How do men interpret respect?

[alef]

I'm mulling something over. My husband and I had a disagreement this morning (yes, it does happen on occasion...) and he said something about feeling like I don't respect him. I keep hearing/reading about men in general valuing respect, but I'm trying to figure out what this looks like in practice. It seems to me that he is hurt/feels I lack respect for him whenever I disagree. I don't want him to feel that I don't respect him--I do, very much. He is a good and thoughtful and honorable man. I have deep love and respect for him. But I do disagree with him at times. We sometimes clash over parenting--he thinks I am too lenient and I think he is too arbitrary. With regard to resolving that particular issue it does help when we take time to talk more about parenting and discuss rules and consequences. I can see that he gets upset if I don't support him in front of the kids, but I'm really not willing to stand behind him when his rules or consequences seem arbitrary or wrong, when he is acting more on momentary irritation than thoughtful intent.

 

Sigh. He's gone to take a nap and when he wakes up he will feel better and the problem will blow over. This kind of issue is a tiny proportion of our interactions, but it bothers me every time. He doesn't like me to disagree with him and I don't like him to be upset with me.

 

I may delete this, but I did wonder if others have insight to offer. I don't expect perfection out of either of us, and generally I just act according to my own sense of right and wrong. Is that really disrespectful? What does it mean when relationship experts say that men want to feel respected?

[Trish]

I think both parents need to get on the same page with parenting rules/consequence BEFORE applying them to the kids. Disagreeing about that stuff in front of the kids often does have the effect of undermining the other parent and yes this can be interpreted as a respect issue, along with the parental team aspect being undermined. So I think you need to get that straight in private.

[alef]

I think both parents need to get on the same page with parenting rules/consequence BEFORE applying them to the kids. Disagreeing about that stuff in front of the kids often does have the effect of undermining the other parent and yes this can be interpreted as a respect issue, along with the parental team aspect being undermined. So I think you need to get that straight in private.

 

Yes, but what happens when something comes up that hasn't been agreed on beforehand?

[Garga]

I have no clue what "men want to feel respected" means. I want to feel respected, too. But what does that mean? I'm not even sure what I mean for myself, much less for someone else.

 

However, in your case, if he is dealing with an issue with the kids and makes up a consequence or punishment, and you argue about it in front of the kids, it can look like his words don't matter. I completely understand why you do that if he is lowering the boom on them and you feel it is totally unfair. But at the same time, if I were dealing with something with the kids and my DH came in and argued with me about it, I would feel undermined in their eyes and ... disrespected, I suppose.

 

Interested to see what others will say.

[Garga]

Yes, but what happens when something comes up that hasn't been agreed on beforehand?

I want to know, too!

 

Maybe a codeword like, "Honey, I need to talk to you in the kitchen, right now!" Then he can tell the kids, "We'll deal with this issue as soon as I get back from helping your mother." That way, you two can discuss the issue privately, the kids don't know that you're making it up as you go, and no one is disrespected.

[Catwoman]

Is the issue that he feels disrespected when you disagree with him in front of the kids when he scolds them, or if he feels disrespected whenever you disagree with him on any topic?

[Trish]

Yes, but what happens when something comes up that hasn't been agreed on beforehand?

 

"We'll talk it over and let you know."

 

General principles should be able to cover most things, but there are definitely times my husband and I have to confer before deciding on something related to the kids.

 

Regarding non-child issues, does ANY time you disagree cause a problem? Because you could equally say to him that YOUR opinion is not being respected either. So you can agree to disagree, or if it's something related to a family decision, decide how important the issue is to you. If it's one of your hills to die on, you two need to get it hammered out with mutual respect. If it isn't that important, you may want to defer to your husband because, well, it isn't that important.

[LucyStoner]

Respect can mean a million things to a million people but it doesn't equal agreement. Too often I hear about people equating the two.

 

For my marriage it means that we don't dismiss things the other person says or thinks arbitrarily or out of hand, even when we do disagree. It also means expressing admiration and appreciation and seeking out the expertise of the other.

 

While in general it is best not to correct or disagree with your spouse about the kids in front of the kids, I think can be important for kids to see a parent sticking up for them if the other parent is truly being mean or unacceptably arbitrary. Definitely both parents need to get on the same page about rules and expectations.

[mamajag]

Yes, but what happens when something comes up that hasn't been agreed on beforehand?

Easy. We send the child to the room while we have a chat. Consequences do not have to be instantaneous to be effective.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

As the owner of a Y chromosome or two, i have to say it sounds like it could be one or more different things.

 

A.)  What exactly does he mean by "respect," and is it different from your interpretation?  On the surface, respect could mean anything from partners-as-equals, to one partner's complete dominance.  It's a loaded term to be sure.  It also probably has a TON to do with how his own parents interacted.  Some guys unwittingly grow up to be their dads, while others spend a lot of energy trying NOT to be their dads.

 

B.)  Having been home fulltime for 12 years, I will say the communication style of the genders can be so radically different it's a wonder the species ever got going.  If he's the kind of guy who views conversation as one-ups-man-ship, then he could very well misread statements as attacks, even if you don't intend them to be attacks.

 

C,)  It could be a desperate feeling of lack of control.  If you're the teacher/researcher/curriculum-buyer and he's not, that's a huge swath of your kid's life he has little input on.  So, why should that be different than PS, for which he still wouldn't have such input?  Maybe because that's considered more "normal."  Everyone at work talks about the same school-related things, so it's normal, even when it's negative.  Lack of control is scary for anyone, but I suspect it's more so for men who expect more control.  I could see how this might just manifest itself in the arbitrary-ness you mentioned, like a knee-jerk reaction to individual incidents out of frustration.

 

Just a theory.

 

 

[mytwomonkeys]

In general, if one of us has said something to the kids then the other one supports that decision. Like you, I tend to be more lenient and my husband is on the stricter side. However, we stand united in front of the kids and don't parent overtop one another. We definitely disagree sometimes and If I feel he was too hard on the kids (or vice versa) we discuss it privately. I'm not sure if this is relevant to what you are asking, but this is what works for me and my husband.

[bnbacademy]

I would let the boom fall for the moment, unless he was so irritated that he was not in control of his emotions or being disrespectful to children. Then I would discuss the whole incident alone with husband.  Kids are resilient,  a single heavy punishment will not scar them for life.  And maybe he might discuss it with them as an apology later, who knows?  There is nothing like a parent reconciling with his children, they can then see that we make mistakes too.

 

Respect is highly valued by men, it can be the same as saying I love you, it is that important to them.

[albeto.]

I don't think my husband ever used the word "respect," but rest assured, everyone has to work this out. You are not alone. Ultimately what worked for my dh and I was to talk about these things when the kids were not around. We'd talk about our ultimate goals for the kids, how we envisioned those goals to be met, and what to do with certain, recurring behaviors. Talking about it in emotionally neutral times when there was no pressure to do the "right thing" helped. Talking about it here and there rather than having one big, long, tedious discussion helped. Asking what the other would do in a certain instance also helped (when the other wasn't around, just as a matter of curiosity to get to know each other's styles better). I thought TheHomeschoolDad's insights were good.

[TechWife]

To respect someone means that you recognize their value as a person, you understand their position in life or the situation (as a parent, husband, employee, subject expert, having significant experience with something, etc.), and that you recognize your position as it relates to them. This may mean that someone has real authority over you by virtue of their position or age, or that you have real authority over them.  At the very least, it means you are equals to each other as human beings.  

