Broody men, Jealousy, and Poly

[trueRiver]

I am a little confused by the interaction of two parts of me.

I am broody: I want to have children, I want to be part of my children's upbringing, and it is irrationally important to me to know that some/all of the children I am bringing up are related to me genetically.

On the other hand, I have never really been jealous of partners wanting to be with other partners or (in the few times it has actually happened) of them actually being with other partners.

But where these two points collide is where children are concerned. Suppose (and there is nobody specific in mind when I say this) suppose I get together with XX, (XX is the genetic code for female, of course), and we agree to have children, and we agree to be poly, and suppose she wants relationships with other blokes....

Thinking of this, I start to get where the whole monogamous culture comes from. Like, to be sure who my kids are, I will just enslave half the human race and make sure other blokes don't sleep with 'my' breeding partners. Seems like overkill, and more than a little unfair, but I do see the motivation.

I am sure monogamy is not the answer, but...

Like, OK, so we adopt fluid boundaries, the idea being XX can have sex with other guys without getting pregnant... Yes, but then what if the contraceptive fails... Automatic abortion? that sounds really icky to me...

Or do we say that XX can't have sex with fertile blokes while we are trying for a baby? Is that a fair thing for me to insist on?

How would some of you poly ladies here feel if your bf asked that in those circumstances? You can have sex with other fellas but not risk pregnancy?

Is this horrible and sexist to want the kind of certaintly over who my children are that women get automatically (IVF and other artificial aids excepted) ? Or is it anti-sexist as it undermines patriarchy right at its roots?

Ultimately, this is one of those poly-specific questions that do not arise for monos, but that I will need to discuss with someone one day (at least, that I very much *hope* to have the need to discuss with someone ...), but I'd appreciate any thoughts, theories, ideas, and experiences anyone else has on this.

[nycindie]

You may want to read about the Na of China. Very interesting people. I discovered them through a scholarly review on JStor of the book, A Society without Fathers or Husbands: The Na of China (I have not bought the book yet). Here are some tidbits from the review (publication is American Ethnologist):

The Na have shocked Han Chinese ethnologists
by not having marriage; rather, they practice
visiting relations -- consensual sexual relations
in which both partners remain members
of their natal households and never form an
economic or social union recognizable as
marriage. Na men visit their partners in the
evening and return home by morning to mothers,
aunts, uncles, and siblings, to join in their
own household's work. Either partner can end
a relationship at any time, and both can take
other lovers during or between longer-term
relationships.

In Na matrilineal households, the father is
considered socially unimportant, and, prior to
the Na's inclusion in the communist state, his
identity was often unknown.

The Na share an understanding, albeit flexible,
of the family as the blood or adopted members
of the household; they see the family as central
to their emotional, economic, and social existence
. . . it is because the Na believe that families should
be stable and harmonious that they do not base
family structure on romantic relationships. These
Na say that love for family members is enduring,
whereas passion is fleeting.

Just makes one think a bit about what's important.


PS - I think of the word "broody" as meaning moody, gloomy, sullen, etc., as in someone who's constantly brooding and occupied with dark thoughts. I didn't realize there was a second meaning to the word until your post prompted me to look it up. But then, I don't know anything about chickens!

[MichelleZed]

I can answer this very directly, because it relates to my recent life experience.

I have a husband and a thing going on the side with another man, Sven.

My husband and I were trying to conceive when things got hot and heavy with Sven. I immediately started using birth control with both men for safety reasons, so procreative sex was put on hold. That went on for a few months, and then I stopped having sex with the Sven temporarily. At that point, I began having unprotected sex with my husband again. That way, there was no question of paternity, because on the cycle I conceived, I had sex only with one man. After I became pregnant, I resumed having sex with both men.

If your potential XX partner is poly, she'll probably be having sex with other men. But it probably won't be too much to ask for her to hold off for a few months while you try to conceive. In fact, you could do it like me: a few months of trying, a few months of break, and a few months of trying again. That way, she could even maintain her current partners, who probably won't mind taking just a month off here and there. If you and your potential XX partner have fertility problems, however, and it takes many months or years to conceive, this approach may cause strain on your poly arrangements eventually.

In fact, she need not even take the whole month off. I have irregular cycles, so it is not possible for me to pinpoint ovulation. That meant that I nixed outside sex for entire cycles at a time. But if your future XX has regular cycles and charts them, she will be able to pinpoint ovulation. She can have sex only with you until she ovulates, then give it a nice wide safety window of, say, a week after that. That still leaves her one week at the end of her cycle each month where it is not possible for her to become pregnant, and she could pursue outside sexual contact in that last week.

[trueRiver]

You may want to read about the Na of China.
...
Very interesting people. I discovered them through a scholarly review on JStor of the book, A Society without Fathers or Husbands: The Na of China


er, no thanks. The review snippets you quoted suggest that their culture totally invalidates men who feel as I do.

I do not feel that my gender should prevent me having a parental relationship with the children who carry my genes: the idea that this privelege only extends to women stikes me as profundly androphobic, shades of the 'utopian' ideas Sarah Gearhart was writing in the 70s/80s, ideas that to me are profoundly distopian.


... I think of the word "broody" as meaning moody, gloomy, sullen, etc., as in someone who's constantly brooding and occupied with dark thoughts. I didn't realize there was a second meaning to the word until your post prompted me to look it up. But then, I don't know anything about chickens!

It is quite common in the UK to refer to women who are suddenly facing 'the biological clock' and desperate to have children. Using the phrase 'broody men' is less common, but not unique to me.

Met a man on the tube [subway] the other day, five month baby in snuggle carrier. Said 'i'm so envious, i'm the original broody man' and he replied 'me too'. He does most of the childcare, as his wife is more career focussed.

I am curious, nycindie, as to why you think the contribution to childcare by men like him (and hopefully in future by me) is less important than matrilineal care? I see this as a reverse-sexist mistake by another culture, not as an idea to emulate.

[MichelleZed]

The quote leaves out one important part of the equation... since the men are residing in their mother's houses along with their siblings, a man becomes the "father" to his sister's children, sharing in childcare and being a family. They are not cut off from the next generation.

He still gets to bring up kids. Just not his own (because who knows which are his own?). In terms of genetics, though, he is guaranteed to share genes with his sister's children.

[nycindie]

I am curious, nycindie, as to why you think the contribution to childcare by men like him (and hopefully in future by me) is less important than matrilineal care?I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth.

[Magdlyn]

er, no thanks. The review snippets you quoted suggest that their culture totally invalidates men who feel as I do.

"Totally invalidates?" It's just a different and older world-view. I think it has a lot of value and interest, given the high divorce rate and all the dead beat dads out there in our Western culture. Certainly in some groupings we have today, where baby daddies are common (spread their seed and split), the mother, her mother and father, her sisters and brothers, hired daycare workers, school teachers, etc., are doing this anyway! I'm sure you've heard the saying, it takes a village.

I do not feel that my gender should prevent me having a parental relationship with the children who carry my genes:

If you were Na, you'd have a relationship with your sisters' kids, who also carry the family genes.

... the idea that this privelege only extends to women stikes me as profundly androphobic, shades of the 'utopian' ideas Sarah Gearhart was writing in the 70s/80s, ideas that to me are profoundly distopian.

You're looking at it backwards, man. Matrilineal groupings are an older idea and practice than patriarchal ones.


I am curious, nycindie, as to why you think the contribution to childcare by men like him (and hopefully in future by me) is less important than matrilineal care? I see this as a reverse-sexist mistake by another culture, not as an idea to emulate.

Again, Na men (and others in similar communities) would have plenty of opportunity for childcare, with their nieces, nephews and grandchildren. There would be no worries about caring for "another man's child" as the children would be seen as members of the tribe, not members of a small nuclear family. You could also look at it this way, were your SO to get pregnant by another man in your poly tangle.

[nycindie]

The quote leaves out one important part of the equation... since the men are residing in their mother's houses along with their siblings, a man becomes the "father" to his sister's children, sharing in childcare and being a family. They are not cut off from the next generation.

He still gets to bring up kids. Just not his own (because who knows which are his own?). In terms of genetics, though, he is guaranteed to share genes with his sister's children.

