Outsourcing children
February 28, 2019 3:53 PM
If a cis female has a cis male partner, and he wants children and she doesn't, how feasible is it for him to be the primary parent? Also, how much could he outsource if he had unlimited funds?
Assume a scenario:
- Cis female person wants to take a 1950s Dad type role. Be the breadwinner, visit the kids to kiss them goodnight, etc., but not be very involved in their daily lives. Assume also that she also doesn't want to hurt the kids or make them feel abandoned or upset or leave them with lifelong emotional issues.
- Assume that the male partner is happy to take on the primary parent role and be "Mom", but that they've never seen this kind of scenario in real life and need some guidance as to how real people have accomplished it.
- Assume that this would be a permanent situation, and not a matter of trading off responsibilities for the child, or him being a stay-at-home-Dad for a finite period of time or "babysitting" (gag) regularly.
- Assume (for the sake of argument) that they have infinite resources and supportive family, and want to outsource as many tasks as possible (surrogacy, nanny, housekeeper, etc.). Assume that the initial bonding would happen between the father and child, not mother and child, and that the male would use a surrogate for the early physical parts.
I recently listened to a podcast in which a woman had voluntarily given up primary custody to her ex-husband and his new wife. This would be something like that, but premeditated.
Do you have any examples of people you know making these kinds of choices? Or in media somewhere? Blogs? Memoirs?
What kinds of resources are available to make this happen? Is there a name for this style of parenting, and does it ever work out? Did your parents operate this way? Was it ok for you?
Assume a scenario:
- Cis female person wants to take a 1950s Dad type role. Be the breadwinner, visit the kids to kiss them goodnight, etc., but not be very involved in their daily lives. Assume also that she also doesn't want to hurt the kids or make them feel abandoned or upset or leave them with lifelong emotional issues.
- Assume that the male partner is happy to take on the primary parent role and be "Mom", but that they've never seen this kind of scenario in real life and need some guidance as to how real people have accomplished it.
- Assume that this would be a permanent situation, and not a matter of trading off responsibilities for the child, or him being a stay-at-home-Dad for a finite period of time or "babysitting" (gag) regularly.
- Assume (for the sake of argument) that they have infinite resources and supportive family, and want to outsource as many tasks as possible (surrogacy, nanny, housekeeper, etc.). Assume that the initial bonding would happen between the father and child, not mother and child, and that the male would use a surrogate for the early physical parts.
I recently listened to a podcast in which a woman had voluntarily given up primary custody to her ex-husband and his new wife. This would be something like that, but premeditated.
Do you have any examples of people you know making these kinds of choices? Or in media somewhere? Blogs? Memoirs?
What kinds of resources are available to make this happen? Is there a name for this style of parenting, and does it ever work out? Did your parents operate this way? Was it ok for you?
if you're asking, can a cishet couple have a baby with a surrogate and the dad is the primary parent and mom is the breadwinner, can it work? sure. they have unlimited funds and support? better yet. they can literally outsource every single act of parenting, but yknow, the kid might turn out weird. who knows. traditionally-parented kids turn out weird too.
where this falls apart is the idea that you can plan this out so it will all shake out and function exactly as planned; you don't know if the kid will have special needs, if the kid will develop an attachment to mostly-absent mom, if dad will feel fine and dandy with this arrangement after the kid is born, if the "outsourced" help will work out without complications, etc etc
some way or another, the child will (figuratively but perhaps also literally) shit all over your bespoke parenting arrangement and mom and dad will be flying without a net. how's that gonna go? what if dad gets hit by a bus? what if mom changes her mind about wanting to be Donna Draper?
there's nothing unworkable about the basic outline here but it's not a good idea to have a kid if you're only willing to parent it under certain conditions.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:05 PM on February 28, 2019
where this falls apart is the idea that you can plan this out so it will all shake out and function exactly as planned; you don't know if the kid will have special needs, if the kid will develop an attachment to mostly-absent mom, if dad will feel fine and dandy with this arrangement after the kid is born, if the "outsourced" help will work out without complications, etc etc
some way or another, the child will (figuratively but perhaps also literally) shit all over your bespoke parenting arrangement and mom and dad will be flying without a net. how's that gonna go? what if dad gets hit by a bus? what if mom changes her mind about wanting to be Donna Draper?
there's nothing unworkable about the basic outline here but it's not a good idea to have a kid if you're only willing to parent it under certain conditions.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:05 PM on February 28, 2019
If one member of a couple doesn't want kids, they should not have kids.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 4:06 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by Sing Or Swim at 4:06 PM on February 28, 2019
I can't answer most (or any, really) of the question as posed, but why surrogacy rather than adoption? What does surrogacy mean in this hypothetical situation? Is the genetic material coming from the husband and wife via IVF and then being implanted into a surrogate, or is the husband getting another woman pregnant and then the couple is adopting the child? There are laws regarding surrogacy that vary by state (and probably country) - for example, in Michigan, surrogacy has to be performed more as an act of benevolence on the part of the surrogate and she can't be financially compensated. The retrieval process for IVF is not really easy either - you're looking at months of possible behavior modifications and multiple daily injections before a surgery.
posted by LionIndex at 4:06 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by LionIndex at 4:06 PM on February 28, 2019
My husband and I did this. My kid is 16. We both love him, parenting was much more fun and easier than I expected, he feels loved by both of us, and it worked out fine. My husband was always the primary parent, but the boy feels loved and supported by us both, just like the Beav felt loved by both his mom and his dad.
posted by shadygrove at 4:18 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by shadygrove at 4:18 PM on February 28, 2019
There are lots of constellations for a two-parent family to have and raise children. I mean, literally each and every family in the world raises their kids a little differently, right? I'm sure the situation you list could work but there's something about the tone or description that feels off. I'm not sure if it's because you're describing something theoretical, i.e. void of feeling, or if you're describing something real, i.e. coldly clinical. Either way, it doesn't sound good.
Every parent has an idea of what parenting could or should look like before they have kids. Then the kids come and some things go as-planned but most end up completely different. The key is that the children are loved and the parents are committed to the hard, relentless, and all-encompassing work of the raising the children -- in whatever arrangement works for the adults and the kids. I think the situation you describe can and does happen -- with happiness and success -- but there's just something about your particular description that makes it sound negative, albeit likely incorrectly so.
posted by smorgasbord at 4:20 PM on February 28, 2019
Every parent has an idea of what parenting could or should look like before they have kids. Then the kids come and some things go as-planned but most end up completely different. The key is that the children are loved and the parents are committed to the hard, relentless, and all-encompassing work of the raising the children -- in whatever arrangement works for the adults and the kids. I think the situation you describe can and does happen -- with happiness and success -- but there's just something about your particular description that makes it sound negative, albeit likely incorrectly so.
posted by smorgasbord at 4:20 PM on February 28, 2019
I mean, we didn't outsource much of our parenting. And I was definitely still his mom in everyone's eyes. But I worked demanding hours at a demanding career, and my husband was a stay at home parent. When the kid threw up in the middle of the night, my husband was the one he yelled for and the one who went. But the love can't be outsourced, and luckily I love the boy madly.
posted by shadygrove at 4:22 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by shadygrove at 4:22 PM on February 28, 2019
Yeah, it’s called “uninvolved parenting” and it’s extremely detrimental for children.
If there are unlimited funds, then a) consider separate households, maybe b) a dedicated caregiver like a live-in nanny, so that the children are only exposed to parenting figures who are actively involved, or c) getting a divorce.
With 7 billion people on the planet and an oncoming climate crisis, I can’t imagine why a person would think it would be a good idea to have children that they actively plan to neglect. Kids aren’t toys. One’s personal desire to have children is not a moral imperative that needs to be fulfilled. It is only a wish. One cannot have everything one wishes, especially if one is not willing to fulfill the conditions that require it, such as full buy-in and involvement from all adults who would be taking the role of parent and legal guardian.
As far as personal experience, I grew up with a completely uninvolved father (who lived in the house, just actively avoided his children and had no interest in developing a relationship). He worked, came home, spent his leisure time doing his own thing, stayed out of family arguments except as an additional authority, and essentially remained a stranger. I certainly can’t say what he got out of it, but I got nothing out of it except wondering why the fuck he had kids in the first place—and I mean that as an adult with friends who have children, and who has since had plenty of healthy father/child relationships modeled for me. My father had complete autonomy and agency in deciding whether to have children, with whom, and how to raise them—and he chose to abdicate all his agency entirely and act like it wasn’t his problem. Why would someone do that? I also have a sense of feeling left out when I see fathers who demonstrate love and pride in their children, and wondering why my father has/had zero interest in any of that. I’m old enough to understand that it wasn’t anything I personally did, but I wasn’t always old enough to understand that, and even now, I still don’t understand the motivation.
