.. A shared
email from Christine generated more response than we might have ever anticipated.
Clearly this is an important subject. Here is her original piece.
I
have learned so much from my life's experiences, but probably the most
important lesson, and one I learned from my marriage (now over), is that
a partnership should be couple-centered and NOT child-centered. The
couple comes first and when they make their decisions together, with the
family in mind, good will follow. It's what I would want my children
to grow up and do ...make their partner the most important person
in their life.
Christine
This
subject of relationship/family success and the question of 'couple centered'
or 'child centered' has obviously touched upon something very important
in many people's lives. The response has been huge and has included
an incredibly rich array of thoughts, observations and experiences!
At times it seemed to me that perhaps there was a particular slant in an
individual response depending upon age; being single, married, or divorced;
which carried emotions ranging from some bitterness to joyful celebration
... or perhaps long term 'work' being rewarded.
Welcome
to the human condition with all of its challenges and opportunities.
Here are some of the responses. While there are a few 'different'
responses, I am always impressed with the wisdom which can be found or
generated when people are courageous enough to share themselves openly!
---------------------------------------------
You can click on either a Name
in the list below ...
or click on some of the Subject
matter brought up in various people's responses.
Click on the alphabetically
listed name to see the person's thoughts.
(These by no means were all the responses.
There were simply more than could be easily
assembled here.)
------------------------------------
Click on the subject of interest.
I think I agree with Christine in principle. But in practice, when
I had a young child, there were many times I had to put the child first
-- because my human mammal maternal instincts would not have let me do
otherwise.
Unfortunately, I believe
my husband felt unloved often because of this, and ultimately left the
marriage. He said he felt he came "third" in the family, after my
child and me. Of course, from my viewpoint, I barely took care of
any of my own needs, only what was essential to keep me sane, and I barely
managed that, gaining weight and suffering from depression for years.
It was truly unfortunate
that neither of us knew how to create and then be on the same team in our
child-raising. And I guess my daughter's father and I did not really
have a partnership, and therefore it did not survive the stresses of parenthood.
Thanks for asking.
It's an excellent question to ponder.
Beatrice
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I
think it's important to stay in communication with your partner & use
common sense. Sometimes, children must come first - particularly
when they are very young. That doesn't mean that you become less
committed to your partner. When you and your partner have a child,
you have created a family and the relationship dynamic changes. The
commitment to one another now includes a commitment to the family.
The commitment expands - it doesn't contract.
A mature adult who is committed to the long term well-being of the family
will also be committed to a strong, long-lasting relationship with her/his
mate. People in this sort of relationship dynamic feel secure about
their place in the family and aren't concerned about who 'comes first."
Everyone 'comes first" at one time or another
Bobbie
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Fun.
I was talking about the same thing in therapy this week. The answer to
the riddle is in the middle. Everybody's need must be met. Not the couple
over the children or the children over the couple. I was raised by a mother
who put her "husband of the year" above her children.
If she had better fulfilled our basic needs for security, stability, affection,
emotional support, positive quality attention, good boundary's; then
she could have put her husband first because our basic needs would have
been taken care of.
I understand that if you put the couple first you may have a better chance
of staying together, however, just because you put the couple first doesn't
mean you WILL stay together. Lots of people put there partner first
but end up divorced anyway. Then you have children who have never been
put first and are ripped apart emotionally due to divorce. The children
don't know what it feels like to be first to someone AND on top of it they
blame themselves for the divorce AND deal with the separation and
fighting trauma. Talk about major self esteem problems as adults!
I'm not saying that you should put the children first. Just their
true basic needs. By basic needs I don't mean exotic pets galore, or expensive
private schools or lots of material things. I mean safe environment,
stability, emotional support, affection and quality attention etc.
If the children's true basic needs are being met, then focus on your partner.
If not, then focus on the children until they are taken care of. Then go
back to your partner.
