or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Is this common?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is this common? - Page 8

post #141 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by olliepop View Post
Sadly, I do know a few. One mother told me that when they had their baby, their lives weren't really going to change. That they weren't going to change their lives to fit the baby, but rather train the baby to fit their lives. For them, that meant continuing to do ALL the things they did before, frequent dinners, movies, vacations, shows -- all w/o the baby. Which meant that baby was now spending lots of time with her grandmother and babysitters. And they refuse to take her to places like the zoo or children's museums b/c THEY have no interest in it, but right now they feel that she is too young to enjoy adult art museums so they go alone and leave her home. Now that, to me, is excessive!
??? Makes me wonder why they had a baby in the first place.
post #142 of 160
Yeah, me too, but I think a lot of other moms would be offended by that question, right?
post #143 of 160
Quote:
Yeah, me too, but I think a lot of other moms would be offended by that question, right?
Not if I have all the facts to reach an informed conclusion. I like to weigh all the factors before jumping on the bandwagon, because I've learned some hard lessons in the past about reaching conclusions before I know the whole story. Given this set of facts, there's a high probability that I would have thought the same thing. Operating on assumptions creates a lot of division, that's why we have that nasty little thing called the mommy wars.
post #144 of 160
I've read through most of this thread and I was hoping to find more people who regard having a whole 12 hours a week to themselves as more of a luxury rather than a necessity (one which I would love to have, but for the past seven years and indefinite future don't see it happening), so I definitely don't see the judgement happening here.

I guess for me as a SAHM to 3 kids with another on the way, homeschooling with no outside support, I feel a little jealous/resentful/whatever when I have no choice but to take my three kids with me to pee in a cup so I can get a script for a UTI and I get looks, comments and virtually no accomodation. Would my doc's office be out that much money if the nurse kept an eye on my kids in the hallway while I took literally 2 minutes to pee in a cup? Leaving your kids with someone else while you try and do anything other than entertainment seems to exacerbate the un-family-friendliness of our culture.

To keep kids out of the grocery store, IMO, only encourages further intolerance of kids IN the grocery store. I would love one day a week to clean my house, grocery shop, and get a haircut without my kids in tow, but financially and logistically it is simply not an option. So, when I do all of these things with my kids in tow, it seems to take even longer because G*d forbid I block the aisle with one of my kids running around while the 50-something in the next aisle can park her cart smack in the middle and nobody blinks.

Also, I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere yet, but I think it does a disservice to our kids to not have to wait in line at the bank or learn how to sit quietly while mom renews her license. Life isn't about being able to play constantly. Perhaps we are sheltering our kids from some of life's necessities that aren't all fun and play? What happens when they become adults or parents and have a hard time adapting to family life because they never knew about dealing with a misplaced shirt at the dry cleaners or having to bring 2 kids and a dog into the veterinarian's office could literally take up an entire morning?

My SIL just had her first baby. She was hoping a child would change my bro's behavior (no longer out with the boys and throwing back a six-pack every night). And of course, he didn't change. Rather than try and adapt to life as a family, my SIL decided that if his life shouldn't have to change, then neither should hers. She leaves her 3 mo old with sitters so she can go tanning or out with the girls, in addition to the time she leaves him to work. She also has her mom take the baby on weekend mornings so she can sleep in until noon. And lucky me, since she is parenting this way, any empathy that might have existed for me is all but gone because why can't I just drop off my kids with a sitter while I run out?

I don't care if you leave your kids with a sitter, but let's also show some empathy for those who don't have that option. If you're grocery shopping by yourself and you see me trying to corral my three kids, rather than roll your eyes or sigh with irritation give me or my kids a friendly smile, knowing I'd relish the opportunity to shop by myself, it would be a *luxury* for me...
post #145 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuzzmom View Post
??? Makes me wonder why they had a baby in the first place.
I'll not say that moms don't need "me" time in a variety of range,but some times it's too much.
I have a friend who was follow me in a party the other day. She was talking and talking about that She's planning to get pregnant soon and She already talk with her mom.The grand mom is going to be in charge of the baby during nights, plus at the time she'll be working (FT),plus errands,etc.
After She insist it many times trying to get from some kind of approval, I just can't handle it anymore. I try to very kindly say that She probably need to rethinking about the decision of have a baby. I add..everybody wish to some day have somebody that love us unconditionally and when this somebody is here, we're planning to get away for!..uhmmm
post #146 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjs View Post
I don't care if you leave your kids with a sitter, but let's also show some empathy for those who don't have that option. If you're grocery shopping by yourself and you see me trying to corral my three kids, rather than roll your eyes or sigh with irritation give me or my kids a friendly smile, knowing I'd relish the opportunity to shop by myself, it would be a *luxury* for me...
I would never roll my eyes as someone grocery shopping with kids. I do frequently leave the two little ones with dh while I shop on a weekend...but not always. I'll probably take them with me and do the weekly shopping on Monday this week, as I have for the last two weeks. I'm spending next Friday in the hospital, having another c-section, and I don't want to lose out on our last good family weekend just to go shopping alone, yk? Besides, my kids love the grocery store, especially the seafood tanks (crabs, lobsters, mussels, clams & oysters). While it's nice to be able to get the job done in half the time, without constant interruptions and distractions, it's kind of fun to see people who are so enthusiastic about grocery shopping. (I remember being that way myself.)

