Mom agreed. Kid didn’t. Someday its going to hit the kid that his Dad thought sailing around the world was more important than the first two years of his life, or supporting Mom through pregnancy.
Selfish.
Believe it or not, 23 yo women are as capable of making decisios for themselves as are 58 yo men. Also, you are acting as if she ran off to a cave somewhere to have the kd and raise it all by herself, eating only berries that grew near the mouth of the cave. It could be te case that the woman’s support network back home was one of the factors that led them to agree to the arrangement.
Regarding the passage I bolded: So what?
It’s a different time now. It’s one thing to be obliged by exigencies of circumstance to be parted from your child during a rare and precious time. It’s another thing entirely to choose it.
I didn’t opine that this fellow harmed his child irreparably. I do feel that his priorities are fucked up.
Making a choice that is different than the choice you would have made does not mean that his priorities are fucked up. As I said, I wouldn’t have made the choice this man made either.
Also, I don’t think the line between choosing to be away and being forced to be away is as clear-cut as you are making it. I assume you wouldn’t think the guy is a jerk if he was a member of the us military deployed in Afghanistan. Well, we have an all-volunteer military, sochosing to join is choosuing to possibly be required to be gone when a child is born.
Yes, I saw your adorable references. They were hard to miss. Happy now?
Either you are drinking or your typing has turned to shit.
I am trying to work out what you could do at sea for three years without sighting land. Where did this guy get his supplies?
Here are a couple more links that might shed some light on what happened and why. There is a bit more to the story than was in the OP’s article.
Cruising World article, Oct 2009
Being a sailor married to a sailor, I do look at this from a different point of view. But as with anything, there are more sides to the story than have been reported.
Smooth sailing for me, dangermom…! 
For those who say the first 2 years of life are without memory etc for the child, what about pics? Kids LOVE pics of themselves as babies and love being told stuff like “here’s Daddy holding you in the hospital”; “That’s grandma in her funny hat at church when we christened you” etc. No pics of baby and Daddy. None-no videos, either.
Now, there are plenty of kids who don’t have that-but not for the facile reason of “but I want to become one with the ocean” or whatever drives someone to want to sail for 2 years. Dads also nurture babies differently–not better or worse–but differently. Maybe kidlet won’t remember all the times Daddy changed his diaper or sang him to sleep or played helicopter baby with him. That’s not the point: the point is that DAD will remember doing those things. This guy cut himself off from building bonds with his child for a superficial, unnecessary “reason”. IOW, he did what he wanted and fuck the rest of the family. Doesn’t bode well for the future.
Conventional mindset has the military dad (or mom) wanting to be with his family, but unable because of his duty*. We value Family in our society (no matter how we personally define it) and we expect Family to match our expectations. IF there are 2 parents, both should be involved. If one parent cannot be, a greater purpose must motivate that absence: job, military service, illness. Note that pursuing a dangerous hobby is not on this list.
I don’t think this has ruined the kid’s life. But I do think a great deal hinges on the future choices this dad makes.
*and this may not be factually true. Let’s face it: some parents don’t want to be parents and don’t like their own children, and not just in military families. I’m not saying sailor dude ran away or doesn’t like his child. I’m saying that as a society, we uphold the ideal that parents want to be with their offspring.
You said it better and politer than I would have.
I see it as no less selfish than if the guy had wanted to sit on a see-saw (ala that Brandy Bunch episode) for two years, just so he could get attention from people interested in that kind of thing.
I notice in the article he makes no mention of missing his son or his disappointment about missing a part of his life, while he waxes poetically about his magical boat and all the yoga and painting he got to do. Son’s going to notice that too, no doubt.
I don’t know how critical the first two years are to a child, but I know they are exhausting for a single parent. Surely she could have needed his support during that time.
Not to mention…sailing around the world is dangerous. I’m not saying parents should wrap themselves up in bubble wrap and have no more fun for the rest of their lives, but seems like having a child means putting all that “live life on the edge” stuff on the back burner for awhile.
