I have noticed, quite frequently, that it's often said that if a dad has custody (and is married so the kids have a stepmom), that he and the stepmom should bear the weight of decision making (about big things and things as minute as hair dye and piercings ~ often to the exclusion of the mom) and that the mom needs to get over it because she isn't the primary parent anymore and there's obviously something wrong with her for not being the custodial parent ~ but when the situation is reversed and mom has primary custody, when she bears the weight of decision making, she's being controlling, exclusive, and bitter (and there is nothing said negative about the dad and him being unfit and that's why he doesn't have custody, etc)......why is that?
There's a huge double standard there.
If that wasnt the case we wouldn't have a Statewide Fathers rights group, there would be no need for it.
Quoting chanizen:
Oh sure... I was asking a different question though... I know 3 dads who are sah or reduce their hours below full time after kids. I know many many moms who did that...
I didn't sah. There is still typically a primary parent. In my case it was me. I did all daycare pick ups and drop offs. I took all the sick days. I changed my job to make more flexibility.
With dh and bm, it was more even. They have 50/50.
Quoting vintagebikegirl:
Not every family can afford to have a stay at home parent, so how about in those situations? My husband and I work split shifts, so we spend equal amours of time with the kids.
I personally know MORE Stay at home dads than I do custodial fathers.
Quoting chanizen:
Custody is usually given to the primary parent or primary childcare giver. How many men do you know who reduced their hours or stayed home? I know 2.
And too many bms to count.
Quoting vintagebikegirl:
I can only give my opinion on why I think tht if a BM doesn't have custody something must be wrong with her, but people don't assume the same thing of the dad.
It's pretty simple really.
How many of us live in a state where custody is almost always given to the mother? I woul guess most of us.
In my state its actually pretty rare for a father to get custody unless the mother really screws up. So when I see a father with custody it's usually my assumption that the mother must be a shitty mother to have lost custody in the first place.
Quoting dinaweena101:I have noticed, quite frequently, that it's often said that if a dad has custody (and is married so the kids have a stepmom), that he and the stepmom should bear the weight of decision making (about big things and things as minute as hair dye and piercings ~ often to the exclusion of the mom) and that the mom needs to get over it because she isn't the primary parent anymore and there's obviously something wrong with her for not being the custodial parent ~ but when the situation is reversed and mom has primary custody, when she bears the weight of decision making, she's being controlling, exclusive, and bitter (and there is nothing said negative about the dad and him being unfit and that's why he doesn't have custody, etc)......why is that?
There's a huge double standard there.
DD had really long hair, stick straight. She could wash in the PM and be good to go with a few brush strokes in the AM. That all ended with the Aline bob :( and SM cut it herself... Because she's in beauty school, duh!
Quoting jlg12678:Eh, the double standard is always here. It works both ways.
Take, for example, the posts about a ncp bf who cuts his child's hair and bm flips out. The advise is often to not do it again and leave it to cp bm. I've never understood that. Anything that isn't permanent (piercings need to be agreed upon by BOTH parents-no exceptions in my opinion-and if they can't agree the kid doesn't get it) shouldn't be such an issue.
In a perfect world both parents would have similar parenting styles and ideals and this wouldn't be an issue. Most divorced couples do not and final decision making seems to fall to the cp-regardless of if it's right or wrong.
I think more doubt ncp bms because it is usually very hard for a father to have primary placement. Most states defer to the mother automatically. I assume the mother either didn't care too much and didn't fight it or her lifestyle is not conducive to being a parent. I know that is not always the case, but it is often that way.
If a parent has never had an interest in hair before and suddenly returns the child without warning to the parent who usually does this, yeah that might be a shocker.
Dd wants her hair dyed. Her sister wants to do it. Bf would call me first as her sister has never touched her hair.
And that doesn't seem to be the case in the example being discussed. Bm played the divorce game wrong. So she does not have primary residence.
Idk, I never considered trying to replace my ex as father. He is a good father even as an eowe dad. Dd adores him.
