Hiroshima in the Morning

[ha98ed14]

I haven't read the book, but I've read the reviews and the author was interviewed this morning on NBC Today. I'm curious about the reaction the book will receive here, a group of mothers, most with a graduate degrees and career ambitions, who are very intentional in their parenting.

I think all of us struggle with what this woman is writing about, feeling like you lose yourself amidst the life you make for your kids. I think it is totally normal to feel conflicted, especially because she had ambitions for herself and her career. According to her (interview on NBC), her DH was supportive of her going to Japan and presumably her career, so why the need to leave her kids? I won't hide my opinion: I think what she did was incredibly selfish even though I have entertained thoughts of running away myself on my really bad days, even fantasizing about where I would go. But I could never, ever do it. It's a mental escape I allow myself in a hard moment when DD is pitching a fit in her room.

I guess my belief is that DD is better off with me, a somewhat reluctant mother, present in her life than without me, even if I was happy living a life without family responsibilities, which I find overwhelming and depressing more oft than not. Truth be told, I'm not happy being a SAHM. Maybe I'm not even happy being a mom, but somehow I know with every fiber of my being that leaving is not an option. This author felt differently. What do you think?

[lhafer]

I haven't read the book, but I've read the reviews and the author was interviewed this morning on NBC Today. I'm curious about the reaction the book will receive here, a group of mothers, most with a graduate degrees and career ambitions, who are very intentional in their parenting.

I think all of us struggle with what this woman is writing about, feeling like you loose yourself amidst the life you make for your kids. I think it is totally normal to feel conflicted, especially because she had ambitions for herself and her career. According to her (interview on NBC), her DH was supportive of her going to Japan and presumably her career, so why the need to leave her kids? I won't hide my opinion: I think what she did was incredibly selfish even though I have entertained thoughts of running away myself on my really bad days, even fantasizing about where I would go. But I could never, ever do it. It's a mental escape I allow myself in a hard moment when DD is pitching a fit in her room.

I guess my belief is that DD is better off with me, a somewhat reluctant mother, present in her life than without me, even if I was happy living a life without family responsibilities, which I find overwhelming and depressing more oft than not. Truth be told, I'm not happy being a SAHM. Maybe I'm not even happy being a mom, but somehow I know with every fiber of my being that leaving is not an option. This author felt differently. What do you think?

I'll bite on this one. I agree with you, and what you feel.

If she didn't want children - she shouldn't have had any. I'm sorry but being a parent is a full time job. There's not a mother I know that doesn't want to get away from it all periodically! That's what weekend getaways are for.

If she believes that this hasn't affected her kids - she is absolutely wrong. She has shown them that it's okay to walk away from something if it didn't turn out like you'd hoped. In this case, she walked away from her family. I'm sorry if I can't understand how that doesn't send a HUGE message to her children. They may not "get it" now - but what about when they grow up and have their own families? One of the greater values I try really hard to instill in my children is that we don't quit. If things are tough - stick it out. If you don't like gymnastics, that's fine, but you don't quit in the middle of the semester. You finish what you start.

I just had a major meltdown with my DH recently regarding part time work. He doesn't want me to work. I miss certain aspects of working - such as feeling a sense of fulfillment, being told thank you, being appreciated, etc. Let's face it - being a mother is a pretty thankless job. You aren't appreciated for your hard work, the clean up, the teaching your kids, the time put in, the sleepless nights, the list is endless.

But would I trade it for anything? Never. There is something called a work/life balance. She obviously doesn't understand this concept. I had to figure mine out when I worked full time. We are still struggling to figure DH's out right now because he works too much.

Is life hard? Heck yes. Is having children trying and diffucult much of the time? Heck yes. Is having to work AND raise a family truly a frustrating, guilt-riden experience? Um YEAH! Does that give me a pass to walk out on my family because things aren't exactly coming out to be the rosy picture in my hea? Hell no.

[s7714]

Hadn't heard of the book, but came across this article from her Amazon bio blog link: http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/02/28/leaving_my_children/index.html

I do think what she did was a little selfish, but I wouldn't condemn another women for feeling that way. It's not like she completely dropped out of her children's life. She is involved in their lives and believes herself to be a better mother because of it.

I have a bigger problem with the fact there is such a double standard of it being flat out unacceptable for a women to leave a relationship when kids are involved, but people make exceptions and excuses all the time for men who do it.

[ha98ed14]

Not sure how to quote using my iPod but @ what s714 said, I think there is something biologically different about being a mom. If we buy into the nature v. Nurture, I think men can be socialized to be good parents or by using their higher order thinking skills they realize their offspring will be better off with the close presence of the father. But with being a mom, there's something biologically different. Males can inseminate many females at a time and walk away. Females can only nurture one or two offspring for at least a year. Natural offspring spacing is 18 mo to 3 hrs. For us, being a parent costs us more, if that makes sense. I agree that there is a societal double standard, but I think that there is a biological disposition to the bias. Not saying that it is right or fair; we've overcome other biological urges, but I think it's there.

[BabyMine]

I have a bigger problem with the fact there is such a double standard of it being flat out unacceptable for a women to leave a relationship when kids are involved, but people make exceptions and excuses all the time for men who do it.

I don't think either are acceptable. You have time to "find yourself" before you have children. It is her life and her choice but I could never do it.

[BabyMine]

Not sure how to quote using my iPod but @ what s714 said, I think there is something biologically different about being a mom. If we buy into the nature v. Nurture, I think men can be socialized to be good parents or by using their higher order thinking skills they realize their offspring will be better off with the close presence of the father. But with being a mom, there's something biologically different. Males can inseminate many females at a time and walk away. Females can only nurture one or two offspring for at least a year. Natural offspring spacing is 18 mo to 3 hrs. For us, being a parent costs us more, if that makes sense. I agree that there is a societal double standard, but I think that there is a biological disposition to the bias. Not saying that it is right or fair; we've overcome other biological urges, but I think it's there.

Did you mean 3 years?

[daisymommy]

I think it's unacceptable for anybody to walk out on their kids, male or female. Period

I do believe that we as mothers have a greater connection to our children, seeing as how we grew them from scratch inside our body and all ;)

And I do think that we have to stop this business of "well, it's not my choice, but I'm not going to judge you for it." Everything is not a moral relative. Everything is not a grey issue without a wrong or a right to it, a matter of opinion. Some things, like your food choices, choice of career, decorating style, whatever. But not choosing to leave your children because work was more interesting to you. You leave things behind--like old cars--not people.

[Kindra178]

I haven't read the book, (and I certainly will), but this post reminds me of Mameh Cheney, Frank Lloyd Wright's mistress. From the fictionalized account but based on a true story, she left her husband and two kids (in Colorado while visiting friends) and went to Europe with FLW. Although I think it's terrible she left her kids, I have often defended Mameh Cheney because I feel she is a victim of her era. Upper middle class women didn't work and she was bored. IF she could have gotten her own place, gotten a job, and a shared custody arrangement with her husband, she may not have had to left her kids. Indeed, the only way to secure a divorce in those times was estrangement, so she had to leave the country.

Ok, just read the Salon link. She really didn't leave her children, she did a six month sabbatical in Japan. The fact that her marriage fell apart in two months indicates to me that it wasn't really a marriage prior to her leaving. She also lives close by to her children, and is certainly involved in their life. Although it wouldn't necessarily be my way of doing things, I think she probably is a better mother for it. In this case, I don't really judge her, especially for the Japan trip.

[deborah_r]

I don't see how she walked out on her kids? I thought when I read it I was going to find that she went off to Japan and never came back, but she now lives down the street. Does anyone know how long she stayed in Japan?

Wouldn't this be very similar to a parent who was gone for an extended period for military deployment?

It is horrifying to read how she never wanted to be a mother and it was all her husband's idea. If that was how she felt, I think she should not have agreed to have children. But it sounds like what she is saying is the changes she made have helped her to find a way that she does feel good about being a mother. Would it have been better for her to ignore what she wanted to do, stay in the life she had, and have been miserable and resentful? I don't think the kids would have been better off in that situation.

I'm not totally on board with what she has done, not a fan really, but I am just a little confused by the perception she walked out on her kids. I guess maybe she even worded it that way in her writings, but I took that to mean that is the way people describe what she did, not how she actually would characterize it.

I also wonder if we would be looking at this differently if the marriage had survived.

ETA: Kindra, I didn't see your post before I posted. Just want to explain why it looks like I am parroting you! :)

[Gena]

I think it's unacceptable for anybody to walk out on their kids, male or female. Period


I'm curious, do you feel this way about birthparents who place a child for adoption? What about parents who have children while serving in the military, meaning that they have kids knowing that a deployment will seperate them from their children for long periods of time?

