The Antithesis of the TIGER MOM?

[melissel]

:iagree: I was raised by a mom who just wasn't ready to be a mom. I cannot even begin to explain all the issues that has caused me. Sure, the children of these two women will almost certainly have to deal with resentment and maybe even abandonment, but it could be much worse. I don't agree with the choices of these women at all. I really dislike the glorification of their choices in this article. However, they could have caused much more grief and anguish by staying.

 

:grouphug::grouphug:

 

It's funny that I didn't think the article glorified their choices at all. I thought the article tried to be neutral and present their side of a VERY controversial issue, but I thought there were a few incongruous phrases that belied the "neutrality" and showed a negative bias (which doesn't surprise me, truly).

[Ester Maria]

Nevermind. (Was commenting Liera's "spiritual" webpage, but maybe I better censor myself.)

Edited March 5, 2011 by Ester Maria

[Ester Maria]

I was raised by a mom who just wasn't ready to be a mom. I cannot even begin to explain all the issues that has caused me..

:grouphug::grouphug:

[Stacy in NJ]

is that it contridicts what I believe motherhood is all about.

 

Your mother is your last line of defense in life. She is that place where, if everything falls about in your life, you can show up and count on absolute acceptance. Now, of course, things aren't always that idealic with moms, but when people are vulnerable they need a rock, and moms are rocks, imo.

 

These women aren't rocks; they are unreliable and that is unforgiveable when it comes to motherhood.

[LaissezFaire]

Mt first thought is that her decision is one of the most selfish things I have ever read about. You cannot quit motherhood, it's an irreversible decision. Apparently you can reverse it but no matter what she claims there has to be a detriment to her sons. Not only because she abandoned them but also because now she is writing about her feelings and her sons WILL read it. She says their relationship has 'improved' but that is a word with a lot of variables. Improved from what? She was completely away from them while in Japan so she is saying that their relationship has improved from having no contact. Improvement could mean very little.

 

I didn't devote a lot to the article so I probably missed some of the points but in truth it made me too angry. I agree that all moms have had fleeting moments of fantasy, where their thoughts flit to what it would be like to be free of so much responsibility, but that is the key word, responsibility. This woman seems spoiled, she is a quitter, plain and simple. And sadly young people were likely damaged in the process.

[Stacy in NJ]

at least share with a therapist or close friend. National TV isn't the place for this. Poor kids.

 

nice thing to have your mom say on national tv.

[Sheila in OK]

:iagree: completely.

 

Disgusting. Sorry, but this is disgusting. It's horrible, selfish, and irresponsible. It took her TWO kids to decide she didn't want to be a mother? Whatever. I think I'd feel pretty crappy to be tossed like yesterday's clothing style by my own mother.

[Ibbygirl]

I'm confused, why does it have to be a role she's playing? Sometimes I put on an apron and bake cookies and have 1950s mom moments with my kids, and that's definitely not my everyday persona--but sometimes it happens that I'm feeling traditional, and sometimes I'm feeling like taking them driving in the car with all the windows open, singing pop songs. It doesn't mean I'm not actually enjoying the activities or feeling love and connection through them. I can identify with the feelings of having more connection to give my kids when I'm not burnt out from whatever else burns me out. I don't think it's necessarily a falsehood that she's giving them, and I don't think we'd say that a non-custodial father was giving his kids no emotional intimacy, no emotional connection, and no vulnerability when he's interacting with his kids during his custodial time. I think we have a lot of stepmoms on the board who would take issue with saying something like that.

 

 

I will clarify what I meant. :) First off, I was referring to the first mom not the second in the article and I was quoting a comment from the comments section after the article that I thought made a good point. That was the gist of my post. The part of the article that made me think the commenter after the article was spot on was this one....

 

"In my part-time motherhood, I get concentrated blocks of time when I can be that 1950s mother we idealize who was waiting in an apron with fresh cookies when we got off the school bus and wasn't too busy for anything we needed until we went to bed."

 

It was that "we idealize" part that made me think that it was a role that she felt she needed to play rather than just be herself, kwim? As if she put a pressure upon herself to be a person she really wasn't in order to be a "proper mom". That is how I interpreted her comments anyway.

 

As far as non-custodial dads and step-moms I wasn't talking about them at all. I was talking specifically about this one part-time mother and what I read as her feeling a pressure to be a 1950's mom. It seemed to me that it was as if she felt she had to be this certain persona in order to be a "good mom" and since she couldn't do it she quit.

 

For the record, I personally know many non-custodial dads and step moms who are doing a stellar job parenting and who love and cherish their children whether step or biological. I wasn't speaking about them at all in my prior remarks.

 

I also very much agree with Ester Maria's comments about it being better for the mom to leave as the lesser of evils if she knows she cannot cope being a mother and knows in her heart that she will do more harm than good.

