Househusbands

Bottle_of_Smoke

Stealing a thread from after hours but thought it could do with a run here.

Would you be one? I think I'd be perfectly happy with it. Makes obvious sense if the woman earns more.

I don't like cleaning but it wouldn't kill me. Do like cooking.

First few months I think the mother should be there for breast feeding but after that I don't see any problem with the father bringing the kids up.

A weekend job would be good to give a bit of structure to the week.

Would the girls posting here be happy with the arrangement or would you be afraid we'd f*ck it up?

Otis Driftwood

Would have no problem with it what so ever.As long as the arrangement ment the best possible results for the children (eg financial security) then why the hell not.

OldGoat

The role should be interchangable anyway.
I did a stint for a few months without mentally scaring the kiddlets and my golf game did improve for a while with the amount of practice I was getting.
Wait, don't jump down my throat on this. The situation was that I was only standing in for a while and therefore I didn't have to nurture or cultivate working relationships with other partents/schools/toddler groups/creshes/doctors and the like. I managed to find a lot of free time by ignoring a lot of the duties a houseperson would normally undertake.
The one thing that did make me uncomfortable in the situation was that other parents - friends even, would try to 'help out' because 'he's alone and doing it by himself'.
They would pick the kids up from school and take 'em back to their place...to let me get on with things.
They would offer to do the shopping for me.
They would not let their kid come over to mine to play in case it's too much for me to handle.
I even had offers to cook meals for the family.The generosity of the offers made it hard for me to be irate about their condecending attitudes.
(Generalising here)
Women treated me as incompedant.
Men treated me with distain, questioned my masculinity, took the pish outta me to the point of offensivness.

The_Conductor

My wife and myself are considering just this at the moment.
She has only one other sibling- an older brother, and apparently neither of them are domesticated. I, on the other hand, am the eldest of 7- and more often than not, both parents worked- so we all mucked in with whatever had to be done- cooking, cleaning, laundry, helping out with each other's homework etc. She feels that I might have more in the way of parenting skills that she. From my perspective, while I'm more than happy to do whatever is best for our child, I'm not under any illusions- and I know that its going to a steep learning curve for either/both of us.

In our case- both my wife and myself are IT staff on the same pay grade- so there is no financial incentive for one or the other of us to stay at home over and above the other.

Interesting times ahead!

shellyboo

OldGoat wrote: »

I managed to find a lot of free time by ignoring a lot of the duties a houseperson would normally undertake.
The one thing that did make me uncomfortable in the situation was that other parents - friends even, would try to 'help out' because 'he's alone and doing it by himself'.
They would pick the kids up from school and take 'em back to their place...to let me get on with things.
They would offer to do the shopping for me.
They would not let their kid come over to mine to play in case it's too much for me to handle.
I even had offers to cook meals for the family.The generosity of the offers made it hard for me to be irate about their condecending attitudes.
(Generalising here)
Women treated me as incompedant.
Men treated me with distain, questioned my masculinity, took the pish outta me to the point of offensivness.

Wow, that's so infuriating! Nobody gave a second thought to offering your partner help when she was at home, I would imagine?

It's crap that you got such a backlash about it as well, after all, they're your kids too. It shouldn't matter who looks after them.


I'd have no problem with my (hypothetical) partner staying at home while I went out to work, though I'd probably be a tad jealous! Ideally if/when I have kids I'd like to stay home if at all possible.

Khannie

OldGoat wrote: »

They would pick the kids up from school and take 'em back to their place...to let me get on with things.
They would offer to do the shopping for me.
I even had offers to cook meals for the family.The generosity of the offers made it hard for me to be irate about their condecending attitudes.

Just so you know....(and I cherry picked some items on the list)....These things happen for my wife too. My mum and her parents live in the same town as us and they regularly offer to help her out with those things.

I'm not saying you weren't treated badly or whatever, only that some of the things happen to ladies too.

Khannie

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Would you be one? I think I'd be perfectly happy with it. Makes obvious sense if the woman earns more.

Not really. My wife earned more than me at the time that she left work to be a full time mum / housewife / whatever you call it. Two things stopped me doing it:

1) I would go f*cking insane inside a year
2) My long term earning prospects were better

Personally I wouldn't want to do it medium term (any longer than say 6 months)...but I just consider it a job like any other and there are lots of jobs I wouldn't want to do.

scanlas

I dont see anything wrong with it except in one situation.

