Mothers and Fathers - Who Makes the Better Parent for Children When All Things Are Equal

This Hub was written in reply to a question asked in the HubPages forum, "All things being equal, who would make the better parent, father or mother?" Besides that thread title, here's the rest of the question:

"All things being equal, if you had to decide which parent was to raise their children, would you favor the father or the mother as being the better choice to raise them?"

and here's the forum thread, itself:

http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/post/69790

and now...

Here's my reply:

OK, get the rotten tomatoes ready to throw...

I'm going to take it one step beyond "all things being equal" and go all the way to two absolutely wonderful, capable, loving, nurturing, parents to whom the child feels equally bonded..

The mother. Here's why I think as I do:

OK, get the rotten tomatoes ready to throw...

I'm going to take it one step beyond "all things being equal" and go all the way to two absolutely wonderful, capable, loving, nurturing, parents to whom the child feels equally bonded..

The mother. Here's why I think as I do:

Besides seeing the kind of bond that I've always had with my own children, when I was six my mother was hospitalized for an infection for several months.  As "absolutely much" as my sister (then twelve) and I "absolutely, absolutely, adored and were close to our father; there was something I can't describe about not being able to be with our mother on a daily basis.  There's a reason for that saying about "a motherless child".  I suppose my thinking has nothing to do with who actually gives birth to the child; because one of my kids is adopted.  It does, though, have to do with who bonds with the child the way a mother bonds with an infant.  I suppose, in a case where the father has bonded with a brand new infant the way good, loving, mothers do, I'd make an exception in my thinking on behalf of mothers.

All things being equal, I think one of the cruelest things someone can do to a child is to separate him from his mother.  (I'm not in favor the way the courts treat non-custodial fathers in ANY WAY EITHER.)  Still, what's far too common these days (again - all things being equal) is for some fathers to convince themselves and/or others that the mother of their child is "a nut or a slut" in order not to have to deal with the challenges of being separated from their child.  Or else, they believe that whoever has access to the most money equals "the better parent".  Even worse, they're just mad that their wife wants out and seek revenge by "going after the children", regardless of how much it hurts the children. OR, there's the thing that they're afraid of having to pay for a roof and food for children who aren't living with them.  (Then, of course, they refuse to believe it hurts the children - often out of their own ego and lack of respect for the woman.)

Basically, "when all things are equal" things still aren't equal (not when that works to mothers' disadvantage, and not when it works to their advantage).  I know it was a long, long, time ago that I was in first and second grade; but when kids didn't haven't fathers showing up for something at school, it was as if everyone kind of knew that fathers worked or were away on business, etc.  For a kid whose mother didn't show up, it was a whole other thing.

I have every sympathy for fathers who get "the usual bad treatment" in custody cases.  It's horrible, horrible.  I know, because when I left my marriage all it took was a few lies, a few people not seeming to realize I was a grown-up and was perfectly normal in my not telling them every last little reason I did one thing or another, and a few people who just automatically believed anything a perfectly honest-seeming person presented to make me lose custody of the three children I'd essentially raised myself (even though married) - and leave my kids to be the ones at school whose mother couldn't be there, and who cried every night because their mother wasn't around.

Being a mother (and a normal one, with an normal and fierce maternal instinct), I did a lot better job of remaining my kids' parent in spite of it than a lot of fathers do; because I wasn't willing to give up being in touch with them, remaining their parent, or fighting to be with them - ever.  Too many fathers just give up when they see how difficult it is to stay a close, bonded, parent.  Maybe too many fathers (or mothers too, for that matter) don't have the strength, confidence, and determination to do what it takes to assert their parental role and stay close.  It's not easy, but it can be done when whatever parent it is refuses to be "put on a back burner".

Obnoxious (and angry) as this may sound, I really think (all things being equal) mothers may even make more skilled, stronger, non-custodial-parent material too.  Sometimes, it may be the "best" of fathers who think, "Oh well, my kids have a good mother.  They don't need me quite so much."  As a result, some of the most capable, loving, fathers may be a little more willing to back down and take a more hands-off approach if they must be separated from their children.  A good, strong, capable, mother isn't willing to do that because she recognizes her own bond and relationship with her children, as well the importance of preserving it at all costs (and in spite of whether or not a custodial fathers loves his kids).  It's never, however, the "best" kind of father who either disregards, or doesn't have a clue about, his kids' bond with their loving, capable, mother.  By virtue of his willingness to try to separate his own children from the mother they love (or by virtue of his refusing to, or being incapable of, seeing what a good, capable, loving, competent, parent she is), a father (some - certainly not all) demonstrate what unskilled, unloving, parents they actually are.