 

 

 

I can see that he gets upset if I don't support him in front of the kids, but I'm really not willing to stand behind him when his rules or consequences seem arbitrary or wrong, when he is acting more on momentary irritation than thoughtful intent.

 

This is a huge problem. It sounds to me that you don't, in fact, respect the way that he makes decisions and/or the way he parents. There is much work to be done here. Have you spent time discussing your goals for your family & what kind of character you want to grow in your children? Have you then spent time discussing how to build that character? Have you discussed discipline in general and what that looks like? Are you on the same page? 

 

 

 

He's gone to take a nap and when he wakes up he will feel better and the problem will blow over.

 

It's not blowing over, the two of you are just escaping/avoiding the conflict. 

 

 

 

He doesn't like me to disagree with him and I don't like him to be upset with me.

 

I suspect that he doesn't mind if you disagree with him, but he does mind if you disrespect him.  You say you don't like him to be upset with you, but is that your true desire, that you just need him to not be upset? Why not? Is your comfort level with his feelings more important to you than what he is trying to communicate to the children, to you or to the overall health of your relationship? 

 

 

 

I don't expect perfection out of either of us, and generally I just act according to my own sense of right and wrong. Is that really disrespectful?

 

Yes, it is disrespectful. You aren't appreciating the fact that he is a person and that at the very least he is on equal footing with you. You are acting the way that you want to act without regard to his opinion/ideas/values about parenting and possibly other issues. What you have done is set yourself up as the god of the relationship because your sense of right and wrong trumps his sense of right and wrong. You see his rules as "arbitrary or wrong" - what authority is leading you to make that judgement call? Do you and your husband have that authority in common?

 

I can empathize with you, truly. Relationships are just plain hard work. When you throw the little ones into the mix, then it becomes even more complicated. I do suggest that you let your husband parent, which he will do differently than you will by virtue of the fact that you are different individuals. However, that doesn't mean that you have different goals. The discussions I mentioned earlier are a critical part of successful relationships - with each other and with your kids. I certainly have many flaws in the way that I deal with things, but it helps me that my husband supports me and respects the decisions that I make, I can't imagine what it would be like if he second guessed everything that I did as a mother or as a teacher. We talk about a lot of things "off line" as we call it. We've sometimes had to go back to our son, admit that we were wrong and change the consequences we previously meted out. That can look like "I responded impulsively and I was too harsh, so I'm only removing your computer privileges for one week, not one month." It can also look like "I'm truly more bothered about this situation than I was at first. The consequences of your actions can have serious repercussions for you if you don't stop this type of behavior. Because of that, in addition to losing your computer time for one week, you need to do some additional work for me to make up for the work you didn't do while you were playing computer games. This Saturday, you will rake and bag the leaves as well as weed the flower beds." 

 

Bob Barnes has written some excellent books on relationships and parenting that you  might find helpful. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Truscifi]

I asked dh about your question.  He said for him showing that I respect him means not being dismissive of him, his decisions, feelings, desires, etc.  In the particular case of parenting disagreements, it means in small things I let it go, or in big things if he says X that I disagree with, I talk to him privately and we work something out together.  If it is different than what he said, then *he* goes back and says "after discussion, we decided Y instead" and why we decided that.  FWIW, that goes the other way too - he discusses it with me privately if he disagrees with me as well.

 

He read your original post and said the part about not backing your dh in front of the kids does seem dimissive to him, and would make him feel disrespected and angry.

[albeto.]

Yes, it is disrespectful.

It's disrespectful for the wife to not automatically elevate her husband's opinion of right and wrong over hers? In what way is this disrespectful rather than simply, not patronizing?

Between protecting the husband's ego and the kids' development, why not err on the side of the kids' development? Keeping husband happy isn't respectful, it's demeaning to the wife, models sexism to the children, and protects the husband from having to accept criticism.

 

You aren't appreciating the fact that he is a person and that at the very least he is on equal footing with you.

It's not equal footing if his opinion is expected to be more valid and more valuable by virtue of his gender.

 

What you have done is set yourself up as the god of the relationship because your sense of right and wrong trumps his sense of right and wrong.

So, if the husband and wife disagree, the wife's opinion is indicative of pride and usurping divine authority?

 

You see his rules as "arbitrary or wrong" - what authority is leading you to make that judgement call? Do you and your husband have that authority in common?

Maybe his rules are arbitrary and wrong according to a logical, rational analysis of the events.

 

I find the ideas that inspire this advice to be terribly disrespectful and misogynistic because it places blame on the woman for overstepping her bounds. Just the fact that the husband uses the word "respect" would be a red flag for me, and this post explains why.  This isn't about respect, it's about accepting subservience for the sake of the husband being able to maintain order and control. It's teaching children that women are meant to accept a subservient role, and should do so gladly. 

 

 

[Catwoman]

It's disrespectful for the wife to not automatically elevate her husband's opinion of right and wrong over hers? In what way is this disrespectful rather than simply, not patronizing?

Between protecting the husband's ego and the kids' development, why not err on the side of the kids' development? Keeping husband happy isn't respectful, it's demeaning to the wife, models sexism to the children, and protects the husband from having to accept criticism.

 

 

It's not equal footing if his opinion is expected to be more valid and more valuable by virtue of his gender.

 

 

So, if the husband and wife disagree, the wife's opinion is indicative of pride and usurping divine authority?

 

 

Maybe his rules are arbitrary and wrong according to a logical, rational analysis of the events.

 

I find the ideas that inspire this advice to be terribly disrespectful and misogynistic because it places blame on the woman for overstepping her bounds. Just the fact that the husband uses the word "respect" would be a red flag for me, and this post explains why. This isn't about respect, it's about accepting subservience for the sake of the husband being able to maintain order and control. It's teaching children that women are meant to accept a subservient role, and should do so gladly.

I interpreted TechWife's post entirely differently than you did. I didn't think she was endorsing any kind of "submissive wife" scenario, and I'm usually pretty sensitive to that sort of thing.

 

I was hoping the OP would clarify her original post to let us know whether or not her dh feels disrespected anytime she disagrees with him, or only when she questions his treatment of the kids when they are all in the same room together and makes him appear to be without any authority over the children when they misbehave. My response to the first scenario would be entirely different from my feelings about the second one.

[MomatHWTK]

Well, nothing will set me off faster than for my DH to imply in front of the kids that I am not disciplining them properly.  So I can imagine other parents might feels the same. 

 

FWIW, I also can't stand having someone else add seasonings to a dish or adjust the temperature while I'm cooking it.  ;)

[mytwomonkeys]

I interpreted TechWife's ops entirely differently than you did. I didn't think she was endorsing any kind of "submissive wife" scenario, and I'm usually pretty sensitive to that sort of thing.

I agree. I did not interpret it as being submissive, but rather equal. My husband has the right to parent just as I have the right. If our overall goals are the same, I am not going to call my husband's methods arbitrary simply because they are different from how I would handle something. Vice versa, my husband isn't going to dismiss or belittle my methods because he would have handled it in another way. I trust my husband & he trust me. My kids going without electronics for a week (because my husband decided so) isn't going to hurt them. My arguing in front of them over his choice of punishment certainly can cause them harm though.

[Desert Strawberry]

This sounds a lot like my marriage. Here's what we have come up with.

