This is why their father left us.
For most of the evening I have been staring at the screen of my elderly, budget laptop glazed and unable to pay attention. I have two babies, aged 9 months and 21 months and they have a virus. Nothing serious, you will be glad to know, but enough to make them needier, clingy and competitive for Mummy’s attention. I have learned that the only thing to do is to not allow the contest. Either hold both (which you can only do until your head starts to swim) or lovingly tuck each into their cot and shut the door behind you. If you are not careful they reach the point of hysterics. Once they have become hysterical, nothing short of a miracle (or the arrival of my friend Simon) will break the spell. I can do headstands while singing loudly and waggling my feet, it still won’t get a response. I really have tried it.
I feel beneath my own contempt walking out of that room, while they want me so much, but I cannot do what I cannot do. All medicines dosed, all little bodies bathed, all nappies (diapers) clean, all pyjamas on, all songs sung, all teddies found, all blankets tucked in. There is no more left. I was seeing stars again from the noise after a couple of hours close up to them. To be human is to have limits and babies can be far louder and far more persistant than you would credit. When they are ill and competing with each other they can push me to the brink of a breakdown near constantly for a week. Sometimes over it. The nights bring no relief either; sick kids regularly wake.
This is why their father left us.
He said I am lazy. He said he is sick of doing all the work. He said he has no idea what I do all day. I believe what he really feels, deep down, is that I, the woman, should do it all. He should do nothing. I suspect he viewed every demand that was made of him in terms of the housework or childcare as unreasonable. Who knows what he thinks, perhaps even he doesn’t know. I can’t ask him, he doesn’t take our calls. Whatever goes on in his mind, the bottom line was, he didn’t like his fatherly workload, so he walked away.
That workload, which was impossible for two now falls to me. I could make glib jokes at this point about how women can do a two-man job perfectly fine but I don’t feel funny. I feel tired. I feel pain in my head from the screaming. I feel heartbreak for my children, now finally exhausted and sleeping (for a while). I feel ashamed of my home, it has been so long since I had time to tidy it. I feel fear of what I must look like. I feel lonely, I have barely left the house in days and since I’m out of all my staple foods I feel hungry and cheated. However, above any other sentiment, what I feel right now is contempt for this man. This shirker who arrogantly rates the enormous workload of two demanding babies as beneath him.
How do men do it? As a mother I struggle to leave the room while my children need me. Even at the point of no longer being able to function and no longer having anything really to give I struggle to leave. And yet, as a father, he can leave them with nothing of himself. Not his affection. Not his time. Not his love, his guidance, his humour or even just his money. Save for his DNA he is entirely gone from their world.
I have no doubt there are women who leave too, I’m sure if I don’t mention them someone else soon will, but they are so much less common than men who do. In fact, they are so rare that they are notable. Men who leave are not notable. They are normal. Normal, average, unremarked-upon. Like redheads or electricians or Volvo-drivers, everyone either knows one, or knows someone who does. There are countless thousands of women out there tonight experiencing a very similar set of circumstances. Women who do this are outcasts for life. Men just go back to life as it was before.
Is it because with our hypocritical modern double standards, we let them?
Read more on A Day in the Life of a Woman in The Good Life.
Crying baby do not want to sleep image courtesy of Shutterstock
About Sarah Maguire
My commiserations for spending so long with a man from the 1950s. Can’t help feeling you are better off without him. I can assure you that not every man feels like this. I can’t explain the crushing feeling I get when my baby cries and I can’t help him. Pretty much the only thing that is even vaguely reassuring is looking into my wife’s eyes and knowing she feels the same way.
Keep up the good work, I’m sure you are an amazing Mum.
“How do men do it? ”
Nothing like a bit of misandry in the morning.
“As a mother I struggle to leave the room while my children need me. Even at the point of no longer being able to function and no longer having anything really to give I struggle to leave. And yet, as a father, he can leave them with nothing of himself. Not his affection. Not his time. Not his love, his guidance, his humour or even just his money. Save for his DNA he is entirely gone from their world.”
Why’d he leave? Maybe simply he isn’t ready to have kids, maybe he can’t handle it, maybe he’s selfish, maybe he’s trying to protect them from himself, who knows….only he does.
“There are countless thousands of women out there tonight experiencing a very similar set of circumstances. Women who do this are outcasts for life. Men just go back to life as it was before.
Is it because with our hypocritical modern double standards, we let them?”
I’m sure there are countless fathers who’ve had their kids taken from them by dodgy family courts who desperately wish they could help raise their kids. But this acting as if men just go back to life as normal…you seriously are going to generalize about men? And then question why they want to leave? Maybe it’s people assuming men are deadbeat fathers that helps cause SOME men to not want to raise the kids. Where does the term deadbeat father come from if society allows men to simply go back to life as it was before? Fathers that leave can cop quite a lot of negativity in the press, in society as a whole. A fundamental aspect many people assign to being a man is to provide for your family, leaving the family goes against that and regularly those men’s manhood would be called into question.