Why. Would. You. Have. Kids. And. Give. Them. Parents. Who. Don’t. Care. About. Them. To. Their. Face.
posted by Autumnheart at 4:26 PM on February 28, 2019
If there are unlimited funds, then a) consider separate households, maybe b) a dedicated caregiver like a live-in nanny, so that the children are only exposed to parenting figures who are actively involved, or c) getting a divorce.
With 7 billion people on the planet and an oncoming climate crisis, I can’t imagine why a person would think it would be a good idea to have children that they actively plan to neglect. Kids aren’t toys. One’s personal desire to have children is not a moral imperative that needs to be fulfilled. It is only a wish. One cannot have everything one wishes, especially if one is not willing to fulfill the conditions that require it, such as full buy-in and involvement from all adults who would be taking the role of parent and legal guardian.
As far as personal experience, I grew up with a completely uninvolved father (who lived in the house, just actively avoided his children and had no interest in developing a relationship). He worked, came home, spent his leisure time doing his own thing, stayed out of family arguments except as an additional authority, and essentially remained a stranger. I certainly can’t say what he got out of it, but I got nothing out of it except wondering why the fuck he had kids in the first place—and I mean that as an adult with friends who have children, and who has since had plenty of healthy father/child relationships modeled for me. My father had complete autonomy and agency in deciding whether to have children, with whom, and how to raise them—and he chose to abdicate all his agency entirely and act like it wasn’t his problem. Why would someone do that? I also have a sense of feeling left out when I see fathers who demonstrate love and pride in their children, and wondering why my father has/had zero interest in any of that. I’m old enough to understand that it wasn’t anything I personally did, but I wasn’t always old enough to understand that, and even now, I still don’t understand the motivation.
Why. Would. You. Have. Kids. And. Give. Them. Parents. Who. Don’t. Care. About. Them. To. Their. Face.
posted by Autumnheart at 4:26 PM on February 28, 2019
I know a family where the dad stayed home and raised the kids 0-18 while the mom worked in financial services as THE breadwinner. It worked for them, although they definitely had to navigate some cultural messiness (so many 'mom' groups! so many 'moms' on the playground--fewer full-time dads). Then again, their kids are older now, so I hope(?) this isn't so unusual anymore.
Seconding everyone's opinion that it is important that both spouses want the kids, as they're A LOT to handle, regardless, but swapping 'traditional' hetero gender roles is totally doable.
posted by whimsicalnymph at 4:28 PM on February 28, 2019
Seconding everyone's opinion that it is important that both spouses want the kids, as they're A LOT to handle, regardless, but swapping 'traditional' hetero gender roles is totally doable.
posted by whimsicalnymph at 4:28 PM on February 28, 2019
Do you have any examples of people you know making these kinds of choices?
I had a 1950s-style upbringing. My father was - and is - disinterested in me.
Now he's very old and in the hospital and I am kinda disinterested back at him.
(on preview: Autumnheart wrote my feelings almost exactly, except that in my parents' time and place, the choices for a healthy married couple were a) celibacy or b) childbearing, so I understand clearly why I came to be)
posted by Sauce Trough at 4:29 PM on February 28, 2019
I had a 1950s-style upbringing. My father was - and is - disinterested in me.
Now he's very old and in the hospital and I am kinda disinterested back at him.
(on preview: Autumnheart wrote my feelings almost exactly, except that in my parents' time and place, the choices for a healthy married couple were a) celibacy or b) childbearing, so I understand clearly why I came to be)
posted by Sauce Trough at 4:29 PM on February 28, 2019
You're right that the gender-reversal version of this has a long history in human culture. I think you could probably make it work if all the other interests are indeed helping, but I think in general there will be a societal component of the role reversal too, so that might be a thing to think about.
posted by rhizome at 4:30 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by rhizome at 4:30 PM on February 28, 2019
I sure hope you are writing a book.
Did your parents operate this way? Was it ok for you?
Mostly yes. And no. Not in that they had the gender role reversal but that they had the type of relationship where there was a 1950s dad and it was clear that my parents were married to each other but my dad basically did not want to be a dad. He wanted to earn money and live in a house with a family but not be connected. I do not recommended it because while you can make the argument that "people didn't know better" in the 50s, it's a lot harder to make that argument now.
That said, rich people do this all the time. Hire surrogates, have nannies, send kids to private boarding school, have other household help. And at that level it doesn't really matter what the genders of the people involved are (because, honestly, same sex couples have been doing this forever in terms of "non-traditional" gender roles and it's been fine). Because really there's no such thing as a "stay at home parent" if there are infinite resources. You can have a situation where basically no one bonds with the kid. But at the same time, you have very very little useful excuse for why you want to have kids and not be involved with them if you have infinite resources other than "The other parent wants them." and that, back to my original sentence, is a non-recommended pathway.
Kids can tell when parents don't want to be involved with them. And no matter what your gender or resource level, if you're talking a nuclear two-parents-no-other-parents situation, you're setting up a situation where the parent who is bonded with the kids has to make difficult choices between their relationship to the other parent and their relationship to the kids. That is not what I would call a family in 2019.
posted by jessamyn at 4:31 PM on February 28, 2019
Did your parents operate this way? Was it ok for you?
Mostly yes. And no. Not in that they had the gender role reversal but that they had the type of relationship where there was a 1950s dad and it was clear that my parents were married to each other but my dad basically did not want to be a dad. He wanted to earn money and live in a house with a family but not be connected. I do not recommended it because while you can make the argument that "people didn't know better" in the 50s, it's a lot harder to make that argument now.
That said, rich people do this all the time. Hire surrogates, have nannies, send kids to private boarding school, have other household help. And at that level it doesn't really matter what the genders of the people involved are (because, honestly, same sex couples have been doing this forever in terms of "non-traditional" gender roles and it's been fine). Because really there's no such thing as a "stay at home parent" if there are infinite resources. You can have a situation where basically no one bonds with the kid. But at the same time, you have very very little useful excuse for why you want to have kids and not be involved with them if you have infinite resources other than "The other parent wants them." and that, back to my original sentence, is a non-recommended pathway.
Kids can tell when parents don't want to be involved with them. And no matter what your gender or resource level, if you're talking a nuclear two-parents-no-other-parents situation, you're setting up a situation where the parent who is bonded with the kids has to make difficult choices between their relationship to the other parent and their relationship to the kids. That is not what I would call a family in 2019.
posted by jessamyn at 4:31 PM on February 28, 2019
I can’t imagine much more damaging than deliberately giving a child a parent who’s not all in. Regardless of how many parents a kid has, and what their situations are, a child deserves to know that they are a priority, and that their parents will move mountains for them.
Not hire an excavator.
I have to assume that you don’t mean this as callously as you sound.
(My husband and I both work, we have a kid with mental health challenges, our kids need more energy and love than we can possibly provide and we still need to take care of ourselves and occasionally have fun. It is the hardest thing I hope I ever have to do. Families come in all shapes and configurations, but if parents aren’t 110% trying to be there for their kids when it’s necessary, then what even are they doing on this earth?)
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 4:35 PM on February 28, 2019
Not hire an excavator.
I have to assume that you don’t mean this as callously as you sound.
(My husband and I both work, we have a kid with mental health challenges, our kids need more energy and love than we can possibly provide and we still need to take care of ourselves and occasionally have fun. It is the hardest thing I hope I ever have to do. Families come in all shapes and configurations, but if parents aren’t 110% trying to be there for their kids when it’s necessary, then what even are they doing on this earth?)
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 4:35 PM on February 28, 2019
Also: you’re getting this reaction because of one parent not wanting kids, not because of outsourcing laundry or the “wrong” parent working or whatever.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 4:44 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 4:44 PM on February 28, 2019
I would also consider the danger of the primary parent (the father, in this case) deciding that outsourcing parenting is Fine and not visibly screwing the kids up, and gradually decreasing his involvement in order to pursue outside interests as well. Especially when Dad is hip-deep in diaper changes, and Mom is off having adult conversations and power lunches, with people who treat her like a whole person with an identity that isn’t contingent on being a parent.
posted by Autumnheart at 4:45 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by Autumnheart at 4:45 PM on February 28, 2019
Your logic here is flawed. In your first explanation of what you’re after, you want a completely disinterested uninvolved parent who only sees their kids to kiss them good night but somehow thinks that this won’t hurt them or leave them with lifelong emotional issues. Doesn’t work that way.
It doesn’t matter how much the primary parent loves them, to have another parent around who makes it abundantly clear that the child is just an annoyance to be palmed off while they go on with the rest of their life that they actually are engaged with will be unbelievably damaging.