 

I am the main parent. I have the kids about 80% of the time. It's easy for me to become the only parent. But I don't want that. When my husband is home, I defer to him. He gets his chance to be the parent.

 

I am not perfect. Neither is my husband. We are both flawed in different ways. I am the hands on, nitty gritty, disciplinarian. He is the fun, laid back, permissive parent. He feels like I can be overbearing and rough. I feel like he can be lazy and ineffective. We are both right.

But, I am responsible for feeding,educating and training them.I do a good job.

He is kind and understanding, and gives me time out and perspective when I need it. He makes the kids feel safe and loved in a way that I can't. We are both good parents, but in different ways.

I try to always back him up, even when I disagree with him. Because whether he is right or wrong, he is their father and deserves their obedience as much as I do. In deferring to him, I might say,"what did your dad say? Then that is the answer." Or "That is between you and Dad. You will have to work it out with him."

He asks me for a report every day before he makes them any promises to see if their behaviour has been acceptable, if there are any consequences to be enforced, or work to be finished. Then I hand over the reigns.

If your husband is harsh with the kids(assuming he is not abusive), that is for him and his kids to work out between themselves. He can't parent at all, nor see the effects of his parenting if you are running interference for him all the time

. I'm sure that you do not want to marginalize your husband. You have to let him be a father, not just your sidekick.

 

 

 

 

 

[TechWife]

 

 

 

It's disrespectful for the wife to not automatically elevate her husband's opinion of right and wrong over hers? In what way is this disrespectful rather than simply, not patronizing?

I never said that. It's disrespectful for her to not see his opinion as equally valid as her opinion. 

 

 

 

Between protecting the husband's ego and the kids' development, why not err on the side of the kids development? Keeping husband happy isn't respectful, it's demeaning to the wife, models sexism to the children, and protects the husband from having to accept criticism.

This is a non-issue. I never said anything that could even be implied to mean that she should keep her husband "happy." That's not her job. 

 

 

 

It's not equal footing if his opinion is expected to be more valid and more valuable by virtue of his gender.

 

I never said anything contrary to this. I have said that his status as a person makes his opinion one she should respect. It is his personhood that requires this respect, not his gender. 

 

 

 

So, if the husband and wife disagree, the wife's opinion is indicative of pride and usurping divine authority?

I never said any such thing, nor do I believe this to be true. 

 

 

 

Maybe his rules are arbitrary and wrong according to a logical, rational analysis of the events.

Perhaps they are, I certainly haven't ruled that out.

 

 

 

I find the ideas that inspire this advice to be terribly disrespectful and misogynistic because it places blame on the woman for overstepping her bounds. Just the fact that the husband uses the word "respect would be a red flag for me, and this post explains why. This isn't about respect, it's about accepting subservience for the sake of the husband being able to maintain order and control. It's teaching children that women are meant to accept a subservient role and should do so gladly.  

Wow - you seem to have completely missed the point of all that I wrote.  You will not see anything approaching what you have written here in my response to the OP.  To make things clear, my position is that the OP needs to see that her husband's opinions are at least as equally valid as her own. She admits she is making judgements based upon what she sees as right and wrong and she has judged her husband to be arbitrary and wrong. My point is to ask the OP Where  her husband's opinions about right and wrong come into the picture. 

[TechWife]

I agree. I did not interpret it as being submissive, but rather equal. My husband has the right to parent just as I have the right. If our overall goals are the same, I am not going to call my husband's methods arbitrary simply because they are different from how I would handle something. Vice versa, my husband isn't going to dismiss or belittle my methods because he would have handled it in another way. I trust my husband & he trust me. My kids going without electronics for a week (because my husband decided so) isn't going to hurt them. My arguing in front of them over his choice of punishment certainly can cause them harm though.

 

Thank you - you nailed it. 

[Ottakee]

The book Love and Respect might be a good one to read to help get his perspective.

 

Another one---which I know is controversial--is For Women Only http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=straight+talk+to+women#/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_14?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=for+women+only+shaunti+feldhahn&sprefix=For+Women+only%2Cdigital-text%2C285&rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Afor+women+only+shaunti+feldhahn which talks about how men and women think differently, etc.

[bolt.]

I don't think this is about gender. You didn't marry a 'generic' man, you married a specific man, and he is telling you about himself.

 

Everybody likes (and needs) to be respected, but the manner of it can be quite individualized, so all that is required is to get to know each other. I can see that it miffs him and disturbs his sense of respected-ness when you choose to speak against his parenting decisions in front of the children -- if it does, it just does. It's not a grand theory, it's just a fact of his psychology, and as such it is a fact of your relationship.

 

If you don't feel that you can remain supportive/silent as an arbitrary parenting action goes forward, then you need to do what you need to do, but he is still going to have a feeling about it. It blows over, and you are generally strong together, so I don't think those moments matter that much really. (Unless they are terribly frequent?)

 

With my DH, who feels the same way, it helped him to know that my intent was to 'cover his back' by not letting him get carried away by a moment of pique -- and that I very much expected him to do the same for me, because I need someone on my team like that. I know full well that I am sometimes not parenting 'properly' all the time. I don't know anyone who parents 'properly' all the time. I'd rather be caught by a beloved helper before it goes too far, so that I can re-evaluate and get back to proper parenting sooner. This helped frame it outside of respect. Personally, I don't think it hurts children at all to view their parents as individuals that do teamwork by chatting, negotiating, learning from each other, and sometimes changing their minds based on another perspective.

 

(Does anyone just want to carry on with a parenting error, if someone could have helped them choose something else instead? Why? Is it so terrible that your imperfect spouse noticed that you aren't perfect either? Can't you just be imperfect together and help each other out?)

 

I find flaws in the theory that parents have to falsely create the appearance of a single parenting will between them.

 

But that might be because I don't embrace adversarial parenting anyways, so I don't think of mom & dad being 'one team' against a child. I think of mom, dad and the child being 'one team' against whatever issue is being encountered. I work hard for my kids to know that I am involved in their problems as a helper, and that they can count on me to hear their perspectives and have conversations that might change my mind. It's collaborative. If you are collaborative, the parents are OK as collaborative individuals, and don't need a 'united front' -- because we really aren't facing issues in a will-vs-will way.

[LucyStoner]

If mom or dad backs up a capricious or truly wrongheaded thing from a spouse, that is just showing the kids they don't have any recourse when things are bad. Now I am not saying the OP husband or anyone here is being wrongheaded but that sometimes parents make mistakes and it is ok for kids to see parents correct themselves.

 

If I think that my husband was too easy or hard on the boys but is generally doing his best and being himself, I go with it. If my husband is in a bad mood and says or does something unfair, I speak up and we fix it together. My husband is fair and awesome 99% of the time even if it is not my style or way. But like all parents, he's not perfect.

 

Example: This morning our younger son climbed into our bed, fell back asleep and peed on our bed. My husband found this out when he was just awake and a bit cranky. He was unduly harsh with our son about something that is an accident and totally age appropriate. And something that was really on us for not taking little guy to the potty when he came into bed with us (which one of us normally does, but I am under the weather and he was exhausted so we didn't wake) I didn't get mad with him, because I saw he was tired and cranky but I sat up, told our son "oh, you wet the bed. It happens. I wet the bed when I was your age. It's ok, here let's change the sheets." And to my husband? A "we need to talk/don't yell at anyone because you woke up in a sour mood" look. And when my husband and I were in the bathroom, reminded him that it sucks but it just means clean sheets and I understand that he is tired but I don't think we want to make our son feel badly about something like bed wetting. My husband then apologized for being cranky about it to our son. The same thing plays out in reverse sometimes with my husband reminding me to be reasonable. If in order for my husband to feel respected, I was expected to stay mum about him snapping at a little kid for peeing in bed, then I would have a problem.

