"The best thing a man can do for his kids is to love their mother"

[I.Dup.]

I think this is a romantic and well intended statement and I believe it's certainly important for a man to love his wife and model being loving and respectful to his wife.

 

But does this statement bug anyone else? The whole "the best thing you can give your kids is a strong marriage" bugs me, too. Not because I don't think a strong marriage is super important (obviously an intact marriage is the best case scenario and parents who love and respect each other is a way better model than parents who scream at each other and cannot stand each other) but is that really the best thing we can give our kids?

 

My parents have a totally dysfunctional marriage (don't we all, I guess?) and they both come from failed marriages so they were really paranoid to always assert to me that they were staying together and loved each other very much. After every little squabble, they'd constantly feel the need to assert that to me "hey Kristi, you know we love each other very much and will always be together, right?" Gag.

[Remudamom]

Yeah, I think it's been through the horse.

[Rhonda in TX]

Those statements are guilt inducing to me. I do the best I can, but I'm only one half of this marriage.

[ravinlunachick]

I don't have a dysfunctional marriage. It's not romance-novel perfect, but it's balanced, loving, and based on a partnership of equals and mutual respect. I'd say that's pretty good. :)

 

I think the best thing a man can do for his children is to show them that THEY are worthy of love. Modeling respect for their mother is definitely important, but a child who grows up believe that s/he is worthy of love and respect will carry over that lesson into more areas of life than marriage, IMO.

[Melissa in New York]

If the person takes that the word to mean "romantic love", then yes, I think that saying is bunk.

 

But if the word love is based on 1 Corinthinians 13, then that changes the whole meaning of that sentence.

 

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self- seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always hopes, always perseveres."

 

I think the best thing a man can do for his kids is to love the Lord, then his wife. ;)

 

-Melissa

[I.Dup.]

I think the best thing a man can do for his children is to show them that THEY are worthy of love.

 

I think you're right. This is what was missing in my house. As paranoid as my parents were to constantly say in my presence they were 100% loyal to each other, kiss each other, hug each other, remind me how much they loved each other...I didn't feel very loved. Maybe that's why I detest this statement. :tongue_smilie:

[My3Boys]

I think this is a romantic and well intended statement and I believe it's certainly important for a man to love his wife and model being loving and respectful to his wife.

 

But does this statement bug anyone else? The whole "the best thing you can give your kids is a strong marriage" bugs me, too. Not because I don't think a strong marriage is super important (obviously an intact marriage is the best case scenario and parents who love and respect each other is a way better model than parents who scream at each other and cannot stand each other) but is that really the best thing we can give our kids?

 

My parents have a totally dysfunctional marriage (don't we all, I guess?) and they both come from failed marriages so they were really paranoid to always assert to me that they were staying together and loved each other very much. After every little squabble, they'd constantly feel the need to assert that to me "hey Kristi, you know we love each other very much and will always be together, right?" Gag.

 

I actually agree with the statement. A healthy, intact marriage where both parents are strongly committed to each other, and relate to each other in a loving, respectful, and supportive way is not only a great example, but it gives children a sense of permanence and security, a "safe place", if you will, even after their parents have passed on. There is nothing else in this life that can take the place of that. This in turn gives children the confidence they need to go out into the world some day. Also, children from a troubled marriage tend to take those issues with them and it colors everything they do, including their own marriages.

 

I don't agree that all of us have dysfunctional marriages. We all have problems, but that's not the same thing as dysfunction, IMHO.

 

No offense, but your parents did not appear to have a strong marriage (just going by the little bit you posted about them), despite what they said to you, and the fact that they stayed together. Many people in a dysfunctional marriage stay together for life and that alone is not an indicator of the healthiness of the marriage.

 

I hope I didn't offend you as that certainly was not my intent. :)

Edited June 4, 2012 by My3Boys

[Scarlett]

I think this is a romantic and well intended statement and I believe it's certainly important for a man to love his wife and model being loving and respectful to his wife.

 

But does this statement bug anyone else? The whole "the best thing you can give your kids is a strong marriage" bugs me, too. Not because I don't think a strong marriage is super important (obviously an intact marriage is the best case scenario and parents who love and respect each other is a way better model than parents who scream at each other and cannot stand each other) but is that really the best thing we can give our kids?

 

My parents have a totally dysfunctional marriage (don't we all, I guess?) and they both come from failed marriages so they were really paranoid to always assert to me that they were staying together and loved each other very much. After every little squabble, they'd constantly feel the need to assert that to me "hey Kristi, you know we love each other very much and will always be together, right?" Gag.

 

 

I'm curious why the 'gag' about that?

 

I have always loved the saying......

[brett_ashley]

The statement is meant to direct the priorities of a mom and dad. Their marriage should be their first priority, and they shouldn't feel guilty about it because it's the most important element to making sure the entire family "works."

[I.Dup.]

Their marriage should be their first priority,

 

I do know that is the intention of the statement...I just think it's a really strong (and false) way of putting it. I personally don't think the best thing a man can do for his children is to love their mother. That doesn't mean it's okay not to love her, or disrespect her. That may be one of the WORST things a man can do. But I don't think the best thing a parent can do for a child is to love the other spouse.

