Mother or Father

ForstalDave

I was reading one of the threads here and it seems most people think the mother should be the primary care giver, So i thought we would do a test and a poll.

So child of 6 months perants spilt up, who should get custody?

lazygal

There are far too many variables and each scenario is different.
The custody arrangements should be in the best interests of the child and reviewed regularly to ensure that is the case.

pc7

Agree with Lazygal, who ever is in the best position to provide the child with what they need should. If the mother is a drug/alcoholic or other health issues then the father and vice versa.

OldNotWIse

Too many variables. I don't believe the mother should automatically be assumed to be the primary caregiver though.

ForstalDave

Assume both are equal both have good jobs and work hard no drugs or alcohol. Both deemed fit by the state.

eviltwin

ForstalDave wrote: »

Assume both are equal both have good jobs and work hard no drugs or alcohol. Both deemed fit by the state.

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.

lazygal

ForstalDave wrote: »

Assume both are equal both have good jobs and work hard no drugs or alcohol. Both deemed fit by the state.

This still doesn't take other variables into account. Suppose a father or mother moves to a different country, or the child prefers to stay with a father and see the mother only occasionally, or the mother is still breast-feeding, or, or, or.

There is no one size fits all approach, and the main person who should be taken into account is the child.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

This still doesn't take other variables into account. Suppose a father or mother moves to a different country, or the child prefers to stay with a father and see the mother only occasionally, or the mother is still breast-feeding, or, or, or.

There is no one size fits all approach, and the main person who should be taken into account is the child.

In the hypothetical situation, the child is 6 months old...

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

In the hypothetical situation, the child is 6 months old...

And things can change. A six month old grows into a child and teenager with a mind of his or her own. So it is impossible to say that in every case custody arrangements should be the same.

Orion

That's a nonsense poll so I've closed it. If you want to have a discussion about who the primary caregiver should be that's fine - but a random Mother vs Father choice without any further details adds nothing to any discussion.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

And things can change. A six month old grows into a child and teenager with a mind of his or her own. So it is impossible to say that in every case custody arrangements should be the same.

I know, but we are not talking about a child or teenager that's kind of my point. How does a 6 month old favour one caregiver over another, all things being equal, never mind convey as much??

Big Bag of Chips

If both parents are suitable parents - live within easy distance of each other etc then what's wrong with joint custody? Why should it be one or the other? If the parents are serious about the best interests of the child then why would they deny the child the chance of an equal relationship with the other parent?

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I know, but we are not talking about a child or teenager that's kind of my point. How does a 6 month old favour one caregiver over another, all things being equal, never mind convey as much??

I was thinking longer term. Perhaps custody was awarded to one parent at six months of age, and as the child grows older he or she prefers to spend more time with one parent than the other. My point being, what is arranged at six months of age should not be final, and as I said, subject to ongoing review. A six month old isn't six months forever, and custody needs to reflect that.

lazygal

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

If both parents are suitable parents - live within easy distance of each other etc then what's wrong with joint custody? Why should it be one or the other? If the parents are serious about the best interests of the child then why would they deny the child the chance of an equal relationship with the other parent?

I know one child who was under a joint custody arrangement and hated it. Having to pack up from one week to the next and sleep in one place for a few nights and then somewhere else for a few more. When he was older he told his parents it wasn't working and they'd have to come to some other agreement. It might suit adults to divide time neatly but that doesn't mean it suits the child.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

I was thinking longer term. Perhaps custody was awarded to one parent at six months of age, and as the child grows older he or she prefers to spend more time with one parent than the other. My point being, what is arranged at six months of age should not be final, and as I said, subject to ongoing review. A six month old isn't six months forever, and custody needs to reflect that.

The hypothetical situation was not. And yes I think we all know that six months is not six months forever. Such orders are not final anyway. The likelihood is though, if the father is deprived of access to the child when he/she is young, this will be used against him in future reviews on the basis that the child needs consistency etc.

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

The hypothetical situation was not. And yes I think we all know that six months is not six months forever. Such orders are not final anyway. The likelihood is though, if the father is deprived of access to the child when he/she is young, this will be used against him in future reviews on the basis that the child needs consistency etc.

So what are we discussing then? What is best for a child on the day he or she turns six months of age and no age outside that?

ForstalDave

Orion wrote: »

That's a nonsense poll so I've closed it. If you want to have a discussion about who the primary caregiver should be that's fine - but a random Mother vs Father choice without any further details adds nothing to any discussion.

But that is the point of the poll, Many people favor Mother over Father, It is ingrained into many people that A mother is considered a better carer when it comes to kids. The question and poll was posed purposely to see if this has changed or if people would question before answering. (Happily people did)

lazygal

ForstalDave wrote: »

But that is the point of the poll, Many people favor Mother over Father, It is ingrained into many people that A mother is considered a better carer when it comes to kids. The question and poll was posed purposely to see if this has changed or if people would question before answering. (Happily people did)

Just to settle something above, did you pick six months for a reason?

Big Bag of Chips

I did mention "best interests of the child" - a hypothetical 6 month old doesn't care where they hypothetically sleep.

As children get older they might prefer to stay in one home with sleepovers in another. School routines, after school activites etc might mean they have to stay in one house more than the other.. They might love going between two houses - why did that child have to "pack up"? Surely there was sufficient stuff in each house? Separated parents isn't an ideal situation -and believe it or not, while the best interests of the child need to be kept in mind, the parents can't be just disregarded. My husband has a daughter from a previous relationship. When she was 7 or 8 she used to kick up murder coming to our house for overnight access. No reason other than she didn't want to leave her own house - didn't want her mam to go out etc. Would it have been in her best interests to leave her at home so she didn't get upset? Resulting in her mam never being able to go out, and her dad never being able to maintain any osrt of relationship?