Don't get me wrong. I strongly disagree with what this woman did. I just wonder where we (you, myself, society) draw the line between acceptable and selfish.

[WolfpackMom]

Ok from the post I thought she left like permanently, but reading the article I see it was for 6 months. Frankly, I don't think one person would bat an eye if the father was doing this. We have people who take jobs with the armed forces or with overseas contractors and are gone for a long time with their lives in danger, we certainly don't bash them, not that this woman is doing anything nearly as noble as that. But still. She took a grant and went to Japan for 6 months, its doesn't make her a bad person and it doesn't mean she doesn't love her family.
Yes, it probably will effect her children. It would also probably effect them if she took a sales job that her traveling every few weeks for a week plus at a time, at least here its a short term arrangement.

Its not something I personally would do. But then again I am ones of those people who thinks its perfectly ok to say I am not going to judge. Sorry. Im not, because Im not her, I know nothing about her family or her work or her life so Im not going to sit on a high horse. I dont mean to get all riled up, but its really easy for us to sit here on a message board and speak poorly about someone we know nothing about, and I dont think its fair because I do think its a double standard like s7114 refers to

ETA Deborah I missed your post while typing, I am thinking the same things, didnt mean to repeat!

[Kindra178]

Deborah, didn't think you were parroting me - you said what I was trying to say so much better! I want to clarify my post. The author left her husband, but I don't think her six months in Japan was really leaving her kids. She left her husband, but not her kids.

[daisymommy]

I missed that she was gone for 6 months, and now lives down the street from them. I *thought* she left for Japan permanently. That was where my anger came in. I still have a very hard time with a mother choosing not to live in the same house with her young children (she gave custody to her husband).

And when someone deploys in the military, they are doing what their job requires, and are sad to leave their family behind, they can't wait to get back to them. It's not something they do to escape children they never wanted to have (lets hope not anyway).

[sste]

Read the salon article very quickly.

Actually, in my "world," this type of thing is not hugely unusual. Perhaps not with kids quite so young but even then I have seen it happen. More commonly what I see in certain highly demanding careers is the situation where one or both parents sleeps in the house but is gone so much that it comes close to moving to Japan! Darn close. Yet, I agree with pps the social view is that this is much more benign- - and if the one absent is the father the men are often respected for being a good provider.

This is one where I try not to judge if only because I have seen some VERY unexpected outcomes - - so I tend to think there are ways to compensate. I even wonder sometimes if parents are less important than we give ourselves credit for. I have seen situations where a parent is gone/working all the time and the kids are absolutely normal, well-adjusted, delightful kids and situations where there are two parents with normal schedules, even one SAHP, and the kids are climbing the walls and if you didn't know better you would think they were straight out of juvie!

I didn't want to have kids at all for years and years. If my DH was a pushier man we would have ended up in the author's exact situation. Luckily, he gave me the space I needed to change my mind on my own.

Actually, I think the true problem with this story is that it is one of those trite attempts to turn being screwed over (dh who encourages you to go to japan and then divorces you months later) and experiencing a painful loss into a hackneyed "as a result I found myself and am a better person/mother/etc." At least show me some emotional and intellectual honesty.

I

[MontrealMum]

Read the salon article very quickly.

Actually, in my "world," this type of thing is not hugely unusual. Perhaps not with kids quite so young but even then I have seen it happen. More commonly what I see in certain highly demanding careers is the situation where one or both parents sleeps in the house but is gone so much that it comes close to moving to Japan! Darn close. Yet, I agree with pps the social view is that this is much more benign- - and if the one absent is the father the men are often respected for being a good provider.

This is one where I try not to judge if only because I have seen some VERY unexpected outcomes - - so I tend to think there are ways to compensate. I even wonder sometimes if parents are less important than we give ourselves credit for. I have seen situations where a parent is gone/working all the time and the kids are absolutely normal, well-adjusted, delightful kids and situations where there are two parents with normal schedules, even one SAHP, and the kids are climbing the walls and if you didn't know better you would think they were straight out of juvie!

I didn't want to have kids at all for years and years. If my DH was a pushier man we would have ended up in the author's exact situation. Luckily, he gave me the space I needed to change my mind on my own.

Actually, I think the true problem with this story is that it is one of those trite attempts to turn being screwed over (dh who encourages you to go to japan and then divorces you months later) and experiencing a painful loss into a hackneyed "as a result I found myself and am a better person/mother/etc." At least show me some emotional and intellectual honesty.



Nodding in agreement. And this is common not just in academia, but in the business world as well. My cousin's husband is now living in Toronto. My cousin and the kids are still in the US. He was moved there by his employer. She will join him with the kids after the school year ends, so, they'll have been apart for 6 months. IIRC this is the third time they've done this since having kids. Two of DH's friends have done stints like that in Asia and Australia as that's where their companies are based, leaving families here in Canada. These moves were all required by their employer, so they were job requirements. Is it more OK because they're men? I don't think so. It's not a choice I'd make, which is one of the reasons I am doing what I do now, but it's also not all that uncommon.

[spunkybaby]

I still have a very hard time with a mother choosing not to live in the same house with her young children (she gave custody to her husband).

I think divorce is a terrible tragedy overall (although there are certainly some situations--e.g., abuse--that obviously warrant divorce).

However, I don't think it's fair to hold mothers to a different standard than fathers regarding child custody or to assume that giving custody to your husband automatically makes you a bad mom (not that you said this exactly, but somehow your words touched a nerve for me). I have a friend who is an *awesome* mom, but she gave up custody because as a teacher, she has to be out of the house superearly each morning. Her ex has a much more flexible work schedule and is able to take care of the morning routine/school drop-off. She picks her kids up every day after school and does homework with them, brings them to activities, etc. Again, the custody arrangement is solely because of the difference between their job schedules.

[chottumommy]

Not the same but my SIL sent her 5 month baby with her mother to India for about 6 months. She has an older DS and the age difference between the two is about 2 years. Her reasoning was that she could not manage the 2 on her own here - she's a SAHM and her husband is very busy. They somehow think any kind of daycare/nanny option is worse than a family member caring for the infant, even if the baby doesn't see the parents for a stretch of time.

Both kids enjoyed the one-on-one attention. The older one was here with mom and dad and the younger one with grandparents who doted on him. Now, would that be called selfish - I don't know. They both got the attention and the mother was less stressed. Before actually seeing this, I would have thought of it as selfish but now not so much.

[GaPeach_in_Ca]

My MIL came to the US when my DH was 2-1/2 or so and worked her for 7 years before my FIL, DH and SIL were able to come to the US and join them.

DH is actually quite close with MIL. His Grandma helped his dad take care of him.

It is actually not that unusual in Asia to have the grandparents or other family members watch children for an extended amount of time. My ILs offered to take older DS for a few months when younger DS was born. We politely declined. I know someone who lives here and has her baby in China with her parents. My DH told me this is becoming more common for expats from Asian/India here.

[Gracemom]

I saw the author on the today show and my first instinct was, "wow, that's selfish. How could you leave your kids?" But it did make me want to read the book to understand her motivations better. Sometimes I fantasize about having more time to pursue other things that are important to me, and I know some day I will have that time. I'm also curious to hear from her ex-husband's point of view. And it would be interesting to hear what her kids think. She is obviously a huge part of their lives now, so it's not like she abandoned them.

[crl]

I do believe that we as mothers have a greater connection to our children, seeing as how we grew them from scratch inside our body and all ;)
people.

As an adoptive parent I vehemently disagree with this statement.

Catherine

[s7714]

Not sure how to quote using my iPod but @ what s714 said, I think there is something biologically different about being a mom. If we buy into the nature v. Nurture, I think men can be socialized to be good parents or by using their higher order thinking skills they realize their offspring will be better off with the close presence of the father. But with being a mom, there's something biologically different. Males can inseminate many females at a time and walk away. Females can only nurture one or two offspring for at least a year. Natural offspring spacing is 18 mo to 3 hrs. For us, being a parent costs us more, if that makes sense. I agree that there is a societal double standard, but I think that there is a biological disposition to the bias. Not saying that it is right or fair; we've overcome other biological urges, but I think it's there.

See I don't believe that. I don't think that all women are wired to mentally be mothers just because they physcially can produce off spring. Just like you always hear people saying "my dad was the man who raised me and not the man who supplied the sperm" I don't think being the egg supplier/pregnancy carrier makes a woman any more capable of being a mother than supplying sperm makes a man a father.

In regards to what I meant by the double standard was more about the traditional scenario of when a man and woman part ways it's considered the acceptable norm in our society for women to have primary custody of any children from relationships while men are often excused from that duty. Women who don't want primary custody are frowned upon as if there's something wrong with them.

ETF typo

[MmeSunny]

As an adoptive parent I vehemently disagree with this statement.