 

What does "putting the marriage as first priority" even mean? That statement confuses me as well. It's all very romantic language, I just don't know how all of it is supposed to shake out in real life. I was just talking to my dh last night about the fact that I think he feels jealous of the attention I give the kids, and he admits he does. He's totally understanding and kind about it, but in reality I spend most of my attention and energy on the kids. I would guess that is common when raising young children. I also derive more joy and fulfillment at this stage of my life from my children, as opposed to my spouse. I'm not sure how common that is, maybe that's what is "not supposed to" happen.

[Butter]

I don't think it's a bad sentiment at all. I think it is definitely one of the best things you can do for your kids. I could always tell that my parents were very much in love and that made me happy. They didn't tell me so. They showed it in the way they kiss as soon as my dad gets home from work and in how my dad will, once in a while, bring home some flowers for my mom (which clearly delights her) for no reason at all and how my mom has always made sure to pick up some treats for my dad because she knows he likes them and it'll make him happy. They've really been an incredible example to me and my siblings (they'll be married 47 years in August) and I think that's one of the big points of that saying.

 

I also think though that that statement is only part of it. Showing the kids they are worth it is important, too. BUT, I agree with the pp about marriage being the first priority. I've seen too many marriages disintegrate over the last few years because they didn't make the marriage and the couple the priority but instead poured everything into the kids. My cousins are completely lost right now because their youngest went off to college. They hardly know each other as a couple and it's been hard discovering themselves as a couple rather than just as parents.

[Cassy]

It's probably not a bad ideal to aspire to. I think a man could probably do a whole lot more for his kids too.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Cassy

[Jen in PA]

I guess the saying never bothered me because I view it in the context of nonromantic love -- being a source of encouragement and strength in difficult times. I know couples who are not at all lovey-dovey, but convey their love by being understanding friends and partners to one another. I cannot imagine a husband (or wife) being that way to their spouse and also being a negligent parent, but I have seen the reverse (parents who dote on their kids but are truly awful to their partners). I always took the saying to be a reminder to fathers to model caring behaviors between adults.

[KrissiK]

It's a little over-used, yes, but I agree.

1. A strong marriage gives children security, emotional, financial, etc.

2. A strong marriage is a good role model for children. They know what to shoot for in their own marriage

3. A man who truly loves his wife (in the 1 Corinthians 13 way) provides a model for his son on how to treat his future wife, and also how to respectfully treat women in general. A man who loves his wife is showing his daughter how she should expect to be treated by her future husband, so she won't fall for some louse (hopefully).

 

I'm sure there are other benefits as well. So, yes, while it is a cliche', I agree with it.

[Scarlett]

I do know that is the intention of the statement...I just think it's a really strong (and false) way of putting it. I personally don't think the best thing a man can do for his children is to love their mother. That doesn't mean it's okay not to love her, or disrespect her. That may be one of the WORST things a man can do. But I don't think the best thing a parent can do for a child is to love the other spouse.

 

What does "putting the marriage as first priority" even mean? That statement confuses me as well. It's all very romantic language, I just don't know how all of it is supposed to shake out in real life. I was just talking to my dh last night about the fact that I think he feels jealous of the attention I give the kids, and he admits he does. He's totally understanding and kind about it, but in reality I spend most of my attention and energy on the kids. I would guess that is common when raising young children. I also derive more joy and fulfillment at this stage of my life from my children, as opposed to my spouse. I'm not sure how common that is, maybe that's what is "not supposed to" happen.

 

You have illustrated exactly what the saying means....and I do agree that it applies to both spouses.

 

I don't believe a marriage should be put on the back burner while raising kids. The marriage is the foundation for the those children. It needs to be nurished and protected.

[jillian]

I think it's important for dh and I both to model a healthy relationship for our child(ren). That's how I've always taken statements like that. *shrug* maybe that's me though

[GinaPagnato]

Well imagine the saying the other way around. "The best thing a woman can do for her kids is to love their father." I mean would anyone think that's enough? I don't. So dad is an absent jerk to the kids, but hey he loves me. :tongue_smilie:

 

Except if her truly loves her, he's not going to be an absent jerk. No father who really loves his wife will be an absent jerk to his kids.

[LostSurprise]

A man who can truly value and love another person (his wife) in a deep-down, sacrificial, patient, affectionate way has a far greater chance of being able to take that experience and love his child/ren in an equally deep (but different) way.

 

While the language is a bit all or nothing, I don't find it any more annoying then "in order to love someone, you have to love yourself first." Its folk wisdom, not the first commandment. I understand its not a broad statement that works for everyone.

 

I think the use of this phrase comes from the fact that our generation dotes on our children but has a hard time offering our spouses the same unconditional love and attention. I think many of us are in for a shock when our beloved children move on as adults and don't have the same place in their lives/unconditional love for us as we have (or think we have) for them.

[I.Dup.]

I'm sure it probably just rubs me wrong because of my growing up years and the importance my parents put on the image of their marriage. I always felt it was a them vs. me thing, with them constantly praising each other and reminding me how much their marriage means to them. :confused: It just always made me uncomfortable and it still does. I never saw it as the romantic, security, happy thing kids are "supposed" to when you "put your marriage first."

