Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Mothers and fathers

I think mothers from way back have been the ones to care for the children, whilst the man of the house would work and make a living for the family.

Mothers have had more rights, I suppose, because they carried the child and endured great pain in giving birth; that is the greatest bonding you could get.

The father needs to be 100% involved in that bonding, helping and nurturing the child and the mother from the start.

The mother is naturally closest to the child when you look at it that way.
It's true that you can't argue with the bond of pregnancy and childbirth (or the pain!!) however in this day and age women aren't expected to just produce children, rear them AND run a household but to add in a career or job on top of that. That then forces the father into a more proactive role, some more willing than others.

Personally if we had fathers who were 100% involved, helping and nurturing the child AND Mother I think we would have a lower divorce rate. Most women I know of end marriages due to the dissatisfaction of bearing most of the workload, as well as work/career then, to top it off, dealing with the extra demands of the first "child" (the husband). Women are taught to expect more from relationships these days, and some men (note I said some not all) just haven't worked that out.

I think when it comes to decisions on caring for children these days you need to look at the bond the child has with both parents, which one is best situated to care for the child taking into account that bond and who the child prefers to live with.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Interesting - My experience was different. I know most women do complain about how much they think they do. In my case I did more than she did and didn't complain.

Statistics don't show women doing more than men either (in the total scheme of things). Maybe that's to do with women valuing what they do and not valuing what men do?

I find it a bizarre concept to introduce - "Bonding" and "Attachment theory" - in most cases (it it seems like in this debate) to create the notion that mother are "Special" and "Gifted". I know this is sometimes used when the women has little other skills in life to give them some sense of "self-worth".

The reality is animals everywhere have sex and give birth. Raising children in a viable household is another matter - parenting is not giving birth.

Father nurturing mothers - how bizarre (like the so called postnatal syndrome advice - men support women)- shouldn't mothers be put on their princess pedestal first?

BABIES like sucking on breasts with milk in them - does that make the mother more bonded and a better parent? It reminds me of the MAN boobs set up that became a trend so fathers could become women.

Have I missed the point?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Hmm. I don't know about missing the point - Can you really equate humans with animals? Even animal mothers are ferociously protective of their babies, maybe the behaviour of human mothers when faced with the loss of their child, even for a few hours a week is equivalent?

I think you can't compare the bond between Mother and child to that with Father and child. Biologically it is set up that way, even in the animal kingdom, look at ducks for example - the first thing a hatched duckling sees is deemed the mother figure and that bond cannot be broken. Generally whoever has nursed the child from birth is to be considered the primary attachment in an infant - not to say this doesn't change as the child grows older, of course it does. An actively involved father creates his own special, powerful bonds.

Fathers nurturing mothers to me is not a concept that means mothers need to be cared for and cosseted but encouraged, supported and assisted during the early days of parenthood. If the man were a fly on the wall of most women's discussions they would hear the same theme in the complaints such as "he watches TV, goes out with his mates, plays golf, goes fishing while I am cooking, cleaning and chasing the kids, he treats me like I am his mother too" I am talking about early on when the children are babies and toddlers, but I think that is when the rot starts to set in, dissatisfaction, resentment on both sides, unrealistic expectations.

If the mother is caught up in this cycle, to me the nurturing of her would be the father actively ensuring a balance in the roles (after all if he has time for a beer he has time to think lol). With things evened out then discussion on equality in the workload and sharing of jobs (and action) would go a long way. How many times have you heard the saying when you have children half an hour of dishes is worth 2 hours of foreplay?

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Hi guys, on this old hobby horse again eh?

On the surface, I would agree with cooldad - for the first couple of years children are slightly closer to their Mums. Purely because women typically spend more time with the infant, because they are at the same time, also healing from giving birth.

Now, having 2 boys, when my oldest was 8 - he became infatuated with his father. My youngest at 5 claimed (in a school essay) his Dad was his best friend. Would that have entitled the ex to mount a court case stating that he have majority care, since the boys clearly preferred him over me?

Children have different needs at different ages. That's why you need regular, decent contact with BOTH parents. Women and men have lots to bring to parenting and they are equally important. A child is genetically 50% of each.

