|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Parenting: a new religion?
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
This article sparked an interesting discussion at Chez Banner. It states that while most men and women in America marry for love, as soon as children come along. the offspring become the primary focus of that love - especially for the woman. So much so that empty nester divorce rates are climbing and women who put their husband first in their affections are assumed to be 'bad" mothers.
TP was raised by parents who made it quite clear that the children were NOT the primary object of their love - this was reserved for their spouse. All six children of the relationship have had long and happy marriages. Not so for our daughters - who do treat their children as the centre of their universe.
My husband thinks that a more feminised society, and the rise in oestrogen in men has to have consequences to family life. I think it is more likely to be the secularisation of society - where if there is no other God than "I" then once "I" have children all the energy of spirit that went into worshiping at the throne of self becomes focussed on the mini-me's "I" have a duty of care to raise.
So is parenting now a religion?
Have you observed this phenomenon around you?
Is there a difference between the generations in your family regarding the primary focus of love?
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The article sounds like an overstatement to me. Or at least an overgeneralization.
There are plenty of things people in America (or elsewhere) prioritize above their marriages. A common one is work. I don't think those who are prioritizing children are doing anything vastly different from the workaholics, or the sports maniacs, or ...
As for the "heresy" idea, I think that's overstated too. Parents here bitch about their children all the time (and their spouses, and their own parents, ...) Just look on Twitter or any of the "bad Mommy" blogs.
I do think that some people freak out when someone baldly states that a spouse has priority because they are reading this usually out of any original context and instead supplying their own concerns about child abuse. It is common for abusive or negligent parents, particularly mothers, to claim that they were forced to do whatever because their husbands/boyfriends came first, and they had to please them. Naturally that's a loathesome excuse for child abuse or neglect. But if that's the only context you ever hear such statements in, it's really easy to hear a normal, non-abusive mother say that her husband has higher priority, and immediately all the child abuse cases leap to mind.
My son knows very well that Dad comes before him--except in the cases in which any family member gets top priority, i.e. being in danger, in need, sick, and so forth. The priority only operates when all else is equal. Thus, if we are discussing where to go to dinner, or what time to visit the park, or whether or not to practice piano that day, Dad's decision (assuming he has one) gets priority. Which is a "duh" thing for me. Dad is an adult, has adult responsibilities (like work) and adult understanding (like money issues) and of course he gets more of a say on such things than any child, however beloved. One day the child will be an adult and will have a similar seniority. Right now, it's a case of "No, honey, we are not going to go to the pool and risk getting zapped by the lightning that your father rightly suspects is on its way within the next hour. We are going to stay home and practice piano. And why are you even appealing this decision to me, anyway? He's your father. Suck it up and deal."
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Surely it's quite natural for parents to put the children first? I can't see what it has to do with 'feminised society' or idolatry. You may not always be married but your children are always your children.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The idea that you could get divorced next year but your children will always be your children strikes me as a good example of what the OP is talking about. It suggests that spousal love can never really be counted on, so all your efforts need to go towards the children. It's hard to see how marriages can be maintained that way.
Children are probably better served by parents who put their marriage first, because then they'll be less likely to split up. Except in cases of abuse and intense hostility children don't seem terribly keen on divorce, even if it means they'll get a lot more of their mother's undivided attention.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The idea that you could get divorced next year but your children will always be your children strikes me as a good example of what the OP is talking about. It suggests that spousal love can never really be counted on, so all your efforts need to go towards the children. It's hard to see how marriages can be maintained that way.
Children are probably better served by parents who put their marriage first, because then they'll be less likely to split up. Except in cases of abuse and intense hostility children don't seem terribly keen on divorce, even if it means they'll get a lot more of their mother's undivided attention.
But I don't see how putting children first equals putting 100% of energy towards childrearing. It seems like the natural thing for a parent to put the child first - anything else seems unnatural and not very parental. But that doesn't mean the marriage is unimportant.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Love isn't pie.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
My eldest daughter (single working mother) suggested that there could be other causes to 'parenting as a religion'.
1. That it is more likely to be prevalent among stay-at-home moms who are seeking validation for their lives.
2. That as women become more empowered, fiscally independent etc they take more control and have more oversight over all aspects of their lives - including parenting. This equates to women being more the 'drivers' in the family and men wondering why the hell they ended up in the passenger seat or the trailer. Basically a majority of women having more of a clue on how to live well, and many men less or no idea.