Catherine



Thank you for this. This blissfully ignorant comment set me off. Not all mothers are biological and the closeness to our children is not diminished by our lack of a shared body for 40 weeks.

[daisymommy]

I'm so sorry for not thinking before I said that. Open mouth, insert foot.:(

[hellokitty]

elped his dad take care of him.

It is actually not that unusual in Asia to have the grandparents or other family members watch children for an extended amount of time. My ILs offered to take older DS for a few months when younger DS was born. We politely declined. I know someone who lives here and has her baby in China with her parents. My DH told me this is becoming more common for expats from Asian/India here.

:yeahthat: I was going to say the same thing. This is EXTREMELY common, I would say 1/4 of the asian families that I know have taken this route at one point or another.

[crl]

I'm so sorry for not thinking before I said that. Open mouth, insert foot.:(

Thank you for apologizing. :thumbsup:

Catherine

[niccig]

I don't see how she walked out on her kids? I thought when I read it I was going to find that she went off to Japan and never came back, but she now lives down the street. Does anyone know how long she stayed in Japan?

Wouldn't this be very similar to a parent who was gone for an extended period for military deployment?



I agree...she didn't pick up and abandon her kids. She went to another country for work - a lot of people, both men and women do this. Didn't someone just post that her DH might have a job opportunity in Dubai, and for a number of reasons, she and the DC couldn't go? Would we call this "leaving children" when a man goes somewhere for work away from his family for a number of months??

The distance highlighted problems in the marriage, and probably gave her the courage to become separated. She's still involved in her boys' lives - goes to all their events, they see her several times a weeks. I don't see that as "leaving" her kids.

And as for who has custody of the children -it's not defacto the mother. Every family and person is different - I don't believe in judging her for not have primary custody. Would we judge the father if he didn't have primary custody.

[BabyMine]

This part really bugged me.



Yet their father wanted a family. He begged. He promised to take care of everything; he removed every possible obstacle I could think of. He would be the primary caretaker if I would just have them.


They are not puppies. I wonder how her children reacted to her saying that she never wanted to have them. I don't mind her leaving for 6 months it's that they didn't fit into her life and she didn't want to adapt.



I was afraid of being swallowed up, of being exhausted, of opening my eyes one day, 20 (or 30!) years after they were born, and realizing I had lost myself and my life was over.


http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/02/28/leaving_my_children/index.html

[eh613c]

I, too, agree with you. As a SAHM, we're in our "work" environment all time whether it's at home, at the grocery store or at the park. It's nice to getaway for a while but not half way around the world! My mother decided to go to the US when I was 4 and my brother just 6 mos. She left us with our grandparents. Six years later we were able to reunite but we never formed a relationship. To this day we're strangers.

[ha98ed14]

They are not puppies. I wonder how her children reacted to her saying that she never wanted to have them. I don't mind her leaving for 6 months it's that they didn't fit into her life and she didn't want to adapt.


:yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat: :yeahthat::yeahthat:

THIS is what I was trying to get at! I think it's grand that she went on sabbatical for six months. It's that when she came back, she gave up on the day to day parenting because she just decided she didn't want to do it anymore. She was afraid she would wake up in 20 years and her whole life would have been about her kids. Don't we ALL have that worry? But you don't get to drop out of the fight to both be a good parent and remain a whole person. That's what I find so disheartening, that she could give up the fight.

Maybe it was easier for her to make the decision because her kids had a father who was able and willing to do the day to day parenting. She wasn't leaving them with a drug dealer to go get high. But much of parenting is a grind and she just checked out. She gets her kids on a visitation schedule, weekday evenings and weekends and holidays. IMO, that's not parenting. That's vacationing.

Who knows? Maybe I am just galled because subconsciously I wish I could do it myself.

[mommy111]

Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. This is a woman who lives down the road from her kids and is involved in a day to day basis in their lives. They just don't sleep at her house. She maintains a good relationship with her ex so that she can parent the kids well. Sounds like a reasonable option to me. Not something that I would personally do, but it works for her family and she is obviously an involved parent according to what she says.
I think the fuss is about her saying what she did about her feelings. But IMHO, she is just voicing opinions that many other mothers have that they're not supposed to have or at least not supposed to admit to.

[MontrealMum]

I keep coming back to this because it bothers me. I know we've cleared up some of the misspeaking, and I do appreciate that as an adoptee, but the idea that being a woman is biologically based still bothers me. Why? Because my field is Gender Studies. And neither Gender, nor Sex, is biologically determined.

If we take Gender as comportment, we have women predestined to do all the childrearing and childcare. And a lot of other household-based activities. And that's it. We might as well have stopped in Medieval times in terms of our growth as a civilization. (and before you take me to task, yes, I'm a historian :) ) And if we take Sex as biologically determined, well, that leaves out many, many women, like my mom. Who was a wonderful, nuturing, supportive mother. But who cannot/could not have biological children of their own. In fact, while my mom might be chromosonally "female" she retains very little of the traditional female "parts" since she had a radical hysterectomy at the age of 33. Is she a woman? I think so, but do you? She can't birth a child now, certainly, she's 71 after all. But she also couldn't grow and birth a "natural" child during the normally accepted childbirthing years. Even before her surgery. Does that mean she's not a woman...a mother...female? There are many, many women like my mom. For example, like my MIL, who also underwent a radical hysterectomy, at the same time that my DH - her final baby - was taken from her by c-section. And if you remove the female "parts" of the female "definition" for these women, well are you also not removing the chromosonally defined "female" or "male"? Or aren't you? I linked the Joan Scott article before but noone seemd to care. I get that it's fairly academic and highbrow. But that's where this argument is situated.

Mothering and Fathering are not biologically determined. They are a choice. Some are better at it than others. Some are more committed than others. And some are incredibly surprised and blindsided once the actual fact of being a parent hits them (actually, this is an overwhelming percentage of parents). There is no way I'm going to fault a woman for being female and not being "motherly". If she's truly neglecting her kids, sure. Neglect is neglect. And it's not a male/female dichotomy.

But even though it is not *my* choice, I am not going to fault a mother for not being the primary custodial parent, and not backbenching a career. Especially since I know a number of SAHDs who are doing just that, so that their wives can pursue their own careers.

I will read this book, because it intrigues me because it seems to give voice to the "forbidden" as PP have said. But I will not condem what the author has done, or decided, or given voice to, because I don't think it's that awful, or that uncommon.

[niccig]

Honestly, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

The fuss is that it's the woman that isn't living with her children. No one would blink an eye if the Dad lived down the road and had the kids over after school. No one would say he "left" his kids if he went to work in another country for several months. People wouldn't be so surprised for a Dad to say "I'm not great around the kids, and don't know what to do with them."

Insert "man" and "father" for "woman" and "mother" and you wouldn't be reading the article.

It's a huge double standard. We want Dad's to be involved in child rearing, yet not be primary caregiver in a divorce when they are better suited to that role? Women are to be in the workforce and pursuing a career, but only when it's convenient to the family, yet the father can go away or travel all the time and no one says "Boo" about it.

She's not behaving in typical mother/womenly fashion - and she's bringing attention to it by writing about it. No one is to admit to not being fulfilled by being a mother.

In this day and age, what is typical? So many different families and situations.

I know someone my age, who as a child his mother left the family, up and packed her bags and never heard of since...now that's leaving your kids.

[lhafer]

I think it's grand that she went on sabbatical for six months. It's that when she came back, she gave up on the day to day parenting because she just decided she didn't want to do it anymore. [/B] She was afraid she would wake up in 20 years and her whole life would have been about her kids. Don't we ALL have that worry? But you don't get to drop out of the fight to both be a good parent and remain a whole person. That's what I find so disheartening, that she could give up the fight.

:yeahthat: I have no issue that she went to Japan. Many parents travel for a living, or work away from the home, or are deployed, etc. But they still WANT to be parents. I have a major problem with her having children if she seriously didn't want them in the first place.


I keep coming back to this because it bothers me. I know we've cleared up some of the misspeaking, and I do appreciate that as an adoptee, but the idea that being a woman is biologically based still bothers me. Why? Because my field is Gender Studies. And neither Gender, nor Sex, is biologically determined.

If we take Gender as comportment, we have women predestined to do all the childrearing and childcare. And a lot of other household-based activities. And that's it. We might as well have stopped in Medieval times in terms of our growth as a civilization. (and before you take me to task, yes, I'm a historian :) ) And if we take Sex as biologically determined, well, that leaves out many, many women, like my mom. Who was a wonderful, nuturing, supportive mother. But who cannot/could not have biological children of their own. In fact, while my mom might be chromosonally "female" she retains very little of the traditional female "parts" since she had a radical hysterectomy at the age of 33. Is she a woman? I think so, but do you? She can't birth a child now, certainly, she's 71 after all. But she also couldn't grow and birth a "natural" child during the normally accepted childbirthing years. Even before her surgery. Does that mean she's not a woman...a mother...female? There are many, many women like my mom. For example, like my MIL, who also underwent a radical hysterectomy, at the same time that my DH - her final baby - was taken from her by c-section. And if you remove the female "parts" of the female "definition" for these women, well are you also not removing the chromosonally defined "female" or "male"? Or aren't you? I linked the Joan Scott article before but noone seemd to care. I get that it's fairly academic and highbrow. But that's where this argument is situated.

