It probably wouldn't take much more time to connect with him than it does to post about how she doesn't.

I think it would be difficult for this man not to conclude that she doesn't give two craps about him.

She got what she wanted. 12 years of "luv, twoo luv" and a kid. Now she can cash out, live off the ex via her 18 year annuity and shag any dude who meets her fancy.

She'll probably become a helicopter mommy and drive her son crazy.

She shouldn't worry, there is no evidence (not even corollary) that children need two parents...there is especially none that parents that are in a loving relationship and put each other first (yes, even above the children) produce and grow better kids...

She needs to do her son a favor, get a babysitter, spend sometime with her husband and put the energy in. While I was being sarcastic earlier I think she should try and create a new problem child for therapists to deal with. The "my parents loved each other way too much and were always focusing on each other at home" problem child...

dumbass

Yeah but to be fair, Amy, if she was going out on dates and having a grand time with her hubby all the time you'd write sternly that people shouldn't have kids unless they have the time and energy and commitment to deal with them. You generally like to scold women, I've noticed.

Of course she doesn't have the same amount of energy now as before. Babies are tiring. She's not getting the same amount of sleep.

The problem is she is expecting things to be like they were before, and they can't be. They need to find togetherness in new ways, some of which include the kid. Maybe 12 years is too long to wait to have a kid because you get into habits and ideas about the way things should be, and aren't as flexible as before.

You can still have some candlelit dinners, but not as often as before. Make new memories to laugh about. A starlit car ride to calm the colicky kid. Morning family cuddles in bed. Walks with a nice view and a Bjorn. Or have the candlelit dinner, but at home. Make a fire and read to each other... I know my baby loves fires.

And after the first few months, things calm down.

Someone should make a bumper sticker out of this:

Kids are a NEGATIVE stressor
Kids are a NEGATIVE stressor

People think they will have bundles of joy, but actually bringing kids into any relationship adds negative pressure. It will not bring you together, it will bring you apart so you better have a good adhesive between the two of you.

Yeah but to be fair, Amy, if she was going out on dates and having a grand time with her hubby all the time you'd write sternly that people shouldn't have kids unless they have the time and energy and commitment to deal with them.

No, I wouldn't. Couples need to maintain their relationship. Part of being a mother is being a wife so you won't be a single mother. And yes, once you have kids, your life stops being me-first, and part of that not-me-first is satisfying your husband. If you have no kids and want to retire from sex, you and your husband can get divorced.

You generally like to scold women, I've noticed.

I don't "scold" on the basis of sex but on the basis of who I perceive to be doing wrong. The husband's stuck with her and now she's retired from being a wife and is now being a mom only. Not right.

NicoleK has an excellent point. I've seen too many people who expect things to go on exactly the same post-baby as they did before. Sorry, it's not going to happen--babies change everything, and they are time-suckers. That doesn't mean all is lost, however, just that they both (and this includes him) need to redefine their idea of romance, and make it a point to make time for each other. One of the sexiest things I ever saw post-baby was coming down from putting the baby to bed to find my husband washing the dishes (my usual chore). Laugh if you will, but the it was his way of taking some of the pressure off me, giving me an extra 20 minutes to myself before bedtime, and that meant everything to me. You have no idea how precious 20 minutes can be...the fact that he did, and that he acknowledged it in that way, made me feel much less overwhelmed. I wonder how much of the parenting load the poster's husband carries. There's a reason two parents are better than one: there's plenty to be done, trust me. We've managed to work out a routine that gives us regular time to unwind together and also make time for ourselves (which is still very important. People need time alone, without anyone else asking anything of them). I have a friend whose husband complains that she spends too much time on housework and child care, but he sits and plays video games while she tries to get things done (and she works full time on top of everything). If he pitched in and helped her out, the work would get done in half the time and she'd have that much more energy to spare for their time together. Plus, she'd have the amazing feeling that comes from having a partner who cares about the needs of everyone in the household and works woth her to make sure those needs are met, instead of a whining lump she has to clean around (and who also bitches if the house isn't clean).

Agreed, and that works both ways. A man who acts like he gives a rat's ass about what his partner is going through as a new mother (and who makes an effort to show her they're in it together) is much more appealing than a man whose only contribution is criticism. There's not a lot said about what the poster's husband actually does contribute, but everyone has needs. They both need to consider each other's needs. My guess is that if they both made the effort to do so (his might be BJs, hers might be sleep) and allowed for the very realistic possibility that they might have to switch off on getting them met, they'd be a lot happier. The thing about a newborn baby is that its needs do have to come first. It can't take care of itself, and you can't just explain to it that Mommy's tired and it will just have to deal with being hungry and wet while Mommy naps. Doesn't work that way. The trick is to seize the moments when the baby is asleep, and if that means one parent is taking care of bedtime while the other settles the house for the night so they can both be ready to jump on those spare moments, then that's what needs to happen. It shouldn't be one person making all the effort in angel paret household, and that includes in the bedroom.

