Just had a baby? Welcome to the 1950s.

metrovelvet

^ But you are a single parent. LIke you said, it was your choice to keep the child. [Not that I entirely agree with your perspective but I'll go with it.]

Imagine being a married woman who planned the child with her husband and has five masters degrees in Law from Oxford, a Rhodes Scholar, being reduced to talking about nappies and sudocreme and her career pretty much seriously compromised because of it and everyone expecting HER to make all the sacrifices.

wolfpawnat

I was studying for a degree in UCD myself, and all the conversations I have these days are, "So do you find it better than the MacClaren" and "Huggies are cheaper than Pampers in Tesco", a far cry from the talks I used have regarding what masters to do and where to travel with my degree after college. I laugh, mothers talk about buggies the way men talk about cars!

It can be very depressing, no mother can ever argue that, but that is the result of the decision made. I know it sounds cruel, but it is that way. Our children did not ask to be here and if a person is in the situation that you have described then they really should have discussed these arrangement before baby was even on the cards, also I would think a parent with those sorts of credentials would be capable of getting a career with a salary that would cover child costs (just my opinion:) )

metrovelvet

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I was studying for a degree in UCD myself, and all the conversations I have these days are, "So do you find it better than the MacClaren" and "Huggies are cheaper than Pampers in Tesco", a far cry from the talks I used have regarding what masters to do and where to travel with my degree after college. I laugh, mothers talk about buggies the way men talk about cars!

It can be very depressing, no mother can ever argue that, but that is the result of the decision made. I know it sounds cruel, but it is that way. Our children did not ask to be here and if a person is in the situation that you have described then they really should have discussed these arrangement before baby was even on the cards, also I would think a parent with those sorts of credentials would be capable of getting a career with a salary that would cover child costs (just my opinion:) )

Im sorry but a BA in UCD is not even comparable to five degrees from Oxford, a phd, including a Rhodes scholarship, within a marriage and a planned child.

No she can't because in law you cant get good jobs that end at 5 pm to go pick up the child. She had to work on ground breaking cases well into after midnight, and eventually had to give it up for a civil servant's job that would let her go home to pick up the child at 6pm from the creche.

The point is that you have this brilliant woman who has studied and worked hard her whole life, expected to make the sacrifices. You may take it as a given that the mother should do it. I don't. But I didn't grow up here either.

Yeah, maybe your right, maybe should should have had her tubes tied? Or maybe she should 'just get over it."

wolfpawnat

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im sorry but a BA in UCD is not even comparable to five degrees from Oxford, a phd, including a Rhodes scholarship, within a marriage and a planned child.

No she can't because in law you cant get good jobs that end at 5 pm to go pick up the child. She had to work on ground breaking cases well into after midnight, and eventually had to give it up for a civil servant's job that would let her go home to pick up the child at 6pm from the creche.

The point is that you have this brilliant woman who has studied and worked hard her whole life, expected to make the sacrifices. You may take it as a given that the mother should do it. I don't. But I didn't grow up here either.

Yeah, maybe your right, maybe should should have had her tubes tied?

Well who knows where I would have done my MA, the world was my oyster Also where you get a degree does not always mean that you are the smartest or most deserving, more often than not it means your family are well to do and could afford the extortionate admission fees

Nor did I say she should have her tubes tied, only that she and her partner should perhaps have discussed in greater detail the planning for the child's upbringing. Many people in that position hire nanny's and many women in many high paid professions are able to do a 3 day week, so perhaps she may have been able to go that route, I say may as I am not very knowledgeable on the way the law profession works, but many female GP's are on 3 day weeks when they have families, the higher up you are the more say you get in your hours with some careers.

This is the same argument that many people have with regards to why there are little or no female CEO's of large corporations, it is the age old argument of "men provide, women nurture" I am not saying it is right/wrong, but it's the way the world is seen, many women have qualifications that are very prestigious and do not get to work. I spend my Mondays at a play date with a woman who was a doctor who studied at RCSI (the most prestigious med school in Ireland) but can no longer work as her daughter needs her at home, and the husband is still working. It is just the way things go. She too accepts her cards.