That was the point I was making -- that it isn't important whose seed the children come from (that doesn't mean the men are not important to the culture, mind you, just that it doesn't matter which children are theirs). In that communal culture, the men don't rule the households nor have any ownership over the women or their offspring, because they don't even know who they've fathered, and that information is not integral for the community to thrive and function well. The women who have children raise them with the help of their siblings, including the men, and family is preserved that way. That enables a separation between familial love and sexual love/passion, which frees the adults to take on as many lovers as they wish without recrimination. A rather inspiring and interesting correlation, I think!

I think it is a lesson for many people in contemporary so-called "advanced" society who are so focused on paternity issues that millions of children are waiting to be adopted, yet couples will focus (and spend tens of thousands of dollars) on fertility drugs and artificial insemination just to make sure their bloodline continues. If I wanted to love and raise a child, I don't need to limit that love to only my own.

[trueRiver]

...it isn't important whose seed the children come from (that doesn't mean the men are not important to the culture, mind you, just that it doesn't matter which children are theirs).

it matters to me, and to many men. The fact that it "doesn't matter" to the culture is a way of denying men in that culture the possibility of even thinking whether this is something that matters to them (like making Gay people or Poly people invisible in our culture)

The fact that some cultures make that unattainable is as unacceptable to me as the way our culture tries to make poly unacceptable. In my view, when a culture forces ideas that are unacceptable to a significant proportion of its people (even if that is a minority) then it is the culture that should change, not the individuals.

Does a particular culture exist to serve its people, or do the people exist to serve the culture? The answer to that question determines, for me, whether the culture is oppressive or empowering.

"Totally invalidates?" It's just a different and older world-view. ...

It is an older world view, certainly. It is not a "just different" view, any more than black slavery could be described as a "just different" way of looking at race. It is an unfair view from the past.

It does matter to me to know who my children are.

Please accept that. What I do with that feeling is up for discussion, and I am open to suggestions, that is why |I posted the thread.

I am not open to the idea that I am wrong to feel what I feel. I am not open to the suggestion that I should think about what is more important to you, rather than what feels immensely important to me.

And if you criticise "dead beat dads" who don't care about their kids (and yes there are too many of them), why are you reluctant to understand what motivates those of us who very much do want to be involved: why do you prefer to tell us what we should want, rather than building from what we do want?

[nycindie]

Or do we say that XX can't have sex with fertile blokes while we are trying for a baby? Is that a fair thing for me to insist on?

How would some of you poly ladies here feel if your bf asked that in those circumstances? You can have sex with other fellas but not risk pregnancy?

You can state your preferences but, ultimately, it's up to the woman what she does with her body. All you can do is be prepared financially and legally to handle whatever occurs.

I have some questions: If you had two girlfriends, how would you handle it if they both became pregnant? What if one of them was married? What kind of control could you expect to exert over that situation?

[nycindie]

it matters to me, and to many men.Because you've been taught to believe that it matters by patriarchal society. A child needs love to thrive, and a loving community meets that need.

I would suspect that, if not for the fact that the Na know which bellies children pop out of, it probably wouldn't matter who the mothers are either. This is about creating family and caring for all the children communally, not just the ones who came out of a particular man's seed.

[Tonberry]

I would suggest that when you try she uses physical contraception with any other partners, and none with you. When she gets pregnant, assume it is your kid. If you really want to make sure, get a paternity test done at birth.
Since you said you want some of the kids you raise to be yours biologically but not necessarily all of them, if the kid happens to be genetically someone else's, rince and repeat. At least one of your kids should be yours biologically, and the chances of her getting pregnant from someone else when trying with you and trying to avoid with others are very low.

Other ways to limit the chances are to avoid reproductive sex with other partners while trying to get pregnant with you. So, oral sex, manual sex, anal sex, but no intercourse. That could be a middle ground that would allow for sexual satisfaction, especially if you try for a long time, and would negate the risks of getting pregnant. As to whether it's fair, I don't know, ask them what they think. It's the kind of decision that should be made with everyone involved, after all.

I can't pretend to understand why it matters to you to share genes with the children you raise, after all, I don't want any biological children, but since it's important to you, I think you should make sure to let the other people in your poly circle know right away, because it's probably important. I think another option would be to just let things happen and then take paternity tests if you and another man both want kids, because if the women who are part of the circle want several children, chances are one would be yours. But it seems to be something you really, really care about and don't want to take chances on, so...

Either way, good luck.

[trueRiver]

...
I have some questions: If you had two girlfriends, how would you handle it if they both became pregnant? What if one of them was married?

Firstly, I'd be delighted. I'd spend time with both kids, sometimes both together, sometimes apart. I'd *want* to be contributing around 50% of the childcare for each child.

Secondly, what would I expect? In an ideal world, do you mean? Or in our current disfunctional anti-poly world?

In an ideal world, I'd expect all fathers to have the right to share their children's upbringing, irrespective of who else the mother was in a relationship with. Fathers who refused to do so would (after a reasonable time) lose those rights, or need court process to retrieve the situation later. If there was an ongoing reasonably permanent polyfamily, then I'd expect all the polyparents to have rights too.

In our world, if I had another child with a married woman, I know what would happen, I have been there (thouigh not in a two pregancies at once scenario)

Secondary in a vee, planned pregnancy, when mum changes mind about my involvement in our child's regular care, and just limit me to a few houirs a week, I had no rights at all beyond those few hours. Because mum is married, husband has more rights than I do because that is the relationship the English state wants to encourage. He had "parental responsibility", I did not.

What kind of control could you expect to exert over that situation?
My question here is about what the parties negotiate to happen up front, what is reasonable to ask for, what is unreasonable. It is not about "control" or "ownership". I would, however, assume that everyone was negotiating in good faith, not just figuring that they can agree to anything becasue the law will not enforce it.

I am not sure what you meant by "control" - but I am not going to discuss this further with someone who just wants to tell me what they think I should want


All you can do is be prepared financially and legally to handle whatever occurs.

an accurate statement of English law.

I do not want to sidetrack my own thread any further here, but if you want to start a new thread to discuss whether that legal approach situation is right or just, I will likely join in.

I am not asking for legal advice here, but advice on the human, relationshippy side of the question.

I would like to think that I could trust fellow polys to keep to agreements that have been made. Maybe that is naive.... but I reckon there must be a better chance with polys than with the mainstream.

[trueRiver]

Because you've been taught to believe that it matters by patriarchal society.

nycyndie, I find your persistence with this personally offensive. It is not the topic of this thread to discuss whether men *should* be broody, but how those of us who actually *are* can combine that with being poly. You are of course welcome to start a new thread, but please stop hijacking mine.

But in fact, to correct your incorrect and very presumptious assumption: I was taught to believe that by my feminist mother who believed that equality meant men could take an equal role in parenting, and should do so whenever possible, who encouraged by broody tendencies from around age 3 when she first identified them, and with some delight I think.

She was, of course, from a different generation of feminists from those who subsequently sought to exclude men from childcare.

[trueRiver]

...I can't pretend to understand why it matters to you to share genes with the children you raise, ...

I don't understand it myself, just like I don't understand why I like chocolate, to take a trivial example. But it is a fact about me. Thank you for accepting this and not trying to change it.

[Derbylicious]

It seems to me that ideally you will find partners who share your ideals. The way your original post was worded gave me the knee-jerk reaction of "it's her body and her life and pretty much up to her what she does". You speak a lot of control of who she is allowed to see and what she is allowed to do.

I assume that you're not going to meet someone and immediately work on impregnating them. So there's some time to see if your goals match. There are ways to prevent pregnancy. If you and the woman who you are with have agreed that the 2 of you will be the biological parents of a child I would suggest barrier methods with other partners as well as charting her basal body temperature. That way she can have sex with the apropriate partner on the days that she is fertile.

[trueRiver]

It seems to me that ideally you will find partners who share your ideals. The way your original post was worded gave me the knee-jerk reaction of "it's her body and her life and pretty much up to her what she does". You speak a lot of control of who she is allowed to see and what she is allowed to do. ...

hi Derbylicious,

This is very helpful feedback.

What was it about my original post that gave you that reaction?