Why some men leave:
Mental illness
Selfishness
Can’t handle the responsibility
Can’t stand an abusive wife
Afraid they will harm the kid
Want a different life
They were jailed
They were conscripted into the military
Hell, there are probably hundreds of reasons.
“Is it because with our hypocritical modern double standards, we let them?”
What right do you have to question double standards when you’re using misandry in your article? How’s this for an article. Why do women molest their kids? Why do women kill their kids? Wouldn’t it be better to say “How do SOME men do it?”
I can understand you’re frustrated and annoyed but seriously, this is a terrible article in the current format with the misandry and ignorant views. Crying over double standards is a bit silly when you’re article is displaying ignorance and negative generalizations.
Well done for sticking the boot into someone clearly struggling with everything life is throwing at them. You must be very proud.
Well done for ignoring all the points he made. You must be very evasive.
Her personal feelings or anguish, whilst worthy of sympathy, doesn’t detract from anything Archy said or the need to address it.
In the UK, women ignore 40% of all custody orders (and the courts refuse to punish them for it). I believe the stats are similar in the US. Despite the disastrous effects it has on their children, despite the pain, anguish and sorrow it causes the father (or perhaps because of it), they still do it. Ordinary, everyday women.
Why, Andy and Sarah, Why? How do they do it? Is it because we let them? Is it because the double standards of the family courts allow them to get away with it?
Are you speaking from personal experience or some statistics you read on the internet? Just curious.
While I don’t agree with the tone the author uses. I do understand the question she is asking.
I’m confused how this became an argument of sorts about legal custody.
In the words of my mother, ‘”Two wrongs don’t make a right”. How does bringing up statistics about family courts and saying women keep their children from men relate specifically to what the author is asking about men who abandon their children.
You’re being a little disingenuous, there. She isn’t just asking questions about men who abandon their children. In the last paragraphs she’s implying that this is the norm for all fathers. In her words, “They are normal. Normal, average, unremarked-upon”.
I’d argue it’s more normal for men to have problems with visitation rights than simply to walk away. I’m not trying to be captious, but that’s why her statements need challenging (it’s far more than just her tone). You’re correct, two wrongs don’t make a right, but it’s misleading to claim that she was just discussing her personal plight of abandonment.
The 40% stat. is from the Home Office, I believe.
Thank-you Pirran, someone who actually understands. It’s subtle sexism, but it’s been accepted so much in mainstream that not many probably realize. It’s all too telling when people don’t even know what misandry means.
Hello Pirran, sorry if you think I’m being evasive. I read a blog where a mother talks openly her situation and how hard she is finding her life followed by an aggressive comment from someone who shows no compassion for her situation. It is in my nature to want to defend her from this unnecessary attack. All I can see is a vulnerable single mother trying to make sense of her situation.
I don’t think anyone really disagrees that relationships break down for any number of reasons. There isn’t anything surprising about Archy’s comments apart from the level of aggression. The only thing I didn’t understand was the word ‘misandry’ so I googled it. Sounds awful, you must feel so oppressed..
Obsequious White-Knightery followed by evasion. You still haven’t addressed any of his observations (or mine).
All we’re left with is a specious (and rather pompous) attempt to heroically ride to her defense, neatly deflecting from her broad-brush attack on men as fathers (particularly in her last paragraphs). Sure, there are those that leave. There are plenty of others who’re forced out against there will and those of their children.
Keep tilting at windmills, Don Quixote.
Hi Pirran, love the Don Quixote reference, you really do get a better quality of riposte here (no sarcasm this time).
I thought I had addressed Archy’s observations by saying I don’t disagree with then apart from not knowing what ‘misandry’ is. I just don’t understand why he is so annoyed by this post but I guess that is because we clearly saw different things when we read it.
I found this post on twitter so this is the first time I have visited this site and I seem to be out of step with the feelings of most of it’s users. Sorry for the snarky jibe about ‘misandry’ and ‘oppression’, I didn’t mean to offend. Although I have been a man all my life I have never experienced this or even heard it mentioned by any other man (or woman for that matter). It just doesn’t affect me. I don’t know why we have such different life experiences as I know nothing about any of you. There is clearly something different as can still only see a lonely single Mother trying to make sense of her situation.
This is the bit where I need a clever literary quote but sadly I don’t have one. I just hope you all have a great day.
We regularly address things like sexism here, including misandry especially (see the section for fathers), so it can be a sore subject for some of us. The part that annoyed me was saying “men” instead of “some men”, what happens is it simply adds in to a plethora of articles n discussions where it’s acceptable to say men are this, men are that, men leave their family vs some men are this, some men are that, some men leave.
http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/virgin-airlines-australia-thinks-all-men-are-potential-paedophiles/ – This is a case of misandry, the acts of some men tarnish the reputation for all and then we have sexist policies, discussions etc that go on.
A year or 2 ago I didn’t think misandry was much of an issue until I did some digging and found out just how much there is out there, it’s shocking how much goes on unnoticed and accepted. You may be blessed living in an area free from it but I think if you did some digging you might find it, the difference between misandry n misogyny however is that for 50+ years feminism has detailed misogyny and many of us are well aware of it’s existence however the male rights movements haven’t been noticed much and the many many examples go under the radar. It’s probably far easier to find misogyny as I believe it’s pointed out far more often than misandry is.