She was forced to come a few times until she gave up the fight, and just accepted that that was the way her life was.

Just because 1 child didn't like moving between 2 houses doesn't mean joint custody should be disregarded for everyone else.

eviltwin

ForstalDave wrote: »

But that is the point of the poll, Many people favor Mother over Father, It is ingrained into many people that A mother is considered a better carer when it comes to kids. The question and poll was posed purposely to see if this has changed or if people would question before answering. (Happily people did)

Do most people still feel that way? Surely we've moved on from such narrow minded thinking. And all mothers are not the same, some are better parents than others, you can't just lump every mother together and say children are better off with them.

lazygal

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Just because 1 child didn't like moving between 2 houses doesn't mean joint custody should be disregarded for everyone else.

My point exactly. Every scenario is different, and there were reasons that child had to pack up and move stuff rather than having his own room and things in each home.

ForstalDave

lazygal wrote: »

Just to settle something above, did you pick six months for a reason?

6 months was picked as then the child's preference is not in question

Big Bag of Chips

lazygal wrote: »

My point exactly. Every scenario is different, and there were reasons that child had to pack up and move stuff rather than having his own room and things in each home.

Fair enough but we're talking about a hypothetical 6 month old. Sleeping in a hypothetical cot in his own hypothetical room..

What is wrong, hypothetically with joint custody?

ForstalDave

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Fair enough but we're talking about a hypothetical 6 month old. Sleeping in a hypothetical cot in his own hypothetical room..

What is wrong, hypothetically with joint custody?

Just to pose another question at what age is joint custody considered? If a child is not being breastfeed is it ok to start from the
start or should there be an age when this becomes an option

lazygal

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Fair enough but we're talking about a hypothetical 6 month old. Sleeping in a hypothetical cot in his own hypothetical room..

What is wrong, hypothetically with joint custody?

I don't think a six month old benefits from sleeping in a different environment away from the primary caregiver for a few nights a week-I'm going on my own experience and that of the friends of mine who have had babies. I remember we went to a hotel for a couple of nights when my older child was a few months old and the different cot unsettled her even though I was there. Then there's other factors like breast-feeding to consider. I simply couldn't have had joint custody with either of mine because I was feeding them. Point being, not every situation merits the same agreement.

Big Bag of Chips

You might have people argue that a baby needs their mother (I think that is why this thread was started). But there is really no need for their not be overnight access at a father's house from an early age. The younger the baby is the quicker they will get used to it. You might have a hard time convincing people that the baby will come to no harm being away from their mother though.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

So what are we discussing then? What is best for a child on the day he or she turns six months of age and no age outside that?

The OP's hypothetical situation pertaining to who has primary care of the 6 month old, who will grow to be older at which point it can be reviewed. Why are you complicating the issue?

Big Bag of Chips

Ah come one lazygal - you're just not letting this go. We're talking about a hypothetical baby - sleeping in identical hypothetical cots - both hypothetical parents equally capable of looking after the bottle fed hypothetical baby. Why should both parents not be given equal rights to care for the (hypothetical) baby?

I just find it funny/sad that even in a hypothetical situation you can't concede that a father may be just as capable and entitled to be a carer for his baby.

Big Bag of Chips

I think it can also depend on how many children you have. When I had one or 2 children I was convinced nobody could look after them the way I do. By the time number 4 arrived I was happy for my mam to take them the odd night!

My problem is now - the older ones hate being away from me. They cried when I went in to hospital to have the baby because they had to stay with my mother. If me and my husband need to go somewhere over night there are tears and really very upset children. I don't plan on making the same mistake with No 4! I'll give her to anyone who'll offer to take her for a night!

lazygal

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Ah come one lazygal - you're just not letting this go. We're talking about a hypothetical baby - sleeping in identical hypothetical cots - both hypothetical parents equally capable of looking after the bottle fed hypothetical baby. Why should both parents not be given equal rights to care for the (hypothetical) baby?

I just find it funny/sad that even in a hypothetical situation you can't concede that a father may be just as capable and entitled to be a carer for his baby.

I never said that, did I? I said it depends on the individual circumstances, in every individual case, in my first post on this. If the circumstances mean joint custody is best for the child, than that's what the arrangement should be.
I find it funny/sad that you're reading things into my posts which aren't there. I was clear in my first post on this thread that there are far too many variables for a one size fits all approach.

Big Bag of Chips

Obviously - but from the other thread you are very vocal on the mother being the primary care giver. And the baby needing to be close to their mother to settle and bond in the "4th trimester".

What if the primary care giver is the father? I know of situations where babies have been taken from the mothers at birth because they are not fit to care for them? How does that fit with the argument of the baby needs to bond with their mother in the "4th trimester"?

The father then becomes the primary care giver - the mother cleans up her act and proves herself fit to have overnight access. At what age could the baby then be sent to the mother for overnight access? Would 15 weeks be too young (if we assume the mother is completely clean and has the support of her parents at home to help her) could the baby be sent to her at 15 weeks - or should the baby stay with her primary care giver - the father - until she is older?

Edit: I just believe your argument that a father can't possibly look after a baby as well as the mother is outdated and insulting to fathers. And that kind of thinking only serves to reinforce it to some men who are then happy to sit back and leave the mother to do everything, or dodge their responsibilities by telling the mother that they can't take care of the baby. Of course they can.

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.