Yeah, "angel paret" should be "any part." not sure what happened there.

Wow... I see this a lot these days, unfortunately- out in the middle class 'burbs. Unchanged, this is the attitude that causes many otherwise "good" men to eventually leave the wife.

Choices and balance, people! We all have the same 24 hours a day to work with...and if your energy level is down to zero with your man, ALL THE TIME, EVERY TIME he will come to know that you do not love him, at all. You are acting only as a user in that case. It will take some time to breakdown one of the so called "good ones" (because good men are as loyal as a dumb dog at times), but eventually he will get it (usually from not "getting it"-this really drives the point home for the men).

Think about it- are you really spending every single moment on the kids...really? What if you have enough time/energy to volunteer, play farmville on facebook, etc...are you showing your husband and children that these things are more important than your marriage? IF you have a son, is that how you want him to be treated when he is an adult?

Been there, done that. I was lucky enough to be able to work this out with mine (a "Supermom" if ever there was one). Of course that was after years of abandonment/punishment/abuse. Not something i would recommend, at all.

Oh, and btw...everyone, children, wifey, and dad are all happier, and doing well. Go figure!

The way she mentions "Over the Hedge" and the child eating cake, clearly her son is not a newborn anymore. He's at least a couple of years old if he's eating pizza - I think.

I know parenting is overwhelming, but perhaps because he's an only child (and may be the only child dependent on the age of the couple), I think this woman may be overly involved - and she knows it. She tries to convince herself of three things - this is normal, her husband is fine with it, but she's not. None of these are true. She also may be clinically depressed, and I would definitely suggest seeing a counselor, alone and as a couple.

In the 50s and 60s, mothers were expected to put their marriages before the kids. My ex-MIL had SEVEN children, but she went ballroom dancing with her husband almost every weekend, and they had grown up friends over to play cards once a week - no kids allowed. The kids were expected to do their homework, be polite, and go to bed when it was adult time. They took it seriously.

Now, there's a sizable contingent of (mostly) women who make other women feel guilty if they choose spending time with their husbands over time with their children, totally forgetting that the best thing a parent can do for their child is have a good, solid relationship with the other parent.

I just heard of woman who still sleeps with her 10 yr old son, while the dad sleeps on the couch! This has been going on, I suppose, for 10 years, and now she's shocked to learn that he's found someone else and wants her out of his house (they never officially married). People tried to tell her all along that this was unhealthy, but she wouldn't listen.

Your job as a mom is not to have some Oedipal-style romance with your son! It's sick and causes them so much damage. This woman needs to realize that she is not doing her child any favors.

Lovelysoul, my grandma did this with my uncle. Her famous quote was that "Sex was always more important to Millard than it was to me!" and she shared a bed with her youngest son until he was fourteen. Fourteen!!! Kid be wakin up with morning wood, and be sharin a bed wid his ma!!! Ewwwww.

At family meals, I hear she used to sit there next to him and cut up his food for him, even when he was a teenager. She completely infantilized him and rendered him incapable of living in the world with normal people. Why did she do this? Because she felt so useless otherwise. She didn't have any other way of feeling useful, or needed.

He ended up living alone in that house, in complete filth and squalor, until he was 54 and died of a heart attack in front of the TV. A neighbor figured out something was wrong the next day, because the cows were making a racket since they hadn't been fed.

I don't think my uncle ever so much as went on a date, let alone ever had a healthy relationship.

Janie4 is onto something. I'd read this woman's article the other day. She's the epitome of a martyr mommy. She goes out of her way to alienate herself from her husband and the rest of the adult world under some delusion that her child just can not survive even a moment without her direct attention and intervention. The secret of the martyr mommies is that their behavior is actually driven by vanity and self pity. It's not really about the kid.

If her husband really is OK with all this, it could only be because he doesn't care about her any longer. Frankly she seems like an unattractive neurotic person. Hopefully she'll come around before her kid is old enough to recognize what she's doing and starts to rebel. Women like this often don't age well and can turn on their kids once they exert their independence.

"The way she mentions 'Over the Hedge' and the child eating cake, clearly her son is not a newborn anymore. He's at least a couple of years old if he's eating pizza - I think."