[DarlaS]

My kids going without electronics for a week (because my husband decided so) isn't going to hurt them. My arguing in front of them over his choice of punishment certainly can cause them harm though.

No, of course not. However, if I felt the need to speak up, there would have to be good reason.

 

My husband, usually a rational person, has at times threatened to throw away everything a kid (about 6 at the time) owned, or even to get rid of a pet. Not over anything major either. I assume everyone's capable of over-reacting and being an @$$.

[mytwomonkeys]

I don't see arbitrary and unreasonable (or irrational) as the the same. My husband creates consequences that vary from my own & he is not wrong or unreasonable, just different. He is not hurting or devaluing our kids by being more stern than me. He also is not reacting in haste while I passively stand back and support him for the sake of saving face and appearing united. If that is the situation at hand, my advice would be different. I took the OP to simply imply her and her husband handle consequences differently and they argue about it repeatedly in front of the kids (she sees his parenting as arbitrary and wrong and parents overtop of him).

[DarlaS]

I don't see arbitrary and unreasonable (or irrational) as the the same. My husband creates consequences that vary from my own & he is not wrong or unreasonable, just different. He is not hurting or devaluing our kids by being more stern than me. He also is not reacting in haste while I passively stand back and support him for the sake of saving face and appearing united. If that is the situation at hand, my advice would be different. I took the OP to simply imply her and her husband handle consequences differently and they argue about it repeatedly in front of the kids (she sees his parenting as arbitrary and wrong and parents overtop of him).

True.

 

I may have inferred unreasonableness when she said "he is acting more on momentary irritation than thoughtful intent."

[mytwomonkeys]

True.

 

I may have inferred unreasonableness when she said "he is acting more on momentary irritation than thoughtful intent."

Well he could be a big jacka$$. I don't know. She also said he was a good and honorable man, so like you, I'm just giving advice based on a paragraph of information. My opinions are derived from my own relationship, and I know we parent differently here too. My husband isn't a hothead and he doesn't overreact though, if he did (or if that is the case with the OP) my advice would be different.

[zoobie]

When my DH or I have come up with some consequence we later agree was unreasonable, the person who issued the consequence is the one who acknowledges his/her mistake and corrects it. We have both interrupted each other and said, hey, time out.

 

The respect issue I don't think has a gender-based answer. It sounds like maybe there are some communication style conflicts in your marriage. You have to be able to agree on how to disagree...

[albeto.]

I never said that. It's disrespectful for her to not see his opinion as equally valid as her opinion.

The comment to which I responded was, "You aren't appreciating the fact that he is a person and that at the very least he is on equal footing with you." But then you went on to explain that this "equal footing" is anything that doesn't interpret his behavior as "arbitrary or wrong." What if his approach was arbitrary or wrong (as the OP suggested)? Do you see my confusion? You've set up the scenario such that the husband cannot be wrong, and if the OP thinks he is, she is really just setting herself up "as the god of the relationship."

 

Wow - you seem to have completely missed the point of all that I wrote.

Thanks for explaining.

 

You will not see anything approaching what you have written here in my response to the OP.

Please don't assume intent to my posts. I am only responding to the words written. My interpretation may not be the message you meant to convey, but to suggest I will or will not do something is beyond your scope to know (and in this case is wrong).

 

 

To make things clear, my position is that the OP needs to see that her husband's opinions are at least as equally valid as her own.

Why? What if they are not equally valid? What if, for the sake of argument, he is belittling the kids due to frustration? Let's pretend he's calling them ignorant, useless potato-heads? What if, for the sake of argument, his reaction doesn't take into consideration all the facts, like what inspired the kids to do what they did? What if he punishes them as if they are being willfully horrible, when in fact they made a mistake? I understand that if the husband's opinion is simply not the same as the wife's there should be a concerted effort to unify their approach, but I'm responding to your comment that relying on her conscience to know right from wrong is disrespectful to her husband. Is she incapable of knowing right from wrong without him? Do you see how that caught my attention?

 

She admits she is making judgements based upon what she sees as right and wrong and she has judged her husband to be arbitrary and wrong. My point is to ask the OP Where  her husband's opinions about right and wrong come into the picture.

Ah, I had missed that component in your comments.

[alef]

I've been away and just got time to sit down and read responses. Haven't got through them all yet, just wanted to let people know I appreciate the input.

[alef]

Is the issue that he feels disrespected when you disagree with him in front of the kids when he scolds them, or if he feels disrespected whenever you disagree with him on any topic?

 

I'm thinking about this. The immediate issue this morning was me suggesting he let something go rather than get into a battle of wills with the three year old (those never end well; yes you can enforce a consequence, but you can't win--and it wasn't over an established rule). 

 

DH really doesn't like disagreement though. It not a "I need to be in charge" kind of thing so much as a "I feel threatened and insecure if you disagree" thing I think?

[alef]

 

While in general it is best not to correct or disagree with your spouse about the kids in front of the kids, I think can be important for kids to see a parent sticking up for them if the other parent is truly being mean or unacceptably arbitrary. Definitely both parents need to get on the same page about rules and expectations.

 

This is part of where I am coming from, especially in relation to my own experiences as a child. My dad would occasionally go into irrational rages and blame us (especially me, I wasn't a particularly meek child) for making him angry. My mom would stand by, and it seemed that she was supporting him. She has told me as an adult that she felt she needed to show a united front with him even though she knew he was in the wrong. I am not willing to do that.

 

My gut instinct is to intervene anytime dh is acting at least in part out of irritation--that is, he is giving directions and handing out consequences based partly on his own mood and state of mind rather than parenting from a place of calm. I very much believe in calm parenting, but I am also a calm person by nature and don't get easily irritated. I can see that I am being unfair in two ways: 1) expecting my husband to always remain calm may be expecting too much, and 2) projecting my own experience as a child into my marriage when dh is not much like my dad at all.

 

But back to the respect question, while I can see how it could be disrespectful for me to interfere in his parenting, isn't it equally disrespectful for him to interfere in mine? It seems to me that the concept of showing a united front, in the heat of a moment, mostly means the parent who might prefer a gentler approach is expected to bow to the parent who is the harsher disciplinarian--that doesn't seem right to me.

 

I do like the suggestion of having a code phrase that we both agree to that means "we need to go discuss this".

[alef]

I would let the boom fall for the moment, unless he was so irritated that he was not in control of his emotions or being disrespectful to children. Then I would discuss the whole incident alone with husband.  Kids are resilient,  a single heavy punishment will not scar them for life.  And maybe he might discuss it with them as an apology later, who knows?  There is nothing like a parent reconciling with his children, they can then see that we make mistakes too.

 

Respect is highly valued by men, it can be the same as saying I love you, it is that important to them.

 

I probably should do this more often, along with setting aside regular time to discuss parenting decisions together. He has a great relationship with the kids most of the time, and is good at reconciliation.