 

I didn't however get the impression from this article that this was the case with this mom. But that is only my opinion. I don't know the woman and only have this article to base my opinion on so take it for whatever it's worth.

[melissel]

I will clarify what I meant. :) First off, I was referring to the first mom not the second in the article and I was quoting a comment from the comments section after the article that I thought made a good point. That was the gist of my post. The part of the article that made me think the commenter after the article was spot on was this one....

 

"In my part-time motherhood, I get concentrated blocks of time when I can be that 1950s mother we idealize who was waiting in an apron with fresh cookies when we got off the school bus and wasn't too busy for anything we needed until we went to bed."

 

It was that "we idealize" part that made me think that it was a role that she felt she needed to play rather than just be herself, kwim? As if she put a pressure upon herself to be a person she really wasn't in order to be a "proper mom". That is how I interpreted her comments anyway.

 

As far as non-custodial dads and step-moms I wasn't talking about them at all. I was talking specifically about this one part-time mother and what I read as her feeling a pressure to be a 1950's mom. It seemed to me that it was as if she felt she had to be this certain persona in order to be a "good mom" and since she couldn't do it she quit.

 

For the record, I personally know many non-custodial dads and step moms who are doing a stellar job parenting and who love and cherish their children whether step or biological. I wasn't speaking about them at all in my prior remarks.

 

I hear what you're saying, and I knew you were quoting the comment. I was reacting more to that than to you. At least one other poster expressed the same sentiments as the commenter, so I thought it was worth addressing.

 

I didn't get the same impression from Rizzuto's statements. Maybe because I can identify with her in some ways, so it rings more true to me? I struggle with homeschooling--it's not at all compatible with my personality, so I feel burned out most of the time. There's a running commentary in my head about my kids deserving more of me, more of my attention, more of my presence, etc. When I'm actually able to be present, enjoy their company, pay attention rather than trying to escape mentally, I feel successful, and like I'm giving them what they truly deserve.

 

I do think there's an ideal that many of us feel we should be striving for--it's epitomized by the "1950s housewife," but what it really is is PRESENCE for our children. That's how I read her words. When I'm able to give them my presence, sometimes it seems take the form of the Mrs. Cleaver persona, but that doesn't make it any less real. When my DH has taken the kids to his mom's all day Thursday, I find that I'm a much more present mom on Friday. Obviously that's on a much smaller scale than the experience of the women in the article, but my experience of motherhood is not the same as theirs either. I'm lucky that if it got really bad for me, I could put them in school and solve my problem. I can't fathom feeling that way about motherhood in general, and for that I'm so grateful :(

 

As for non-custodial parents in general, the commenter's post is what made me think of that, and I was just putting out there in the discussion. Again, other posters made some comments that related, and the commenter's attack on Rizzuto's genuineness (is that even a word?) made me wonder if we would perceive, say, non-custodial dads' genuineness the same way. It bothers me how vituperative we are about these women who leave their children this way but accept that many, many dads live this way on a daily basis, all the while extolling the importance of non-custodial dads' presence in their children's lives. It's OK and normal for them to leave and have jobs and lives and families elsewhere. They go to school meetings and put their kids to bed on time when it's their week and take them to the amusement park and baseball games and call often when it's not their week. As long as they're making this effort to stay in their childrens' lives, they're great dads who are trying hard and doing the right thing in a bad situation. Yet, we're not saying the same about these moms who are talking about making the same efforts. Instead, we question their emotional veracity. It saddens me and scares me.

 

I'll also say something that I've been wondering for months now and not had the courage to say when we discussed the case (and this isn't directed at you, Ibbygirl, I'm just thinking about it now because I've been considering this issue). Where was Kyron Horman's biological mother? Why did his dad have custody and his mom live hours away? Why didn't anyone feel it necessary to discuss this issue then? Why are we only discussing it now, in the context of working women who are being publicly honest about their limitations as mothers?

 

(Full disclosure: I have a splitting headache, so if I'm talking in circles, that's probably why. My apologies if I am! Also, I have no concerns at all over Kyron Horman's mother's choices, and lay no blame anywhere there. I'm wondering more about the choice of discussion fodder and who we tend to vilify here on this board.)

Edited March 5, 2011 by melissel

[OrganicAnn]

I've known a couple of grown men whose mothers left them and they were raised by their fathers. It really messed them up, especially their relationships with women.

 

I don't think that she is the opposite of the Tiger Mom. I think a Unschooler Mom would the be opposite of the Tiger Mom. The woman in the article is the opposite of the Helicopter Mom.