It's been shown if female babies betweeen between 0-2 don't get enough attention from their mothers they will be permanently emotionally effected for the rest of there lives.

The_Conductor

scanlas wrote: »

I dont see anything wrong with it except in one situation.

It's been shown if female babies betweeen between 0-2 don't get enough attention from their mothers they will be permanently emotionally effected for the rest of there lives.

What is the definition of 'enough attention'?
If young children are creched or taken care of by their fathers- their interaction with their mother may be limited to less than 2-3 hours a day (and vice versa with respect of their fathers). How is this a developmental limiting factor? I'm not trying to start a debate- I'm genuinely curious.

Khannie

scanlas wrote: »

It's been shown if female babies betweeen between 0-2 don't get enough attention from their mothers they will be permanently emotionally effected for the rest of there lives.

I think it's only if they don't get enough affection from their "primary carer"* which can be either male or female.

Unless you've got a link to a study or something?




*psychobable phrase picked up from recent parenting TV show

OldGoat

Don't get me wrong Khannie, Mrs. Goat does get those offers on occasions too, just as we make those offers to others. What I found infurating was not the generous indivudal offer but the accumulated weight of all the offers. Every day someone was trying to make my life easier, help me cope, check up on me.
Offer after offer after offer all seemed to me to add up to "He's was not able to do things for himself".

That makes me sound like an ungrateful 'tard.

My point is that people were making MORE offers of help to me that they normally would to the Mrs. She would be fairly incredulous when I'd list the offers of help that I'd been given.

metrovelvet

smccarrick wrote: »

What is the definition of 'enough attention'?
If young children are creched or taken care of by their fathers- their interaction with their mother may be limited to less than 2-3 hours a day (and vice versa with respect of their fathers). How is this a developmental limiting factor? I'm not trying to start a debate- I'm genuinely curious.

I think in theory it is all very well to say once the baby is done breastfeeding then s/he can be taken out of the arms of the mother and into the father, but the reality is that after a year of suckling at the mothers breast, the baby is bonded quite strongly to the mother, the early months are when the intensive bonding happens, and so for there to suddenly be that lack, that withdrawal, from that intensive bonding, it can create issues.

I dont want to get into the creche debate, puhlease lets not go there because it will create a hoo hah.

metrovelvet

OldGoat wrote: »

I managed to find a lot of free time by ignoring a lot of the duties a houseperson would normally undertake.

Uh how did you manage to do that without the house looking like a health hazard. The house duties are a never ending bottomless pit. Honest to god you cant IGNORE them.

shellyboo

Well if we're going to criticise the idea of a man staying home instead of a mother because of "bonding issues" the same logic applies to putting the kid in a creche, tbh. If one is acceptable, so should the other be.

Khannie

OldGoat wrote: »

My point is that people were making MORE offers of help to me that they normally would to the Mrs. She would be fairly incredulous when I'd list the offers of help that I'd been given.

Yeah, I figured as much and it takes about half a second for me to imagine it happening.

metrovelvet

shellyboo wrote: »

Well if we're going to criticise the idea of a man staying home instead of a mother because of "bonding issues" the same logic applies to putting the kid in a creche, tbh. If one is acceptable, so should the other be.

Not really. Its quite different for a child to be at home in his or her own environment, with his her own toys, food and drinks, rythms, boredoms, etc then to be in a creche. Totally different.

Also there presumably would have been some bonding done with the father at that stage.

All Im saying is that its not that simple.

Many people think it is not acceptable to have a small child in a creche for 8 hours a day five days a week. Its a highly controversial subject.

Personally, Id rather the father be at home with the child then put him or her in a creche, but thats just my opinion. Many would disagree.

scanlas

smccarrick wrote: »

What is the definition of 'enough attention'?
If young children are creched or taken care of by their fathers- their interaction with their mother may be limited to less than 2-3 hours a day (and vice versa with respect of their fathers). How is this a developmental limiting factor? I'm not trying to start a debate- I'm genuinely curious.

I read about the studies in "The female brain". The author's website is below.

http://www.louannbrizendine.com/

A female babies brain changes dramatically during the first two years and is permanently affected by it's relationship with it's mother.

shellyboo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Not really. Its quite different for a child to be at home in his or her own environment, with his her own toys, food and drinks, rythms, boredoms, etc then to be in a creche. Totally different.


Personally, Id rather the father be at home with the child then put him or her in a creche, but thats just my opinion. Many would disagree.