 

I'm also not sure how to make one or the other a priority. I guess I look at the family unit as a whole. Obviously I cannot give dh the kind of physical time and energy I give to the children because he works all day for one, and because the children depend on me for their very sustenance. :tongue_smilie: The whole "make marriage your top priority" thing just confuses me. When he gets home from work, we have fun being together. We laugh a lot and we are very good friends. We have had trust issues and marital issues. But we get along great for the most part. However, I am definitely more invested in my children and don't like looking at it from a "them vs. him" thing, probably because that's what I grew up with.

 

Just wondering if it rubbed anyone else wrong. :)

[Scarlett]

I'm sure it probably just rubs me wrong because of my growing up years and the importance my parents put on the image of their marriage. I always felt it was a them vs. me thing, with them constantly praising each other and reminding me how much their marriage means to them. :confused: It just always made me uncomfortable and it still does. I never saw it as the romantic, security, happy thing kids are "supposed" to when you "put your marriage first."

 

I'm also not sure how to make one or the other a priority. I guess I look at the family unit as a whole. Obviously I cannot give dh the kind of physical time and energy I give to the children because he works all day for one, and because the children depend on me for their very sustenance. :tongue_smilie: The whole "make marriage your top priority" thing just confuses me. When he gets home from work, we have fun being together. We laugh a lot and we are very good friends. We have had trust issues and marital issues. But we get along great for the most part. However, I am definitely more invested in my children and don't like looking at it from a "them vs. him" thing, probably because that's what I grew up with.

 

Just wondering if it rubbed anyone else wrong. :)

 

I have heard a few grown ups say that they felt their parents loved each other more than they did the kids. That is not what putting your marriage first means. That makes me sad for ds to think that I would love someone else more than him.

 

I am not in your house and don't see your life....but I'm sure you have seen woman who stop being wives once they become mothers. That is not right. It is unfair to their husbands and unfair to those children. I've seen men virtually ignored by everyone in the house. Those are the kinds of marriages that don't make it because he eventually gets enough of being ignored and does something crazy like an affair or even just divorce.

 

I know it can be a big balancing act, especially when you have a lot of kids....or in my case when I have a second marriage and the natural bond is not there between my ds and my dh like it is between a father/son. But a marriage is important. Society is in a lot of trouble because marriage is not valued and many people either give up too easily or do not have the tools to make it work.

[I.Dup.]

I have heard a few grown ups say that they felt their parents loved each other more than they did the kids. That is not what putting your marriage first means. That makes me sad for ds to think that I would love someone else more than him.

 

I am not in your house and don't see your life....but I'm sure you have seen woman who stop being wives once they become mothers. That is not right. It is unfair to their husbands and unfair to those children. I've seen men virtually ignored by everyone in the house. Those are the kinds of marriages that don't make it because he eventually gets enough of being ignored and does something crazy like an affair or even just divorce.

 

I know it can be a big balancing act, especially when you have a lot of kids....or in my case when I have a second marriage and the natural bond is not there between my ds and my dh like it is between a father/son. But a marriage is important. Society is in a lot of trouble because marriage is not valued and many people either give up too easily or do not have the tools to make it work.

 

Thanks for sharing more, I totally agree with this. Daddy is the sun that our lives revolve around, no ignoring him! I just don't like the concept of him vs. them. How can I choose who is my "first priority?" (rhetorical question, don't need an answer) :)

[Scarlett]

Thanks for sharing more, I totally agree with this. Daddy is the sun that our lives revolve around, no ignoring him! I just don't like the concept of him vs. them. How can I choose who is my "first priority?" (rhetorical question, don't need an answer) :)

 

WEll if daddy is the sun your lives revolve around you are likely already putting him---or rather your marriage---first. It isn't him vs. them. It is him FOR them.

[Joanne]

FWIW, I don't think most people have a dysfunctional marriage. I try to reserve that word (and more severe descriptions) for situations that need professional internvention for help.

 

I don't like the statement for a few reasons:

 

 

1. It is reductionistic. This serves to make a complex dynamic seem like it can be managed simply.
   
2. It trivializes the man's role in a family as a husband, dad, brother, son, community participant, etc.
   
3. I am *way* not fond of false dichotomies - and this speaks to one. I find the "more important" relationship ideas to be hurtful. You can't accurately compare husband/wife parent/child or adult unit/sibling group in terms of hierarchy and importance. The marriage isn't the most important - neither is the parenting.
   

 

[amy g.]

Maybe we can just rephrase it.

 

"One really nice thing a man can do for his children is to love their mother."

 

That seems pretty true.

[swellmomma]

Those statements are guilt inducing to me. I do the best I can, but I'm only one half of this marriage.

 

I know the feeling. Yeah yeah a healthy strong marriage is good for kids to grow up in. BUT those comments leave me feeling like I have let my kids down because I am on my own with them kwim. On one hand I know I have not but it still hits in the guts when I hear it.