If you can say more I'd appreciate it because that is exactly what I do *not* want, that is I neither want to *be* controlling, nor do I want to *come* *across* as controlling (two overlapping issues).

I can understand the pull towards being controlling in this kind of situation, and can find those tendencies in myself, and part of my self-perplexity at present is how to remain true to what I want, without at the same time becoming a control freak in order to (try to) get it.

Does that make sense to you?

[Derbylicious]

Like, OK, so we adopt fluid boundaries, the idea being XX can have sex with other guys without getting pregnant... Yes, but then what if the contraceptive fails... Automatic abortion? that sounds really icky to me...

Or do we say that XX can't have sex with fertile blokes while we are trying for a baby? Is that a fair thing for me to insist on?

How would some of you poly ladies here feel if your bf asked that in those circumstances? You can have sex with other fellas but not risk pregnancy?



This is the part that came across as sounding controlling. Like I said it was my knee-jerk reaction. Especially the part with the agreement of not having sex with fertile men, that would really cut down on her potential dating pool and the potential to let love develop where it will.

[trueRiver]

This is the part that came across as sounding controlling.... Especially the part with the agreement of not having sex with fertile men, that would really cut down on her potential dating pool and the potential to let love develop where it will.

Thanks for your clarity. My thinking here is that it would only be for a time, not for ever, of course. Does that make it feel less controlling?

Do you have any suggestions about how to raise these kind of ideas, or the ones that Tonberry made earlier, so it comes over as 'this is what I would really like' (negotiation) rather than 'this is what you must do' (control).

I have had experience in the past (not on this issue) of attempts at equal negotiation being received as controlling demands, so any more hints you can give me will be useful.

[ImaginaryIllusion]

nycyndie, I find your persistence with this personally offensive. It is not the topic of this thread to discuss whether men *should* be broody, but how those of us who actually *are* can combine that with being poly. You are of course welcome to start a new thread, but please stop hijacking mine.

River~~, your thread is in the General Discussions area, and as such is open for discussion, which may meander from the subject on occasion. If you want a thread protected from opinions counter to your own, then there's the blogs & stories section. As it stands, NYC's comments of patriarchal upbringing are quite relevant to your question if you take the time to look at the root of your feelings and the society around you that reinforces them. You started talking about your confusion, and asked for thoughts and opinions, and NYC's been offering some of what you asked for...maybe just not the ones you were expecting. If you're feeling offended, perhaps ask yourself what's causing that instead of accusing another of hijacking.


I have had experience in the past (not on this issue) of attempts at equal negotiation being received as controlling demands, so any more hints you can give me will be useful.
NYC's example of the Na provides a matriarchal example for comparison, and an alternative view of how the broody need for men to raise children who are genetically related to them can be fulfilled, and with a greater degree of certainty than trying to figure out paternity.

Regardless of the way the Na live, western society is still a Patriarchal Hierarchy, with the passing of property, names, etc, running along paternal lines. The problem being is that up to recently paternity is impossible to determine with absolute certainty, so there's a history of several thousand years of various attempts to control the reproductive capacities of women in the vain attempts of men to ensure their progeny was genetically their own.
Burka's, chastity belts, female circumcision, religiously mandated monogamy, double standards surround adulters vs adultresses, are just a few examples.

I posted links to a Gwynne Dyer documentary here (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showpost.php?p=12454&postcount=6), which is a good backgrounder on where all this patriarchal nonsense comes from, and the consequences of which surround almost everything we do in this society.

So, if you're wondering why your negotiations about ensure paternity take a turn towards accusations of control, it's probably because men have been trying to do as you have for a few millenia, and it's not always appreciated by the women who do the heavy lifting of carrying the baby's to term, give up their bodies to breastfeeding, etc...no matter how politely you may be about asking compared to some ancestors...like say Henry VIII.

[nycindie]

nycyndie, I find your persistence with this personally offensive. It is not the topic of this thread to discuss whether men *should* be broody, but how those of us who actually *are* can combine that with being poly. You are of course welcome to start a new thread, but please stop hijacking mine.

But in fact, to correct your incorrect and very presumptious assumption: I was taught to believe that by my feminist mother who believed that equality meant men could take an equal role in parenting, and should do so whenever possible, who encouraged by broody tendencies from around age 3 when she first identified them, and with some delight I think.

She was, of course, from a different generation of feminists from those who subsequently sought to exclude men from childcare.

Oh, geez, again with putting words in my mouth. If you choose to feel offended by my engaging in a discussion you started and offering a perspective you perhaps hadn't thought of, then you are being very close-minded. Additionally, you've made assumptions about me that are incorrect.

I never said nor implied that you, or any man, should not have a desire to have children. I never made any assumptions about you personally. Where did you get all that? Every response you've written to my posts makes me wonder if you actually read them or not. Your interpretations are absurdly off-base.

I said it is patriarchal society that teaches us all that a child's paternity is of the utmost importance. Yet you seem to be confusing that with some wacky idea you have that I'm against men taking equal part in childraising... huh? That makes absolutely no sense. I said that children need love to thrive. I didn't say men should not be a part of that. I love seeing men take responsibility and raise their kids. However, the fact that patriarchal culture emphasizes such importance on "carrying on the family line" puts a lot of children in orphanages, and a lot of misguided couples through emotional turmoil as they spend all their money at fertility clinics. You even acknowledged in your first post that the importance you place on having biological offspring is irrational.
I am not open to the idea that I am wrong to feel what I feel. I am not open to the suggestion that I should think about what is more important to you, rather than what feels immensely important to me. . . . why do you prefer to tell us what we should want, rather than building from what we do want?

How melodramatic. No one here told you what to feel or think, nor what you should want in your life. We're all just anonymous people on a message board, where you asked for opinions and got them. Taking offense at getting what you asked for is silly -- and rather perplexing, given the fact that you stated: "I'd appreciate any thoughts, theories, ideas, and experiences anyone else has on this." I now realize you didn't actually mean it when you wrote that.

You asked about how to deal with wanting children and raising them in a poly situation. I think it is useful to consider all aspects of the topic. I've seen a few posts here where a unicorn-hunting couple will say, "Our third absolutely cannot get pregnant," which raises the hackles of anyone who supports a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. And, yes, your inquiry into how to tell a woman who would be allowed to impregnate her raised issues of exerting control over a woman's biology. Your questions also reminded me of a tribal society about which I'd read, the Na, which happens to be polyamorous, who successfully raise their children with an approach that does not emphasize the importance of paternity. The men themselves are not unimportant in that culture, just the role of Father is. I think it's wonderful that children in that society are raised by family without the need for a stern father figure or even husbands. How refreshing that everyone, men included, help raise the children of their families and go to work to support the community, not just the ones they sired! I thought the correlation to a polyamorous family was an apt one and I shared it here as a way to illuminate the issue from a different perspective.

What kind of control could you expect to exert over that situation?
I am not sure what you meant by "control" - but I am not going to discuss this further with someone who just wants to tell me what they think I should want.I really cannot fathom how you could possibly misconstrue my genuinely asking how you would be able to control a situation in which you got two partners pregnant, as anything remotely like telling you what you should want. It truly boggles the mind.

Hijacking your thread? No. My contribution to it is quite relevant, which you would see if you stopped reading my posts through your filters of defensiveness, arrogance, and indignation.

.

[Magdlyn]

Does a particular culture exist to serve its people, or do the people exist to serve the culture? The answer to that question determines, for me, whether the culture is oppressive or empowering.

Yeah? So which is more empowering? Being part of an interconnected tribe who have your back, or being a part of a dyad couple who have a 50% chance of divorce, and whose kids then have to deal with the effects of a "broken home?"


It is an older world view, certainly. It is not a "just different" view, any more than black slavery could be described as a "just different" way of looking at race. It is an unfair view from the past.

I don't see what is inherently unfair about it. It's worked for millenia, and has survived even Western patriarchal views to this day. Obviously it works quite well in some cultures.

It does matter to me to know who my children are.

Fine. If you were Na, "your" children would be the ones in the matriarchal tribe.

However, I have had 3 biological kids. I did enjoy the process of conception, pregnancy, birth and lactation, so I am not saying there isn't a thrill in being involved in procreating and raising one's biological children, direct descendants.