I totally agree. I just don't like the idea of someone saying "oh if the father stays at home the child will have issues" when most people wouldn't bat an eyelid at childcare.

Sleipnir

I would definitely stay at home with the kids, given the choice. My other half is not all that domesticated really. She does laundry whenever the mood takes her etc!

I often say jokingly that if the sexes had true equality, then the female wouldn't automatically be the one to stay at home if the option became available.

Sure you're practically retired once the kids go to college!

metrovelvet

shellyboo wrote: »

I totally agree. I just don't like the idea of someone saying "oh if the father stays at home the child will have issues" when most people wouldn't bat an eyelid at childcare.

Slighly Ot but related. I think this is partially cultural - related to Irish mammy syndrome -see tLL thread. The thing is, we have so many Irish mammys who have raised their sons to be incompetent, that we truly do have a plethora of incompetent men, so it's a vicious circle. Partially generational too.

scanlas

Studies have also shown children who are put in creches get into more trouble and have problems forming relationships than children who had a full time mother looking after them.

People may not want to believe that fact, but it's true. Mess with mother nature at your peril.

The_Conductor

metrovelvet wrote: »

Slighly Ot but related. I think this is partially cultural - related to Irish mammy syndrome -see tLL thread. The thing is, we have so many Irish mammys who have raised their sons to be incompetent, that we truly do have a plethora of incompetent men, so it's a vicious circle. Partially generational too.

Its not across the board though. In my case- I'm the one who does all the housework- and I work fulltime- my wife was never taught any domestic skills by her mother at all. I get frustrated as hell a lot of the time- I'm knackered when I come home in the evening, but know that I'm still going to have to cook dinner, maybe do a load of laundry- and tidyup and do all the usual stuff. I'm not under any illusions- I know that what I experience is probably what a lot of working women experience- and are equally frustrated over. I'm simply making the point that its not a valid assumption that its automatically the man who is incompetent, plops himself down and the couch and turns on the TV while his wife does the housework, when they both come in the evening. I'm sure I'm far from the exception.

Khannie

Scanlas, you keep saying "studies" and you've posted a link to a website. To be fair, if you're gonna spout controversial stuff like that you're gonna need to provide a link to the ACTUAL study. Otherwise I call bull****.

NothingMan

I'd be in a situation where I would say I would be more "parenty" than my gf. I grew up in a huge family babysitting and changing nappies from a relatively young age. I love kids and do not get too quickly irritated by moaning, fighting or crying and can keep a level head.
My gf has 2 siblings of similar age and no kids around. She would in all honesty probably struggle with learning how to treat issues with kids calmly and from a neutral perspective. Also she does earn a little more than me and probably has more earning potential too.

Saying that, I think we're a long way off having kids, but I could definitely see a situation where it may make more sense with me being the primary care giver. Although realistically we would probably both work and arrange to leave the kids with a family member for day care, which imo is not perfect but perhaps a little better than creche, especially if they have interaction with their little cousins and such too.

Sleipnir

scanlas wrote: »

Studies have also shown children who are put in creches get into more trouble and have problems forming relationships than children who had a full time mother looking after them.

People may not want to believe that fact, but it's true. Mess with mother nature at your peril.

but...why a full-time mother
Have there been studies that show children who are put in creches get into more trouble and have problems forming relationships than children who had a full time mother or father looking after them?

I'm pretty sure the studies you refer to simply state that kids who stay at home are not as likely to get into trouble as kids who go to a creche.

I'd like to see a link to these 'studies' you refer to.

cruizer101

I see no problem with the man staying at home if it makes sense.

Also just to say there are male breastfeeding kits available, which are for all the world like a fake breast. I remember there was one in Meet the Fockers.
I'd be curious though is there a big difference between breatfeeding and cradling baby whilst feeding with a bottle, not really a debate for here mind.

shellyboo

cruizer101 wrote: »

I see no problem with the man staying at home if it makes sense.

Also just to say there are male breastfeeding kits available, which are for all the world like a fake breast. I remember there was one in Meet the Fockers.
I'd be curious though is there a big difference between breatfeeding and cradling baby whilst feeding with a bottle, not really a debate for here mind.