[Scarlett]

FWIW, I don't think most people have a dysfunctional marriage. I try to reserve that word (and more severe descriptions) for situations that need professional internvention for help.

 

I don't like the statement for a few reasons:

 

1. It is reductionistic. This serves to make a complex dynamic seem like it can be managed simply.
   
2. It trivializes the man's role in a family as a husband, dad, brother, son, community participant, etc.
   
3. I am *way* not fond of false dichotomies - and this speaks to one. I find the "more important" relationship ideas to be hurtful. You can't accurately compare husband/wife parent/child or adult unit/sibling group in terms of hierarchy and importance. The marriage isn't the most important - neither is the parenting.
   

 

I agree that we can't compare the two different types of relationships. And further when a family doesn't stay intact and branches off to new marriages and step parent/child situations it becomes even more complex. For instance, although I did say I believe the marriage should come before children, I can tell you that my child comes before my dh now (2nd marriage)...and that leads me back to why it is so important to support a marriage in the first place. Whole families are best if possible.

 

As you and I both know Joanne, that is not always possible.

 

I still maintain that a marriage needs to have high important in a family.

[Joanne]

I still maintain that a marriage needs to have high important in a family.

 

Nearly 100% of people who believe in marriage agree.

[BigMamaBird]

I had heard a slightly different version. When we found out we were pregnant with our first, money was very tight. I expressed to my Doctor that I was worried about how we would manage and she told me "The best thing you can give your child is a Mommy and Daddy who love each other." I found it very comforting.

[Nakia]

It's hard for me to say what I think of the statement. For one thing, my biological parents hate each other and have for as long as I remember (they divorced when I was 6 and my brother was 3). My mother and stepfather are committed to each other but have grown into some sort of companion relationship, so I never saw true, romantic, devoted love growing up or anything resembling what I think God intends marriages to look like.

 

As for my marriage, it is hard to separate the love that Patrick has for me from the love he has for our girls. I know I didn't phrase that right, but I'm trying to say that when he shows his love for them, it is a reflection of his love for me. And when I show my love for them, it is a reflection of my love for him. I almost feel like the love that binds us in marriage is the love we give our children. Of course, I KNOW that if we ever separated (for any reason), we would continue to love our daughters even if our love for each other was gone. But right now, at the place we are in our lives, it's all intertwined to me. I hope that makes sense. Like I tell him, nothing is sexier to me than seeing him love, play with, and just spend time with our girls. It means everything to me and makes me love him even more.

 

Another statement that has stuck with me came from our former pastor when we had Cora's baby dedication. He said, "Children learn to love, not by how their parents love them, but by how their parents love each other." That's another statement that I cannot wrap my head around. In a way, I believe it because I have so many issues from growing up with parents who hated each other and then parents who just live together. It's very hard for me, and like someone else mentioned, it induces a lot of guilt and pressure in my life. I know that guilt is not from God, so I just do my very best to show my girls how to love and respect a man, like their daddy, who is beyond worthy of that love and respect. And I never doubt that they are seeing how a man should love a woman. I am so blessed. :001_wub:

[Bluegoat]

I also think that it is reductionist to the point of being just a kind of vague meaningless aspiration.

 

I don't agree with the idea that the marriage is the first priority. There are no constant first priorities in relationships. We need to have justice in our relations with other people - each relation gets its due according to its own nature and current needs. Sometimes our spouses are the priority, sometimes the kids, sometimes our selves. Sometimes it might be a parent who is ill, or even a friend who needs our help while we leave the kiddos home with dad.

 

All of these good relationships are interdependent - if some begin to fail, others will suffer as well. When one demands more for a time, others must wait. It is a complicated balancing act and probably one which can never be accomplished perfectly.

[Isabella]

All I can say is that it has been very detrimental to my girls to see that their mother wasn't valued as a person. My dh would always have said he loved me & our kids, but he never approved, appreciated or accepted us for who we are. My girls got virtually all emotional support from me, and material possessions from their dad, and are left with emotional problems from not having the unconditional love of a father and from not seeing that in our marriage, either.

 

Thankfully, things are improving as I have gotten stronger, but being late teens - it's too little too late for my kids, unfortunately.

[brett_ashley]

What does "putting the marriage as first priority" even mean? That statement confuses me as well. It's all very romantic language, I just don't know how all of it is supposed to shake out in real life. I was just talking to my dh last night about the fact that I think he feels jealous of the attention I give the kids, and he admits he does. He's totally understanding and kind about it, but in reality I spend most of my attention and energy on the kids. I would guess that is common when raising young children. I also derive more joy and fulfillment at this stage of my life from my children, as opposed to my spouse. I'm not sure how common that is, maybe that's what is "not supposed to" happen.

 

In my family, putting my marriage as first priority means that I put the well-being of our relationship over the well-being of the kids. It means that I realize that if he and I aren't "working," nothing else is working well either. I have four and a half kids seven and under, so, like you, my actual hours are spent more on my children. But even in this very demanding season of parenting, my thoughts and my intentions still hopefully consider our marriage first. To me, it is the difference between the important and the urgent. If I only ever do the urgent (the day-to-day tasks of raising children), I will neglect the important (working to nurture my marriage). I need constant reminding--let's face it: my kids scream much louder than my husband (who is selfless and kind and doesn't demand anything at all).