I can't imagine hurting my child by suggesting or allowing her to reject her father and half of herself. Just so my dh can play house.
I find the thought abhorrent.
Quoting jlg12678:Eh, the double standard is always here. It works both ways.
Take, for example, the posts about a ncp bf who cuts his child's hair and bm flips out. The advise is often to not do it again and leave it to cp bm. I've never understood that. Anything that isn't permanent (piercings need to be agreed upon by BOTH parents-no exceptions in my opinion-and if they can't agree the kid doesn't get it) shouldn't be such an issue.
In a perfect world both parents would have similar parenting styles and ideals and this wouldn't be an issue. Most divorced couples do not and final decision making seems to fall to the cp-regardless of if it's right or wrong.
I think more doubt ncp bms because it is usually very hard for a father to have primary placement. Most states defer to the mother automatically. I assume the mother either didn't care too much and didn't fight it or her lifestyle is not conducive to being a parent. I know that is not always the case, but it is often that way.
Quoting chanizen:
There's been quite a few post about moms flipping out because dad took the kid for a haircut or had his spouse cut it. I don't get it myself-never have and never will-vested interest or not. It's hair and it grows back. If dad and sm want to cut my kid's hair more power to them. It saves me at least $25.
Since it's about wikn's sister, it sounds like everyone involved is very passive with the exception of the sm. Things don't get to the point they are at without the bios just letting things slide. And things won't change until bm makes a point to discuss the issues with her ex. In fact, if I were her I'd invite sm along so they could both hear what I had to say. But that's me. If I was upset enough about a situation and felt it needed to change I would make my opinion very, very clear to everyone involved.
I'm not sure where the discussion about replacing parents came into play, but I agree. I would never downplay my son's father simply because he has an involved stepdad.
Quoting chanizen:
See I haven't seen that advice "leave it to the other parent". If both parents have a vested interest, both parents should discuss it.
If a parent has never had an interest in hair before and suddenly returns the child without warning to the parent who usually does this, yeah that might be a shocker.
Dd wants her hair dyed. Her sister wants to do it. Bf would call me first as her has never touched her hair.
And that doesn't seem to be thes case in the example being discussed. Bm played the divorce game wrong. So she does not have primary residence.
Idk, I never considered trying to replace my ex as father. He is a good father even as an eowe dad. Dd adores him.
I can't imagine hurting my child by suggesting or allowing her to reject her father and half of herself. Just so my dh can play house.
I find the thought abhorrent.
Quoting jlg12678:Eh, the double standard is always here. It works both ways.
Take, for example, the posts about a ncp bf who cuts his child's hair and bm flips out. The advise is often to not do it again and leave it to cp bm. I've never understood that. Anything that isn't permanent (piercings need to be agreed upon by BOTH parents-no exceptions in my opinion-and if they can't agree the kid doesn't get it) shouldn't be such an issue.
In a perfect world both parents would have similar parenting styles and ideals and this wouldn't be an issue. Most divorced couples do not and final decision making seems to fall to the cp-regardless of if it's right or wrong.
I think more doubt ncp bms because it is usually very hard for a father to have primary placement. Most states defer to the mother automatically. I assume the mother either didn't care too much and didn't fight it or her lifestyle is not conducive to being a parent. I know that is not always the case, but it is often that way.
Quoting momofmany86:
The bp's have to be able to make decisions together. No sp should have that power. I voice my opinion to Dh, he considers & makes his own decision. Ss is his kid, and I back his decisions, unless said decision is insane, but that rarely happens. If it does, I step out of the situation & remind myself ss is not mine so I can't get upset - I have 17 more years of decisions to make with Dh about our kids, I need to save the fight for then.
Quoting chanizen:
Do me a favor and don't inject intentions I didn't put forth.
I didn't say there was an 'anti-BM' anything ~ I said that I see a lot wives of custodial dads who say it's ok for them to exclude the mom in any decision making process, but when a custodial mom excludes a dad (and stepmom, by default), there's a HUGE uproar and she is called names (btw, 'golden uterus' is a derogatory term, along the lines of 'wicked stepmother' and 'deadbeat dad').