That wasn't real, and yes, there's a huge difference

metrovelvet

smccarrick wrote: »

Its not across the board though. In my case- I'm the one who does all the housework- and I work fulltime- my wife was never taught any domestic skills by her mother at all. I get frustrated as hell a lot of the time- I'm knackered when I come home in the evening, but know that I'm still going to have to cook dinner, maybe do a load of laundry- and tidyup and do all the usual stuff. I'm not under any illusions- I know that what I experience is probably what a lot of working women experience- and are equally frustrated over. I'm simply making the point that its not a valid assumption that its automatically the man who is incompetent, plops himself down and the couch and turns on the TV while his wife does the housework, when they both come in the evening. I'm sure I'm far from the exception.

Please take this as a compliment. You and your OH seem to be exceptional in many many ways.

Once that baby is born, once that baby turns two, you will be doing more house work then you ever thought possible. I am a domestic disaster [except for cooking] but I had to learn. And I suggest that you start teaching your OH a few things because one person doing all of this [and I do do all of it by myself and look after my son by myself] is territory for burnout.

I do not think at all that you are the exception but certainly the minority.

But before we get bogged down in thinking that good parenting is all about mopping and hoovering and sterilising and organising the paperwork, a lot of this is about the actual care of the child.

I will get slammed for this I know I will because it is genderist and it is a generalisation, which is to say that it also assumes exceptions to that generalisation.

I do think that we have different instincts, which is good, because it can balance each other out. I do think that mammys can be over protective, and this is good. But I do think that the fathers can let children test their limits, go out into the world, push boundaries, and negotiate danger. When the two forces are working together the child benefits. Obviously, there will be tensions at times. But I think that a lot of people see the role of the mother and the father this way but can then allow these roles to unnecessarily prohibit unconventional routes and approaches.

But I would still rather have my son at home with his father then in a creche all day for 5 days. Sure the place may be a mess, his nappy may be filthy [which is really not good] who only knows, but I could put up with that knowing that he is being loved rather than being institutionalised from the age of one.

scanlas

Sleipnir wrote: »

but...why a full-time mother
Have there been studies that show children who are put in creches get into more trouble and have problems forming relationships than children who had a full time mother or father looking after them?

I'm pretty sure the studies you refer to simply state that kids who stay at home are not as likely to get into trouble as kids who go to a creche.

I'd like to see a link to these 'studies' you refer to.

I should have said girls not children. Girls benefit from full time attention from their mother (not father). I can't find the studies but it's all explained in "The Female Brain" and numerous studies are referenced. I'm assuming those studies aren't made up.

Apparently mime artists are very frustrating for young girls but not young boys. Young girls will try again and again to get a response or social feedback from a mime artist ( in the form of facial expressions) but boys won't be that bothered by the lack of Social feedback. Its really important for young girls to get social feedback, especially from their mother when they are young as it forms the basis for their social and emotional reality in later life.

It also commonly accepted from an evolutionary point of view that women depended on social relationships to survive. So it makes sense that young girls would require more attention than a young boy. In "The Female Brain" it says the mother helps form a young girls emotional and social reality the way no one else can.

Sleipnir

scanlas wrote: »

I should have said girls not children. Girls benefit from full time attention from their mother (not father). I can't find the studies but it's all explained in "The Female Brain" and numerous studies are referenced. I'm assuming those studies aren't made up.

Apparently mime artists are very frustrating for young girls but not young boys. Young girls will try again and again to get a response or social feedback from a mime artist ( in the form of facial expressions) but boys won't be that bothered by the lack of Social feedback. Its really important for young girls to get social feedback, especially from their mother when they are young as it forms the basis for their social and emotional reality in later life.

It also commonly accepted from an evolutionary point of view that women depended on social relationships to survive. So it makes sense that young girls would require more attention than a young boy. In "The Female Brain" it says the mother helps form a young girls emotional and social reality the way no one else can.

You're practically plugging this book now.
"The Female Brain" is not a study, it's a collection of the author's thoughts and theories and just because it's in a book, doesn't make it so.

It also commonly accepted from an evolutionary point of view that women depended on social relationships to survive.

Er, not quite. It's commonly accepted that, from an evolutionary point of view, human beings depend on social relationships (I'm not sure that we would actually die without them though)
To say that females have a greater need for social relationships than males do is just wrong. Different types of relationships at different stages of development perhaps, but both genders benefit from social interaction.

scanlas wrote: »

In "The Female Brain" it says the mother helps form a young girls emotional and social reality the way no one else can.