 

Practically speaking, in our marriage, it means we put our kids to bed early so we can have some connecting time. Would our kids benefit from longer read-aloud times or fun family night board games instead? Sure, and we do that sometimes too. But I'm a better mom the next day because I've had time to recharge the night before with lots of husband time.

 

I hope to be married to my husband for 50+ years, and I'll only be parenting for another 20--so I want to make sure I feed and water my marriage so we still have a thriving relationship when our kids leave the nest. There are SO MANY marriages where the parents focus all of their energy on their kids to find they have drifted apart when their kids are gone.

 

I'll also add that I have not heard this axiom as a one-sided axiom for fathers, only as a proverb for parents in general.

[Kate CA]

If the person takes that the word to mean "romantic love", then yes, I think that saying is bunk.

 

But if the word love is based on 1 Corinthinians 13, then that changes the whole meaning of that sentence.

 

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self- seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always hopes, always perseveres."

 

I think the best thing a man can do for his kids is to love the Lord, then his wife. ;)

 

-Melissa

 

I love this. Thanks for stating it! :)

[Audrey]

That statement is trivial, but doesn't bother me. I think the sentiment is fine, if the logic is rather off.

 

But, I say that having had parents who had, while not a perfect marriage, a marriage that was certain not dysfunctional. Likewise, while it is not perfect, I have a very healthy, loving marriage myself.

[happymomofboys]

If the person takes that the word to mean "romantic love", then yes, I think that saying is bunk.

 

But if the word love is based on 1 Corinthinians 13, then that changes the whole meaning of that sentence.

 

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self- seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always hopes, always perseveres."

 

I think the best thing a man can do for his kids is to love the Lord, then his wife. ;)

 

-Melissa

 

:iagree:

[Unscripted]

You have illustrated exactly what the saying means....and I do agree that it applies to both spouses.

 

I don't believe a marriage should be put on the back burner while raising kids. The marriage is the foundation for the those children. It needs to be nurished and protected.

 

I haven't read all the way through yet, but this is exactly how I feel about the saying. It is a trite saying- not meant to say *everything* about family and marital relationships. But I think the general intention of it is very true.

[kalanamak]

I'd take being an honorable, upright, diligent, and kind father over one who merely loves his wife. Love comes in many colors. And many people who don't "love" their spouses have been honorable, upright, diligent, and kind.

[Unscripted]

I wanted to add the following blog post I read yesterday. I think the writer does an excellent job of explaining "seasons of parenting" and how a marriage works through it. I think when children are younger and more dependent that part of how a husband shows love is jumping in elbow deep to the diapers and baby food... It relieves the mom some, and is a great way "to love her first" but also builds bonding with the kids too. I hope that makes sense. Here is the blog post:

 

Wife Confidential: Why I Make His Lunch

When the babies were little and kept coming every other year, it was sometimes a challenge to keep them dry, fed, and happy, the house organized, and myself reasonably rested and motivated. Some days it was 11 a.m. and I was still in sweats with breakfast dishes piled in the sink., running with the toddler for the third time into the bathroom for a ‘dry run’ and juggling the baby on my hip. *I gave great effort, prioritized the best I could, but I put “people before things†so the house wasn’t exactly House Beautiful or Good Housekeeping material. Back then, my prayer life consisted mostly of “please God let them nap at the same time†or a deep sighed “thank you†at the end of a busy day, and when I made it with them out to Mass on Friday mornings, it was a BIG DEAL. Work got done, but slowly and interrupted. My husband and I took shifts to get everything done. We kept to the essentials. It was all we could do.

 

Now that my babies are older (youngest just turned seven) the physical strain isn’t so much, I am a bit more organized and can do some things that I have wanted to do for a long time. In the morning, I exercise and can say a good solid “quality praying†rosary on the sofa alone before I really start my day. I also have been making breakfast for my husband and lunch for him to take to work each morning.

 

We’re all at different stages in our lives, sometimes more able to do this or that and sometimes less so. I preface this because I don’t want anyone feeling guilty for not doing the extra things if the time in her life is not right for that, if it is the very busy season of babies every (other) year, breastfeeding, mothering little ones or whatever keeps your feet tapping in responsibility and love. There is a season for everything and sometimes it’s the season of tag-teaming with your husband. If that is your season, do not feel bad. Move forward and maybe consider this for the future. But if the time is ripe and you feel you can swing it, maybe you’ll want to start doing this one little thing for your beloved:

 

Make his lunch.

 

Here is why I make my husband lunch every morning for him to take to work:

 

It’s not because I think I’m better than wives who don’t.

It’s not because I think he can’t buy his own lunch himself.

It’s not because I’m trying to get on his good side or “butter him upâ€.

It’s not because I have nothing else to do in the morning.

It’s not because he ‘makes me’.

It’s not because I’m insecure and am desperate for approval.

It’s not because my mother gave me a false sense of wifely duty or that I am a dependent, clingy, old-fashioned woman.