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I would also bet that the writer of the original article was a woman with youngish children. If she were a mother of older kids, she would have moved beyond that stage. I assure you that teenagers do not appreciate a helicopter mom, and your adult kids are unlikely to enjoy micromanagement. To every thing there is a season. There is a season for the little ones to be the total focus of the marriage. But it is not a permanent state.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
You may not always be married but your children are always your children.
Yeah, but your children might hate you and never talk to you. Or might only talk to you from a very ambivalent place of not being at all impressed with the parent-child relationship between you, but not wanting to point out the screwed-up bits of it to you for various reasons.
I'm not sure I'd go as far as Banner Lady in her OP. However, I remember discussing this kind of issue with a friend's parents* and his mum saying that she felt her marriage was a very key part of her identity which would be ongoing for the remainder of her life, more so than direct day-to-day parenting would be. I don't have any doubt at all about her love for her three (now adult) children and I don't think they do either.
* Interestingly, I now recall that I think the reason we were discussing it was because I was telling them about a woman I met in psychiatric hospital, whom I was also thinking about when I wrote the first paragraph of this post. This woman clearly lived completely for and through her only child. She spoke of having felt purpose-less and identity-less when he left for university. All I could think of was what enormous pity I had for him. He wasn't allowed to be his own person. He was his mother's son, first and foremost, and she needed him to be that. A very screwy parent-child dynamic, if you ask me.
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
2. That as women become more empowered, fiscally independent etc they take more control and have more oversight over all aspects of their lives - including parenting. This equates to women being more the 'drivers' in the family and men wondering why the hell they ended up in the passenger seat or the trailer. Basically a majority of women having more of a clue on how to live well, and many men less or no idea.
I have a theory that, if you want to be the one your kids come to with problems, etc., later in life, you have to put in the time doing the boring, crappy jobs earlier in life. That means changing the diapers, doing the transportation, saying for the millionth time "Stop hitting your brother" and etc. If you show up mainly for playtime, you will reap your reward in being left out of the serious discussions--or at least having your opinion valued below that of whoever actually showed up for the crap.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
Lord help me if anyone asks me if I love my wife or daughter more- I’d probably tell them the dog, just to annoy them (although she is pretty sweet...).
I’m rather new to the dad gig (seven months in), but I think that what you really need to watch out for is the temptation to put your own non-basic needs ahead of the needs of your family, which includes your spouse and kids. Sure, as they say, put your air mask on before helping those around you. But sometime the best thing I can do for my wife is skip a choir rehearsal and come home to take care of the child while she goes to bed early. Down the line, the best thing we will be able to do for the family is send the girl to sleep away camp so that Mom and Dad can have some together time. You can’t be the person who never changes a diaper, and you can’t be the person whose own self worth is derived from being a parent, which I would say is a form of putting your own needs ahead of the needs of the family. You have to be flexible.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
So is parenting now a religion?
Have you observed this phenomenon around you?
Is there a difference between the generations in your family regarding the primary focus of love?
No, no and no.
Having read the article, I would say that the meaning of the word "religion" is one of many things the authors are playing loose with. Overstatement and over generalization indeed. Seemed to me that the main point of the article was to promote their book.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
[Checks for horsemen of the Apocalypse]
I agree with Beeswax Altar.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I also agree with Beeswax Altar.
I'm one of those mothers who puts their kids before their husband; and my husband puts the kids before me.
Having said that, if Dad said "no" I'd always back that up and vice versa; we both agreed that it wasn't in our kids' interests to be able to play us off against each other. So we were united in putting the kids first!
The empty nest last year hit both of us hard; I started a thread on it in All Saints. I can't imagine us ever divorcing, though, I'm fairly confident that only death will stop us from growing old and cranky together.
Possibly, the fact that we had a stillborn son, plus miscarriages, and that we (very briefly) faced the possibility of losing one child to meningitis, made us aware of just how amazingly lucky we both were to have our kids. I'm sure that that skewed our perceptions of family life, that we were a parenting team more than a husband-and-wife.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
You can’t be the person who never changes a diaper, and you can’t be the person whose own self worth is derived from being a parent, which I would say is a form of putting your own needs ahead of the needs of the family. You have to be flexible.
Wise words from a newbie to parenthood.
One thing we can't be is perfect parents and striving for that can spoil the time you do have with your children. But, it's not long before their friends are far more important to them than you are - so having your own life is vital too.
