<p>My mother always worked full time when my sister and I were growing up, at least in part because she knew she would have gone nuts if she was home full-time with kids. We were far better off in the care of our grandmother, who actually enjoyed the company of children.</p>
<p>My parents got divorced when I was 9 and my sister was 6. My mother was the custodial parent after that, but I have often wondered whether she would have preferred not to be. Society’s expectations in that area are pretty strong, though – at least in her generation and ours.</p>
<p>Maybe they were not so strong in earlier times, though. In my own family, there was an instance (in the early 1900s), when a young couple with a child divorced and the child was placed in the care of the paternal grandparents, apparently with the consent of all concerned. And on the other side of my family, a few years later, a 14-year-old went to live with her grandmother because her widowed mother had remarried and the teenager didn’t like her new stepfather – and again, this was apparently done with the consent of all concerned.</p>
<p>Do you suppose that we can assume her family situation, in particular her husband, allowed for that balance to be made?</p>
<p>I can’t say either way, just posing a question to be devils advocate here. In my family, if my mother insisted my dad pick up more of the parenting so that she could have more balance in her life, I am almost positive it would end the marriage. I haven’t even spoken to my dad since christmas because he is THAT unwilling to participate. It becomes a game of chicken, where one says, “well, /I/ don’t think going to that parent teacher conference/tball game/whatever is necessary, so I am not going to do it, but you are more than welcome to do so yourself if you disagree!” and then mom is faced with the choice of bearing the weight alone or cutting out. Most people in that situation “chicken” out and cave first in favor of carrying the weight of the child care alone or mostly alone, but when someone just CAN’T do that anymore I don’t know what is supposed to happen. Without knowing the full situation, I don’t know if I can put the full weight of the blame on the one who cuts out, knowing that when the children in my family don’t get what they need it sure looks like it’s my mom’s fault when really a lot more of it has to do with my dad. But he’s just the “provider” so nobody looks at his behavior as caretaker, he gets away with it as long as the bills are paid.</p>
<p>Years ago when my husband was very active in Boy Scouts with our son he made the comment that he didn’t understand the fathers who didn’t want to have anything to do with their sons. His feeling is that one day those fathers will look back and truly regret their decision, but it will be long after the son is damaged by it.</p>
<p>If this woman has gone to work and gotten a good full-time nanny, no one would be upset. I have to think she didn’t like being married at least as much as she didn’t like being a full-time mother. </p>
<p>I know a lot of women–my own mother included–who were much happier to leave the nuts-and-bolts of mothering (diapers, cooking, driving, etc.) to paid help. I think that’s just fine.</p>
<p>Regarding some ^^^ posts–my mom always let it be known that my dad was #1 in her life. But she was a wonderful mom–came to every school event, even though she worked. Dad was often not there. She was a mom, a friend and involved in all aspects of our lives. I always understood that her marital love was the most important thing in her life. I knew I was loved, but I and my 3 siblings would grow up and move away to our own lives. Dad was her life partner forever until death.</p>
<p>If a woman knows she can not be a good mother and leaves her children with a loving father (or gives a child up for adoption), that is probably better for the child. But to write a book or article and seem to gloat about it (I did not read the book) and make money on it seems so selfish and self absorbed.</p>
<p>There is no question in my mind that my SIL loves my nephew as much as I love my kids. She couldn’t wait to get back to work after he was born … I was excited to quit work & stay home with my kids. Different strokes. Going off to work & leaving some of the care taking to another person is a far cry from abandonment.</p>
<p>I mentor a young man whose parents never came to his school events, games, etc. They are immigrants whose upbringing was such that parents did not get involved in those things. The young man grew up feeling very jealous of other kids. Fortunately, he has come to realize that his parents love him … they just have a different way of looking at life than the other parents he knows. Again, while they weren’t involved in his life in a way that many might feel is essential, it was a far cry from abandonment.</p>
<p>How hurtful that book must be to the children. Sometimes parents abandon kids & have reasons for doing so (while I don’t remember the details of “Kramer vs Kramer,” wasn’t that the gist of that movie?). But to put it out before the public and profit from your family’s pain is wrong. </p>
<p>And yeah, I know there are plenty of tell-all’s that hurt families. That doesn’t make this one any more okay.</p>
<p>Sure, she’ll be a financial success, have a great career, lots of money in the bank.</p>
<p>But will that be any comfort to her when she dies alone in a nursing home, with no children/grandchildren to come visit her?</p>
<p>While I don’t think one has to give up a career to be a mother, I also don’t think one should abandon their children so they can get as high up the corporate ladder as possible.</p>