In fairness to some custodial fathers, it's important to note that many wouldn't separate their children from their mother.  Instead, it may be a judge or court system that automatically does one thing or another the same way all the time.

When I was of the age when kids sometimes worry about what would happen if their parents were to divorce, I was naive enough to imagine being asked which parent I wanted to live with.  (I was about ten, I think.)  I recall really worrying about what I'd do, because I absolutely, absolutely, could never, ever, choose between the two parents wonderful parents I loved so much.  When I had no choice but to leave my marriage, I handed the attorneys a plan that I thought would allow us to separate without having too much impact on my children.  The "proposed plan" included having my kids' father be at the house a few nights for dinner or after (until the kids went to bed).  I proposed some flexible approaches for weekend time between any combination of people involved.  Basically, the only difference for my kids (at least when the separation first took place, but to some degree indefinitely) would be that their father wouldn't be in the house overnights or a couple of weekday evenings.  That would have actually been an improvement in how much time they spent with him, because until then he'd worked long hours and came home late anyway.

Since I knew I wouldn't be needing child support (but believed it "wouldn't kill" my ex-husband to "kick in" some support, I proposed a plan that any child support the court ordered would go toward college-tuition savings for the children, and collect interest along the way.

Well, neither courts nor angry spouses tend to worry much about the emotional impact of separation on children, or do things in any of the ways I planned.  I was told they "just do it this way", which was a Wednesday-and-weekends thing.  On the other (and maybe because I was the mother), they threw in the thing that I'd pick up the children each day after school and be with them until their father got home from work (which was good, but which would have been better had I not been ordered out of the house and left to live in my car.

The point is that the horrible way fathers (at least the ones whose attorneys can find nothing against their wives other than to whip up a "nuts or sluts" claim) is something that needs to be addressed by laws and within the court system.  It's also something that needs to be addressed when one spouse shows up and is fine with the idea of the other spouse only seeing the children on Wednesday nights and every other weekend.  Addressing the ease with which a few lies can amount to a "nuts or sluts" defense is something else that needs to be done.  In other words, if a mother isn't seeing flying pink elephants or hearing the voice of God, people need to be wary of the way the "nuts or sluts" is routinely used by attorneys sworn to "zealously defend" (no matter what they have to do or say, and regardless of whether the truth if obvious to even them) clients who aren't necessarily the closest parent to the child(ren).

All things being equal, no parent should be relegated to the fringes of their own child's childhood; and no parent should be willing to be.  All things truly being equal, neither parent would be willing to have the other parent relegated to fringes of his/her child's childhood and day-to-day life.  It's that simple.  All things being truly equal (when it comes to knowing what it takes to be a good parent), neither parent sees who has the most money as something that should determine custody.  All things being equal, both parents will find a way to provide a safe and healthy (even if modest) home for the child, with a healthy emotional environment.  All things being equal, both partners would be able to more objectively evaluate the parenting and value of the other partner to the children; and would be able to separate differences in the relationship, or incompatibilities between the two parents; from both of their roles as parents.  (In other words, all things being equal; both parents would be reasonable enough to sort out the difference between difficulties in a marriage and weaknesses in the other parent.) 

All things being equal, every parent would have grown beyond biological hardwiring that often plays a role in the kind of cognitive skills that are often associated with one sex or another.  Whether or not a lower percentage of yesterday's fathers had great nurturing skills than today's fathers often do may not be the question.  One question that remains may still be what is the percentage of parents of each sex today (who have already, of course, been nurtured in their first and most formative years) have developed beyond any biological-hardwiring tendencies.

Even with all things being equal, and even in the case of two parents who have both developed well beyond any of the biological-wiring tendencies that so many people today still haven't "outgrown"/"evolved beyond"/"developed outside of"; the question of how many children (obviously still in the developmental stages that, in fact, make them children in the first place) have "outgrown" the biological wiring that makes them need to be with their mother.

People who have done extensive work with foster kids and kids adopted (beyond infancy) from the foster-care system now understand that even when children are separated from negligent or abusive mothers, there can be an "emotional fracture" that occurs and isn't necessarily healed.  Imagine what happens when children are separated from mothers who are kind to them.