Edited March 5, 2011 by OrganicAnn

[unsinkable]

Sometimes, for some people, to leave some situations in which they don't feel good is the least of all possible evils. It's still an evil, of course. But life with continuous resentment, self-hate projected onto her own family members in some way, bitterness, "searching herself" and feeling hopeless in that she's lost and is living a life she doesn't want, and a whole lot of confusing and negative feelings thrown in the mix, would maybe be significantly worse. She might have exploded in some really bad way, too, like many of those "calm family people" for whom all is shiny and good on the outside that one day just commit something horrible. Especially if she already has a slightly "unnatural" lack of empathy, for example. Maybe it really was for the best, knowing herself, her impulses and ways of thinking, to leave.

 

This way, by opting to distance herself, she maybe did make a bad choice, but a one that is ultimately the least bad of all. I don't think we can really know what happens in other people's heads and hearts. It's a choice I could never make, but I can imagine it being legitimate in many situations, even if, of course, with many very real and very sad side-effects... which ultimately make the kids suffer.

But kids suffering from a lack of a serious emotional connection to their mother is still a whole lot better than kids dead, kids abused, kids breathing the atmosphere of resentment and "you destroyed my life" at home, etc. In many ways, kids might be better off with her present less and she might be better off and with a clearer "head" outside of the world in which she felt entrapped.

 

I'm not "excusing" her - but in some cases, it maybe is for the best. In some cases, even the "best" option is a very sad one. :(

 

I tend to agree with this, however...

 

I tend to think that there is damage done BEFORE the mom leaves...and it is similar to what you listed:

 

But life with continuous resentment, self-hate projected onto her own family members in some way, bitterness, "searching herself" and feeling hopeless in that she's lost and is living a life she doesn't want, and a whole lot of confusing and negative feelings thrown in the mix,

 

I would guess it is not all sunshine and roses in the years? months? before the leaving.

[Cera]

The ex-attachment parenting mom who now lives 3,000 miles away from her kids is Talyaa Liera, author of Literary Mama and now a spiritual adviser (!). She left when her kids were much older and one was already out of the house. She sounds like she burnt-out. She says by being "too nurturing" she wasn't allowing her kids to reach their full potential. But I'm still not getting why she had to move 3000 miles away, leaving them with another parent that's barely there (a pilot), to be able to back off that. :confused:

 

Her kids weren't very old. Her blog said one was out of the house but the other three were 12, 8 and 5. I can't imagine leaving a 5 or 8 year old (the 12 year old boy maybe if it was his choice) especially if I knew their dad wasn't the type to do the things with them that define childhood for little kids (bedtime stories, afternoons at the playground, etc).

[Joanne]

The article and this thread bring up very mixed feelings for me.

 

I think I'll just summarize those feelings with the hate, venom and unfathomability dumped on the mom is, IMO, over the top.

 

The other mom in the article:

 

"At the time I was a heavily involved, attachment-parenting Waldorf mom. I did the whole family bed, breastfeeding-into-toddlerhood, baby-wearing thing. I was at home with them for 10 years before their father and I split up, and stayed at home after that, trying to create a writing career to support myself."‬

 

‪After a lengthy custody battle and two years of joint custody, she realized that her ex-husband (a pilot with an erratic schedule) wasn't going to change, and her situation wasn't going to change, unless she decided to change things for herself. "I realized that by being so nurturing, I was in some ways keeping my children from growing to their potential," she says. "We talked about it for months and we prepared together, not really knowing what being 3,000 miles apart might look like or feel like.‬"

 

I have so much understanding for and empathy with this mom. I've lived a lot of the above. There ARE situations in which you have to walk in someone's shoes to get it. This is one of them.

[mommymilkies]

is that it contridicts what I believe motherhood is all about.

 

Your mother is your last line of defense in life. She is that place where, if everything falls about in your life, you can show up and count on absolute acceptance. Now, of course, things aren't always that idealic with moms, but when people are vulnerable they need a rock, and moms are rocks, imo.

 

These women aren't rocks; they are unreliable and that is unforgiveable when it comes to motherhood.

 

Sure it's not best for them to stick around, probably, if they will be mean and bitter towards their children, but that doesn't make it fair to the kids. And passing it off like the kids are better off for them not being there like la-di-da is horrible. It shows a complete lack of her ability to put herself in her children's shoes.

[ColoradoMom]

The article and this thread bring up very mixed feelings for me.

 

I think I'll just summarize those feelings with the hate, venom and unfathomability dumped on the mom is, IMO, over the top.

 

I'd have to say that I don't think it is hate - more like disgust. At least that's how it made me feel.

 

It makes my skin crawl to think of a mother who just doesn't care enough to stick around. I mean, I understand the whole "me" thing - I've done a lot of "me" stuff - but I always took my kids with me. You don't get to just drop out of motherhood and expect that people will be OK with that. I'm not OK with it. I just cannot relate.

 

If she were my best friend I would probably reconsider the friendship. While I am far from the perfect mom, I am at least giving it my all and trying to mold my children into healthy responsible adults.