Jane, I was looking through the comments to see if someone else had picked up on this. The kid isn't an infant! And looking through the comments, I see other women telling the same story -- they have kids as old as 7-8 and yet they can't leave the little darling out of their sight for even one second. Yes, it's true, a newborn will seriously mess up your life for a period of time, and you have to be prepared for the fact that you're just going to have to stick it out for the first six months. But infants don't remain infants forever.

"I know parenting is overwhelming, but perhaps because he's an only child (and may be the only child dependent on the age of the couple), I think this woman may be overly involved - and she knows it. She tries to convince herself of three things - this is normal, her husband is fine with it, but she's not. "

All true: it isn't normal, and I can guarantee her that her husband is not fine with it. True, he probably does not help out with the kid or around the house much. You know why? Because she has set herself up as the family gatekeeper. Everything having to do with the kid or the house must be done her way, all the time. The husband probably quit doing anything because his wife criticized everything he did, and then went around behind him re-doing anything he touched. She's creating work for herself so that she has something to complain about. She does have a vague feeling in the back of her mind that something's wrong, but she long ago gave herself permission to operate as she's doing now, so she isn't going to change it.

At this point, there are only two possible outcomes. Either the husband finds someone else and eventually gets caught; at that point the wife hauls him into court, gets a divorce with generous terms, and then does everything in her power to limit the kid's access to her father while keeping him on the short string for financial support. Or, the husband sticks it out until the kid is out of the house; the day Junior is off to college, he hits the wife with divorce papers. Then, she can go complain to her friends that, after 30 years of putting her heart and soul into the marriage, she's been dumped for a trophy wife. It just isn't fair! Men are such pigs!

As for Junior, he'll grow up with the idea that women being cold and dismissive towards their spouses is normal. At the age of 24, some Cluster B narc of a woman will glom onto him; they'll have a passionate affair for three months, after which she'll turn on him. Eventually she'll goad him into hitting her, and then he will wind up in jail and will spend the rest of his life on the sex offender list.

Women in the 50s and 60s weren't nursing. When you're nursing, there's only so long you can be without the kid. Dinner out... yes. Weekend getaway... no.

But yes, obviously there has to be a balance. If your kid is driving your husband out of your bed, there's a problem.

The writer doesn't list anything like that, though, just stuff like giving the last piece of cake to the kid. I say kid and hubby split it.

And frankly, cocktails with hubby's colleagues doesn't sound worth it to me, either. Sounds boring. When together time is limited that's not how I'd want to spend it.

That's so sad, Jo. It's really almost a form of child abuse because it usually cripples the child emotionally.

The funny thing to me is that today's moms act so put upon by motherhood, but they usually have only one child, like this woman does, or maybe two or three at the most. Whereas moms in the past had 7 or 8. My great great grandmother had 11.

And they had so many more chores and fewer time-saving conveniences back then. They couldn't, nor did they expect, to spend all this undivided attention with their kids. The children didn't expect it either - they played with each other, not the parents.

It occurs to me that this shift is largely the fault of feminism (omg, I'm blamimg feminism now...I've been here way too long! lol). But feminism made it seem very outdated to cater to your husband, like in the 50s and pre-50s. And, of course, that kind of subservience was ridiculous. I've seen ads from that time of women in high heels, ironing their man's shirts, and the whole focus of the ad was on keeping him happy. (Interestingly, kids were rarely mentioned in these ads, unless it was for cold medicine, which all had alcohol or cocaine...and probably lead...in them to make the kids sleep)

So, today's mom believes she's hopelessly unliberated if she focuses on her husband. Yet, most women are born with a nurturing gene. We innately want to cater to and nurture someone. Therefore, it's become socially acceptable to direct that energy towards the child, rather than the man.

Just a theory, but it kinda makes sense. Not that I advocate returning to ironing in heels and pearls...but, then again, it probably wouldn't hurt anybody's marriage, if done occassionally. Far better strategy than ignoring your husband with excuses that you're so exhausted caring for your ONE child.

Except a lot of feminists are against attachment parenting and "green" parenting.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/french-feminist-blames-green-movement-for-guilting-women-into-old-fashioned-roles.php

"Women in the 50s and 60s weren't nursing. When you're nursing, there's only so long you can be without the kid. Dinner out... yes. Weekend getaway... no."

True, but to be fair, they were heating bottles and changing/washing cloth diapers.

They did have lots of children though, so the older ones helped care for the little ones, and served as built in babysitters once they were a certain age. Plus, grandparents were closer than ours usually are these days.