[Amy in NH]

I'm mulling something over. My husband and I had a disagreement this morning (yes, it does happen on occasion...) and he said something about feeling like I don't respect him. I keep hearing/reading about men in general valuing respect, but I'm trying to figure out what this looks like in practice. It seems to me that he is hurt/feels I lack respect for him whenever I disagree. I don't want him to feel that I don't respect him--I do, very much. He is a good and thoughtful and honorable man. I have deep love and respect for him. But I do disagree with him at times. We sometimes clash over parenting--he thinks I am too lenient and I think he is too arbitrary. With regard to resolving that particular issue it does help when we take time to talk more about parenting and discuss rules and consequences. I can see that he gets upset if I don't support him in front of the kids, but I'm really not willing to stand behind him when his rules or consequences seem arbitrary or wrong, when he is acting more on momentary irritation than thoughtful intent.

 

Sigh. He's gone to take a nap and when he wakes up he will feel better and the problem will blow over. This kind of issue is a tiny proportion of our interactions, but it bothers me every time. He doesn't like me to disagree with him and I don't like him to be upset with me.

 

I may delete this, but I did wonder if others have insight to offer. I don't expect perfection out of either of us, and generally I just act according to my own sense of right and wrong. Is that really disrespectful? What does it mean when relationship experts say that men want to feel respected?

 

We have a similar problem here.  If you are going to pick on/bully the children I will stand up for them since they are too small/young/immature to stand up for themselves in such a power-imbalanced relationship.  He has an acknowledged empathy problem ("diagnosed" by multiple rating scales).  But it's not just that.  It is the same thing you described with the disagreements, or even questions.  I can't ask a question about anything he does or is planning to do without him somehow feeling he is being attacked or disrespected.  It seems to be a true lack of communication skills - he can't handle a back-and-forth, give-and-take conversation and wants to perform a monologue instead.  I'm a counter-culture do-it-yourselfer kind of person who doesn't respect authority for authority's sake, and I want to know the reason "why" for everything.  He just wants me to accept his word as gospel with blind faith.  Sorry - that's not who I am!

 

I think a lot of it goes back to his relationship with and between his parents.

 

Also, my professor was positing during our last class meeting that every person has a "thing" that they think others think about them - they aren't smart enough, "strong" enough, they're too lazy or selfish or ... - that really isn't true but makes them feel incompetent.  Whatever their individual "thing" is informs how they interact with the world, and if you accidentally push the button they will feel attacked and become defensive or shut-down.  It is really easier to go through life knowing what your "thing" is, but it requires quite a bit of introspection to figure it out.  

 

So, I think dh's thing is that he feels like he isn't smart enough.  He feels attacked when I ask him a question because he feels that I am really questioning or even maligning his intelligence.  And in his family of origin he is the only one who didn't go to college.  And they were all required to "respect" their father whether he earned or deserved their respect or not.  So, that's where it comes from.  It makes it a little easier for me to have empathy toward him by recognizing that, and I can sometimes gently point it out to him (or not so gently when he's being a real @$$). 

[TechWife]

Albeto - sorry, I somehow cut your name off of the quote. 

 

The comment to which I responded was, "You aren't appreciating the fact that he is a person and that at the very least he is on equal footing with you." But then you went on to explain that this "equal footing" is anything that doesn't interpret his behavior as "arbitrary or wrong." What if his approach was arbitrary or wrong (as the OP suggested)? Do you see my confusion? You've set up the scenario such that the husband cannot be wrong, and if the OP thinks he is, she is really just setting herself up "as the god of the relationship."

 

Please quote the explanation that you are referring to. I can't figure out what is causing the confusion as I didn't set up a scenario that meets this description. 

 

 

 

 Thanks for explaining.

No problem, glad to do it.

 

 

 

 

Please don't assume intent to my posts. I am only responding to the words written. My interpretation may not be the message you meant to convey, but to suggest I will or will not do something is beyond your scope to know (and in this case is wrong).

 

I'm not responding to your intent (how would I know what that was, anyway?). It is actually within my scope to know that you will not be able to find such an example in my post. Why do I know this? Because it is not there, I didn't write it, you can't read it. If you wish to add your own interpretations onto what I have written or if you wish to jump to conclusions,  you can't then question me with the assumptions that what you are interpreting or concluding is correct. Asking for clarification of what I meant, yes. Saying that I meant something that I did not write, no. While you do not know me, I can assure you I am a very straightforward person. If I had meant something, I would have said it.  
 

 

Why? What if they are not equally valid? What if, for the sake of argument, he is belittling the kids due to frustration? Let's pretend he's calling them ignorant, useless potato-heads? What if, for the sake of argument, his reaction doesn't take into consideration all the facts, like what inspired the kids to do what they did? What if he punishes them as if they are being willfully horrible, when in fact they made a mistake? I understand that if the husband's opinion is simply not the same as the wife's there should be a concerted effort to unify their approach, but I'm responding to your comment that relying on her conscience to know right from wrong is disrespectful to her husband. Is she incapable of knowing right from wrong without him? Do you see how that caught my attention?

 

And my question in response is  what makes her ideas of right and wrong any more "right" than his? What if he believes that he is "right?" Again, she stated that she is operating from her own ideas of what is right and wrong, not his ideas, joint ideas or someone else's ideas or whatever.  She has not given any firm reasons why she would believe that his opinion is wrong other than she has decided it is so.  By not taking into consideration his opinion of what is right and wrong, she is showing him disrespect because she has decided to leave his opinion out of their relationship. If she takes his opinion and the basis for his opinion into consideration and still does not agree with him, that is not disrespectful. That is why I asked what she was basing her opinion of right and wrong upon and whether or not she and her husband were in agreement with this basis. If she bases it upon her "conscience," as you stated, than what if he doesn't base his decisions on her "conscience?" Does that mean that he is wrong? What if he bases them on his own conscience? Why is her conscience right or wrong and why is his conscience right or wrong? 

 

I do think that I'm digressing a bit here, I didn't really mean to. I'd be glad to discuss potential bases of "right and wrong" with you if you'd like - feel free to PM me. 

 

I also did agree that it is quite possible that he is "wrong." But are we to not respect someone as a person because they are wrong in opinion, thought or action? If that is the case, then why should we respect ourselves, much less anyone else? Note, I am not talking about sociopathic people here, I am talking about the "average" person (whatever that is).

 

I'm wondering if you are equating respect with authority? I am not, as I see them as two different things. 

 

 

 

Ah, I had missed that component in your comments.

 

Maybe this will help you understand what i am saying elsewhere. It really is the thesis for what I am saying. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mytwomonkeys]

This is part of where I am coming from, especially in relation to my own experiences as a child. My dad would occasionally go into irrational rages and blame us (especially me, I wasn't a particularly meek child) for making him angry. My mom would stand by, and it seemed that she was supporting him. She has told me as an adult that she felt she needed to show a united front with him even though she knew he was in the wrong. I am not willing to do that.

 

My gut instinct is to intervene anytime dh is acting at least in part out of irritation--that is, he is giving directions and handing out consequences based partly on his own mood and state of mind rather than parenting from a place of calm. I very much believe in calm parenting, but I am also a calm person by nature and don't get easily irritated. I can see that I am being unfair in two ways: 1) expecting my husband to always remain calm may be expecting too much, and 2) projecting my own experience as a child into my marriage when dh is not much like my dad at all.