 

You just don't get to screw with little people like that. It's morally wrong in my opinion. It's one thing if she's mentally unstable and is going to hurt the children but the impression I get is that these women were unfulfilled and in order to "find themselves" their lives needed to be devoid of meeting the needs of their offspring.

 

I find it incomprehensible and entirely selfish. It's not like they take a week off to have some me time, it's not getting a babysitter for a night out with the girls, and it's not wishing that you could have more freedom to go on a wine tasting tour.

 

This is straight up abandonment in my opinion.

[melissel]

Are people really thinking that it's better for miserable, angry, resentful parents who are so unhappy they are likely to dump all over their children to stay in the home WITH the children? Is no one considering the flip side of this? Yes, it stinks for the children. Both scenarios stink for the children! How is it better for these angry, miserable moms to stay in the home? I don't understand how people are not considering this aspect.

[Margaret in GA]

I don't see this as the antithesis of the Tiger Mom. The opposite of Tiger Mom would be a radical unschooler, right? Still a hands-on involved mom, but without the intense focus on goals that characterizes Tiger Mom. By giving up full-time custody of her children by choice, this "Hiroshima Mom" seems to taking herself out of the "mom" category. I mean, mom generally is understood to be a full-time kind of thing.

 

I thought you were going to post "Why I Don't Force My Kids to Say 'Please'...or Walk on Schedule" by Mayim Bialik (and the clever response from Mompetition).

 

 

Wow. The Mayim Bialik article was so self-congratulatory I could hardly finish it. Even though I am probably fairly similar in my parenting style- I just couldn't bear her grandstanding. The response was hilarious. Thanks for posting, Sara.

 

And speaking of grandstanding... that's what I find so vile about these two mothers. Not that they felt they had to leave their children, but that they felt the need to go public to sell books/ 'spiritual advice' / whatever ... I guess being counter-culture is good for business.

 

I do have a real problem with this: "I have been a mother since I was 20," she points out. "I did not have the life a normal 20 year old would have.

 

What is the "normal" 20 year old life? This is a very lazy excuse to justify something you did or want to do. 'Normal life' for most people is not a Friends episode.

 

Margaret

[Ester Maria]

I tend to think that there is damage done BEFORE the mom leaves...I would guess it is not all sunshine and roses in the years? months? before the leaving.

Unfortunately - yes. :( I guess I only wanted to say that, sometimes, ending that cycle and preventing potentially worse outcomes is the "best" choice - among all bad options.

[LibraryLover]

Hahahahahahaha!!!

 

This is my favorite part:

 

"Confused yet? I'll type slow. Childhood is so precious that we should take our children and place them in a little glass bubble of happiness. Letting children develop on their own time frame is what parenthood is all about. If my son showed an interest in golf or acting, do you think I'd start teaching him a proper hand grip or how to speak? Hells no. Allowing my children to just roam in a yellow corn field obviously should work for you too. I mean, that is why I'm writing this, validation of my choices, hit Like won't you? People at the Solstice Festival are often a little concerned that my son runs about freely, uttering no "excuse me's", while stealing other kids' food. And that's ok, what they don't know is that inside he is a special, gentle and unique creature that is better than your kid. The fact that my kids don't know Elmo from Diego further shows you I do not allow my children to watch television. Confused yet? You're lazy."

 

 

PS Now I want to go read the Mothering forums and try to figure out which poster is Blossom. :lurk5:

 

 

I don't see this as the antithesis of the Tiger Mom. The opposite of Tiger Mom would be a radical unschooler, right? Still a hands-on involved mom, but without the intense focus on goals that characterizes Tiger Mom. By giving up full-time custody of her children by choice, this "Hiroshima Mom" seems to taking herself out of the "mom" category. I mean, mom generally is understood to be a full-time kind of thing.

 

I thought you were going to post "Why I Don't Force My Kids to Say 'Please'...or Walk on Schedule" by Mayim Bialik (and the clever response from Mompetition).

[Heather in Neverland]

Are people really thinking that it's better for miserable, angry, resentful parents who are so unhappy they are likely to dump all over their children to stay in the home WITH the children? Is no one considering the flip side of this? Yes, it stinks for the children. Both scenarios stink for the children! How is it better for these angry, miserable moms to stay in the home? I don't understand how people are not considering this aspect.

 

1. I was a foster parent to 5 teenagers for a year. They all came from homes where the parents were addicts of some sort and definitely abdicated their parenting responsibilities in favor of drug use. We did our very best to give these teens a warm, loving "normal" family environment. And they were happy with us. HOWEVER, given the chance, EVEN WITH the horrible parenting, all 5 teens would have gone back home to those parents in a heartbeat. No matter how "miserable" those parents were they were STILL their parents. So yes, I believe abandoning them IS worse.

 

2. How is it better for a miserable mom to stay in the home? Well, my answer to that miserable mom is simply this: suck it up. Hate to break it to her but life is not all about you. When you become a mom your children's needs come before your own and that's it. Period. And you can be childish and immature and sit around angry about "poor me" or you can be an adult and realize that you brought those children into the world so get over your navel-gazing and take care of them.