I don’t know if there’s a name for it, but to actually go out of your way to plan to do this, well, in my nonmedical opinion I’d call that kind of parent a Narcissistic Sociopathic Asshole. For my own peace of mind though I’m going to assume you’re just researching background for a book though, so good luck with it.
posted by Jubey at 4:45 PM on February 28, 2019
It doesn’t matter how much the primary parent loves them, to have another parent around who makes it abundantly clear that the child is just an annoyance to be palmed off while they go on with the rest of their life that they actually are engaged with will be unbelievably damaging.
I don’t know if there’s a name for it, but to actually go out of your way to plan to do this, well, in my nonmedical opinion I’d call that kind of parent a Narcissistic Sociopathic Asshole. For my own peace of mind though I’m going to assume you’re just researching background for a book though, so good luck with it.
posted by Jubey at 4:45 PM on February 28, 2019
“I’m a woman, and I don’t want kids” is a very different statement from “If I have kids I don’t want to play the traditional Mom role or give birth.” Your question conflates the two. I don’t need to know which applies to your situation, but you do.
posted by mismatched at 4:46 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by mismatched at 4:46 PM on February 28, 2019
and he wants children and she doesn't
Don't have children.
how feasible is it for him to be the primary parent?
Sure, totally feasible in isolation.
posted by so fucking future at 4:51 PM on February 28, 2019
Don't have children.
how feasible is it for him to be the primary parent?
Sure, totally feasible in isolation.
posted by so fucking future at 4:51 PM on February 28, 2019
I, a cis woman, am married to a cis man. We have a young child. I am the breadwinner, while my husband stays home with the kid. We arrived at this arrangement mainly for pragmatic/financial reasons and somewhat temperamental reasons. Neither of us had a model of this type of setup, as I come from the traditional patriarchally-influenced nuclear family with a breadwinner dad, and husband is the child of a single mom/sometimes extended family arrangement.
I have some answers for you, and some questions for you.
1, does the cis female partner want to biologically bear children, or not? What exactly is the extent to which she doesn't want kids? I very much wanted a child before our kid came into the picture, and while I always knew I'd be the "working mom" type (and within my current relationship knew I would probably be permanent breadwinner or co-earning 2 income partner), that has historically not been because I don't like children or don't want to do childcare. Being a household where the traditional parental roles are reversed isn't necessarily the same thing as one partner not wanting children at all. If nothing else, the partner who doesn't want children is going to be getting a small roommate whether she likes it or not, in the arrangement as described in your question. (If the woman in this setup wants to raise/support a child but doesn't want to biologically carry a child, I think adoption is probably the typical answer to this. Maybe surrogacy? AFAIK surrogacy is mostly used by LGBT families and in situations where certain types of infertility are involved, and not often when one partner wants children and the other does not.)
2, how open is the male partner to doing domestic and childcare labor? The fact that things like nannies, housekeepers, etc are mentioned makes me think that the prospective father does not actually want to spend a lot of time wiping butts, reading The Bellybutton Book for the umpteenth time today, etc. I don't know that there's anything wrong with a setup where neither parent wants to be doing the day to day labor of childrearing (my husband and I are certainly realistic about exactly how enjoyable slathering a wiggly toddler with eczema ointment is), where both parents want to work outside the home full time, etc. But if Parent A does not want children at all, and Parent B does want children but only if he isn't actually going to have to do the dirty, repetitive, or annoying parts of parenting, it might be worth considering whether, really and truly, becoming parents is actually the right thing to do. Especially if what is happening in this scenario is that Parent B is pressuring Parent A into changing her mind by handwaving away the actual work of parenting with "we'll get an au pair!" Because it doesn't reeeeaaaaaaallllllllllyyyyyyyyy work that way.
3, would the cis female partner in this equation be part of the domestic arrangement, or not? Your question about custody implies that the father and child would be one discrete household, and the father's female partner would be... living somewhere else, on her own, not part of the family unit anymore? I'm not sure if that's what you actually meant. That seems like a much bigger question than whether a man can be a good stay at home dad, or whether a family can work well with two career-focused parents and a live in nanny. Presumably, if a cis hetero couple who had a child were to separate households, they would be free to decide any custody arrangement that worked for them. There's no law that the mother must have primary custody.
4, what happens when the baby isn't a baby anymore and goes to school? Would the SAHD in this equation plan to go back into the workforce, or not? You can't really be a "permanent" stay at home parent, in that eventually the child stops being a stay at home child. And then you're just... a homemaker? Retired? The Dude? All of this is fine, but as someone with this arrangement, I'll say that you definitely want to talk out the SAHP exit strategy with your partner, even if your idea is that you would do that "forever".
And my advice:
Assume that the male partner is happy to take on the primary parent role and be "Mom", but that they've never seen this kind of scenario in real life and need some guidance as to how real people have accomplished it.
The way you accomplish this is to just do it. Women aren't biologically suited to childcare, we have to learn how to do it. Men can also learn how to do it. There are lots of books, classes, and other resources out there. Or you can just wing it. People have been raising up children for millions of years. You can probably figure it out.
Also, if either member of a couple doesn't want kids, then the couple shouldn't have kids. Period.
posted by the milkman, the paper boy at 4:58 PM on February 28, 2019
I have some answers for you, and some questions for you.
1, does the cis female partner want to biologically bear children, or not? What exactly is the extent to which she doesn't want kids? I very much wanted a child before our kid came into the picture, and while I always knew I'd be the "working mom" type (and within my current relationship knew I would probably be permanent breadwinner or co-earning 2 income partner), that has historically not been because I don't like children or don't want to do childcare. Being a household where the traditional parental roles are reversed isn't necessarily the same thing as one partner not wanting children at all. If nothing else, the partner who doesn't want children is going to be getting a small roommate whether she likes it or not, in the arrangement as described in your question. (If the woman in this setup wants to raise/support a child but doesn't want to biologically carry a child, I think adoption is probably the typical answer to this. Maybe surrogacy? AFAIK surrogacy is mostly used by LGBT families and in situations where certain types of infertility are involved, and not often when one partner wants children and the other does not.)
2, how open is the male partner to doing domestic and childcare labor? The fact that things like nannies, housekeepers, etc are mentioned makes me think that the prospective father does not actually want to spend a lot of time wiping butts, reading The Bellybutton Book for the umpteenth time today, etc. I don't know that there's anything wrong with a setup where neither parent wants to be doing the day to day labor of childrearing (my husband and I are certainly realistic about exactly how enjoyable slathering a wiggly toddler with eczema ointment is), where both parents want to work outside the home full time, etc. But if Parent A does not want children at all, and Parent B does want children but only if he isn't actually going to have to do the dirty, repetitive, or annoying parts of parenting, it might be worth considering whether, really and truly, becoming parents is actually the right thing to do. Especially if what is happening in this scenario is that Parent B is pressuring Parent A into changing her mind by handwaving away the actual work of parenting with "we'll get an au pair!" Because it doesn't reeeeaaaaaaallllllllllyyyyyyyyy work that way.
3, would the cis female partner in this equation be part of the domestic arrangement, or not? Your question about custody implies that the father and child would be one discrete household, and the father's female partner would be... living somewhere else, on her own, not part of the family unit anymore? I'm not sure if that's what you actually meant. That seems like a much bigger question than whether a man can be a good stay at home dad, or whether a family can work well with two career-focused parents and a live in nanny. Presumably, if a cis hetero couple who had a child were to separate households, they would be free to decide any custody arrangement that worked for them. There's no law that the mother must have primary custody.
4, what happens when the baby isn't a baby anymore and goes to school? Would the SAHD in this equation plan to go back into the workforce, or not? You can't really be a "permanent" stay at home parent, in that eventually the child stops being a stay at home child. And then you're just... a homemaker? Retired? The Dude? All of this is fine, but as someone with this arrangement, I'll say that you definitely want to talk out the SAHP exit strategy with your partner, even if your idea is that you would do that "forever".
And my advice:
Assume that the male partner is happy to take on the primary parent role and be "Mom", but that they've never seen this kind of scenario in real life and need some guidance as to how real people have accomplished it.
The way you accomplish this is to just do it. Women aren't biologically suited to childcare, we have to learn how to do it. Men can also learn how to do it. There are lots of books, classes, and other resources out there. Or you can just wing it. People have been raising up children for millions of years. You can probably figure it out.