 

But back to the respect question, while I can see how it could be disrespectful for me to interfere in his parenting, isn't it equally disrespectful for him to interfere in mine? It seems to me that the concept of showing a united front, in the heat of a moment, mostly means the parent who might prefer a gentler approach is expected to bow to the parent who is the harsher disciplinarian--that doesn't seem right to me.

 

I do like the suggestion of having a code phrase that we both agree to that means "we need to go discuss this".

 

i can really relate to this. growing up, my dad was all about total compliance. i love him dearly now, but it was really hard as a child to have a parent that was more focused on compliance than understanding my personality, triggers, etc. both my husband and i are on the spectrum of more gentle discipline, so while his consequences may be harsher than my own, neither of us are going to scream, hit, or resort to belittling our children. in any of those circumstances, i would intervene and would want intervention myself. we do have the same end goals in raising our children and there are certain boundaries in place from which we both parent.

 

as for a united front, for us that involves specific incidents. for example, if my son did something wrong & my husband was in the middle of handling it, i'm not going to walk into the room and involve myself. my husband is handling it & it doesn't require me at all. there have also been times where my son or daughter have done something that required my attention, and later i will share our day with my husband, and he immediately wants to give a consequence or go hash it out with the kids. i will remind him that i have handled it already, and unless i ask for him to take it further, it's been settled. there are times we disagree with how the other one handled a situation, and we discuss those times privately.

 

i think if you and your husband sit down & create some basic parameters to work from, it would help a lot. for starters, what do you consider age appropriate? you may have completely different ideas of what you expect from your 3 year old and what you consider normal behaviors. secondly, what are your child's triggers? my husband & i know our son's triggers are hunger, sleepiness, and overstimulation. of course these aren't issues really at age 9, but when he was younger they were huge. that's not to say they excuse ill behavior at all (not by any means!), but they did help shape the way we parented (re: a schedule was really important to my son's personality. protein for breakfast is a must). if your child deals with outbursts, battle of the wills, anger, etc. create reasonable and age appropriate responses when you can. for example, strong willed children like control and need choices, so involve them in what they wear, eat, etc (at age 3 - do you want this or that?). if your child gets out of control when they are very upset, you and your husband need to agree that calming them down is going to be your first priority. you can still implement a consequence of course, after you calm them down though -- then talk through it in an age appropriate fashion.

 

anyway. i hope this makes sense. i really do understand. your husband sounds like a good guy & i think you two just need to get on the same page. that doesn't mean you need to discipline from the same "line" on the page though or handle things identically -- but i do think being in agreement with the overall big picture is necessary.

[LucyStoner]

But back to the respect question, while I can see how it could be disrespectful for me to interfere in his parenting, isn't it equally disrespectful for him to interfere in mine? It seems to me that the concept of showing a united front, in the heat of a moment, mostly means the parent who might prefer a gentler approach is expected to bow to the parent who is the harsher disciplinarian--that doesn't seem right to me.

I agree. It is often NOT best to go with the first or the loudest reaction.

[HS Mom in NC]

Child Discipline Issues

 

Parents, regardless of their religious beliefs, should have some sort of principles by which they make discipline decisions with their children. This really should be hammer out in detail  before couples get engaged, but that's not the culture we live in.  (Yes, my husband and I did what I'm advocating in this post.) So, it needs to happen now.   Impulsiveness, inconsistency and knee jerk reactions are childish traits-being principled and consistent are marks of maturity.  No parent should be immature in dealing with a child's misbehavior-that's just the blind leading the blind.

 

I think you both need to sit and down and figure out what you think should happen in typical child rearing situations. I'm assuming nothing bizarre and/or out of the range of normal is happening with the child's behavior.  I think there are plenty of resources out there that can give you a range of parental responses to typical situations and you guys can start figuring out what you can agree on and plan on how to handle the next typical situation. When it comes to something you haven't planned out, it's not necessary to do something immediately-you can stop and discuss it first. You're the adults after all.  If you both agree but one of you just isn't willing to follow through when the time comes out of fear or emotional insecurity, get a good counselor-there are psychological/emotional development issues to deal with that require professional help.  BTDT.

 

Additionally:  You need to make a mental note of this and teach your children to choose a spouse based on shared views of child rearing (and financial habits, and religious/philosophical views, and lifestyle choices.)   People should not be getting married and/or making babies with someone whose views on those topics are incompatible with their own-it's like inviting conflict into your home and making it ruler over you all. It's also called "irreconcilable differences" in divorce court. It will get a couple eliminated as an eligible adoptive couple with a good adoption agency like ours, by the way.

 

Respect in General

 

Watch Band of Brothers.  There's Capt. Sobel who insists he be respected because of his rank even though he has done absolutely nothing to personally earn the respect of his subordinates through his action and attitudes. They go through all the outward motions of respecting him because of his rank, but despise him because that's what he's earned.  Then there's Dick Winters who moves up the ranks because he earned it.  His men said of him, "I'd follow him into hell itself." I read his memoirs.  He said a leader absolutely had to earn respect through honorable action, attitude and character-anything else was illegitimate.  I miss having whole generations of men who understood that.

 

From my Christian Perspective

 

As a Christian, when it comes to respect, I find it's a generational issue.  Most men today expect respect without having to earn it.  They think it should be handed to them by default.  That's just the typical American entitlement mentality. They're so many who take the easy route of wanting the role (Husband and Father) respected rather than personally doing the hard work of earning the respect that goes with the role through discernment, wisdom, character, principled living, self-control, and self-discipline. It's a mental state of perpetual adolescence.

 

Even Christian based marriage counseling like Love and Respect (I sat through that nonsense and was horrified that some Christian leadership couldn't see the obvious problems with it) has taken this entitlement minded position and called it "biblical."  So shockingly sad and mediocre. Don't forget, the Bible insists men given positions of authority in the church had to meet CRITERIA that meant living in consistently, reputable, honorable and disciplined ways.  Anything else is illegitimate. Any professing believer should be striving toward that even if he isn't in positions of authority yet.  Most of the American Church is impotent, in part, because of illegitimate leadership in the church and in the homes of believers.

 

[Laura Corin]

I want to know, too!

 

Maybe a codeword like, "Honey, I need to talk to you in the kitchen, right now!" Then he can tell the kids, "We'll deal with this issue as soon as I get back from helping your mother." That way, you two can discuss the issue privately, the kids don't know that you're making it up as you go, and no one is disrespected.

 

I have often said to the kids 'You know, I'm not sure how to deal with this.  Let me talk it through with your dad.'  I don't see this as being wishy-washy; rather the children are seeing that I care enough to get things right and have a good, respectful relationship with Husband.  I said something similar today, in fact.

 

L

[bolt.]

The whole 'united front' sometimes seems unrealistic even if you want to do it. How about this:

 

Child, to both parents: "Can I close this window? It's cold."

Parent A, offhand: "Sure. Go ahead."

Parent B: "Actually, no. I burnt something on the stove, and I'm trying to clear the air. Just grab a sweater if you want."

 

Is this "arguing" over discipline in front if the children? Is B "parenting over" A, disrespecting him/her? Overruling him/her?

 

Or is it just a normal way parents talk about stuff as it happens, without worrying about the fact that they "disagreed" monetarily over an issue of permission.

[susankenny]

The whole 'united front' sometimes seems unrealistic even if you want to do it. How about this:

 

Child, to both parents: "Can I close this window? It's cold."

Parent A, offhand: "Sure. Go ahead."

