My coworkers and I are continually having this debate:
Your spouse and your child are in a boat on the lake. The boat starts sinking and you can only save one of them. Who do you save? Now, I’m sure that instinctually most people, including me, would save their child. However, the point of the question is really, if you are married with children, who does/should come first for you? Your spouse or your child? A surprising (to me) number of women say, usually with one hand on the hip, a head rolling, and the other hand snapping the fingers, “NO MAN comes before my child!” I do not get it. How can your children be happy if they have all the power in the home and they sense that the parents are not united as husband and wife, but only exist to ensure the child’s happiness? What do the supporters of this position think will happen to the marraige when the children are grown and gone? How can two people be married and not automatically put their spouse first? How can a marraige like this possibly work? They call me selfish because I say, no way would I want to be married to someone that DIDN’T put me first, over his children, my children, and/or our children. It may be worth noting that every person I’ve had this debate with that have supported the “children first” theory have been, to put it nicely, not so educated. What think you?
I’d pick my kids, no doubt about it. They’re my responsibility, it’s my role to take care of them, support them, and protect them. It’s unconditional, unwavering and unmatched by any love I could feel for another person. I couldn’t be married to any person who couldn’t understand why I’d feel that way - and I’d expect anyone I was with to feel the same about his kids, as well.
I consider myself fairly educated, but don’t see any correlation. I am curious as to whether you have kids though. It isn’t the kind of love one can fathom until someone is bringing up kids of their own, I don’t think. I know that I couldn’t.
Yup, I have three sons. We’ve all bonded quite well, my feelings for them and my love for them are no less than any other mother’s. Do I feel totally responsible for their happiness? Not after they reach a certain age, no I do not. If I could teach them only one thing, it’s that THEY are responsible for their own lives and happiness, that they have the power to do anything, not that I have the power to do anything FOR THEM. To me marraige is all about uniting with another as one unit and putting them first in any situation. Maybe it’s just me. I hope not, as I’m single and would like to get married again in my lifetime.
Hope you didn’t think I was trying to malign your motherhood in any way, because I wasn’t.
I think there are two different questions here though. Just because I’d choose to rescue them over an SO doesn’t mean that I take total responsibility for their happiness. Of course they have responsibility for that. There’s a huge difference between happiness and survival.
Yes, NotCrazy, I’m sure even I would rescue my child in the boat scenario, as I’ve said. What I was really asking about were the questions that followed, such as “how can your marraige work on an emotional level, if you are, in essence, ‘married to’ your children?” IMHO, anyway. When the children are gone, do you envision you and your husband “starting over”- or what do you see happening? Do you not agree with the old saw “the best thing a man can do for his son is to love his mother”? That adage probably sums up the best most quickly, what my stand on this issue is. I would like to hear more opinions on this, from men as well.
I see what you are saying, but instinctually, I would save my kids as I’d assume my other half is more than capable of saving himself. Not that we don’t have a bond or anything…does that make sense?
Well, ahem… what I tried to make clear was that, yes, most people, including myself, would probably choose to rescue their child if indeed they were faced with the boat scenario. But what I really (really!! wanted to know about were the marraiges that exist where one or both spouses put their children’s wants (not NEEDS- of course you’re going to strive to meet your child’s needs anybody else’s) and “happiness” before your spouse and your marraige. Such as, say Mr. NotCrazy has the opportunity to take a promotion at work, if he moves to Hooptyville, West Virginia. Assuming you’re willing to go yourself, what if your child decrees that he or she does NOT want to go, will not be happy, etc., etc. Or it could be something as simple as your husband wants to go to Red Lobster but the kids want Fuddruckers. There are potentially thousands of these scenarios. Does anybody understand what I am getting at here?
I understand what you’re getting at. I think including the boat scenario just confused the question initially.
For decisions such as the promotion, I wouldn’t not go only because my kids didn’t want to, but I also wouldn’t *automatically * go because my husband wanted to either. For that type of thing there would have to be some kind of family consensus - and it would likely end up being a move to the Shangrila that is Hooptyville. It isn’t about what is best for him, or me, or them, but Us.
And for decisions like where to go for dinner, well there’s definitely compromise there as well. We’re not going to go to Fuddruckers every time, but we’re also not going to go to Red Lobster everytime. I guess there’s the heart of all of my viewpoints - no one opinion is worth more or less to me. It’s all about the compromise.
Oh, and of course, how I feel about any given situation comes into play too, just for the record.
It’s just that I haven’t been able to get these questions answered by my co-workers that claim they would put their children first before any marraige to anybody. What does it mean, then, to “put your kids first”? If it doesn’t mean that you would defer to them for decisions and make your life’s purpose making them happy, giving them what they want, making them the most comfortable they could possibly be- then what does it mean? My point being that when I ask the question, a lot of women vehemently maintain that they would NO WAY consider putting their spouse and/or their marraige before their kids, but when I ask them what that would entail for them, they have no idea. Under what circumstances, then, would YOU put your children before your husband and/or your marraige? Assuming, of course, that the spouse in question is not abusive and that you have an interest in having a good marraige with them.
Well if we were all on a boat, and it was sinking…
That’s a tougher question to answer. I can’t think of any situation where I’d always put them before my spouse in a non-critical situation. (Meaning, critical to their survival/well-being). I think an important part of the equation is having open communication, and a true sense of family (whether traditional or otherwise), so that it’s never down to the kids want this, the SO wants that, and I just want to run and hide.
Really, I’m just extraordinarily diplomatic, and would just have to figure out what works for everyone as much as possible.
I would, and have, put my daughter’s education before living with or nearer to my SO in the house he currently owns. He lives in a place where it is very difficult and/or pricey to get a good primary education. Since I am responsible for her educational opportunities at least until she gets to college, and since her education will have a big impact on her future, and since he (for a variety of valid reasons) isn’t ready to sell his house, I have made the decision that it is more important for her to have a good education than for us to live together at this time.
As for day to day living though, of course my daughter’s basic needs come before his and mostly before mine. After that though it’s a toss up between who needs/wants what at whatever time they want it.
I’d save little Abbie and I have no doubt that my husband would do the same if it was me in the boat with her and he was in the position to save only one of us.
realistically, is the original question one that anyone could answer rationally? if your spouse and child fell out of a boat and were swept away, wouldn’t you probably go to the one that was closest? would you really deliberately pass by one to try to get to the other? and if you were able to save the spouse first, wouldn’t you both then have a chance to rescue the child?
as to the real-life stuff, life is complicated. suppose that transfer to hoopyville means that the kid has to move away from her friends, but your promotion means that you’ll have the money to send her to a better college. who’s really putting who first? is that really like deciding whose life to save? as to the little daily decisions, isn’t the essence of family life rooted in compromise? nobody gets everything he/she wants all the time (starting with choosing a spouse that doesn’t come close to fulfilling your teen-age fantasies, and raising children whom you know aren’t going to be the ones to discover cold fusion), but ideally everybody get some of what they want sometimes. the cosmic joke is that you just can’t always know what’s going to turn out best in the long run.
