Mother or Father

lazygal

Does access always involve overnight and/or completely separate visits? I'd be in favour of a gradual introduction, over days, weeks and months, of a child to a parent where access needs to be arranged, so the baby or child can get used to the parents and different locations. I don't think a sudden leaving of a 15 week old with someone he or she is not familiar with is best for any child.

Big Bag of Chips

In the other thread the father has access to the child. The child knows him. It's not a case of being sent to a stranger's house over night.

lazygal

My husband can look after our children as well as I can. But in the early days he couldn't feed them. And he couldn't let them suck for comfort or to sleep. And he couldn't feed them at night. So he looked after them differently and had we needed access and custody arrangements overnight stays would not have been possible. Every situation is different, as I have to keep repeating.

lazygal

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

In the other thread the father has access to the child. The child knows him. It's not a case of being sent to a stranger's house over night.

In the other thread there are numerous other variables about whether overnight access is appropriate.

And you did introduce a different scenario in your post about mothers being absent, to which I responded.

tempnam

eviltwin wrote: »

Whoever can best provide a stable home for the child. There is nothing a mother can do that a father can't and vice versa.

Breastfeeding?

As a father, it would break my heart to take my baby away from her mother.

I actually believe that the 2 of them have a stronger bond than I have with my child.

We're a stable family, and we both love our baby more than anything, but I can't comfort her as well as Mammy can when she's tired/teething/has a fall etc. etc.... Also, I can't breastfeed. So I do actually think that young babies are generally better off being cared for by their mother (assuming there are no factors such as abuse/alcoholism etc. at play)

Big Bag of Chips

But my point is, is that not a self perpetuating theory? For a bottle fed baby there is no reason for the mam to take the lead in soothing/comforting etc. If the dad (and mam) believes that the mother is better at all that stuff, then they will stand back and let the mother do it. The child will then look to the mother to comfort them as that is who they are used to.

I know of one family where the mother isn't particularly maternal, despite having breastfed each of their children. She just doesn't come across as the motherly type. All of their children will go to their dad first. If they look for something from her she will call the dad to help them. If they cry they look for their dad... Because he is the one who does it.

By believing that a father can't do it as good as a mother is insulting. Some fathers can't do it as well as the mothers, but they seem happy enough to sit back and use that as an excuse! There is no difference in the man I know and other men.. So why is he able to do it as well/better than the mother, but other fathers aren't?

lazygal

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

But my point is, is that not a self perpetuating theory? For a bottle fed baby there is no reason for the mam to take the lead in soothing/comforting etc. If the dad (and mam) believes that the mother is better at all that stuff, then they will stand back and let the mother do it. The child will then look to the mother to comfort them as that is who they are used to.

I know of one family where the mother isn't particularly maternal, despite having breastfed each of their children. She just doesn't come across as the motherly type. All of their children will go to their dad first. If they look for something from her she will call the dad to help them. If they cry they look for their dad... Because he is the one who does it.

By believing that a father can't do it as good as a mother is insulting. Some fathers can't do it as well as the mothers, but they seem happy enough to sit back and use that as an excuse! There is no difference in the man I know and other men.. So why is he able to do it as well/better than the mother, but other fathers aren't?

Does this not prove my point? That every situation is different. I'm not particularly maternal myself. I love my children, but I'm not a very 'motherly' type. And sorry, but its not wrong to say that I was better at breastfeeding and soothing than my husband because I had the equipment he doesn't have. He's better at building endless lego towers and kicking a ball with them. My son needed comfort sucking till he was at least six months. Even now he toddles over for a quick go on the boob when he's tired or whatever. That doesn't mean I see my husband as less of a parent or that I'm superior to him.

tempnam

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

But my point is, is that not a self perpetuating theory? For a bottle fed baby there is no reason for the mam to take the lead in soothing/comforting etc. If the dad (and mam) believes that the mother is better at all that stuff, then they will stand back and let the mother do it. The child will then look to the mother to comfort them as that is who they are used to.

I know of one family where the mother isn't particularly maternal, despite having breastfed each of their children. She just doesn't come across as the motherly type. All of their children will go to their dad first. If they look for something from her she will call the dad to help them. If they cry they look for their dad... Because he is the one who does it.