There IS a double standard. I've been in the blended family world for 5+ years now, have blogged on behalf of BOTH sides, and have worked extensively with groups trying to bridge the gap between moms and stepmoms...I see it all the time.
Quoting newstepmom61811:
Are you kidding? The OP was saying what an anti-BM double standard there was here. I was pointing out, ironically, which you missed that actually this site while for SMs is quite vehemently in defense of BMs to the point that we can even coin a term for the dramatic bias in favor of BMs, the fact that the men don't har one speaks to that there is no double standard favoring BFs. I think on average they get shafted in time with the kids, shafted on CS, and on being victims of games mothers play via their children when their mad. I don't the the behaviors are exclusive, but heavily favored. Women cat fight, and fight dirty, mean, nasty.
As for the structure of blended families, all should be flexible. Kids do have a life, with parents in the lead. Parents have paid their dues, all of them, all have weathered their own childhoods and burdens, earned their rights to now live their adult lives, they need to do right by the kids but they are the adults, need balance, but they are in control. As for flexibility. All should be flexible. NCP do overlook just how hard day to day care taking I children can be, I do think they need to flrespect that of they are not involved in the majority of daily activities to try to reach control into another house is simply an unrealistic expectation. I think too, for NCP, CP need to relax on their often more relaxed parenting. A in the case with my SKs BM she sees them 4 days a month, she doesn't spend time fighting with them to enforce hard discipline or rules, she doesn't want to spend that time that way, I wouldn't expect her too. I work with that on my end, does it make me seem tougher, yes, it just means too I have to display my love for the kids harder too to buffer my discipline so that they love and respect me. That's the price I pay for living in the custodial home in a parental role. I work really hard but the benefits for my family and the love we have for each other in my house are well worth it. I can't see the point of taking on this marriage and these kids if I didn't have some form of my own unique family in it, how lonely would that be? I don't think alienating a parent is right but when you have kids involved, if the custody split, especially time between homes is very different, at some point an adult has to have he final word on decisions, it can't always be a 2,3, or 4 way split, no decision would be reached. There has to e an ultimate authority. Sometimes, depending on the situation, that may not be with a BP. I know in my case it's not. Many of BMs rights were stripped by the court, has nothing to do with me, DH retained exclusive rights to most decisions, it just happened that now that we're married and he has granted me a POA just to make day to day functioning with the kids easier, I ended up having more rights than BM, we give her above and beyond time wise what is court ordered, have not gone after the CS she owes us, we are not doings things in any fashion to purposely alienate her. We have just made decisions to make things function smoothly day to day in our home.
Quoting chanizen:
So your proposal is what... We tell all SMS that their dh should suck it? Because he is ncp.
Do you really think its ok?
If not, you should be railing against it.
Kids do have a life. Ncps often have to show more effort and more flexibility. Word up. CPs often make grater time sacrifices.
But this isn't about that. Replacing a parent and alienating the parent intentionally is either wrong or it isn't. Choose.
Quoting newstepmom61811:OH dear, what rock have you been under? Plenty of threads where moms are perfectly content to brag about the CS they take and the way they manage to book kids so busy with ECs on weekends dad barely gets to see them and "oh well, kid needs a life, dad just needs to work harder to spend time with the kids, and sure as hell better support me to the standard I decide for me a the kid"...Several, and I will refrain from naming them by name PROUDLY boast how they have successfully ousted dad and/or SM completely or near completely from the lives of their children and how it makes life so much easier on them as mothers because they don't want contact. There is PLENTY of the NCBF being told to just get over it when BM is making all the decisions after all "she's the mother". If this wasn't a fairly commonly noticed phenomenon we wouldn't have the term in psychology "golden uterus", funny though...I haven't heard anything about a "golden testicle" syndrome just yet...Sorry ladies, bitch as you wish, this is a problem the ladies own in much greater numbers...
