I hear ya - a little tiny bit. I feel no compassion, sympathy or generosity toward the BM in my own situation, whatsoever. (she lies, she steals, she uses hard drugs, she starves herself...I could go on and on, but I'll stop).

However, I'm sure that there are plenty of worthy BM's who do their best, love their kids, choose their battles wisely, and make noble attempts to be-friend and make nice with the plenty of wicked SM's out there (yes, some of us are evil too - present company excluded, of course). I'm sure, somewhere out there, there are even healthy, balanced step families who all get along - but happy people in good situations don't post on blogs.

After reading this forum and some others like it, I feel like the standard BM pattern is that they were generally young and naive and blindly "in love" when they had their kids. Most never took the chance to be young, free and independent. They never figured out their own worth before giving it all away to a man and children. Many never invested in themselves by going to school or working on a fulfilling career. So now they're separated from their former partners and dealing with admittedly serious emotional/mental challenges about how to make a separated family work. But they never experienced indepdendence and got to know themselves alone and feel worthy on their own, so they're often not equipped with how to deal with the sudden sense of loss and burden that immediately presents itself in a divorce/separation. If you read the posts closely enough, that's why they cling to their former partners alternately for support then as a punching bag. That's why they cling so tightly to their kids.

I would never encourage anyone under the age of 30 to get married and start having kids. Too many people marry young without having any sense of themselves and how to support themselves in the real world. They identify themselves through their partners and then their children and when those two groups of people leave them, they're left wondering what to do. So they become jealous and insecure and some quit their jobs to collect more CS than necessary. Some play games with their ex's to feel some sense of power and control in their lives.

I'm sure I'm pissing off tons of BM's, and I'm obviously not saying that EVERY BM is like this - but if you read around a little, you'll see a pattern. It does make me sad that these situations tend to pit woman-against-woman. Digging to the bottom of all the BS, both sides probably have the same interests at heart and the same fears and insecurities, but all of that clouds what otherwise could be productive relationships in many cases.

hlmhr I think you nailed it, at least, for the BM I deal with. Its a sad pattern. I gave up trying to 'fix it' along time ago, nothing will abate her anger for her own created situation (its always someone else's fault her life ended up the way it did).

I do truely feel for BM's who try and will do anything for their kids, I wish my skids had that kind of biomom, instead they are lucky if she gets them something for their birthday.

i agree with the people getting married way too early and having children, I made that mistake. Although I don't regret having my children because they are the reason I try so hard the reason I'm sane, the reason I'm alive!! I think another reason that some biomoms can't get along with the Step Mom is because it seems that it is easier for men to move on and when they do they are far less cautious about commiting to a serious relationship. At least that is my experience. Only a few weeks after me and my x split up he was already back in the dating scene, and within 2 months he was shacked up with another lady. Where was I? taking care of the kids by myself while trying to cope emotionally. And then when he wanted to be part of their lives again it was tough for me becuase I had done it all alone for so long, and because he seemed to have a new girlfriend every 6 months. Now he is in a stable relationship but too much resentment has been built up and I admit I take it out on her more because at least I used to love him. and I knew who he was at one time? Not sure if that makes a lot of sense I start with a point and then I seem to ramble!!

scarlett 80 - I agree that men move on too quickly. Where I think women attach too much identity and attach too strongly to their spouses, men are somewhat the opposite. They seem to maintain a certain amount of self identity regardless of their relationship status so when it breaks off, they usually bounce back fairly quickly. I've also heard a theory that they are kind of helpless creatures themselves so sometimes they don't fare well without a partner - another reason they look for one so quickly.

And thanks for your comment by the way. I've found lots of BM's on some of these forums to be irrational and just kind of mean, but your points are well made and thoughtful.

Hi dianaj,

Thanks for the acknowledgment that sometimes bio moms might be hurting over how things have worked out with their children. I'm a biomom and recently got a shock, which was that my ex is moving back into my town and wants my boys half-time. My boys are teenagers, quite mature, and they felt that living with their father half time was going to be a good thing for them. This wasn't unexpected, but still I was (and am) very sad. I'll miss them very much the weeks they're gone. However, I can turn this around and think of how much their father missed them when he was living away from the boys, when he was only seeing them every other weekend. Even though he was a terrible husband, he's always been a caring father.

So, the 2nd week of October will be the first week without my boys. I'm rationalizing this by thinking that they'll be off to college soon enough, so out of the nest anyway...