mama. Grocery shopping with kids in tow can be tough.
post #147 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by isabchi View Post
I'll not say that moms don't need "me" time in a variety of range,but some times it's too much.
I have a friend who was follow me in a party the other day. She was talking and talking about that She's planning to get pregnant soon and She already talk with her mom.The grand mom is going to be in charge of the baby during nights, plus at the time she'll be working (FT),plus errands,etc.
After She insist it many times trying to get from some kind of approval, I just can't handle it anymore. I try to very kindly say that She probably need to rethinking about the decision of have a baby. I add..everybody wish to some day have somebody that love us unconditionally and when this somebody is here, we're planning to get away for!..uhmmm
Just to be clear, I was responding to the specific post where the parents unwiling to change ANY aspect of their lives to accommodate their child.

I totally get why a mom would need some personal time in almost any other circumstance.
post #148 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
While it's nice to be able to get the job done in half the time, without constant interruptions and distractions, it's kind of fun to see people who are so enthusiastic about grocery shopping. (I remember being that way myself.)

mama. Grocery shopping with kids in tow can be tough.
Yeah, I hate grocery shopping... UNLESS my son is with me. He makes it fun. Having said that, I have ONE child and he sticks pretty close. I am due with #2 in late July and the perspective I now have about this may be changing very, very quickly.

Good luck next Friday, BTW. I'll be thinking about you.
post #149 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuzzmom View Post
Yeah, I hate grocery shopping... UNLESS my son is with me. He makes it fun. Having said that, I have ONE child and he sticks pretty close. I am due with #2 in late July and the perspective I now have about this may be changing very, very quickly.

I loved grocery shopping with ds1 a lot. He and I would walk to the grocery store, and then walk back, and we used to make up games on the way home. I remember one evening when it was just starting to rain, and I knew it was going to get really heavy, so I made it our "quest" to get home with our food before the storm. By the time we got back, we'd incorporated an evil wizard, an endless stairway and I can't even remember what else.

With dd and ds2, it's a bit different. It was fine for a couple of years, but they're so prone to squabbling now. As long as they don't start to fight, and they stay with me okay, it's great. I just never know what I'm going to get ahead of time...

Quote:
Good luck next Friday, BTW. I'll be thinking about you.
Thank you. I'm getting really excited about meeting this little one.
post #150 of 160
I wholeheartedly admit that I do like some "alone" time. Typically, its the kid staying with my DH while I go out or vice versa. This week, both kids have been at camp from 740 to 520 p.m. Going was their choice.
post #151 of 160
Quote:
Would my doc's office be out that much money if the nurse kept an eye on my kids in the hallway while I took literally 2 minutes to pee in a cup?
It's not a question of being out of the money. It simply is not the nurse's job to act as babysitter for anybody, period.

Sometimes I have no other choice to bring my children with me but I wouldn't dream of asking or expecting the staff of whatever place I am going to stop doing their job to babysit my children, no not even for literally two minutes.
post #152 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjs View Post
My SIL just had her first baby. She was hoping a child would change my bro's behavior (no longer out with the boys and throwing back a six-pack every night). And of course, he didn't change. Rather than try and adapt to life as a family, my SIL decided that if his life shouldn't have to change, then neither should hers. She leaves her 3 mo old with sitters so she can go tanning or out with the girls, in addition to the time she leaves him to work. She also has her mom take the baby on weekend mornings so she can sleep in until noon. And lucky me, since she is parenting this way, any empathy that might have existed for me is all but gone because why can't I just drop off my kids with a sitter while I run out?
I know you probably didn't mean it this way, but I don't love the idea that "she needs to adapt to life as a family" and "she is parenting this way." Surely her husband carries some of the responsibility too. If he was really co-parenting with her, he'd be covering some of her time off and maybe she wouldn't need so much time off if she had more support in the home.