I know where Jadzia is coming from - it's why I left my ex.

I also understand Jon - my partner was the same with his ex. He did almost everything for house and baby, even cooking his own meal of a night. I know he would do this, because I know how much he does with me.

Divorce happens when one person isn't holding up their side of the bargain. Of course, you will find a small percentage of nutcases who think the world owes them and since YOU live with them - that means YOU.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Bingo - you hit the nail on the head! :thumbs:

And that is why I have two kids who live with their father, he has a closer bond with them, and vice versa and they both want to be there.

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
I was curious to see what the come back would be as I had conversation with a couple of mothers the other night and that was the main topic and that is how they felt.
The bond thing is about (in law) creating the concept that women need to have custody at split - why else bring it up? What has bond got to do with custody or shared parenting.

I am sorry if you had relationships where your partner didn't behave as your expected or wanted and I am sorry you both didn't have the skills to communicate and sort it out.

Are you really suggesting that court should award custody to women because they are better "bonded" whatever that means and that women do more than men to support families?

Is that your position?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
I think perhaps that cooldad is in the category of men that think their wives are excellent mothers and are happy to have the children in their major care, as long as they get the time they want with the children. This is not to slight cooldad.

My ex is definitely in this category. He was very happy with 10/4 with me having the 10 and no school holidays. I was not. Obviously, disagreement only occurs when one party wants more than the other is willing to concede - regardless of who has "lives with" status.

I don't think this translates to one parent being "better" because they have the kids longer.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Is an orange better than a banana?
That's exactly where I was coming from artemis. Thank you.

Our son loves both of us regardless' and that's the main thing I guess.
My sisters kids live with their dad, always have, boys and girls. They are now in their teens and twentys and dont have much contact with their mother at all. Dont get me wrong they love their mother dearly.  I watched them grow all of their lives and am still good friends with their dad.  Children do need both parents ive realised with them, as his boys thrived and got most of the attention, first to learn how to drive etc and the girls lacked in the areas that needed a females touch eg first bras, cleanliness as a young lady, menstral cycle etc some fathers dont have a problem with all that but their dad did.  I guess my point is that proves that both  parents need to have a regular input in the childrens lives.
I think it depends on the individuals involved - my parents were together during my childhood and it was my Dad who initiated the first mother daughter talk, and who I went to with "womens business".  Had my parents split when we were young my sister and I would have gone with him without a doubt. My Mother was excellent at practical mothering however Dad was the one we were closest too. My 13 yr old rings me re womens stuff, and I have rung her father and explained things on the quiet but in essence she is happy in an all male household.  

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.

Dads are Parents too!

cooldad said
I think mothers from way back have been the ones to care for the children, whilst the man of the house would work and make a living for the family.

Mothers have had more rights, I suppose, because they carried the child and endured great pain in giving birth; that is the greatest bonding you could get.

The father needs to be 100% involved in that bonding, helping and nurturing the child and the mother from the start.

The mother is naturally closest to the child when you look at it that way.
I disagree with most of what cooldad has written above.

1. Giving birth is not the same as parenting. Both Dads and Mums are parents and can 'parent'.

2. Bonding is not necessarily tied to giving birth and more than just a 'feeling'. It is a state of mind and of a chosen and determined commitment. There are mothers who don't 'feel' bonded. And many mothers for whom the 'bond' is more a relational and emotional crutch (perhaps due to a neediness to alleviate loneliness and to have someone dependent on them and whom they can control).

3. Fathers 'care' for children too. Going out to "work and earning a living for the family" IS caring. Lots of blokes would prefer to be at home; not all want to be forced out and then told they aren't real parents because they aren't at home 'caring' for the children.

4. Fathers don't have to nor should have to be clones of mothers and do exactly what mothers do to be considered bonded, helpful and nurturing. In fact if they are copying the mother too closely I would suspect controlling 'maternal gatekeeping' by the mother.

5. The amount of time a parent spends with a child is not necessarily a measure of bondedness, closeness or caring.
Nice Matrix - I think a lot of this revolves about what some women WANT to feel and do rather than WHAT IS NEEDED.

The thoughts expressed would indicate that some women like:

1) To be seen as very special because they gave birth (how does this fit with surrogacy?).