Besides unwarranted guilt, a lot of the reason parents don't go out seems to be fear and distrust of leaving the child with anyone else. But you MUST find a good babysitter and have date nights out. It's critical for marriages to spend time without the child.

Of course, you can't do that as frequently when you have an infant, but by preschool age, this is quite doable for any parent that makes it a priority.

"Feminism Is About Women Finding The Role That Best Suits Them
Like all -isms, feminism has a wide range of themes, extremes, theories, and "should"s. However, what is center to third-wave feminism is that the women's movement is intended to allow women to fulfill - happily and without judgment - any role that fits them. If that's a corporate powerhouse, rock on. If that's a mom who purees her own organic bananas for baby and spends the afternoon washing reusable diapers, then rock on."

Note they didn't mention being a wife as one of those desired roles.

In fact, the rest of the article goes on to blame men for not doing more - washing the cloth diapers, for instance - even though it's the mother who is apparently getting so whacked out about going green and hyperfocusing on the children.

The whole mother as martyr ignoring her husband thing has been around since WAY before the 70s. It's absurd to blame 2nd wave feminism.

Didn't you read "Little Women"'s sequel, "Good Wives"? Remember the chapter where Meg is ignoring John in favor of the kids? This sort of balance-finding is not new. If I remember correctly, Louisa May Alcott wrote in the late 1800s.

And re: the article, yes to all the things you said. They were said by the Green lady, NOT by the feminist lady.

Can't say I'd make an effort to be his wife, either, if all he's going to do about the situation is say the problem is hers.

12 years is a very long time for things to have been one way, and now all of a sudden they have to adjust to them being different. It would be like Amy moving in with someone now-imagine how well that would go. If you're going to have kids with someone, sooner is better than later once you're married.

To quote Johnson and Johnson-"Having a baby changes everything".

Let me put a twist on this. My wife and I were and are horribly incompatible. We married because we were active members of our church and both had attachment issues which made it seem we were much more compatible than it seems and, due to pressures common in our religion, got married far too quickly.

One thing we now agree on is that while our children, they were our focus and created a common cause. When on vacations, for example, she would take two kids, I would take two and we had fun with them (and it was fun.)

In hindsight, our marriage started really going down hill when our last child got into elementary school and accelerated when she turned ten AND her oldest sibling moved out of the house. Now, to continue the vacation example, when my wife and I have gone on vacations (either alone or with older siblings) I've discovered that she's a vacation killjoy; among other things, she hates adventure and pretty much approaches the experience the opposite of me. (To contrast, in our "regular" life, I got burned out on adventure, but having to relocate is far different then just driving around a new city for the heck of it.)

Dang: "One thing we now agree on is that while our children were young, they were our focus and created a common cause."

sorry, this woman is a bitch

"To quote Johnson and Johnson-"Having a baby changes everything". "

THE KID'S NOT AN INFANT! Go read the article again.

From Dr. Rosemond's column:

"I don't think parents should be involved with their children. They should be interested and ready to get involved, but involvement should be the exception, not the rule. A HUSBAND AND WIFE
SHOULD BE INVOLVED WITH EACH OTHER. And yes, I'm yelling, because all too many of today's parents need to be strapped to chairs and made to listen to a tape loop of the previous sentence blaring over a loudspeaker until they get it."

(Granted, he's not talking about toddlers here, exactly, but he would certainly agree that if a wife is tied up with a baby, the husband should HELP her find a way for her to have more time for him.)

Sorry your wife isn't adventurous. That's a bummer. Can you take her on mini-adventures? That is, maybe she won't hitchhike across the Island with you, but will she take a map and the rental car and go on an exploratory joyride?

Or... if you ski... I find those long winding trails made out of logging roads are good, because the better skier can cut down through the hairpin turns, or wander a bit hors piste, while the lesser skier (usually me) can stay on the road and take it easy.
Or cross country ski instead, you can go on well-groomed trails, its cheaper, warmer, better exercise and you don't risk breaking your neck as easily as long as its fairly flat.

Or if you dive, maybe you can take one of those boats where the non-divers can snorkel while you dive? Or even let her lounge on the beach or have a beer on the boat while you dive?

Or hike to furnished cabins that serve dinner rather than carrying backpacks and tenting it? Or, if she's a wuss, maybe she'll still hike if its not too steep and you carry the backpack?

I'm trying to think of other tamed down adventure vacations but can't off the top of my head right now.

Or take the tour bus around the city instead of driving yourself?