The time before they leave home also flies by!
I think this Internet age probably feeds obsessive parenting. I'm glad we didn't have it when mine were small. I am forever looking up things about the dogs - it's a huge temptation. I think the way I behave now with the dogs would have been stifling for the kids, if you see what I mean (every move analysed and googled) I was really easy going with my two boys and I love the way they have turned out.
[ 03. June 2015, 07:58: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Brenda said: quote:
I would also bet that the writer of the original article was a woman with youngish children. If she were a mother of older kids, she would have moved beyond that stage. I assure you that teenagers do not appreciate a helicopter mom, and your adult kids are unlikely to enjoy micromanagement. To every thing there is a season. There is a season for the little ones to be the total focus of the marriage. But it is not a permanent state.
Yes, this. Also what Beeswax Altar said [checks out of window for further signs of Apocalypse]. We are going through a transition phase at the moment, from micromanagement to allowing Daughter some independence. In a year or so she probably won't want to give us the time of day and we will have more time as a couple again.
But if the house was on fire and I had to choose between saving her and saving my Other Half, I'd save her first. If he had to choose between her and me, I'd expect him to choose her as well. That's what 'putting your children first' means. Not making them the centre of your universe, but keeping them safe and helping them to grow up into adults. Helicopter parenting doesn't do that.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
But if the house was on fire and I had to choose between saving her and saving my Other Half, I'd save her first. If he had to choose between her and me, I'd expect him to choose her as well. That's what 'putting your children first' means. Not making them the centre of your universe, but keeping them safe and helping them to grow up into adults. Helicopter parenting doesn't do that.
This is what I was trying to say, but Jane R has said it better.
My husband once remarked that he'd rather watch me in childbirth, than watch our four year old have a tic removed. And I understood what he meant. The article in the OP refers to "parents" and "mothers" but is curiously silent about fathers.
I suspect that this is another Mothers Are Always Wrong article, lightly disguised.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Surely it's quite natural for parents to put the children first? I can't see what it has to do with 'feminised society' or idolatry. You may not always be married but your children are always your children.
I think I see this almost exactly the opposite way round. In a successful marriage, your spouse is the one who is still going to be there after your children have grown up and become independent of you. I don’t think many people, if anyone, go into marriage with the intention that they might not stay with the person.
AIUI, one of the most stressful periods in the average marriage is the birth of the first child, when men, especially, often feel that they have become less important to their wife. It is a major cause of marital conflict for many couples. Negotiating this well is very important to building a stable and lasting marriage, which is in everyone’s interests, including the children’s.
I actually don’t think it’s a coincidence that the article doesn’t talk about men. A couple need to work out together how to negotiate the change in their relationship which happens with the birth of a child, but it is most commonly men who feel excluded and confused in this scenario.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
My husband once remarked that he'd rather watch me in childbirth, than watch our four year old have a tic removed.
My husband can deal with things perfectly competently if I cut myself and am bleeding. If it was either of our sons he passed out, so badly did it affect him.
It's a visceral, biological feeling - I don't think we have a lot of control over it.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Love isn't pie.
Could you clarify what you mean?
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I actually don’t think it’s a coincidence that the article doesn’t talk about men.
I had the same thought. I can't help feeling that there's an agenda behind the article (and the book the authors wrote the article to promote). I'm not sure what that agenda is, but it wouldn't surprise me if "the deterioration of the family and proper family roles wrought by feminism" is lurking in there somewhere.
FWIW, I think talking in terms of who is the "primary focus of love" or who is more important, spouse or child, is missing the mark. The conversation should, I think, focus on relationship. The relationship between spouses, ideally at least, is the foundational or central relationship for the family. Other relationships in the family quite literally have their source in that foundational relationship.
The practical implications of what it means to consider the parents' relationship with each other as foundational will, of course, vary from situation to situation, day to day, and stage of life to stage of life. Giving priority to the needs of the children when appropriate doesn't necessarily contradict maintaining the relationship between the parents as foundational. Indeed, there may be times when doing so is a natural consequence of the centrality of the parents' relationship with each other.