Parent B: "Actually, no. I burnt something on the stove, and I'm trying to clear the air. Just grab a sweater if you want."

 

Is this "arguing" over discipline in front if the children? Is B "parenting over" A, disrespecting him/her? Overruling him/her?

 

Or is it just a normal way parents talk about stuff as it happens, without worrying about the fact that they "disagreed" monetarily over an issue of permission.

 

Is that a discipline issue though?  In my home, stuff like that happens all of the time. Our kids often ask questions when both my husband & I are both present.  Can I play on the computer a little longer? Can I stay up later?  If my husband and I both begin to answer at the same time, we don't talk over each other.  We stop and usually laugh & figure it out.  If my husband did answer first & if it was different than what I would have said - I'd probably still stand behind my husband. For me, there isn't any damage taking place by agreeing with him.  If he was being an unreasonable jerk to our kids, well I'd step in and take over. I know my husband well enough to know that if that happened there is a much deeper rooted issue at hand.  If he was freaking out on our kids, I'd assume he'd had the day from hell and needed my help.

 

For me, a united front is when one parent has already established a disciplinary consequence & the other parent starts to argue about it and question it in front of the kids. It creates major tension, and often can make the child feel like their parents are fighting about them (or can create manipulation where kids know how to play their parents to get their way).

 

From what I've read here, we aren't talking about abusive or out of control situations, but people seem to be saying they stand united in the day-to-day disciplines where they may have handled it differently (but choose to say so in private).

 

 

Susan

[OrganicAnn]

I think you both need some signal to put what ever is happening on hold and discuss it elsewhere.

 

I always that that having parent back each other up was to avoid having kids play one parent off against the other.   That is different than backing up any and everything.   I think parents can discuss and change punishments.   It is better to do it together.      

 

I think maybe you need to talk to your DH about how you felt about your father and his behavior.   I would do this well away from an issue where you have disagreed.   Your DH needs to understand how you feel and also how a father's behavior acting 'arbitrary' will make a child feel.   

 

Sometimes it will help men to hear from their kids how the kids feel with a father yells or has certain types of punishments.  Men can come across as big and scary to little kids.  I don't know if this is the case, but if it is then it is good to work through it.  

[fairfarmhand]

Ask him how he thinks is the best way for you to handle these situations.

 

Most reasonable parents value the other parent;s opinions and insights.

 

He needs to know that you value his feelings and insights, but it makes YOU feel disrespected if he is unwilling to listen to your points WRT to child discipline.

[*Lulu*]

I just wanted to point out that you can be a united front AND disagree in front of the kids.

 

DH and I only have private disagreements/discussions about things that are:

 

a) none of the kids' business

 

b) including elements that we do not want to discuss with the kids yet

 

c) issues that DH and I know will be deeply contentious for us

 

Other than that, we are very open with the fact that we do not see eye to eye on every issue. The positive of this is that the kids get to see us disagree in a respectful way and work together to find a solution.

 

The key though is respectful disagreement; we don't name call, (other than pet, fun, family names), and we don't engage in temper tantrums. Also, we have each other's back and the kids know it. On the rare occasion one child tries to do an end run around one of us we both lower the boom.

[albeto.]

Albeto - sorry, I somehow cut your name off of the quote. 

 

 

Please quote the explanation that you are referring to. I can't figure out what is causing the confusion as I didn't set up a scenario that meets this description.

No worries. I am referring to the OP's question, followed by your reply.

 

I don't expect perfection out of either of us, and generally I just act according to my own sense of right and wrong. Is that really disrespectful?

Yes, it is disrespectful.

 

You go on to explain in what way the OP is being disrespectful: "What you have done is set yourself up as the god of the relationship because your sense of right and wrong trumps his sense of right and wrong. You see his rules as "arbitrary or wrong" - what authority is leading you to make that judgement call?"

 

I'm not responding to your intent (how would I know what that was, anyway?). It is actually within my scope to know that you will not be able to find such an example in my post. Why do I know this? Because it is not there, I didn't write it, you can't read it. If you wish to add your own interpretations onto what I have written or if you wish to jump to conclusions,  you can't then question me with the assumptions that what you are interpreting or concluding is correct. Asking for clarification of what I meant, yes. Saying that I meant something that I did not write, no. While you do not know me, I can assure you I am a very straightforward person. If I had meant something, I would have said it.

Respectfully, I disagree, and I think I have explained in what way the post to which I first replied encouraged subservience to the husband's opinion by virtue of the fact he is the husband. It is a bit of a jump, but one that can, and has been for decades if not centuries, be made to show the correlation between encouraging women to be submissive to their husbands and the outcome of the husband being able to maintain order and control. It's not a jump to expose this idea as teaching children that women are meant to accept a subservient role and should do so gladly.

 

And my question in response is  what makes her ideas of right and wrong any more "right" than his? What if he believes that he is "right?"

But you didn't say this, you said she is setting herself up as the god of the relationship because her sense of right and wrong trumps his sense of right and wrong. woman came to the forum to ask a question because she's facing a difficult task at home, one many of us can relate to (how to share parenting responsibilities). What I am responding to from your post is the suggestion that by not protecting her husband's rightful place as The Authority, she is trying to play god. It's hard enough to start a family, but to be surrounded by children and responsible for their education as well can add quite a bit more stress to the situation. To be accused of being wrong because she didn't capitulate to her husband, by virtue of the fact he is the husband, is adding unnecessary and irrational responsibilities and blame on the OP.

 

Again, she stated that she is operating from her own ideas of what is right and wrong, not his ideas, joint ideas or someone else's ideas or whatever.  She has not given any firm reasons why she would believe that his opinion is wrong other than she has decided it is so.  By not taking into consideration his opinion of what is right and wrong, she is showing him disrespect because she has decided to leave his opinion out of their relationship. If she takes his opinion and the basis for his opinion into consideration and still does not agree with him, that is not disrespectful. That is why I asked what she was basing her opinion of right and wrong upon and whether or not she and her husband were in agreement with this basis. If she bases it upon her "conscience," as you stated, than what if he doesn't base his decisions on her "conscience?" Does that mean that he is wrong? What if he bases them on his own conscience? Why is her conscience right or wrong and why is his conscience right or wrong?

She did not share with us the reasons she did not agree with her husband's response. That shouldn't be confused with not taking them into consideration. She doesn't owe us this explanation, she shouldn't have to first prove herself worthy of having a respectable opinion on the matter of responding to her children when they do something inappropriate.

 

I do think that I'm digressing a bit here, I didn't really mean to. I'd be glad to discuss potential bases of "right and wrong" with you if you'd like - feel free to PM me.

I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about dismissing a wife's opinion because the husband's should carry more weight. I'm talking about blaming a mother for not capitulating to the demands and emotional needs of her husband over the social and emotional needs of her children.

 

I also did agree that it is quite possible that he is "wrong."

Not in the post to which I first responded.

 

But are we to not respect someone as a person because they are wrong in opinion, thought or action? If that is the case, then why should we respect ourselves, much less anyone else? Note, I am not talking about sociopathic people here, I am talking about the "average" person (whatever that is).

Well that's the OP's question - how do you show respect? If it's just something you feel, how does the other person know? If it's something you show, in what way? The idea that respecting is equal to not disagreeing is, like Sadie explained, nothing more than protecting an unearned demand for privilege. That's not respect, that's capitulation. Rest assured, I do understand that you have clarified this point. I don't make this comment to continue discussing a non-issue, but to explain my comments as you explained yours.