I have to say not wanting to drive around the city for the heck of it is a pretty low level of adventurousness. Today we drove to another country to look at a mountain and drove home through crazy mountain roads for the heck of it. But we mostly stayed in the car, except to stop and have lunch with my cousin, because we were with bébé and weren't feeling up to dragging her up a mountain. Also the trails are muddy now. So I can't say it was truly adventurous. But it was fun. Would your wife be up to that sort of thing, if she had a map and there were no sketchy areas and you stayed on main roads?

"And re: the article, yes to all the things you said. They were said by the Green lady, NOT by the feminist lady."

I think the first part was said by the author, and it's telling that "wife" is not one of the roles. Do you honestly believe most feminists would argue that being a wife is a desirable goal? I don't think I've heard anything like that from feminists.

The message is that it's ok to be a corporate powerhouse or a mom...provided you make being a mom your "career" by becoming totally immersed in it...doting constantly on the child, breastfeeding, pureeing organic bananas, and washing cloth diapers in order to save the planet(this seems to excuse the mom from not choosing option A).

Nowhere in feminist rhetoric do they acknowledge how important it is to be a good wife to your husband - to have sex with him regularly and show him as much attention as the child. That kind of thinking is viewed as something coming from the far right - people like Phyllis Shafly and Dr Laura - and is generally criticized as backward.

So, it's no wonder that there has been this major shift in focus from a marriage-centered family to a child-centered family.

Psychologist John Rosemond claims that this is unhealthy for the child because they often feel that they are holding the family together, rather than just existing in a secure, stable environment.

In his analogy, parents should be like the sun, and the kids should orbit around them. They don't feel responsible for keeping mommy and daddy together because mommy and daddy clearly have a solid relationship all their own...one that stands on its own without them...and will last even if after they grow up and move away. That is the most secure environment for children to be in.

After all, kids almost always blame themselves when their parents don't get along, or break up, and they can certainly sense when the relationship is on shaky ground, as it's bound to be when one parent is ignoring the needs of the other.

I bet that if she were honest, she'd acknowledge that she's not into her husband any more and would prefer if it were just her and her child.

Also I agree that this probably isn't the result of Feminism. More so a personality type reacting to social expectations and anxieties. The 'cloistering mother' is a long standing type.

I have to say not wanting to drive around the city for the heck of it is a pretty low level of adventurousness. Today we drove to another country to look at a mountain and drove home through crazy mountain roads for the heck of it.

On a poor Gregg note, I am adventuresome; my stomach and inner ear are not. Mountain roads? Um...I got carsick driving around Washington, D.C. But, I'm a "crazy broad," as Gregg told me from Detroit this morning, as I told him one of the latest things I'm working on (soon to be blogged), and we have a lot of fun.

And wise thoughts above, lovelysoul, about how the home-as-corporation model forgets the care of the husband part of the deal. If women got as obsessed as they do about spinning the organic cotton for their own green diapers...!

Look, the whole women being obsessed with their children thing predates feminism by at least 100 years if the novels are to be believed. Make that 200 years Rousseau was a big believer in mothers being intensely involved with their children, particularly in nursing them. And then letting them be free range and unschooling. An early Dr. Sears.

What are you calling "feminist rhetoric"? Who is "they"?

"In the true married relationship, the independence of husband and wife will be equal, their dependence mutual, and their obligations reciprocal."
— Lucretia Mott

Betty Friedan wanted “She helped make women feel better about being women and therefore better able to freely and fully love men” on her tombstone

But whatever, who am I to write about feminism as I've totally let down the cause. I only hope the cloth diapers can vindicate me for not choosing option A...

For everything, there is a season.

After my son was born, he was sick and I was sick. I was EXHAUSTED. Sometimes, too exhausted to even chew. I didn't have anything more to give. When I was nursing, I felt so "touched out" that my husband's mere touch repelled me. My husband's needs, though real, upset me. I was drowning and couldn't take care of myself, much less him.

My husband had his own issues and wounds. The birth of our first sent him into a financial panic. He could not rest and worked 90 hour weeks, until he felt financially secure and our home was paid in full. After all of this hard work, he wanted to fall into my nurturing arms.

Relatives nearby would have helped.

It took a long time to recover mentally, physically, and emotionally. Our marriage was sorely tested.

Those times are now long gone. I have enough energy to devote to him and my own needs. It is like a second honeymoon.

If you are patient, you can have it all - eventually.

Please be patient and aware of your spouse's needs. Naturally, this goes both ways. Don't whine, but do express genuine needs and desires. If a giving spirit is there, you can weather the storm that little ones sometimes bring.

