Women who seem to love thier kids more than their husband.
I think my sister is like this. She seems to be more interested in being a mom than a wife. She's always posting pictures my nephews on facebook and everything is about them, but she rarely mentions her husband.
He's a nice enough guy, but I think she just said yes to the first man who asked her to get married so that she could have what she considers a typical family.
Is this why so many straight men get all surly and withdrawn as they get older?
Overbearing mother + absent, weak father = HOMOSEXUAL
Uh, any decent mother should love their kids more than their husband. I'm not saying the husband should be ignored, but your kids should always come first. You chose to have them, so take care of them and give them the attention they need.
I think a lot of marriages are like this. It's no wonder why their husbands turn to other men for sex.
I disagree, r2. The kids shouldn't come first. The relationship between the parents should be the top priority, so that they have a strong foundation to build their family. It's like the oxygen mask in the airplane - take care of yourself first, then your children.
I remember asking my mom which of us 5 kids she loved best, and she said she loved my father the most, and then the rest of us equally. I was very young, but I got it. They've been happily married 56 years and raised happy, well adjusted individuals.
A wife's priority should be husband first, then children. Because this isn't usually the case, it's the reason for most marriage failures.
Learned it in college
R2 = frau
This idea and practice that children are the center of the universe (relationship) is what is creating so many little monsters and sending the country into the toilet.
Why do men who love sports, their jobs, their cars or motorcycles, their buddies, or their mothers more than their wives or children?
I'm actually with r2.
When you choose to become a parent (and this goes for both parents) you take on a huge responsibility. A small child is completely dependent -- physically, emotionally, financially -- in a way that a partner should not be. Therefore as the person(s) with responsibility for that small child, you and your partner need to step up and make that child (or children) your priority for the time in which they need you most. It doesn't mean you have to sacrifice your whole life to the child, but it does mean that when push comes to shove, you are more responsible for your child than you are for your partner.
R4 And I disagree with you.
R6 Not a frau at all. I'm simply saying that if you choose to bring a life into this shitty world, you better put them before everyone/everything else.
You are the TEXTBOOK definition of a frau r2. Stop denying it.
History proves you wrong, frau R2. Deny it if you like but you are in the wrong.
Yes, having kids grow up witness to their parents acrimonious relationship is so much healthier. Especially when Dad eventually moves out and moves on because his role as a sperminator is done.
R10 Believe whatever you want. I'm not a frau, or even a woman for that matter.
You seem angry. I wish you well :)
The notion that you can't put each other first and be a good, responsible parent is silly. Saying you need to put your dependent child's needs before your spouse's would only make sense if your spouse were dependent in the way a child is, but that is not the case, unless your spouse is truly fucked up.
What kind of adult has needs that would trump responsible parenting?
One of the points of having two parents is that sharing the load allows you to maintain the level of intimacy an adult parntership needs to be happy.
I don't have kids but I'm with r2. Kids need their parents, a husband or wife is not vulnerable, you can get another partner.
If I had a wife, I would want and expect her to put children first over dick.
Whatever you are, R2, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know the meaning of love.
Pathetic in every way.
(And I suspect if you say that kind of shit aloud, you make lots of people angry.)
The funny thing is that people like R6/R10 and R4 are probably the same people who bitch about kids nowadays running wild and having no manners and wondering why their parents aren't raising them right.
R16 LMAO! Wow, it's obvious you have some SERIOUS issues to get so upset over someone having a different opinion than yours. Let me guess - you dated someone once who had kids and you're still upset they gave them more attention than you?
And if you knew how to read, I stated in my original post that husbands shouldn't be ignored and should get attention too, just that kids should get more.
Mom's often love their kids more then their husbands. It doesn't mean they don't love their husband and a husband should not be neglected. Why would a wife want to neglect the man in her life? Lousy lover?
[quote]bitch about kids nowadays running wild and having no manners
Those kids have mothers who hover and coddle and want to be their kids' best friend and don't want to be seen as a mean mommy.
Cult of Motherhood. Breeders first, women second, human beings third.
r17, damn straight I think kids running wild and out of control aren't being raised right. I also think they are being raised by mothers who see their kids as extensions of themselves, drag them everywhere rather than let them play and be kids, and spend their lives "making memories" instead of living, and documenting it all through photos, video and facebook. Just because a parent spends a lot of time with a kid doesn't mean they are raising them to be good members of society.
I think you are missing the point of parenting.
The point of parenting is scrapbooking, R23.
R4, you need to simmer down. There's obviously much more in this for you then arguing with r2.