By believing that a father can't do it as good as a mother is insulting. Some fathers can't do it as well as the mothers, but they seem happy enough to sit back and use that as an excuse! There is no difference in the man I know and other men.. So why is he able to do it as well/better than the mother, but other fathers aren't?

First of all, you are either speaking about the hypothetical situation, or a real-life situation. You can’t intermingle the two and then come up with an answer.

In any case, I was just speaking for myself, in my own family situation; which is all I can speak for. I’m not in a position to speak on behalf of other people.

I never said "a father can't do it as well as a mother" - so I'm not insulting anyone. You are actually being insulting by suggesting that I “sit back and use that as an excuse!” which is far from the truth.

With regards to my own situation though – As I said, mammy was (and still is) breast feeding. Also, I only had a 2-week break when our daughter was born, but I had to go straight back to work after that. i.e. I was away from them both for roughly 10 hours each weekday for the first year of our baby’s life. Whereas mammy was able to take extended maternity leave. So it would be silly to make an assumption that my child favours me over her mother.

I never said I was happy about it. In fact, if we were in a position where I could give up work and be a stay-at-home daddy that would suit me down to the ground. But we’re not, so I can’t.

Big Bag of Chips

I'm on the phone so can't multiquote, and I'm going to leave it after this because I have school runs and dinner to do!! But this is what you said in the other thread lazygal

a 15 week old baby needs to be in a secure consistent environment with his or her mother and bonding should be done around the needs of the child not the wishes of parents. No 15 week old would benefit from spending nights away from hir or her mother

And all your other posts were filled with the same. You are going to great lengths to say that every situation is different etc but above, and in your order posts on that thread you are quite adamant that "no 15 week old" should be away from their mother for a length of time. You mention a "secure and consistent environment with his or her mother"... Why is a secure and consistent environment with their father not an option?

I know you are commenting based on your experience with your 2 kids. But your experience with your 2 kids doesn't give you the final say on all babies, everywhere. Your babies needed you more than their dad. Not every baby needs their mam more than their dad. Some babies can actually function and develops quite well with the dad being as much, or even more involved as mam.
Apart from an exclusively breastfed baby, no baby will be harmed or adversely affected by being in the care of another person who is capable of caring for them equally as well as the mother. And to suggest a father is not capable just furthers the attitude towards fathers.

lazygal

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

I'm on the phone so can't multiquote, and I'm going to leave it after this because I have school runs and dinner to do!! But this is what you said in the other thread lazygal



And all your other posts were filled with the same. You are going to great lengths to say that every situation is different etc but above, and in your order posts on that thread you are quite adamant that "no 15 week old" should be away from their mother for a length of time. You mention a "secure and consistent environment with his or her mother"... Why is a secure and consistent environment with their father not an option?

I know you are commenting based on your experience with your 2 kids. But your experience with your 2 kids doesn't give you the final say on all babies, everywhere. Your babies needed you more than their dad. Not every baby needs their mam more than their dad. Some babies can actually function and develops quite well with the dad being as much, or even more involved as mam.
Apart from an exclusively breastfed baby, no baby will be harmed or adversely affected by being in the care of another person who is capable of caring for them equally as well as the mother. And to suggest a father is not capable just furthers the attitude towards fathers.

I stand over what I said in that thread in regard to that situation. It sounds like the father is in no position to take the baby overnight, given that the child has no cot to sleep in or bottles prepared. You are introducing hypothetical scenarios like a child who has to be taken from his or her mother from birth. Why are you bringing my comments on an actual situation on a different thread into a more general discussion on shared custody arrangements?
I have said it before and I'll say it again, yes for me the ideal is for a 15 week old baby to be with his or her mother. For many reasons, security and comfort being the main ones. That's not to say I think the father should stay away. In a hypothetical scenario where shared access needs to be arranged I think it should be not based around overnight visits until the child is older.
You can post about how you think some fathers sit back because some mothers think they can't do as good a job, but that's not how my family works. You cannot extrapolate that because I think a 15 week old belongs with his or her mother in a case such as that in the other thread that I think fathers aren't necessary or that all children, in every single scenario where shared access is required, should always be with the mother. I said in my first post on this thread, and have repeated since, that it all depends on individual circumstances.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