 

Sorry I just don't have much sympathy for people who abandon their children so they can "find themselves". They disgust me.

Edited March 5, 2011 by Heather in NC

[MrsBasil]

 

I thought you were going to post "Why I Don't Force My Kids to Say 'Please'...or Walk on Schedule" by Mayim Bialik (and the clever response from Mompetition).

 

Read the Mayin Bialik article while picturing and mentally "hearing" her Amy Farrah Fowler character. It makes it even better.

[sewingmama]

Wow - all I can say is that I would rather have a Tiger mother then a part-time mother -at least the Tiger mother doesn't act as if you are an inconvienience.

 

I never knew my father - he took off when I was 4 and I was raised solely by my mother who was a very loving and good parent. No matter what anyone says it does not make up for the abandonment you feel when a parent voluntarily leaves. I still have many issues that I suffer with daily because my father left.

 

At least when parents divorce there is a reason why the parent leaves - they couldn't get along anymore. At least the child has a chance to grow up feeling the parent leaving was not about them. But what about a child who's mother turns around and says "I can't stand being your mother full-time I need to find myself and I can't do that with you hanging around me anymore" :confused:

 

When I was working in South Korea we had a new woman who was hired. She had come from Canada and I was chatting to her one day - getting to know her. She told me she was married and had two children. I was suprised that she was married since she was planning on staying for 2 years in Korea but I figured that maybe her husband had a demanding job and they had decided it would be ok for her to travel a bit. I totally assumed her kids (two boys) were at least older teenagers with their own lives since she had left them there as well. Turns out her boys were 7 & 13 :001_huh: I could not understand it. I asked her how she could stand not to see her young sons for so long - didn't they miss her? "No" she said "They are independent now -they can get themselves ready for school and they connect better with their dad anyway".:confused: I then assumed there was trouble in the marriage but she assured me it was fine and she had just decided she felt like travelling to do something for herself and her boys were independent enough they didn't need her around all the time.

 

In my opinion if you bring kids into this world and don't choose to adopt them out then you are responsible for raising them - you do not get to run off and "find yourself". It's the absolute most selfish thing I can think of that any mother could do (Ok putting your kid in an oven is probably worse but YKWIM). I'll admit there are times when I imagine myself childless -but no way would I run off and leave my kids to parent themselves.

 

People have no sense of responsibility any more - it seems anything goes these days as long as you explain it as "finding yourself". Doesn't matter who you hurt because we all know that "mothers should put themselves first so they don't loose their identity".:glare: In my opinion I will have plenty of years after the kids have left to "get myself my own identity" - the whole thing is a crock to excuse people's lack of responsibilty.

[pdalley]

 

2. How is it better for a miserable mom to stay in the home? Well, my answer to that miserable mom is simply this: suck it up. Hate to break it to her but life is not all about you. When you become a mom your children's needs come before your own and that's it. Period. And you can be childish and immature and sit around angry about "poor me" or you can be an adult and realize that you brought those children into the world so get over your navel-gazing and take care of them.

 

Sorry I just don't have much sympathy for people who abandon their children so they can "find themselves". They disgust me.

 

:iagree:

 

 

Life is not easy. No one said it would be. My SIL is one of these women. Whines non stop about all she's lost. Totally ignored her daughter but refused to let anyone else parent her. (Kid's Dad was just as self centered) SIL's poor choices lost her a lot of things but she won't own up. It's better somehow to whine that it's not her fault and she deserves - money, happiness, boats, cars, etc.

 

I grew up fatherless. Logically I know that it was for the best - he was a very abusive alcoholic. Still, I missed having a father and it was hard being the daughter that was the polar opposite of what her mother had envisioned for her. I had NO doubt my mother loved/loves me - even if she was rather bewildered by parenting. Yes, she resented me and my brother sometimes. I don't think less of her for that. I think more because she kept on keeping on despite that.

 

My grandmother's mother died when she was 8 from uterine cancer. Her father raised her and her two brothers. She will tell you herself she could not have had a better parent than her father but she still missed having a mother.

 

Her father, my great-grandfather, was widowed, raised three kids solo during the Great Depression, saw they all went to college, lost his middle son to suicide after WWII. He didn't quit when life was not what he thought it would be. He did give up his dreams of being a Minister. I figure if he can suck it up and deal with much more harshness than my pampered self has in my life then I best do the same.

 

These women have to do what they feel is right for themselves but I find it more appalling that they have to throw it out in the media . You know, so the kids can read it over and over again.

 

(I am not referring to issues of abuse or mental illness. I'm talking about selfishness.)