Until you walk in a mother's shoes, it's totally not fair to judge them based on something you witnessed at Starbucks.
This may be a little off topic but my mother once told me that she didn't love my father and that she married him because she thought he would be a good provider. They have always had a contentious relationship and fought a lot when I was a kid and I always wished they would just divorce. My dad is kind of an asshole and I always took my mom's side because he was so difficult but once she told me that I couldn't help but wonder did he somehow sense that she didn't really love him? Did that fuel any of his horrible behavior?
Of course a mother should love her kids. But if the kids see the husband as being secondary to their needs then they will never understand what it takes to have a healthy relationship. They will grow up knowing THEIR needs take precedence over every other thing in the world. But this assumes that the mother made a good choice of husband. If he's a dick and is dangerous to the children, that is another matter. Then of course the kids come first. But in a healthy family the parents should work together to guide their children, Love is not and either/or game. It can include everyone.
We've had this discussion before and I posted an answer like r4. The greatest gift parents can give a child is birdseye view of a great relationship. The kids who come first in their parents marriage all turned into monsters and even shittier adults.
In my opinion, mothers are supposed to love their kids more than their husbands. They can divorce the guy, the kids are apart of her. It's that simple. The husband should feel the same way about the kids as well.
Parents should love their children more because they could get a divorce, but the children are genetically related?
Is there a logician in the house?
[quote]the kids are apart of her. It's that simple
No, R30. I know two couples with kids who "put their children first" and those kids are fucked for life. They can do no wrong. They figured out at about age 5 their position in the family dynamic and they play it to the hilt. They have become spoiled and out of control. It's painful to be around them and when I know their kids are going to be around in social situations, I decline the invitation.
Kids aren't supposed to run the show. They are second to the parent's relationship. Putting them first is poisonous to the child and the relationship. Kids need to feel secure and led by example.
Yes OP, someday a straight man will wake up and want to marry you.
There's an unwritten rule in hetty marriages, it's about the man and the woman before the kids come THEN the wife concentrates on the kids. That's one of the reasons that straight guys cheat on their wives. They are thinking about sex every minute and their dear wife is concerned with the kids. If you think straight guys have it good in their relationships ask all the sexless humps who are screwing around with the young chicks at work or the ones that go to glory holes for a quick release.
All anybody really wants is a hetty marriange.
Sherri Shepherd is the poster child for this. I forget she's actually married--it's downright disturbing.
Why are you so obsessed with straight women and their lives? It's a little creepy.
From the couples I've known before and after children it seems as though once children enter the picture the couple really finds out if they actually like each other. Courtship and romance, wedding-mania and baby fever mask a lot of unresolved or unacknowledged feelings between two people. But it all gets real when the kids come.
It sounds like a lot of you would be horrible parents, the husband does not come first in a household. Yes, hopefully the couple will love each other but the priority is the children, the husband is just some random guy she met and decided to enter a relationship with. The kids didn't choose to be there. You can try and twist that into saying the kids will walk over the husband but that isn't the point, the point is that both the wife and husband should try to make their kids a priority. Try to find a woman who loves her husband more than her kids, there you'll find a shitty parent.
Why, why are we focused on women, yet again?
Are a bunch of men really the right ones to question a straight woman's affection's towards her children versus her husband. I'm seeing a lot of the same arguments, I have a feeling most females would have a different view.
You know, I know it's a DL tradition to comment on the supposed universal misery that is heterosexuality. And, I actually do see plenty of examples in real life. But, I don't see us doing any better, generally. Sure, there are well-adjusted, happy, healthy gays, as there are hets, but I also see all sorts of misery, unhappiness, compromised lives, bitterness.
Since a lot of people on this site have something against women AND children, the responses aren't surprising. They think everyone should bow down to these often abusive straight men.
Women use men for money, babies, security, the list goes on and on. I am so glad I'm gay.These cunts need to find some independence. It's 2013 for fucks sake. I'm surprised women can even draw breath without men. It's pathetic.
r41, there is absolutely nothing more satisfying in life than a healthy relationship between two people. Someone you can experience true partnership with over time.
We don't all find this type of love, whether we are gay or straight. But the child who is able to experience the incredible bond of this partnership by growing up with loving parents might have a slightly greater possibility of replicating the experience in his/her own life.
In my house, my partner and I come first and my children come second. They know this and respect it. And to be honest, I think they go to sleep at night feeling comforted and secure. Hopefully they also look forward to building a similar happy life for themselves.
Okay, straight girl here. I will give my story and then bail out before I get the obligatory "get out fish".
I grew up in a household where my parents had a relationship outside of being parents. They left us and went out on date nights. They had parties where us kids were banished to the backroom with a big tv and popcorn, pizza, etc. Obviously if it was an emergency we could go out to the party area but we mostly stayed in the back. We were not called on to perform my latest ballet/cheer routine or dazzle the guests with our cuteness. We did not go everywhere with them. We had family times but my parents always had a life outside of us. Sunday mornings were my parents time. They would "sleep" late. Actually, they were lounging in bed and leisurely screwing. We knew not to disturb them even though we didn't comprehend what they were doing. We were also on a fairly strict sleep schedule so they could go back to their room and spend time together without us.
You can be good parents but you still need to maintain a sexual and romantic relationship.
Today's frauen (yes, I use that word) are geared completely to the kids and their husbands are left by the wayside. The kids I've noticed have no schedule anymore and, in fact, a lot of kids sleep with their parents way beyond what I think is an appropriate age. Sometimes I get the feeling that the mothers use them as an excuse not to have sex.
I think the pendulum has swung too far these days and the center of the universe is kids.
Question: "Is this why so many straight men get all surly and withdrawn as they get older?"
R47, that sounds okay..but the fact is that many people in relationships who put their husband first and their children second, also end up getting a divorce and the woman is so swept up in needing a partner that she finds someone who mistreats her child. So while you claim that your child feels secure, many would argue that telling a child that they are second to your spouse...is in fact not comforting at all.
R48, you are most welcome here.
WE, my husband and I, put our children first. We are responsible for them. We chose to have children as an extension of our love. At the moment our children need us to provide for them and bring them to sports etc. When we no longer have to do that, we will be able to spend more time focussing on ourselves. If you chose to have a family then I feel that they become your main priority and they shouldn't be left with babysitters when it is not necessary. The problem is of course striking a balance, as children need to learn that their parents have lives of their own and they cannot change every plan to suit their children.
The same people who think children should come first in a family probably have terrible, ill behaved dogs who are "almost housebroken" or "just playbiting" and "not really that great with other dogs".
Some of you people really seem terrible. Your asshole grown man husband doesn't come before your children you sick fucks.
R53 I'll go one further. I think people who think children come first are the ones responsible for hellions screaming and running wild in coffee shops, bars and planes with parents who blithely ignore them and expect others to put up with the little demons while they go on about their business.
I was pleasantly surprised the other day when a tyke ran out in front of me and the mother stopped and scolded him and made him apologize and then apologized to me herself.
It gave me some hope that not all parents now are abdicating responsibility.
You think kids shouldn't even run around you r55? Did they block your path? Bump into you? If not, your expectations seem a little ridiculous.
R56 it was a crowded area and, yes, the kid almost tripped me up. I'm an adult and not necessarily looking out for little things running blindly around my feet.
"It's no wonder why their husbands turn to other men for sex.
Fod God's sake, you stupid fucking queen, give it a rest already.
60% of marriages end in divorce.
99% of mother/child relationships are for life.
You do the math.
I seriously think the road to Frauville is paved with discarded husbands who play second fiddle to the intense joy the Frauen experience of being a "Mom". Most of my women friends who are cool, still like to hang out, support their kid but not overwhelmingly so, really enjoy their husbands, these are the woman that I enjoy in my life.
[quote]It's no wonder why their husbands turn to other men for sex.
Most of them will turn to other women first.
Won't somebody please think of the CHILDREN??!!
The Cry of the Frau
It sounds like a lot of you don't like the fact that mothers usually have a stronger bond for their child than their spouse. Why does it bother you? There are also a lot of strict mothers who teach their kids manners who love their kids, why does a husband need to be catered to in order for a child to grow up well rounded? What an antiquated set of ideas.
Honestly, I think the worst type for this is the ones who even in high school do nothing but dream of marrying and having kids. No career, travel or anything except dream of marrying and settling down in suburbia and living the "American dream". Hubby off to work and they stay home with the kiddies.
The couple has a separate relationship outside the kiddies. My mother always told me the love is different thus she had both my dad and us as a priority, but a priority below herself.
One reason my mom was great was that she cared for herself and let it be known that she wouldnt take shit from her husband nor children. Her needs were as important and in some circumstances more important than her husband or children.
R63 no one is saying that. My parents had an equal relationship. Mom did not "cater" to Dad and he was all for her having a life outside the house. She took art classes, modeled and worked part-time when she felt like it and he helped out with child rearing and housework. He didn't just sit around on his ass bellowing orders for a sammich and beer.
You don't have to "cater" to a spouse to also have a romantic and sexual relationship. That should be something both parents want to do in a healthy relationship.