When a woman wants to get far in the working world, you will often see they make the sacrifice of having a family, truly powerful women (eg Oprah) cannot have time for families. Sad, but true!

wonderfulname

wolfpawnat wrote: »

When a woman wants to get far in the working world, you will often see they make the sacrifice of having a family, truly powerful women (eg Oprah) cannot have time for families. Sad, but true!

Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo, married with three children, oh, and she only has a BA

metrovelvet

wonderfulname wrote: »

Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo, married with three children, oh, and she only has a BA

Supportive husband? Did he make the sacrifices? And you dont know she doesnt share the same opinion as the writer of the piece.

I'm amazed at the lack of empathy on this thread.

wolfpawnat

metrovelvet wrote: »

I'm amazed at the lack of empathy on this thread.

Because it was a planned child, and because as mum's we have all had to make sacrifices that we didn't really want to make but we just get on with it.

You, Metrovelvet, like everyone else here, have had to sacrifice things for your child, going out when you want, going shopping for whatever you want, etc. I don't see you on here constantly complaining about it

metrovelvet

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Because it was a planned child, and because as mum's we have all had to make sacrifices that we didn't really want to make but we just get on with it.

You, Metrovelvet, like everyone else here, have had to sacrifice things for your child, going out when you want, going shopping for whatever you want, etc. I don't see you on here constantly complaining about it

Thats because I complain in real life to anyone who will listen!:p

wolfpawnat

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thats because I complain in real life to anyone who will listen!:p

Sure we all do, I am sure all my friends that are not mothers are frightened to ask me how I am because they know I could go off on a 20 min rant about my child's most recent terrorist attack on the house or the price of formula milk! But we get on with it and we wouldn't change them for the world would we

Splendour

The world teaches that money and career are good-in fact the more money you earn-the more respect you gain.
Stay at home Moms (or in fact, your ordinary stay at home/working part time Moms, don't get this respect or elevation. I bet if the government decided stay at home Moms were to get an extremely well paid salary, the amount of SAHM's would increase overnight.
As a separated Mom, I'd love to have had the opportunity to stay at home with/for my kids when they were younger.
If people-male or female, need their careers to keep them occupied, they lack a serious amount of imagination...

wonderfulname

metrovelvet wrote: »

Supportive husband? Did he make the sacrifices?

When their kids were young he was still a high flier in the technology world, I don't know when he packed it in but he is of retirement age so it doesn't necessarily have to be about the kids. I was merely pointing out that you don't have to sacrifice a family for a career, am I supposed to go along with the idea that successful women can't have a successful home life? Because that simply isn't true. Its one of the more disgusting myths of our age. Did you stop to consider that maybe they were both able to make equal sacrifices, and that it doesn't all have to be one or the other?

wonderfulname

Splendour wrote: »

If people-male or female, need their careers to keep them occupied, they lack a serious amount of imagination...

Some people just enjoy what they do.

Splendour

wonderfulname wrote: »

Some people just enjoy what they do.

Sure, but they can still do stuff they enjoy even with kids. Awful to think children stop enjoyment of life...

flowerchild

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ Women judge each other on the same things though don't they?

I only went to those toddler groups two or three times. I found them intolerably dull, with talk of nappies and sterilising and sudocreme. Jesus Christ.

Doesnt anyone want to talk about Anna Karenina?

I had to watch Desperate Housewives just to follow a conversation. I'd welcome a few dads in there so I could escape the nappy talk.

The gatekeeping-never noticed it too much myself. But in Ireland, once you become a mother your identity is eclipsed by it, so any threat to that, to it being appopriated, is going to be met with slander.

At the same time, there are a lot of men who hide behind the 'women are better at those things' to get out of doing anything.

I REALLY shouldn't have to say you are lucky FC, I shouldnt have to say it, that you had so much support, it should be par for the course, but unfortunately, I do have to say you are lucky.