[melissel]

1. I was a foster parent to 5 teenagers for a year. They all came from homes where the parents were addicts of some sort and definitely abdicated their parenting responsibilities in favor of drug use. We did our very best to give these teens a warm, loving "normal" family environment. And they were happy with us. HOWEVER, given the chance, EVEN WITH the horrible parenting, all 5 teens would have gone back home to those parents in a heartbeat. No matter how "miserable" those parents were they were STILL their parents. So yes, I believe abandoning them IS worse.

 

People voluntarily go back to abusive situations all the time. It doesn't make the situation better for them than an alternative, particularly when the alternative is a parent. Comparing fostering situations where the original home is filled with drug abuse to a home in which the parents are divorced and one parent has loving, involved, partial custody -- even if it's not the parent you believe should have wanted custody -- is comparing apples to oranges.

 

2. How is it better for a miserable mom to stay in the home? Well, my answer to that miserable mom is simply this: suck it up. Hate to break it to her but life is not all about you. When you become a mom your children's needs come before your own and that's it. Period. And you can be childish and immature and sit around angry about "poor me" or you can be an adult and realize that you brought those children into the world so get over your navel-gazing and take care of them.

 

Sorry I just don't have much sympathy for people who abandon their children so they can "find themselves". They disgust me.

 

Actually, I meant, how is better for the CHILDREN involved to have a parent in the home with them who clearly does not want to be there? Not for the parent, who, I agree, should suck it up when possible. But I don't think it's automatically best for the children to have a parent present who resents the simple fact of their existence. IMO, we've discussed toxic parents enough on this board for me to believe that the kids may be better off with that parent gone. Several posters here have attested to this very fact, and everyone seems to be ignoring them in their knee-jerk disgust.

 

Sorry I just don't have much sympathy for people who abandon their children so they can "find themselves". They disgust me.

 

Once again, we are talking about non-custodial parents, who call and Skype and have visitation and are directly and lovingly involved in their children's lives. We are not talking about total abandonment. And once again, I ask, do you carry the same amount of disgust for non-custodial MALE parents who have the same level of involvement in their children's lives? I don't hear anyone answering that question.

[Lovedtodeath]

"In my part-time motherhood, I get concentrated blocks of time when I can be that 1950s mother we idealize who was waiting in an apron with fresh cookies when we got off the school bus and wasn't too busy for anything we needed until we went to bed. I go to every parent-teacher conference; I am there for performances and baseball games."

 

I can totally see that.

 

Okay, I need to read the thread now...

Edited March 6, 2011 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

I don't see this as the antithesis of the Tiger Mom. The opposite of Tiger Mom would be a radical unschooler, right? Still a hands-on involved mom, but without the intense focus on goals that characterizes Tiger Mom. By giving up full-time custody of her children by choice, this "Hiroshima Mom" seems to taking herself out of the "mom" category. I mean, mom generally is understood to be a full-time kind of thing.

 

I thought you were going to post "Why I Don't Force My Kids to Say 'Please'...or Walk on Schedule" by Mayim Bialik (and the clever response from Mompetition).

:iagree:

[Ginevra]

But it shines a light on a glaring double standard: When a man chooses not to be a full-time parent, it's acceptable—or, at least, accepted. But when a woman decides to do so, it's abandonment.

 

(From the article in the OP.)

 

That is the most idiotic thing I've read all week. I don't think it's acceptable - or even something I would "accept" - for a man to end his marriage and dump his kids because he has some vague notion that fatherhood is hard and, gee, there are all these responsibilities. It's abandonment in either case.

[pdalley]

Once again, we are talking about non-custodial parents, who call and Skype and have visitation and are directly and lovingly involved in their children's lives. We are not talking about total abandonment. And once again, I ask, do you carry the same amount of disgust for non-custodial MALE parents who have the same level of involvement in their children's lives? I don't hear anyone answering that question.

 

 

More, if that's possible. Owing to the loss of my own father who chose not to be involved even after he got sober.

[melissel]

More, if that's possible. Owing to the loss of my own father who chose not to be involved even after he got sober.

 

But that's not the same level of involvement. That's non-involvement, which is not what these mothers we're discussing are reporting their involvement to be.

 

(And :grouphug: I'm sorry that that was your experience :()

[Lovedtodeath]

I really liked Blossom's article and did not like the parody.

The parody was ridiculous. It seemed to not even be based on the article by Dr. Bialik, mentioning many completely unrelated things, ignoring things (like modeling good behavior), and was full of assumptions.

 

I would like to read your article.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I feel burned out most of the time. There's a running commentary in my head about my kids deserving more of me, more of my attention, more of my presence, etc. When I'm actually able to be present, enjoy their company, pay attention rather than trying to escape mentally, I feel successful, and like I'm giving them what they truly deserve.

This is me. Exactly.:grouphug:

[pdalley]

But that's not the same level of involvement. That's non-involvement, which is not what these mothers we're discussing are reporting their involvement to be.

