Sometime between when we were children and when we had children of our own, parenthood became a religion in America. As with many religions, complete unthinking devotion is required from its practitioners. Nothing in life is allowed to be more important than our children, and we must never speak a disloyal word about our relationships with our offspring. Children always come first. We accept this premise so reflexively today that we forget that it was not always so.
4
In our recently published book, Sacred Cows, we took on our society’s nonsensical but deeply ingrained beliefs surrounding marriage and divorce. We often get asked whether we will next address the sacred cows of modern parenting, at which point we ask the speaker to please lower his voice, and we look nervously over our shoulders to make sure that nobody has overheard the question.
To understand the frightening power of the parenthood religion, one need look no further than the 2005 essay in The New York Times by Ayelet Waldman, where the author explained that she loved her husband more than her four children. On “Oprah Where Are They Now,” the author recently reaffirmed the sentiments reflected in her New York Times article, and she added that her outlook has had a positive impact on her children by giving them a sense of security in their parents’ relationship. Following the publication of her essay, Waldman was not only shouted down by America for being a bad mother; strangers threatened her physically and told her that they would report her to child protective services. This is not how a civil society conducts open-minded discourse. This is how a religion persecutes a heretic.
2
The origins of the parenthood religion are obscure, but one of its first manifestations may have been the “baby on board” placards that became popular in the mid-1980s. Nobody would have placed such a sign on a car if it were not already understood by society that the life of a human achieves its peak value at birth and declines thereafter. A toddler is almost as precious as a baby, but a teenager less so, and by the time that baby turns fifty, it seems that nobody cares much anymore if someone crashes into her car. You don’t see a lot of vehicles with placards that read, “Middle-aged accountant on board.”
Another sign of the parenthood religion is that it has become totally unacceptable in our culture to say anything bad about our children, let alone admit that we don’t like them all of the time. We are allowed to say bad things about our spouses, our parents, our aunts and uncles, but try saying, “My kid doesn’t have a lot of friends because she’s not a super likable person,” and see how fast you get dropped from the PTA.
2
When people choose to have children, they play a lottery. Children have the same range of positive and negative characteristics as adults, and the personalities of some children are poorly matched with those of their parents. Nature has protected children against such a circumstance by endowing them with irresistible cuteness early on, and by ensuring that parents bond with children sufficiently strongly that our cave-dwelling ancestors didn’t push their offspring out in a snowbank when they misbehaved. Much as parents love their children and have their best interests at heart, however, they don’t always like them. That guy at the office who everyone thinks is a jerk was a kid once upon a time, and there’s a pretty good chance that his parents also noticed that he could be a jerk. They just weren’t allowed to say so.
1
Of course, Ayelet Waldman’s blasphemy was not admitting that her kids were less than completely wonderful, only that she loved her husband more than them. This falls into the category of thou-shalt-have-no-other-gods-before-me. As with many religious crimes, judgment is not applied evenly across the sexes. Mothers must devote themselves to their children above anyone or anything else, but many wives would be offended if their husbands said, “You’re pretty great, but my love for you will never hold a candle to the love I have for John Junior.”
3
Mothers are also holy in a way that fathers are not expected to be. Mothers live in a clean, cheerful world filled with primary colors and children’s songs, and they don’t think about sex. A father could admit to desiring his wife without seeming like a distracted parent, but society is not as willing to cut Ms. Waldman that same slack. It is unseemly for a mother to enjoy pleasures that don’t involve her children.
There are doubtless benefits that come from elevating parenthood to the status of a religion, but there are obvious pitfalls as well. Parents who do not feel free to express their feelings honestly are less likely to resolve problems at home. Children who are raised to believe that they are the center of the universe have a tough time when their special status erodes as they approach adulthood. Most troubling of all, couples who live entirely child-centric lives can lose touch with one another to the point where they have nothing left to say to one another when the kids leave home.
2
In the 21st century, most Americans marry for love. We choose partners who we hope will be our soulmates for life. When children come along, we believe that we can press pause on the soulmate narrative, because parenthood has become our new priority and religion. We raise our children as best we can, and we know that we have succeeded if they leave us, going out into the world to find partners and have children of their own. Once our gods have left us, we try to pick up the pieces of our long neglected marriages and find new purpose. Is it surprising that divorce rates are rising fastest for new empty nesters? Perhaps it is time that we gave the parenthood religion a second thought.
I am so sick and tired of hearing crap like "well, it's all about the kids", or "the kids come first".
Well, no they don't, and they shouldn't, at least not always.
I think it's part and parcel of our divorce/never married/single parent culture.
When people get divorced what is the first thing people say? Well, put your children first.
If they really wanted to put the children first, the majority of the time--they'd stay married.
So, they feel guilty and the attitude permeates their life. The term "quality time" came into being.
Worse, the attitude has seeped into marriages, as well. One parent or the other often does put the children first--and their marriage suffers.
NO ONE, least of all me, is saying that children's needs should be ignored or that they should be neglected--but there is a VAST difference between providing children a safe, stable home where their physical and emotional needs are met--and putting the little darlings at the center of your universe where ALL other life considerations take a backseat ALL THE TIME to children's WANTS.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
But here is the thing, the best way to put your kids first is to make sure they have a stable, loving, and consistent home life and most often comes when the needs of the children are put first.
And a strong family does that.
I don't think it is about putting one or the other first, I think it is about putting the family first. And that means the parents' needs are met too.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
But here is the thing, the best way to put your kids first is to make sure they have a stable, loving, and consistent home life and most often comes when the needs of the children are put first.
And a strong family does that.
I don't think it is about putting one or the other first, I think it is about putting the family first. And that means the parents' needs are met too.