Mothering and Fathering are not biologically determined. They are a choice. Some are better at it than others. Some are more committed than others. And some are incredibly surprised and blindsided once the actual fact of being a parent hits them (actually, this is an overwhelming percentage of parents). There is no way I'm going to fault a woman for being female and not being "motherly". If she's truly neglecting her kids, sure. Neglect is neglect. And it's not a male/female dichotomy.

But even though it is not *my* choice, I am not going to fault a mother for not being the primary custodial parent, and not backbenching a career. Especially since I know a number of SAHDs who are doing just that, so that their wives can pursue their own careers.

I will read this book, because it intrigues me because it seems to give voice to the "forbidden" as PP have said. But I will not condem what the author has done, or decided, or given voice to, because I don't think it's that awful, or that uncommon.

I was just telling DH this the other night - it would be a lot easier for him to find another wife, than it would be for me to find another husband because we have 2 small children. He asked me why. I said because another woman would be much more willing to take in another woman's children vs a man taking in another man's children.

I have to disagree with you. Mothering/Fathering IS biological. Women tend to do most/all of the childrearing because we are designed to do so. So are almost ALL of the female creatures on this planet. Just because we have free will and choice, doesn't mean our DNA doesn't drive a lot of what we feel and do.

It doesn't matter if a woman has a uterus or not to be a mother. It matters that she has a X chromosome. A woman who undergoes a mastectomy is still a woman, even if she's left breastless. Sure there are fathers that rear children in the household, or woman who have no desire for children. I say they aren't the norm. And even dads who are SAH parents view their children differently than women, teach them differently than women, etc. Studies have shown this. It's not wrong - just different.

[daisymommy]

I have to disagree with you. Mothering/Fathering IS biological. Women tend to do most/all of the childrearing because we are designed to do so. So are almost ALL of the female creatures on this planet. Just because we have free will and choice, doesn't mean our DNA doesn't drive a lot of what we feel and do.

It doesn't matter if a woman has a uterus or not to be a mother. It matters that she has a Y chromosome. A woman who undergoes a mastectomy is still a woman, even if she's left breastless. Sure there are fathers that rear children in the household, or woman who have no desire for children. I say they aren't the norm. And even dads who are SAH parents view their children differently than women, teach them differently than women, etc. Studies have shown this. It's not wrong - just different.

:yeahthat: I know many people here are not going to agree with me. I know that it is not a popular liberal-minded PC opinion. I know it may sound old fashioned to some. But I believe that this is how God (or Mother Nature if you will) designed us.

That does not mean that women don't have brains every bit as capable as men, or that we cannot hold down careers, or change the world. But I DO believe we are biologically hardwired to be different than men.

[MontrealMum]

It doesn't matter if a woman has a uterus or not to be a mother. It matters that she has a Y chromosome.

Actually, not everyone who identifies as a woman has the same chromosones. Both sex and gender are social constructs. This is been accepted in gender studies for a long time now. Sure, the majority of people that identify as women share certain characteristics, and the majority of people that identify as men share certain characteristics, but it is not their biology alone that puts them in one role or the other. It is a huge backward step in women's advancement to say that we must do something (mothering) or feel a certain way (towards mothering) soley because we are women. You may not care about your rights or freedom of choice, but I do, and I will continue to support them. If we root all things in biology those rights will be eroded quickly.

[WolfpackMom]

I agree...she didn't pick up and abandon her kids. She went to another country for work - a lot of people, both men and women do this. Didn't someone just post that her DH might have a job opportunity in Dubai, and for a number of reasons, she and the DC couldn't go? Would we call this "leaving children" when a man goes somewhere for work away from his family for a number of months??

The distance highlighted problems in the marriage, and probably gave her the courage to become separated. She's still involved in her boys' lives - goes to all their events, they see her several times a weeks. I don't see that as "leaving" her kids.

And as for who has custody of the children -it's not defacto the mother. Every family and person is different - I don't believe in judging her for not have primary custody. Would we judge the father if he didn't have primary custody.

No if a dad did this he would be making a sacrifice to provide for his family. If parents got divorced and the dad lived just down the street instead of in another town and still went to all the kids events and was still involved in their life he would be seen as being compassionate and setting a positive example even through a divorce. If a man said he didn't think he wanted kids or was worried his life would change, then when he did, the woman he had them with would be looked at as having trapped him and harmed his future career etc.

[o_mom]

It doesn't matter if a woman has a uterus or not to be a mother. It matters that she has a Y chromosome.

All the other discussion aside.... I'm ROTFL at this (freudian?) slip. :ROTFLMAO: Females don't have a Y chromosome.

[wolverine2]

Didn't the article say that the kids went to Japan to live with her after she was away for 4 months? I got the impression that her experience when they were in Japan made her realize she didn't want to have primary physical custody, which seemed to be what their arrangement was all along anyway, with Dad as the primary caregiver. I agree this is a big double standard- if the Dad did this, no one would care.

[pinkmomagain]

:yeahthat: I know many people here are not going to agree with me. I know that it is not a popular liberal-minded PC opinion. I know it may sound old fashioned to some. But I believe that this is how God (or Mother Nature if you will) designed us.

That does not mean that women don't have brains every bit as capable as men, or that we cannot hold down careers, or change the world. But I DO believe we are biologically hardwired to be different than men.

Well, I won't let you stand alone in the wind. I tend to have a very traditional view of gender roles myself. I agree with what you are saying here (well, except the God part ;-)).

[mommylamb]

I have to disagree with you. Mothering/Fathering IS biological. Women tend to do most/all of the childrearing because we are designed to do so. So are almost ALL of the female creatures on this planet. Just because we have free will and choice, doesn't mean our DNA doesn't drive a lot of what we feel and do.

It doesn't matter if a woman has a uterus or not to be a mother. It matters that she has a Y chromosome. A woman who undergoes a mastectomy is still a woman, even if she's left breastless. Sure there are fathers that rear children in the household, or woman who have no desire for children. I say they aren't the norm. And even dads who are SAH parents view their children differently than women, teach them differently than women, etc. Studies have shown this. It's not wrong - just different.

Well other than actually the pregnancy/breastfeeding part of parenting, I would say that in my house DH and I have an equal role in parenting, and there is nothing about my biology or my socialization that makes one iota of difference. Maybe we're not the norm, but regardless biology has nothing to do with it. Just saying someone is hard wired to do something doesn't make it so. People can follow traditional gender roles, but that doesn't mean those roles are determined by biology.

[lhafer]

All the other discussion aside.... I'm ROTFL at this (freudian?) slip. :ROTFLMAO: Females don't have a Y chromosome.

HA!! Thanks! My kids are distracting me this morning....I do mean the X!! I was thinking about a man's role when I was typing that out! :p

[lhafer]

All the other discussion aside.... I'm ROTFL at this (freudian?) slip. :ROTFLMAO: Females don't have a Y chromosome.

I fixed my original post!


Well other than actually the pregnancy/breastfeeding part of parenting, I would say that in my house DH and I have an equal role in parenting, and there is nothing about my biology or my socialization that makes one iota of difference. Maybe we're not the norm, but regardless biology has nothing to do with it. Just saying someone is hard wired to do something doesn't make it so. People can follow traditional gender roles, but that doesn't mean those roles are determined by biology.

I never said they don't have equal parts in parenting. I said the WAY the men and women parent are [usually] different.

My DH is a great dad. He watches the kids, takes care of their needs, etc. But he does it differently than I do. He does it more like a "man" would - and I say that based off of every single wife I have talked to regarding how their husbands handle/manage/rear/watch/raise their children.

[mommylamb]

[QUOTE=lhafer;3060820]I fixed my original post!



I never said they don't have equal parts in parenting. I said the WAY the men and women parent are [usually] different.
/QUOTE]

That may be true in most cases (mine excluded), but it's quite a jump in reason to say that this difference is firmly rooted in biology. Until they map it on the human genome, count me a cynic.