Imagine my annoyance to come to a site that usually fights misandry/sexism to read an article that hasn’t been vetted very good, leaving some bad generalizations in which are very common sexist assumptions about men. Any anger I have is directly for the lack of clarity and editing that went on, I truly feel bad for her because what he did is inexcusable but I also don’t believe it’s a valid reason to be sexist.
Fair enough. All that I (or many others) ask is that her (understandable) anger at her ex-husband shouldn’t be used as an excuse to abuse all fathers or all men.
“The only thing I didn’t understand was the word ‘misandry’ so I googled it. Sounds awful, you must feel so oppressed..”
The fact you didn’t understand what the word meant says it all. The highly dismissive snarky jibe “must feel so oppressed” when this site actually does show how men suffer oppression, and you’re riding me about not showing sympathy? Explain that logic please.
I sympathize with her, I feel bad, but I’m still not going to put up with misandry or misogyny, would you accept racism from someone who was beaten up by a person of another race? The sexism is subtle but it is there because the statements she’s made weren’t directed appropriately, it’s tarring all men with the same brush in a society that has a piss poor track record of showing decent fathers. I have no issue with stating some fathers are deadbeats, but saying “why do men do this” is insulting.
And who says I was being aggressive? This isn’t aggression, it’s annoyance.
For every made up staory about this great mom worry about sick kids with a husband that abanbon her and his kids. I can find a man that was forced out of his home and removed from his childrens life by law. The same men have had child support judgemnts set at 90 plus percent of their net income to be in the end labeled deadbeats or suicides. I can’t believe there are still men like you sniffing at tail so hard that you stop being a man using logic and judgement based on reality and turned emotional white knighting to gain favor from females.
“All I can see is a vulnerable single mother trying to make sense of her situation.”
And that’s the problem. She is more than her alleged victimization. And she is not above reproach for her misandry. Being a mother who’s husband just left her does not grant carte blanche to say whatever she feels like without it being challenged. And the fact you seem to think otherwise is an example of why the sexism she pushes needs to be called out. The idea that a mother can do no wrong, even regarding non-motherly things, it’s ridiculous, and it is the idea you are defending because she chooses to tell us the story of how her husband walked out at no fault of her own. It was all the man. She is completely innocent and dumbfounded. right.
Pain and suffering is no excuse for sexism. I’m sorry that I dislike seeing men negatively generalized about when men already have a shit reputation in regards to fatherhood. A simple qualifier or 2 could avoid the whole problem and I’m surprised it got past the editors.
How about my pain n suffering, or that of other men who are sick of being demonized n treated like deadbeat fathers and women are saints? I understand she’s hurting but her article is going to alienate potential supporters because of a lack of the word “some”. I truly have no idea if she thinks men are deadbeat fathers by default, most men are, or just some. I find it hard to have sympathy for someone that shows contempt for my gender instead of just contempt for the assholes of my gender.
The fact that she’s struggling is a good reason to blame her husband for what happened. It’s a terribly reason to lay her troubles at the feet of all men. The fact is that most fathers do stay with their kids and many of the ones who don’t are given no opportunity to, or actively prevented from doing so.
Archy,
Your list of reasons for why some men leave are a list of excuses. The fact of the matter is, regardless of how tired, broke, exhausted, mentally ill or selfish some women with children may be, they have made a life long commitment to their children. I have known a few couples in my life who couldn’t handle the stress and financial burden of children or even a child, and the men in those situations simply bailed. I think this is where the double standard applies. The option to bail on your family, in most cases, is only an option for men, or at least more often exercised by men. I think this may be what the author is getting at.
I realize that they are excuses, I was simply trying to give potential reasons why someone might want to leave. And from what I’ve heard women have options to bail on families early on, no questions asked adoptions, abortion, etc. Options men are not afforded.
You could probably avoid quite a few of these issues by allowing men to financially abort, that way she at least knows her partner is ready or not for having kids and she can make her choice of what to do whilst the choice is still viable (abortion, adoption, keep the baby).
Only one gender gets the option to opt-out of parenthood and I fully believe that is one of the major reasons for abortion, financial burden and time of life meaning the mother is not ready. But what does the father get? He is forced into whatever choice she makes. It’s no wonder there are more deadbeat fathers, I truly wonder how many of those who bail would opt IN to parenthood after learning their partner is pregnant. How’s that for a double standard. Women get to end their potential future responsibility early, and 1/3rd of pregnancies end this way last I heard (I could be wrong), men are stuck with whatever choice she makes or they use contraceptives which hopefully won’t fail.
I think the disparity of reproductive rights probably causes issues with deadbeat fathers in the sense that some who are forced into parenthood will stick it out as best they can until they finally can’t take it. Those women who are tired, mentally n physically exhausted you speak about HAD the option to opt out before the child was born. What option do the men have?
