Father fails to be granted custody of his child after death of mother

Seriously?

walshb wrote: »

I would argue that even fathers that aren't in employment (and living in the family home) would in general spend less time interacting with the children than the mother.

Care to back up that arguement with some facts?

walshb wrote: »

The children themselves gravitate more to the mother.

I think its more they graviate to the adult they spend more time with.

walshb wrote: »

It's that bond that cannot be broken.

Its also a bond that is broken in most adoption cases.

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

It's more to point out and indicate the clear differences between interaction with mother and child and father and child, and how that difference can help one parent over another, or make one parent that bit more at ease with parenting.

I am not saying fathers cannot parent effectively. Just that in general it comes to mothers that bit more naturally and easily.

No, it shows nothing of the sort. The study is comparing cultures not maternal as opposed to paternal behaviours.

The researchers set out to observe cultural manifestations and managed to observe it. It's the type of observational research that's been carried out for decades.

Beyond the third para there's no mention of fathers and the coding system is based on 'maternal domains' and 'infant domains.'

There's no conclusion - beyond the fact that that's the way things are - as to why mothers are more involved than fathers in looking after 5 month old infants. Is it because fathers are not interested for economic, cultural or social reasons? Is it because fathers are interested but the culture doesn't facilitate them? Or are there are some other reasons?

in fact they hint at one reason why fathers are not more involved......

......mothers generally have more opportunities to acquire and practice skills that are central to infant caregiving than do fathers.

jackofalltrades

walshb wrote: »

Children always stay with the mother, unless she is incapable of looking after them. It's the way it is and always has been.

It's not though.
The reason the mother almost always gets custody of a young child is due to the tender years doctrine.
We inherited this along with the rest of the common law system from the UK.
Before this doctrine the father always got custody.
It wasn't till a feminist called Caroline Norton came along and under the feminism banner of equality:rolleyes:, argued that the mother should get the child instead.
Irish judges almost uniformly grant custody to the mother based on this doctrine.

Practice makes "perfect" and all that.....I don't see how it would be odd to think that mothers are probably better suited and equipped to parent that little bit better than fathers, in general.
They have had so much more practice and interaction with their young.

So if fathers had the same amount of time with their children presumably they would get the same practice and be as good parents?

walshb

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So if fathers had the same amount of time with their children presumably they would get the same practice and be as good parents?

Possible, yes. Thing is that they don't get the same amount of time with the children. That's the way it is for the most part.

walshb

Seriously? wrote: »

I think its more they graviate to the adult they spend more time with.

.

Yes, they do. Exactly what I said. They tend to spend more time with the mother, and this leads them to gravitate to the persons they spend more time with.

Maguined

walshb wrote: »

Possible, yes. Thing is that they don't get the same amount of time with the children. That's the way it is for the most part.

Are you not arguing for circular logic then? You believe mothers should get the kids because they are naturally better parents, you say they are naturally better parents because they spend more time with their mothers and the reason they spend more time with mothers is the belief that mothers are naturally better parents etc.

eviltwin

Maguined wrote: »

Are you not arguing for circular logic then? You believe mothers should get the kids because they are naturally better parents, you say they are naturally better parents because they spend more time with their mothers and the reason they spend more time with mothers is the belief that mothers are naturally better parents etc.

Exactly, unfortunately we don't really allow dads to spend much time with their kids, paternity leave is a pipe dream for a lot of men. Give men the chance to be fathers and they will step up to the plate. I was raised by a stay at home dad which was rare in the 80's, he did a fantastic job. I was very lucky when my last child was born that my husband was at home for the first six months, he did everything I was doing and did just as good a job. Yes there is a natural instinct in a woman when she has a baby that has been designed to help the newborn but that doesn't last his or her entire childhood. There is nothing inherent in a woman that makes her better at providing care either physical or emotional to a child.

walshb

Maguined wrote: »

Are you not arguing for circular logic then? You believe mothers should get the kids because they are naturally better parents, you say they are naturally better parents because they spend more time with their mothers and the reason they spend more time with mothers is the belief that mothers are naturally better parents etc.

I believe the best parent in the eyes of the courts and society should get the kids. It's such a complex situation. Far from perfect. Mothers rear children more than fathers. When it comes to custody mothers seem to get primary care/access. That is just how society works.

Now, not all the time does it work out right. Plenty of fathers out there who do not get primary custody who would do better parenting than the mother. I know this.