2) Want to emphasize THEIR bond and see BONDING as their domain.

3) Measure their partners parenting using their own model.

It's a pity that a shared model is not developed which considers (for each relationship) the way things work between people. I would be reluctant to SPELL OUT how people should behave in detail but it seems to me a relationship which is based on the "specialness" of one person over another is not a very healthy relationship and probably doomed to failure.

Maybe why so many marriages fail after the birth of the first couple of children?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Jon Pearson said
a relationship which is based on the "specialness" of one person over another is not a very healthy relationship and probably doomed to failure.
Perhaps this unhealthiness is even further compounded when so often the specialness is combined with the derision of the "un-special one", be that intentional or not and be it by the "special one" or not.

Perhaps I'm not too clear, but making the "specialness" is so often primarily at the instigation of the word of society, via media which is so very available and in our face today. This is further compounded by the same media, making some very much the "un-special one" and except for the those very aware of this and also able to counteract such influence, that influence will rub off.
I think some mothers feel a strong sense of "ownership" over their child. The baby comes out of you, smells like any other part of your body (seriously, my kids did not have their own smell until they were about 2 - apart from the lovely baby smell that bus heads have), and are dependant on you with breastfeeding for the first 4-6months of life.

I never had that total ownership thing, I longed for my ex to want to whisk the bub off on a walk, or sit down with some expressed milk and bottle-feed.

In my case I was the "un-special" one. I'm so glad you chose those words.

My ex thought:

Wife now Mum = All care for child and house = I sit on my butt and do no chores apart from moving once a fortnight.

What he didn't get, when he didn't want to change, was that = divorce.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Whole new topic that one - "Why people break up".

It's the big one really and (you might have guessed) I have done some thinking.

Some is role models (society, etc) - other is communication, etc. It's a big topic.

Maybe its best to divide into:

1) How to parent while still married.

2) How to parent while divorced.

And why is it different?

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
Things were different less than 100 years ago families had a different concept as children were sent to work at younger ages and were not nurtured in the way they are today. Even in the world today children are still being forced to work at a young age or being left to find independence earlier. Yet they still bond with both parents.

Current western society has developed what value we put on parents and the social aspect of government has controlled societies perception of both parents for it's own end and a big part of this is due to the wealth we enjoy.

Unknowingly to most society itself has forced onto each parent a role that it expects them to carry out, in tribal days children were revered by the tribe and taught to be of benefit to the tribe by all who lived in it. This still holds true as a whole we pass on the laws and rules of the tribe and what best benefits it as a whole.

Separate and conquer to control, the split to which so much discussion goes about is nothing more than a way to separate the masses and reduce the possibility that men leave the work force to nurture.

It is possible for both sexes to be nurturers if we are left to be natural instead of brain washed into categories. Social beliefs is were all conflict is.

Jadzia:

If the man were a fly on the wall of most women's discussions they would hear the same theme in the complaints such as "he watches TV, goes out with his mates, plays golf, goes fishing while I am cooking, cleaning and chasing the kids, he treats me like I am his mother too"

Women's business socializing meeting having coffee discussing their troubles and woes means they have time to be themselves and be with friends and normally at the same time the kids are running around with other kids. I could be wrong but my working life was not a social event where you bonded with mates for a good time, it was long hours filled with hard physical draining work.

When I came home there was paperwork to be done, as well as time with the kids playing, a load of washing to do and hang out, the clothes folding and some evening's dinner plus give time to the X, woo her and pander to her needs, as well as deal with all her issues about her X and the kids etc, etc, etc. And what's more, if I tried to get time for myself it ended in a massive argument about me being selfish and not loving her or the kids.

I would expect my situation is common to many I know most of the friends I lost did the same.
And I suppose that's the point - no matter pre-divorce looked like - and that's really up to the couples - post divorce may look different and is up to the couples again.

Just because one person worked their guts out supporting the household does not mean that has to continue - yet the CSA and FC stuff seems to encourage it - saying - "continue your role playing".

Simple message like - it will be different - person 1  will have to work and support their household and the kids. Person 2 will have support their household and the kids. Both working, both parenting as best they can.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets