Who comes first: Spouse or children

[SMS60]

Quote from: Simoni on Today at 10:29:23 AM
To answer the OP's question, the spouse comes first.

The relationship between the man and women is the foundation.  Work at keeping it strong, and the children will have the best life possible.


Here I agree with you and Marc Rudov 


Quote
Children don’t ruin marriage, unless their parents give them the power to do so. Spouses ruin marriage — way before they become spouses — by believing that children belong at its center.

So, don’t get married until you have enough maturity and conviction to treat your spouse as the most important person in the world — above and beyond your children — and receive the same treatment in return.


Very, very wise words.

Every man or women who is dating somone with children or plans on having children should print and hang this on their refridgerator. When they feel something is admiss regarding priorities with the kids then refer to the fridge and try and put things in perspective.

[Misha]

Children don’t ruin marriage, unless their parents give them the power to do so. Spouses ruin marriage — way before they become spouses — by believing that children belong at its center.

I agree that this is a wonderful quote. I don't believe that children should be ignored or left unattended or given any attention, but if you raise a child and tell them that parents will sacrifice everything for them, will cater to every whim, and that nobody other than the child can be correct, then as Olga has mentioned way back in this thread, you will have a very self-centered child growing invariably into an egoist and Narcissist as an adult. 

[Doll]

As for sports, especially team sports, I'm not sure how much parents understand how sports can influence a child beyond the sheer exercise. Team sports have a lot of significant factors that can greatly influence a child's upbringing and life's association.

He is not in a team sport- he does Brazilian Jiu- Jitsu  which makes things even better.

[kievstar]

Hi Doll, I used to be on a jitsu team.  He does not train with a group?  I trained with a club and for the guys who fought professionally we used to be in their corner? 

[Gator]

How did you get the idea that in my model, I made the wife the router of all communication between husband and kid?!  Please reread my first reply in this thread.

Unfair!  My attention span is less than a week.

It's actually beneficial for the kids to observe an occasional respectful argument between their folks and learn the arguing and compromising techniques.

For sure, provided the argument carries no implications for the child.  A child should not observe his/her parents argue about whether or how to discipline him/her.

Also, it's very beneficial for a kid to be able to negotiate an issue with one parent without having the other parent immediately jump in and crush him with the authority of a "united front".

 

Not sure what you mean.  The word "crush" makes it sound as if there were no united front.  Negotiating is indeed beneficial experience, provided the outcome is consistent with what the parents have already discussed.

A family should consist of individuals, not fronts.

 

   Blues Fairy, please check back in a few years when your child is old enough to play one parent against the other.  Kids are masters at testing boundaries and parents and playing one parent off against the other.  Consistent parenting is the magic phrase.

You're missing the context, again.  We were discussing Boethius' (or Dr. Laura's?) idea that a divorced parent should wait to pursue any personal life until the kids are grown up.

I was away for four days from this thread, so maybe I missed it.  Anyway, waiting is baloney.  Everyone suffers in a divorce, particularly children.   Kids understand this clearly, if not from Mom and Dad, they hear it from their many friends who come from divorced families.  Dad and Mom deserve happiness too; just don't neglect the kids.

But some sacrifices are completely unwarranted and can bring nothing but resentment. 

I would need an example of unwarranted.  If the sacrifice is unwarranted, why do it unless one enjoys suffering (and some people do).

[Gator]

Sports are beneficial for children, particularly team sports.  I encouraged my  two stepkids to try Pop Warner football and cheerleading this year.

Speaking of sacrifices: driving kids to and from practices and games, watching the games, doing volunteer time in working the chains or selling concessions, etc. meant I missed doing some personal activities.   That is part of raising a child.  I knew that from having done the same years ago for my son.

My stepdaughter's cheerleading team won the regionals so they will compete in the state finals in Orlando.  Another Sunday without watching pro football.  The step daughter is really excited and that is the source of joy for all of us. 

[GQBlues]

Athletics and sports have been the savior for me many moons ago. It was the perfect antidote for some of the things I needed to go through. Team sports definitely have a profound effect on me, especially Basketball (man, I love that game) - the teamsmanship, the challenge, the camaraderie, the strategy for the team's success, and most of all - your individual value to the team - makes up the whole experience so rewarding.

The solitary sport like skiing, martial arts, chess, surfing, swimming all have their own merit and value as well. It empowers the Ki.

So Doll, any possibility your kid will join Tapout?

[Doll]

So Doll, any possibility your kid will join Tapout?

He is in NAGA
http://www.nagafighter.com/
Here he is  year ago ( he is in red )

[Blues Fairy]

For sure, provided the argument carries no implications for the child.  A child should not observe his/her parents argue about whether or how to discipline him/her.