While it may not be in that book, similarly,
the mother helps form a young boy's emotional and social reality the way no one else can.
the father helps form a young boy's emotional and social reality the way no one else can.
the father helps form a young girl's emotional and social reality the way no one else can
Friends help form a young boy's emotional and social reality the way no one else can.
Friends help form a young girl's emotional and social reality the way no one else can.

I'm not sure where that leaves your theory.

trout

scanlas wrote: »

I can't find the studies ...

Don't quote them as authoritative in that case.

scanlas wrote: »

It also commonly accepted from an evolutionary point of view that women depended on social relationships to survive.

Eh ... don't we all ?

Herbal Deity

metrovelvet wrote: »

But I would still rather have my son at home with his father then in a creche all day for 5 days. Sure the place may be a mess, his nappy may be filthy [which is really not good] who only knows, but I could put up with that knowing that he is being loved rather than being institutionalised from the age of one.

You said you didn't want to create a "hoo hah", but tbh, you went ahead and posted utter drivel like this.

I was in a creche from 8 til 3 or 4, 5 days a week until I was 4.

I have excelled academically my whole life, I have been above average at any sport I have ever participated in, I play multiple instruments to high standards and I'm far from being crippled socially.

And you know what I can attribute all of this to? The love and encouragement of my parents. They encouraged me to read from a young age, they answered any questions about schoolwork I had, they encouraged me to participate in things like sports and music. We did things as a family every weekend and we had dinner as a family every day. So I was separated from them for a few hours a day, so what?

Institutionalized my fúcking hole.

scanlas

Sleipnir wrote: »

You're practically plugging this book now.
"The Female Brain" is not a study, it's a collection of the author's thoughts and theories and just because it's in a book, doesn't make it so.



Er, not quite. It's commonly accepted that, from an evolutionary point of view, human beings depend on social relationships (I'm not sure that we would actually die without them though)
To say that females have a greater need for social relationships than males do is just wrong. Different types of relationships at different stages of development perhaps, but both genders benefit from social interaction.



While it may not be in that book, similarly,
the mother helps form a young boy's emotional and social reality the way no one else can.
the father helps form a young boy's emotional and social reality the way no one else can.
the father helps form a young girl's emotional and social reality the way no one else can
Friends help form a young boy's emotional and social reality the way no one else can.
Friends help form a young girl's emotional and social reality the way no one else can.

I'm not sure where that leaves your theory.

It's not my theory, it's Dr Louann Brizedine's. Human females did need social realationships more than men. A human female was less self reliant than a man. She couldn't protect herself as well as men or hunt as well as men. Also she was extremely vulnerable during pregancy. Therefore it was imperative she secured strong relationships as support and protection. Men benefit from relationships, but not as much as women. Thats why men do have the abilty to form bonds and relationships, just not as good as women.

Children need a mother's attention far more than anyone else, even more so for girls, even more so again for girls between 0-2. Women's self esteem is based far more around social relationships and social feedback than men. If a girl doesn't get that feedback and attention from it's mother during the first two years it will change it's emotional reality dramatically for the the rest of it's life.

metrovelvet

Herbal Deity wrote: »

You said you didn't want to create a "hoo hah", but tbh, you went ahead and posted utter drivel like this.

I was in a creche from 8 til 3 or 4, 5 days a week until I was 4.

I have excelled academically my whole life, I have been above average at any sport I have ever participated in, I play multiple instruments to high standards and I'm far from being crippled socially.

And you know what I can attribute all of this to? The love and encouragement of my parents. They encouraged me to read from a young age, they answered any questions about schoolwork I had, they encouraged me to participate in things like sports and music. We did things as a family every weekend and we had dinner as a family every day. So I was separated from them for a few hours a day, so what?

Institutionalized my fúcking hole.

They obviously didnt teach you any manners. Nice language btw.

CathyMoran

metrovelvet wrote: »

Please take this as a compliment. You and your OH seem to be exceptional in many many ways.

Once that baby is born, once that baby turns two, you will be doing more house work then you ever thought possible. I am a domestic disaster [except for cooking] but I had to learn. And I suggest that you start teaching your OH a few things because one person doing all of this [and I do do all of it by myself and look after my son by myself] is territory for burnout.

I do not think at all that you are the exception but certainly the minority.

But before we get bogged down in thinking that good parenting is all about mopping and hoovering and sterilising and organising the paperwork, a lot of this is about the actual care of the child.

I will get slammed for this I know I will because it is genderist and it is a generalisation, which is to say that it also assumes exceptions to that generalisation.