I don't know if my ex's latest GF is going to be living with them or not. I've only been introduced to her once. She seems like a calm presence, although I have to wonder if she really knows what she's in for dealing with 2 teenagers. At any rate, there's nothing to be gained by being antagonistic to her; she'll have to forge her own relationship with my sons, which in itself will be challenging.

Just my 2 cents.

Ann

I think a more typical pattern is for the father to leave the family at midlife, or sometimes earlier, for a younger woman (if he is wealthy) or for a wealthier woman. Another common occurrence is for the wife to put the man through medical or law school, shortly after which he leaves for someone younger or wealthier. Once they are with someone new, they (or their spouses) resent every dollar that goes to the children, and visitation degenerates into an occasional meal at McDonald's.

Although I agree that you shouldn't have children too young, I regret waiting until my mid to late twenties, because doing so deprived my children of maternal, and for some of them, paternal grandparents. It also doesn't work too well to start having kids at 30 if you have half a dozen of them.

"After reading this forum and some others like it, I feel like the standard BM pattern is that they were generally young and naive and blindly "in love" when they had their kids. Most never took the chance to be young, free and independent"

Huh -- dont agree. I worked, earned graduate degree, etc. So I dont see your analysis as the standard BM pattern.

kkny: I did add a caveat and say that not every BM has the same story, but if you read this site and any of the others out there, you'll see a pattern to the stories of the BM's which is much like the pattern I described. Keep in mind that the theme of most of these web-sites seems to be SM's writing about frustrations that they experience with BM's. Those BM's who cause the most trouble are most likely those who come from the background I suggested. Maybe additional clarification was needed on my end. The BM I described is very much the BM I deal with, and as I read more and more of these posts I'm shocked to see that maybe the BM in my situation is part of a clique of crazy BM's (you'll see elsewhere that she suffers from addictions, mental illness and a variety of other issues for which she refuses to get help, so I feel justified calling her crazy).

TOS: Fortunately, I don't want half a dozen kids, so I feel ok not getting married until my 30's. I also know that there is a pattern of the man leaving for a slew of middle life issues, however they generally leave behind women who gave themselves up for the dream of a good husband and kids. I'm in no way trying to say that women should give up the American dream - I'm just saying that they should have some "insurance" in the bank-of-life so that if things ever go wrong, they're prepared. Education, a career, self esteem, stable friendships, a strong sense of self - those are all things that would be helpful when things go wrong. Spouses leave, they die, they cheat, they "fall out of love" - and in the end, it's usually the woman who falls on financial and emotional hardtimes when they're alone with children. I would encourage women to be more selfish, be more choosy, wait longer for marriage. Forego having 6 kids for 2 kids and the knowledge in your gut that if everything goes to hell, you're strong enough on your own to deal with it - and go on to create a new American dream for themselves. The BM's that are written about on these forums don't have anything in the bank-of-life and they often don't move on. They cling heartily to the life they lost - whether it's by making their ex's life hell or giving up on parenting their own kids. They married for love alone, which just isn't smart.

And in my case, my parents started our family when my mom was only 19 (I was born when she was 24) and had no grandparents by the time I was a freshman in college - 2 who past before I was born. We also never lived geographically near my grandparents when I was young. There is no guarantee about who will be around to help out with raising a family at any age you start one. It's just another reason I would encourage women to spend their 20's figuring out who they are, what they want, and learning enough about themselves to know that they have the strength to deal with the difficulties life will throw their way - single or married.

hlmr,

What you talk about crazed mothers is second hand. So I dont know what the moms you talk about are really like.

My H and I BOTH chose to have a large family. He has said that he would have liked to have had even more if we could have afforded it. So all those couples for whom raising a large family, homeschooling, having one parent at home with the children, etc. is important should give that all up so that the deserted parent will have enough money if the other one loses his or her mind? And people say I'm pessimistic???

If the court system worked properly, mothers with children would NOT be left destitute when the father leaves. There is NO valid reason for fathers to be able to live high off the hog while their children live in poverty (or vice versa if the children live with the father). It is not about women having to have a high powered career so they can support their family by themselves. It is about an inequitable distribution of income.

By the way, I DO have an education, including two graduate degrees. I worked at least part-time during most of my marriage. It makes no difference. I would be better off financially if I were on welfare, because I earn just enough that I don't qualify for any government aid. It is true that I shouldn't have left my secure and decent paying job when my H wanted to move, but I had no way to predict that he was going to leave 6 years later. He probably would not have predicted it himself.