I stand over what I said in that thread in regard to that situation. It sounds like the father is in no position to take the baby overnight, given that the child has no cot to sleep in or bottles prepared. You are introducing hypothetical scenarios like a child who has to be taken from his or her mother from birth. Why are you bringing my comments on an actual situation on a different thread into a more general discussion on shared custody arrangements?
I have said it before and I'll say it again, yes for me the ideal is for a 15 week old baby to be with his or her mother. For many reasons, security and comfort being the main ones. That's not to say I think the father should stay away. In a hypothetical scenario where shared access needs to be arranged I think it should be not based around overnight visits until the child is older.
You can post about how you think some fathers sit back because some mothers think they can't do as good a job, but that's not how my family works. You cannot extrapolate that because I think a 15 week old belongs with his or her mother in a case such as that in the other thread that I think fathers aren't necessary or that all children, in every single scenario where shared access is required, should always be with the mother. I said in my first post on this thread, and have repeated since, that it all depends on individual circumstances.

Your comments were quite sweeping and clearly meant to be applied in a general sense and not just to the situation at hand.

CelticRambler

lazygal wrote: »

My husband can look after our children as well as I can. But in the early days he couldn't feed them. And he couldn't let them suck for comfort or to sleep. And he couldn't feed them at night.

When our first-born came along, my wife hadn't a clue what to do with "it". Sure, she'd played with dolls as a child, and she'd been to all the pre-natal classes and changed nappies on a pretend baby, but the day she came home from hospital, she was completely freaked out by everything she had to do. At that stage, I'd had zero experience of looking after babies (and hadn't played with dolls as a boy ) but fortunately I'd grown up with cats in the house and knew a bit about puke and poo and carrying little creatures around with one arm.

To make matters worse, our little fella had pyloric stenosis, so began vomiting up his (breast)feeds which made my wife feel even more miserable, and after eight weeks she chose to put him on a bottle which meant I could feed him at any time of day or night, and I did. There's no doubt that even though my wife and I lived together, and even though she eventually got the hang of child-rearing (we had four in the end) I was the primary carer for our first-born and nineteen years later he talks to me way more than he talks to his mother.

Besides, the idea that a baby/6-month needs to stay in one place all the time is nonsense. They'll sleep anywhere, anytime if they're given the chance - how many parents take their grumpy child for a drive just to get a few hours' peace? It's not where they sleep that matters, it's what you do with them when they're awake.

lazygal

CelticRambler wrote: »

When our first-born came along, my wife hadn't a clue what to do with "it". Sure, she'd played with dolls as a child, and she'd been to all the pre-natal classes and changed nappies on a pretend baby, but the day she came home from hospital, she was completely freaked out by everything she had to do. At that stage, I'd had zero experience of looking after babies (and hadn't played with dolls as a boy ) but fortunately I'd grown up with cats in the house and knew a bit about puke and poo and carrying little creatures around with one arm.

To make matters worse, our little fella had pyloric stenosis, so began vomiting up his (breast)feeds which made my wife feel even more miserable, and after eight weeks she chose to put him on a bottle which meant I could feed him at any time of day or night, and I did. There's no doubt that even though my wife and I lived together, and even though she eventually got the hang of child-rearing (we had four in the end) I was the primary carer for our first-born and nineteen years later he talks to me way more than he talks to his mother.

Besides, the idea that a baby/6-month needs to stay in one place all the time is nonsense. They'll sleep anywhere, anytime if they're given the chance - how many parents take their grumpy child for a drive just to get a few hours' peace? It's not where they sleep that matters, it's what you do with them when they're awake.

Once again, proving the point I made many times that every scenario is different.

runawaybishop

lazygal wrote: »

Once again, proving the point I made many times that every scenario is different.

Except that's not what you state, on several occasions.

"I have said it before and I'll say it again, yes for me the ideal is for a 15 week old baby to be with his or her mother."

The above statement is very unambiguous, you do not feel a father can be a primary caregiver.

lazygal

runawaybishop wrote: »

Except that's not what you state, on several occasions.

"I have said it before and I'll say it again, yes for me the ideal is for a 15 week old baby to be with his or her mother."

The above statement is very unambiguous, you do not feel a father can be a primary caregiver.

I said it is the ideal, I didn't say it is always possible. In the scenario outlined in the other thread, I think its quite clear that the mother is a more appropriate primary caregiver than a father who changes times, doesn't have any equipment for a baby and doesn't want to learn to make bottles.