As for nature and naturally better this and that. Yes, naturally children connect and bond with the mother more so than with the father. This has to be of significance when it comes to spending time with and addressing the needs of young children. Mothers are the ones who typically have that closer connection and interaction. Variety of reasons for this. But the facts are that it is mothers who get much more practice and interaction with the children. This has to have an impact when comparing the parenting of the mother and father. In the case of access and custody this is all looked at, hence why it is more likely that the mother gets primary access/custody in most cases.

walshb

BWT, what are your views on mothers and fathers parenting when it comes to custody rights?

DamoKen

walshb wrote: »

Source? There probably isn't a source. It's just a natural occurrence. Mothers do the majority of the rearing, and seem to bond that bit easier. Maybe it's due to them carrying the child, feeding with the child etc. Fathers parent, and bond, just a bit differently than mothers. Ok, they can parent as effectively. Just that they don't tend to be the dominant parent. Children always stay with the mother, unless she is incapable of looking after them. It's the way it is and always has been.

Not sure if you think this is still valid considering you've agreed that the parent who spends more time with a child will bond more with the child, nothing surprising there.

But just some food for thought if you still believe the above, especially the part I've bolded. Your prevailing argument seems to be because it's always been that way it always should. There also seems to be a conception (which is quite common admittedly) relating to the bond that exists and can never be replaced or duplicated.

Not contesting in any way that this bond exists in the majority of cases. I would however contest the exclusivity that seems to occur whenever it's brought up to justify custody.

I remember reading something about the maternal bond a few years back, can't remember if it was on boards but found the results interesting and thought provoking. Hopefully you will too

Links seem to be mainly directing to subscription based archives for the actual paper now but here's a synopsis

New Statesman wrote:

In the brain of the father: why men can be just as good primary parents as women


... men raising a child without a female partner were found to have the same level of emotional response as a mother.

http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2014/07/brain-father-why-men-can-be-just-good-primary-parents-women

walshb

DamoKen wrote: »

Not sure if you think this is still valid considering you've agreed that the parent who spends more time with a child will bond more with the child, nothing surprising there.

Yes, and the mother generally does spend more time, PLUS the fact that she carried the child and bore the child and nourishes and feeds the child from a very young age. It's not just a simple "spends more time means better bonding" scenario. Mothers are at a distinct advantage in bonding and rearing and parenting children due to many factors, some natural and some societal.

Thanks for the link. It was interesting.

Jawgap

Just a reminder......


.....but the case in question didn't involve a mother being granted physical custody of a child over the wishes of the father......

......it involved a mother's former partner assuming guardianship rights and being given physical custody of a child over the wishes of the father.

......a significant factor in the decision seems to have been that one of the mother's dying wishes was that the child should remain with her former partner.

So I'm not sure how a "mothers-make-better-parents" argument is relevant here?

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and the mother generally does spend more time, PLUS the fact that she carried the child and bore the child and nourishes and feeds the child from a very young age. It's not just a simple "spends more time means better bonding" scenario. Mothers are at a distinct advantage in bonding and rearing and parenting children due to many factors, some natural and some societal.

Thanks for the link. It was interesting.

Are you suggesting men can't bond with their kids to the same degree (albeit in a different fashion) to women?

Doesn't augur well for same sex couples adopting kids does it?

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and the mother generally does spend more time, PLUS the fact that she carried the child and bore the child and nourishes and feeds the child from a very young age. It's not just a simple "spends more time means better bonding" scenario. Mothers are at a distinct advantage in bonding and rearing and parenting children due to many factors, some natural and some societal.

Thanks for the link. It was interesting.

That is relevant in the early days and obviously a dad can't breastfeed but apart from that he can do everything else. Women don't have a natural ability to parent, we are as clueless with kids as a lot of men, we are expected to know what to do though and because most women know they will have to do the bulk of the childcare they do their research. There is a reason why 99% of posters on parenting sites are women but ask any new mother and she'll probably say she finds it hard to know what the right thing to do is. That attitude is holding us back, its putting pressure on women to pretend everything is great when it might not be and its giving men the impression they should take a back seat because they won't be as competent as their partners.

walshb

Jawgap wrote: »

Are you suggesting men can't bond with their kids to the same degree (albeit in a different fashion) to women?

Doesn't augur well for same sex couples adopting kids does it?