There's a balance to it. No, I don't have any kids, but I can conclude plenty from having been a kid with weird parents and step-parents, who would often spend weekends at my friends' houses and observe their families.
The parents who obviously like each other and have a lasting friendship with their romance are awesome. And they tend to be cool about raising their kids, meaning letting them make mistakes.
So in the modern version of this society, yes--the unit of husband/wife should be really be worked at and preserved, because husband/wife is the operative unit we have chosen. BUT! This stuff has to be committed to and discussed in the open before the couple even thinks about having children.
Why? Because children are the fucking responsibility of those able-bodied persons (both of them) who bring them into the world or intend to raise them in the world. Period. And the husbands who impregnate their wives just to shut them up about having babies are just as bad as the women who want babies to appear "normal."
Maybe they're not interested in catering to some oafish straight guy? Can you blame them?
R63 not to be nosy but are you a gay man, single mother or what? You seem awfully defensive. It's okay to be a single mom especially if you left an abusive asshole and took the kids with you. No one thinks kids would be better off in those circumstances.
I don't think that's what this conversation is about.
R48 and I grew up in the same way. For the rest of you who say kids are more loved/important than spouses...
Your kid has his 20th soccer game of the season but your friends are having a fabulous cocktail party that you've always enjoyed in the past. Do you skip it?
If on a Saturday morning, you're in bed fucking and your lo knocks on the door b/c he can't find the remote, do you stop what you're doing and find it for him?
One of your children gets strep throat 3 days before your vacation ends, do you rush home early?
Your couch shopping for the family room, the kids LOVE the red couch, it's not your favorite but you could live with it, do you pick that one?
It's Sunday at 8pm, do the kids get to run the remote control?
The answers to all of these questions should be no.
The answer to this one "Do you love Mommy/Daddy more than me?" should be YES!!!
[quote]The relationship between the parents should be the top priority, so that they have a strong foundation to build their family. It's like the oxygen mask in the airplane - take care of yourself first, then your children.
This is completely the Fundy point of view. Nothing, but nothing, trumps the man and woman union.
The thing is, the man never stops taking when the woman gives. Kids eventually want to cut the apron strings, but a dependent, attention whore of a husband will not. Well, unless he finds a younger, firmer version of you...
I agree R71, I've noticed it's usually white men who like that dynamic because they're in control and the priority. If you ask most African American women who comes first her husband or her children I have a feeling she'd tell the man to fuck right off if he tried to control the dynamic like that. In fact most minority women don't have that mind frame.
R71 you have a very warped view of relationships.
[quote]If on a Saturday morning, you're in bed fucking and your lo knocks on the door b/c he can't find the remote, do you stop what you're doing and find it for him?
That's funny because I remember once when I was young I decided to test the boundaries and, man, were my parents pissed that I interrupted their "alone" time. It was "goddamnit away from that door". I never did it again and I am not emotionally traumatized.
Let me also add that fundie relationships are weird and patriarchal and many of them are molesting the kids.
I was talking about normal, non-fundie relationships.
most women I see now prefer their kids to the spouses. such is live
My mother always told us that she and my mother were individual people first, then they were a couple, and then they were parents. Those were their priorities, we always respected them and we were sure of our place in their lives. When my father died young, my mother went back to being an individual.
Uh, that should be "she and my father" in the first sentence. My parents weren't quite that liberated.
Well hopefully most women and men can strike a BALANCE. Children who are always catered to might become egotistical. And in the situation of a woman that focuses on her husband, the child will be neglected.
Some women might prefer their children because there is a biological bond that a husband and wife will NEVER have. Given this board is mostly men, I can understand how many don't understand this. None of you will have a child come out of your genitalia and occupy your body for 9 months.
I do agree with the people that noted that it is important that the children see their parents happy. Children need to see happy parents as a template for their own romantic/sexual relationships- be they gay or straight.
Looking back at the original post, I see some sexism in it. Not surprising given this is on DL.
Why is it that the wife has to initiate the love and attention?? Maybe women would be less obsessed with their children, if fathers pitched in in the child-rearing. If heterosexual relationships were more equal, maybe women wouldn't feel the need to overcompensate when it comes to spending time with the children??
If more fathers took on chauffeuring the kids to the soccer and softball practices, maybe it would give time for mom to dedicate more time, sex, and romance on her husband?
I love my husband more than Mamie.
Paying too much attention to the kids to the detriment of the husband and shortchanging the husband can easily lead to jealousy and resentment by the husband - and rightfully so.
I always wonder how husbands control jealousy when mothers devote almost all of their attention the baby and/or kids and give the husband very little affection and interest.