In my experience, it seems that most couples with children I know appear to get this and try—sometimes with more success and sometimes with less—to live it out. (And in those cases where this is not the case, the issue typically is one or both parents putting something outside the family, such as work, ahead of the family.) My issue with the article is that I think they're hawking a cure when they appear to have done a very poor job of diagnosing the condition to be cured.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I have a theory that, if you want to be the one your kids come to with problems, etc., later in life, you have to put in the time doing the boring, crappy jobs earlier in life. That means changing the diapers, doing the transportation, saying for the millionth time "Stop hitting your brother" and etc. If you show up mainly for playtime, you will reap your reward in being left out of the serious discussions--or at least having your opinion valued below that of whoever actually showed up for the crap.
It's especially important to listen to what your small children want to tell you. The appearance and behavior of a bug in the back yard is not all that interesting, but your kid sees that you are willing to listen to him.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
Right. I though that but wasn't sure given the context.
Because love may not be a zero-sum game, but where you spend you money, time etc is.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
Perhaps best summed up in scripture by
Where your treasure
There your heart.
This is hard for me, because my treasure is not first and foremost my kids. But if the house was burning down I would certainly be most concerned about them and probably in order from youngest grandchild to eldest daughter. That is simply common sense and a primordial kind of need to see those with most of their life ahead of them survive.
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I'm definitely not suggesting helicopter parenting or being an overinvolved parent. But my understanding of the mother-child bond is that putting your child first is part of that?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I suspect this is the place where that description truly applies: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The youngest get more care, not because of some dark motivation, but because they can't make it without. But a husband (or wife) is a grown-ass adult and ought to be able to function without quite so much maintenance.
The trouble comes in when people (such as spouses!) start equating time with "you love x more."
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
I would assume your order of priority in event of a fire might also reflect the ability of each child or grandchild to get out of the house unassisted. If youngest were 14 and some middle child had special needs, you might go for the room of the special needs child first, right?
Once again, I think priorities should not be so set in stone that you can't shift based on need at any given time.
Back to the article, I was just pointed to a blog called "Asshole Parents," in which parents send pictures of their kids in meltdown mode, explaining why they, the parent, are to blame. For instance, "I'm an asshole because he wanted milk and I gave him milk in the wrong cup." So I don't think that the bit about not saying anything negative about your kids rings entirely true.
And I always get a little weary whenever people use the term "special snowflake" in reference to kids. Is it really such a bad thing to tell your kid that they are special and important? It could probably rise to a problematic level, but I think you could probably do a whole lot more damage by focusing on all the ways your child is not special or important.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I actually don’t think it’s a coincidence that the article doesn’t talk about men.
I had the same thought. I can't help feeling that there's an agenda behind the article (and the book the authors wrote the article to promote). I'm not sure what that agenda is, but it wouldn't surprise me if "the deterioration of the family and proper family roles wrought by feminism" is lurking in there somewhere.
FWIW, I think talking in terms of who is the "primary focus of love" or who is more important, spouse or child, is missing the mark. The conversation should, I think, focus on relationship. The relationship between spouses, ideally at least, is the foundational or central relationship for the family. Other relationships in the family quite literally have their source in that foundational relationship.
The practical implications of what it means to consider the parents' relationship with each other as foundational will, of course, vary from situation to situation, day to day, and stage of life to stage of life. Giving priority to the needs of the children when appropriate doesn't necessarily contradict maintaining the relationship between the parents as foundational. Indeed, there may be times when doing so is a natural consequence of the centrality of the parents' relationship with each other.
In my experience, it seems that most couples with children I know appear to get this and try—sometimes with more success and sometimes with less—to live it out. (And in those cases where this is not the case, the issue typically is one or both parents putting something outside the family, such as work, ahead of the family.) My issue with the article is that I think they're hawking a cure when they appear to have done a very poor job of diagnosing the condition to be cured.
Last year our plans for a romantic celebration of our 25th wedding anniversary were scuttled by our youngest ending up in the ER. Hubby driving and staying with him there until 3 am while I stayed home with the other kids (and got a wee bit of sleep) was the most romantic gift I could have rec'd. The next day as we ruefully discussed our misadventures I remarked, "that's how you get to 25-- by hanging in and doing what you gotta do to get thru". For us anyway, putting the kids first seems to have drawn us closer, not further.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped: quote:
I like the phrase "You are a special snowflake, and so is everyone else."
I think the way I feel about my daughter sometimes gives me a glimpse of how God feels about everyone *all the time*.