The mother who doesn't have, or doesn't see, the kind of bond and relationship with her child that good, nurturing, mothers have;  and who think, "Oh well, I'll give custody of my child to his father because all things are equal," would indicate (by virtue of being so willing to give up custody) that "all things aren't equal" when it comes to how most mothers are with their own child/ren. Neither are mothers who accept that because a father has more money he "must" be the one who will be best suitable for custody.

All things are seldom equal, though.  Most fathers wouldn't dream of trying to separate the children they love from their mother without good reason.  Usually, being able to do that requires believing the mother is a horrible person, believing she's either a nut or a slut, or believing that the person who has the most money will automatically make the best parent.  "Horrible people" are usually obviously horrible people to everyone they know.  The "nut thing" or "slut thing" are both things that can be fairly easy to lie about, exaggerate, or believe even when there are no credible, provable, facts to support such a belief.

When a good mother dies, fathers seem to have no trouble seeing the loss their children suffer as a result.  When a good mother (and again, we're talking about all things being equal) divorces, it can be a little trickier for fathers (particularly those who are "less equal" emotionally) to see the loss their children will suffer if separated from their mother.  Maybe one needs to have been a child who had that unique kind of bond with his mother.  Maybe one needs to be a mother who has discovered she has the same, unique, kind of bond with her own children.  Maybe one needs to have experienced both. 

All things being truly equal (and that's probably actually far less common than "all things not being at all equal"), I'm sorry...  Children need to be with their mother, and the void and loneliness of not being with their mother is something only children separated from a loving mother may understand.  It's so difficult to try to make sure to convey that I'm not suggesting that fathers can't be absolutely amazing parents and that the bond they (at least the "equal" ones) share with children isn't overwhelmingly powerful and permanent; while also saying there's still a difference between a child's relationship with his mother and with his father.  It has nothing to do with who is the better parent.  It has something to do with the kind of emotional intimacy and degree and nature of the bond mothers and their children share (when all is normal).

This is just personal opinion here, but I think (again - only when all things are truly equal, and in that situation when both parents are wonderful and loving) children who aren't with the mother are bound to grow up wondering (and/or asking), "Why did you let me be a kid whose mother wasn't around?"

Some mothers may have to reply, "Oh, I had to travel to for work."  That kind of answer isn't always the greatest one in many kids' eyes.  Or, some mothers may have to say, "I didn't 'let you'.  There was a court battle, and I fought hard to keep you with me; but I lost."  Maybe that's a more acceptable answer to some people, but the child in question must still process his sense of loss (and the longer he "the kid who didn't have his mother around", the bigger and more permanent the sense of loss).  Kids aren't stupid, though, so if they know their mother fought hard to win custody; they also know who it was that chose to have that fight in the first place.  That isn't likely to do much for the relationship kids have with their fathers in the long run, and it certainly doesn't do much for the esteem with which they'll view their father.

Again, kids aren't stupid.  When they have an "all things truly equal" kind of mother, and someone else, in misguided honesty, explains to them, "Your mother is sick," kids can usually see who it is that seems less "sick" to them, and who it is that seems to have some "issues" with seeing reality.  Here again, this kind of situation doesn't do much for children's respect for, admiration or, or relationship with their father.  In fact, it may not do much for their relationship with the mother because they'll have see her as a victim (and victims are generally viewed by children as "ineffective").  This can mean that for all her fighting to "straighten things out" and be able to be with them when they were separated from her, a mother can look to children as if all her hard work and efforts were for naught (in other words, "the height of ineffective").  Promises she made to them that she'd never leave them, or never let anyone do anything to hurt them, are bound to ring hollow in the ears of children who know those promises couldn't be kept (no matter how much the mother they once trusted and saw as completely capable may have tried to keep them).

When all things are truly equal, a lot of parents decide to stay together for the children, and vow not to let any fractures in the marriage lead to the kind of resentment and anger that make a home environment unsuitable for children.  An irony may be that when all things are truly equal, parents will find a way to make sure children don't do without either parent if there absolutely must be a divorce; and most parents would consider leaving their child without his mother absolutely out of the question (regardless of what other arrangements they work out as "all things are equal" parents).

In divorce situations, though, all things are seldom equal.  Sometimes it's both parents who can't or won't be reasonable and put the children first.  Sometimes it's only one of them.  Sometimes the court won't allow even the most "equal" and reasonable of parents arrange things in a way that is healthiest for their own children and family.