I didn't like the mothers groups - found them very competitive and boring. But I found my Italian cafe in the morning full of support and advice and enjoyment. A couple of guys, one a film director, and one a music composer, would take it in turns to cuddle my babe and I would read the paper, drink coffee and chill out. So we have a variety of ways to meet our interpersonal needs if the mothers/dads groups don't appeal.

Identity being eclipsed? Haven't felt like that at all. Maybe it is based in location, like Ireland, or in personal circumstance, I don't know. I am a feminist, married to a feminist, maybe that helps in keeping one's core identity intact, separate from that of being a mother/partner.

I am not lucky I have had so much support. I chose well. It is exactly what my mother had and also what my husband's mother had. So it shows to me that who we choose as a life partner is critical. And it should not just be the 'man's man' who struts their stuff. Sometimes you need to choose the quiet man who loves you to their core and is right by your side, whatever happens.

metrovelvet

That you say you 'chose well' would still tell me that your choice is particular, that it wouldnt be the norm in the basket of apples on offer.

CathyMoran

There are a lot of men out there who take a very active role in parenting - my husband has had to take a more active role than most as I was very ill for the pregnancy (and before it) of our son and am starting to be very ill in the later stages of pregnancy with our daugher. My father was also actively involved in the rasing of me as my mother hates me and we are still close as a result.

metrovelvet

Yep, my dad too was very involved too, even after divorce which is unusual.

flowerchild

metrovelvet wrote: »

That you say you 'chose well' would still tell me that your choice is particular, that it wouldnt be the norm in the basket of apples on offer.

Actually, I consciously chose my husband from a range of 'apples on offer' if you like, and each of the others I considered had the same characteristics. He is not the norm, at all. But there are other men like him around. The key is to know what you want, and to have had parents that are a good model. Otherwise, without lots of work at the personal level, people simply replicate familial patterns, either the same or opposite. My husand is very very like my father. Both are/were good choices.

CathyMoran wrote: »

There are a lot of men out there who take a very active role in parenting - my husband has had to take a more active role than most as I was very ill for the pregnancy (and before it) of our son and am starting to be very ill in the later stages of pregnancy with our daugher. My father was also actively involved in the rasing of me as my mother hates me and we are still close as a result.

I'm sorry that you have that relationship with your mother. It must be very hard. I hope that you feel much better soon.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yep, my dad too was very involved too, even after divorce which is unusual.

That is such a sad thing to say, and true. I cannot fathom how men divorce and abandon their kids and so many do. I know, deep in my bones, that if my husband and I ever split that we would co-parent well, and that he would be just as active after a divorce as before.

metrovelvet

flowerchild wrote: »

Actually, I consciously chose my husband from a range of 'apples on offer' if you like, and each of the others I considered had the same characteristics. He is not the norm, at all. But there are other men like him around. The key is to know what you want, and to have had parents that are a good model. Otherwise, without lots of work at the personal level, people simply replicate familial patterns, either the same or opposite. My husand is very very like my father. Both are/were good choices.



I'm sorry that you have that relationship with your mother. It must be very hard. I hope that you feel much better soon.



That is such a sad thing to say, and true. I cannot fathom how men divorce and abandon their kids and so many do. I know, deep in my bones, that if my husband and I ever split that we would co-parent well, and that he would be just as active after a divorce as before.

I dont know if they abandon their kids as such, but they move out and with that comes distance. OR they start new families and their priorities change. Out of sight out of mind and all that....

Looking back I was very lucky in the choices my father made. He deliberately made it so that we would not have to choose or feel like we had to sacrifice so that we could have time with him. He made himself entirely available to us, and he wasn't a feminist, he had no father himself either [don't know the full story there] so no role model per se and he didn't do this for my mother or because of her. It had nothing to do with gender politics or anything like that, it was all about how he wanted to define his own role and relationship with us.

flowerchild

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont know if they abandon their kids as such, but they move out and with that comes distance. OR they start new families and their priorities change. Out of sight out of mind and all that....