Also, if either member of a couple doesn't want kids, then the couple shouldn't have kids. Period.
posted by the milkman, the paper boy at 4:58 PM on February 28, 2019
It's sort of unclear whether you're talking about a basically normal patriarchal family with the gender roles exactly reversed, or about a situation where one parent genuinely doesn't really want kids but is going to exist as a token presence in their home and lives but resent any requests to actively parent. The former is entirely possible - at least, as possible as the non-gender-reversed version - but the latter is a bad idea.
posted by waffleriot at 4:59 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by waffleriot at 4:59 PM on February 28, 2019
I think we probably have all heard of this situation before, it’s just phrased a little differently and generally the genders are reversed.
It goes something along the lines of; couple have been together years, one wants kids, the other doesn’t. One will walk unless kids are in the picture. Lots of arm twisting and deal making about how one parent will do everything, I promise, your life won’t change!
Woman gets pregnant to save relationship. Kid comes into picture. Surprise! Kids are hard work! Parent who doesn’t want child gets more and more distant and doesn’t bond. Starts complaining on child free forums how the kid has ruined their life. Eventually the couple splits. If they don’t split, it’s just miserableness all around.
Note: this is NOT a situation where they both want kids yet have flipped the traditional gender roles, that can absolutely work. I’m talking about a situation where one parent clearly doesn’t want to be one and ends up doing it anyway.
posted by Jubey at 4:59 PM on February 28, 2019
It goes something along the lines of; couple have been together years, one wants kids, the other doesn’t. One will walk unless kids are in the picture. Lots of arm twisting and deal making about how one parent will do everything, I promise, your life won’t change!
Woman gets pregnant to save relationship. Kid comes into picture. Surprise! Kids are hard work! Parent who doesn’t want child gets more and more distant and doesn’t bond. Starts complaining on child free forums how the kid has ruined their life. Eventually the couple splits. If they don’t split, it’s just miserableness all around.
Note: this is NOT a situation where they both want kids yet have flipped the traditional gender roles, that can absolutely work. I’m talking about a situation where one parent clearly doesn’t want to be one and ends up doing it anyway.
posted by Jubey at 4:59 PM on February 28, 2019
As for media, Disney built a fucking empire on stories about children who had uninvolved mothers.
posted by Autumnheart at 5:03 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by Autumnheart at 5:03 PM on February 28, 2019
Seconding what waffleriot said.
As if there aren't enough questions and concerns raised, I'll add a few more to consider:
Is it going to be all on dad to outsource and manage everything for the absent parent? That in itself is as much work for mom as her just plain being an involved parent.
How sure are they that their support system is fully commited to surrogating an absent parent for 18+years or even a lifetime should the child have a disability? What is their backup plan if that idea doesn't pan out?
Look, the 1950's ideal family model didn't last long because it's not a realistic or feasable model. There's a damn good reason why the advertising directed at women during that time largely focused on managing "hysteria" and taking copious amounts of "pep," "chill" and "mommy's little helper" pills to get through the day.
posted by OnefortheLast at 5:41 PM on February 28, 2019
As if there aren't enough questions and concerns raised, I'll add a few more to consider:
Is it going to be all on dad to outsource and manage everything for the absent parent? That in itself is as much work for mom as her just plain being an involved parent.
How sure are they that their support system is fully commited to surrogating an absent parent for 18+years or even a lifetime should the child have a disability? What is their backup plan if that idea doesn't pan out?
Look, the 1950's ideal family model didn't last long because it's not a realistic or feasable model. There's a damn good reason why the advertising directed at women during that time largely focused on managing "hysteria" and taking copious amounts of "pep," "chill" and "mommy's little helper" pills to get through the day.
posted by OnefortheLast at 5:41 PM on February 28, 2019
Just to add another wrinkle, you can't really safely predict whom the kid will bond with, it's not necessarily the primary parent. You might end up with a kid who is mostly happy to spend her childhood with her warm and attentive dad--or you could end up with the kid who just pines after her distant mother.
posted by skewed at 5:59 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by skewed at 5:59 PM on February 28, 2019
As for being the kid in this scenario, here’s how it sucked for me:
1. Never going on field trips at school because my parents didn’t take the time to sign permission slips
2. Going to school sick 100% of the time (unless actively prevented by the school, e.g. chicken pox) because it wasn’t feasible for either parent to keep me at home
3. Doctor and dentist visits were rare because they required daytime appointments
4. Limited participation in after-school activities, because of a lack of parent participation and transportation
5. Didn’t get to go to birthday parties/sleepovers very often because parents didn’t want to drive/chaperone
6. In high school, I worked a part-time job and used the money to pay for my own food, clothes, toiletries, transportation (I bought a bike) and extracurricular activities
7. Zero emotional or academic support
8. Did not attend any milestone events (prom, senior dinner, etc) because I couldn’t afford them
9. Had no idea how to constructively prepare for college, or navigate the application process
10. Grew up with the understanding that needing my parents’ help was a burden and a disciplinary problem, not a normal part of childrearing
11. Had medical problems go unaddressed that are now chronic conditions
Benefits:
1. Was able to do laundry by age 8
2. Learned how to cook at 12
3. Learned how to do taxes at 16
4. Had plenty of job experience by the time I left college, so transitioning to the working world was not a struggle
Now, this was in the 80s and early 90s, so the expectation for parental involvement was a lot lower than it is today (going by the stories told by those friends of mine who are parents). I wasn’t the only kid whose parents never went to games or teacher conferences, I definitely wasn’t the only kid who had a job. That was the era of the latchkey kid and it wasn’t weird. As a kid, it felt suboptimal, but it wasn’t until I got to college that I encountered kids whose parents were, like, interested in their kids’ lives. Not just “What did you do now, don’t you know I work for a living?” kind of involvement.
Whereas now, being significantly uninvolved in your kids’ academic and social lives would definitely stand out in a huge way. Being the parent who’s like “nah” when it comes to arranging play dates, helping with school projects, volunteering in the classroom, chaperoning school trips, and generally checking out of all that will provide a remarkable contrast to those kids whose parents are appropriately involved according to today’s standard. It will be just as remarkable if the nanny or housekeeper is the one who does all these things instead of the parent. And I don’t mean just in stereotypical ways where Dad’s a hero for changing a diaper, while Mom is a reprobate for keeping her career. But in ways where you’re expected to interact and keep track of very involved calendars and relationships, with teachers and coordinators and other parents. Everyone is going to wonder why you’re not doing your share of engaging with your kids’ community. Unless, I suppose, one chooses a school system where all the parents outsource that responsibility, in which case it would seem normal to the kids.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:03 PM on February 28, 2019
1. Never going on field trips at school because my parents didn’t take the time to sign permission slips
2. Going to school sick 100% of the time (unless actively prevented by the school, e.g. chicken pox) because it wasn’t feasible for either parent to keep me at home
3. Doctor and dentist visits were rare because they required daytime appointments
4. Limited participation in after-school activities, because of a lack of parent participation and transportation
5. Didn’t get to go to birthday parties/sleepovers very often because parents didn’t want to drive/chaperone
6. In high school, I worked a part-time job and used the money to pay for my own food, clothes, toiletries, transportation (I bought a bike) and extracurricular activities
7. Zero emotional or academic support
8. Did not attend any milestone events (prom, senior dinner, etc) because I couldn’t afford them
9. Had no idea how to constructively prepare for college, or navigate the application process
10. Grew up with the understanding that needing my parents’ help was a burden and a disciplinary problem, not a normal part of childrearing
11. Had medical problems go unaddressed that are now chronic conditions
Benefits:
1. Was able to do laundry by age 8
2. Learned how to cook at 12
3. Learned how to do taxes at 16
4. Had plenty of job experience by the time I left college, so transitioning to the working world was not a struggle
Now, this was in the 80s and early 90s, so the expectation for parental involvement was a lot lower than it is today (going by the stories told by those friends of mine who are parents). I wasn’t the only kid whose parents never went to games or teacher conferences, I definitely wasn’t the only kid who had a job. That was the era of the latchkey kid and it wasn’t weird. As a kid, it felt suboptimal, but it wasn’t until I got to college that I encountered kids whose parents were, like, interested in their kids’ lives. Not just “What did you do now, don’t you know I work for a living?” kind of involvement.
Whereas now, being significantly uninvolved in your kids’ academic and social lives would definitely stand out in a huge way. Being the parent who’s like “nah” when it comes to arranging play dates, helping with school projects, volunteering in the classroom, chaperoning school trips, and generally checking out of all that will provide a remarkable contrast to those kids whose parents are appropriately involved according to today’s standard. It will be just as remarkable if the nanny or housekeeper is the one who does all these things instead of the parent. And I don’t mean just in stereotypical ways where Dad’s a hero for changing a diaper, while Mom is a reprobate for keeping her career. But in ways where you’re expected to interact and keep track of very involved calendars and relationships, with teachers and coordinators and other parents. Everyone is going to wonder why you’re not doing your share of engaging with your kids’ community. Unless, I suppose, one chooses a school system where all the parents outsource that responsibility, in which case it would seem normal to the kids.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:03 PM on February 28, 2019
I just don’t know why these people would want kids. Even the parent who supposedly wants them doesn’t want to do the actual work.