It’s not because I do it better than he can.

It’s not because I’m trying to be a martyr.

It’s not because I think I’m so awesome.

I try to make my husband’s lunch every morning for many other reasons.

 

I make his lunch because he is busy and appreciates the thought and effort.

I make his lunch because we grow to love those most for whom we sacrifice and I like ‘growing my love’ for him.

I make his lunch because his homemade lunch is generally healthier than the fast food or dine out options.

I make his lunch because it is cheaper than the alternative.

I make his lunch because it is something tangible I can do to show my love and appreciation for his daily hard work for our family.

I make his lunch because it gives me pleasure to do something for him.

By making his lunch I know that he will stop and think of me at his mealtime and I like that.

I make his lunch because the bible says “..Let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.†(1 John 4: 7) and “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve†(Mark 10:45)

I make his lunch because he likes a certain kind of salad made a certain way with a certain dressing and I know how to make it, certainly.

I make his lunch because he loves me and I love him.

It is that simple.

 

Mother Teresa (and others) challenged us to *“do small things with great loveâ€. Making my husband’s lunch is just one example of how I can do that.

Link: http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2012/06/thomas-wife-confidential-why-i-make-his-lunch/

[DawnM]

I have a hard time with these types of sayings, particularly in the Christian realm, because it becomes some hard and fast ideal and has to look one particular way.

 

My husband and I have a (IMO) good marriage. We respect each other, we love each other, and we want to make the other happy.

 

However, we have been told MANY times throughout our marriage that we just NEEDED to:

 

1. Go to marriage retreats

2. Go on regular date nights and get a babysitter

3. Go away for the weekend without our kids.

4. Make the kids stay in their own rooms, even as babies

 

We don't do any of the above.....but some of those who told us we needed to do the above are divorced now! ;)

 

Sometimes the kids have to come first. We knew that going into parenthood.

 

Dawn

[LaxMom]

I also think that it is reductionist to the point of being just a kind of vague meaningless aspiration.

 

I don't agree with the idea that the marriage is the first priority. There are no constant first priorities in relationships. We need to have justice in our relations with other people - each relation gets its due according to its own nature and current needs. Sometimes our spouses are the priority, sometimes the kids, sometimes our selves. Sometimes it might be a parent who is ill, or even a friend who needs our help while we leave the kiddos home with dad.

 

All of these good relationships are interdependent - if some begin to fail, others will suffer as well. When one demands more for a time, others must wait. It is a complicated balancing act and probably one which can never be accomplished perfectly.

:iagree:

 

And I hate the reductionist parenting/life catch lines. If you can reduce it to one line, you've probably gone very wrong somewhere.

 

I think my least favorite is "if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!" but that's probably because my mother is a huge narcissist so, of course, it is her favorite saying / justification for getting her own way all.the.time. :glare:

[Soror]

I have a hard time with these types of sayings, particularly in the Christian realm, because it becomes some hard and fast ideal and has to look one particular way.

 

My husband and I have a (IMO) good marriage. We respect each other, we love each other, and we want to make the other happy.

 

However, we have been told MANY times throughout our marriage that we just NEEDED to:

 

1. Go to marriage retreats

2. Go on regular date nights and get a babysitter

3. Go away for the weekend without our kids.

4. Make the kids stay in their own rooms, even as babies

 

We don't do any of the above.....but some of those who told us we needed to do the above are divorced now! ;)

 

Sometimes the kids have to come first. We knew that going into parenthood.

 

Dawn

 

Oh, I was going to say I don't have a big problem with the saying, although it is not something I would say.

 

However, I agree with Dawn as well.

[FaithManor]

I also think that it is reductionist to the point of being just a kind of vague meaningless aspiration.

 

I don't agree with the idea that the marriage is the first priority. There are no constant first priorities in relationships. We need to have justice in our relations with other people - each relation gets its due according to its own nature and current needs. Sometimes our spouses are the priority, sometimes the kids, sometimes our selves. Sometimes it might be a parent who is ill, or even a friend who needs our help while we leave the kiddos home with dad.

 

All of these good relationships are interdependent - if some begin to fail, others will suffer as well. When one demands more for a time, others must wait. It is a complicated balancing act and probably one which can never be accomplished perfectly.

 

Absolutely this.

 

Don't have babies if you can't grasp the fact that for a very long time, they will dominate the landscape of the home. If you can't put them ahead of yourself and your hubby, they end up having emotional problems.

 

The dynamic of marriage and familial relationships is too complicated to be reduced to such a simple statement.

 

All healthy relationships are a balancing act. The above statement does not reflect that delicate teeter-totter. You can't totally neglect your relationship with spouse, but don't have kids if your marriage isn't strong enough to withstand the 18 years of intensive parenting in which the kids will come first more often than not. Most of the time, the kids need to come first in order to receive the training and emotional investment necessary to be well-adjusted adults later.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the greatest gifts a man can give his children are his unconditional love for them and time. Chances are if he's prioritizing his children, he isn't out there "unloving" his wife because he doesn't want to hurt his kids.