[maestramommy]

I do believe that we as mothers have a greater connection to our children, seeing as how we grew them from scratch inside our body and all ;)


Ehhhh, not sure I agree with that. I certainly agree that it's true for YOU, and I wouldn't ever think you should feel differently. But I don't know that I will draw that kind of distinction based purely on biological birth. I can't say I have a greater connection to my children than Dh just because I did the birthing. IF I do have a stronger connection it's because I spend most of my time with them. Again, I would never deny your feeling this way. I just don't know if every biological mother feels this way. Then what about adoptive parents? Do they miss out because they weren't biologically involved? I wouldn't think so.

ETA: just wanted to add that Dh and I do parent differently, but it's in little logistical stuff, not styles that you would think are hardwired by being men and women. In OUR family, it does feel logical that I would be the SAHP because of the bfing and all, but there are other, larger reasons that have nothing to do with bio.

[sste]

Well, I won't let you stand alone in the wind. I tend to have a very traditional view of gender roles myself. I agree with what you are saying here (well, except the God part ;-)).

Maybe I am a freak? Kind posters don't answer that one! But, seriously, my DH is a better parent than me - - more patient, fun, balanced in his approach and absolutely amazing endurance for play, sledding, hanging out. I am fine too but DH is a cut above. It makes some sense because what drew him to his job (physician) is an incredible caregiving streak. Based on this, I have repeatedly thought to myself if there was some of home invasion or terrorist attack and the person demanded one adult from our family to die . . . I would absolutely have to step forward and volunteer because my kids would be a little better off with DH.

[pinkmomagain]

Maybe I am a freak? Kind posters don't answer that one! But, seriously, my DH is a better parent than me - - more patient, fun, balanced in his approach and absolutely amazing endurance for play, sledding, hanging out. I am fine too but DH is a cut above. It makes some sense because what drew him to his job (physician) is an incredible caregiving streak. Based on this, I have repeatedly thought to myself if there was some of home invasion or terrorist attack and the person demanded one adult from our family to die . . . I would absolutely have to step forward and volunteer because my kids would be a little better off with DH.

Ha, I believe it. I guess I'm pretty much closely surrounded by women/men in traditional roles and am playing it out IRL myself. My family, DH's family, friends, etc. Not 100%....but a large majority.

[Kindra178]

Men and women ARE different. That doesn't mean that a woman is less capable, less smart or less qualified to do work that a man does, it just means that men and women are different. In that way, I think the "Revolution" failed us because it gave women the right to have sex with whomever they choose to have sex with, yet the vast majority of women are still left wanting. It left women with the right to go to school and have the same career(s) as men, but didn't take into account that women need flexibility to be successful because they are usually the primary caregivers of children.

Yes, although I am liberal, I am a difference feminist.

[MWmom]

Maybe I am a freak? Kind posters don't answer that one! But, seriously, my DH is a better parent than me - - more patient, fun, balanced in his approach and absolutely amazing endurance for play, sledding, hanging out. I am fine too but DH is a cut above. :yeahthat: not at all. I think DH is the better parent here too. I don't have the patience he has.

[ha98ed14]

Actually, not everyone who identifies as a woman has the same chromosones. Both sex and gender are social constructs. This is been accepted in gender studies for a long time now. Sure, the majority of people that identify as women share certain characteristics, and the majority of people that identify as men share certain characteristics, but it is not their biology alone that puts them in one role or the other. It is a huge backward step in women's advancement to say that we must do something (mothering) or feel a certain way (towards mothering) soley because we are women. You may not care about your rights or freedom of choice, but I do, and I will continue to support them. If we root all things in biology those rights will be eroded quickly.

Molly, I totally agree with you. Locking a person into a role based on the societal/ behavioral norms for people with the same chromosomes *IS* a step backward. If that kind of craziness was enforced, I would be in deep sh!t because I hate being a FT SAHM and I don't want any more kids. But don't you agree that the biological disposition is there? I mean, men can't breastfeed which means that before the days of bottles and formula, if the mother wasn't bfing, the infant would have a hard time surviving. That part is biology, wouldn't you say?

Of course the feels and attitudes towards mothering are not a "given" because of one's chromosomes. Absolutely true! DH and I have the same dynamic that sste described: my H is the more patient and nurturing parent. He enjoys doing things with DD, and I don't. When she was born, I did not do one ounce of baby care until she was 4 mo old, and I had to because his summer vacay and parental leave had run out (PPD). If we were back in the cave man days, DD wouldn't have made it because I couldn't take care of her, so I am the LAST person who wants to find fault because a woman doesn't embrace her motherhood in a way consistent with societal expectations. I agree with Nicci that if this was a decision a man made, we would not be reading this article or having this discussion.

I just don't understand how she could give herself permission to walk away from the day to day. Yes, she lives down the street. Yes, she spends quality time with them. But she's not the one cleaning up the puke in the middle of the night. I AM NOT SAYING THAT CLEANING UP THE PUKE IS A MATERNAL JOB, but it is a part of parenting. She relieved herself of that duty when she handed custody over to her exH, and now she's writing about how liberating it was. She's celebrating it, and to me that implies an endorsement as tho this is a decision that all women should be able to make if they want to. I am not saying she should be shamed. But she doesn't see any failing in this decision she made because she was true to herself. IMO, when you're a parent, you don't get to choose yourself over your kids.

The more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that I am over-personalizing this. It's raw for me because, in reality, getting up every morning and choosing to be present to DD is a challenge for me. It doesn't happen naturally and everyday I am fighting to do it. In addition, my father left my mother when I was 4 and my sister was 1 and went on to lead a wealthy, child-free life with sailboats and airplanes and 3 houses while my mom struggled. So clearly this is bringing up my feelings of failure for not being a "natural mother" and my abandonment issues. I am convinced that I am speaking from my own emotional pains because so far, no one seems to have reacted as strongly as I am.

I'm not trying to advocate for traditional gender roles or keeping people in their biological boxes. But I do maintain that this woman failed her kids in a very real way, and I would say the SAME thing if we were discussing a man who had done the same thing.

[sste]

OP, don't let things build to the Hiroshima level! Is it possible for you to start looking for a part-time job (even something below your skills, just to get you out of the house, some adult interaction)? Can you get away for a weekend?

Being a sahm is a hard, hard job.

It has always been clear to me how intensely you love your DD. That intensity swings both ways, kwim?

[mommy111]

Molly, I totally agree with you. Locking a person into a role based on the societal/ behavioral norms for people with the same chromosomes *IS* a step backward. If that kind of craziness was enforced, I would be in deep sh!t because I hate being a FT SAHM and I don't want any more kids. But don't you agree that the biological disposition is there? I mean, men can't breastfeed which means that before the days of bottles and formula, if the mother wasn't bfing, the infant would have a hard time surviving. That part is biology, wouldn't you say?

Of course the feels and attitudes towards mothering are not a "given" because of one's chromosomes. Absolutely true! DH and I have the same dynamic that sste described: my H is the more patient and nurturing parent. He enjoys doing things with DD, and I don't. When she was born, I did not do one ounce of baby care until she was 4 mo old, and I had to because his summer vacay and parental leave had run out (PPD). If we were back in the cave man days, DD wouldn't have made it because I couldn't take care of her, so I am the LAST person who wants to find fault because a woman doesn't embrace her motherhood in a way consistent with societal expectations. I agree with Nicci that if this was a decision a man made, we would not be reading this article or having this discussion.

I just don't understand how she could give herself permission to walk away from the day to day. Yes, she lives down the street. Yes, she spends quality time with them. But she's not the one cleaning up the puke in the middle of the night. I AM NOT SAYING THAT CLEANING UP THE PUKE IS A MATERNAL JOB, but it is a part of parenting. She relieved herself of that duty when she handed custody over to her exH, and now she's writing about how liberating it was. She's celebrating it, and to me that implies an endorsement as tho this is a decision that all women should be able to make if they want to. I am not saying she should be shamed. But she doesn't see any failing in this decision she made because she was true to herself. IMO, when you're a parent, you don't get to choose yourself over your kids.

The more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that I am over-personalizing this. It's raw for me because, in reality, getting up every morning and choosing to be present to DD is a challenge for me. It doesn't happen naturally and everyday I am fighting to do it. In addition, my father left my mother when I was 4 and my sister was 1 and went on to lead a wealthy, child-free life with sailboats and airplanes and 3 houses while my mom struggled. So clearly this is bringing up my feelings of failure for not being a "natural mother" and my abandonment issues. I am convinced that I am speaking from my own emotional pains because so far, no one seems to have reacted as strongly as I am.