The gender flipping in itself is no problem. I know people who’ve done that, and it can totally work. But I was born in 1958, and this isn’t normal 1950s style parenting with the genders reversed. This is shitty parenting no matter what year it is.
My 1950s dad didn’t just show up and kiss us goodnight. He got down on the floor and played with us. He took us to the park. He went to our school stuff. He took us out for dinner to give our exhausted mother a break. He spent time with us, and he loved us. And we knew it.
Also, kids are not predictable. You may have a child with special needs. But even a typical child is going to need way more time and attention than most people who haven’t had kids yet understand is possible. The amount of care a newborn needs was a huge shock to me.
I also really hope you’re writing a book. No real child should live like this.
posted by FencingGal at 6:57 PM on February 28, 2019
The gender flipping in itself is no problem. I know people who’ve done that, and it can totally work. But I was born in 1958, and this isn’t normal 1950s style parenting with the genders reversed. This is shitty parenting no matter what year it is.
My 1950s dad didn’t just show up and kiss us goodnight. He got down on the floor and played with us. He took us to the park. He went to our school stuff. He took us out for dinner to give our exhausted mother a break. He spent time with us, and he loved us. And we knew it.
Also, kids are not predictable. You may have a child with special needs. But even a typical child is going to need way more time and attention than most people who haven’t had kids yet understand is possible. The amount of care a newborn needs was a huge shock to me.
I also really hope you’re writing a book. No real child should live like this.
posted by FencingGal at 6:57 PM on February 28, 2019
My grandma was the breadwinner (elementary school teacher) and my grandpa was a stay at home dad with 5 kids in the mid 1950s through early 70s. It worked well for them, but as far as I know they both wanted lots of kids and were actively involved parents.
However, it sounds like you're not talking just a stereotypical breadwinner/homemaker gender roles reversal, but something more like being effectively a single parent by choice while also being in a relationship with someone who does not want to be a parent. "Single father by choice" or "single parent by choice" might be good search terms to find out about other peoples' experiences. When I turned 30, I told myself I would look at becoming a single mother by choice if I hadn't found a partner by 35 (now I'm 34, my husband and I have been together for 3 years, and we're planning to start trying for a kid later this year!)
posted by abeja bicicleta at 7:00 PM on February 28, 2019
However, it sounds like you're not talking just a stereotypical breadwinner/homemaker gender roles reversal, but something more like being effectively a single parent by choice while also being in a relationship with someone who does not want to be a parent. "Single father by choice" or "single parent by choice" might be good search terms to find out about other peoples' experiences. When I turned 30, I told myself I would look at becoming a single mother by choice if I hadn't found a partner by 35 (now I'm 34, my husband and I have been together for 3 years, and we're planning to start trying for a kid later this year!)
posted by abeja bicicleta at 7:00 PM on February 28, 2019
As a mother and the primary earner in the family, there is a substantial difference between being the breadwinner and being a dickhead to your children that I do not think is properly appreciated in your question.
posted by chiquitita at 7:16 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by chiquitita at 7:16 PM on February 28, 2019
A lot of good answers here, but I feel like the question is contradictory, if not indeed incoherent. It begins with one partner *not wanting* kids to which the answer is rightly no, no, no. But as it goes on, it sounds like the other partner kind of sort of wants them, just under certain conditions. It makes some difference, I think, which it is, although in both cases I think it's an awful idea. The only way it edges towards acceptability is by being softened or by analogy to other arrangements which are not quite so weird or so cold-bloodedly planned.
posted by BibiRose at 7:22 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by BibiRose at 7:22 PM on February 28, 2019
Also, since I brought up my dad as an example, he was a lawyer and, if anything, was probably less involved with the kids than my friends’ dad were. My point is that this wasn’t normal then either.
The creators of Father Knows Best got letters of complaint for showing Robert Young washing the dishes, but not for showing him being very involved with his children.
posted by FencingGal at 7:34 PM on February 28, 2019
The creators of Father Knows Best got letters of complaint for showing Robert Young washing the dishes, but not for showing him being very involved with his children.
posted by FencingGal at 7:34 PM on February 28, 2019
That set-up is likely to end up with kids just as screwed up as they would be with a helicopter mom and an absentee dad.
posted by stormyteal at 8:39 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by stormyteal at 8:39 PM on February 28, 2019
I can see the appeal of this because I don't want to have to be primary nurturing self-sacrificing parent (either), but realistically you can't really plan for this sort of thing ahead of time. If for example, your husband dies, you'll be stuck being primary parent no matter what. Also, the biological issues of having to give birth and the huge social pressure to breastfeed force a good chunk of things onto you no matter what. Even if you agree ahead of time to this, as others said, it might not be sustainable even in the short run. And a shit ton of emotionally neglected children end up in therapy for life, so that's fun too.
As a compromise for "he wants kids and I don't," this will probably not work. Both of you not wanting kids is a legit dealbreaker/marriage ender and well...you're probably better off accepting that now than trying to think of some compromise situation like this one.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:33 PM on February 28, 2019
As a compromise for "he wants kids and I don't," this will probably not work. Both of you not wanting kids is a legit dealbreaker/marriage ender and well...you're probably better off accepting that now than trying to think of some compromise situation like this one.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:33 PM on February 28, 2019
Write your book - don’t do this to future children. It’s fine if the breadwinning roles are reversed, but the rest seems designed to fail, and not taking into account that the future mythical kids in this scenario should not be brought into this world just to fit in a box designed by their parents. When you have kids it stops being about you. At least, it should.
posted by 41swans at 9:52 PM on February 28, 2019
posted by 41swans at 9:52 PM on February 28, 2019
Parenting is not a task list, it is a relationship too. There's a lot of labour involved in parenting, some of which can be outsourced, and some of which can be divided evenly or unevenly. But you cannot outsource the relationship, and it's the relationship -- the security of the love of the parent(s) -- that is really key. Those of us whose parents failed in large ways know the damage that comes from the lack of a healthy relationship.
If you are thinking how to prevent a baby from bonding with an adult that will live in the home and have a significant relationship with that baby's parent, you are entering into a fairly fraught situation. Children are, by necessity, very self-centered, and very myopic. They don't choose to bond, they just do. They build their concept of the world based on what they live. When they live in a home where someone is clearly not invested in them, they will assume the reason is something to do with them. They will internalize that disconnect as being because they are not worthy of the full love and attention of someone in a parental role.
This is very different from being a true single parent, where the child still gets 100% connection from the parenting unit. And I think it's different from being a roommate or a step parent, because the child is going to understand that there is love between the adults...but not love for him or herself from the disconnected parent.
Basically, I think this is a pretty wrong decision. I think the better alternative is to separate households and be a date night/living-apart-together partner. If that seems like not enough of a partnership, consider that in a way, that's what the "not-really-a-parent" is offering to the child in this scenario. *
*Not meaning to insult the LAT couples out there.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:56 PM on February 28, 2019
If you are thinking how to prevent a baby from bonding with an adult that will live in the home and have a significant relationship with that baby's parent, you are entering into a fairly fraught situation. Children are, by necessity, very self-centered, and very myopic. They don't choose to bond, they just do. They build their concept of the world based on what they live. When they live in a home where someone is clearly not invested in them, they will assume the reason is something to do with them. They will internalize that disconnect as being because they are not worthy of the full love and attention of someone in a parental role.
This is very different from being a true single parent, where the child still gets 100% connection from the parenting unit. And I think it's different from being a roommate or a step parent, because the child is going to understand that there is love between the adults...but not love for him or herself from the disconnected parent.
Basically, I think this is a pretty wrong decision. I think the better alternative is to separate households and be a date night/living-apart-together partner. If that seems like not enough of a partnership, consider that in a way, that's what the "not-really-a-parent" is offering to the child in this scenario. *
*Not meaning to insult the LAT couples out there.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:56 PM on February 28, 2019
Also, how much could he outsource if he had unlimited funds?
If youre rich, pretty much everything
A family friend was raised by his nanny and only spoke his nanny's native tribal language fluently (his parents only spoke English) until he attended an elite boarding school from about age 5 and learnt English.
Healthy and adjusted? Not so much. There's some boarding school/attachment research here
posted by hotcoroner at 11:04 PM on February 28, 2019
If youre rich, pretty much everything
A family friend was raised by his nanny and only spoke his nanny's native tribal language fluently (his parents only spoke English) until he attended an elite boarding school from about age 5 and learnt English.