 

Faith

[Scarlett]

:iagree:

 

And I hate the reductionist parenting/life catch lines. If you can reduce it to one line, you've probably gone very wrong somewhere.

 

I think my least favorite is "if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!" but that's probably because my mother is a huge narcissist so, of course, it is her favorite saying / justification for getting her own way all.the.time. :glare:

 

I despise that saying!

[Dealea86]

(Haven't had time to read other replies)

 

It kind of rubs me the wrong way, too. I do appreciate that this saying comes from the fact that parents these days tend to throw all their energy into their children and neglect their marriage (but to be honest, I see that more with mothers than with fathers, unless the parents aren't married). A reasonably healthy marriage is an important part of raising children, and it's not good to neglect that.

 

But there are a lot of important thing a man can do for his kids, and neglecting any one area is going to lead to problems regardless of which one he is neglecting. What if he's a wonderful husband, but doesn't have any patience or time for his kids? What if he is a lazy bum who won't work, but he's a doting husband and father? What if everything looks great from the outside, but he's involved in a scandal at work and winds up in jail? Will just loving the mother really make up for these things?

 

I know that kind of comes off as saying the father needs to be perfect, and that's not at all what I mean. Families can endure lots of mistakes by the parents and still survive, even thrive. But the truth is that there are many other ways a man can fail his children besides not loving his wife.

[I.Dup.]

FWIW, I don't think most people have a dysfunctional marriage. I try to reserve that word (and more severe descriptions) for situations that need professional internvention for help.

 

I don't like the statement for a few reasons:

 

1. It is reductionistic. This serves to make a complex dynamic seem like it can be managed simply.
   
2. It trivializes the man's role in a family as a husband, dad, brother, son, community participant, etc.
   
3. I am *way* not fond of false dichotomies - and this speaks to one. I find the "more important" relationship ideas to be hurtful. You can't accurately compare husband/wife parent/child or adult unit/sibling group in terms of hierarchy and importance. The marriage isn't the most important - neither is the parenting.
   

 

:iagree:

 

Maybe we can just rephrase it.

 

"One really nice thing a man can do for his children is to love their mother."

 

That seems pretty true.

 

Yes, I like this better. :)

 

I also think that it is reductionist to the point of being just a kind of vague meaningless aspiration.

 

I don't agree with the idea that the marriage is the first priority. There are no constant first priorities in relationships. We need to have justice in our relations with other people - each relation gets its due according to its own nature and current needs. Sometimes our spouses are the priority, sometimes the kids, sometimes our selves. Sometimes it might be a parent who is ill, or even a friend who needs our help while we leave the kiddos home with dad.

 

All of these good relationships are interdependent - if some begin to fail, others will suffer as well. When one demands more for a time, others must wait. It is a complicated balancing act and probably one which can never be accomplished perfectly.

 

You said this much better than I did. :tongue_smilie: :iagree:

 

In my family, putting my marriage as first priority means that I put the well-being of our relationship over the well-being of the kids. It means that I realize that if he and I aren't "working," nothing else is working well either. I have four and a half kids seven and under, so, like you, my actual hours are spent more on my children. But even in this very demanding season of parenting, my thoughts and my intentions still hopefully consider our marriage first. To me, it is the difference between the important and the urgent. If I only ever do the urgent (the day-to-day tasks of raising children), I will neglect the important (working to nurture my marriage). I need constant reminding--let's face it: my kids scream much louder than my husband (who is selfless and kind and doesn't demand anything at all).

 

Practically speaking, in our marriage, it means we put our kids to bed early so we can have some connecting time. Would our kids benefit from longer read-aloud times or fun family night board games instead? Sure, and we do that sometimes too. But I'm a better mom the next day because I've had time to recharge the night before with lots of husband time.

 

I hope to be married to my husband for 50+ years, and I'll only be parenting for another 20--so I want to make sure I feed and water my marriage so we still have a thriving relationship when our kids leave the nest. There are SO MANY marriages where the parents focus all of their energy on their kids to find they have drifted apart when their kids are gone.

 

I'll also add that I have not heard this axiom as a one-sided axiom for fathers, only as a proverb for parents in general.

 

I see where you are coming from and we do the same things- put the kids to bed early so we can have time together. We make sure the kids know they can't just interrupt us if we are having a conversation. We have our inside jokes and sayings that we don't share with the kids. That kind of thing. I feel these are just simple, common sense ways to stay in relationship with someone. I was referencing more what Dawn mentioned, below...

 

I have a hard time with these types of sayings, particularly in the Christian realm, because it becomes some hard and fast ideal and has to look one particular way.

 

My husband and I have a (IMO) good marriage. We respect each other, we love each other, and we want to make the other happy.

 

However, we have been told MANY times throughout our marriage that we just NEEDED to:

 

1. Go to marriage retreats

2. Go on regular date nights and get a babysitter

3. Go away for the weekend without our kids.

4. Make the kids stay in their own rooms, even as babies

 

We don't do any of the above.....but some of those who told us we needed to do the above are divorced now! ;)

 

Sometimes the kids have to come first. We knew that going into parenthood.