They can bond in their way. They cannot bond as 'naturally' as a woman. Breastfeeding for example, is something that is very precious and important and stimulating for a newborn. There will always be that little bit of extra special closeness between a mother and her child. Something a father can't attain. Down to reasons that I have mentioned.

As for same sex couples adopting children. Well, again, it's just a different set up. Men adopting and then bonding with newborns isn't the same as a woman bonding with the child she carried and delivered to the world.

In a nutshell mothers and fathers bond in different ways with their children. All linked and similar and equal and that little bit different. It's not precise or measurable.

Jawgap

eviltwin wrote: »

That is relevant in the early days and obviously a dad can't breastfeed but apart from that he can do everything else. Women don't have a natural ability to parent, we are as clueless with kids as a lot of men, we are expected to know what to do though and because most women know they will have to do the bulk of the childcare they do their research. There is a reason why 99% of posters on parenting sites are women but ask any new mother and she'll probably say she finds it hard to know what the right thing to do is. That attitude is holding us back, its putting pressure on women to pretend everything is great when it might not be and its giving men the impression they should take a back seat because they won't be as competent as their partners.

I don't in anyway think my experience is unique but certainly with the first born there were plenty of nights (and days) where the two of us just stood there trying to figure out.....

(a) now what's it doing?
(b) wtf should we do?

As I've often remarked you get more instructions when you get a TV from Curry's than you do when you leave Holles St with your first child

Breastfeeding aside, I don't ever recall the kids' mother having any greater insight into rearing a child than I did - if anything it was those parents (Mams and Dads) with more kids and therefore more experience who were of the greatest help.

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

That is relevant in the early days and obviously a dad can't breastfeed but apart from that he can do everything else. Women don't have a natural ability to parent,

Whether or not they have a natural ability to parent, they seem to get a lot more time to bond and interact with their children. That is the key issue. This stands to them that bit more than fathers who don't interact or bond as much, and who don't spend as much time in the company of their children.

walshb

Jawgap wrote: »

Just a reminder......


.....but the case in question didn't involve a mother being granted physical custody of a child over the wishes of the father......

......it involved a mother's former partner assuming guardianship rights and being given physical custody of a child over the wishes of the father.

......a significant factor in the decision seems to have been that one of the mother's dying wishes was that the child should remain with her former partner.

So I'm not sure how a "mothers-make-better-parents" argument is relevant here?

The debate just went on a bit of a tangent.

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

They can bond in their way. They cannot bond as 'naturally' as a woman. Breastfeeding for example, is something that is very precious and important and stimulating for a newborn. There will always be that little bit of extra special closeness between a mother and her child. Something a father can't attain. Down to reasons that I have mentioned.

As for same sex couples adopting children. Well, again, it's just a different set up. Men adopting and ten bonding with newborns isn't the same as a woman bonding with the child she carried and delivered to the world.

In a nutshell mothers and fathers bond in different ways with their children. All linked and similar and equal and that little bit different. It's not precise or measurable.

I'm not denying that men and women bond with their natural and / or adoptive kids in different ways.

What I'm wondering is where is the evidence to show that the bond between father and child is any less intense / strong / deep than the bond between mother and child.

You responded to the post without replying to the question, so I'll repeat it.......

Are you suggesting men can't bond with their kids to the same degree (albeit in a different fashion) to women?

walshb

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not denying that men and women bond with their natural and / or adoptive kids in different ways.

What I'm wondering is where is the evidence to show that the bond between father and child is any less intense / strong / deep than the bond between mother and child.

You responded to the post without replying to the question, so I'll repeat it.......

I am sure men can bond as strong as women in their own way. I think I said this, or at least meant it, but I don't believe that men can get that extra x factor that a woman gets naturally. They can't. And that extra x factor is something special and treasured. What is that X factor? For me it is the connection/chemistry/bond a woman gets from carrying a baby for 40 weeks, nourishing baby pre birth, delivering baby and then nourishing baby and caring for baby. They get a head start! That head start is something that remains with mother and offspring for life.

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

I am sure men can bond as strong as women in their own way. I think I said this, or at least meant it, but I don't believe that men can get that extra x factor that a woman gets naturally. They can't. And that extra x factor is something special and treasured. What is that X factor? For me it is the connection/chemistry/bond a woman gets from carrying a baby for 40 weeks, nourishing baby pre birth, delivering baby and then nourishing baby and caring for baby. They get a head start! That head start is something that remains with mother and offspring for life.

the operative word missing is 'some'.....