But since we are all poly here, and you brought up a good point about determining whose kid is whose, genetically, Cindie brought up another type of culture to show another way things can go in non-patriarchal groups. I am sure she didnt mean to say you were "wrong" to feel broody and wanting to raise you own biological kid(s).



I am not open to the idea that I am wrong to feel what I feel. I am not open to the suggestion that I should think about what is more important to you, rather than what feels immensely important to me.

I am not sure if you were talking to me or Cindie here. It's a bit disturbing to hear you accuse me or us of telling you your "feelings are wrong," considering how important honoring feelings are in poly culture at large.

And if you criticise "dead beat dads" who don't care about their kids (and yes there are too many of them), why are you reluctant to understand what motivates those of us who very much do want to be involved: why do you prefer to tell us what we should want, rather than building from what we do want?

No one is telling you what you should want.

Get a grip, man.

[trueRiver]

River~~, your thread is in the General Discussions area, and as such is open for discussion, which may meander from the subject on occasion....


Fair comment, my mistake then. Let's go wtih the matrilineal discussion, and I will start a separate thread on my personal stuff, later, if I still want to.

...
NYC's example of the Na provides a matriarchal example for comparison, and an alternative view of how the broody need for men to raise children who are genetically related to them can be fulfilled, and with a greater degree of certainty than trying to figure out paternity.


No, for several reasons.

First

I disagree with your description about what is being suggested, and it shows little understanding of the feelings that broody women and men actually experience. No broody woman would accept being an auntie as anything other than a second best for being a mother, yet men are regularly asked to accept that being an uncle is "as good as". That is what is fundamentally sexist in the suggestion. (Or reverse sexist, if you think that makes it different)

I accept that there are possibly or probably *some* men who would find being an uncle as good as or even better than being a father, and it would be good if our society made those options more available, and more recognisable to those men who would be attracted to the idea. (And the Auntie role, too). But that is not the same as telling other men that they "should" want that too, or that they "should" be willing to read whole books published from a perspective of a culture that totally denies the existence of fatherhood as a separate role.

That would be like using an anthropological study of the ancient hebrews to "prove" to aspiring women priests that their vocation could be considered irrelevant.

Second

In the past, I agreee, being an uncle was the second most reliable relationship a man vould ever have with a child (the closest reliable relationship was that of being the much older brother of a much younger maternal sibling).

Things have changed in this respect with reliable paternity testing. Just as fertility control changed the position of women, so too the advent of reliable DNA based paternity tests could change things for men and fatherhood. I think we should take full advantage of technology in both situations (fertility control and knowing parentage).

To apply pre-DNA solutions to questions of fatherhood is as inappropriate, in my view, as to continue to apply pre-pill standards of sexual behaviour to 21st C women and men.

To go back to the matri-lineal standards is to go back further in history than even the evangelicals want: they only want to go back to the bronze age, the pro-matrilineal feminists want to go back maybe twice as far as that. No, the solution to our modern morality does not lie in the past, as they had different knowledge about what they were facing, and a much smaller range of practical solutions to the human problems they faced.

New light for today, not old light from some formerly revered goddess or god.

Thirdly

Yes, I was brought up in a patriarchal society, and that was only partly tempered by the influence of my feminist mother (who was one of a traditional mono pair of parents, and left with more than an equal share of the childcare, and raised her sons to expect to do differently when our turn came). What is odd is that since I arrived at University at age 19, in 1974, it has been other feminists much more than any part of the patriarchal system who have tried to stop that happening. (Unless you are going to take the Foucault line that feminists are ineviatble part of patriarchy anyway).

You see, patriarchy does not teach men to want to do half or more than half of the childcare. That need, whjich I find deep within me, came either from the real me who existed before I was born (*), or was put there deliberately by my feminist mum. Either way (for I do not know how to tell those two apart) the desire is something I have chosen to accept as a part of my identity, and I am not up for people being political about how I should change it. Any more than bi people should ever have had to defend themselves from the RadFem dykelib types.

And then there is the need to know and to care for the children I have fathered. I feel this genuinely. I can compare, having at different times had a step child, and had an uncle-type relationship to the polybrother of my son, and now being in a situation where I have a hardly-known five year old daughter from a failed mono relationship. It is a fact that being the father of my two natural children makes a difference to me that I fell to be important. That difference too is not up for political attack.

Both these differences I can trace back to my earliest memories, around age three. At that time, with the sexist arrangements for childcare in force in the late fifties, those ideas (if they did not have the zen "true River" origin) came to me from a feminist, not directly from patriarchy.

My political analysis is that there are a huge number of feminisms. Some feminisms include an intolerable proportion of androphobia, some don't. (In the same way we can say that in the era addressed by the B in GLB thread (http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13890) there were bi-phobic feminists and those who were not bi-phobic.

I don't intend to stop challenging androphobia, just because it is understandable does not make it morally or politically acceptable, nor does understanding why it arises excuse it when it does.

Fourthly

So given that I carelessly made my initial post in this area of the forum (and, fair comment that was totally my mistake, I no longer blame anyone else for responding to what I said), these feelings either come from a strand of femininsm that repudiates all forms of biological determinism beyond which reproductive apparatus we have, or it comes from the real me, and men do naturally have feelings towards the children they father.

If these feelings were put on my by a feminist for political reasons, and I am now being criticised by other feminists for doing what my prime carer and first example taught me, then what you ladies (and other genders) are doing is playing political football with my head and with my feelings and I want it to stop. I am a human being too, and not a willing object to be kicked around like this.

That is a personal point, and therefore a political one too (as the personal is political, OK?)

Fifthly

I have these feelings which I acknowledge as being within me, and which I own as part of my identity, feelings of wanting to care for the children of whom I am the natural father.

I also have these feelings, which I acknowledge as being within me, and which I own as part of my identity, of wanting to achieve that by responsible adult negotiation with future partners as equals.

I also have these feelings, which I acknowledge as exisitng within me, yet which in contrast to the above two kinds of feelings I do not take as being part of my identity, feelings I want to overcome or at least rise above, of feeling like I "need" to take control in order to have my other feelings even acknowledged. This is the fundamental confusion I was trying to describe in my original post. As a Quaker, as a poly, as an ally-of-the-sort-of-feminism-my-mum-represented-to-me, as a political egalitarian, and for many other good reasons, I do want to root out from myself the controlling approach to problem solving. That was why Derbylicious's contributions were so welcome.

That is not the same as welcoming intrusive suggestions that what I want is not important, or should not be important, or that I am missing the point of my own desires.

Sixthly:

@nycindie

I found your approach to this presumptive, as I have already said. It is a crass mistake to claim that any patriarchal influence is suggesting to men that we want to do 50%+ of the childcare. Had I been saying I want to know who my children are so I can take them to McDonalds for two hours once a month, then your claim would be plausible: that is what the system (at least in England) tells Dads is reasonable contact.

In my first post I had said "I am broody: I want to have children, I want to be part of my children's upbringing, and it is irrationally important to me to know that some/all of the children I am bringing up are related to me genetically."

What I meant was that I am accepting this desire as part of me in a way that transcends rational choice. In the past, women have used that word to allude to their own experience of being broody, and certainly it gels within me.

Therefore to attempt to give me rational reasons for changing that choice seemed to me, and still seems to me, to be going directly against what I had already thought I'd said is a beyond-rational fact of my being.

Perhaps by the inclusion of that word "irrationally" you thought I was inviting help to overcome the feelings? Some killer argument that would make them change? (ImaginaryIllusion's post helped me to see that this is how you took it, and while I was considering my reply, you have confirmed this).

As that is how you understood me then I guess I got what I asked for (but not what I meant to ask for).


Finally

@ImaginaryIllusion

Thanks for your intervention. You guessed correctly, I think, that i had not grasped the implications of where I had chosen for my original post.

----

(*) a zen idea, that I sometimes believe, and sometimes seems beyond possibility

[Magdlyn]

TRiver, you're my age! I was 19 in 1974 as well. You and I are no spring chickens. We are 56 years old.

"I am broody: I want to have children, I want to be part of my children's upbringing, and it is irrationally important to me to know that some/all of the children I am bringing up are related to me genetically."