 

(And :grouphug: I'm sorry that that was your experience :()

 

Thanks. I learned to deal with it a long time ago. Watching DH be such a good Daddy to our boys is healing. Seeing the difference in them as opposed to my brother is amazing. They are growing into strong confident young men who are kind and loving.

 

I just don't have much patience for endless whiners - be it my SIL or her ex - BIL. Both of them were equally neglectful and selfish parents. My niece is a royal mess as a result. I can't say SIL is worse than the BIL or did more damage. They both made sure my niece knew she wasn't wanted and they resented the podunk out of her existence.

 

I firmly believe that when you make the decision to have a child - regardless of your gender - that then the child deserves to be put before your own idea of what you thought your life would look like. Like Heather said, at that point it's 'suck it up and deal'. It doesn't matter to me if it's a father or a mother. It's a parent and an adult and needs to act that way.

[silliness7]

Well, you're absolutely right, Ester Maria and Faith.

 

I suppose if the alternative is Andrea Yates or terrible emotional abuse, then it probably is better if the mom walks away.

 

These two particular moms bug me though. They seem to be really selfish, and are presenting their choices as valid for anyone who feels unfulfilled. One even calls herself a "spiritual advisor". Did you see her website? :tongue_smilie:

 

:iagree: If the alternative is Andrea Yates then by all means, please leave. Just don't tout how wonderful you are and how well-adjusted they are in the national media. I would prefer hand-wringing and tears and I really desperately want to be a nurturing mom but I'm barely keeping myself together...y'know something like that I could sympathize with.

[LibraryLover]

I liked the Blossom article. I agreed with some of it. I did think the paradoy was hilarious, however. I wish the person who does those funny YouTube cartoons would take it up as well. That would be funny.

 

The parody was ridiculous. It seemed to not even be based on the article by Dr. Bialik, mentioning many completely unrelated things, ignoring things (like modeling good behavior), and was full of assumptions.

 

I would like to read your article.

[jujsky]

1. I was a foster parent to 5 teenagers for a year. They all came from homes where the parents were addicts of some sort and definitely abdicated their parenting responsibilities in favor of drug use. We did our very best to give these teens a warm, loving "normal" family environment. And they were happy with us. HOWEVER, given the chance, EVEN WITH the horrible parenting, all 5 teens would have gone back home to those parents in a heartbeat. No matter how "miserable" those parents were they were STILL their parents. So yes, I believe abandoning them IS worse.

 

2. How is it better for a miserable mom to stay in the home? Well, my answer to that miserable mom is simply this: suck it up. Hate to break it to her but life is not all about you. When you become a mom your children's needs come before your own and that's it. Period. And you can be childish and immature and sit around angry about "poor me" or you can be an adult and realize that you brought those children into the world so get over your navel-gazing and take care of them.

 

Sorry I just don't have much sympathy for people who abandon their children so they can "find themselves". They disgust me.

 

:iagree: They can put in their 18 years and then be done with the nurturing, day-to-day mom stuff. People like this can go find themselves all they want AFTER their kids are grown. Oh, and like a couple of people pointed it out, if she didn't like being a mother, why didn't she stop at one child? I have some level of sympathy for parents who realize that the parenting thing wasn't what they expected, but if it's not for you, stop at one.

[Chaqar]

Well, I feel sad for this woman. She is missing out, whether she knows it or not. It would appear that she has no idea...

[ChristineW]

I don't think the mother always needs to be the custodial parent; I don't fault her for that. But she herself calls her ex-husband disconnected, abusive, controlling, and then thinks it's a good idea to give him custody and move far, far away? That, I cannot imagine.

 

Yeah, that was my problem with spiritual advisor move 3000 miles away mom. I think she's just a step above my cousin's meth addicted ex wife who didn't even show up for the divorce hearing and hasn't called her 2 boys (the oldest who is 5) in almost 3 years. At least she had an addiction. This woman just got tired of being a mom, and listened to the "voices" in her head. Now she's a zen spiritual advisor??? Who the heck would listen to such a crazy lady.

 

There is a middle ground between being a cuddly waldorf attachment mom and abandoning your kids. She's weak and spineless and a model for nobody

 

I understand Heroshima momma. If I got a grant to be outside the US for 6 months Dh would find a way to make it work. If I wanted a job involving travel, we would make it work. In my working days I knew mom's who would not be good custodial parents if they split from their husband. It's not the norm, but its not the end of the world. When parent's split, someone gets custody. Sometimes dad is more nurturing and would do better with the kids. Heroshima mom lives in the same town and acts like a good noncustodial dad. Unlike the zen momma, she's not a deadbeat. As long as dad is doing a good job as "mother" then I believe her when she says her kids are ok. Its selfish to write a book about it before your sons graduate, but that's the only part where I find fault.