You seem absolutely convinced that men lack the potential to bond with their kids to the same or greater degree than women.

If everything you said was true (evenly remotely) adoption, abortion, surrogacy etc would be less prevalent than they are and adoptions by mixed or same sex couples (or individuals) would be impossible, as would surrogacy.

EDIT: You could also add some forms of IVF to the list above.

While this mystical 'X factor' may be 'unmeasurable' in precise or absolute terms, surely it's measurable in relative or comparative terms? That being the case you should be able to link to a study or two that discusses the nature of mother / child bonding in the context of parenting and in comparison to, for example, father / child bonding, adoptive parents and surrogacy?

.....or is this just a culturally conditioned opinion you're expressing?

walshb

Jawgap wrote: »

the operative word missing is 'some'.....

You seem absolutely convinced that men lack the potential to bond with their kids to the same or greater degree than women.

They lack the potential and capability to bond in the same ways that women do as regards nature, ie carrying child/nourishing child pre birth/ delivering child and breastfeeding child. After this phase then it's all down to subjectivity and opinions. But, mostly after this it is the mother who spends the majority of the time with the children. Leads to more bonding and interaction and development of relationship.

Anyway, discuss this till the cows come home. It's not an exact science.

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

They lack the potential and capability to bond in the same ways that women do as regards nature, ie carrying child/nourishing child pre birth/ delivering child and breastfeeding child. After this phase then it's all down to subjectivity and opinions. But, mostly after this it is the mother who spends the majority of the time with the children. Leads to more bonding and interaction and development of relationship.

Anyway, discuss this till the cows come home. It's not an exact science.

....and yet you seem fairly confident declaring in fair unequivocal terms that a father "cannot bond as 'naturally' as a woman."

jackofalltrades

walshb wrote: »

I am sure men can bond as strong as women in their own way. I think I said this, or at least meant it, but I don't believe that men can get that extra x factor that a woman gets naturally. They can't. And that extra x factor is something special and treasured. What is that X factor? For me it is the connection/chemistry/bond a woman gets from carrying a baby for 40 weeks, nourishing baby pre birth, delivering baby and then nourishing baby and caring for baby. They get a head start! That head start is something that remains with mother and offspring for life.

Do you have any proof to back this up or is it all this just opinion?

walshb

Jawgap wrote: »

....and yet you seem fairly confident declaring in fair unequivocal terms that a father "cannot bond as 'naturally' as a woman."

He can't. I think I have been clear on this. Until a man can carry a child/nourish that child pre birth/deliver that child and breastfeed that child then yes, the man cannot bond as naturally as a woman.

Back to the topic at hand.

walshb

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Do you have any proof to back this up or is it all this just opinion?

Like a lot of things in life, they are down to opinions and views. But, if you want proof that a woman is the only sex to be able to carry a child and deliver a child and breastfeed said child, then I think a little reading would help. This is in my opinion a head start, and it is something that mother and child will always have. We men never have this.

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

He can't. I think I have been clear on this. Until a man can carry a child/nourish that child pre birth/deliver that child and breastfeed that child then yes, the man cannot bond as naturally as a woman.

Back to the topic at hand.

But just to be clear - this is just your opinion?

......that being the case, are fathers, (or adoptive parents, and biological parents in the case of surrogacy) who reckon they can and have bonded as naturally with their kids as mothers, wrong?

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

He can't. I think I have been clear on this. Until a man can carry a child/nourish that child pre birth/deliver that child and breastfeed that child then yes, the man cannot bond as naturally as a woman.

Back to the topic at hand.

Then by that logic a woman who breastfeeds is more bonded to her child than one who uses bottles, one who has had a natural delivery is more bonded than one who has had a c-section and mothers of children born by surrogates or those who have adopted have the smallest bond of all! Its not like that in reality, as someone very lucky to have had my own children I don't see my relationship with them as any better just because of the biology, if anything given the horrific post natal depression I had biology was a bit of a setback.

Your views are relevant in the early days, there are many scientific studies that show the hormonal impact of childbirth is to help a mother bond with her child but its a temporary thing. Parents are equally able to care for a child, even a non parent can do a great job. Lets stop putting motherhood on a pedestal as something almost divine because its not really. Making it so is damaging to men who are just as good at parenting and damaging to those women who for whatever reason choose not to have children.

walshb

Jawgap wrote: »

But just to be clear - this is just your opinion?