Blues Fairy, please check back in a few years when your child is old enough to play one parent against the other.  Kids are masters at testing boundaries and parents and playing one parent off against the other.  Consistent parenting is the magic phrase.

Of course, I'm just a newbie.    
What I do know, however, is that a kid should be allowed to have an opinion according to his level of responsibility and parents should not strive to agree with each other just so they could overrule the kid.  (Agree that it does not apply to arguments about disciplining ).  I have been a kid, too, and I found it immensely irritating that my parents were trying to appear always of one opinion, united (against me), lest I should discover that one of them can actually be wrong.  I don't think it's healthy, to present parents as always united, always right.  They are humans, too, they can be wrong, or indifferent, and the kid should be allowed to weigh in where he can contribute.  

With my kid, I reserve the right to not give a damn what vacation spot to choose, and to allow the interested parties to work it out by themselves.  I will not jump in just for the sake of creating a "united front" with her daddy.  

I would need an example of unwarranted.  If the sacrifice is unwarranted, why do it unless one enjoys suffering (and some people do).

I already gave an example - the idea we've been discussing; that parents should not remarry until their kids are 18.

[Vaughn]

I already gave an example - the idea we've been discussing; that parents should not remarry until their kids are 18.

Blues, I would really like to read your thoughts on the 18 year old threshold, if you care to explain your position.

[Blues Fairy]

Blues, I would really like to read your thoughts on the 18 year old threshold, if you care to explain your position.

I think my thoughts are pretty obvious from my previous posts.  I think this advice is insane.  Maybe a kid can benefit from a mother sacrificing her personal life until his 18th birthday, but the risk of her becoming emotionally dependent on this "self-denying mommy" role and guilt-tripping her kid for the rest of her life is just too great.

[KenC]

Of course, I'm just a newbie.    
What I do know, however, is that a kid should be allowed to have an opinion according to his level of responsibility and parents should not strive to agree with each other just so they could overrule the kid.  (Agree that it does not apply to arguments about disciplining ).  I have been a kid, too, and I found it immensely irritating that my parents were trying to appear always of one opinion, united (against me), lest I should discover that one of them can actually be wrong.  I don't think it's healthy, to present parents as always united, always right.  They are humans, too, they can be wrong, or indifferent, and the kid should be allowed to weigh in where he can contribute.  

With my kid, I reserve the right to not give a damn what vacation spot to choose, and to allow the interested parties to work it out by themselves.  I will not jump in just for the sake of creating a "united front" with her daddy.  

Blues Fairy,
You appear to have a very good grip on parenting IMO.  The "united front" is critical in discipline and boundary issues.  You learn as one half of a parenting team not to make too hasty of decisions and come to a united front after a private deliberation with your partner.  Should your child identify a division between the partners, they are crafty little devils and are sure to work a wedge into that crack of unity.

But, I also agree with you, Blues, on incouraging independent thinking on everyone's part.  I came from the "because I am the Mom (Dad)" generation where the parents ruled with an iron fist. 

In my own family, dinner was almost a sacred event.  It was mandatory for all to attend.  There were no phone calls or outside interruptions allowed.  It was our "family time."  At that table, everyone was sort of equal.  We laughed, we cried and there was more than one confession offered up.  It was a time for everyone to share what was going on in their day.  Communication from all participants was expected, encouraged and offered.  Not only was it a venue for parent/child communication but also sibling to sibling.  No subject was too trivial or too uncomfortable to be discussed.  Those family dinners kept our family strong, united and informed.
KenC

[Gator]

Maybe a kid can benefit from a mother sacrificing her personal life until his 18th birthday, but the risk of her becoming emotionally dependent on this "self-denying mommy" role and guilt-tripping her kid for the rest of her life is just too great.

Agree, and the worst outcome is that the kid grows up highly skilled at "guilt-tripping."  The chain continues.

[Gator]

In my own family, dinner was almost a sacred event.  It was mandatory for all to attend.  There were no phone calls or outside interruptions allowed.  It was our "family time."  At that table, everyone was sort of equal.  We laughed, we cried and there was more than one confession offered up.  It was a time for everyone to share what was going on in their day.  Communication from all participants was expected, encouraged and offered.  Not only was it a venue for parent/child communication but also sibling to sibling.  No subject was too trivial or too uncomfortable to be discussed.  Those family dinners kept our family strong, united and informed.

Splendid!  The way it should be.

[Boethius]

:whirling: Boethius: I have come to enjoy your posts as informative and well thought out but I am sorry to say, you have lost the plot on this one. The notion is utterly ridiculous in the extreme. I have not read Dr Laura's book and if this is an example of the thrust, the hell like I would ever read it.

Stop and think logically about what you have just said. And...................yes I will cite my wife as an example. She made an error of judgement and trusted a man who took her for a ride due to her youth and naivety. When we met she had a 1 1/2 YO child who knew no father. She was 22. Are you seriously suggesting she should have spent the next 18 years (until she was 40) alone? As that tennis player so often screamed at the linesmen, "You can't be serious"..!!! You are advocating her punishment for an error of judgement at a young age being the sentence of 18 years romantic solitude.

Futher, please demonstrate to me where this child whom I have grown to love to the extent I have less desire to have children of my own than I once did is worse off by me being in his life? The subject of further children is a matter my wife and I are discussing at the moment and we are in accord but the jury is still out. Most likely yes, but it is not set in concrete. Everyone within the families on both sides has commented that our union is the very best thing that ever happened to the boy. Your suggestion is this should be denied.

I note your "religious" comment elsewhere and although I don't aim to second guess what that might be, your posts are indicative to an extent. One of the most famous unions of ancient times was a situation where a man was commanded by a higher power to take a wife who was bearing a child of which the father couldn't be identified in his "manly" understanding and at very least, not his child. Was that OK? If so, at what age is the point where it becomes not OK? When the child is born? When the child is 2 or 6 or 10 or........?    

I/O, it is a very different situation when the biological father (and this could apply to mothers as well) is not in the child's life AND the stepfather does not have children of his own to raise.  In such a situation, the stepfather will step into the role of father.  However, where a biological father is present, stepparenting is not a good idea.  It has an effect on the relationship between the child and the biological parent, and there is often a negative relationship between the child and the stepparent, with the child resenting the stepparent's role.

Parents who have obligations to children from previous relationships, or who create new children in the "new" relationship similarly will usually have a negative effect on the child being stepparented.  In most cases, one group of children will feel second best.  GQ pointed to his experiences as a stepson.  Whether his stepfather was actually indifferent, or perhaps, trying to be overly sensitive to his stepson's feelings is irrelevant.  It is what the child felt.  

A new child usually means the stepchild will feel "second best", or worse.  

Most of the research in this area indicates that stepchildren do worse than parents from intact families.  They have the same outcomes as children of single parent families in most circumstances (other than sex at an early age for girls).  In general terms, they have a much higher incidence of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse.

I am not saying it can't work, (I knew of a family in Ukraine where the husband brought in 3 of his kids, one of hers, and they had one together, but she was an exceptional woman and loved all the children equally), but that is the rare exception rather than the rule.  Ultimately, it is the emotional health of the child that must be considered.

A signficant number of individuals cannot overcome ego enough to make a successful marriage.  Throwing innocent children into the mix is just a recipe for disaster, and irresponsible to boot.

[I/O]

Boethius: I do not know of which studies you refer to and nor do I doubt their findings but, I have a very good case study which has been under my nose for a number of years, one on which I have patterned a lot of my actions in current circumstances.

Briefly (Very similar to my wife), she found herself alone with a son at an early age. My now closest friend was an employee of mine at the time and he did bounce all manner of thoughts off me as he was getting involved with this lady. At the time, I was much more in your line of thinking. I warned him and advised him but I did have the sense to stop short of stating absolutes. The fullness of 15 years has seen them create a family with the boy and 2 more children together. There is no first or second best. Both father and step son acknowledge their relationship is different from father and natural son. Father says, in some ways he is actually closer to step son. Yes I agree it is special but I don't think it is entirely exceptional.

A new child usually means the stepchild will feel "second best", or worse.

Every older sibling feels that to a certain extent when another child arrives. Unless there is a clear intention to differentiate on the part of a step parent, I don't see how it is very different whether parent or step parent.

Yet another case study close to me is one in which he and she were divorced with 2 and 3 children each respectively. Admittedly, they were all late teenage or older. They married with no intention of having more children which remains the case but the families have certainly blended very well and on both sides the former spouses do have significant contact with the children.

I hear what you are saying and I agree there is significant risks and adjustments to be made in such circumstances. Perhaps changes of a magnitude beyond many however I think it is much more individual than you are suggesting and therefore, I think generally consigning people to romantic solitude arbitrarily because they have children is an unreasonable position.

[Blues Fairy]

A signficant number of individuals cannot overcome ego enough to make a successful marriage.  Throwing innocent children into the mix is just a recipe for disaster, and irresponsible to boot.

True of any marriage, whether with step or natural children.  Some people are just bad parents, period.  Should we take their parenting license away?  Or just that of step parents?