Sorry to nitpick, but I think the choice of words is revealing. Our culture does seem to expect women to take on the full responsibility of home and family and that's incredibly unfair.
post #153 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by nina_yyc View Post
I know you probably didn't mean it this way, but I don't love the idea that "she needs to adapt to life as a family" and "she is parenting this way." Surely her husband carries some of the responsibility too. If he was really co-parenting with her, he'd be covering some of her time off and maybe she wouldn't need so much time off if she had more support in the home.

Sorry to nitpick, but I think the choice of words is revealing. Our culture does seem to expect women to take on the full responsibility of home and family and that's incredibly unfair.
Yeah...but it also makes no sense to expect someone to change when you have a baby. From what the poster you're quoting said, it sounds as though she's playing tit-for-tat, because she thought he'd change and he didn't. The baby is the one who ends up with both parents being absent all the time.

I've known quite a few women who pushed through hard on the having a baby thing, in the expectation that their partner would change his ways when the baby arrived. I've seen it actually work out once. If one's partner isn't good parenting material, then maybe it's not a great idea to decide to be a parent with them, yk? I didn't see anything in that post that ever suggested he would co-parent with her, so why would she expect him to? Sure - it would be the right thing to step up to the plate and do the job of being a parent...but when I want someone to do a particular job (be that cooking, gardening, cleaning or fixing the washing machine), I pick someone who knows how....or at least shows some willingness to learn. Parenting is no different.
post #154 of 160
Quote:
I've known quite a few women who pushed through hard on the having a baby thing, in the expectation that their partner would change his ways when the baby arrived. I've seen it actually work out once. If one's partner isn't good parenting material, then maybe it's not a great idea to decide to be a parent with them, yk? I didn't see anything in that post that ever suggested he would co-parent with her, so why would she expect him to? Sure - it would be the right thing to step up to the plate and do the job of being a parent...but when I want someone to do a particular job (be that cooking, gardening, cleaning or fixing the washing machine), I pick someone who knows how....or at least shows some willingness to learn. Parenting is no different.
Okay, I'll play the devil's advocate here again.

DH is the prime example (by our society's standards) who never should have had a kid: 1) he didn't become a father until he was 58 (he's practically elderly for cripe's sake!); 2) he travelled the world and hung out with the less "desirable" types of our society; 3) he went to the original Woodstock...O'LAY!; 3) he was arrested by federal agents and spent time in federal prison (won't go into the reasons but I can assure you it didn't have anything to do with children or theft or any other thing I find morally reprehensible; 4) he is a nutcase, but sort of brilliant; 5) he's Jewish but doesn't believe in g-d.

But guess what, he's a great dad! He loves DD more than anything in this world. By society's standards, and by logic, DH would have been the worst choice. He's even been to prison! When I found that we were pregnant, I sort of panicked...more because of me than him...but our ability to do it either individually or together seemed, well, questionable.

So here we are, at the happiest moment in our lives! I don't think you can shop for the perfect dad. It's a little more hit and miss than we'd like to admit. People don't train to be parents like they train to be electricians or gardeners. It is something that it handed to you and you do it the best you can. Some fail miserably but others step up the plate. Maybe I've been surrounded by the "dredge" of society who happened to have incredible human/humane qualities. I know there are a lot of crappola people out there...it just hasn't been my experience.

That being said, I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect co-parenting. I don't care what your background is...you got a job...now do it. No excuses.
post #155 of 160
I don't see anything in your post that suggests good or bad parent to me. I'm not sure why any of that would mean he wouldn't be a good dad. Almost everything you mentioned (aside from his age and being a Jewish atheist, neither of which have any relevance to parenting, imo) is about things he did in his past. What on earth does having gone to the original Woodstock, or having hung out with "less desirable" types or having been to prison got to do with anything?

I'm talking about people who are into their own lives, in a very "single" kind of way. The post I was talking about (the one about the SIL) described a guy who was off hanging with buddies and drinking six-packs. That doesn't scream "I really want to have a baby with this guy" to me, yk? A guy who is throwing back a six-pack every night is not the same thing as a guy who used to do so...or used to do drugs, or just about anything else. Do I think the poster's brother should have shaped up when he had a baby? Definitely. Do I think it was even remotely reasonable to have a baby with him in the expectation that he would so so? Not so much. As I said, I've seen that work out once, despite seeing a lot of women try it.