Big Bag of Chips

lazygal wrote: »

Why are you bringing my comments on an actual situation on a different thread into a more general discussion on shared custody arrangements?

Because in that thread you were talking in general terms about babies and bonding not specifically about that baby and that father.

tempnam, I didn't mean to imply that you use it as an excuse to leave your wife do all the soothing etc, and I'm sorry if that's how it came across. I meant it in a general sense: If society as a whole believe that a mother is better able to take care of a baby it makes it much easier for fathers to walk away, or to not take up access or overnights. This puts an unnecessary pressure on mothers. It is *expected* that a mother is just naturally able to do this things, and it's generally seen as something out if the ordinary if a man proves himself to be great at soothing/changing nappies etc. "Isn't he great" is something often said of hands-on fathers. Not said that often about mothers though!

So if a mother doesn't automatically and easily slip into the role of primary carer it can be very upsetting, because the perception is the mother is better at it. There has been a shift in recent times where fathers are proving that they are equally as capable as women to care for their children. Maybe women are "better", but that doesn't mean that a man shouldn't be given the opportunity.

In the above cases I'm talking about separated parents where access/custody would be an issue. In families where mam & dad live together.. Do whatever suits your own family!! Separated families have to live by different rules.

runawaybishop

lazygal wrote: »

I said it is the ideal, I didn't say it is always possible. In the scenario outlined in the other thread, I think its quite clear that the mother is a more appropriate primary caregiver than a father who changes times, doesn't have any equipment for a baby and doesn't want to learn to make bottles.

I am not interested in the other threaed, where I already said I agree with you I believe in that scenario.

In what way is the mother being the primary caregiver ideal, do you feel that fathers are somehow subpar when it comes to looking after and providing for a child?

lazygal

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Because in that thread you were talking in general terms about babies and bonding not specifically about that baby and that father.

tempnam, I didn't mean to imply that you use it as an excuse to leave your wife do all the soothing etc, and I'm sorry if that's how it came across. I meant it in a general sense: If society as a whole believe that a mother is better able to take care of a baby it makes it much easier for fathers to walk away, or to not take up access or overnights. This puts an unnecessary pressure on mothers. It is *expected* that a mother is just naturally able to do this things, and it's generally seen as something out if the ordinary if a man proves himself to be great at soothing/changing nappies etc. "Isn't he great" is something often said of hands-on fathers. Not said that often about mothers though!

So if a mother doesn't automatically and easily slip into the role of primary carer it can be very upsetting, because the perception is the mother is better at it. There has been a shift in recent times where fathers are proving that they are equally as capable as women to care for their children. Maybe women are "better", but that doesn't mean that a man shouldn't be given the opportunity.

In the above cases I'm talking about separated parents where access/custody would be an issue. In families where mam & dad live together.. Do whatever suits your own family!! Separated families have to live by different rules.

I think you're making a fair amount of generalisations yourself there. Most fathers change nappies, play with their kids and don't leave everything to 'herself'.

lazygal

runawaybishop wrote: »

I am not interested in the other threaed, where I already said I agree with you I believe in that scenario.

In what way is the mother being the primary caregiver ideal, do you feel that fathers are somehow subpar when it comes to looking after and providing for a child?

I never said they are subpar. My husband does a great job as a father. In fact, he has a lot more patience than I do in many areas. But I was better at feeding and providing comfort in the baby stages, and still am for one of them as my toddler suckles on the breast for comfort when he's upset. My husband can wash the nappies and feed them just as well as I can now.

Big Bag of Chips

Most fathers change nappies, play with their kids and don't leave everything to 'herself'.

I'm not suggesting they don't? I don't understand your point.

runawaybishop

lazygal wrote: »

I never said they are subpar. My husband does a great job as a father. In fact, he has a lot more patience than I do in many areas. But I was better at feeding and providing comfort in the baby stages, and still am for one of them as my toddler suckles on the breast for comfort when he's upset. My husband can wash the nappies and fed them just as well as I can.

You said the mother is ideal , that means you feel that the father is not ideal logically.

Not interested in your personal family makeup, this is a generalisation.

lazygal

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

I'm not suggesting they don't? I don't understand your point.

You're posting about how there's some view of fathers, created because mothers do everything and don't trust men to do it as well, in the care of infants. Like this:

"Isn't he great" is something often said of hands-on fathers. Not said that often about mothers though!