There have always been obsessive, over-involved mothers. The difference is that now it seems to be not only expected but applauded.

And those quotes are, if you read them closely, more about men doing more to offer equality, and women being able to fully love them (despite their many flaws?) only after loving themselves. Those are hardly endorsements for the role of wife.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, Nicole. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you just had a baby, or have a small child, and you'll probably get where I'm coming from in a little while.

I think there is tremendous pressure and guilt placed on mothers today, and sadly, it's mainly by other women. And I think it did kind of start because SAHMs were defensive about not being working moms, like feminism promoted, so they overcompensated by trying to be supermoms, which unfortunately demanded that they become hyperfocused on their children.

That is really what the French feminist in the article is acknowledging, although she's addressing a different aspect of it, but it's the same thing.

I refused to bend to a lot of that pressure. I fed my kids a lot of the fun junk foods I ate as a kid (within moderation). I used disposable diapers. I didn't obsess over safety to the point of not allowing my kids to take some risks and develop independence.

And I unapologetically took time away with my husband to work on our marriage (which needed work). We had at least one, and often two "date nights" per week. Although we ultimately divorced, we wouldn't have lasted as long as we did, and my kids wouldn't have had as stable and intact family life for as long as they did, if we hadn't done that.

I just never felt guilty for taking that time at all. My daughter has told me her fond memories of helping me get dressed up for a night out with her dad. If anything, it encouraged their independence, because they'd often have to make their own dinner (pizza), or be entirely responsible for that night's homework, and they had a great time with their babysitters.

It didn't kill them, in other words. Far from it. So, please don't give that up. Having a baby changes things, but really...not that much...not as much as the guilt-layers want you to believe. It shouldn't stop you from enjoying adult time with your spouse and individual time for yourself.

Just one point on the "everything in a marriage must be equal" issue:

I agree, but it's important to remember that "equal" does not mean "exactly the same." There were a lot of factors in the breakup of my marriage, and I have never claimed not to have had my share of faults, but my positive contributions were consistently and explicitly discounted by my then wife. The biggest example - I worked (often more than) full time, she had a series of part-time jobs. The ratio of our incomes was probably about 15 to 1. I paid all the bills, she bought things she liked when she felt like it. Her view of this was that things were equal. After all, we both had one job! (She thought the same thing in the divorce, "You get a car, I get a car. That's even." Never mind that the car she got was three times as valuable as mine.)

In addition, the fact that in effect all the money came from me counted for nothing. "That's only money," she would say (echoing the universal belief that money is evil and doesn't represent the value of the amount of life exchanged for it). So one day (during the breakup, before she moved out) I suggested that if my contributions counted for nothing and she was doing "everything," then we should both stop doing everything we each did. She should stop doing "everything," and I would quit my job (and stop doing the other things I did as well). Then we could see within a very short time whether or not my contribution was "only money."

She had no answer to that.

Needless to say, it didn't happen. Nor did it stop her accusations that I did "nothing." She took over half that "nothing," which would have had us retired by the time our younger child left high school, in the divorce. I would have been 46 at retirement.

The point? Don't measure "equal" by how much housework the husband does.

Equality in a relationship is about as real as Bigfoot.....with the occasional report of its sighting usually ending with it being untrue. However, what I would call balance is attainable. The family needs C. One may do more of A while the other does more of B. And if A or B is giving too much on their end, that is most definitely a problem.

In my own experience having a child will change the relationship forever. The first couple of years post birth will be very different (and difficult). Outside of good health, the best one can hope for is your child goes to sleep easy (and somewhat on a schedule) and you have close family members who can, eventually, allow you a few breaks for a 'Saturday night out'. But as time goes on the amount of attention required by the child SHOULDN'T be a huge hindrance to having 'adult time' for the parents. Quite honestly a SAHM MAY eventually end up with too much available time compared to years past (have a plan on what to do when young John or Jane no longer require large amounts of attention!).

This story is about a lack of desire to regain her previously close personal relationship. If her desire (and his) was there, they would find a way. Can written advice directed at her cause the recreation of her past desire? More likely than not that is a fool's errand.

"Betty Friedan wanted “She helped make women feel better about being women and therefore better able to freely and fully love men” on her tombstone"

That's quite a stretch, coming from the woman who popularized the idea that all heterosexual sex is rape.

TW, I'd always heard that if you think you're doing 80% of what should be done to make the marriage work, you're probably doing the right amount.