A lot of you are sexist and disrespectful to children. You really don't like kids, and you don't like the attention they get from they parents. It's not going to change.
How does sexism equate to not liking children? I like kids, but I like kids who are well-behaved and polite. Kind of like I raised mine. They were not allowed to run wild like kids I see today. I'm not talking about the attention they get from parents. I'm talking about the problems they bring in public and the parents ignoring the problems.
R82 from your previous posts you seem to have a problems in relationships.
I got lots of attention from my parents, R82, and I mean it in a good way. They were always there when I needed them, and even when I didn't. They also had, and have, a close happy relationship they nurtured as a couple, independent of having children. They are a joy to one another in their old age, a rare and wonderful thing. It's hard to believe that would exist if my mother had married a sperm donor/meal ticket and my father a housekeeper/brood mare.
As to women and children, I like them both just fine, but not as a class. There are good and bad people in both groups.
You're kind of a weirdo, aren't you?
Is there a reason why DL seems to hate children?? I sort of understand the resentment of women(I don't condone it however)-- but what is the reason for the kid hate?? Did everyone have a horrible childhood??
Very often husbands act like children themselves.
[quote]If you ask most African American women who comes first her husband or her children I have a feeling she'd tell the man to fuck right off if he tried to control the dynamic like that. In fact most minority women don't have that mind frame.
nor do they have husbands
Yes Black women can take of themselves they don't cling to men like white women do.
sweetie. i have a confession.
"Question: "Is this why so many straight men get all surly and withdrawn as they get older?"
No, most men are moody bitches with emotional issues.
Just more man hate R90. No surprise there.
[quote]Yes Black women can take of themselves they don't cling to men like white women do.
plus it is hard to cling when the baby daddy is doing 25 to life.
Maybe men aren't aware of this but many women because of hormones & attachment actually feel like they've fallen in love with their child. And that's because all the symptoms you normally feel when you fall in love that flushed face, the can't wait to see them, the rush --it's all there when you have a child. It's a biological reaction (it probably serves an evolutionary purpose of making sure the child is fed & taken care of ) and won't last forever. Definitely it goes away by the time the kid is a teenager.
So when some men feel their wife is choosing the baby over them or that they have a rival, there's an element of truth to that. Again, in normal couples this feeling goes away or the husband starts feeling the same way about the child. But it takes work to refocus back to the relationship.
There was a study of gay couples with kids that came out recently. They found that they had a lot less sex since they've had the kids. They found this across the board whether they were monogamous or in an open relationship---not much sex was happening. Kids just plain tire you out.
It's generally more difficult for fathers to bond with newborns, but some persist through that time. I've been surprised at how many men I've seen become truly great fathers, all of them men who were determined not to be like their own dads.
Of coarse there are great fathers out there. You just never hear about it. The media is biased when it comes to men.
When the parents put their relationship first and put the children second, that does not equate to child neglect, child abuse, or the children feeling unloved, nor does it equate to hatred of children.
Don't we have any evolutionary biologists on this board that have something enlightening to say?
I slept with my babies and drove my husband away.
Show me a woman who loves her husband more than her kids, and I'll show you a woman who would throw her kid out if "hubby" got handsy with her.
You shouldn't love your spouse OR your child more or less than the other in an ideal two parent household! You should love them both equally, just in two different ways.
I don't even have kids but I feel like this isn't that hard to grasp. I love my mom in a different way than I love my partner, for instance (as one would hope would be the fucking case), but that doesn't mean I love one of them "more." Why wouldn't it be the same with parents and children?
r100 Best post in this thread.
"The kids shouldn't come first. The relationship between the parents should be the top priority, so that they have a strong foundation to build their family."
This bullshit theory was obviously thought up by some male psychologist whose wife was ignoring him. It goes against EVERYTHING in nature. If the house was on fire, she'd save the kids and let her husband burn. In fact, she'd send him in to die to save the children.
To anyone who actually HAS kids, if your spouse or partner were drowning and your child was too, but you could only save one which one would you save?
For any parent in their right mind, it will ALWAYS be the child, R103.
R100, I call bullshit. Same question. If your mother and your partner were both burning or drowning and you could only save one, which would it be? An answer just flashed in your mind even if you won't admit it. That's the one you love the most.
R104, it's not about who you love the most. I would choose to save my child over my mom because I know that's what she would want. She's lived more of her life and knows we're put on earth to look after our children.
Seriously, what the fuck does it matter WHAT women do? They will just be endlessly criticized no matter what. Put a cock in it and STFU.