No one should bail, it’s a shitty move, but no one should be forced into parenthood either after conception. It’s a lifelong commitment that not everyone is able to handle at the time it occurs. To avoid in the future you need financial abortion options for men and lower cost of living so it’s not such a huge financial hit on top of the emotional n physical exertion raising kids can be.
If abortion was illegal, would we have more women who bail on their family?
Also I should mention, I don’t support any of the reasons to bail, just simply saying what some may be. Only valid reason to bail is domestic violence probably but even then I’d hope they tried to get the kids away from the abusive mother as well.
” The option to bail on your family, in most cases, is only an option for men, or at least more often exercised by men.”
The option comes to they who do it first. This isn’t a sexed double standard. Furthermore, women tend to see children as their property more than men. Just look at the custody requests often submitted. Women often ask for sole custody while men ask for shared.
And as Archy pointed out, women have 100% control over having a child, so a woman who has one is 100% sure she wanted one. Men don’t have that luxury. And instead of supporting equal rights, you condemn all men for the choices of the few who can’t take it.
Most of the time men don’t leave. Most of the time women throw the man out on some false domestic violence charge. Many times the women grabs the kids and moves hundreds of miles away. Once the man is forcibly removed, the woman sheds a few crocodile tears and then tries to collect child support. As the children get older their mother tells them their father abandoned them.
If the man does leave, what did the woman do to drive him away?
The old narrative of a man abandoning his family is almost dead and rarely happens. Let the myth die a complete death.
What society do you live in?
“The old narrative of a man abandoning his family is almost dead and rarely happens. Let the myth die a complete death.”
Really?
I wish that were a true statement.
Try to think outside of yourself and your peer group. In my line of work, I’ve met men who have had children with several different women, none of whom they have relationships with the women or the children. In fact, I’ve seen a few who have more of a relationship with the children of their girlfriends who are not biologically theirs because, you guessed it, the biological father abandoned them.
It’s true in the US. The stats that back him up have been available for years. What society are yu in?
“Try to think outside of yourself and your peer group. In my line of work, I’ve met men who have had children with several different women”
Listen to yourself. you tell him to think beyond his peer group and then go on to cite examples only from your peer group. Getting familiar wiht the statistics on who initiiates divorce is the way out of this.
Ginkgo,
I am in social services so I am not speaking of my peer group, I am speaking of the under-served population of an urban environment.
Also, statistics are based on reported data. Again, REPORTED data. Furthermore, divorce statistics do not apply to those never married, who, by the way, are becoming the majority.
In what world do you think that most of the men who are asked to leave are asked to do so under a false domestic violence charge? Please, show me a statistic that shows that, from a reputable source. You’re just perpetuating the myth that women make up domestic violence stories because they want the man to leave.
“You’re just perpetuating the myth that women make up domestic violence stories because they want the man to leave.”
Do you mean it never happens or is the myth that most are false?
A myth that most are false. I know it does happen, and it’s unacceptable that it does.
Ah ok, I’d agree. I’d guess maybe 5-10% could be dubious, quite a lot would be reciprocal and quite a lot would be single perpetrator stuff.
I agree it’s all more nuanced than a simple double standard; but that double standard is more powerful than we often give it credit for. My husband had the exact same attitude towards our family, and my role in it, to the point of throwing tantrums himself if I hadn’t cleaned up “properly” that day.
There is something to your statement that we let them behave that way. Sticking around, not insisting on change is one way to do it. So I left. I thought that handling two real children would be easier (5 and 3 years old now) than two children plus one childish adult. It has been. MUCH easier. Your kids are so young! It will get easier for you too. And I hope one day you’ll be glad he left. I’m glad I did.
How do men do it?
It’s simple. Yeah there are those that think it’s just a matter of “men are allowed to do this”. Those people (often women I might add) don’t get the full weight. We aren’t “allowed” to do it. We are expected to it. Told to do it. Prevented from staying around to be fathers.
I think one problem with the current state of parenting (and a barrier) is that men are being viewed as nothing but deserters when it comes to parenting. Sure someone might give a nod to dads that are doing there thing (but even then some folks have the nerve to complain because theose dads are getting nods) but for the most part it’s “deadbeat this” and “abandoned that”.
That’s what we are up against. As soon as people quit trying to act like men not being in children’s lives is just a luxury the better off we’ll all be.
That being said it’s pretty clear that guy did you wrong and I’m sorry.
Men who leave are not notable. They are normal. Normal, average, unremarked-upon.
Because that is what we are taught and even those who fight against it are pushed down because they go against it. That’s why you have people who get their undergarments in a bunch whenever good dads are praised. It’s almost like they would rather for the only news about dads to get noticed is the bad behavior.
Is it because with our hypocritical modern double standards, we let them?
Not just let them but actively enforce them. We live in a world today where people simultaneously complain that men don’t “step up” and support acts of sexism like calling the cops on a man that is in the park with his own children (and no the fact that a relatively small portion of men are child molesters doesn’t justify being sexist towards all men).
So which is it? Should men “step up” or should we all be blanketly distrusted because we are men? I personally like the former because it benefits just about everyone.