I'm not trying to advocate for traditional gender roles or keeping people in their biological boxes. But I do maintain that this woman failed her kids in a very real way, and I would say the SAME thing if we were discussing a man who had done the same thing.
I couldn't read that and not offer you a :hug: Of course you know that its just not you, that all of us struggle and blunder through different aspects of motherhood because there is nothing, really, that prepares us for this.
It is interesting to me how here, in the US, we mothers feel that we have to run ourselves ragged to be good parents. What about if, in this woman's situation there was not a father who took care of the kids but instead a hired nanny who took care of all the kids' physical needs leaving mom to only spend quality time with the kids. Would the mom still be so reviled (I suspect that she would). But I find that here in China, although I am a single parent, having someone come in daily to take care of the housework and cook the meals means that I am that much a better parent because I have more energy to focus on my children's emotional needs. In many societies that are not as woman friendly, it nevertheless seems that mothering is made so much easier. When we lived abroad in the Middle East, it seemed like every kid had a personal nanny. The SAHMs would be there and with their kids all day (so its not like they were absent parents) but the nannies would take care of changing the diaper and cooking the meal and sitting with the child to amuse him. Similarly, a Greek friend sends DS to spend the summer with her parents in Greece. She enjoys the time to herself when her DS is away. Yet none of this is looked down upon in those cultures. Although I do know that my friend often gets the 'how could you do that to your child!' here in the US.

[chottumommy]

When we lived abroad in the Middle East, it seemed like every kid had a personal nanny. The SAHMs would be there and with their kids all day (so its not like they were absent parents) but the nannies would take care of changing the diaper and cooking the meal and sitting with the child to amuse him. Similarly, a Greek friend sends DS to spend the summer with her parents in Greece. She enjoys the time to herself when her DS is away. Yet none of this is looked down upon in those cultures. Although I do know that my friend often gets the 'how could you do that to your child!' here in the US.

This part is so true. I come from India and every summer the ritual was for us to go to our grandparents place (all the cousins would be there). The moms would be there but most of the time was spent shopping, chatting, cooking and in general getting ready for the next school year. Those were the most cherished memories I had where I practically never saw my parents for the most part of 3 months but loved being spoilt by grandparents and playing with my cousins.

The pressure of being a parent is completely different in the US. There is no support system and people pride themselves on doing it all on their own even if they are being stressed to the point of breakdown.

[lhafer]

Molly, I totally agree with you. Locking a person into a role based on the societal/ behavioral norms for people with the same chromosomes *IS* a step backward. If that kind of craziness was enforced, I would be in deep sh!t because I hate being a FT SAHM and I don't want any more kids. But don't you agree that the biological disposition is there? I mean, men can't breastfeed which means that before the days of bottles and formula, if the mother wasn't bfing, the infant would have a hard time surviving. That part is biology, wouldn't you say?

I just don't understand how she could give herself permission to walk away from the day to day. Yes, she lives down the street. Yes, she spends quality time with them. But she's not the one cleaning up the puke in the middle of the night. I AM NOT SAYING THAT CLEANING UP THE PUKE IS A MATERNAL JOB, but it is a part of parenting. She relieved herself of that duty when she handed custody over to her exH, and now she's writing about how liberating it was. She's celebrating it, and to me that implies an endorsement as tho this is a decision that all women should be able to make if they want to. I am not saying she should be shamed. But she doesn't see any failing in this decision she made because she was true to herself. IMO, when you're a parent, you don't get to choose yourself over your kids.

Here's what I think people are missing: if you lived in cave man days - your child would have been just fine, because there was you to take care of her. You wouldn't have known any different.

We "know" different now. Some dads are better parents. Some grandparents are better parents! It's up to each family to decide who "fits" into that role better, and sometimes it's pretty equal - which is totally awesome.

BUT.

Biologically, woman (and this is general - and of course there are acceptions to every rule) have a greater tendency to mother, care for the children, etc. That's why we "nest" when pregnant. Most woman can multitask throughout their day, which includes keeping a running tally in there heads of what needs to get done, cook dinner, talk on the phone, making sure Sally is finishing her homework, while thinking ahead to tomorrow to makes sure there is laundry done and everyone has clean underwear. Do things get missed? Sure, because we have driven ourselves crazy with schedules, and commitments, and playdates, and making sure that every single second of our lives is filled to the brim. Most of the men I know, are much more single minded, and can usually only take care of one (maybe 2) tasks at a time.

Biologically, woman aren't supposed to be having children in their 40-50's. Otherwise "high risk" pregnancies wouldn't apply to woman over the age of 35. Specific diseases wouldn't be prevalent in that bracket. That's why periods start as a teenager. We get so upset at teen moms - well...their bodies are just doing what they are supposed to be doing. It's our current society, and medical technology in a lot of cases, that are allowing families to happen much later in life. Is it wonderful? Absolutely and I'm all for it!! All I am saying is that our bodies haven't caught up to us and hour lifestlye yet.


OP, don't let things build to the Hiroshima level! Is it possible for you to start looking for a part-time job (even something below your skills, just to get you out of the house, some adult interaction)? Can you get away for a weekend?

Being a sahm is a hard, hard job.

It has always been clear to me how intensely you love your DD. That intensity swings both ways, kwim?

She was just naming the title of the book.


I couldn't read that and not offer you a :hug: Of course you know that its just not you, that all of us struggle and blunder through different aspects of motherhood because there is nothing, really, that prepares us for this.
It is interesting to me how here, in the US, we mothers feel that we have to run ourselves ragged to be good parents. What about if, in this woman's situation there was not a father who took care of the kids but instead a hired nanny who took care of all the kids' physical needs leaving mom to only spend quality time with the kids. Would the mom still be so reviled (I suspect that she would). But I find that here in China, although I am a single parent, having someone come in daily to take care of the housework and cook the meals means that I am that much a better parent because I have more energy to focus on my children's emotional needs. In many societies that are not as woman friendly, it nevertheless seems that mothering is made so much easier. When we lived abroad in the Middle East, it seemed like every kid had a personal nanny. The SAHMs would be there and with their kids all day (so its not like they were absent parents) but the nannies would take care of changing the diaper and cooking the meal and sitting with the child to amuse him. Similarly, a Greek friend sends DS to spend the summer with her parents in Greece. She enjoys the time to herself when her DS is away. Yet none of this is looked down upon in those cultures. Although I do know that my friend often gets the 'how could you do that to your child!' here in the US.

I understand other cultures have ways of raising their families. And that's wonderful. The issue that is different with this woman, is that SHE WALKED AWAY from her kids. Not - let's get some family member or nanny to help out. Not, let me figure out a way to make this work. It was just a "I don't like being a mom, so here are your kids back".

Her boys are teenagers now. She took this trip to Japan in 2001. That was 10 years ago. So that means her boys were very young when she decided being a mom was not for her. Living down the street and seeing them for a few hours is not being a mom (nor is it being a dad when it's the other way around).

Well you know what? I don't like it some days either. I cry and bitch and throw pity parties for myself when the hard days are here. Then I suck it up, brush myself off, and get over myself because I realize that I have children to raise.

[sste]

I was just being wry about hiroshima -- apparently, unsuccessfully!

I am thinking about what you wrote lhafer. I just don't know. CEOs, 99% of whom are male, depend on the ability to multi-task. My own DH - - who I agree magically can't multitask at HOME - - is an amazing multi-tasker at work. He couldn't do his paid job without multi-tasking.

I can't help wondering if this vision of the "hard-wired" mother helps justify the way - -as other posters have noted - - moms/sahps in the U.S. struggle alone. And it shortchanges dads too from a close, nurturing, primary or co-primary or at least very close runner-up position in their kids' lives.

The construction of motherhood is not terribly unique, really. In many fields of paid employment where you are expected to work bogus hours in impossible conditions there is a huge amount of "indoctrination" into how valuable and irreplaceable you are, how this is your calling, how there is the immense social or other need that only YOU can fill.

Wouldn't everyone - - parents and kids - - benefit if parenting was more fun? I am not saying we all need to decamp to Japan for six months or get divorced. But, I am appreciative of the many stories of family help, reunions, visits to grandparents, cooks and in-home nannies. I do not feel that any alleged biological imperative would stand in my way of accessing that if I could get my grubby paws on that kind of help!! :)

[lhafer]

I was just being wry about hiroshima -- apparently, unsuccessfully!

I am thinking about what you wrote lhafer. I just don't know. CEOs, 99% of whom are male, depend on the ability to multi-task. My own DH - - who I agree magically can't multitask at HOME - - is an amazing multi-tasker at work. He couldn't do his paid job without multi-tasking.

I can't help wondering if this vision of the "hard-wired" mother helps justify the way - -as other posters have noted - - moms/sahps in the U.S. struggle alone. And it shortchanges dads too from a close, nurturing, primary or co-primary or at least very close runner-up position in their kids' lives.

The construction of motherhood is not terribly unique, really. In many fields of paid employment where you are expected to work bogus hours in impossible conditions there is a huge amount of "indoctrination" into how valuable and irreplaceable you are, how this is your calling, how there is the immense social or other need that only YOU can fill.