No. The marriage, your spouse, should come first. In wedding vows, you pledge to forsake ALL others.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
But here is the thing, the best way to put your kids first is to make sure they have a stable, loving, and consistent home life and most often comes when the needs of the children are put first.
And a strong family does that.
I don't think it is about putting one or the other first, I think it is about putting the family first. And that means the parents' needs are met too.
No. The marriage, your spouse, should come first. In wedding vows, you pledge to forsake ALL others.
And that is what I said. The family, as a whole, comes first.
When the parent or parents needs are taken care of, the whole family is taken care of.
I am not disagreeing with you.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
I agree with Husker & Lily. But what to do when in-laws are mean to the kids, and husband hands the kids the phone on Christmas day to speak to them? Do I put my husband first and support him, or be angry with him for passing off his responsibilities onto the children? In other words, how do you put the marriage first when you disagree on an aspect of parenting? Any suggestions?
I mean, we all have obnoxious relatives. My SIL comes to mind, lol. But, at family gatherings or whatever, we can all at least pretend to get along for the sake of peace. That is really a good lesson for your kids as well, learning to kind of manage that sort of thing and teaching them really to be the bigger person. That isn't a bad thing.
They call them names, favor one over the other, make fun of them, or they completely ignore them. THey have since they were born.
No, it didn't kill them to say Merry Christmas. He put the inlaws on speaker phone. #1 refused to talk, and #2 just answered their questions. (questions were what did they get for christmas, were they in the basement right now, were they on the naughty list). I did get #1 to say Merry CHristmas at the end to end the call.
Well, then they are idiots for sure. But, we are all going to encounter them in life , even in our own family. And, it really is the job of your spouse to manage his own parents.
I'd hang up and let him deal with the repercussions. You've told him how you feel yet he hands it off to the kids so the minute he went to hand the phone over I'd hit the off button. Not very nice but neither is him putting it on the kids to deal with his parents.
__________________
“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.” ― Julia Child ―
The natural impulse of all us when being treated badly is tell the other to GFY. Of course. That feels great, we all want to do that. But, civilized people with manners and bigger people learn to quell that impulse. Returning rudeness for rudeness isn't really the approach we want to take is it? This is a teachable moment.
Well, we tried the minimizing visits for a couple years, now we just won't visit. We made the decision last April after we were treated so badly at their anniversary party. I guess a phone call once or twice a year wouldn't kill us...until they start being mean over the phone.
It sounds like you have dealt with it. I think the kids can say Merry Christmas on the phone and go through their litany of gifts or whatever. But, instruct them that if they start becoming mean to simply say " I have to go now, bye" and hand the phone to dad or hang up.
I don't know that I would hang up. I mean are they really WORTH starting some kind of war with your DH about? You dont' see them, they aren't really a factor in your life. For whatever reason your DH just chooses to not deal with them as his way of dealing with them. I wouldn't hang up or be rude back. But, I would simply cut the call short or at some point you can get on and say "those types of comments to my children are not acceptable, merry Christmas, talk to you next year".
I would keep them on speakerphone and if they said something rude or wrong I would definitely hang up. I might tell them why first.. But it would depend on how upset I was. LGS way sounds good too though.
FNW, teaching your kids to take the high road is a good thing. Saying hello on the phone and saying Merry Christmas is just being respectful. Even if the in-laws do not deserve the respect. I see it like this, if they were complete strangers in town and they were making small talk with your kids, you would expect your kids to at least be courteous.
That is how I see this.
A person can be courteous without being a door mat.
It is better for the kids to learn to be diplomatic about these things.
You "your grandparents want to say Merry Christmas"
Kids "Merry Christmas! Excuse me."
You "They are busy playing/cleaning up/eating etc..."
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
They call them names, favor one over the other, make fun of them, or they completely ignore them. THey have since they were born.
No, it didn't kill them to say Merry Christmas. He put the inlaws on speaker phone. #1 refused to talk, and #2 just answered their questions. (questions were what did they get for christmas, were they in the basement right now, were they on the naughty list). I did get #1 to say Merry CHristmas at the end to end the call.
I don't see this as a huge issue that should be set up as dad vs. the kids.
It's not like he is forcing them so spend a week there. Getting on the phone a couple of times a year isn't going to kill them. Failing to speak or just answering questions is annoying--but not that big of a deal. I would say, however, that if they call the children names, then you have the right to end the call--and I would find it hard to believe your husband couldn't understand that.
It sounds like the "relationship" with the in-laws, such as it is, will naturally end on its own at some point. When your kids get old enough, say teenagers, they will likely rebel against the calls, and your husband will be tired of fighting with his teenage kids on so many issues (and there will be a LOT since most parents turn into dumbasses when their kids become teens, at least in the teen's eyes) that he'll probably let this one go.
Now, if your husband truly can't understand that your in-laws calling the children names (and I'm talking nasty names, not just some innocuous nickname they may not prefer), then this is one of those rare cases when the actual well-being of the child is in jeopardy and the other parent will have to step in for that reason.
I just don't think that those issues are common in most marriages since you would think that both parents would have the well-being of their children in mind and would be rowing the boat the same way, so to speak.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
I'm sure if the in-laws had resorted to name calling or flung insults, Mr. FNW would have ended the call. He doesn't want to expose them to that any more than I do. I think rather than dealing with his family, he passed the buck to the children to talk to them so he wouldn't have to. My husband is not a mean man and would never do anything intentional to hurt the children, I don't think he even realized what he was doing.
Since then SIL has sent my husband an email chastising him for opening the gifts before Christmas and for #1 not speaking when they called. But that's his problem, not the kids' and he will deal with her. Whatever we do, it's never enough.