Actually Jennifer, Walking In Hell is correct. The overwhelming majority of custody cases presented in US courts are for men seeking to get some access to their child(ren), which ‘mothers’ actively ignore due to a lack of enforcement mechanisms and because of this myth of the commonality of the absent father. Ask any family court judge you meet and they’ll tell you the same.
I’m sorry, I’ve seen enough of this world to know that whenever there is a story like this presenting a ‘saintly’ single mom and a evil, careless dna provider dad…it is almost always an attempt to pull the wool over your eyes in service of an agenda.
The repetitive cycle of a list of loving and laborious care for children, juxtaposed against the uncaring, evil man…is an urban myth. The vast majority of men are driven from the home by the mother and by her will through the court…the lives of men and their children and chances of raising a family ruined forever…. the mother is always blameless, the father always blamed.
This story promotes that myth and I have seen that it is usually untrue.
This story follows that script. I don’t believe it and I hope the world wakes up to this fairy-tale shakedown.
Men are not like this.
Women are not like this.
Something wrong is going on here.
Marriages seldom are because of children. It’s doubtful that the children were the cause of the breakup.
Marriages breakup because one or both don’t want to live with their spouse anymore not because they don’t want to live with their kids anymore.
Maybe blaming the breakup on “men” makes one feel less rejected and a partially responsible for the failure of the marriage.
Correction.
Marriages seldom breakup because of children.
My sister left her husband, taking the kids, in the early 70′s. Many years later, she happily told me, “Mike made no effort to see his kids.”
I told her, “Wait a minute. I saw the letter you sent him telling him he would never see his kids.”
She said, “Well, I was angry there for a while.” Oh, really? So, did she apologize and tell him to come see them. Um, no.
So, telling a father who was trying to see his kids that he will never see his kids then telling someone else he never tried is really disgusting. The bad news is it happens all the time.
My point is when you hear stories like this, it is impossible to know what has actually happened.
Also, I had women tell me their ex- paid not a cent in child support. I happened to be the first non-government employee to have a legal copy of the Child Support manual and knew instantly she was lying when a man with an established job in a high paying business did not get the money taken from his check before he got it.
I am trying to muster up some sympathy for you but so far I have been unsuccessful. As the article reads, you chose to have NOT ONE, but TWO children and then moan and complain about how difficult it is and how hard your life is. Having kids is hardly rocket science. I guess it must be a stretch from your job at the local Starbucks but I urge you to stick it out and inspire your kids to grow up and be just like mommy!!!! This article boring and pointless. So are you. So are your children. I’ll have a grande non-fat vanilla latte. NEXT…!
I have to ask this again, as I have asked before. How does this article make men good. This is an article that totaly and utterly denigrates men (or it does paint ALL men / fathers with a wide brush).
I would ask you this, would the editors of a feminist website ever allow a man to write such and article about his ex wife. Not likely. While some might think that his ‘openess’ is a good thing, I don’t. This article is a pity party with balloons and everything.
Seriously editors, really is this what GMP is becoming. Man hating articles when we never get the mans side of the story.
It appears that Sarah Maguire did a very poor job choosing her mate. Her life sucks, but that’s what often happens when a woman has sex with a loser.
I am 49, and I have no children. I got a vasectomy many years ago. I believe that I made the right choice.
Don’t waste your time attacking me with shaming language. It won’t work on me.
Sincerely,
Peter Pan
I see a lot of bitterness in this thread from people throwing their personal experiences into the fire rather than addressing the issue of mysandry that was rightly brought up. I know, from experience, that a LOT of women blame the men who leave (especially when children are involved) without ever looking at their own part in the marriage. Marriage has two sides- ALWAYS. One person does not make up the whole of it. I’ll note the author never addressed the issues that her husband brought up, likely many times, before he left. She admits the house is a mess – one of his issues.
Why he actually left, we don’t know. We merely hear the bitter words he left behind, and the bitter words she is returning as an exhausted single parent of sick children. We can note she has decided to point out, though a bit to the side, that she is clearly “poor”, with the implication that it is his fault she has no money because he left. I’ll address this one directly to the author – sweetie – I’ve been using a computer where the hinges broke on the screen over a year ago, and you have to make sure the battery is not popping out. I’m broke, but I’ve also been married for 20 years. Being poor can have absolutely nothing to do with your marital status.
I DO speak from experience. I divorced when my eldest child was two. We parted on mutual agreement, on the basis that we simply did not love each other any more. Plain and simple- we’d grown up, grown apart, changed. We got along much better afterward – still do, even with that child 22 years older. For a time, I was a single parent, going to college, raising a child on my own, doing everything two had done before. Yes, when we were sick, it was hard. But chores still got done, my homework still got done, and I did not neglect her. Later, I married a man who had had an abusive wife who blamed everything on everyone else and took no responsibility for herself. As far as I know, still doesn’t. What she did take was their kids – one never even met her father, as she left when pregnant. Contact was denied until the children were adults. I used to be bitter about it, for his sake, but now I can speak objectively on it. No, my marriage is not perfect – none is. No person is. However, you can choose to accept your OWN responsibility for things that happen in YOUR life, or you can blame everyone else.