The love I have for my husband is different, because I can love him as an equal.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Telling kids that they are special and important to their parents is a good idea. Telling kids that they are just special and important isn't. Particularly when parents back that up by undermining the authority of teachers etc.
I look at parenthood with some bewilderment as I have no kind of pull towards it myself. I do feel vaguely creeped out when friends of mine (always women in my personal experience) disappear completely into their identity as mothers. When they don't want to talk about anything else, when their kid comes not just first but second third fourth and fifth and everything else in their lives is squashed somewhere down the bottom of the page as an afterthought. When she starts seeing herself not as "Sue" but as "Jamie's mum". I don't think that's good for Sue, or her spouse, or Jamie, or the world. But I'm probably a bad judge of these things - I feel like a Martian or something when it comes to understanding the human parenting instinct.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Heh. This will so pass. In a very few years little Susie will roll her eyes, dramatically, when Mom introduces herself as Susie's mom. Muttered moans of "Ohhh MOM!" optional.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Telling kids that they are special and important to their parents is a good idea. Telling kids that they are just special and important isn't. Particularly when parents back that up by undermining the authority of teachers etc.
I'm still figuring this out, but I think there is a difference between telling someone that they are special, unique, and important in general, and telling someone that their specialness and importance trumps all others. I don't want my kid walking all over other people because she thinks she is more important than they are, but I want her to have enough self confidence to speak up when she has something important to say, or if she is being dismissed for unfair reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I look at parenthood with some bewilderment as I have no kind of pull towards it myself. I do feel vaguely creeped out when friends of mine (always women in my personal experience) disappear completely into their identity as mothers. When they don't want to talk about anything else, when their kid comes not just first but second third fourth and fifth and everything else in their lives is squashed somewhere down the bottom of the page as an afterthought. When she starts seeing herself not as "Sue" but as "Jamie's mum". I don't think that's good for Sue, or her spouse, or Jamie, or the world. But I'm probably a bad judge of these things - I feel like a Martian or something when it comes to understanding the human parenting instinct.
That is a balancing act for the parents. The physiological and psychological change that you go through when you become a parent is real and huge. We adopted, and only had 9 days from the time that we got a call that we had been matched with a birth mom until the time that we were at the hospital being handed a newborn. And even then, our bodies physically changed in response to the child. So you have a lot of things telling you "this is your job now," and remembering that there are other things in the world can be kind of tricky. On top of that, it is a real logistical challenge. We try to be low maintenance, but you really cannot leave the house without considering what happens if the kid gets hungry, needs a change, falls asleep, gets cranky, etc. Trust me, we want to be part of the non-parent world as well. It's just tricky. I agree that it is not healthy to make the child your entire world, but sometimes it takes concerted effort to avoid that.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Empty nester here. Children are grown, one is close, one is far away.
It probably sounds hopelessly romantic or drippy, but having kids increased the bond and expanded the connection, love and everything else within our marriage. Drippy but true. Parenting was and is not a preoccupation, it is part of a balanced life. Though I will say that I had no blazing idea what being busy really was until children. None. Nil. Being busy isn't a religion either.
Now, working - that seems more like a religion. As employers succeed in over-connecting their employers with gadgets and other tracking, encourage workers to live the brand and other such.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
On top of that, it is a real logistical challenge. We try to be low maintenance, but you really cannot leave the house without considering what happens if the kid gets hungry, needs a change, falls asleep, gets cranky, etc.
No, really? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
If you don't put that thought in, you sure end up thinking 'why the f*** did I bother' about whatever it was you thought you were going out to enjoy, because you sure as hell won't be enjoying it!
Our family works 'backwards' according to gender stereotypes. I have a 'little job' and take kids to school / pick them up / play games with them / clean the house (if it happens) / moan at wife for working long hours / complain at her for having wrong priorities. Owning a penis does not seem to rule out this old role, though so far I have avoided shagging my tennis instructor or becoming a lesbian. (ducks)
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Owning a penis does not seem to rule out this old role, though so far I have avoided shagging my tennis instructor or becoming a lesbian. (ducks)
Damn right.
I'm rubbish at tennis, too.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I think some parents confuse unconditional love with uncritical love and so produce children who not only think they are the centre of the universe but that they can do no wrong.
Perhaps because my own parents were fairly arms-length, I was determined my own offspring should know they were loved but also that loving someone doesn't necessarily mean you like or approve of all their actions. I also made it quite clear to them that there were no favourites - sometimes one child might get more attention because they needed it but it didn't mean the other wasn't equally valued.