I get your argument, but I so don't get that behaviour. They are real live children being abandoned, often to poverty.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Looking back I was very lucky in the choices my father made. He deliberately made it so that we would not have to choose or feel like we had to sacrifice so that we could have time with him. He made himself entirely available to us, and he wasn't a feminist, he had no father himself either [don't know the full story there] so no role model per se and he didn't do this for my mother or because of her. It had nothing to do with gender politics or anything like that, it was all about how he wanted to define his own role and relationship with us.

Ultimately, isn't that what we all do, regardless of labels. We define our own roles and relationships, which is great.

metrovelvet

flowerchild wrote: »

I get your argument, but I so don't get that behaviour. They are real live children being abandoned, often to poverty.



Ultimately, isn't that what we all do, regardless of labels. We define our own roles and relationships, which is great.

Not everyone. Its all too easy in contentious divorces or split ups to let your enemy define you.

Or the other person can define you too. You can often be left a divorcee or a single parent because of someone else's decision.

flowerchild

metrovelvet wrote: »

Not everyone. Its all too easy in contentious divorces or split ups to let your enemy define you.

Or the other person can define you too. You can often be left a divorcee or a single parent because of someone else's decision.

But so sad to see that other person as an enemy. Surely, they are someone you once (and maybe still) love(d) and for whatever reason it hasn't worked out. I do not see hatred as necessary in a break-up. Such a great pity.

Even being a person who is divorced or a single parent is still ultimately your own choice and label, in my view. I can't see any divorce happening without two people having some role, even if both didn't want the partnership to end. And single parents, hard though it is, also had a role in being single. I am not at all ccritical of single parents in saying that. Terribly hard.

It's about getting away from being a victim. We create our experiences, even when our only choice is how to react to awful situations. We still have choices in how we react.

metrovelvet

flowerchild wrote: »

But so sad to see that other person as an enemy. Surely, they are someone you once (and maybe still) love(d) and for whatever reason it hasn't worked out. I do not see hatred as necessary in a break-up. Such a great pity.

Even being a person who is divorced or a single parent is still ultimately your own choice and label, in my view. I can't see any divorce happening without two people having some role, even if both didn't want the partnership to end. And single parents, hard though it is, also had a role in being single. I am not at all ccritical of single parents in saying that. Terribly hard.

It's about getting away from being a victim. We create our experiences, even when our only choice is how to react to awful situations. We still have choices in how we react.

Divorce and single custodian are very important statuses. They are not soley social. They affect everything from finances, to custodial agreements, to where you can live to visa applications.

So whatever happenned and didnt happen, one person can make a decision that can totally affect your life. A woman can turn or not turn a man into a father through her choices. One party can turn or not turn someone else into a single parent or sole custodian, regardless of what did or didnt happen between the two. There is a limit to our mastery.

And its not so much about victimhood, but sometimes all you can be is a passive victim, but the choice then is how you move out of that. You're choices lie in being stuck in it or moving out of it and what you take with you through that.

And to answer your first paragraph, yes it is sad. I 100% agree with you. But people reframe and revise things. They will claim they never loved the person, usually the trust is gone, and thats the cause for the split and the relationship continues as it ended. They have to demonise the other in order to justify what they are doing or get their way, and a lot of what happens in family court results or demands character assassination. A lot of pain all around.

The biggesst lie in divorce is that the fighting stops, it doesn't. It just changes.

flowerchild

metrovelvet wrote: »

Divorce and single custodian are very important statuses. They are not soley social. They affect everything from finances, to custodial agreements, to where you can live to visa applications.

True.

When I was being born my father had a stroke. My mother had taken 24 hours to give birth to me and he was worried that he was going to lose her. She checked herself out of hospital and came home straightaway. When asked why, she replied that when he was with her he was more likely to recover completely, which he did. But if he died, she needed to be home because she needed to be able to go straight out and get a job so she could earn for the family. And despite his opposition she did choose to go back to work, so that the family was less vulnerable to any health issues re my father.

We can't always control events, like a partner having a stroke, but we always have choice in how we respond.

metrovelvet wrote: »

So whatever happenned and didnt happen, one person can make a decision that can totally affect your life. A woman can turn or not turn a man into a father through her choices. One party can turn or not turn someone else into a single parent or sole custodian, regardless of what did or didnt happen between the two. There is a limit to our mastery.