<p>My sister chose career over family. Her husband is a ne’er do well that can’t keep a job, and she chose a career that involves a lot of travel so she can make the most money possible. Her two college age kids have flunked out several times, been arrested for drugs and DUI, and are as lazy as their daddy. She can’t even take off work to visit her ill mother because it would “cost her too much money”. She clearly does not have her priorities in order.</p>
<p>But she has a LOT of guilt. Instead of buying a plane ticket to see her mother, she’s going on a religious retreat to cleanse her soul and ease her conscience. Disgusting.</p>
Why do you assume it is Huckabee who is “weird”? The institution of marriage has a very long history in civilizations all over the world. The idea that it may be normal to have children first and marry later (if at all) is a rather new thing in our history. Maybe this works for Natalie Portman; maybe it will even work for her kids … though I don’t think Hollywood children in general comprise a very convincing model for child-rearing practices.</p>
<p>I said I thought it was weird, not that I assumed the entire planet is supposed to agree with me. When I said “the children always come before the marriage,” I meant as a priority, as we were discussing the prioritizing of the marriage versus the children, not chronology. As I believe I said, I understand the sentiment but I just thought that telling a complete stranger that her child was not the greatest gift she could receive seemed like an odd way to express that sentiment. While one might think the “gift” of the child is tarnished forever because they are marrying afterward, I don’t think it’s generally accepted practice to announce such to expectant mothers you’re not intimately acquainted with.</p>
<p>It isn’t as though I personally believe that one should have children out of wedlock, I don’t particularly have an opinion other than that I would prefer not to go that route myself, I just thought it was a rather odd thing to say, particularly given that he was picking apart an oscar speech seemingly at random. Seems to me he just wanted to ride on Natalie’s coat tails for the publicity. That’s CERTAINLY a way to take the moral high ground, isn’t it?</p>
<p>Being “left behind”. . .(sent far away to be raised by grandma) didn’t seem to hurt Obama much.</p>
<p>It is sad when a mom doesn’t want to be with her kids, but if she gives the child over to another loving parent/parent figure, then that is better for the child. We just don’t like to see “unmotherly” mothers. Why? Probably because moms hold the family together. Plenty of bad or neglectful/uninvolved dads out there–but society will really collapse if moms don’t do their jobs.</p>
<p>A good friend of mine just left her H of 28 years. They have 8 children, three of whom are over 18. She took her youngest 3 (ages 6-12) with her to the other side of the country. Her H is an abusive alcoholic and this woman made an heroic effort over many years to keep the marriage/family together. Unfortunately, people feel that she “abandoned” her 14 and 16 yo sons, whom she left in the care of her 21yo son and his wife (who live very far from both the mom and dad). I feel sorry for these boys, but my friend had to save herself and her younger kids, so I don’t blame her for getting out of this bad situation.
My f-i-l was in a worse situation–his mother took his older sisters away and left him, at age 7, with his abusive alcoholic father. She moved to another state and had no contact with him. It is a mystery how she could leave such a young child behind–I wonder if she didn’t want him because he looked just like his dad!</p>
<p>In reality, I don’t know how you really “balance” the needs of kids & hubby. To me, they are both very important and I’ve been fortunate not to have to choose between them. We all tend to agree that both the marriage and our role as parents is very important. I guess it’s one of those, “If there was a lifeboat and it could only take me and one other person, who would that be?” situations where we would HAVE to choose one and leave the other(s) behind? I honestly don’t know what I’d do at that point. Maybe I’d force the kids into the board & then stay behind with H?</p>
<p>Have read “A Night to Remember” about kids whose parents did that and they were very sad that their mom chose to go down with H & the ship instead of coming with them. Really not sure what I’d do and hope I never had to make such a wrenching choice.</p>
<p>My parents at this point are still quite healthy, so we are hoping not to have to put them higher in our priority list, but will see how things evolve.</p>
<p>Emaheevul, I think I understand your reaction. Natalie Portman was expressing pride and gratitude over her pregnancy. A conservative politician then used her remarks as an opportunity to criticize Hollywood for allegedly glamorizing unmarried pregnancy and single parenthood. In some social situations, a response like Huckabee’s would be more than just weird. It would be very rude and insensitive. On the other hand, Natalie Portman is a rich, beautiful, Harvard-educated public figure. In my opinion, Huckabee’s concerns (if not his timing and personalizing of the issue) are well-founded. Here’s a reference to his remarks: [Huckabee:</a> Portman Pregnancy ‘Troubling’](<a href=“FOX 5 DC”>FOX 5 DC)</p>