......that being the case, are fathers, (or adoptive parents, and biological parents in the case of surrogacy) who reckon they can and have bonded as naturally with their kids as mothers, wrong?

Well, I guess it is my opinion. I do think that the fact that a woman carries the child and delivers it and nourishes it so intimately, that this is something special and something unattainable for men. Men don't get to do this. It is a nature thing, hence it relates to "naturally." What do you think? Would you place a lot of emphasis on this journey that only a woman can experience?

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

Like a lot of things in life, they are down to opinions and views. But, if you want proof that a woman is the only sex to be able to carry a child and deliver a child and breastfeed said child, then I think a little reading would help. This is in my opinion a head start, and it is something that mother and child will always have. We men never have this.

How does surrogacy work then?

Are the parents who provide the DNA to have their biological child carried by another woman likely to have a less strong bond with the child than the birth mother?

also, what about the bond from the child's perspective - is there a possibility that from a child's perspective it would perceive its bond with the father to be stronger than the mother? And would that vary with gender - after all there is the 'old wives tale' of daughters being closer to their Dads that their mothers........before we even get on to discuss Irish mammies and their sons?

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Well, I guess it is my opinion. I do think that the fact that a woman carries the child and delivers it and nourishes it so intimately, that this is something special and something unattainable for men. Men don't get to do this. It is a nature thing, hence it relates to "naturally." What do you think? Would you place a lot of emphasis on this journey that only a woman can experience?

Of course its a huge mental and emotional thing for a woman but that doesn't follow through that women will as a result be better at parenting than a man. I went though as much of an emotional awakening doing my first half marathon as I did during childbirth. Any journey, especially one that takes such a physical toll is going to impact on you, its different for women because its a physical change but that's all. I can't think of a single woman who would feel having carried and delivered a child it makes her a better parent than a woman who adopted.

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

Then by that logic a woman who breastfeeds is more bonded to her child than one who uses bottles, one who has had a natural delivery is more bonded than one who has had a c-section and mothers of children born by surrogates or those who have adopted have the smallest bond of all! Its not like that in reality, as someone very lucky to have had my own children I don't see my relationship with them as any better just because of the biology, if anything given the horrific post natal depression I had biology was a bit of a setback.

Your views are relevant in the early days, there are many scientific studies that show the hormonal impact of childbirth is to help a mother bond with her child but its a temporary thing. Parents are equally able to care for a child, even a non parent can do a great job. Lets stop putting motherhood on a pedestal as something almost divine because its not really. Making it so is damaging to men who are just as good at parenting and damaging to those women who for whatever reason choose not to have children.

Very good points. I am not trying to put mothers on some pedestal, but I think it's fair to believe or view a mother/child bond as something a little different (closer/more intimate) than a father/child bond, at least at the early stages anyway.

In society today a mother will almost always get sole/primary custody during access battles. Why? Well, society says this is the way it is. We are all part of society. The decision to most always grant access to the mother is not always correct. No system is perfect.

walshb

Jawgap wrote: »

How does surrogacy work then?

Are the parents who provide the DNA to have their biological child carried by another woman likely to have a less strong bond with the child than the birth mother?

?

I never made out that I was some sort of parenting guru, or DNA/Nature expert.

What would your answer be to your questions? I am not in an interview. Maybe you answer this one, and I will come back and analyze the answer and offer my view on it? Fair?

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Very good points. I am not trying to put mothers on some pedestal, but I think it's fair to believe or view a mother/child bond as something a little different (closer/more intimate) than a father/child bond, at least at the early stages anyway.

In society today a mother will almost always get sole/primary custody during access battles. Why? Well, society says this is the way it is. We are all part of society. The decision to most always grant access to the mother is not always correct. No system is perfect.

Women get custody because of some outdated idea that women are better parents, there is often a logical reason ie the mother is a full time parent so it makes more sense. Its not because science has proven women do a better job just by virtue of being female. We spent years telling women they can do just about anything a man can do, maybe now we need to tell men they can do the things that women can do?

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

Well, I guess it is my opinion. I do think that the fact that a woman carries the child and delivers it and nourishes it so intimately, that this is something special and something unattainable for men. Men don't get to do this. It is a nature thing, hence it relates to "naturally." What do you think? Would you place a lot of emphasis on this journey that only a woman can experience?

to be honest, I think you need to go and find some people who go through the process of adoption - pregnancy is one route to parenthood, and for people who are blessed with children it's great.