You want to find a young fertile woman who will live with you and this hypothetical infant you want to raise, to nurture, to cuddle and diaper and bathe and play with. To spend sleepless nights walking the floors with it, to clean up its considerable messes, to deal with its tantrums and various psychological quirks and issues as it grows from a newborn to adulthood.

You are also polyamorous and expect a young mother (somewhere in her 20s or 30s, and therefore much less mature psychologically than you) of your imagined child will also be poly, and have a chance of being impregnated by another man.

May I just say, I am in awe of your energy, hopes and desires in late middle age.

[nycindie]

Sheesh, my post was simply offering another perspective from a different culture. Personally, I like learning about other cultures. You could've just said, "oh, interesting" and moved on, or not responded at all if it wasn't your cup of tea. Instead, you chose to feel offended, became defensive, and claimed that I and others were somehow trying to invalidate your feelings and philosophy on this. Your reaction was way over the top and bordering on childish. Now you are still insisting that I am presuming something about YOU (honestly, you're not that important to me), and you say I am somehow being crass by posting a review of a book about another culture as a way to offer that there are many ways to be polyamorous and raise children. Whatever, man. You are exhausting to the point of irritation. Continue to ramble on and on with your ideas of feminism and androphobia, but next time you ask for "any thoughts, theories, ideas, and experiences anyone else has" on a topic, be prepared for all manner of responses, some of which you won't like. Either that, or be more truthful and ask only for responses that fit into the narrow viewpoint to which you subscribe. Good luck.

[MichelleZed]

Yeah, I think you got a wrong impression from this, OP. I don't see any posts saying that the Na's cultural norms are something you should strive for or want for yourself now. Obviously, it wouldn't work very well today because our society is set up differently than theirs.

It just seemed like people were giving you some interesting food for thought.

I want to point out, though, that Na uncles aren't really uncles in the same way people are uncles today. They share a household with their sisters and kids.

[BrigidsDaughter]

Yeah, I think you got a wrong impression from this, OP. I don't see any posts saying that the Na's cultural norms are something you should strive for or want for yourself now. Obviously, it wouldn't work very well today because our society is set up differently than theirs.

It just seemed like people were giving you some interesting food for thought.

I want to point out, though, that Na uncles aren't really uncles in the same way people are uncles today. They share a household with their sisters and kids.

And by share households, we mean that they are the male figure in the household - they act as "father" to their sister's children because familial ties are martriarchal. Therefore, their children would belong to the mother's family and as such are not considered their sons or daughters, instead their sister's children would essentially be their sons and daughters for purpose of parenting. Thus insuring that they are raising only children who are biologically related to them. It is an interesting culture.

[trueRiver]

TRiver, you're my age! I was 19 in 1974 as well. You and I are no spring chickens. We are 56 years old.

good joining of the dots Magdlyn, yes born April 55

You want to find a young fertile woman who will live with you and this hypothetical infant you want to raise, to nurture, to cuddle and diaper and bathe and play with. To spend sleepless nights walking the floors with it, to clean up its considerable messes, to deal with its tantrums and various psychological quirks and issues as it grows from a newborn to adulthood.

live together or not, I want that relationship with a baby from very young upwards, yes, always have. I have had several attempts at that, twice with a child I have fathered and others with step children, in several different living patterns (couple, commune, separate homes).

Gave up on the idea of the child being fathered by me in 2000 when got involved with single parent and ended up doing lots of the childcare, did more of the school stuff (seeing stepdaughter in special school events, etc) than mum, figured that at my age then and with no offers in sight having a step d was best I was likely
to get. We never lived together, but we had keys to each other's places and I would do the school run and give step d her tea at either place depending.

Then after four years of telling me she never wants a second child, she gets broody, can we...

Plans for my daughter, before she was conceived, were that we would share childcare roughly equally but as soon as weaning was over that childcare would be split between our separate homes. Promises were made, and forgotten as soon as she was pregnant and decided to cut me off from step d and to do everything possible to prevent me seeing the then unborn child.

So bear with me please if I seem reluctant to look at arrangements where men are encouraged to be involved in childcare if that involvement is mediated through a maternal veto.

And that was not the first time for me either - I been cut off from other people's children with whim I have bonded before, and was not allowed to do much of the childcare for my son, who is somewhat older, and that again involved a serious breach of. my trust.

The Na arrangement would be more stable in that sense, and had I been born in that culture I am likely to have done better there than I have here. In that theoretical sense nycindie is right: but it does not give me any practical help for coping with this society. Applied to this society the denial of the father role simply adds one more reason to 'justify' the overridning importance of the mother, a view pushed by patriarchy and by too many feminists, in an odd alliance.

You are also polyamorous and *expect* a young mother ...

no, not expect (my emphasis there). I'd say hope rather than expect... and poly or mono, I have been in both in the past and if someone wanted a child with me now, almost everything would be negotiable, except i'd want to really believe I was going to get a fair chance to do the childcare this time. I've wanted to do that for 53 years, which takes me back to the birth of my brother, and seeing mum with him and knowing this was what I wanted when I grew up, and being encouraged by her to believe it is possible, and not realising till much later that our society does not want men who want that.

So I figure my best two remaining hopes are broody career women (mono/poly/whateveer) who are looking for a guy who is up for doing lotsa childcare, or some polytangle with similar needs for several kids...


May I just say, I am in awe of your energy, hopes and desires in late middle age.
why, thank you :)

but except when I look in the mirror, I don't feel older than I did in 1985, more cynical perhaps, but no older inside.... and 'late middle age' is clearly right by the calendar but has no connection with how I see myself.

Interestingly, in Woman on the Edge of Time (feminist utopia, mid 70s, Marge Piercy) it is the elderly who do much of the care of the very young, because their sleep patterns match. I can identify with that - I would do better now with a teething baby than I would have at 26, because I rarely sleep through the night now, usually awake for a while in the early hours.

[Magdlyn]

Gave up on the idea of the child being fathered by me in 2000 when got involved with single parent and ended up doing lots of the childcare...
Then after four years of telling me she never wants a second child, she gets broody, can we... [get pregnant]

...Promises were made, and forgotten as soon as she was pregnant and decided to cut me off from step d and to do everything possible to prevent me seeing the then unborn child.

How is it possible that your role as biological father was so ignored that you lost even partial custody? I can see you feel very wounded by that. I don't understand. What went so wrong, and how could you prevent that in future?


So I figure my best two remaining hopes are broody career women (mono/poly/whatever) who are looking for a guy who is up for doing lotsa childcare, or some polytangle with similar needs for several kids...

Keeping in mind that you are 56 and with a cultural life expectancy of 70ish, if you met a woman tomorrow and she got pregnant on your first date, you'd be ailing or dead by the time the kid was in her mid teens... hm.



Interestingly, in Woman on the Edge of Time (feminist utopia, mid 70s, Marge Piercy) it is the elderly who do much of the care of the very young, because their sleep patterns match. I can identify with that - I would do better now with a teething baby than I would have at 26, because I rarely sleep through the night now, usually awake for a while in the early hours.

Ach. It's hard enough being up several times a night when one is in their 20s and 30s, healthy, vital and strong. Personally I work as a nanny, and am usually exhausted after 4 or 5 hours caring for the infant twin boys, and their 5 year old sister. Never mind being up several times a night for feeding and soothing... Hence my "awe."

[Tonberry]

No broody woman would accept being an auntie as anything other than a second best for being a mother, yet men are regularly asked to accept that being an uncle is "as good as".

I'm not sure if that's completely true.
I think motherhood is define by both genes and pregnancy. In your case what you want is the genes. There are women who are perfectly content to have the pregnancy without the genes (with IVF), others to have the genes without the pregnancy (surrogate mother) and yet others to have none (adopting).
Because men don't have pregnancy to begin with, all 3 are at the same level, but for women it might be different. It's quite possible that for many of them, it's the pregnancy experience that matters, more than the genes themselves.

[peabean]

So, I'm guessing that the child you conceived with this woman is out there somewhere? You could pursue some amount of custody of this child. You can get a court order for a DNA test and that would give you parental rights to this child.

I understand your desire to have 50%+ of childcare right from the start but as a young mother myself I don't think this is realistic. I am one of those 'broody career women' that you speak of finding. I had it in my head that since I had to carry the baby for 9 months AND go through labor, as soon as the baby was out my husband and I would return to our 50/50 division of labor.