(IME, that particular foolish life choice is more often a woman thing than a man thing - maybe because a woman is less likely to be talked into a baby she isn't really interested in, since she has to go through the pregnancy?)
post #156 of 160
Quote:
I don't see anything in your post that suggests good or bad parent to me. I'm not sure why any of that would mean he wouldn't be a good dad. Almost everything you mentioned (aside from his age and being a Jewish atheist, neither of which have any relevance to parenting, imo) is about things he did in his past. What on earth does having gone to the original Woodstock, or having hung out with "less desirable" types or having been to prison got to do with anything?
Histories mean a lot to many people. My parents were horrified when they met DH. Horrified at his potential to be a good husband and parent. Horrified that he wasn't religious in the way that they felt was appropriate. Btwn: one is not an "atheist" just because you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of g-d...DH is agnostic...which comes with its own problems...but he is not an atheist. Religion means a great deal in some circles and cultures. Religion can define who you are. Age can define how you parent according to some. My parents and kin were horrified that I would marry someone from that excessive, liberal and unrepentant generation who went to Woodstock and marched on Washington in various protests. I guess it is hard for someone who is not of that generation to understand the significance of the rebellion and distain that young people of that generation had for their superiors. It is significant to me in the fact that I married someone who was not the straight arrow that I was expected to marry. My familial relationships have suffered as a result. For people who are not judged on their religious, political or cultural choices, I can understand that this would NOT BE A BIG DEAL.

My dad was the example of the perfect match: a professional who never did anything wrong or unethical in his youth. My mom married him on those principles. And guess what, he was the most distant, unloving person and uninvolved person I've ever known....and he came home every night after 5 pm and never had a drink that I'm aware of. I never had a father, in my opinion. Never one that cared or loved, so to speak. So I guess what they say is true: you can never judge a book by its cover. Exteriors are so deceiving.
post #157 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsCradle View Post
Histories mean a lot to many people. My parents were horrified when they met DH. Horrified at his potential to be a good husband and parent. Horrified that he wasn't religious in the way that they felt was appropriate. Btwn: one is not an "atheist" just because you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of g-d...DH is agnostic...which comes with its own problems...but he is not an atheist.
Whoops. Sorry. I'm agnostic myself, so I don't know why I took your post to mean he was an atheist.

Quote:
Religion means a great deal in some circles and cultures. Religion can define who you are. Age can define how you parent according to some. My parents and kin were horrified that I would marry someone from that excessive, liberal and unrepentant generation who went to Woodstock and marched on Washington in various protests. I guess it is hard for someone who is not of that generation to understand the significance of the rebellion and distain that young people of that generation had for their superiors. It is significant to me in the fact that I married someone who was not the straight arrow that I was expected to marry. My familial relationships have suffered as a result. For people who are not judged on their religious, political or cultural choices, I can understand that this would NOT BE A BIG DEAL.
I get all that. However, it has nothing to do with someone's current stance on parenting issues. If people are horrified by someone's politics, worldview, etc., then, yes, in some cases, that's going to translate into "this person should never have children". That's not the same thing as choosing to parent with someone who is currently showing no signs of willingness to take on the responsibilities of parenting. The latter is what I was addressing.

Quote:
My dad was the example of the perfect match: a professional who never did anything wrong or unethical in his youth. My mom married him on those principles.
And, none of that says "this person will be a good parent". Those things have nothing to do with parenting.

Quote:
And guess what, he was the most distant, unloving person and uninvolved person I've ever known....and he came home every night after 5 pm and never had a drink that I'm aware of. I never had a father, in my opinion. Never one that cared or loved, so to speak. So I guess what they say is true: you can never judge a book by its cover. Exteriors are so deceiving.
Sure. Exteriors are deceiving. But, you haven't described anything about your dh or your dad that actually says anything about what kind of parent they would make. Basing a person's parenting on what their politics are, or what their religious beliefs are, or what kind of people they hung out with years ago, or what they do for a living, is a disconnect with what parenting is. There are tons of people who can describe exactly what you did...professional, ethical people who are distant and unloving. How on earth does what mistakes someone may or may not have made in their past or what job they have carry any bearing on what kind of parent they'll be?

Sure - lots of crappy parents don't drink. But, I wasn't talking about them. I simply don't understand why anyone looks at a guy who has a party hearty lifestyle and who is all about what's fun for them...and thinks, "he's not a great dad now, but I bet if we have a baby, that will all change". It happens a lot. It virtually never actually works that way. It's not about politics, or religion, or Woodstock, or a person's career...it's about whether or not they demonstrate any ability to put someone else first.


ETA: I'm going to drop this, though - we're going way OT.
post #158 of 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjs View Post
To keep kids out of the grocery store, IMO, only encourages further intolerance of kids IN the grocery store. I would love one day a week to clean my house, grocery shop, and get a haircut without my kids in tow, but financially and logistically it is simply not an option. So, when I do all of these things with my kids in tow, it seems to take even longer because G*d forbid I block the aisle with one of my kids running around while the 50-something in the next aisle can park her cart smack in the middle and nobody blinks.