......and if you think the screwed up system we have in this country for dealing with adoptions doesn't impose as great an emotional burden on men as it does women as part of the 'journey' to parenthood, then you are in very sheltered part of the country.

.....you have to be utterly convinced you want to be a parent to submit to the process in this country - and unlike pregnancy, it takes a sight longer than 9 months before you get to be a parent.

TBH, I think your views on parenthood, and fatherhood in particular, while not Victorian are pretty much half-a-century out of date.

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

Women get custody because of some outdated idea that women are better parents, there is often a logical reason ie the mother is a full time parent so it makes more sense. Its not because science has proven women do a better job just by virtue of being female. We spent years telling women they can do just about anything a man can do, maybe now we need to tell men they can do the things that women can do?

I am not sure it's just a case of "women are better parents." There's a lot of other factors intertwined there when courts decide on access and custody.

Biggest problem I guess is those who want to keep pushing men and women to be equal. Leave us be. Let us find our way. We are humans, but not equal in many many ways.

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

I never made out that I was some sort of parenting guru, or DNA/Nature expert.

What would your answer be to your questions? I am not in an interview. Maybe you answer this one, and I will come back and analyze the answer and offer my view on it? Fair?

You raised the issue that the carrying of the child was the critical factor in bonding and as a consequence of biology men could not bond to the same degree as women.....

......so instead of twisting and trying to turn it around maybe you'd explain how your "X-factor" works in surrogacy (or some forms of IVF) where biological and birth parentage are not coterminous.

walshb

Jawgap wrote: »

to be honest, I think you need to go and find some people who go through the process of adoption - pregnancy is one route to parenthood, and for people who are blessed with children it's great.

......and if you think the screwed up system we have in this country for dealing with adoptions doesn't impose as great an emotional burden on men as it does women as part of the 'journey' to parenthood, then you are in very sheltered part of the country.

.....you have to be utterly convinced you want to be a parent to submit to the process in this country - and unlike pregnancy, it takes a sight longer than 9 months before you get to be a parent.

TBH, I think your views on parenthood, and fatherhood in particular, while not Victorian are pretty much half-a-century out of date.

Well, you keep bringing up different scenarios. We could debate each one separately.

I don't see how my view about parenting today is 50 years out of date. Today women still parent more. They still are more active in the upbringing of their children than men. They still interact more, and yes, they still carry and deliver and breastfeed. Men are becoming more active in their children's upbringing than 50 years ago. No doubt.

walshb

Jawgap wrote: »

You raised the issue that the carrying of the child was the critical factor in bonding and as a consequence of biology men could not bond to the same degree as women.....

......so instead of twisting and trying to turn it around maybe you'd explain how your "X-factor" works in surrogacy (or some forms of IVF) where biological and birth parentage are not coterminous.

I am not up on surrogacy. Its methods and rules and laws etc. I don't even know the process or journey.

walshb

Jawgap wrote: »

You raised the issue that the carrying of the child was the critical factor in bonding and as a consequence of biology men could not bond to the same degree as women.....
s.

Being selective here in what I said.

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Well, you keep bringing up different scenarios. We could debate each one separately.

I don't see how my view about parenting today is 50 years out of date. Today women still parent more. They still are more active in the upbringing of their children than men. They still interact more, and yes, they still carry and deliver and breastfeed. Men are becoming more active in their children's upbringing than 50 years ago. No doubt.

Women are more involved in raising their kids but not because of biology. Its because we have maternity leave and because there is no state aid for childcare so after 2-3 kids it often makes more financial sense for someone to stay home. Its usually the case that the woman has the smaller income so she gives up her job. No paternity leave means even if a dad wants to be at home he can't. None of that has anything to do with mothers being better naturally at parenting, its by design because the state has no desire to change it.

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

Women are more involved in raising their kids but not because of biology. Its because we have maternity leave and because there is no state aid for childcare so after 2-3 kids it often makes more financial sense for someone to stay home. Its usually the case that the woman has the smaller income so she gives up her job. No paternity leave means even if a dad wants to be at home he can't. None of that has anything to do with mothers being better naturally at parenting, its by design because the state has no desire to change it.

Yes, I agree. So I am not 50 years behind. Today women still parent (and interact more with their children) than men. Number of factors for this. We are the state. We are the people. It's the way it is by our choices and decisions.