The man can't control a choice re abortion although his previous behaviour could be highly influential. But he couldn't be in that situation at all if not for his sexual practices. Similarly, nobody gives up a marriage unless it is not working from their point of view. And there are two parties in that experience (of the marriage not working).

metrovelvet wrote: »

And to answer your first paragraph, yes it is sad. I 100% agree with you. But people reframe and revise things. They will claim they never loved the person, usually the trust is gone, and thats the cause for the split and the relationship continues as it ended. They have to demonise the other in order to justify what they are doing or get their way

My point is that they don't have to, they choose to. And very hurtful it is for the children and other people involved.

I go out of my way to encourage my children to be kind. It is an under-rated quality which affects many lives.

ash23

We do make choices but we don't have total control over the way our lives as parents turn out. There are a multitude of things beyond our control.
We may choose a partner who we think will never abandon us. But people change. When I look at my ex there is no part of him that is familiar to me from when I first "chose" him. He is beyond recognition from the partner I initially chose. And that had very little to do with me. It was external factors. Job loss followed by money worries and a change in his demeanour and personality and a complete refusal of him to acknowledge that. Followed by him pursuing a totally different lifestyle to the one we were living. Followed by him meeting another woman who also pursued that lifestyle. Followed by him having an affair and leaving.
very little I could have done to change all that.

Illness, depression, economic factors, health issues.....these among hundreds of other things can alter a persons perspective and priorities. Stress and strain from an unforseen and uncontrollable event (having a child with a disability for eg) can break even the strongest relationship.

I wouldn't say that people make choices to become a single parent. I doubt it's a life many would choose. Nor is it a label I wear with pride or choose to wear. It is what it is. I am what I am.

I understand what you are saying with regard to making a choice in who you chose as your partner. And also a single parent having a role in being single. But I also think that you see yourself as being immune from becoming a single parent because you feel you chose wisely. There is a certain air of "that will never be me" about your posts.
But these things can blindsight you. Agreements that were made, promises that were made....where one party decides they no longer are on the same page, there isn't a lot the other person can do about it.
A lot of it is luck too. You're lucky to have met someone who has always hd the same goals as you, who hasn't changed their mind about those goals and decided they want something totally different. Who hasn't dipped their toe into the relationship/parenthood pool and found it wasn't for them.

It can happen where you think you and your partner want the same things and then they decide they want something completely different and there is no element of choice or decision there.

metrovelvet

flowerchild wrote: »

True.

When I was being born my father had a stroke. My mother had taken 24 hours to give birth to me and he was worried that he was going to lose her. She checked herself out of hospital and came home straightaway. When asked why, she replied that when he was with her he was more likely to recover completely, which he did. But if he died, she needed to be home because she needed to be able to go straight out and get a job so she could earn for the family. And despite his opposition she did choose to go back to work, so that the family was less vulnerable to any health issues re my father.

We can't always control events, like a partner having a stroke, but we always have choice in how we respond.



The man can't control a choice re abortion although his previous behaviour could be highly influential. But he couldn't be in that situation at all if not for his sexual practices. Similarly, nobody gives up a marriage unless it is not working from their point of view. And there are two parties in that experience (of the marriage not working).



My point is that they don't have to, they choose to. And very hurtful it is for the children and other people involved.

I go out of my way to encourage my children to be kind. It is an under-rated quality which affects many lives.

A full time working single parent, who was made single by the other party, does not have much choices and neither does her child.

She will often have to send her child into school or creche sick. She often wont get to the post office. She may not even get hired in the first place because her status puts her in the bottom of the list of applicants. I dont buy into the mastery myth at all.

Even in the US where choices abound, there are people who have no choice but to live without health insurance for example.

A victim of domestic violence did not choose to get a concussion. A victim of fraud did not choose this victimhood. Sometimes a victim is a victim.

EVen in the most amicable splits, the children will pay a price and make a sacrifice and so will everyone in the family. Its the price of admission.