<p>Anyhow … I think most of us would acknowledge there are extreme situations demanding difficult decisions; this sometimes results in a parent leaving children in someone else’s care, out of desperation. The OP’s scenario seems to be quite different. If we’re talking about a choice to stop being a full-time parent just because one finds a different lifestyle more fulfilling … then I have a hard time buying that. But there are scenarios where it might make sense to leave your children for other responsibilities. Example: putting your kids in boarding school while you take a demanding (and possibly dangerous) foreign assignment. I have an acquaintance who has accepted a year-long posting to a war-torn country. She is a mother of several young children; she’s leaving them in her husband’s care. Her decision has raised a few eyebrows but I don’t think anyone could consider her selfish or unfit. On the contrary.</p>
<p>While the OPs situation doesn’t look desperate to us from the outside in all fairness we don’t know how desperate she felt on the inside. I think I will buy the book to get more insight. When I was in high school I spend the night with a friend and her mom seemed so sad to me. A few years later her mother took her own life. It had a profound effect on my friend, obviously, and I wish her mother had seen another way out. I don’t know what the OPs mental state was and maybe leaving was the only choice she thought she had. Like I said the book is getting critical praise so I will buy it and see what I think.</p>
<p>You know, I could never get on the “selfish lady just keep it to yourself” train about people like Rahna or Ayelet Waldman (who wrote “Bad Mother”), because their stories are absolutely the ones that need to be talked about as we re-define motherhood and fatherhood in this society. And this one is just fascinating from a sociological perspective-- a woman being coaxed into motherhood with promises of the father being the primary caretaker, only to find that the crushing weight of society’s expectations for mothering means that this arrangement means she’s a bad mother. Leading to the pressure to do vastly more than she signed up for or give up entirely.</p>
<p>Or as she said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And then she ends up finding a way both to avoid throwing herself into full time motherhood or give up entirely. The arrangement described is the perfect compromise. The children’s primary caretaker is their father, as he promised he would be when he asked Rahna to have children with him, but they spend large amounts of time with Rahna. The children have two parents who love them and live close enough together that they can walk between the homes. Despite the sensationalist heading, Rahna hasn’t “left” her children at all-- she’s choosing a part-time coparent role. Due to her “selfishness”, they get a mother who isn’t stressed and dissatisfied with her life choices, meaning she can be happy and engaged rather than resentful during her time with them.</p>
<p>As a child of divorce, this is what was hurtful to me: the idea that one of my parents was able to walk away from me entirely. The idea that one of my parents wanted to move a few houses down the block and take partial custody, due to not being up to full time parenthood? That wouldn’t have been half so bad. It might not have been bad at all.</p>
<p>Also, good God, it’s really not like child free people are going to die decrepit and all alone. There’s such a thing as friends.</p>
<p>The institution of marriage is not new in human history. In anthropological time, well, I don’t know. But something like it goes pretty far back, I think, in many old cultures.</p>
<p>Traditionally, marriage has had important functions with respect to child-rearing and wealth accumulation. It makes the identity of a child’s father a matter of public record for the whole community. It ties the child to the father’s accomplishments, reputation, and property. It ties the child back to a family history and with it to a community’s story. It establishes a claim by the mother and child for the attention, love and support of the father’s extended family. Big weddings bear witness to that.</p>
<p>Modern societies may be sufficiently advanced that some of those connections can be established without the benefit of marriage. A woman can chase down the father for support payments. She can work out custody and visitation agreements in court. Even if she fails to do so, with a little effort the kid can track down the guy and hit him up for tuition when the time comes.</p>
<p>But marriage still makes all of this a little more clean and convenient, at least, for most people who are not Natalie Portman.</p>
<p>Also agree that it is silly when politicians bring celebreties into ANY conversation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sinflower - My guess - which could be wrong - is that you are not a parent yet. Unfortunately, there are no deals that can be negotiated about parenting. You can’t explain to a child who agreed to what beforehand in such a way that the child will not feel abandoned. How many adults are in therapy because their parents walked away? Parenting is for a lifetime - no one should be threatened, cajoled, coaxed into it. That should be the take away. Kids don’t understand nuance. </p>
<p>I get that sometimes “people do the best they can”. That sometimes is still not good enough for the children. I’d love to see a lot more conversation about choosing UP FRONT whether or not motherhood/fatherhood is for everyone. Like I said upthread, I have a lot of respect for women/men who can say that it is not for them. More of that should be encouraged.</p>
<p>To make excuses on the backend is just that - excuses.</p>