Ha! Double HA! That is just not what babies want! They want to nurse and nurse and nurse!! I never expected that he would be able to do so little in terms of direct childcare in that first year. With a nursing baby sleep is at a premium so night time wakings meant I popped her on the boob and tried to get us both back to sleep ASAP.

What my husband could do during this time was support me. That is what a new mother needs. That is his 50%. It's the cooking, cleaning, getting me water (when you first start nursing you drink gallons a day!) and all the other things that need to be done to maintain our lives. He was able to rock her, hold her but since she ate every 2 hours, for 30 minutes at a time...well you do the math.

So, I guess I'm saying that I think you have some unrealistic expectations about early parenthood and how much a father can do. Even when the mother DESPERATELY wants him to take 50% of the work, it doesn't matter. Really, it's all about what the baby wants, which is it's mom. Those, unfortunately for men like you (and my husband) are the dictates of biology.

[NeonKaos]

OK, I can't keep quiet about this.

Is wanting a kid about you (the OP) or about the kid? If it's about you and your needs, just don't have another kid. It's gotta be about wanting to give the kid everything. It's NOT ABOUT YOU. It's NOT about your DNA, your ego, or some unsatiated yearning you have to participate in a child's upbringing at every stage of its life. It has to be about sacrificing what YOU WANT and if you're not ready to do that before you have a kid, how are you going to do it after?

Do your as-yet-nonexistent kid a favor and don't have it.

[nycindie]

So bear with me please if I seem reluctant to look at arrangements where men are encouraged to be involved in childcare if that involvement is mediated through a maternal veto.I hardly think the Na women all got together and vetoed male involvement. Yeah, just imagine them all sitting in a back room some centuries ago, where they all conspired and said "let's not have husbands and let's keep the men from knowing who their kids are 'cause we don't want their help." What makes you think it wasn't a mutual decision, that the men welcomed because it gave them the freedom of having multiple sexual partners without worrying about jealousy from siring offspring with "another man's" woman? How about they look at their sisters' children as their own because they have close familial ties to the siblings and cherish their children, and have no need for self-aggrandizement from fatherhood as you do? You seem to think the Na men are sad, but you haven't even considered that perhaps they don't see children as possessions with labels on them that demarcate to whom they belong, and they simply love the children in their own households without question.

I agree with NK. If the goal is to nurture and protect a child, to further their emotional and intellectual growth, and raise them to be good, productive, vital forces in their own lives, then why should it matter whose sperm they came from? If love is the overriding force, any child can be loved. You said earlier in this thread that a broody woman would never "settle" for being an aunt, which is simply not true. Many women are happily willing to be aunts, foster parents, and adoptive mothers. Not enough, though, because either they have succumbed to patriarchal brainwashing or their paternity-obsessed husbands won't let them. Having to know that a child is your own is egotistical and certainly doesn't put the child's needs first.

[Magdlyn]

Many women are happily willing to be aunts, foster parents, and adoptive mothers.

Of course!

Not enough, though, because either they have succumbed to patriarchal brainwashing or their paternity-obsessed husbands won't let them. Having to know that a child is your own is egotistical and certainly doesn't put the child's needs first.

Well... as a dyed in the wool crunchy granola mom, I longed since childhood to birth and breastfeed my own babies. It really felt like a biological imperative, and I did a damn good job of it. Had we had fertility problems, I would've been heartbroken, but I would have adjusted and adopted a needy child or children, Asian, African or any other ethnicity. I would have induced lactation and co-slept and wore them in cloth slings, fed them whole foods, overseen their health care, and homeschooled them, and everything else I did with my kids.

Now, at my advanced age, I continue to volunteer with my breastfeeding/parenting group as I have for the past 22 years. I also work as a nanny to get my "baby fix." I would not take on the care of an infant full time now as TRiver wants to do, because I wouldn't want them to have to deal with the likelihood of losing me in mid-adolescence.

[nycindie]

Having to know that a child is your own is egotistical and certainly doesn't put the child's needs first.
Well... as a dyed in the wool crunchy granola mom, I longed since childhood to birth and breastfeed my own babies. It really felt like a biological imperative . . . Oh, my statement didn't come out right at all now that I see it again!

Of course, I know there is a wonderful bond that happens between a parent and their biological children, and I don't think it's egotistical in general for people to want children - of course not! What I meant was that those who are obsessed and so focused on that aspect, as if who the child comes from is the most important thing about having a child, comes out of ego. In that sense, they're not looking at the kids' needs first, they're looking at the kid to fulfill this obsessive need or some feeling of emptiness in themselves. And that's a terrible burden to place on a child.

[Magdlyn]

OK then. *hugs*

[Tonberry]

I think the Na customs aren't that different from ours until recently: they raise whichever kid is born into their family as their own. In that case, the mother is their sister.
But until recently, and to some extent still today, people would just raise their wives' kids like they were the father, even if they weren't always. Now there are paternity tests so you can check but I bet many people don't.
I don't think you need a poly relationship for it to be a risk.

I remember when I was a kid that there was a figure that I heard a bunch that one in four kids didn't have the assumed biological father. I remember the figure clearly because we were four kids in the family and there was a lot of jokes that one of us statistically wasn't my father's biological offspring.
If that figure was true, it still meant a significant portion of raising genetically unrelated kids, while with the Na there is a gene relation even if it's not direct.

I do admit I don't personally understand what difference it makes. I mean I get the pregnancy thing, it's about physical contact and such, I get breastfeeding as well. But genes? I don't understand what they matter or what they're worth. Do I share my parents' genes? Probably but does that make them my parents? Hell no! The time they've spent on me makes them my parents.
Do I consider myself more linked to them because of DNA? No, I consider myself linked to them because of expressions or gestures we share due to living together for a long time.

I guess it's probably a big part of why I've never cared about having biological children. I guess it's good to know what to expect as far as hereditary conditions are concerned, but it's the only advantage I can think of and I'm just not sure what the difference really is. I mean you might not even know. If it made a big difference, surely you would know at first glance, right?

Not asking for any justification here. I'm just explaining that I don't get it at all. I'm sure it's an instinct so that the species keeps going, and something about feeling one's genes are superior (not necessarily consciously) and need to be carried on, but I don't think I'll ever get it.

[MichelleZed]

TrueRiver, I'm pregnant right now and I have to say that I wouldn't consider veto-ing the father's parental rights, because I'm already exhausted and the baby hasn't even come yet! It's scary to think of doing this all on my own. I am going to need my husband's help, and a lot of other help.

So what happened with that woman who "veto"ed your parental rights? How did that relationship become so damaged? Did you have a role in that falling out, and would it be helpful for you to take a look at what happened and see if you could have done something differently?

In any case, it sounds like your relationship was a bit on the unstable side. I'm not saying this is a requirement, but it's nice to be living with, and in a stable relationship with, the mother of your kids so that you are really around to take care of HER that first year while she takes care of the baby. To participate in a child's care, it is so nice if you can participate in your whole family's care for those first few years. It's not just about whisking the kid away to your apartment for some dad-time. You have to be willing to nurture the whole family relationship and take care of mamma, too! In fact, trying to get between a mother and her child may have been what made this woman feel uncomfortable in the first place. It has to feel like you are supporting the mother-child bond.

You say that you'd be happy to take care of the children while she went back to work--and that sounds like a fantastic arrangement that many women would go for--but that won't happen at least for the first few months to the first year if she is on mat leave because she will be breastfeeding.

I am kind of confused about what you really want, which is fine, because I bet you feel a bit confused too. It's hard to reconcile your dreams and aspirations for your life with what's actually happened, sometimes. Sometimes, we don't get what we wanted and we have to adjust a bit and find joy in what we have.

To that end, I have a little advice about finding joy:

1) You already have two biological children out there in the world. You are their father. Don't give up on them because you missed their toddler years. Relationships can be repaired, slowly. I say you do what you can to let them (and their mothers) know that you are thinking of them and that you want to be in their lives.

Advance slowly if the relationship has been damaged somehow. Send letters and birthday gifts, and don't worry if you don't get a response for awhile. They may not trust you yet. Talk to their mothers and say you want to be a part of your children's lives.