Healthy and adjusted? Not so much. There's some boarding school/attachment research here
posted by hotcoroner at 11:04 PM on February 28, 2019
Assume that the initial bonding would happen between the father and child, not mother and child
It doesn’t work like this if you share a household. They’re hardwired to bond with the tribe of people who are around them the most; you can’t explain to a newborn that this is Daddy’s role alone. Cleaning is an outsourceable task, love is not.
Do you have any examples of people you know making these kinds of choices?
Sort of. I know several couples where the Dad has been the primary parent and SAHP since the child was born, usually returning to p/t work once kid is in school. This has worked really well and suits everyone involved, but both parents are still actively involved in meeting the child’s emotional needs and sharing the practical workload where possible.
I also know couples where one parent wanted kids and the other didn’t, and the not-wanting-kids parent decided to go ahead and conceive a child thinking that the other parent would do all the parenting work and not expect anything of them ever, including meeting the child’s emotional needs. They’ve all acrimoniously split up now and the kids don’t think much of the absent parent.
Kids are people in their own right, not hamsters or Tamagotchis. They’re too important to bring into the world when you don’t want them solely to keep another adult happy.
posted by Catseye at 1:16 AM on March 1, 2019
It doesn’t work like this if you share a household. They’re hardwired to bond with the tribe of people who are around them the most; you can’t explain to a newborn that this is Daddy’s role alone. Cleaning is an outsourceable task, love is not.
Do you have any examples of people you know making these kinds of choices?
Sort of. I know several couples where the Dad has been the primary parent and SAHP since the child was born, usually returning to p/t work once kid is in school. This has worked really well and suits everyone involved, but both parents are still actively involved in meeting the child’s emotional needs and sharing the practical workload where possible.
I also know couples where one parent wanted kids and the other didn’t, and the not-wanting-kids parent decided to go ahead and conceive a child thinking that the other parent would do all the parenting work and not expect anything of them ever, including meeting the child’s emotional needs. They’ve all acrimoniously split up now and the kids don’t think much of the absent parent.
Kids are people in their own right, not hamsters or Tamagotchis. They’re too important to bring into the world when you don’t want them solely to keep another adult happy.
posted by Catseye at 1:16 AM on March 1, 2019
Like others, I can't tell whether you just want to know whether absolute role reversal is possible when bringing up children, or whether neither parent is really prepared to do everything that being a primary carer means but the man wants children more.
The challenges with absolute role reversal are the physical aspects of having children, for which adoption and surrogacy are possible solutions (which one is easier depends on where you live - eg adoption in the UK is particularly challenging), plus formula feeding, and then the societal aspects - it's more isolating to be a SAHD, and being a SAHP is isolating in general. You'd need to find ways for the SAHD to connect with people, which depends on your local area.
If no one wants to really be the primary carer and all it entails, I'll mainly say that you can outsource cleaning and meal prep and other practical tasks, but it costs a lot of money to outsource complete household management and you cannot really outsource emotional labour.
posted by plonkee at 2:42 AM on March 1, 2019
The challenges with absolute role reversal are the physical aspects of having children, for which adoption and surrogacy are possible solutions (which one is easier depends on where you live - eg adoption in the UK is particularly challenging), plus formula feeding, and then the societal aspects - it's more isolating to be a SAHD, and being a SAHP is isolating in general. You'd need to find ways for the SAHD to connect with people, which depends on your local area.
If no one wants to really be the primary carer and all it entails, I'll mainly say that you can outsource cleaning and meal prep and other practical tasks, but it costs a lot of money to outsource complete household management and you cannot really outsource emotional labour.
posted by plonkee at 2:42 AM on March 1, 2019
“I’m old enough to understand that it wasn’t anything I personally did, but I wasn’t always old enough to understand that...”
I think this is the crux of the problem. I think that a child in this situation would translate “my parent doesn’t want much to do with me” into “I’m unlovable and bad,” with consequences.
posted by daisyace at 6:38 AM on March 1, 2019
I think this is the crux of the problem. I think that a child in this situation would translate “my parent doesn’t want much to do with me” into “I’m unlovable and bad,” with consequences.
posted by daisyace at 6:38 AM on March 1, 2019
I actually woke up thinking about this question, with respect to my friends whose kids are now older. They are all decent people who wanted kids-- although I am pretty sure that in one case, one spouse was not dying to have kids or even to be married, but they were willing to do those things with that particular partner. And you know, lots of people choose to be single parents, or end up being one-- sometimes with the help of a friend or an ex who offers limited involvement-- and it works out to whatever degree. Ditto with unexpected special needs. In fact, the couple whose child was born with pretty significant special needs is probably the happiest in our friends group, with the most harmonious family. There is another family with two kids who have never gotten along, sometimes to the point where it's a genuine emergency. They have had to call in all resources from family and friends, and they have been emotionally taxed to the limit. This is the kind of thing you would never predict being a major issue. Now, for these people, a lot of help is coming from more than just immediate family. And if there was only one of them they would cope, although it's hard to picture, because how this is playing out with one child or another often needing everything from one of the parents, leaving the other parent with a lot to do, practically and emotionally . But where would a non-involved, resident parent fit in in a situation like this? They would have to change, or rather I can't imagine them not changing. You'd have to be pretty cold to look at a troubled kid with detachment every day, in your house, just because you only agreed to parent them on certain terms.
posted by BibiRose at 7:52 AM on March 1, 2019
posted by BibiRose at 7:52 AM on March 1, 2019
My heterosexual parents both worked, and my mom worked a lot, when I was little. We didn't bond super strongly with her, and we sure as hell didn't bond with (violent, terrifying) him.
We bonded to the "babysitter" they employed for many hours a week, until I was in middle school and then abruptly dismissed.
As far as I can tell, each of us promptly developed behavioral problems on par with a parent dropping dead. So, uh, don't do that.
posted by bagel at 8:44 AM on March 1, 2019
We bonded to the "babysitter" they employed for many hours a week, until I was in middle school and then abruptly dismissed.
As far as I can tell, each of us promptly developed behavioral problems on par with a parent dropping dead. So, uh, don't do that.
posted by bagel at 8:44 AM on March 1, 2019
To come back to this based on some thoughts I had last night, and to echo FencingGal, even as the breadwinner parent with a "flipped 50s" household, fuck no, I don't just show up, kiss the kid goodnight, and go about my life. Here was last night chez Milkman-Paperboy:
- Met husband at his evening hobby/social event because it's halfway between my office and home, in order to pick up the kid, so that he could get out and see other adults in a grownup child-free environment.
- Drove home in rush hour traffic singing "You Spin Me Right Round, Baby Right Round" loudly with the radio to keep the kid entertained. I would have preferred to listen to an audiobook.
- Entire dinner/bath/bedtime routine, solo. (Usually we split the various duties or switch off different tasks)
- Put kid to bed, which, despite the fact that he is a reasonable sleeper, seems to be getting more involved as his sentience increases. Lots of "OK, one more hug, OK, yes, Gigi can have a hug and a kiss, too, OK, mama loves you, OK... why are your sheets all full of sand? [interrupts bedtime to change sheets] ... OK, I'll see you in the morning, and daddy will be there, too, OK, sleep tight..." etc. A couple of nights this week we have reverted to the bedtime bottle, which we were trying to move away from. Another night this week he would NOT SLEEP for no apparent reason and we had to do a little crying-it-out. Which is always stressful. And et cetera.
FINALLY peace and quiet to eat dinner, have a beer, unwind, watch TV, etc. While obviously not every night is completely on my own, even shared out there is probably 2-3 hours of additional domestic labor that wouldn't exist if we had not had our child. While there are families where it's assumed that one parent simply does not participate in any of this, that's pretty awful for the parent who then has to do literally all childcare without a break or any respite.
Then there's all the background noise Childhood Management type stuff that someone -- and it generally isn't the nanny -- has to do, like know about "we're weaning him away from the bedtime bottle", or "there will be no peace in this household without Gigi", or "does he need to switch from 12 month to 18 month size pajamas soon?" Again, while I suppose it could be arranged such that Parent A is completely oblivious to all of this and relates to the child like a distant nephew or something, while Parent B is the President Of All Parenting Knowledge And Tasks, it's unsustainable in most families. Even families with outside childcare help. Even in families where both parents definitely wanted children from the outset. Part of why our "reverse 50s" setup works for us is that having the dad be the primary caregiver while mom is the childcare pinch hitter means that we actually operate more like a team than a lot of Breadwinner Dad/SAHM families do, because sexism.
posted by the milkman, the paper boy at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2019
- Met husband at his evening hobby/social event because it's halfway between my office and home, in order to pick up the kid, so that he could get out and see other adults in a grownup child-free environment.