I am beginning to think a lot of you are repressed bisexuals. Why else would this board be obsessed with women??
Yes women women everywhere. At DL? Why? It's getting crazy. I know women are obsessed with us men but it's getting ridiculous.
That's a loaded question, R104. You described an extreme situation that will never happen to almost everyone and has nothing to do with our ability to distribute love equally on a day to day basis.
It isn't like love is some finite resource that most (non-sociopathic) people only have a limited amount of anyway. It's something that changes and grows and is always based on certain context, but it is never finite.
And to answer your question anyway - If two people I loved were both drowning or in a burning building at the same time, I'd probably go for the person who appeared easier to save first in the hopes that they could help out with the other person. I wouldn't give up on either of them though. And I definitely wouldn't automatically think "Well, I can only save one." My larger focus would be on trying to save both of them.
Shit, I remember being about four years old and asking my dad if he loved me or my mom more. He answered that he loved both of us equally, just in two different ways. I wasn't old enough to completely understand was he was saying, but I got the basic gist of it and in retrospect think it was the perfect answer. I don't think that telling a young child that you love either them or your spouse more is really appropriate. If you tell the kid you love them more, then you're essentially putting them on a pedestal that gives the kid a sense of entitlement that they shouldn't have. If you say you love your spouse more, then you risk hurting the kid unnecessarily and making them feeling insignificant, even if that wasn't your intention. Either way, you're creating a level of divisiveness that doesn't need to exist among healthy, well adjusted families.
Whatever, R107. I'm a gay man but I don't see a bunch of women starting threads in which they try endlessly to dissect us all over this board. Lately it's a been bunch of gay men starting constant threads about straight women and all their speculations about every detail of their lives. Who's "obsessed" again?
Sorry, I know it's not everyone here, but I have to call things like I see them. (Although I can admit that I actually found this one interesting since it's not so much about straight women as it is about the dynamics in two parent households with children, which really applies to families that are run by both gay and straight couples alike.)
You guys are all pretty friggin wrong. There are different types of love. The romantic love between a man and a woman is quite different than the protective love from parent to child. Both are necessary for a healthy family. You can't even compare those two types of love let along rank them. How silly for you all to even try. A woman and man should work on their romantic connection throughout their marriage and also protect and love their children. It's not a zero sum game, people!!
correction: "let alone rank them"
R109, it's a common psychological/philosophical question. Of course, the chances of it happening in real life are almost non-existent but that's not the point of the exercise.
I stand by the claim that the first thought that popped into your head was the one you love more. It's the automatic response that's telling, not the thought out one with heroic "I'll save them all!" tendencies mixed in.
If we changed the scenario a bit and made it your biological child versus some random child drowning and you can only save one, the answer becomes very clear, doesn't it? You save your child, the one you obviously love more. It plays out the same through all scenarios no matter how much your conscience hates to admit it.
My boss is like this. It's just one reason I think she's a closeted lesbian. Then again, I don't think her husband minds. People say he seems very gay to them.
[quote]Show me a woman who loves her husband more than her kids, and I'll show you a woman who would throw her kid out if "hubby" got handsy with her.
I have seen women who put their boyfriends before their children and it is sad. I don't know if the kids are getting touched, but what scares me is that I think some of these women would look the other way in order to hang onto their man.
It's a Freudian thing, not at all hard to understand. At a certain point, women start pulling away from their daughters, viewing them as sexual rivals for their husband's attention. This is why Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter. When she discovered her husband was having sex with JonBenet, she blamed the little slut stealing her man, not the molester himself.
On the other hand, at around age 3, boys start
disengaging themselves from mommy, causing women to become increasingly seductive toward their sons. This works well until the boys start showing sexual interest in girls (interest in other boys is repressed by most mothers as innocent boy play).
The thought of losing their idealized partner sends most women into an extremely unstable state. The smartest women sublimate their incestuous urges into affairs with young men or teens. Most, however, turn into raging cunts instead of turning back to their neglected husbands, who--by this point--are usually gone, literally or emotionally.
R113, your question has no relevance at all to a family situation. It's not an either/or proposition. A parent raising children with a partner shouldn't favour either to the extent of neglecting the other. There's nothing wrong with loving your children but when you disengage from your partner because you now have children then something is going wrong. Conversely, favouring your partner to the extent of neglecting your children is poor parenting, period. Why does everything on this board have to be a reductive, polarising shitfight?
r34 has it right.
It's not the one you love more, it's the one you want/need to protect more.
In the presence of two wounded, if one is talking and the other isn't, you should always go to the one who isn't because he/she might be in greater need of help/close to dying.