 

Maybe this will help you understand what i am saying elsewhere. It really is the thesis for what I am saying.

Yes, I do understand that now.

[bolt.]

 

 

For me, a united front is when one parent has already established a disciplinary consequence & the other parent starts to argue about it and question it in front of the kids. It creates major tension, and often can make the child feel like their parents are fighting about them (or can create manipulation where kids know how to play their parents to get their way).

Well, that makes more sense as to why I don't really "get" the concept of a united front then.

 

We actually don't "establish disciplinary consequences" in our parenting style... so it makes sense that we wouldn't have any conflict around the issue. We just make practical decisions about how to (retroactively) deal with any issues caused by a child's mistake, and how to (proactively) reduce the likelihood of the same mistake happening again. When we (parents and children) are making those plans, we often brainstorm, dismissing some ideas, improving one-another's ideas, consenting or not consenting to some aspects of an idea, and eventually settling on a good plan. It's OK for whichever parent is there to brainstorm with the child, and settle on something, but it's not written in stone. If parent B jumps in a bit late to contribute, question, and possibly initiate changes to the plan, that's totally normal.

 

It's never felt tense around here, and it's no more emotional than an "argument" over what people want for supper.

 

(I'm not saying that 'the plan' that gets settled on is never unpleasant for the child. It often has 'consequences' -- it just seems to be a different path to proactive/retroactive consequences that is collaborative enough to avoid the whole idea that a hard line is needed, and that a united front of parents is what backs up that hard line. The priority is to solve the problem, so everyone's input is valuable, including both parents, even if they have different ideas.)

 

And, honestly, I'd love for my kids to be intelligent enough to know the personalities of the parents they are dealing with after they make mistakes, and I totally expect them to try to get their own way. That's not manipulation -- it's social skills. Plus, the ability to 'forecast' how mom would probably try to solve this, and distinctly how dad would probably try to solve this, plus their own ideas about a solution: that's a great ability for them to head into the rest of their life with. It's like already having 2 really good 'posts' on every mental 'WWYD' thread.

[TechWife]

 

 

 
You go on to explain in what way the OP is being disrespectful: "What you have done is set yourself up as the god of the relationship because your sense of right and wrong trumps his sense of right and wrong. You see his rules as "arbitrary or wrong" - what authority is leading you to make that judgement call?"

 

It is a question - "What authority/source is she basing her judgement on?"  would have been a better way to word it. I never intended to imply that either one of them has authority in the sense of one being in charge over the other. For example, if I want to repair my bike, my bike manual is the authority on how to do so. If the OP is making a judgement call, she is basing it on what? - After all, the ideas got into her conscience somehow. 

 

Respectfully, I disagree, and I think I have explained in what way the post to which I first replied encouraged subservience to the husband's opinion by virtue of the fact he is the husband. It is a bit of a jump, but one that can, and has been for decades if not centuries, be made to show the correlation between encouraging women to be submissive to their husbands and the outcome of the husband being able to maintain order and control. It's not a jump to expose this idea as teaching children that women are meant to accept a subservient role and should do so gladly.

I'm hoping my response immediately above this clears this up. Otherwise, I don't know what else to say other than to reiterate that you totally misunderstand what I am saying in any of my posts and what you are saying here is not an accurate reflection of my opinion.  
 

 

 

But you didn't say this, you said she is setting herself up as the god of the relationship because her sense of right and wrong trumps his sense of right and wrong. woman came to the forum to ask a question because she's facing a difficult task at home, one many of us can relate to (how to share parenting responsibilities). What I am responding to from your post is the suggestion that by not protecting her husband's rightful place as The Authority, she is trying to play god. It's hard enough to start a family, but to be surrounded by children and responsible for their education as well can add quite a bit more stress to the situation. To be accused of being wrong because she didn't capitulate to her husband, by virtue of the fact he is the husband, is adding unnecessary and irrational responsibilities and blame on the OP.

First of all, I did not suggest that the husband has a rightful place as "The Authority." That is solely your mis-interpretation of what I said.  Second, What I said is that she is wrong if she doesn't consider what her husband thinks is right and wrong. Once again, she stated that she was making decisions based upon what she thinks is right and wrong. Why shouldn't she take into consideration what her husband thinks?  If you wish to continue this thread of discussion, then you need to go back and carefully read everything that I have said and take it at face value. 

 

 

 

She did not share with us the reasons she did not agree with her husband's response. That shouldn't be confused with not taking them into consideration. She doesn't owe us this explanation, she shouldn't have to first prove herself worthy of having a respectable opinion on the matter of responding to her children when they do something inappropriate.

Again, she stated that she makes decisions based upon what she thinks is right and wrong. I totally agree that she doesn't owe us any explanation. I haven't asked for one. Neither have I questioned the value of her opinion. I think the same thing about her as I do about him - they are both due respect because they are people. 
 

 

I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about dismissing a wife's opinion because the husband's should carry more weight. I'm talking about blaming a mother for not capitulating to the demands and emotional needs of her husband over the social and emotional needs of her children.

I am not talking about dismissing the wife's opinion. I never said she should do anything of the sort. That would be foolish. One does not have to disregard personal opinions in order to take the opinions of other people into consideration. You are turning what started out as a conversation about respect to a conversation about the roles of men and women in marriage. I will not continue to engage on this topic - it is not appropriate for this thread. 

 

 

 

Not in the post to which I first responded.

See post #23, which I made prior to the post you linked to. This is a conversation (I thought) - many ideas are expressed over the course of several posts. 

 

 

Well that's the OP's question - how do you show respect? If it's just something you feel, how does the other person know? If it's something you show, in what way? The idea that respecting is equal to not disagreeing is, like Sadie explained, nothing more than protecting an unearned demand for privilege. That's not respect, that's capitulation. Rest assured, I do understand that you have clarified this point. I don't make this comment to continue discussing a non-issue, but to explain my comments as you explained yours.

Gotcha - thanks. 

 

 

Yes, I do understand that now.

You know, I hope you do, but I'm not so sure because you are making this out to be an issue of "Submission/Authority" when it is no such thing. This thread is about respect! 

[Spy Car]

My only piece of advice is that men are prone to (sometimes) moving into "fight or flight mode." that can be great if you need to fight a war (or something) but is not always conducive to great conversations and/or "meetings of the minds."

 

Women will sometime wait until things are in this "mode" to insert themselves (a not unreasonable move if they see something happening they don't like) but it is almost sure to be seen as "oppositional" by the male (even if he, were he thinking with a cooler head, might be open to the idea his reaction was less than ideal). so that is a conundrum.

 

The other thing is that when "talking later" it seems like (and this is a huge over generalization, grant it please) it seems like women, who often as cultured to being sweet, almost need to move into a mood where they are feeling the "flight or flight" thing themselves to overcome the "lets talk" thing. Then the man, seeing the flight or flight thing happening and moves there himself, gets angry (feels disrespected), and things become a clash.

 

If, and I know it is not easy, one could (in a calm time and in a calm way), have a dialogue that opens the man's mind that he may be acting in ways that ought to be checked. i realize it is a tricky proposition in come cases, where some guys loose it easily. But speaking with ones partner with affection, respect, and healthy critique s the best way to get change. we are much more malleable when we are not on the defensive, and are very subject to "feminine charms" almost always.

 

Bill