- Drove home in rush hour traffic singing "You Spin Me Right Round, Baby Right Round" loudly with the radio to keep the kid entertained. I would have preferred to listen to an audiobook.
- Entire dinner/bath/bedtime routine, solo. (Usually we split the various duties or switch off different tasks)
- Put kid to bed, which, despite the fact that he is a reasonable sleeper, seems to be getting more involved as his sentience increases. Lots of "OK, one more hug, OK, yes, Gigi can have a hug and a kiss, too, OK, mama loves you, OK... why are your sheets all full of sand? [interrupts bedtime to change sheets] ... OK, I'll see you in the morning, and daddy will be there, too, OK, sleep tight..." etc. A couple of nights this week we have reverted to the bedtime bottle, which we were trying to move away from. Another night this week he would NOT SLEEP for no apparent reason and we had to do a little crying-it-out. Which is always stressful. And et cetera.
FINALLY peace and quiet to eat dinner, have a beer, unwind, watch TV, etc. While obviously not every night is completely on my own, even shared out there is probably 2-3 hours of additional domestic labor that wouldn't exist if we had not had our child. While there are families where it's assumed that one parent simply does not participate in any of this, that's pretty awful for the parent who then has to do literally all childcare without a break or any respite.
Then there's all the background noise Childhood Management type stuff that someone -- and it generally isn't the nanny -- has to do, like know about "we're weaning him away from the bedtime bottle", or "there will be no peace in this household without Gigi", or "does he need to switch from 12 month to 18 month size pajamas soon?" Again, while I suppose it could be arranged such that Parent A is completely oblivious to all of this and relates to the child like a distant nephew or something, while Parent B is the President Of All Parenting Knowledge And Tasks, it's unsustainable in most families. Even families with outside childcare help. Even in families where both parents definitely wanted children from the outset. Part of why our "reverse 50s" setup works for us is that having the dad be the primary caregiver while mom is the childcare pinch hitter means that we actually operate more like a team than a lot of Breadwinner Dad/SAHM families do, because sexism.
posted by the milkman, the paper boy at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2019
it occurred to me this morning that you might have gotten very different answers if you'd asked, "can a man become a single parent by choice while maintaining a monogamous relationship with a woman who does not want to take on a parenting role?"
and I'm not saying those answers would be "sure, no problem!" but the odd framing of the question is throwing us off a bit, I think.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:25 AM on March 1, 2019
and I'm not saying those answers would be "sure, no problem!" but the odd framing of the question is throwing us off a bit, I think.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:25 AM on March 1, 2019
My heterosexual parents both worked, and my mom worked a lot, when I was little. Mom continued to work full-time throughout my childhood, while my dad retired when I was five. I bonded perfectly fine with both my parents, and didn't end up particularly strongly bonded to the grandmother who did most of the babysitting for the first five years of my life. I feel very strongly that having a mom who worked full-time was great for me. Don't listen to anyone who says that having parents who both work, with a mother who is a primary breadwinner, is in and of itself a problem for raising kids. The problem here is strictly the part about one parent not really wanting to be a parent at all.
posted by waffleriot at 10:34 AM on March 1, 2019
posted by waffleriot at 10:34 AM on March 1, 2019
A good article showing a few different scenarios: https://torontolife.com/city/moms-on-top-the-rise-of-power-wives-house-husbands-and-the-single-income-family/
In Queen of Versailles there's a very rich couple with several children and nannies and the mother talks about how great it is to have the ability to have so many children with the help of obscene wealth and nannies.
The closest situations I know first hand:
I know a LGBTQ same-sex, female couple where the one wanted kids, the other didn't, the one who did want kids got pregnant using a sperm donor, had the baby (all this while living happily apart but nearby), and now several years on they live together and it seems like both of them parent quite a bit although the biological mother is the primary parent. The one who was neutral about children is crazy about her son and warmed up considerably over the years. So I think that is a possibility to consider.
I know a couple that already had older kids and then had an unexpected pregnancy in their 40's and the dad was basically like "ok we can do this but I'm not into the baby stuff again", in that case it's been ok and I think the kid is fine but it's been a huge amount of work for the mom and she's often exhausted and resentful doing so much (no nanny, neither stays home, but yes housekeeping and relative wealth). I think that situation is fairly common and not great overall.
posted by lafemma at 11:11 AM on March 1, 2019
In Queen of Versailles there's a very rich couple with several children and nannies and the mother talks about how great it is to have the ability to have so many children with the help of obscene wealth and nannies.
The closest situations I know first hand:
I know a LGBTQ same-sex, female couple where the one wanted kids, the other didn't, the one who did want kids got pregnant using a sperm donor, had the baby (all this while living happily apart but nearby), and now several years on they live together and it seems like both of them parent quite a bit although the biological mother is the primary parent. The one who was neutral about children is crazy about her son and warmed up considerably over the years. So I think that is a possibility to consider.
I know a couple that already had older kids and then had an unexpected pregnancy in their 40's and the dad was basically like "ok we can do this but I'm not into the baby stuff again", in that case it's been ok and I think the kid is fine but it's been a huge amount of work for the mom and she's often exhausted and resentful doing so much (no nanny, neither stays home, but yes housekeeping and relative wealth). I think that situation is fairly common and not great overall.
posted by lafemma at 11:11 AM on March 1, 2019
I‘m actually more worried about handwavy dad than 1950s breadwinner mom.
Wiping poopy butts is not just necessary because hygene. Getting the gross, tedious, repetitive tasks done every single day, reliably, without respite is actually, like, 50 % of the relationship you‘re building with the child. It‘s not an annoying, outsourcable add-on, it‘s basically what builds the foundation of the kid‘s trust in you.
So you have weekend-mom and dad-who-has-no-freaking-idea-what-parenting-means. This is going to fail so hard.
Mom will find it‘s impossible to live like a basically childfree person. Dad will find he did NOT sign up for several years of wiping snot noses and dealing with midnight puking as well as the 1 million annoying phases kids go through as they suddenly refuse to eat anything that‘s not yellow and stop sleeping between midnight and 4 am.
None of these people who are dreaming up this workable-on-paper scenario actually understand what is going to descend on them. Reality will shit all over their plans!
posted by Omnomnom at 12:09 PM on March 1, 2019
Wiping poopy butts is not just necessary because hygene. Getting the gross, tedious, repetitive tasks done every single day, reliably, without respite is actually, like, 50 % of the relationship you‘re building with the child. It‘s not an annoying, outsourcable add-on, it‘s basically what builds the foundation of the kid‘s trust in you.
So you have weekend-mom and dad-who-has-no-freaking-idea-what-parenting-means. This is going to fail so hard.
Mom will find it‘s impossible to live like a basically childfree person. Dad will find he did NOT sign up for several years of wiping snot noses and dealing with midnight puking as well as the 1 million annoying phases kids go through as they suddenly refuse to eat anything that‘s not yellow and stop sleeping between midnight and 4 am.
None of these people who are dreaming up this workable-on-paper scenario actually understand what is going to descend on them. Reality will shit all over their plans!
posted by Omnomnom at 12:09 PM on March 1, 2019
I think there are a lot of different flavors of "doesn't want children." If the flavor here is "I see how much is expected of mothers and there are things it's unfair for me to sacrifice" then you're at least allowed to consider that some version of this might work.
I know multiple adults who were raised by fathers with absent or disengaged mothers. There are some issues, but they are not necessarily worse off overall than plenty of other people raised by other family configurations.
posted by vunder at 12:20 PM on March 1, 2019
I know multiple adults who were raised by fathers with absent or disengaged mothers. There are some issues, but they are not necessarily worse off overall than plenty of other people raised by other family configurations.
posted by vunder at 12:20 PM on March 1, 2019
and I'm not saying those answers would be "sure, no problem!" but the odd framing of the question is throwing us off a bit, I think.
Yes, I'm having a hard time reading the question as stated. There have always been single fathers, fathers (sometimes biological grandfathers and uncles) who are primary parents, and a growing number of full-time gay parents. So framing this as a hypothetical with a role reversal of "50s Dad" and "does it ever work out" makes me think that this isn't just asking for stories and resources.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 1:50 PM on March 1, 2019
Yes, I'm having a hard time reading the question as stated. There have always been single fathers, fathers (sometimes biological grandfathers and uncles) who are primary parents, and a growing number of full-time gay parents. So framing this as a hypothetical with a role reversal of "50s Dad" and "does it ever work out" makes me think that this isn't just asking for stories and resources.
posted by GenderNullPointerException at 1:50 PM on March 1, 2019
"Assume also that she also doesn't want to hurt the kids or make them feel abandoned or upset or leave them with lifelong emotional issues. "
There's some bad news about a lot of those 1950s kids...