Wouldn't everyone - - parents and kids - - benefit if parenting was more fun? I am not saying we all need to decamp to Japan for six months or get divorced. But, I am appreciative of the many stories of family help, reunions, visits to grandparents, cooks and in-home nannies. I do not feel that any alleged biological imperative would stand in my way of accessing that if I could get my grubby paws on that kind of help!! :)

I agree with you! But I wonder how many of those CEO's ACTUALLY are multi-tasking? Or how many have secretaries, and people that report to them to give the basics on everything, so it SEEMS like they have knowledge of everything?? ;) In my DH's business - it's like that. They can't have a hand in everything. People report to them with the latest news, reports, data, statistics, financials, whatever.

And heck yes I would love help! I'm one of those whose family lives 5+ hours away, and our closest friends (who i feel comfortable watching our kids) have small children of their own and are busy too!

I think our lives are what we make of it. I just seem to have a problem with this mom becoming a mom and then saying - ugh, this isn't for me. Especially when she already knew it wasn't for her. Her children are not pets. There aren't pounds for children.

[GaPeach_in_Ca]

Her boys are teenagers now. She took this trip to Japan in 2001. That was 10 years ago. So that means her boys were very young when she decided being a mom was not for her. Living down the street and seeing them for a few hours is not being a mom (nor is it being a dad when it's the other way around).



It's not being a mom? I find that pretty insulting. I only see my kids for a few awake hours a day because I am working full time and they are sleeping at night. I am definitely their mom. Or are you only not a mom if you don't sleep in the same house?

There are lots of posters on this board who have DHs who work very long hours and don't see their children during weekdays. Are those men not dads?

[ha98ed14]

OP, don't let things build to the Hiroshima level! Is it possible for you to start looking for a part-time job (even something below your skills, just to get you out of the house, some adult interaction)? Can you get away for a weekend?

Being a sahm is a hard, hard job.

It has always been clear to me how intensely you love your DD. That intensity swings both ways, kwim?

Yeah, you're right. Thanks for the reminder. (FWIW, I knew what you meant by Hiro level.) Thanks for the support. It means a lot.

[lhafer]

It's not being a mom? I find that pretty insulting. I only see my kids for a few awake hours a day because I am working full time and they are sleeping at night. I am definitely their mom. Or are you only not a mom if you don't sleep in the same house?

There are lots of posters on this board who have DHs who work very long hours and don't see their children during weekdays. Are those men not dads?

Are you saying you don't want to be a mom? Because she did. That's the difference.

I worked 14 hour days when I worked full time. I didn't see my daughter at all on the days I worked. I did that for about a year when I decided to change that, so I could be home more. I absolutely know and understand about not being home a lot. Or one parent having more responsibility than the other.

My DH works long hours and no, he doesn't see them enough. My second daughter had stranger anxiety with her own father because he worked a lot of hours and was going to grad school. We got through it.

[GaPeach_in_Ca]

Are you saying you don't want to be a mom? Because she did. That's the difference.


Well, I don't agree with her putting those things out there for your children to read. But what is more important, actions or words? Because I would argue that her actions (spending hours with them each day, etc.) show that she does want to be a mom.

I've never worked a 14 hour day nor has my DH. I think that's excessive for men or women, but I would not say that those people are not moms or dads. Not really my place.

[mommylamb]

BUT.

Biologically, woman (and this is general - and of course there are acceptions to every rule) have a greater tendency to mother, care for the children, etc. That's why we "nest" when pregnant. Most woman can multitask throughout their day, which includes keeping a running tally in there heads of what needs to get done, cook dinner, talk on the phone, making sure Sally is finishing her homework, while thinking ahead to tomorrow to makes sure there is laundry done and everyone has clean underwear. Do things get missed? Sure, because we have driven ourselves crazy with schedules, and commitments, and playdates, and making sure that every single second of our lives is filled to the brim. Most of the men I know, are much more single minded, and can usually only take care of one (maybe 2) tasks at a time.



Why is this biological? Not to get totally bogged down in a nature vs. nurture thing, but what evidence is there that women's parenting is biology based vs socially constructed? If you can pin point that on the genome, go for it, but until then asserting that this is biologically driven is speculation at best.

And, I think it's absurd to say that men can't multitask and that their lack of multitasking ability has something to do with their chromosomes. That's really selling short men as a gender/sex whatever.

[ha98ed14]

I think our lives are what we make of it. I just seem to have a problem with this mom becoming a mom and then saying - ugh, this isn't for me. Especially when she already knew it wasn't for her. Her children are not pets. There aren't pounds for children.

ITA with you on this, lhafer. Totally. But what you said about if I lived in cave man days and my DD being ok because I didn't know any different. I'm assuming by "know any different" you mean I wouldn't have an an option for grad school and a career in public policy. But you know, I don't think she would have been ok because my reasons for being unable to care for DD in the beginning were not because I knew about educational and career opportunities. It was (and is) mental illness. (Who knows if cave men had mental illness, but assuming it was me in my current state, I am not confident that the "maternal instinct" (if there is such a thing) would have kicked in. I agree with what you said above based on a cognitive understanding of the obligations of parenting and a moral belief that I chose to have DD, and it is my moral obligation to either clean up her puke, or be there to give her a bath while DH cleans up her puke. There's no get out of jail free card on that one even if, 3.75 years into her life, I decide parenting isn't what I thought it would be. But I'm also coming to see that this is *MY* position. Other people may choose to live apart from their kids for reasons shared here by other posters (different cultures, extended family, etc). BUT the difference in those choices is that they didn't reject being a parent. That's what galls me, and I think you share the gall, that she just said, "Oops, not for me; here H, you do it." But I think it's abhorrent *to me* for the reasons I disclosed above. The more I think about it, the more I am wondering if it is mentally healthy for me to condemn and revile this woman from a place of my own emotional woundedness. Don't get me wrong; I don't think what she did was okay, but I am seeing that there are many more shaded of gray here than the black and white I first saw.

[mmommy]

Honestly, I wish my own mother would have had the strength and opportunity to parent in this way. I think she would have been a much better parent and thus a better role model. Instead, she clearly felt trapped and this was obvious to us even as children.

[daisymommy]

I've read many studies on the subject , and yes, science does show that women's hormonal make-up does skew them towards being more sensitive, gentle, nurturing, & more in-tune to their children. Biologically--not because they were taught to do do. Sure, not 100% of women out there, but in general, yes.

Let me clarify. I do not mean that mother's are hard-wired to be better parents, or love their kids more than fathers, or be better at playing with them, having fun with them, teaching them, etc. I mean there are hormonal and physiological differences that have been proven to go on between mothers and their babies and children, that simply do not occur with men. These same chemical/hormonal/physiological exchanges have been proven to create a certain intensity between mothers and their off spring that do not occur between father and child. And yes, even if young girls they are more likely to pick up a baby doll and love on it than little boys do--even if there are no other siblings at home, they have never seen their mothers do this with another child. It comes from somewhere deep inside! (Do I really need to put a disclaimer in here that says of course little boys do this too, but girls are more likely to exhibit nurturing behavior than boys, even at a young age).

Did you know that when a mother's baby cries, her brain releases oxytocin--the hormone that is responsible for feelings of love, attachment, and peace? The same thing happens when she holds here baby and gazes at him/her. That doesn't happen in a man. It doesn't mean he doesn't love his children, it means that there is a unique maternal bond built into women to attach us to our children and help facilitate that relationship.

And when your baby cries--your baby and only your baby, even in a crowd of babies, because his cry has been imprinted into your brain--your milk lets down so that you can nourish him.

Within 6 days postpartum, a mother can distinguish the smell of a garment worn by her own infant from one worn by another baby. Likewise, if a mother is blindfolded she can correctly identify her own baby after smelling the heads of several other babies. The baby can identify her too, based on scent alone. The same cannot be said of the fathers in either case.

There are countless other examples, but those are the ones that give me the warm fuzzies so it's what I remember off hand. I could go look up other studies and report back if anyone feels like continuing the debate ;)

I say all this to say, I recognize that these are physical bonding examples. But that is the catalyst. It begins as physical, which impacts the emotional, which strengthens the relationship between mother and child. It's like the extra super-glue that holds us to our children.

-------------------------------------------------------
On a side note, ha98ed14 (((HUGS))). I've been through depression and mental illness too. I still battle back the beast on occasion. I'm sorry for the struggles you have been through. That must have been very difficult when your DD was a newborn. I remember one time crying, asking myself what was wrong with me that I didn't feel more attached to my baby. But when I came out the other side, it was healing to look back and know that it wasn't because I was bad mother, or that I was missing the mothering instinct, or that I wasn't cut out for it. But it's because I was sick. I just want to offer that to you--please be gentle on yourself and don't tell yourself you are any "less than". It's all in there somewhere. Your are putting up the good fight even when it's not easy, and that is to be commended.