 

Christine W

[EthiopianFood]

then I don't think the situation is any more damaging then when a father leaves and a mother retains custody. No doubt, these women are selfish with no sense of a greater duty to family, but they're no worse than some men. That said, as a mother I'm horrified.

 

:iagree:

[Ibbygirl]

I hear what you're saying, and I knew you were quoting the comment. I was reacting more to that than to you. At least one other poster expressed the same sentiments as the commenter, so I thought it was worth addressing.

 

I didn't get the same impression from Rizzuto's statements. Maybe because I can identify with her in some ways, so it rings more true to me? I struggle with homeschooling--it's not at all compatible with my personality, so I feel burned out most of the time. There's a running commentary in my head about my kids deserving more of me, more of my attention, more of my presence, etc. When I'm actually able to be present, enjoy their company, pay attention rather than trying to escape mentally, I feel successful, and like I'm giving them what they truly deserve.

 

I do think there's an ideal that many of us feel we should be striving for--it's epitomized by the "1950s housewife," but what it really is is PRESENCE for our children. That's how I read her words. When I'm able to give them my presence, sometimes it seems take the form of the Mrs. Cleaver persona, but that doesn't make it any less real. When my DH has taken the kids to his mom's all day Thursday, I find that I'm a much more present mom on Friday. Obviously that's on a much smaller scale than the experience of the women in the article, but my experience of motherhood is not the same as theirs either. I'm lucky that if it got really bad for me, I could put them in school and solve my problem. I can't fathom feeling that way about motherhood in general, and for that I'm so grateful :(

 

I see your side as well. I don't know, I just had a different impression when I read the article. But I have to also say that it was very late at night when I read it too so that could have something to do with it. :)

 

As for non-custodial parents in general, the commenter's post is what made me think of that, and I was just putting out there in the discussion. Again, other posters made some comments that related, and the commenter's attack on Rizzuto's genuineness (is that even a word?) made me wonder if we would perceive, say, non-custodial dads' genuineness the same way. It bothers me how vituperative we are about these women who leave their children this way but accept that many, many dads live this way on a daily basis, all the while extolling the importance of non-custodial dads' presence in their children's lives. It's OK and normal for them to leave and have jobs and lives and families elsewhere. They go to school meetings and put their kids to bed on time when it's their week and take them to the amusement park and baseball games and call often when it's not their week. As long as they're making this effort to stay in their childrens' lives, they're great dads who are trying hard and doing the right thing in a bad situation. Yet, we're not saying the same about these moms who are talking about making the same efforts. Instead, we question their emotional veracity. It saddens me and scares me.

All things being equal when comparing caring and involved (to the extent that they are able) non-custodial dads and non-custodial moms I agree that the mom should not be vilified any more than the dad and that would indeed be a double standard.

 

I think it is harder though because one (generally) thinks of the mom as being the more nurturing of the two parents since she is the one who actually carries and births the baby and is typically the comforter, but I agree that that is a generalization and not always the case. There are some dads that are very nurturing and caring with their children just as there are some moms who are emotionally distant and not naturally nurturing.

I'll also say something that I've been wondering for months now and not had the courage to say when we discussed the case (and this isn't directed at you, Ibbygirl, I'm just thinking about it now because I've been considering this issue). Where was Kyron Horman's biological mother? Why did his dad have custody and his mom live hours away? Why didn't anyone feel it necessary to discuss this issue then? Why are we only discussing it now, in the context of working women who are being publicly honest about their limitations as mothers?

 

(Full disclosure: I have a splitting headache, so if I'm talking in circles, that's probably why. My apologies if I am! Also, I have no concerns at all over Kyron Horman's mother's choices, and lay no blame anywhere there. I'm wondering more about the choice of discussion fodder and who we tend to vilify here on this board.)

I'm not familiar with the case you are mentioning above. I guess I must have missed it when it was being discussed. I realize that you weren't directing the question directly to me, but since I was responding to your comments I figured I should just reply to all of them. :) I hope your headache feels better. :grouphug: I get migraines sometimes too and they're no fun. :(

 

As far as "who we tend to vilify", I agree that you raised a very good point/question. I think society does kind of "excuse" the father's absence more often than the mother's because it is more prevalent. I do think though that either parent, mom or dad, who chooses to abandon their children though leave wreckage and the kids will have emotional wreckage that they will deal with always. On a personal level I did not know my own father either. He abandoned our family completely when I was 10 months old. I never saw him again. I guess I was lucky since I was so small, but my older brother was devastated. He loved our dad so much and used to get so excited when he would come home from work. He would hang on to his leg and wouldn't let go so that my dad had to walk like that with my brother clinging to his leg. My brother STILL remembers that. He experiences pain that I don't over it and to this day he cannot get too close to anybody.

 

Society may be more willing to overlook a dad leaving than a mom, but to the children who are left, I'd wager it is equally painful. :(