I was raised in a household with a female breadwinner, a male SAHF and a work schedule that meant I didn't see my mother in the evening like most kids for years, but it was nothing like having a parent who lives with you but is also something of a mystery, whose approval you yearn for but have a limited idea of how to successfully obtain. When I say I'd make a good 1950s dad, it's a roundabout way of saying "I would probably not be a good parent, especially a mother" that doesn't make people feel sorry for a woman or think she absolutely despises kids - it may be similar for the person you have in mind.
posted by Selena777 at 6:00 PM on March 1, 2019
There's some bad news about a lot of those 1950s kids...
I was raised in a household with a female breadwinner, a male SAHF and a work schedule that meant I didn't see my mother in the evening like most kids for years, but it was nothing like having a parent who lives with you but is also something of a mystery, whose approval you yearn for but have a limited idea of how to successfully obtain. When I say I'd make a good 1950s dad, it's a roundabout way of saying "I would probably not be a good parent, especially a mother" that doesn't make people feel sorry for a woman or think she absolutely despises kids - it may be similar for the person you have in mind.
posted by Selena777 at 6:00 PM on March 1, 2019
I am a cis woman who's been the primary breadwinner for my family since younger-daughter was 1 year old. (She's 20 now.) My husband is a cis man who is/was a stay-at-home dad. It works fine.
However, I very much wanted to be a parent and mother, and I adored baby-care; by the time they hit toddlerhood, we realized that constant baby communication was eating my sanity and I really, really wanted to do work that involved adult concepts. (Like spreadsheets. And publishing rights.)
He loved being the all-day parent: shopping with kids, teaching them household chores, taking them to school and to parks, and so on. Neither of us felt like we were doing "role reversal" - he was living the hippie-ish lifestyle of "make crafts and sometimes sell them," and I was doing the "work in corporate office" thing, and there were kids in the house and we were both deeply invested in their being happy and healthy and learning what they needed to thrive.
That... doesn't sound like what you're asking about. It's a really, really bad idea to force kids into a setting where one of the residents doesn't want to be around them, and that's aside from the problems of that resident being a legal caregiver that every bit of media they consume will tell them is supposed to be their primary source of nurturing.
You can do breadwinner things while he does SAHD things. You can even do "he'll make most of the parenting decisions - holidays/birthdays, decide medical treatments, pick out schools and clothes." You cannot ethically do "there will be kid(s) in the house, which I am connected to biologically but I will not have a hand in caring for."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 7:40 PM on March 1, 2019
However, I very much wanted to be a parent and mother, and I adored baby-care; by the time they hit toddlerhood, we realized that constant baby communication was eating my sanity and I really, really wanted to do work that involved adult concepts. (Like spreadsheets. And publishing rights.)
He loved being the all-day parent: shopping with kids, teaching them household chores, taking them to school and to parks, and so on. Neither of us felt like we were doing "role reversal" - he was living the hippie-ish lifestyle of "make crafts and sometimes sell them," and I was doing the "work in corporate office" thing, and there were kids in the house and we were both deeply invested in their being happy and healthy and learning what they needed to thrive.
That... doesn't sound like what you're asking about. It's a really, really bad idea to force kids into a setting where one of the residents doesn't want to be around them, and that's aside from the problems of that resident being a legal caregiver that every bit of media they consume will tell them is supposed to be their primary source of nurturing.
You can do breadwinner things while he does SAHD things. You can even do "he'll make most of the parenting decisions - holidays/birthdays, decide medical treatments, pick out schools and clothes." You cannot ethically do "there will be kid(s) in the house, which I am connected to biologically but I will not have a hand in caring for."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 7:40 PM on March 1, 2019
I grew up in a 1950s-type setup, but my working dad adored me. I think it's fine* for one parent to be around less, if they actively like being with you when they are, if they give you a nickname and make up songs with your name in it, if they take you to parks on the weekend and help you with fractions and put you to bed in the evening. Kids pick up on your feelings.
(*I mean, it's kinda fine, for the kid and that parent. I don't think it was fine for the person bearing more of the stay at home parenting and housework all of the time. But in your hypothetical, you guys are outsourcing the house cleaning and getting the SAHP enough childcare breaks via external help, so that would help.)
But it would be very different if the working parent didn't want kids and actively doesn't like you.
The other thing to think about is that parenting isn't a single thing. Our household division of labor is very different now, with a 3-year-old, than it was with a baby. I was the best for extended feeding and cuddle sessions. My husband is the best at Hiding from Dragons. Trying to have one parent be best at all the things seems harder, especially if there's a second person present in the household. But single parents obviously manage, and you could try to meet that challenge with lots of family and friends as a supporting cast of characters.
If you really want to do this, that's how I'd set it up -- kind of like a single parent household where the parent dates a non-resident person who is more like "dad's friend" than "the parent who doesn't love me." And have realistic expectations about that "dating" -- ask single parents of infants how often they hang out with friends who don't like children. It's hard for me (even in a coupled partnership) to see friends, period, but the ones I do see are the ones who have kids or like them, because so much of my life is organized around the needs of very young humans, and so it's fun to be in situations of sharing the work and in spaces where this little person whom I love is loved and welcomed and accommodated.
And as that last sentence points to, I think there's a shift in perspective that parents go through. And if only one person in the couple is going through it, there might be a growing gulf between the partners. If one views kids as this annoying, messy other species, while the other is deeply immersed in learning to understand and support this little person, what will they talk about? Sometimes the most connected moments between my husband and me are troubleshooting kid stuff or telling the other about a moment of sweetness. I'm concerned about what this would mean for your relationship.
I mean, you write: "I recently listened to a podcast in which a woman had voluntarily given up primary custody to her ex-husband and his new wife. This would be something like that, but premeditated." I don't mean to be mean or harsh by saying this, but isn't the literal premeditated version for the couple to split up and for the ex-husband to find a willing co-parent before the child is born? Sorry for even raising that idea; I assume that isn't what you meant and am curious about what you had in mind when you wrote that. I do think it could be challenging on a relationship if one person is parenting alone while the other tries to remain detached from that, as parenting is (for me at least) pretty all-consuming.
posted by slidell at 8:38 PM on March 1, 2019
(*I mean, it's kinda fine, for the kid and that parent. I don't think it was fine for the person bearing more of the stay at home parenting and housework all of the time. But in your hypothetical, you guys are outsourcing the house cleaning and getting the SAHP enough childcare breaks via external help, so that would help.)
But it would be very different if the working parent didn't want kids and actively doesn't like you.
The other thing to think about is that parenting isn't a single thing. Our household division of labor is very different now, with a 3-year-old, than it was with a baby. I was the best for extended feeding and cuddle sessions. My husband is the best at Hiding from Dragons. Trying to have one parent be best at all the things seems harder, especially if there's a second person present in the household. But single parents obviously manage, and you could try to meet that challenge with lots of family and friends as a supporting cast of characters.
If you really want to do this, that's how I'd set it up -- kind of like a single parent household where the parent dates a non-resident person who is more like "dad's friend" than "the parent who doesn't love me." And have realistic expectations about that "dating" -- ask single parents of infants how often they hang out with friends who don't like children. It's hard for me (even in a coupled partnership) to see friends, period, but the ones I do see are the ones who have kids or like them, because so much of my life is organized around the needs of very young humans, and so it's fun to be in situations of sharing the work and in spaces where this little person whom I love is loved and welcomed and accommodated.
And as that last sentence points to, I think there's a shift in perspective that parents go through. And if only one person in the couple is going through it, there might be a growing gulf between the partners. If one views kids as this annoying, messy other species, while the other is deeply immersed in learning to understand and support this little person, what will they talk about? Sometimes the most connected moments between my husband and me are troubleshooting kid stuff or telling the other about a moment of sweetness. I'm concerned about what this would mean for your relationship.
I mean, you write: "I recently listened to a podcast in which a woman had voluntarily given up primary custody to her ex-husband and his new wife. This would be something like that, but premeditated." I don't mean to be mean or harsh by saying this, but isn't the literal premeditated version for the couple to split up and for the ex-husband to find a willing co-parent before the child is born? Sorry for even raising that idea; I assume that isn't what you meant and am curious about what you had in mind when you wrote that. I do think it could be challenging on a relationship if one person is parenting alone while the other tries to remain detached from that, as parenting is (for me at least) pretty all-consuming.
posted by slidell at 8:38 PM on March 1, 2019
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Kangaroo at 4:03 PM on February 28, 2019