IMO, the author is blaming her soon to be ex for the problems in her life. NO, sick children cannot be helped – it happens. A messy house can, even with small children. A dirty house – there is no excuse (Yes, I differentiate – a messy house merely has stuff lying about. A dirty house is dishes not cleaned, floors, bathrooms not cleaned in recent weeks, things like that.) IF life is that hard, reach out to agencies – they exist to help in times like that.
As for mothers leaving their children- they do it more often than the author knows. Simple statistics, and simple look around at the number of grandparents raising their grandchildren, and the ever growing number of single dads, especially military dads. Those men manage- no reason a woman – especially one who claims a closer bond to her children- can’t unless she has extenuating circumstances related to health or employability.
I just saw her tag line – “I have kids, that’s all I have time for”.
Really?
Babe, I had kids and went to college. And graduated. And went to college again, and got my teaching certification. My house was clean, my kids well fed, cared for and they got plenty of attention. Part of this time I was a single parent- and the house was still clean, and the kid happy and healthy. I was even in classeds while pregnant – both times! I have worked, I’ve have pursued crafts, I have run my own business for several years. The kids came along for the ride – I dropped them off at their schools, went to teach at mine, and was home soon after they were ( a neighbor watched them) I had time for their events, to talk with them, to take them places and do things with them all while working and doing my own thing as well. Some times the house was messy, other it was not.
I still have time for them as an adult. I’ve done all this with a chronic illness – unless you are the same, you have no excuse.
I truly hate that women use having kids as an excuse to do nothing. It’s bullcrap, plain and simple.
You just blew any chance I have of believing that your husband is all at fault in your marriage – and divorce, babe. And yes, I do use that derogatorially.
I empathize with you, I am a single (though dating) mother with two children, a full-time job, a start-up business and recently went to school. Things don’t always work out this way though for a lot of single parents. I have the luxury for my children to go to the school on my employer’s campus. I can easily make myself available for dance recitals, holiday classroom parties, ice cream socials, book fairs, you name it. Tuition is subsidized and automatically deducted from my paycheck, so I barely feel it. My children’s father is very involved and proactive, we truly are equal partners. I am, however, the envy of many single and/or divorced women with children.
Can you clarify something for me. Do you have a job? Do you work full time? Or are you a stay at home mother? I very much get the impression of the latter, but seek clarification before giving my opinion.
I write this after an hour and half of wailing by my three year old who is missing his mom (and she is only working late tonight). I want to offer sincere compassion for you and your little ones, and I hope that the offering in some small way relieves a portion of your suffering.
Of course, the real test is to offer to some compassion for the writers of the nonsense above. It’s obvious there is a lot of bitterness, hurt, and anger (now directed at you) in the writers and they also deserve some kind thoughts despite their behavior. Can there be any left for your husband? Perhaps that’s what the commenters are digging for, seeing themselves in the portrait you have painted.
That’s right, pamper and coddle the poor, dear child. It was the big bad man, and all the mean angry men on the comments that are the evil ones.
I notice you’re quite capable of “noticing” the bitterness, hurt and anger of the comments writers, but seem entirely oblivious to that of the writer herself. Do you really think coddling her like a child, absolving her of all her complicity in the failure of her relationship, will help in any way?
Wow, these are the most nauseatingly disingenuous comments I’ve seen so far on this thread.
I might have disagreed with much of what Andy wrote, but I do think he was at least trying to see the argument from both sides. You have no such excuse. You also appear to have no kind thoughts or compassion; merely a passive-aggressive assault on the other writers of this thread. In general, with some exceptions, their anger was directed at the double standard of her last paragraphs and the broad brush attack on men as fathers in general, not the author herself. Your anger was directed at them under the paper-thin facade of “forgiving” them despite their “behavior”. You lack the courage to express your thinly disguised rage, so you mask it as compassion like some insincere pastor furious at a member of his congregation.
You have exemplified this double-standard by using your alleged empathy for Sarah’s position (which many have expressed despite your remarks) as a platform for ad hominem abuse directed at the other commentators. It goes without saying that you refused to address any of the points they made. Your last line exposes this hypocrisy completely:
“Can there be any left for your husband? Perhaps that’s what the commenters are digging for, seeing themselves in the portrait you have painted.”
I’ve seen very little support for her husband but that hasn’t stopped you from using it as a skeezy shaming assault on the other commentators. The irony, undoubtedly lost on you, is that I see far more of the glib deceit of her husband in your remarks than in any of theirs.
Shame on you.
“Of course, the real test is to offer to some compassion for the writers of the nonsense above. It’s obvious there is a lot of bitterness, hurt, and anger (now directed at you) in the writers and they also deserve some kind thoughts despite their behavior. ”
You do realize that pretty much all of the comments you’re most likely referring to are simply taking issue with the misandry/sexist statements assuming all men do the negative acts that are described? I’m 100% certain all of them know that SOME men do those things, but she didn’t write it as some men, but all men…hence the reason they and I are calling her and the editor/s out for it.
