Would you date a single mum?

I am currently dating a single father with 4 children, would just add that they are all over 20 yrs of age, I also have 4 children so I guess that puts us on a more or less level footing. I still have one teenager who is dependant on me and my partner has accepted that sometimes he will come second to the responsibilities I have for my still dependant child. His words "If you didn't put your child first then there would be something wrong with you"

WS no matter how much you love someone else, you cannot put that before the love you have for your own children. Without meaning to sound patronising, until you have a child of your own you would not understand the intensity of the love you have for them.

Sure peppercorn, I agree with you. I think this may have been the source of a lot of misunderstanding. I actually wanted to have children of my own - and fully understand that a woman's first love is going to be her children, even if she no longer has it for their father. This is precisely why I have not gone out of my way to court such involvements. This puts another man in a potentially awkward position - especially if he has not fathered children. This is why I feel that the most equitable partnerships are with people in the same position - you can work out similar dilemmas together. If she has one child already and that child is young, and she is not averse to having another, I think a life together might have a future, but love of each other must come first.

Necessity was the mother of invention - creativity the father. I just don't think there's much scope for the commited involvement of a single man with no children with a single mother who has brought up children for years, who would be expected to be at least of teenage years. At the risk of being misunderstood I don't want a man with no balls - I want a woman! Where's the scope for necessity - what does she need, she's done it all - and where's the scope for creativity - what on earth could be shared of each other? It's not about mecenary considerations like sex or money - not if you're genuine anyway.

Good luck with your relationship - it sounds like you've made a good choice - I'm sure you can both have endless fun with a family of eight! :)

A man with no balls?

Do you ever read back what you've typed before you hit send and actually consider how many people you're going to offend when you could say the exact same thing with a little more thought and consideration and only upset/offend the regular people who get upset/offended?

Blah!

It's gorgeous outside!

*toddle*

Im sure Pepper will be having endless fun with a family of eight children...Think of all the BBQ'S and family get togethers etc etc. One thing she will never be lonely...:o)

As for men with no balls, Id rather have a man with no balls than a man with no respect...!!

Agreed Jue, and yes PI, probably not very tactfuly put. Respect is a two-way street, and some do precious little to earn it.

The key word there is "some" :p

Some other key words for your perusal:

Tarred
Brush
All
With



Oooh I'm getting all odd, what happened there?

No PI, there I differ. I haven't tarred everyone with the same brush. Whatever the faults of men, women copying them does nothing to cure them. I just think that where women are able to celebrate the postive aspects of womanhood, instead of doing a poor job of being men, there is much more liklihood of mutual respect and love. The problem with being a breadwinner, a carer, a giver of love, and a leader responsible for the wellbeing of others without respect for anyone else is the problem of absolute power - it corrupts.

"Whatever the faults of men, women copying them does nothing to cure them."

cure them of what exactly?

"... celebrate the postive aspects of womanhood"

so what do you think ARE the positive aspects of womanhood?

I need clarification, because the way I'm reading this I'm getting a Neanderthal view of men and women. Men go off clubbing the mammoth for food and women stay in the cave cooking, cleaning, making babies, obeying men and knowing their place in society can never change.
Surely this isn't the view you're trying to get across is it?

Or do some men feel threatened by dominant, intelligent, career minded women who want to have it all, career and a family?

I'm not sure women, on thw whole, do a poor job of being men. Some men do a poor job of being men themselves!

Shouldn't men and women be equals?
doesn't that make for mutual respect and love?

So many questions , so little time.....

My goodness we have gone off track here from the original post

Would you date a single mum?
Would kids put you off?

I think we need to use the gps to find the right track again !!

"so what do you think ARE the positive aspects of womanhood?"
Let's turn that attack around. What do YOU think are the positive aspects?

"I need clarification, because the way I'm reading this I'm getting a Neanderthal view of men and women."
So you consider anyone who disagrees with you to be subhuman? An alarming line of thought.

"Men go off clubbing the mammoth for food and women stay in the cave cooking, cleaning, making babies, obeying men and knowing their place in society can never change. Surely this isn't the view you're trying to get across is it?"
Assumning that it is, it is still a view to which the poster is entitled.

"Or do some men feel threatened by dominant, intelligent, career minded women who want to have it all, career and a family?"
Men tend to find loud women tiresome rather than threatening. Interestingly. no thought is given for the price that the family might have to pay for this 'I want' agenda.

"I'm not sure women, on the whole, do a poor job of being men."
The prison population suggests otherwise.

