise that rather than say women deserve abuse because no one taught them how to avoid it.

Somehow I think you will counter this post with another that simply repeats everything you have said rather than bother to engage in the debate and answer our specific concerns about what you are posting. I am always open to changing my opinions. This board has seen me do complete turnarounds on a few topics, but thus far nothing I have heard from you has changed my mind because you are not backing up your opinions with evidence or answering people when they show the faults in your arguments.

I can't help thinking it is one sided.
People don't want heirarchy, they want both parents to equally put their DC first and they are absolutely astounded that men can be jealous of their own DCs.
I agree and DH and I do this. However I can't help thinking that in many cases, what they really mean is that mother has the close relationship and father has to be understanding and work around it.

I wonder how many women actually would like the father having the really close relationship?
When mine were 15mth and just 3 yrs I went off skiing with my older DS while DH took a week off work as holiday and looked after the two little ones. They all had a great time, it was great for DH to have so much quality time.

When I was having a very traumatic time my best friend came down to stay for a few days, travelling 300 miles and bringing her 4 yr old while her DH has time off work and looked after the 3 yr old and 1 yr old DDs.

How many women on here would have equality like this-how many would say they were indispensible and they couldn't leave their DCs with an equal parent?

There is a thread at the moment where a woman is asking about her 4 yr old having 2 nights at the seaside with her PIL. DD and grandparents love each other and get on well, she trusts the PIL and DD wants to go-but she has a problem. IMO it is a problem that she shouldn't project on to her DD, she should wave her off cheerfully.

It is all very well being equal-but no reason why the woman should be more equal than others. Partners and extended family can cope-if you let them.

Sorry-I missed out that both the DHs stayed at home alone with the little ones.

"How many women on here would have equality like this"...

Uhm, lots of us?
DH is the primary carer of my (11 month old) DS at the moment. Not that an anecdote = data.

You're suggesting that men don't do enough around the house and make their wives their skivvy because the mean old women won't let them get involved. As opposed to, say, the fact that they are used to being picked up after and served by women, because of the patriarchy.

Why is it always the woman's fault in your opinion? Do you believe the patriarchy - a system that elevates men and oppresses women, even exists? It strikes me that maybe you don't see the systematic and all-surrounding nature of the patriarchy, and that's why you think that your experience is universal and any woman as clever as you would just pick a good man and get on with it?

If they don't pick a 'good man' they should start at home and sort him out! I don't see much point in moaning about the patriarchy if you are letting it happen. Change things at home. It is a very bad example to your DCs to let him have an unequal partnership-what you say has no meaning-it is what they see you do that counts. Announce you are going out for the day and leave him with the DCs. -if you give plenty of warning he can hardly complain. Give him lots of chance to bond with the DCs.

Mothers could start! Why does he think a woman picks up things after him? Because his mother did! Get your DSs doing things for themselves from an early age.