I do think that we have different instincts, which is good, because it can balance each other out. I do think that mammys can be over protective, and this is good. But I do think that the fathers can let children test their limits, go out into the world, push boundaries, and negotiate danger. When the two forces are working together the child benefits. Obviously, there will be tensions at times. But I think that a lot of people see the role of the mother and the father this way but can then allow these roles to unnecessarily prohibit unconventional routes and approaches.

But I would still rather have my son at home with his father then in a creche all day for 5 days. Sure the place may be a mess, his nappy may be filthy [which is really not good] who only knows, but I could put up with that knowing that he is being loved rather than being institutionalised from the age of one.

Opps, I sound terrible by the sounds of it - in my defence I have been really sick in the past 3 years and was just managing to get myself back to some sort of normal (whatever the new normal is) when this much wanted pregnancy has knocked me for 6, have extreme fatigue and nausea. Most people who have my condition never work again (if they survive it), let alone have a child - we both really want our baby. I have no problems with being the main financial provider as that is a lot easier for me...being at home would be tough. I was de-facto raised by my dad in any case. My main convern would be ensuring that he does not feel stuck at home.

metrovelvet

CathyMoran wrote: »

Opps, I sound terrible by the sounds of it - in my defence I have been really sick in the past 3 years and was just managing to get myself back to some sort of normal (whatever the new normal is) when this much wanted pregnancy has knocked me for 6, have extreme fatigue and nausea. I have no problems with being the main financial provider as that is a lot easier for me...being at home would be tough. I was de-facto raised by my dad in any case. My main convern would be ensuring that he does not feel stuck at home.

No you dont at all. I kind of guessed that anyhow.

He will feel stuck at home. It cant be helped. Its isolating and a lot of menial tasks. Its the nature of it. Especially in the winter.

Herbal Deity

metrovelvet wrote: »

They obviously didnt teach you any manners. Nice language btw.

Oh give over.

There was no reason to mention creches in this thread, but you did, though you said you ddn't want to provoke a debate about creches.

Later you go back on this effectively call those who were put in creches as a child as being institutionalised. This is pretty insulting to myself, and moreso to my parents.

So forgive me for getting a little emotive and not sitting back and ignoring snide, holier-than-thou comments against what in my view is something which is benign and empirically is inconclusive and thus extremely debateable.

metrovelvet

I didnt bring it up. Someone else did and it had to be addressed. I can have my opinion on it and so can you. But you dont have to get nasty and snide about it yourself.

A creche is an institution, just as a school is.

Dr Galen

People

Put down the handbags and move away slowly.......:)

Seriously though, lets have less bickering and more discussing/debating

Cheers

MM

Sleipnir

scanlas wrote: »

It's not my theory, it's Dr Louann Brizedine's. Human females did need social realationships more than men. A human female was less self reliant than a man. She couldn't protect herself as well as men or hunt as well as men. Also she was extremely vulnerable during pregancy.

You state all of this in the past-tense. Presumably then, you feel that this is no longer the case i.e., a human-female is no longer less self-reliant than a man?

If that is the case, I don't see how those 'studies' are relevant today.

scanlas wrote: »

Children need a mother's attention far more than anyone else, even more so for girls, even more so again for girls between 0-2. Women's self esteem is based far more around social relationships and social feedback than men. If a girl doesn't get that feedback and attention from it's mother during the first two years it will change it's emotional reality dramatically for the the rest of it's life.

What you seem to be saying is that a child can do without any and all relationships except the one with the mother? Nonsense.

All relationships that a child experiences "will change it's emotional reality dramatically" but you seem to think that only the lack of a relationship with the mother will have a serious detrimental effect. Nonsense.

Basically, what you're saying is that if a child (especially a girl) has no relationship with it's mother, it will be emotionally stunted and that it doesn't matter if it doesn't have any other relationships at all, so long as it has the one with it's mother. Nonsense.

scanlas wrote: »

Women's self esteem is based far more around social relationships and social feedback than men.

So, where does the male's influence on self-esteem come from?
What are the other influences that affect self-esteem, if not relationships with other humans?

trout

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

People

Put down the handbags and move away slowly.......:)

Seriously though, lets have less bickering and more discussing/debating

Cheers

MM

What he said ... next outbreak of foul language, attacking the poster, or just not "playing nice" risks an infraction or ban.

CathyMoran

metrovelvet wrote: »

No you dont at all. I kind of guessed that anyhow.