 

Dawn

 

Yes, this is more what I thought of when I think of "putting the marriage first." My parents did all of these things. More than regularly. I never felt included in the family dynamic. It was always them vs. me. Then they always made sure to constantly remind me that their marriage was unbreakable and unshakable.

 

I think, like a PP mentioned, it should be a delicate balancing act for the good of the entire family.

 

:iagree:

 

And I hate the reductionist parenting/life catch lines. If you can reduce it to one line, you've probably gone very wrong somewhere.

 

I think my least favorite is "if mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!" but that's probably because my mother is a huge narcissist so, of course, it is her favorite saying / justification for getting her own way all.the.time. :glare:

 

:iagree:

Edited June 5, 2012 by blessedwinter

[Murphy101]

I do put my marriage first.

 

Putting my marriage first ensures my kids have two parents united in care of them for the rest of our lives. I hear rumor of divorces where the parents continue to to do that, but I've never ever seen it IRL. (obviously if you are one of them, then this doesn't apply to you.:) )

 

Obviously, sometimes we have to sideline things for other issues that come up.

 

Mostly I figure I'd like to still have a good marriage after the kids are all gone. God willing, I will still need to sleep next to this man for another 30+ years after the last has moved out. I don't want to be one of those couples that spends their lives focused on the kids and then once the kids are gone end up divorced or strangers to each other.

[Scarlett]

I do put my marriage first.

 

Putting my marriage first ensures my kids have two parents united in care of them for the rest of our lives. I hear rumor of divorces where the parents continue to to do that, but I've never ever seen it IRL.

 

 

Me either. Usually those parents find a way to stay married. :)

 

 

 

Mostly I figure I'd like to still have a good marriage after the kids are all gone. God willing, I will still need to sleep next to this man for another 30+ years after the last has moved out. I don't want to be one of those couples that spends their lives focused on the kids and then once the kids are gone end up divorced or strangers to each other.

 

:iagree:

[Brooketopia]

I do believe that the best thing a man can do for his children is to love their mother.

 

It is a simplistic phrase, but if you look deeply at it and see what loving the mother would do for everyone else, it makes sense to me.

 

If a father loves his children's mother:

 

1. The children see an example of a loving relationship.
   
2. The father grows as an unselfish being as he sets aside his wants at times to serve the mother.
   
3. The father insists on respect for the mother, especially from the children.
   

At the same time, the phrase should totally be used in the opposite sense. "The best thing a mother can do for her children is to love their father."

 

Because, honestly, your spouse/partner is the person that YOU chose to be with for the duration of your life. You don't get to choose your children and your children do not stay with you for the rest of your life and they're not expected to stay with you because they're supposed to fall in love and start their own family, leaving you with your chosen spouse. The marriage is the higher priority.

 

Perhaps a lot of these mother-in-law horror stories wouldn't exist if women were more apt to love their husbands more...would it lessen the tendency to continue to mother their children when the children are parents themselves? We don't stop loving our children, obviously; but we do need to let the fly off and live their lives apart from us. When the nest empties, then we can comfortably cleave to our spouses because the relationship is strong and good.

 

When tragedy strikes, spouses need to cling to each other. They need to comfort their children, but their comfort needs to come from each other as equals. Children shouldn't be burdened with dealing with adult issues beyond their maturity level. Two adults in a loving relationship will be able to figure out the best solutions to problems together, rather than one dictator telling their follower what's going to happen next.

 

If a father doesn't show unconditional love toward his wife, how will the children treat their mother? If the one person who promised to love her above all others in his life places her at a lower priority than that, what message does it send to the children about the importance of their mother as a person? (And likewise for mothers towards fathers.)

 

It's a "ideal" vision for families. Ideally, a mother and father love each unconditionally and respect each other at all times. This behavior is the same towards their children and everyone else in their life. How a person treats their spouse is how a person treats any other person that they are familiar with, once the politeness of "merely acquainted" wears away. Seeing that we are all imperfect beings, we mess up. No one loves other people perfectly all. the. time. But we have ideals to set our sights upon to keep us going in a positive direction.

 

We see parents who fight--whether in respectable civilized conversations or bawdy verbal assaults. Which is the better example for their children? We see parents who get divorced--both parties speak kindly of the other or they spend their time verbally bashing and listing the faults of the other. Which is better for the children? I don't think this simplified phrase of loving the other parent applies only to marital relationships. Even in divorce it's important to show respect for the other parent.

 

Overly simplified? Maybe not. I find that a lot of the most important truths are profoundly simple.

[Scarlett]

I find that a lot of the most important truths are profoundly simple.

 

:iagree:

[mamajag]

It bugs me in that it's the *best* thing. When I gave birth to my first, I looked at DH and said, "You know I love you, but you're #2 now." He said the same thing to me. If it were ever in the best interests of my kids, I'd leave him even though it would nearly kill me.

 

That said, the times when our marriage was not in a good place was very hard on the kids, and it isn't something I want to revisit again.

 

It's a question of balance. I don't promise things to my kids I can't be sure of. I can't say I'll be with him forever. I would like to and certainly it's a goal, but trust is a big deal to me. I don't want to violate that by promising things I can't reasonably be certain will happen.