That's the marriage advice I got from my friends, at least.

so this? was a really funny comment:
"(because good men are as loyal as a dumb a at times)"
but the rest was really depressing, because when you lived it, it seems like all those years were a waste.

I used to think that it was OK to lose your wife for a while, so she could do the mother thing... but what happens if she never comes back? and is such the uber mother that she constantly derides you for not doing as she says, as if you were the child...

you think it will end as the kid gets older... and then bam! she decides it's time for another kid, and you think that maybe this time will be better...

sucks to discover that you are the irritating roommate, whose only purpose is to provide money, and fix the plumbing, and stay out of her hair.

by the time you realize that you should have been fighting for her affection the whole time, it's much too late, assuming that wouldn't have just nuked the marriage anyway.

Dave, I thought that was Dworkin?

Lovelysoul... 5months. Actually, its funny because the other day my husband and I were discussing exactly what you said, that it changes things, but not -that- much.

Some changes...

- Generally more tired. Earlier to bed and to rise.
- Sex is less frequent, maybe once a week or twice, and tends to be hurried
- More laundry... not just the diapers but all the shirts that get spit up on, peed on, spilled on because I'm doing things with one hand and baby is in the way
- More stuff to haul around... carriage in case we want to put her down, Bjorn to keep her happy, diaper bag...
- If we go to restaurants we have to go earlier.
- We can only do one big outing a day... grocery OR museum OR dinner out OR visit with friends. A walk to the village to the local shops doesn't count, though. Anything where I have to put her in the car and take her out does.
- If we do day trips, more time in the car where she sleeps and less walking around and visiting stuff.

NicoleK, I bet she's beautiful! You're in the toughest, most confining, and exhausting stage, especially if you're breastfeeding. It gets better from here, as she'll fall into a schedule. Once she's sleeping regularly and nursing less, you'll be able to spend more time with hubby...and get out by yourself some.

Amy may disagree, but taking her to restaurants is good, as long as it's a family-style place, and you remove her quickly if she fusses, but we took our kids out like that when they were babies and toddlers, and they learned how to be well-behaved in restaurants. The most important rule: she can't get down. Once she's in the booster seat, she sits at the table. Start enforcing that while she's a toddler and you'll have a kid you can take almost anywhere.

The bottom line is that it's supposed to get less labor intensive each year, as they learn to do more things by themselves. Having a child shouldn't permanently cramp your style or ruin your love life unless you let it.

And, though she may be in your room now because she's so young, and nursing, as she gets older, she should have her own room, and also know that your bedroom is your private space, and if the door is closed, she should always knock and ask to come in (and it's ok to say no).

It's like any other relationship. You have to define boundaries. If you do that, it's relatively easy, but so many parents today have no boundaries - their kids can wander anywhere (around a restaurant, in and out of their bedroom) that of course it feels overwhelming, intrusive, and all-consuming. But that's more a result of their parenting style than the way it has to be.

sucks to discover that you are the irritating roommate, whose only purpose is to provide money, and fix the plumbing, and stay out of her hair.

by the time you realize that you should have been fighting for her affection the whole time, it's much too late, assuming that wouldn't have just nuked the marriage anyway.

A lot of women marry for the sole purpose of having someone pay them to raise their (i.e. her ) children. They're not interested in being a wife, but they need someone to pay the bills, so they get married.

To NicoleK: You're right.

See more:

From Stephanie Coontz's 1993 book "The Way We Never Were," page 9:

"Like most visions of a 'golden age,' the 'traditional family' my students describe evaporates on closer examination. It is an
ahistorical amalgam of structures, values, and behaviors that never coexisted in the same time and place. The notion that traditional families fostered intense intimacy between husbands and wives while creating mothers who were totally available to their children, for example, is an idea that combines some characteristics of the white, middle-class family in the mid-nineteenth century and some of a rival family ideal first articulated in the 1920s. The first family revolved emotionally around the mother-child axis, leaving the husband-wife relationship stilted and formal. The second focused on an eroticized couple relationship, demanding that mothers curb emotional 'overinvestment' in their children. The hybrid idea that a woman can be fully absorbed with her youngsters while simultaneously maintaining passionate sexual excitement with her husband was a 1950s invention
that drove thousands of women to therapists, tranquilizers, or alcohol when they actually tried to live up to it."

(As in the 1961(?) song "Mother's Little Helper".)

I never suggested that marriages were necessarily better in the past, as I suspect that's not true either. My MIL, although socializing with her husband frequently, didn't have a happy marriage. He was abusive to her and the children, and she really had few options but to accept it. She did, however, enjoy ballroom dancing with him, and at 92, it's still a favorite pastime. There were a lot of social factors in place then that contributed to unhappy marriages.