The “ALL” fathers idea is a straw man, and like all such arguments when misapplied to a written piece is easily knocked down as though answering her real question. She is not making a statement about all men, nor is she even making a statement about men who are kept from their children. She’s asking how men who walk away can do it so easily (and here we likely agree thats not really the case) and also how can they be seen as normal. Here by normal she doesn’t mean that is the “average” man, she is asking about social stigma. Thus the comments about standards.
Please surprise me by not following the script below:
(Your response: “How do you know what the author meant, because only *I* know that”)
(my response: #readingcomprehension)
When the author claims it is normal for a man to walk away, she is ether saying it is typical of men to do so, or that it is perfectly acceptable. As you dismiss the possibility of the former, you are implying the latter.
You mean the deadbeat dad social stigma? Are you suggesting the deadbeat dad social stigma isn’t really a stigma? that it is normal and average, and comes with absolutely no negative connotation? The author is revelling in self pity and unwilling to examine anything outside that. To assert men can “abandon their families” and have that treated as “normal” is extremely dishonest. Worst it dismisses the social stigma that does exists, and is often incorrectly applied to men who have been denied access to their children. This results in men who have been denied access to their children, then wrongly stigmatised as deadbeats, to be further dismissed by claiming they don’t suffer any ill effects for the stigma they were wrongly associated with.
Now, as to your assertion that she is not talking about the average man, this statement very much leaves room for the average man interpretation:
“but they are so much less common than men who do.In fact, they are so rare that they are notable. Men who leave are not notable. They are normal. Normal, average, unremarked-upon. Like redheads or electricians or Volvo-drivers, everyone either knows one, or knows someone who does.”
Tell me, how does your superior reading comprehension dismisses the implication that it is easy and common for the man to walk away? How abandoning the family being “normal” doesn’t imply that it is normal for the average man to walk away (given her discussion about how common it is), and instead can only mean that when it is done it is deemed normal AKA without stigma (of which she makes absolutely no mention within that paragraph)? And how would it come to be so acceptable if it wasn’t done with regularity? I’m curious why she would mention red-heads and electricians and volvo-drivers in a context of non stigmatized.
Your response is tendentious nonsense. To quote her penultimate paragraph:
“Men who leave are not notable. They are normal. Normal, average, unremarked-upon. Like redheads or electricians or Volvo-drivers, everyone either knows one, or knows someone who does. There are countless thousands of women out there tonight experiencing a very similar set of circumstances. Women who do this are outcasts for life. Men just go back to life as it was before..”
She is making a statement about men. The implication is quite clear and there are NO qualifying remarks to indicate otherwise. Your attempt to steer the debate away from those final paragraphs by claiming that she is only talking about a certain subset of men and not the average is a cynical contrivance (I’m sure the irony that you have interpreted her piece in such a way because only *you* know what she really meant has not been lost on others either).
You haven’t surprised me at all.
There is a huge difference between saying those men are normal and those men are SEEN as normal. Some serial killers are seen as normal people (until we find out of course), but they are far from normal. Imagine the shitstorm if someone said female rapists were “normal” instead of “seen as normal”. A few missing words can really alter someones statement.
I agree. Unfortunately I believe Sarah said exactly what she intended to say (and a few years back she wouldn’t have been called on it, either). It might have been in anger or despair, but there’s no excusing it. As you point out, men have been called on these kinds of responses by women for decades.
I’m sure Joe would have us all believe otherwise, though. She didn’t mean anything we read. She was just pointing the finger at one or two bad guys around the corner; the rest of us are in the clear. It’s all just a big misunderstanding.
Reading comprehension eh? I guess you can read “men do x” as only meaning some men huh? Her post is not clear at all on saying some men, most of it leads towards painting pretty much all men as such as evident by the reaction of not one but many of the comments here. What makes your reading comprehension superior to theirs? Remember this had to pass editing standards so not only one but at least 2 people had the ability to edit the article before posting yet they left in vague generalizations that have obviously annoyed quite a few people here. And then to go on to say it’s normal behaviour for men is the last straw….I guess we disagree that a normal man leaves his family, the only people I know who think that is normal male behaviour are people who are extremely misandrist. I doubt this author wants to be known as one of them so I am surprised it was allowed through in that current edit.
” I guess you can read “men do x” as only meaning some men huh? ”
Sorry Archy, but I have to disagree with you here. When I read X does X, I do read it as some. Without the quantifier “all”, there leaves room (IMHO) for exception. I have a problem when feminists try to use that argument on me (when I say feminists aren’t interested in equality, I’m not saying “all”, I’m generalizing about the majority. To then be accused of saying “all” annoys me to no end). As such, I will defend Sarah in this point. She didn’t say all, so she should be accused of saying it. Stating that it is normal (be it she meant that it is common, even typical, or that it is acceptable) is plenty enough to take issue with.
I spose it depends on what we individually see, it’s far too open to interpretation and not set in stone. Try this, say women are gold diggers and see how many people you get biting your head off. She may not be saying all men do it, but I do truly believe that without a qualifier it’s a landmine in writing.
“Try this, say women are gold diggers and see how many people you get biting your head off.”