He will feel stuck at home. It cant be helped. Its isolating and a lot of menial tasks. Its the nature of it. Especially in the winter.

The thing is that my husband is exceptionally bright and I am not sure that there are suitable social outlets for him (he is a total nerd in a great way), I expect that "mother and baby" groups would bore him to tears...on the other hand he is wonderful with children...I dont know if I will be...my limited experience of kids is that they get interesting once they turn 3-4, I used to want to teach kids that age. It may turn out that I will take to motherhood like a duck to water, in which case both of us could work part time.

metrovelvet

CathyMoran wrote: »

The thing is that my husband is exceptionally bright and I am not sure that there are suitable social outlets for him (he is a total nerd in a great way), I expect that "mother and baby" groups would bore him to tears...on the other hand he is wonderful with children...I dont know if I will be...my limited experience of kids is that they get interesting once they turn 3-4, I used to want to teach kids that age. It may turn out that I will take to motherhood like a duck to water, in which case both of us could work part time.

Thousands of bright women everywhere are doing this. Mother and baby groups bore me to tears too. But I go to them so my son can interact with other kids. They are also a source of information.

It is boring. It is mind numbing. It is the nature of it. It cannot be helped. That is what babies are. There are rewards but it takes a lot of investment first. Like gardenning but A LOT HARDER.

One think I really miss is the conversation of educated women. Have kids gets stupid. Its just how it is. It is the price you pay and he will pay it too.

If you are looking for intellectual challenge and entertainment, dont have kids. Its like going to the library and expecting a carnival.

Dr Galen

awhhhhhh can you feel the love in this thread.........you two make me sick, go get a room or something :P


much like smccarrick I'm the eldest of big brood, both my parents worked too, so we all had to muck in. I can cook and clean etc with the best of them, I'd have no worries at having to shoulder that side of things as a househusband.

I think the wife would be more worried about the other things I'd be getting up to, like say, turning the sitting room into an adventure playground/army fort while she was at work. I think i might be too much of messer really to do it long term, first chance I got to go and play in the puddles with the kids I'd be out there. Might make me a cool dad, but maybe not suitable to be head of the household

CathyMoran

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thousands of bright women everywhere are doing this. Mother and baby groups bore me to tears too. But I go to them so my son can interact with other kids. They are also a source of information.

It is boring. It is mind numbing. It is the nature of it. It cannot be helped. That is what babies are. There are rewards but it takes a lot of investment first. Like gardenning but A LOT HARDER.

One think I really miss is the conversation of educated women. Have kids gets stupid. Its just how it is. It is the price you pay and he will pay it too.

If you are looking for intellectual challenge and entertainment, dont have kids. Its like going to the library and expecting a carnival.

Both of us are the same intelectually...it is a loose, loose situation but we both also know that we will give everything up so that our child has the best chances. I am just concerned, women did it for generations and I have seen the effects of a highly intelligent women being "stuck" with the kids. Are there even any father-child groups out there? The best scenario would be that both of us work part-time - am seeing that more as the way to go forward now but I am aware that most people are not able to look into doing that. But then again what was ever normal about our family.

metrovelvet

Ok. The thing is they wont be that small forever and it really is a precious time. That is at least what I tell myself in mid fantasy of driving into the nearby lake after cleaning up dust that has gotten everywhere from the ash bucket my two year old has dumped all over the floor three times in one day, or when he was very small and I had an hour of sleep in five days.

Now at least your hubby will have you when you come home or on weekends, which will be a huge help.

There is no reason why he cant join the mommy baby groups. None whatsoever. I hate them, but I sit through them listening to the latest deals on nappies, and the best schools, and blah blah blah and more boring blah. In fact, i think a lot of women hate them.

What would have helped me, and might help whomever is staying at home is a bit of a break once in a while, so if you can finance it, maybe put her with the childminders or in a creche for a couple of half days a week.

I would also suggest that whomever is NOT the main carer, try to take on night relief when you can. Its important that the main carer not burn out or there will no one to take care of the baby or to take care of the baby at their best.

Herbal Deity

(Apologies for earlier, one of those moods)

Would there be the possiblity of one of you taking 3/4 years out of work, or maybe both of you taking about 2 years out each until your child starts school?

If one really wanted to avoid a creche, I would see this as the optimal solution, though I don't know how likely it would be to be an option...

amacachi

I would much prefer if I have kids to have one parent not working, whichever was earning the most would be my preference to stay at work. But hey, long way off at best.

scanlas

Sleipnir wrote: »

You state all of this in the past-tense. Presumably then, you feel that this is no longer the case i.e., a human-female is no longer less self-reliant than a man?