Having a partner who was an only child proved to be more of a challenge.
I do think that smaller families can mean there is more attention paid to each child: when there are four or more parental interest is spread more thinly and the possibility of micro-managing isn't there.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
The situations in which I put my son ahead of my husband are ones where his status as "teeny human" take precedence over my husband as "adult human". For instance:
- The house is on fire. Husband can rescue himself from fire; kidlet cannot. Kidlet takes precedence.
- It is dinner time. Husband is capable of getting food himself; kidlet is not. Kidlet takes precedence.
- Both have hurt fingers. Husband is a big boy; kidlet doesn't understand yet and needs comfort and cuddles. Kidlet takes precedence.
These are all situations in which any teeny person would need the same assistance from the nearest available adult. The point is not my son being more important than my husband, but that in certain circumstances taking care of a child is more important than taking care of an adult. In other situations, my husband ranks above my son for me - as, I think, he should.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
St Deird: - The house is on fire. Husband can rescue himself from fire; kidlet cannot. Kidlet takes precedence.
Usually in these examples it is assumed that neither can help themselves. E.g. they're both trapped / unconscious ...
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Banner Lady: TP was raised by parents who made it quite clear that the children were NOT the primary object of their love - this was reserved for their spouse.
Really? This seems fucked up to me. Even if you could measure your love for someone and compare it to that for someone else (I don't think you can; I think this is what "love isn't pie" means), why would you tell them?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
In an age where birth control was not an option, they were passionately in love with each other until one of them passed away. The kids of that relationship knew that they were the product of that love, and that they were loved and wanted, but that they were somewhat incidental to the main (and very stable) relationship.
I, on the other hand, was brought up by parents who neither wanted each other, nor the children who came along. Now THAT is fucked up.
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Banner Lady: In an age where birth control was not an option, they were passionately in love with each other until one of them passed away. The kids of that relationship knew that they were the product of that love, and that they were loved and wanted, but that they were somewhat incidental to the main (and very stable) relationship.
Wow. Consider my mind boggled.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
St Deird: - The house is on fire. Husband can rescue himself from fire; kidlet cannot. Kidlet takes precedence.
Usually in these examples it is assumed that neither can help themselves. E.g. they're both trapped / unconscious ...
And that's where I answer "the dog." Ask an obnoxious hypothetical, get an obnoxious answer.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Og, King of Bashan: And that's where I answer "the dog." Ask an obnoxious hypothetical, get an obnoxious answer.
Yes I got that. It's a good one.
I guess what it comes down to, is that I don't accept "who would you rescue in case of a fire?" as a proxy for "who do you love most?" However, it seems to me that if you do, assuming that one of them can help themselves seems as wriggling out of the moral question a bit.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
... but not if that wasn't what the poster was getting at in the first place. I took it to mean "I show more attention in a particular situation to the family member who requires it most due to age and inability." I don't think there was an attempt to make it about absolutes, i.e. what if they were both equally out of it. That's a pretty rare situation anyway.
Though for what it's worth, you'd have yet another issue confounding the result--which is, the theoretically helpless spouse would almost certainly urge the conscious one to save the child first. If I had to choose between saving husband or child, you can bet I'd go for the child, just as Mr. Lamb would. It's been clear since birth that either of us would sacrifice ourselves for him--and would expect the other spouse to uphold that choice.
So no, whom you have is not a decent proxy for whom you love most. If that last is even a sensible question.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Yes, if I survived a calamity because my husband chose to save me at the expense of one of our children, I would be distraught. But I know he'd save the kids first.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If I had to choose between saving husband or child, you can bet I'd go for the child, just as Mr. Lamb would. It's been clear since birth that either of us would sacrifice ourselves for him--and would expect the other spouse to uphold that choice.
So no, whom you have is not a decent proxy for whom you love most. If that last is even a sensible question.
Agreed on both counts.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'd postulate that parents who care more for each other (and their own needs) than those of their children is an extremely common and destructive tendency. So rather than "parenting" being the new religion, it is the rather messed up idea that children are an unwelcome appendage to their otherwise glorious relationship which is the real problem.
No, not all relationships have children and no nobody is inferior because they choose not to. A totally valid choice.
But if you have them, put them rather than the relationship first.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Maybe having smaller families nowadays influences how children are viewed?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