I don't see any hand claps for fellas I know who change a nappy or give a bottle. I got far more praise for sticking with breastfeeding and being out and about with the baby after the birth than my husband ever got.

lazygal

runawaybishop wrote: »

You said the mother is ideal , that means you feel that the father is not ideal logically.

Not interested in your personal family makeup, this is a generalisation.

Ideal, but not always perfect, for a young baby, for reasons of comfort like skin to skin, and soothing, being next to the smell of their mother. As babies get older their needs change. Being a primary caregiver doesn't mean others can't bond with the baby though.

runawaybishop

lazygal wrote: »

Ideal, but not always perfect, for a young baby, for reasons of comfort like skin to skin, and soothing, being next to the smell of their mother. As babies get older their needs change. Being a primary caregiver doesn't mean others can't bond with the baby though.

And why can men not be just as suitable as women?

lazygal

runawaybishop wrote: »

And why can men not be just as suitable as women?

Sometimes they can. But not always. Babies want their mothers. That's just nature. My 15 month old still wants me more than his dad sometimes. That doesn't mean I think my husband isn't as good a parent as I am, just than I have the mammy stuff he doesn't. In the future, dad will be far preferable for other reasons I'm sure and I'll be the one wondering why they don't need me as much.

runawaybishop

lazygal wrote: »

Sometimes they can. But not always. Babies want their mothers. That's just nature. My 15 month old still wants me more than his dad sometimes. That doesn't mean I think my husband isn't as good a parent as I am, just than I have the mammy stuff he doesn't. In the future, dad will be far preferable for other reasons I'm sure and I'll be the one wondering why they don't need me as much.

Not interested in your situation.

What makes you think babies in general want their mother over their father? You claim "thats just nature" - can you show me the proof?

OldNotWIse

runawaybishop wrote: »

And why can men not be just as suitable as women?

They dont have skin or something

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

Sometimes they can. But not always. Babies want their mothers. That's just nature. My 15 month old still wants me more than his dad sometimes. That doesn't mean I think my husband isn't as good a parent as I am, just than I have the mammy stuff he doesn't. In the future, dad will be far preferable for other reasons I'm sure and I'll be the one wondering why they don't need me as much.

Babies are more in tune to their mothers certainly than anyone else, probably there was a need for that back when mothers were left alone to care for their children without any input from dad. Things are different now though, most dads take time off after the birth, they are hands on and babies know them. Apart from breastfeeding there is nothing a dad cannot do. I don't understand these attitudes, we all say we want equality, that we want dads to step up to the plate, its good for everyone when that happens and most men want to do it but then they are discouraged by these vague claims that its not in a child's best interests?

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

Babies are more in tune to their mothers certainly than anyone else, probably there was a need for that back when mothers were left alone to care for their children without any input from dad. Things are different now though, most dads take time off after the birth, they are hands on and babies know them. Apart from breastfeeding there is nothing a dad cannot do. I don't understand these attitudes, we all say we want equality, that we want dads to step up to the plate, its good for everyone when that happens and most men want to do it but then they are discouraged by these vague claims that its not in a child's best interests?

I have repeatedly said my husband is as good a parent as I am. In some ways he's better. For the first few months, we took on different roles. Now we have moved to a different stage and things are more equal. But my toddler gets comfort from the breast, which my husband cannot provide, so that means he looks to me. When he's older he'll move on and maybe he'll be into rugby like his dad and I won't get a look it. I'm not going to beat myself up about the fact that I won't always be the one they run to, in fact I'm quite looking forward to being able to wear non breastfeeding clothes. My husband has stepped up to the plate, even though we didn't divide up everything exactly equally in terms of raising our children.

Tasden

lazygal wrote: »

I have repeatedly said my husband is as good a parent as I am. In some ways he's better. For the first few months, we took on different roles. Now we have moved to a different stage and things are more equal. But my toddler gets comfort from the breast, which my husband cannot provide, so that means he looks to me. When he's older he'll move on and maybe he'll be into rugby like his dad and I won't get a look it. I'm not going to beat myself up about the fact that I won't always be the one they run to, in fact I'm quite looking forward to being able to wear non breastfeeding clothes. My husband has stepped up to the plate, even though we didn't divide up everything exactly equally in terms of raising our children.

But that's what your kids want because its what you do. I bottle fed, my child would have cuddled up to anyone for comfort.