[lhafer]

Why is this biological? Not to get totally bogged down in a nature vs. nurture thing, but what evidence is there that women's parenting is biology based vs socially constructed? If you can pin point that on the genome, go for it, but until then asserting that this is biologically driven is speculation at best.

And, I think it's absurd to say that men can't multitask and that their lack of multitasking ability has something to do with their chromosomes. That's really selling short men as a gender/sex whatever.

I'm not selling men short. I'm just going off of what I know from every single man I have ever met. Not saying they aren't fantastic fathers. Or husbands. Or employees or CEOs. What I am saying is they probably would do better at focusing their attention on one thing at a time. Maybe it's just the men I am around. Who knows. I am surrounded by engineers, and they are very one track minded. I used to be surrounded by doctors (mostly men) and they were similarly minded. Versus the nurses (mostly women) who could keep track of various things going on a the same time on several patients.



ITA with you on this, lhafer. Totally. But what you said about if I lived in cave man days and my DD being ok because I didn't know any different. I'm assuming by "know any different" you mean I wouldn't have an an option for grad school and a career in public policy. But you know, I don't think she would have been ok because my reasons for being unable to care for DD in the beginning were not because I knew about educational and career opportunities. It was (and is) mental illness. (Who knows if cave men had mental illness, but assuming it was me in my current state, I am not confident that the "maternal instinct" (if there is such a thing) would have kicked in. I agree with what you said above based on a cognitive understanding of the obligations of parenting and a moral belief that I chose to have DD, and it is my moral obligation to either clean up her puke, or be there to give her a bath while DH cleans up her puke. There's no get out of jail free card on that one even if, 3.75 years into her life, I decide parenting isn't what I thought it would be. But I'm also coming to see that this is *MY* position. Other people may choose to live apart from their kids for reasons shared here by other posters (different cultures, extended family, etc). BUT the difference in those choices is that they didn't reject being a parent. That's what galls me, and I think you share the gall, that she just said, "Oops, not for me; here H, you do it." But I think it's abhorrent *to me* for the reasons I disclosed above. The more I think about it, the more I am wondering if it is mentally healthy for me to condemn and revile this woman from a place of my own emotional woundedness. Don't get me wrong; I don't think what she did was okay, but I am seeing that there are many more shaded of gray here than the black and white I first saw.

In your case, you are probably right about the child care thing. I live in the same area as Andrea Yates. If you don't know her name, she was a SAH mother of 5 children. She had severe post partum psychosis and drowned all 5 of them in her bathtub, one at a time. That was an incredibly horrendous time to be living here, watching that every single day, knowing her history of post partum psychosis/depression with each child. Very very heartbreaking all the way around.

I am very sorry you had trouble following your daughter's birth. It makes it even that much harder when you know it's supposed to be a time of joy and excitement (even during the sleepless nights), and you just don't feel that. :hug:

[mommy111]

I've read many studies on the subject , and yes, science does show that women's hormonal make-up does skew them towards being more sensitive, gentle, nurturing, & more in-tune to their children. Biologically--not because they were taught to do do. Sure, not 100% of women out there, but in general, yes.


Assuming that this is valid, if someone doesn't feel this way, as the Hiroshima mom obviously does not, do we automatically condemn her to the tiltle of a 'bad mom' who must hide her feelings with shame and beat herself up? Or do we acknowledge that there are such mothers in the world who are then doing the best they can to cope with the fact that they do not 'feel' the way society expects them to and so they must figure out an alternative way to deal with the situation. And do we allow them to verbalize this so that others who feel that way can then have their feelings legitimized?

[TwinFoxes]

Assuming that this is valid, if someone doesn't feel this way, as the Hiroshima mom obviously does not, do we automatically condemn her to the tiltle of a 'bad mom' who must hide her feelings with shame and beat herself up? Or do we acknowledge that there are such mothers in the world who are then doing the best they can to cope with the fact that they do not 'feel' the way society expects them to and so they must figure out an alternative way to deal with the situation. And do we allow them to verbalize this so that others who feel that way can then have their feelings legitimized?

I think this is a great point. Someone else brought up Andrea Yates. Well I remember when it was announced that Susan Smith had drowned her own kids by driving her car into a lake (she had claimed they were carjacked). One of her neighbors was crying and saying "why didn't she just give them to her ex husband, or give them to someone else to take care of". I said to whoever I was watching TV with "if she gave her kids away you know these same people would be raking her over the coals". Clearly what she did was horrendous and inexcusable. My point is, walking away is never easy for a woman, she will be judged for the rest of her life.

I think we should recognize that some people just aren't cut out to be moms. Maybe she shouldn't have had kids in the first place, but there's a lot of pressure to have kids, and if her husband wanted them, it's not hard to imagine her feeling like she had to have them. I had never heard of this woman before. It sounds like she's trying to remain in her kids' lives though. There are so many worse alternatives to what she's doing. She could have just disappeared.

[daisymommy]

Assuming that this is valid, if someone doesn't feel this way... do we acknowledge that there are such mothers in the world who are then doing the best they can to cope with the fact that they do not 'feel' the way society expects them to and so they must figure out an alternative way to deal with the situation. And do we allow them to verbalize this so that others who feel that way can then have their feelings legitimized?

YES. Absolutely I agree with you, and I'm sorry if it came across as though I don't. I realize that we all have some differences, and not 100% of all women will feel that maternal instinct. I was speaking to the general majority of women. But it's how we handle "not feeling it" that really matters I think.

I went back and read more about the Hiroshima article mother. I saw the part where she was begged, pushed, and cajoled by her husband to have children (he's as much to blame as she is here!). And then surprise, she laters regrets it and wants to escape. In that case I can hardly blame the woman, and I sympathize with her. That's a whole other ball game there. Not saying I think what she did was perfectly wonderful, but I certainly cut her a little more slack in my mind.

[niccig]

Assuming that this is valid, if someone doesn't feel this way, as the Hiroshima mom obviously does not, do we automatically condemn her to the tiltle of a 'bad mom' who must hide her feelings with shame and beat herself up? Or do we acknowledge that there are such mothers in the world who are then doing the best they can to cope with the fact that they do not 'feel' the way society expects them to and so they must figure out an alternative way to deal with the situation. And do we allow them to verbalize this so that others who feel that way can then have their feelings legitimized?

:yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat:

Her feelings are totally valid. Yes, maybe working that out before kids would have been better, but she seems to be doing the best she can with the situation. I also don't think being the non-custodial parent means giving up on all parenting - thinking of a couple of Dads I know that are very involved with their kids, make parenting decisions but don't get the kids every day - I would still call them father's, just as I would still call her a mother. Yes, some non-custodial parents are not involved, but that's not the case with everyone.

I am struggling with the reaction that women must have the motherly response...I don't think it's that cut and dried and we are doing a disservice by expecting it in all mothers.

And I'm just done with mothers judging other mothers. We're worse at it than men I think for eating our own, as a nurse once told me about other nurses. I have numerous issues with my own mother, but when discussing her with my sister, my sister would say "a mother shouldn't do..."...and I do have to say "well, there's no manual given out when you have a child. You do the best you can.." I was having a similar discussion at gymanstics, 4 mothers and a father - he said his wife gets the judgement as she's working and he's at home. Reality is that she earns more and enough that he doesn't have to work - but she's getting judged for not being motherly and not staying home. If the roles were reversed, as they are in my family, there's no judgment, as it's what society expects. But in my case, my DH would have loved to stay home but I don't earn enough to support the family, he does.

[Kindra178]

Halfway through the book based on this thread (DH has been out of town all week so I have been doing a lot of late night reading in lieu of sleeping). The author is somewhat whiny and finds her experience as a married working mother really unique for some unknown reason. Frankly, I would more interested in a book solely about her research findings and maybe a touch thrown in about her life. This autobiography of a working mom who needs a little more out of life is just not that interesting.

[ha98ed14]

Halfway through the book based on this thread (DH has been out of town all week so I have been doing a lot of late night reading in lieu of sleeping). The author is somewhat whiny and finds her experience as a married working mother really unique for some unknown reason. Frankly, I would more interested in a book solely about her research findings and maybe a touch thrown in about her life. This autobiography of a working mom who needs a little more out of life is just not that interesting.

Interesting! It's up for/ won some book award(s). I guess our lives as SAHW&M are more award winning than we think! I wonder if it's because the people who picked the winners are men...

[Green_Tea]

It's not like she completely dropped out of her children's life. She is involved in their lives and believes herself to be a better mother because of it.

I have a bigger problem with the fact there is such a double standard of it being flat out unacceptable for a women to leave a relationship when kids are involved, but people make exceptions and excuses all the time for men who do it.
:yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat: