Who on here doesn't have children?

[MyUserName]

How much of an insult is it to be compared to Gentile (I joined shortly before she was banned I believe, no idea who is is/what she's like)? Or should I be proud?

I don't do .Net. It's all Perl and Python in my little niche, but I don't even do a whole lot of that.

I never had a problem with her but there was a serious personality clash between her and some of the other guys on here.

She sent some kind of threat of legal action via PM to the admin so they banned her or something.

[formant]

What does that have to do with it spod? Come now, tell me; we're talking about our own children, versus step children. Nothing else.

I know you feel the same. Just know it.

So adoptive children are different? You can love those unconditionally? But only after you've jumped through the legal hoops, definitely not before? Your logic is all over the place.

[RasputinDude]

Where the traditionalist setup is a choice, I do find it somewhat sub-standard. I don't think the world needs more validation in numbers about how women should be nothing but mothers and men need to be the breadwinning type.

You see to me, that reads "where it is a choice and a woman decides to be a stay at home parent, then that is the wrong choice". If someone makes a lifestyle choice, who are you to judge that choice - especially as you are in involved in neither the decision making nor the impacts of that choice? You're all for men staying at home to parent - you have lots of affection for them - but not for women. That smacks somewhat of double standards.

And for every couple where sharing childrearing responsibilities truly isn't feasible, there's one where it's just slightly less convenient, or one where one party just isn't interested.

So making a decision where both parents are happy because it is the most convenient isn't an acceptable decision? Surely, convenience is one of the things that drives us most? We buy food from a shop because it is more convenient than going to hunt/harvest/gather ourselves.

Oh, and one where the man just so happens to have picked themselves a partner with an earning potential below 20k/pa.

What about the case where a woman ears well over £50k but decides that she is no longer engaged in her job and that she would rather do other things?

In that case, factoring in the outrageous cost of childcare, the woman really does have little choice but to stay at home, particularly if there's more than one child below school-age.

Yes, I'll agree on the outrageous cost of childcare.

Involvement also doesn't equal being physically around more, just to clarify that. You can have deeply involved full-time working parents.

The problem with this statement is that you come across as believing that a father who works full time as the sole money earner is doing so because they don't want to engage with their children.

I've had a part-time and later full-time working mother and a full-time working father, both on similar income levels. I grew up being a lot closer to my dad, although no doubt my mother was 'around' more.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this statement is - generally a child will grow closer to one parent than another.

I'm afraid that you still come across as believing that your family model is superior to those where there is an female primary carer who does not bring in any money and a male primary earner. In fact, from everything you write, it seems to me that you feel that such a model is the absolute worst case scenario. You only want to approve of family models that validate or complement your model and your understanding of what a family should be. Some people make different choices to you; I fail to see why you are so judgmental and pejorative to the 'traditional' model simply because it's not the same as yours.

[Old Hack]

So adoptive children are different? You can love those unconditionally? But only after you've jumped through the legal hoops, definitely not before? Your logic is all over the place.

Oh dear, you don't really understand irony do you. I have not once said Adoptive children are different, just that they don't form part of this argument.

Too funny.

[formant]

I never had a problem with her but there was a serious personality clash between her and some of the other guys on here.

She sent some kind of threat of legal action via PM to the admin so they banned her or something.

Ah, k, I'll take it as a compliment then. I'm not new to the internet and the lovely world of forums. It's never long before someone calls me a troll. I usually end up clashing with a few people, comes with the territory of being opinionated. *shrug*

[BrilloPad]

Ah, k, I'll take it as a compliment then. I'm not new to the internet and the lovely world of forums. It's never long before someone calls me a troll. I usually end up clashing with a few people, comes with the territory of being opinionated. *shrug*

In general opinionated is the lowest level. Then you move up to the opiumated....

[Old Hack]

Ah, k, I'll take it as a compliment then. I'm not new to the internet and the lovely world of forums. It's never long before someone calls me a troll. I usually end up clashing with a few people, comes with the territory of being opinionated. *shrug*

It gets better. Do you understand what opinionated means?