Rachiee

Fathers definitely don't have enough rights in this country to their own off spring and normally a case like this would really upset me but the child is clearly bonded to his step parent. he has lost his mother he doesn't need to lose his home, his step father and have his life completely turned upside down. I can understand the father wanting his son but if the child wants to stay where he is and it would be traumatic for him to move it wouldnt be fair to make him.

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

Yes, I agree. So I am not 50 years behind. Today women still parent (and interact more with their children) than men. Number of factors for this. We are the state. We are the people. It's the way it is by our choices and decisions.

I think if you asked most parents would welcome anything that allowed dads to be more involved. Its good for both sexes and most of all for kids.

walshb

As to biology. If we look through history before society and laws and rules and democracies etc, was biology a non factor? Men hunted and gathered and women nourished and cared for their children. Men interacted far less than the women with the children. That was the way of nature and evolution. Nature and evolution change, but they still play a part.

jackofalltrades

walshb wrote: »

I am not sure it's just a case of "women are better parents." There's a lot of other factors intertwined there when courts decide on access and custody.

It pretty much is.
That's what the tender years doctrine is all about.
It societies view, made up of people like yourself who view women as better parents but don't really have anything to back it up with.

Here a view of a family court judge.

Judge 1 “I believe that children should be left with their mother at least until they are 12 or 13

So his belief, which doesn't seem to be based on any scientific evidence, means that the father gets the raw end of the custody stick.

Biggest problem I guess is those who want to keep pushing men and women to be equal. Leave us be. Let us find our way. We are humans, but not equal in many many ways.

I think the biggest problem is unchallenged opinions on people being better at things by the virtue of what gender they were born into.

eviltwin

walshb wrote: »

As to biology. If we look through history before society and laws and rules and democracies etc, was biology a non factor? Men hunted and gathered and women nourished and cared for their children. Men interacted far less than the women with the children. That was the way of nature and evolution. Nature and evolution change, but they still play a part.

If you are going back that far then yeah it made sense to have those roles, men couldn't breastfeed, women weren't as strong as men when it came to hunting so it they had clearly defined roles. Things are different now, if a woman isn't breastfeeding anyone can care for the child, work is not manual so we don't need men to go out and be the hunter gatherers.

Jawgap

walshb wrote: »

Well, you keep bringing up different scenarios. We could debate each one separately.

I don't see how my view about parenting today is 50 years out of date.

Because we've moved way, way past the idea of the nuclear family as the only context in which parenting can take place. We've fostering, adoption, various forms of IVF and surrogacy. Adoptions can be domestic or foreign; mixed hetero couples or same sex couples; single people etc.

With improved technology we've stay-at-home parents, working-from-home parents, parental leave schemes, every kind of childcare arrangement you can imagine; the decline of the extended family; emigration and immigration.

walshb wrote: »

Today women still parent more. They still are more active in the upbringing of their children than men. They still interact more, and yes, they still carry and deliver and breastfeed. Men are becoming more active in their children's upbringing than 50 years ago. No doubt.

You seem to equate the idea that women parent more with the idea that, therefore, women make better parents - it's a circular argument. You've yet to produce one shred of evidence that a father (or non-birth parent, if you like) cannot do as well as a mother, when there are plenty of examples of successful stay-at-home Dads and adoptive parents.

walshb

eviltwin wrote: »

If you are going back that far then yeah it made sense to have those roles, men couldn't breastfeed, women weren't as strong as men when it came to hunting so it they had clearly defined roles. Things are different now, if a woman isn't breastfeeding anyone can care for the child, work is not manual so we don't need men to go out and be the hunter gatherers.

Yes, times have certainly changed, but biology and nature are very similar. That maternal instinct and bond that is created from nature/biology is still very powerful and impacting on the relationship between a mother and child. Fathers did not get that years ago, do not get it today, and will likely never ever get it.

As to welcoming dads more into the children's lives, I am strictly speaking about family units with stability. Mother and father in the home and both rearing the children. Most of the time it's the mother who rears or watches or cares for the children.

jackofalltrades

walshb wrote: »

As to biology. If we look through history before society and laws and rules and democracies etc, was biology a non factor? Men hunted and gathered and women nourished and cared for their children. Men interacted far less than the women with the children. That was the way of nature and evolution. Nature and evolution change, but they still play a part.

Are you claiming that women have a biological advantage when it comes to being parents?