However, I guess the guy’s probably well-to-do and made sure his girlfriend was taken care. Which might mitigate some of his physical and emotional neglect.
I don’t get the outrage.
This man spent YEARS preparing for this epic voyage, fully intending to spend three entire years at sea without ever touching land.
He met this girlfriend only a few months before his scheduled departure. They fell in love. She decided to to with him. They never planned on her becoming pregnant. But, accidents happen.
He should have cancelled the entire voyage and rushed home to be with an infant? Really?
Damn straight.
Your child is more important than your plans to get into the fucking record books. HE GAVE UP THE CHANCE TO BE WITH HIS SON DURING THE BEGINNING OF HIS LIFE FOR NOTHING.
His infant.
He could have at least been there for the birth, helped during those early sleepless months, and made sure that the kid made it to his first birthday. That way he would have hit the major milestones, been through the majority of the diaper changes and doctor’s visits, put his mug in some baby photos (you know, just case in he died on his voyage of love), and made some notion of commitment to his baby’s mama. And then he would have still had time to beat the record or whatever he was trying to accomplish.
Things can happen during those first two years, and by making the choice to stay on the boat, he basically said “I don’t care what happens during that time. Whatever happens, you deal with it.” Let’s say the baby at six months old gets sick and falls into a coma. Is Daddy going to get off the boat and be there for Mom and child? Why would he have to, when he’s only this far from breaking the record? If the birth of your own child isn’t worth an around-the-world voyage, why would a coma be? OK, let’s say the baby dies. Is Daddy going to get off the boat to attend the funeral? Why should he have to? He doesn’t know the poor thing and oh yeah, he’s only three months (or whatever) from breaking the record. All that preparation, all that training, would go down the drain if he got off the damn boat, right? Wouldn’t it be better not to put yourself in that situation and wait till things get settled on land before you become Captain Nemo?
I think that’s what bugs me. Once you put breaking a record over participating in the life of your child, then you’ve made it clear that that child is no longer at the top of your priority list. Because whatever happening comes up, you’d have to balance the importance of it against all the time and energy you’ve already invested into breaking the dumb record. And for the kid, well, that just sucks. At least when they’re babies and are innocent and sweet, they should get top priority over just about everything.
Anyone who thinks vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream IS A COMPLETE JERK AND ASSHOLE LOSER WHO HAS THE PRIORITIES ALL FUCKED UP!!!
By completing the voyage as planned, he sailed into history. Royalties on the book/documentary will secure a financial future for the child. Is that not worth anything?
Just throwing a question out here–what if the mom decided she wanted to go on the boat and after giving birth, left the baby with extended family or a nanny for two years. Is that okay?
Snip.
This will probably answer Skald’s question as well. This attitude toward children, particularly babies, is a very, very recent one. up until as late as the 1920’s and 30’s it was expected that children might well die in infancy. It was not uncommon in certain areas for parents not to refer to infants by name until they reached their second birthday either. Babies were treasured, but not placed above all else. Our modern lifestyle allows us the luxury of doing such a thing whenever possible. This guy’s priorities were somewhere else. Just because his ideals don’t align with our current standard gives you the right to call the guy an asshole. He’s probably done no harm at all to his son, who won’t remember any of it anyway. A lot of people aren’t that interested in babies or think that they are all that precious. I certainly don’t. I have almost no interest in children below the age of two or three. I think a lot of you are also missing the fact that the guy is in his 50’s, the mother is in her late 20’s. He probably would never have another shot at doing something he’d prepared so hard for and invested so heavily in. His future financial success might hinge on being able to write books or do the talk show circuit. For him, it was something important to do in his life After those years of work or family raising. This was really unexpected.
Totally agreed.
Just as an aside. The Wiki on this guy states that the mother left due to persistent and chronic seasickness, not the pregnancy itself or wanting any sort of end to the voyage or traditional stability.