"Shouldn't men and women be equals?"
Men and women are not the same. That does not however preclude equality of opportunity and equality before the law. It is worth noting that in many cases it is actually men who are actively discriminated against. Is that acceptable?

Why am I not surprised that a man would get all defensive about my comments?

because a man's position as 'top dog' in society is being threatened, perhaps? Funny, now I'm getting the mental image of Neandathal man beating his chest at his poor wife because she hasn't cooked the mammoth properly! Have you seen the size of them ?

"attack"

where is the attack? I'm just want clarification that I haven't got the wrong end of the stick that's all.

WS is often very obliging when I make enquiries.

where someone can't answer the question I pose, for example, about the virtues of womenhood, the question is turned round.... interesting!
I was just after a fuller answer on that comment. Again, it was to help me understand more the point the poster was making.

No, I do not consider anyone subhuman. You have said that not me. Trying to put words into my mouth...interesting !!! I was just using the analogy of the Neandathal man and WOMAN, not just man.

I have no problem with differing views I welcome them, it gives rise to debate. What a boring world it would be if me or anyone else agreed with everything said here.
Now here's a thought, maybe us women are supposed to agree with everything a man says. Little women syndrome perhaps?...interesting

Everyone is entitled to a view and everyone is entitled to ask questions when trying to understand that view.

"Men tend to find loud women tiresome rather than threatening.
Interestingly. No thought is given for the price that the family might have to pay for this 'I want' agenda."

sounds like 'men' feel threatened because women CAN have it all. They can give birth, raise children and have a career. Men can only do two of the three. Plus that comment is a bit of a generalisation.
No thought seems to be given to the fact that some women HAVE to go to work to support their families, they have no choice.

"Men tend to find loud women tiresome rather than threatening.."

umm..another over generalisation perhsps? maybe denying a woman the right to be heard...interesting.
Women have every right to be loud and have a point of view, but of course that makes some men feel uncomfortable.

"I'm not sure women, on the whole, do a poor job of being men."
The prison population suggests otherwise.

Some women have high powered jobs and are very succesful at it. I don't understand the prison comment and it's relevance here.

""Shouldn't men and women be equals?"
Men and women are not the same"

I know that women and men are not the same. I did not say that. Equals as human beings and not as the 'old fashioned view' of a womans place in society is below that of a man.

Funny, now I'm getting a mental of a shoulder and a very large chip...interesting.

I think I've responded to all the points raised.
I now rest my case m'lud.

:):)

Whatever the faults of men, women copying them does nothing to cure them. Cure what? The faults, of course!

It may be language that drives men and women back to Neanderthal times, if we can't get to grips with emotional reactions to its ambiguity - Freud on jokes is a good read.

In Neanderthal times the division of 'labour' was very effective, for a hunter-gather society. The men did the hunting, the women the homemaking/childcare, BUT NOT ALWAYS, there were exceptions even then - some women did the hunting too. As always capability ruled the day, not legislation. There's a danger in rewriting history to try to make it fit in with a popular ideology, but ideologies come and go. Take the division of the workforce along gender lines now. Why are women grossly underrepresented in motorway construction, heavy engineering, waste processing? Why are they grossly overrepresented in the office? These are not occupations related to children. You might say that it's because men in engineering and construction are stronger, fitter, whatever, but respect them for the things they do? For building the offices that women can sit in issuing decrees? I think not. Matriarchy and patriarchy both have the seeds of their own destruction within them - sexism.

Yes, I am for equality. I despise sexism, of which feminism is a part. I am not threatened by it. Society is threatened by it. Men and women are different, and deserving of equal respect. Tantra is a world-view that approaches both equality and difference with love and respect - it works for me. Whatever your core belief though, it will apply to all souls, not their superficial manifestations in male or female bodies. This is the subject matter of religion, and somethnig which people must work out for themselves. Sexism, whether it originates from men or women is not worthy of respect, and any society modelled upon such lines will fragment and disintegrate.

I am not deviating from the op's question - within it there are some hard truths that she has to face, which relate to the conflict between capitalism and childbirth. Capitalism is not sexist and will make objects out of anyone. Neither is it sustainable. It will only work with a rising population, and all the signs are that the population needs to fall. Hopefully that will not occur in large-scale human destruction, but in a gradual understanding of basic truths that have been around for millenia.

My meditation for the day: Our vital loves to be loved. Our heart loves so that it can also be loved. Our soul just loves devotedly and eternally.

Thank you ws, always a pleasure to read your posts.

Thank you for the clarifiction of some points, as they weren't always clear to me, hence the questioning.

I was not directing my thoughts to you on a personal level, but on a general level. I apologise as I didn't make that clear.

"I am not deviating from the op's question "

Well, the path is a long and winding one then!

Ok, but let me put this to you, when a man/woman makes a decision to date a single mu/dad do they really look indepth at the battle of the sexes over history? I'm sure the majority would say - hell no! If you did that person would be fed up of waiting and have moved on.

Thought for the day (sounds like radio 4!)

"Don't think, just do" Horace.

Single mum? - no thanks.

Kids put me off? - certainly.

Why?

1. "You want to go aeway next weekend?" "No, can't get a baby sitter for a weekend".

2. "You're not my dad" syndrome.

3. "The kids will always come first" - nice to know you're in a relationship where you are rated second, third, fourth, etc!

etc., etc.

I don't expect this answer to be popular (there are always guys who will say what the ladies want to hear) but it is truthful.

S

Single Dad? - I don't mind.

Kids put me off? - not necessarily.

Why?

1. "You want to go away next weekend?" - "Yes, we can take the kids with us if we want to".

2. "You're not my mum" - "No, I'm not you already have one!"

3. "The kids will always come first" - It's nice to know that a man thinks that his children are important, my ex didn't!!! lots of men don't!!

etc., etc.

I think this answer will be popular & it is truthful.

Pepper

Peppercorn, hi! - a voice of reason who is also feminine and diplomatic - the truth can hurt us all, men, women and children, at times. You've illustrated to me what I thought all along about equity in relationships though - if you have the same issues to grapple with, you work them out together. Honestly though, would you have felt the same if you were say twenty years younger with no children and a guy with four of his own took an interest in you? Perhaps not a fair question, but a lot about who we are attracted to relates to where we are in our journey through life.

Being a bloke, I can also resonate with others who don't want to be involved with other people's children - especially if they are not fathers themselves, EVEN if it it flies in the face of what the politbureau say we should be doing - they are a 'we' - I'm not! For me it all depends on the particular person and whether there is a mutual attraction. I hope I've established that that goes a lot further than physical appearance, if a LTR is to be possible. A woman saying that her child must come first is all very well, but it's not a great chat-up line! It's just not going to happen if all the parameters are set from the beginning. Perhaps the test is to find a man that she can love and respect, and avoid mercenary considerations, or she may attract a similar kind of man. Maybe a certain kind of aggression surfaces in women that no longer need a man, because they did at one point, or they wouldn't have children in the first place. Then they find that years later, they can't talk down to the man as if he were another child. And yes, there are men that do this to women as well, but that's not the point.

Actually where children are concerned, the gender of caregiver doesn't matter; it is the quality of the care that counts, and men and women are both just as good and just as bad at it, which is why I feel that two caregivers are better than one. The situation as is seems to be crying out for tolerance, yet there seems to be preciousl little. I can only assume that the courts give custody to the woman in about 90% of cases, because they still expect the man to be breadwinner, particularly in the early years. There doesn't seem to a lot a lot of equality there, more biology. It's a touchy subject, and impossible to keep everyone happy, but the best way I can put it is to say that if a politician is basically a saleman without a product, then introducing a saleswoman without a product doesn't make things any better!

There's no template for how people should feel act or behave; we all bring our life experiences and needs to the table, hopefully in an effort to understand each other. Personally as a single man, I don't want to have to pay extortionate levels of tax to fund some costly and unproductive 'battle of the sexes' when I thought it was supposed to be about love.

One more thing - could we please stop calling children kids? It is demeaning. They are not 'small goats' or 'untruths', they are thinking, feeling people like the rest of us, who have to put up with the world that we adults create for them. May it be a better one. :)

Thank you everyone for your sharing your opinions so openly. Because it’s twelve years since I last dated or considered myself “available”. I’m feeling like a novice now that I’m suddenly single. (No pun intended but you don’t need Freud to analyse that one). Having thought of myself as being married for life I suppose I’m still feeling overwhelmed that the things I thought and hoped lay in my future… might not be.
I posted the question because I wanted honest not “popular “or politically correct answers. I’m reassured that some people would consider dating/ or are dating someone with kids. I’m grateful to those of you who have also been honest about the thought of children putting you off. Quite frankly, a few years ago it would have put me off too.

Hi WS in response to your question "would I have felt the same if I were say twenty years younger with no children and a guy with four of his own took an interest in Me?" That would have put me at 30 years of age. Even as a young person I knew that I always wanted to have childen, so if for whatever reasons I had reached thirty and not had children then yes I would have been happy to date someone with children. I come from a family of six children and therefore was always surrounded by them; we had a happy childhood and I always evisaged a large family of my own. If that hadn't happened then I would have been quite happy to be a partner of someone that already had children. I can understand your logic in thinking that you wouldn't be on equal terms with your partner if they already had children but I think that if you love someone then you accept them as they are together with all the baggage (not a nice word, but one that is used frequently now) that they carry. Life has complications, we just have to work together to get through them. I agree that who we are attracted to relates to where we are in our journey through life. At my age I really wouldn't want to start a relationship with someone who still wanted children. I'm not past the age of bearing another child but I feel personally that I am now too old to have any more children as I think it would be unfair on both the child and myself.

By the way, I wouldn't normally call children 'kids' that was just in response to the previous thread! They are young people in their own right.

Pepper x

Morning Peppercorn! What a lot of debate this thread has stimulated! Thanks for your reply - I wasn't expecting an answer necesarily, but just to consider the point, because so much depends on where we're at in life - and that ties into the 'age difference' question.
Just about the time when I had established my career and wanted to father children, the partner I had been with for five years died, when I was 30. Since I hadn't had the best of family life myself, I had wanted to change all that - one reason why I worked professionally with children. When I was recovering from all this, I worked with a number of single parents in their thirties (there was an epidemic in the Thatcher era) and the thing that struck me about all of them was that they were blaming 'that bastard' for their predicament. Since I happened to be a man, but had had nothing to do with any of this, I could only befriend where they would let me - I had a different set of problems to cope with, which were of no interest to them. I continued my studies until fit, and for the next ten years had to play catch-up with career and material circumstances. So I realise that life doesn't always turn out like we'd wanted, but that is why after all this time, although I'm open-minded, I don't need to revisit where I've been. It's not so much about circumstance as about attitude. At 30, I wouldn't have dreamed of getting into a relationship with a mother of four, although she could well have been one of those people that I befriended during my studies into social psychology! I can understand women feeling trapped by circumstance, but the highflying career path isn't all it's cracked up to be either, if you want family life. It takes up time. Life offers choices - left/right politics offered none to a man who is ambidextrous!

I find it surprising that you're not past the age of bearing children. I know there are wide variations, and I respect your view about age. I think that there are increasing risks over about 40 anyway, although much of that risk can be caused by unhealthy practices of either parent. There has been a spate of politicians bringing children into the world in their 40's in ther last few years - wouldn't it nice to do it with loads of other peoples' money? Do you reckon a 'Responsibility' party might catch on? :)

Oh...WS you could open a whole can of worms with the comment 'I find it surprising that you're not past the age of bearing children' I believe that women can and have had children at the age of 60 plus, as long as they still have the parts and they work then why is it so surprising. Yes, there are increasing risks over the age of 40 but many women are now putting careers first, becoming financially stable and then looking at starting a family.

Talking of which; the following correspondence email may be of interest as this lady clearly does not feel the need for a man at all! This is real email sent to a colleague at work:

"Hi, I knew you would be in contact thanks for email. It would be lovely to take you and *** out, let me know when you are around. Business is great, and on top of that................. Due to being so career orientated I hadn't noticed that Im going to be 40 in October so with no man around, Im pregnant by anonymous donor! I have my 1st scan next week to see if I have twins. So now I need to work more then ever!!!!! Mum and Dad very supportive and also very excited!

Look forward to seeing you soon"

"Blimey!! Do you get any profile on the donor?????"

"You get to complete a character profile and then it has any other info section, when Id completed my five pages!!!! I called and asked if I'd ever get a donor! When you get to the top of the waiting list they send you 4 or 5 of the nearest to the wish list. I asked for my complexion, but taller and thinner!!!! I do know about him, but no photo, am keeping the info for my offspring! When they are 18 they can meet him. If I dont have twins I have bought enough stock to have a sibling with same father! I know that Mr Right will come along soon, but I don't want to wait and find that I've missed the children window.

I've been amazed by most peoples excitement and enthusiasm for me, as I didn't really care about that when I started but its a bonus and Im enjoying sharing the journey with all (and with mum on the drums every day believe me its all!)

Now that Im in this I've joined the network Single Mothers by Choice and find that its huge! In a few years time the playground will be full of children in my circumstances.

Anyway I could go on for ever, I look forward to telling you more when we meet, its not a secret, I don't mind who knows about this."

"Wow! This is new territory for me. Good luck, keep well and keep in touch "

It makes you wonder!