Also, I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere yet, but I think it does a disservice to our kids to not have to wait in line at the bank or learn how to sit quietly while mom renews her license. Life isn't about being able to play constantly. Perhaps we are sheltering our kids from some of life's necessities that aren't all fun and play? What happens when they become adults or parents and have a hard time adapting to family life because they never knew about dealing with a misplaced shirt at the dry cleaners or having to bring 2 kids and a dog into the veterinarian's office could literally take up an entire morning?
I think these are good points. I think kids should be involved with the mundane aspects of life in an age-appropriate and personality-appropriate way, and this will vary a lot depending on individual situations. I agree that it is a disservice to a child to only experience child-centered environments (child care, school, grandparent time, etc.) where the child has 100% of their parents' attention because the parents did everything else they needed to do while the child was elsewhere. The world doesn't work this way. Kids need opportunities to learn how to behave in the grocery store and other public places. I plan on teaching my kids these important skills just as soon as they turn 18. (just kidding! Maybe when they are 15...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by churndash View Post
It's not a question of being out of the money. It simply is not the nurse's job to act as babysitter for anybody, period.

Sometimes I have no other choice to bring my children with me but I wouldn't dream of asking or expecting the staff of whatever place I am going to stop doing their job to babysit my children, no not even for literally two minutes.
I agree that babysitting isn't the nurse's job, but doesn't it make sense to provide family-friendly health care services? The problem here is with the system, I think. (I just want to point out that the midwivery practice with whom I had my children were very kid-friendly; there were toys in the waiting room and exam rooms, and the front desk staff cheerfully assisted in holding/playing with young children when needed.) Until I find other family-friendly services, I avoid bringing my kids to medical offices and let the scheduler know in advance if I do need to bring my children with me, like if I have an emergency dental appt. or something.

But that's a tangent to the original questions of the OP. My opinion is "no".

One part is: No, I don't think it is common for grandparents/other relatives to provide bonus childcare on a weekly basis, but I think it is a wonderful idea for grandparents to spend time with grandchildren, and I think it promotes bonding for the kids/grands to be on their own after a certain age that's probably different for everyone. I agree with the PP who pointed out that it is stressful for a child to be solely dependent on one parent. It's great when extended family can be involved.

Another No for the question of whether it is common for parents to NOT want to spend time with their kids, therefore overusing childcare options. I don't think this is common, but I do know it happens and I think it's sad when it does. I have friends and family members who have worked as childcare providers at centers/privately, etc. and they have seen some kids who are in childcare for any and every hour they are available, which for a center is about 55 hours per week, including many holidays. No, I don't know the details of *why* these kids are in childcare for so many hours even when their parents have the day off, but that is beside the point. I'm not trying to judge or tell people how they should run their own life. I just feel sad when I think about what those families are missing.

I do think it can be a slippery slope into overuse; I had a friend who needed part time child care and had to pay for a full-time slot anyway and I could see that the temptation was there to drop the child off more frequently than necessary for the work schedules of the family, since they were already paying for the time and it would make 'free time' for the parents. They did what they needed to do.
post #159 of 160
You know, I don't think anyone thinks that parents NEVER need time away from kids, either as individuals or a couple, or that there are NEVER places that parents have to go that are inappropriate for kids, or that the kids might even just really dislike. And everyone realizes that there will be different things that work for different families.

But there are families that don't seem to put any priory on time spent with kids, or which seem to assume that kids shouldn't change things. A good friend of mine grew up in a community where many kids went to boarding school. Then they went to summer camp - all summer. And it was considered normal, because parents need time to themselves, to work, to have a strong marriage (although divorce was really common in that community too.)

There is a part of our culture that says "You must take care of yourself first, and meet your own needs first, that is your first priority." And I think that is subtlety different than "It is important that each person in the family/community/state gets their basic needs met and then gets more as more is available, in a way that is fair and takes into account the individual nature of each person."
post #160 of 160
Quote:
ETA: I'm going to drop this, though - we're going way OT.
I agree. I'm sorry I can be so adversarial sometimes. And I apologize to the OP. I love to argue, which is a flaw in some respects and gets me in trouble more often than not. Although I admit, StormBride, that it is fun! Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rant! I enjoy it and I like to hear others' viewpoints.

Edit to say: congrats on the very near birth of your DC, StormBride! I know this must be extremely exciting and I hope all goes well.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Is this common?