It doesn't matter how much education you have; it is near impossible for a single mother to have a three hour commute or travel extensively for her job when there are children at home. That is the sort of thing that limits her income.

TOS: you and I are arguing the same point essentially, but my point of view is one that would require a woman to be prepared for the unexpected. It is monumentally unfair that more women end up using state aid, struggling to support families and not being able to make ends meet because their husbands leave. And allowing a woman time to get an education, persue a career (high powered or not) and know herself before marriage will only benefit her in the event that sh*t happens. It's not pessimisitc - it's realistic. Imagine if you only had a high school diploma and your only job prior to marriage was working at the local Hallmark store and then you were left with children. You would be faring far worse.

I also don't think it's fair to expect the system to change and to blame the system. It's failing to take personal responsibility. It's true that the family courts don't fairly distribute resources, but knowing that's the way it works and is likely not to change anytime soon, why wouldn't the woman want to be able to secure her own future - husband or not?

Not every well paying job requires 3 hours of commuting time. I think people get locked into a lifestyle and are not willing to change their lives when life changes for them.

It's about more than just having money to support yourself, it's about having the self esteem and the personal strength to deal with the crap. Too many women give up too much of themselves to their husbands, and when the husband leaves, they take that part of their wives with them. Learn how to be independent before you get married so you can stand on your own two feet again one day.

Those are all the things I think are important. I think giving in too young for some old fashioned dream of "happily ever after" is short sighted, and it's how too many women end up in the position of being the working welfare moms.

"I'm sure that there are plenty of worthy BM's"

"feel like the standard BM pattern is that they were generally young and naive and blindly "in love" when they had their kids. Most never took the chance to be young, free and independent. They never figured out their own worth before giving it all away to a man and children. Many never invested in themselves by going to school or working on a fulfilling career. So now they're separated from their former partners and dealing with admittedly serious emotional/mental challenges about how to make a separated family work. But they never experienced indepdendence and got to know themselves alone and feel worthy on their own, so they're often not equipped with how to deal with the sudden sense of loss and burden that immediately presents itself in a divorce/separation."

That sounds so condescending & so unfair.

like the 2nd wife, merely by having chanced upon this wonderful specimen later in *his* life, is somehow smarter & more well-adjusted & mentally healthy than the poor low-self-esteem wretch who stumbled across him when they both were young.

It's likely that the man you've married met & married his first wife, the mother of their children, early in life, too, & that the 2 of them agreed that she would tend to the children/family, & that the 2 of them agreed that he would provide the material support *& that that was an equible partnership*.

but even if you & your partner agreed on how your lives were to be together, none of the agreement will survive a divorce;

the person who promised to take care of your material needs so you could concentrate on raising a family...
doesn't have to.

& often he doesn't.

It's very easy for someone in his position to find a new partner/wife & it's very easy for her to believe that he's a wonderful person whose first wife is a one-dimensional cardboard figure of a shrew or a low-self-esteem person who never made smart preparations for her own future.

As Katherine Hepburn once said, "You *cahn't* have it all."

Good mothers by definition put the needs of others above their need to have a career & make a bundle of money.
They're doing the home life part of Ms Hepburn's "all".

Their children's fathers were doing the career/money/status half of "all", & the understanding was that the husband would continue to do that throughout their lives & that his wife was entitled to the lifestyle, respect, & status that her husband was able to achieve while she took care of the rest of the family's needs.

The fact that your husbands' exes are exes does not mean they're idiots or creeps or suitable objects for the pity of a "have" for a "have not", materially, emotionally, psychologically, or socially.

Sylviatexas,

I think you summed it up very well.

hlmhr,

Would you have women make the first twenty or twenty-five years of their adult lives miserable, and deny their children the type of family life both the parents would like to give them, just so the next twenty or twenty-five years might be slightly less miserable if their husband leaves?

Sure, I could move closer to the high paying jobs - if I wanted to double my house payment.

Thanks, tos, but I didn't really mean to blow my stack.

It just griped me that the original post was a gesture of understanding & respect, & somehow it got de-railed & used for some pseudo-psychological "analysis" (trashing) of a whole group of people.