It's a question of emergency.
My mother is still like this OP. My father was being a jerk not too long ago, and my mother said to him, with me in ear shot:
"Don't make me choose between my kid and you, you won't like what the choice will be"
I'm in my thirties.
[quote]I call bullshit. Same question. If your mother and your partner were both burning or drowning and you could only save one, which would it be? An answer just flashed in your mind even if you won't admit it. That's the one you love the most.
R100 is right. You love your parent, child, and partner in different ways. It doesn't mean that you love one more than the other necessarily.
Who you feel more responsible for is different. If you bring a child into the world, you should do your best for them - otherwise you shouldn't have brought them into the world in the first place. You shouldn't consider their needs to be less than your partner's. Your partner can leave. Your child can't. Your partner can survive without you. Your child can't. Simple as that.
If your partner is going to mean more to you than a future child, don't have children. You aren't cut out for it, and there is really no need for you to be cut out for it. The world is already populated enough. We don't need any more fucked up people who are fucked up due to self-centred arsehole parents.
[quote]Maybe men aren't aware of this but many women because of hormones & attachment actually feel like they've fallen in love with their child. And that's because all the symptoms you normally feel when you fall in love that flushed face, the can't wait to see them, the rush --it's all there when you have a child. It's a biological reaction (it probably serves an evolutionary purpose of making sure the child is fed & taken care of ) and won't last forever. Definitely it goes away by the time the kid is a teenager.
I often hear men say that they fell in love with their children. This is not just a mother thing. It is probably partly biological, just as a large part of "falling in love" is biological, and just like "falling in love" it wears off and hopefully is replaced but a more substantive love.
[quote]Your partner can survive without you. Your child can't. Simple as that.
What world are you living in, dear? Millions of children survive without their parents daily and have throughout the course of history.
[quote]more interested in being a mom than a wife
Isn't being a mother to a man's children part of being a wife? In an evolutionary sense, it's more important for the woman to devote herself to raising the child than it is for her to tend to the husband. He--and she--are operating under the imperative of preserving genetic material into the future.
Maybe R18 but not all woman are very maternal and, remember, men are evolutionarily evolved to knock one woman up and then leave to go knock another one up.
A lot of women might not go for that.
I fucking love you, R92.
R116 is Norman Bates.
The truth is, love for a spouse or partner can die. Love for your child can not, assuming the parent is mentally sound.
[quote]Isn't being a mother to a man's children part of being a wife?
No. What about people who cannot have kids or don't kids? Does that invalidate their relationship? Many people aren't married but have kids.
Marriage does not equal children these days.
R116 I'm a female and very close to my mother.
I haven't ever displayed seductiveness towards my son. You sound disturbed.
The point is that all people are looking to be nurtured in some way, but different types of people manifest it differently. Poor communication ensues. It's worse in some societal systems than others.
It's also totally explainable without using the theories of Freud, Jung, or the like.
But OP isn't very bright, and those who just accept his suggested concept as universal fact (whilst resenting it) are morons.
At first I thought R116's reply was too general and too reliant on psychoanalytic theory.
But after reading it again, I tend to agree based on my own observations.
I've seen these exact dynamics acted out, time and again, in maternal relationships.
Obviously, there are exceptions. Think of wives who've suffered at the hands of clinging, jealous mothers-in-law, only to repeat the same patterns of behavior they despised with their own children.
I believe nature intended men to protect their children and partners (giving life to and nurturing said children) at any cost and women to protect their children at any cost. A woman is not supposed to die protecting her man, that's his job, but almost any woman would do that for her kids if needed. So it may seem it's about loving one or the other more/giving one or the other precedence, but I think it really boils down to basic survival instinct stuff.
women a scum
Most men, for whatever reason, want to have children, but also want women to do the majority of the childcare. So it's only natural that this might be the result.
Also, I think r116 might be on the right track. It explains why mothers commonly seem to worship their sons while treating their daughters like crap.
Most men do not want children. I don't know where you get that from. In most couples I've seen the men go along with having kids to keep their wife around. It's women who usually push for kids. The only guys who really want kids are traditionalists or guys with so much money it doesn't matter.
You are very wrong, r137. In every poll I've ever seen about the topic, including one that came out just this past Father's Day, the vast majority of men say they want children. In fact, in this latest poll, more men (8 of 10) than women (7 of 10) said they always knew they wanted children. They just don't want to be responsible for the actual childcare.
But it's a different type of love entirely! It's not a question of more or less. It's different.