I’m fully aware of what the outcome of this would be. I’ve gotten into this debate with Julia and heather in the past, and I’ll hold to the same opinion now. Without a qualifier, it could be interpreted as all or as some, and both interpretations are valid. My problem with the assumption that the lack of a qualifier should be interpreted as all is that it is accusing others of stating an absolute, and absolutes are rare, very few people actually use them, and when they do, they generally make the point by quantifying it. “XYZ is ABC” is a generalization. You’ve even identified it as such in your first comment (August 15, 2012 at 11:09 am). How often can one say a generalization is applicable 100% of the time? You can’t, because then it wouldn’t be a generalization, it would be a fact.
Moreover, you don’t need to inject the qualifier “all” into her argument to make a valid point that it is wrong, you’re better than that. The argument is flawed, even as a “some men” generalization.
Jullie, sorry, I have two Julia’s at work, It just comes naturally.
I would also like to explain, the reason I don’t like seeing the “all” qualifier injected into statements it isn’t actually included in is because the willingness to inject it, and the willingness to accept others injecting it, are often contradictory. Far to often those willing to inject the qualifier to modify an opponents argument into an unreasonable absolute, are unwilling to accept that their own lack of qualifier can be taken the same way, even after they have set the precedent of “no qualifier = all”
I probably did jump the gun a bit. When coupled with the statements on it being normal it does look very much like other sexist material I’ve seen n heard. It’s also a good reason why the qualifier is needed I believe, to separate it from the pack.
Even so, taking what was said as “some” rather than “all” is still incredibly sexist. To suggest that it is the norm (even if exceptions do exist) for men to behave like that, it misandry. I don’t disagree with your overall point, just with the injection of a qualifier. Joe has still failed to address any of the points I’ve raised as well, instead latching onto the only weak point of anyones argument.
It is very interesting to read the comments about people wanting to know why Sarah is in said situation, what her part in the break-up was etc. And the judgement about the family. Especially you, Bea. Having two children is very normal. They are hard work, but that work can be managed quite well between two parents. When one parent sees the other parent’s job as all housework and childcare, yet doesn’t work full time themselves, it is a terrible situation.
People are commenting a lot about the lack of the word ‘some’, but there is also the lack of the word ‘all’. It is seen as normal in our society for a father to leave. When people hear ‘single mum’ they assume the dad left. When they hear ‘single dad’, they wonder what happened to the mum. It is sad. And yes, so many fathers desperately want to see their children and are not allowed. That really is terrible. But when fathers have no interest in their children – don’t call, don’t answer calls….that’s a shame too. All of the comments seem to talk about Sarah and her ex’s relationship. I think the issue is that he can be in his children’s lives every day, then just disappear. His pride won’t allow him to make the first step, and it’s the babies that are suffering. She said that she finds it hard just to leave the room when they’re crying, and therefore can’t understand why her ex could leave them forever.
Men can be amazing fathers, and terrible fathers. And women can be amazing mothers, and terrible mothers. The article accepts that. But the article isn’t about the balance of these. It’s about how this particular father left and what she is experiencing at home with two babies to look after and no help.
“When one parent sees the other parent’s job as all housework and childcare, yet doesn’t work full time themselves, it is a terrible situation.”
A lot here that needs to be challenged. First, you make the claim that Sarah’s ex didn’t work full time himself, yet I don’t see this assertion made anywhere in the article. Where do you get this from?
Second, the claim that the ex expected Sarah to do ALL the housework and childcare was Sarah’s projection onto her husband. The fact that he took offense to having to do all the work himself. meaning, if true, he was doing all the paid work and all the housework and she only did the childcare (and maybe some paid work, given some of her statements, I presume she doesn’t work. she hasn’t responded to my request for clarification on that subject).
I point to this portion of the article to support my presumptions:
“, I have barely left the house in days and since I’m out of all my staple foods I feel hungry and cheated. However, above any other sentiment, what I feel right now is contempt for this man. This shirker who arrogantly rates the enormous workload of two demanding babies as beneath him.”
Here, we see she hasn’t left the house in days, nor even purchased food. This gives me reason to believe that she doesn’t work (usually got to leave the house to work). It also gives me reason to believe she doesn’t do errands that are necessary (like shopping), let alone desirable (like housecleaning). She goes hungry because she can’t be bothered to go shopping. Are we really, then, expected to believe the husband did nothing and has always put everything on her? Or is it, instead, reasonable to believe the husband WAS doing all the housework AND paid work and was getting tired of his stay at home wife doing very little. I point to the last sentence quoted to further this point… She see’s the workload of childcare (and only childcare) as enormous (and beneath him), yet, it was the housework he appeared to want some semblance of balance in.
” It is seen as normal in our society for a father to leave.”
Are you suggesting normal as in typical to the average man, or as in acceptable to be done (this is where Joe above tried making a distinction that wasn’t there. Ether way, it is an incorrect statement and a misandric thing to say. Read my comments to joe above.
not sure what was wrong with me when writing this. my punctuation is all messed up. please excuse that, I can’t edit.