I just want to say that I am a BM and almost a SM and I am not at all like most of the BM you have described. Even though my ex left me after he got another woman pregnant, I get along wonderfully now with both of them. I was very bitter for awhile but I still never spoke out of line in front of my son or tried to make him hate them as much as I did. Now I would have to say that she is one of my closest friends and we have learned to communicate as much as we can about the what is going on with my son so that he does not have to be the one passing messages. I am currently living in a situation much less ideal than my own but I believe that we will work through it. But I do not drink, I do not do drugs and I have always supported myself without crying about the support that my ex faithfully sends every two weeks. I am putting myself through college and I am trying to teach my son the value of an education. I hope that maybe you can see that all of us are not bad.

But I also lived with a BM that was hell so I have seen both sides. She never had a good thing to say about my father and they fought every time they got within a few feet of each other. Around age 11, she totally turned me against my father and I quit the every other weekends with my dad because my mom wanted me to hate my father as much as she did. And to make her happy I acted like I did. But when I hit about 18 I quit letting her manipulate me mentally and our relationship has never been the same.

TOS - "If the court system worked properly, mothers with children would NOT be left destitute when the father leaves. There is NO valid reason for fathers to be able to live high off the hog while their children live in poverty (or vice versa if the children live with the father). It is not about women having to have a high powered career so they can support their family by themselves. It is about an inequitable distribution of income."

Most divorced men I know get taken to the cleaners on child support as it is, my husband did (on a 50/50 custody order no less) and he paid every dime while she, like when they were married,refused to work and collected state aid. When we were awarded full custody the state set child support at 90 a month for TWO boys - 45 a child which doesn't even cover a weeks worth of food they require. Not a dime of which she's paid. Is that an equal monetary distribution? I don't think so. In this day and age it is unreasonable to expect to have children and then be entitled to do nothing for the rest of your life aside from parent if it is not economically sufficient nor does it entitle BM to half of his earnings just because 'she's their mother'. BM can GET A JOB like I, the SM have to do in order to support both her and our children.

Some BM's are destitute by their own inability to function in the real world, not by any fault of the x husband.

REally?? Well my Xs GF doesnt work -- and has no child care responsiblities. More men do better financially after divorce than women.

If a husband and wife decide that one of them will stay home to raise the kids, and then one who is not at home decides to desert the family, he or she shouldn't get to renege on the agreement just because he or she doesn't care about the children any more.

If you stay out of the workforce for a significant amount of time, your earning potential may never reach that of your spouse who stayed in the workforce.
It is far more common for single mothers to be living in poverty than for non-custodial fathers.

It is not HIS income or HER income - it is family income, which should be divided equitably - not even taking into account that children often cost more than adults because we don't outgrow our clothes, eat as much for our size, or have school or daycare expenses - if a family has 4 children, 2/3 of the total family income should go toward the children. When your sugar daddy or sugar momma is paying the rent, almost all of your income is disposable, and even more of it should go toward your children's expenses. The value of your housing should be imputed as income, just like the IRS does for those who get free housing with their job.

It is WRONG for the non-custodial parent to have a higher standard of living than the children do, whether that parent is male or female.

"It is WRONG for the non-custodial parent to have a higher standard of living than the children do, whether that parent is male or female."

I AGREE!!

"When your sugar daddy or sugar momma is paying the rent, almost all of your income is disposable, and even more of it should go toward your children's expenses."

I AGREE AGAIN!!!

"The value of your housing should be imputed as income, just like the IRS does for those who get free housing with their job."

I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!! Are we still taking about the "sugar momma/sugar daddy" scenario?? If yes, then I agree 100%, if not, then I don't agree. I would like my stepchildren's mother to pay child support and I think she should contribute fairly in order to support her children. However, I don't want her to live in a cardboard box because her entire paycheck is going towards child support.

"It is WRONG for the non-custodial parent to have a higher standard of living than the children do, whether that parent is male or female."

Daycare: 1200 a month / Child Support ordered: 90 a month

Just one example of the courts failure in this regard, and what contributes to the 'standard of living' difference.

I think it would depend on their income.

Years ago pre-nuptial agreements were unheard of, & today they're common.

I wonder if couples in the future will set out the rights/responsibilities/parental roles/division of labor & income in a contract before they start families.

I bet it would make a lot of difference.

lonepiper,

"Are we still taking about the "sugar momma/sugar daddy" scenario?? If yes, then I agree 100%, if not, then I don't agree. "

Yes, I was still talking about that scenario. When the NCP gets free housing, it's the same as if he/she had an additional $1000 or so a month of income (in my part of the country), and it should be included in his/her income when child support computations are done. Most of his considerable income is disposable.