I'm a hag, not a frau (do people still say hag?) and also a mother and wife. I would say I probably love MY FAMILY more than I love any individual within it. But even that seems like a pointless distinction. MY FAMILY is the most important thing to me - the four people in it are tied together by a lifetime love.
I love my kids to distraction but I'm pretty sure I can do that without turning entitled little monsters out into the world. I still fancy my husband. He still fancies me. But we're both agreed: if it were us or them to be saved, we'd save them. In so many ways, they ARE us.
Oh please. Haven't you bitches ever heard of boarding school?
It worked wonders for my career!
[quote] If your mother and your partner were both burning or drowning and you could only save one, which would it be? An answer just flashed in your mind even if you won't admit it. That's the one you love the most
No. You may love someone more - or "the most" - but understand and feel a responsibility toward someone else more - like your children.
I understand where you're going with the sentiment but it really doesn't work.
you've all got it backwards. women focus on their kids because the men in their lives are huge disappointments.
In reality many women will marry almost anyone so they can be "married" and have all they think comes with that status including having children. So the fact that women care more about their children would hardly be surprising.
I can remember commenting more than once upon someone's marriage - why is she marrying him, she doesn't even seem to like him?
[quote]In reality many women will marry almost anyone so they can be "married" and have all they think comes with that status including having children.
Wrong - in reality many women AND MEN will marry almost anyone to have that hetero-normative lifestyle. It isn't just women.
R146, I stand corrected.
But I was answering the OP's question.
People change too. That man or woman who was on their best behavior, treating you like royally is not doing that anymore, and seems to now be a dick/cunt? Well, it could be one of two things: 1) now that the deal is closed, the person can be their true selves. 2) the person is so sick of YOUR shit, they let their dick/cunt flag fly.
I'm betting its the second case more often than the first.
[quote]It's a Freudian thing, not at all hard to understand. At a certain point, women start pulling away from their daughters, viewing them as sexual rivals for their husband's attention.
This kind of Freudian theory got debunked decades ago.
[quote]On the other hand, at around age 3, boys start disengaging themselves from mommy, causing women to become increasingly seductive toward their sons. This works well until the boys start showing sexual interest in girls (interest in other boys is repressed by most mothers as innocent boy play).
Total crap. (Of course some mothers are paedophiles ... like 00.001% of mothers!)
You were joking - and I fell for it.
Women get married for love (mostly) men get ready when they reach the age that they feel like getting married and they'll marry the closest person available.
Lots of generalisations here, so I'll add another.
After a certain age (30/35?) hetero men don't cope well on their own (emotionally but also in terms of feeding themselves, laundry, etc.), so they often marry/re-marry just to have someone to look after them. Women are more resilient.
Yes, the men that R151 describes do exist. After the kid comes along, the wife refers to them as the 2nd/3rd/4th/extra "child".
Marriage and kids must be the 7th circle of hell.
[quote] Yes, the men that [R151] describes do exist. After the kid comes along, the wife refers to them as the 2nd/3rd/4th/extra "child".
Or they treat the men that way because they aren't in lockstep with her. That's a typical put down of men by their wives. It's insulting and meant as a means to humiliate and control.
r151 is correct. Straight men are notoriously needy this way. I've heard straight men say they want a wife just because they want someone to clean up after them and cook for them. Hell, I've even heard gay men say the same thing (hopefully jokingly). Apparently, for many men, "wife" is synonymous with "maid."
You're supposed to love your kids more than your husband.
You ARE supposed to love your kids more than your partner.
But I think there are some women, especially today, who never really experience truly vulnerable love until they have children.
And those seem to be the women who don't give a fuck about their (presumably good, decent) husbands/partners after the kids.
I think I've known a few of these women. I think some of them were emotionally damaged and/or lesbians.
R149 Granted that much of psychoanalytic theory is conjecture.
However, both clinical and forensic samples of women prove what you attempt to dismiss.
(As the term forensic is often understood to refer to autopsies, I should explain: In psychiatry, clinical samples are taken from those who choose to seek help. Forensic samples are derived from those who have run afoul of the law. Forensic, in this case, simply means the area where medical and legal concerns intersect.)
Isn't it interesting that you never see "Men who seem to love their kids more than their wives." as a discussion topic anywhere? The answer, of course, is simple...
Men ALWAYS love themselves the most.
Men's priorities = themselves, then wife, then kids
Women's priorities = kids, husband, themselves
And you people think it's the women who are fucked up? Yeah, right.
I wish I was a Lesbian.
God, some of you are really twisting this. It's not that women shouldn't love their children.
It's that they often completely shut their husbands out. IMO, this is sufficient justification for cheating.