I don't know how old your children are, but you can maybe go on age-appropriate outings with them. A young child could go to the zoo or the science centre--take their mother too, and any other young siblings. Let them know that you care about them, so you care about their whole family. An older kid might want to go to a concert or a car race or whatever they're into.

Good luck!

2) Don't give up hope about having another kid. You're on the old side, but not too old to reproduce. Unfortunately, if you want your experiences to be different this time, you're going to have to do it differently. You're going to have to date single women with the idea that it's leading towards marriage and family. It's nice to have that kind of stability in a child-rearing situation, and it's what many women want. It will also ensure you're in the household to share in all those child-care duties you want to experience.

Dating seriously is hard and you might have to make sacrifices. You've talked about how you might not want a poly woman in case there are paternity issues. BUT you're more likely to run into the opposite problem. Is a single woman who wants to get married and have children with you going to want a poly man? Possibly not, TrueRiver. Would being monogamous be something you would be willing to consider?

If you included monogamous women in your search for a mom-of-your-kids, you might be widening the pool, is all I'm saying. But that would mean you might have to change your lifestyle a bit, and I don't know if that's a sacrifice you'd be willing to make.

3) It sort of sounds like, in addition to a relationship with your own kids, you want to have a role in childcare, carting babies in carriers around town in a carrier, etc. Might I suggest a career change? You should get some training and then try to be hired as a nanny! I suspect that some couples would be unwilling to hire an older man as a nanny, because they are sexist assholes. But some might look at your education and enthusiasm and hire you to spend hours a day taking care of their children. Worth a thought.

[AnnabelMore]

Totally off-topic, apologies, but... Michelle, thank you. :) I just wrote a super long piece of advice in the New section and I was thinking, am I crazy or delusional for spending all this time and all these words giving my perspective to someone I've never met and who very well may not agree/care. It's nice to see I'm not the only one who's feeling the role of the long-winded, quixotic sage today. :)

[AnnabelMore]

Also, please note River, I'm not saying you'd be less likely to listen/care than anyone else at all, it's just that usually people go their own way no matter what you say.

Sorry again for the threadjack!

[trueRiver]

How is it possible that your role as biological father was so ignored that you lost even partial custody?

The Dad has no rights in England or Scotland (different legal systems, but similar in this respect) unless either the parents were married or the Mum voluntarily puts the Dad on the birth certificate.

(Talk about dumb legislators: before that that law was passed, most Mums would put the Dad on the certificate, which was nice for the child. Now any Mum planning to be awkward simply refuses to say who the Dad is when they fill out the birth certificate)

The Dad would usually get some contact, if paternity can be proven, or is admitted, but even then not shared residence. (custody is called residence over here).

In my case, ex admitted to the courts that I was the Dad (one thing I do have to remember to be grateful for, she could have made that one difficult too), but did not put me on the birth certificate.

However if the Mum really kicks up a fuss for years on end, eventually the system gives in and lets her have her way.

In between seven and eight hours time as I write this, it will be exactly two years since I last saw my daughter. We said goodbye, see you in three weeks (five hours every three weeks was the contact I got), then even that failed.

I can't answer your other questions: I am posting here under a recognisable name, and I have not yet given up on the Courts. One thing that really annoys them is discussing the cases in public....


... how could you prevent that in future?

only by picking someone I'd trust and getting that decision right next time around...and my track record there sucks. I want too much to believe it is going to work this time

And that is part of the pull towards polys: the habit of honesty in other parts of their lives has got to be an advantage.



Keeping in mind that you are 56 and with a cultural life expectancy of 70ish, if you met a woman tomorrow and she got pregnant on your first date, you'd be ailing or dead by the time the kid was in her mid teens...


Yes, big problem. That was why in the early 2000's I decided to stick with the relationship with my ex, and my uncle/father role with the step d, rather than continue looking for what I really wanted.

It was the thing we discussed most when ex became broody: was it fair to the child to have a father so old? My Dad died when I was 14, so this is quite personal for me.

But having given up on the dream once, and had a surprise reprise of the dream, and then having had it snatched away again, I am finding it much harder to give it up this time round.

And at the same time I describe it as a 'hope' not an 'expect'.

But it is not quite as bad as you suggest, working from the cultural expectation of 70. In fact, the older you get, the later you expect to die, because you proved you didn't get one of the early deaths. When I last did the quiz, it predicted that someone of my gender, age, health, and excercise diet, drink, smoking (never) habits would on average make it to 81. If I want to see my child to age 18, that gives me 7 years till s/he needs to be born. But still the sooner the better, because an average is only an average, I could last longer, but equally could go sooner...



Ach. It's hard enough being up several times a night when one is in their 20s and 30s, healthy, vital and strong. Personally I work as a nanny, and am usually exhausted after 4 or 5 hours caring for the infant twin boys, and their 5 year old sister. Never mind being up several times a night for feeding and soothing... Hence my "awe."
I am up several times a night anyway. I usually spend 8-9 hours in bed, but only sleep for about three bursts of two hours each. This has crept up on my nighttimes in the last few years. But suddenly, I understand what Marge Piercy was getting at about the sleep patterns...

Twin infants, maybe a challenge too far....

And yes, I say I'd do it all, but I have always always said that 50-50 is better, and a multi-way split even better still. Several parents, either a group of monos or a polytangle, has always seemed the ideal way to me... even tho I accepted a different arrangement with my recent ex.

[trueRiver]

Oh, my statement didn't come out right at all now that I see it again!

I am glad you posted that line before I responded, nycindie.


Of course, I know there is a wonderful bond that happens between a parent and their biological children, and I don't think it's egotistical in general for people to want children - of course not! What I meant was that those who are obsessed and so focused on that aspect, as if who the child comes from is the most important thing about having a child, comes out of ego. ....

But I stll think this is unfair. Many many many women feel like this, and it is totally accepted. When one in a whatever many women feels exactly the same as all the others, but has reproductive problems, people say she has an ego issue if she goes for the full technology. I say she's as entitled too use tech to become fertile as other women in other situations use tech to prevent fertility. We are no longer as a species dependent on nature for controlling fertility, and that works both ways...

And as for me, all I can tell you is my brother was born just five days before my third birthday, and by the time he was a few months old I knew this was what I wanted to do. And because it was seeing my mum look after him, I wanted to be as close to being a mum as a boy can get. And Mum gave me every encouragement, and never warned me that the world ain't set up to allow that to happen easily.

And in my experience, it seems to be the feminist women, rather than the mainstream system, who do most to prevent it happening.

And there are huge numbers of women who tell a bloke that is good, that they wish their fella would want to do more (or even some) of the childcare, but it always seems to be on the basis that the man has no right to be there as soon as the woman changes her mind. She has a right to her own life, it is said, and to take the children along with her in that life.

Several people posted that I overreacted against what you said earlier in this thread, and I took time out to think.

I do owe you an apology.

But I want you to understand that it hurts when you bond with a child or a step child (I have experience of both) and then the bond is broken simply because the woman changes her mind. It has happened to me several times, it has happened to most of my male friends, many of them more than once...

And nobody nobody nobody even dreams of expecting that of a woman.

And maybe it really is better with the Na, but the idea of still being dependent on the Mum for contact with the child, even if the mum is my sister not my partner, still leaves me fearful. And then do I miss out if I only have brothers (as is the case?).

No, for me the solution is to move towards more equality, not back to a system that was invented before men's part in producing children was understood.

[nycindie]

I do owe you an apology. Was that the apology? Usually apologies are worded "I'm sorry" or "I apologize." I think you're kind of acknowledging an apology is due but you don't really want to.

It doesn't matter, anyway. I don't actually think one is necessary because I didn't take anything you wrote personally and I wasn't offended. I just found you frustrating, exasperating, and irritating to converse with because you kept twisting everything I said as if I had some dastardly purpose other than sharing information and another viewpoint.

But I want you to understand that it hurts when you bond with a child or a step child (I have experience of both) and then the bond is broken simply because the woman changes her mind.

How arrogant to think I don't understand. You know nothing about me. Now that I am divorcing, I will probably never see my stepson again. The fact that he did not come from my womb does not make it any less of a wrench from my heart. You think you're so exceptional and special for having these experiences? Geez, get off your high horse.