Of course it works both ways ~ but I'm not addressing that. I'm addressing what I asked, specifically. Why is one ok but the other not ok?
Quoting jlg12678:Eh, the double standard is always here. It works both ways.
Take, for example, the posts about a ncp bf who cuts his child's hair and bm flips out. The advise is often to not do it again and leave it to cp bm. I've never understood that. Anything that isn't permanent (piercings need to be agreed upon by BOTH parents-no exceptions in my opinion-and if they can't agree the kid doesn't get it) shouldn't be such an issue.
In a perfect world both parents would have similar parenting styles and ideals and this wouldn't be an issue. Most divorced couples do not and final decision making seems to fall to the cp-regardless of if it's right or wrong.
I think more doubt ncp bms because it is usually very hard for a father to have primary placement. Most states defer to the mother automatically. I assume the mother either didn't care too much and didn't fight it or her lifestyle is not conducive to being a parent. I know that is not always the case, but it is often that way.
YES chan...you know exactly what I'm getting at!
Quoting chanizen:
So you've chosen. It's wrong to replace a parent and alienate the other.
Does being ncp mean the cp's spouse gets to threaten to withhold visitation? Does it mean that the spouse gets to trump BM's decisions which were made in conjunction with bf?
Said differently, as the man of the cp parent's (me) house, does my dh get to overrule both bioparents and do as he pleases.
Let's not forget that in this case mom wants and is capable of having custody. Sm is interfering and threatening the child with no visitation. And you think that is ok?
I am vehemently against a step trumping an involved and present bio parent just because they married a parent who has primary physical custody.
Quoting chanizen:
Oh sure... I was asking a different question though... I know 3 dads who are sah or reduce their hours below full time after kids. I know many many moms who did that...
I didn't sah. There is still typically a primary parent. In my case it was me. I did all daycare pick ups and drop offs. I took all the sick days. I changed my job to make more flexibility.
With dh and bm, it was more even. They have 50/50.
Quoting vintagebikegirl:
Not every family can afford to have a stay at home parent, so how about in those situations? My husband and I work split shifts, so we spend equal amours of time with the kids.
I personally know MORE Stay at home dads than I do custodial fathers.
Quoting chanizen:
Custody is usually given to the primary parent or primary childcare giver. How many men do you know who reduced their hours or stayed home? I know 2.
And too many bms to count.
Quoting vintagebikegirl:
I can only give my opinion on why I think tht if a BM doesn't have custody something must be wrong with her, but people don't assume the same thing of the dad.
It's pretty simple really.
How many of us live in a state where custody is almost always given to the mother? I woul guess most of us.
In my state its actually pretty rare for a father to get custody unless the mother really screws up. So when I see a father with custody it's usually my assumption that the mother must be a shitty mother to have lost custody in the first place.
Quoting dinaweena101:I have noticed, quite frequently, that it's often said that if a dad has custody (and is married so the kids have a stepmom), that he and the stepmom should bear the weight of decision making (about big things and things as minute as hair dye and piercings ~ often to the exclusion of the mom) and that the mom needs to get over it because she isn't the primary parent anymore and there's obviously something wrong with her for not being the custodial parent ~ but when the situation is reversed and mom has primary custody, when she bears the weight of decision making, she's being controlling, exclusive, and bitter (and there is nothing said negative about the dad and him being unfit and that's why he doesn't have custody, etc)......why is that?
There's a huge double standard there.
Where has that been said. I honestly haven't seen it much.
I'm personally of the opinion that non-permanent decisions that impact day to day life, like haircuts, are really the CP perrogative because CP is going to have to be the one doing stuff like that.
If both parents are active involved, then anything permanent, like ear piercing, both parents should have a say.
Now, if one or other of the parents is basically not involved (say, less than about 6 days a year, and less than 6 phone calls a year), then you can get to the point where running things by the NCP, Mom or Dad, is basically pointless.
Would you be insulted? And a second question...
- dinaweena101
on May. 12, 2012 at 1:32 PM