Holding stubbornly and often unreasonably to one's own opinions

[mudskipper]

I think you get a moment of overwhelming love/fear/responsibility when you first hold a baby you've brought into the world. The fact that the birth process is traumatic I think helps this initial bond - if it's that 'kin hard, it's got to be worth having! Clearly you're not going to get this with step kids. To some extent, you'll get it with adoption - you first get to meet your longed for child.

However, I don't think this means you can't grow to love your step-kids as much as your own. I suspect whether this happens comes down to the role you have in their life. If you marry their parent when they're young, and they've no contact with their absent parent and you are fulfilling that role completely (both from the point of view of the child and your partner), then you become their dad/mum and the love (both ways) is likely to happen. If they're going off at weekends to see their 'real' parent, then it's going to be much harder.

As a child, if you see the adults bringing you up as your parents, and love them as such, it would be a strange relationship if that love wasn't reciprocated.

[formant]

You see to me, that reads "where it is a choice and a woman decides to be a stay at home parent, then that is the wrong choice". If someone makes a lifestyle choice, who are you to judge that choice - especially as you are in involved in neither the decision making nor the impacts of that choice? You're all for men staying at home to parent - you have lots of affection for them - but not for women. That smacks somewhat of double standards.

For society (and the sake of general equality) it is the 'wrong' choice, but I certainly don't expect people to think beyond their own life when making such decisions. Same goes for the other side - for society's sake I welcome men staying at home, just to balance out the opposite arrangement. As a lifestyle choice, I personally think that both parents should have a life/career beyond their children.

So making a decision where both parents are happy because it is the most convenient isn't an acceptable decision? Surely, convenience is one of the things that drives us most? We buy food from a shop because it is more convenient than going to hunt/harvest/gather ourselves.

I'm not one to judge whether it's acceptable. I'm merely saying that when you claim that many are forced into that sort arrangement, that that's not really the case. Do what works for you, but if it's for convenience's sake, don't whine about 'not having a choice'.

What about the case where a woman ears well over £50k but decides that she is no longer engaged in her job and that she would rather do other things?

See above, it's everyone's personal choice. I don't think it's great for society, but that doesn't mean it's not right for the individual. I do however tip my hat to women who've made it to that level in their career so that they even get to choose in the first place.

The problem with this statement is that you come across as believing that a father who works full time as the sole money earner is doing so because they don't want to engage with their children.

That wasn't my intention, those are two separate matters. There is of course quite a bit of overlap, but at the same time a lack of involvement isn't a problem that's limited to fathers. Many mothers just as guilty of that.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this statement is - generally a child will grow closer to one parent than another.

Merely to illustrate by example that I don't think it matters to the child who works full time and who doesn't.

I fail to see why you are so judgmental and pejorative to the 'traditional' model simply because it's not the same as yours.

Because the repercussions of this extremely widespread model bring about issues for anyone who dares not to conform. I have no issue with individual couples' choices in that regard, but I do have issues with the validation in numbers that this model continues to get and how it manifests sexism in society - be that the maternal-bias in family law or the male advantage in the workplace, or simply the fact that my partner isn't allowed to change his daughter in the changing room at Mothercare, because -god forbid- he may spot a nipple on a breastfeeder or randomly decide to sexually abuse his or other children in there. There are countless examples like that around.

[formant]

I think you get a moment of overwhelming love/fear/responsibility when you first hold a baby you've brought into the world. The fact that the birth process is traumatic I think helps this initial bond - if it's that 'kin hard, it's got to be worth having! Clearly you're not going to get this with step kids. To some extent, you'll get it with adoption - you first get to meet your longed for child.

However, I don't think this means you can't grow to love your step-kids as much as your own. I suspect whether this happens comes down to the role you have in their life. If you marry their parent when they're young, and they've no contact with their absent parent and you are fulfilling that role completely (both from the point of view of the child and your partner), then you become their dad/mum and the love (both ways) is likely to happen. If they're going off at weekends to see their 'real' parent, then it's going to be much harder.

As a child, if you see the adults bringing you up as your parents, and love them as such, it would be a strange relationship if that love wasn't reciprocated.

Well said.