If that is the case, I don't see how those 'studies' are relevant today.?

The conditions from which are emotional circuitry evolved are no longer the same but are emotional circuitry hasn't changed. Our bodies still react as if we are not living in modern society.

Sleipnir wrote: »

What you seem to be saying is that a child can do without any and all relationships except the one with the mother? Nonsense.?

Nope, that's not what I'm saying. The mother's attention is most important. From the previous sentence you are making wild leaps of logic.

Sleipnir wrote: »

All relationships that a child experiences "will change it's emotional reality dramatically" but you seem to think that only the lack of a relationship with the mother will have a serious detrimental effect. Nonsense.

All relationships a child has will not change it's emotional reality permanently.The only situation I'm saying will definitely permanently change a child's emotional reality is that between mother and female baby between 0-2. If the friend across the road doesn't want to play anymore the child will be ok.

[/quote]Basically, what you're saying is that if a child (especially a girl) has no relationship with it's mother, it will be emotionally stunted and that it doesn't matter if it doesn't have any other relationships at all, so long as it has the one with it's mother. Nonsense.?[/quote]

All I'm saying is lack of full time attention from a mother between 0-2 will dramatically affect a female babies emotional reality permanently.



[/quote]So, where does the male's influence on self-esteem come from?
What are the other influences that affect self-esteem, if not relationships with other humans?[/quote]

A male's self esteem comes mainly from being independent, self reliant, decisive and taking responsiblity for himself and taking the odd risk here and there.

There's a lot of counter productive beliefs about a child's self esteem out there. People seem to think praising your child creates self esteem. It more often destroys self esteem. Too much praise creates an egoic self image which makes the child a validation junkie.

Sleipnir

scanlas wrote: »

All I'm saying is lack of full time attention from a mother between 0-2 will dramatically affect a female babies emotional reality permanently.

Your whole argument comes down to this, but this isn't something that can be studied. It's not possible to prove that the lack of full-time attention of the mother dramatically affects a female baby, permanently (in a good way or a bad way? Or would that depend on the mother? Or does that even come into the equation?)

You have a particular child and you want to see if removing the relationship with it's mother will have an effect on the child's emotional development.
You remove the child as soon as it's born.
How can you know whether or not you've proved or disproved it after two years?
You can't now compare the outcome with what would have happened had you left the child with the mother!

What else would you need to do? Remove all human interaction?
Remove some relationships?
Remove male relationships?
Peer relationships?
Grandparents relationship?

The observation itself would greatly affect the outcome.

Basically, your idea that;

The only situation I'm saying will definitely permanently change a child's emotional reality is that between mother and female baby between 0-2

is based purely on supposition and making wild assumptions.

Show me a study that proves it without mentioning that book.
I can show you any number of books that will show anything you like.
It's an opinion and nothing more and because you "read it in a book", that doesn't mean it's correct.

miss_feminem

OldGoat wrote: »

The role should be interchangable anyway.
I did a stint for a few months without mentally scaring the kiddlets and my golf game did improve for a while with the amount of practice I was getting.
Wait, don't jump down my throat on this. The situation was that I was only standing in for a while and therefore I didn't have to nurture or cultivate working relationships with other partents/schools/toddler groups/creshes/doctors and the like. I managed to find a lot of free time by ignoring a lot of the duties a houseperson would normally undertake.
The one thing that did make me uncomfortable in the situation was that other parents - friends even, would try to 'help out' because 'he's alone and doing it by himself'.
They would pick the kids up from school and take 'em back to their place...to let me get on with things.
They would offer to do the shopping for me.
They would not let their kid come over to mine to play in case it's too much for me to handle.
I even had offers to cook meals for the family.The generosity of the offers made it hard for me to be irate about their condecending attitudes.
(Generalising here)
Women treated me as incompedant.
Men treated me with distain, questioned my masculinity, took the pish outta me to the point of offensivness.

I can't believe that - that's insane. Why would a man be any less capable of looking after children and doing housework?

But really, it's their problem and not yours.

I personally wouldn't mind who stayed at home as long as the kids were looked after properly and as long as there was enough money brought in to the house by the sole working partner. Its not that big a deal really.

Ideally, a mix would be best. I do it one month, he does it the next month. Give each other a break, etc.