[MichelleZed]

But I stll think this is unfair. Many many many women feel like this, and it is totally accepted. When one in a whatever many women feels exactly the same as all the others, but has reproductive problems, people say she has an ego issue if she goes for the full technology.

Well, which is it? Are a woman's feelings about having biological children "totally accepted" or do "people say she has an ego issue"?

I say she's as entitled too use tech to become fertile as other women in other situations use tech to prevent fertility. We are no longer as a species dependent on nature for controlling fertility, and that works both ways...

We are still a little dependent. For some women, nothing technology can do can render them able to carry a child. For all men, technology can also do nothing about this. Both men and totally infertile women have to accept, somehow, that they will never carry a child.

There's nothing we can do to get you pregnant so you can carry your own kid, so you'll have to just get over that. You have other options available to you:

1) Adopt or foster parent
2) Convince some woman to carry your biological child by being in a relationship with her that encourages co-parenting
3) Convince some woman to carry your biological child by having her be your surrogate, and bring up the child yourself

All three of these options are really difficult to get going and require a good amount of hurdle leaping. Well... yeah. Welcome to everyone's world. Children and successful co-parenting relationships don't just fall out of the sky for anyone.

In some ways, men have an advantage in this. I was talking to my dental hygienist, who is in her 50's. She dated an older man through her 20's and 30's, and he didn't want children, and so they refrained from having them through all her fertile years. He left her when she was in her 40's, and she regrets not having a biological child. She feels like she missed out on kids all for this guy who left her.

Both you and my dental hygienist had life experiences that maybe didn't work out the way you or she wanted. Both of you had relationships that turned sour, chances for kids or parenting that didn't work out. Both of you regret that now.

The difference? You are still fertile, and she is not. You have a chance, and she doesn't, because you are a man.

So don't go around saying that women have all the biological luck here.

And in my experience, it seems to be the feminist women, rather than the mainstream system, who do most to prevent it happening.

Really? Feminists prevent men from parenting their children? Woah, buddy. You seem to have alienated two women, the mothers of your two children, to such an extent that they won't allow you to have contact with them. Was that because they were "feminists"? Because I am beginning to suspect it is because they just plain don't like you.

I think a man has a right to partial custody of his biological child, provided it is determined by the courts to be in the best interests of that child. But you're saying that you don't have legal rights to your children in your country. So... isn't that the "mainstream system" preventing you from contact, not feminists everywhere?

Generalized vitriol against women everywhere is hardly going to get you one step closer to your dream of finding a woman willing to carry your child and then co-parent with you. I suggest you reconsider your attitude, pronto.

And maybe it really is better with the Na, but the idea of still being dependent on the Mum for contact with the child, even if the mum is my sister not my partner, still leaves me fearful. And then do I miss out if I only have brothers (as is the case?).

Again, no-one is suggesting that you adopt the Na system as a practical solution to your problem. It was just a different way of looking at genetics and parenting that was food for thought for you as you mull over these issues.

[Magdlyn]

And maybe it really is better with the Na, but the idea of still being dependent on the Mum for contact with the child, even if the mum is my sister not my partner, still leaves me fearful. And then do I miss out if I only have brothers (as is the case?).

No, for me the solution is to move towards more equality, not back to a system that was invented before men's part in producing children was understood.

If you were in a small village, there'd be rugrats running around everywhere. You'd be free to bond with any or all of them as you chose, I'd reckon. And if you died, they'd still have lots of "mommies/aunts" and "daddies/uncles" to depend on.

I'm sorry your ex and you became so estranged she prevented more than occasional contact with your daughter right from the start, and now somehow has not even allowed the court ordered visitation. Good luck with that.

[trueRiver]

...
I'm sorry your ex and you became so estranged she prevented more than occasional contact with your daughter right from the start, and now somehow has not even allowed the court ordered visitation. Good luck with that.

Thanks M.

River~~

[redpepper]

This thread is filled with people who are deeply hurt and wounded by others it seems. Its a shame that there is not some kind of coming together over those similarities rather than more hurt and wounding going on... I find that people spend far too much time involved with their own feelings to adequately empathize and express their concern for other peoples feelings... too bad really as it seems to me that healing happens when people empathize.

I am left feeling very fortunate that I choose to let my roll as a parent be shared with the two men in my life. My boy has three parents as a result and none of us are giving that up, nor are we taking it away from the others... my point of view has always been that there should be abundance of love in my relationships rather than scarcity. A child should be loved by whomever is there to love them and care for them. The more the merrier when it comes to loving a child (or anyone for that matter).

If my child was taken away because of circumstance, the most I would want for THEM is that they be loved and cared for by SOMEONE,,, or MANY people. It doesn't have to be me, but I would be damned hurt and angry if it wasn't. I think I would grasp on to the notion that that is my ego talking and that has nothing to do with the care and love my child gets. In time I would like to think I would be able to participate again in their lives.... I think I would work on letting it go rather than regretting and holding anger and my dream of parenting in the way I originally thought I would or should.

I feel for you Trueriver. You sound like a man in deep pain over this and I wish you relief from it. I don't know if that is possible by making another child and raising it the way you would of preferred however.... it does sound like you would be using the situation to fulfill a deep rooted need you have and I would wonder if it would be healthy. I would wonder what would happen if things ended up similarly as your other children's situations! More pain, more hurt.... perhaps you should cut your losses and spend time with children who have no men in their lives who desperately could use a decent role model. I would think it would almost be guaranteed that there would be positive results from that in terms of getting your needs met to parent...

[trueRiver]

@Redpepper,thank you for your kind words.

You are exactly the Mother I wanted for my child/ren [this is not a proposition by the way] and exactly what I thought I'd found 25 years ago. Sadly in those days the distinction between swinging and poly had not been recognised; it was all called open or swinging. The recognition that some open couples were open to additional loving relationships and others only to explicitly non-loving relationships was only just forming in people's minds. The importance of very careful negotiation was not yet recognised to the extent it is now (for example in this forum)

But you have put your finger on another big issue for me: I wanted my child to have multiple parents (ie more than two) as well as wanting to be one of those parents.

In the early years of this century I made the precise decision you are now suggesting: I focussed on being a step parent to someone from age five onwards. I fully intended that to last till she left home. I can't say much more, but it was when the mother of that child suddenly went broody (totally against my or her previous expectations) that we decided to go for a child together; and then that failed almost as soon as she was pregnant and I not only lost the unexpected chance to have a second chance at helping care for a baby, I also at the same time lost my step child of ten years age and of five years of bonding ....

So the step child rot looks as dodgy as any other option, from where I now find myself.

Logically, what I decided in 2001 or 2002 still makes sense, just the way you say, and just the way Magdlyn syas too (cos she gave other good logical reasons for the same conclusion).

Unfortunately, I am not a robot or a dalek, I have these awkward things called feelings too. And having given up my first best dream ten or so years ago, only to have it unexpectedly handed me on a plate and then snatched away again, leaves me feeling it very much harder to give up on the dream this time round.

Perhaps I will never get the chance, perhaps I will. But if someone offers me the opportunity, and if I feel I can trust them to actually keep promises after the baby arrives, I really cannot imagine me saying no. And that is even with the mindful understanding of the logical validity of your advice. It all makes logical sense; it makes no emotional sense to me at all.

So what seems much more useful to me would be advice on

- what promises are reasonable to ask for,
- whether other poly people feel promises in these situations should be kept or whether ultimately it always remains up to the woman if she feels differently later to just ignore what was promised (I have found both strands of thought within poly, and not just in this kind of situation)
- and how do I tell the difference between those who make promises to keep and those who make them relying all along on being able to change their minds later (which I now feel one of my previous partners did)

because those kinds of advice are more likely to affect what I actually do, and more likely to make the difference between there being a new happy child with 3+ parents or another child with a single mum and and no relationship with any dad.

And poly, as it has now developed, does seem to offer some hope: there is all this emphasis on negotiation and agreements, and I find myself hoping that that makes a better chance of long term plans actually working out long term, as indeed they have for you. Your success in building what I want makes me enormously envious, and at the same time enormously hopeful.