But I don't believe she felt guilty about leaving her children to enagage in adult activities the way today's moms do. The norm of the time then was that children should basically be "seen and not heard." With seven of them, they had strict schedules, bedtimes, etc, and the focus of motherhood was more on providing the physical, rather than emotional, needs of the children - the food, bathing, discipline, and so forth. Not much thought was given to building self-esteem, for instance. That is a relatively new concept.

And it's not a bad thing. It's just been taken to extremes. I mean, I was listening one day to Kelly Rippa tell an interviewer that she tries to workout an hour a few days a week, and the interviewer said, "But don't you feel guilty leaving your kids for that time?"

Seriously, for an HOUR? To do something good for herself - to keep herself healthy and strong so she can be a good mom and probably live longer - for this, a mother is now supposed to feel guilty?

That's the message that's so harmful and causes women to refuse dates with their husbands. I don't know why or how this got started, but it's quite pervasive, and I don't think we've ever, in history, seen such a child-centered helicopter-style of parenting.

When we took our son to college, they actually spent a good portion of the introductory period talking about the helicopter parents, and how our children were now adults, and we wouldn't be able to see their grades and student files without their written permission, and parents wouldn't be able to monitor their children's progress daily - the responsibilities of time scheduling, homework, etc, were now entirely on the student, and the parents should not call the school asking loads of questions, exemptions, or lobbying for better grades.

This clearly sent some parents into shock. And they kept raising their hands with "But...what about..." questions trying to find exceptions that would allow them to hover and be involved in their kid's college life the same way they obviously had been throughout high school.

You just come away thinking, "Get a life!" because that's what many of these parents need.

"This clearly sent some parents into shock. And they kept raising their hands with "But...what about..." questions trying to find exceptions that would allow them to hover and be involved in their kid's college life the same way they obviously had been throughout high school."

I would have strangled my parents if they had done that to me in college! In fact, I would have strangled them if they had done it when I was in high school. They gave me a fair degree of independence starting with my early teen years, and that's one thing I am eternally grateful for. Even when I was little, my parents sometimes went out and left us with a sitter, or had events for adults at our house and we were expected to go off to some other part of the house and play. Personally, I always thought that was great, to have the adults out of our sight for a while.

lovelysoul you have been great in this thread! Agreed and agreed!

It is very important to make an effort to be a wife, but some of your female friends will vilify you for it. "How COULD you trust a babysitter with your precious child? Even with 6 contact numbers and it is someone you SAY you trust, how can you REALLY trust them with YOUR CHILD???" Gah.

But here is the thing... these are the same women who don't want the men involved at all. "Well, Pete tried to put baby to bed, but he just couldn't figure it out, so I had to do it... he is just useless." Well, no wonder, if you won't let him be useful. My husband is a wonderful father and he does things differently than me but so be it, I bite my tongue because the kids are fine and I am fine, and I can trust him. If we trade off tasks we are both more relaxed and feel more loving towards each other later on when the kids are in bed (or during naptimes). And he is CLOSER to them for spending time parenting them.

Babies do changes things. A LOT at first, then less. First year is very hard, second year is somewhat hard, third year is much better. I haven't got any further than that :) Two kids under three...

But after the first year there is certainly no reason not to go out occasionally and you should definitely be having sex! After a year old, barring illness, the child ought to be sleeping from 7 or 8 through until morning with no problems. For the most part. Except for sometimes :)

Thanks, Kathryn. The early years are exhausting and stressful, but, you know, so are a lot of jobs and tasks we take on. I don't think motherhood is as stressful as, say, being an air traffic controller or a paramedic. So, using it as an excuse not to have sex or spend quality alone time with your spouse - even if it's just in the living room (and not because he's sleeping there!) - isn't valid. A mom, even with preschoolers like you have, can manage that if she wants to.

Different personalities react to child raising different ways. While babies can be annoying, my wife and I didn't find young children that stressful. Teenagers, on the other hand, taxed us sorely. Dealing with junior high and high school was especially annoying (save for our youngest, who, unlike her siblings, didn't stop getting straight A's upon entering high school.)

@lovelysoul, I agree it can be managed even with small children. But I think you have to make an effort more than perhaps you were used to doing before. It is worthwhile to make the effort, though! We do try and spend time alone even when we can't go out - at home date nights when we don't eat dinner until the kids are in bed and then have a fancier dinner with wine and so forth. And of course, sex is important-- at least if you want your husband to feel like you care about him.