Casandra
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
in
my life, relationship begins with me and myself, centering that is the
best experience of me in the world and hence, the rest follows ...........
good communication and centering with my partner and my children.
aloha
darinka
.·´¯`·.¸ ><((((º> .·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸
<º))))>< ,.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸
><((((º>
¸.·´¯`·..·´¯`·.¸
><((((º> .·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·.¸.·´¯`·.¸
><((((º>
.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸
<º))))>< .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸
><((((º> ¸.·´¯`·..·´¯`·.¸
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I
agree with this woman's assertion. In fact I take it one step further.
I think the greatest gift a couple can give to their kids is a strong,
erotic, loving relationship. After all, kids are always watching their
parents to discover what their own possibilities are. Also, a kid-centered
household lends itself too easily to incongruent power hierarchies (where
the kids have too much power they aren't capable of handling and parents
not enough). This is a recipe for mental and emotional disasters and extreme
family distress.
David1
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
David2
(different person from David1)
I believe that the fundamental distinction of making sure that the actual
relationship between the couple is healthy and well-grounded is of paramount
importance to the overall well-being of the child. The issue of the child's
needs and wants, and what is in the child's best interest do need to be
given at least equal consideration to that of the couples.
Most importantly, I feel very strongly that the relationship with SELF
is the single most important thing that must be given absolute priority
over all else, and at the same time holding our close, intimate relationships
in the highest regard for our attention, love and stewardship.
It has been my personal experience as a participant in intimate relationships,
as a witness/observer of many others and as a coach/guide doing work around
relationship issues that if we do not know what is best for ourselves,
then our ability to be whole and to give the best to those who we love
and care for is compromised. This is the way it is with most systems
in society. The health of the one is as important to that of the whole,
as the health of the whole is important to that of the one. We only need
look around us to see the blatant evidence of this reality across a broad
range of areas in modern society.
Your Dedicated and Loving
Servant Leader,
David Johnstone
President, Cornerstone Strategies
Personal Leadership and
Mastery Guide and Facilitator
"I Stand For The Best In
You."
Developer Ph.D.of Life Personal
Mastery Program
P:(403)543-5588
F:(403)543-5589 Return
to top Return to Names Return
to Subjects
I have found the words of my Grandmother has helped me the most.
She said "In relationship, if you bend, it won't break" I am on my
second marriage, my first was to my High School sweet heart and lasted
12 years and 2 kids worth. His drinking caused the break up. (Bending
the elbow didn't work Grandma). But I have been remarried now for
9 years through some of the most traumatic events possible and whenever
I think of things my new husband does that drive me to think of leaving,
I weigh them against his good points and realize he's not so bad after
all. He has a good heart and helps me be the person I want to be.
I bend with the bad thoughts and don't break the relationship.
Thanks for asking!
Deb
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
The
concept of ?centered? is the problem. It is too simplistic.
Relationships are too complex to be centered at any given point.
This applies to virtually all relationships, not just families. Relationships
need to be balanced and integrated, not centered.
Dick
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Playing
the Devil's Advocate again, i see.
Universal solutions hardly
ever work universally. I've seen some child-centered couples that
did quite well over time, and i've also run across people who didn't seem
to do good in ANY couple, child-centered or otherwise. I expect Christine's
proposed relationship strategy might work well for her, given her belief
system and current mindset. She should give it a go and then evaluate to
see if she learned yet another most important lesson ...
Which brings me around to
one of my all-time favorite quotes: "Anyone who generalizes is a fool."
Cheers, ;-)
Geoph
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I very much agree with Christine. Many years ago my husband and I
struggled with the same question. We began by being children-centered.
We received (and followed) the advice that Christine gives today.
ALL of us benefited, including the children. This year my husband
and I celebrated our 26th anniversary and both our children got married
to wonderful women. I consider this advice to have been one of the
key things that made things better for us.
Best, Jackie
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
While I do wholeheartedly agree with this point of Christine's...like everything
else it very occasionally can be carried 'too far'. After half a
century of observations, I have twice encountered offspring of couple had
eyes only for each other and almost ignored the children.
How did I get on your email
list? Who is the Mariposa Group? Please answer !!!
Janice
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Well,
yes, I have thought about this. the couple needs to learn to adjust
to each other and to the relationship, and to meditate together about important
things. If one member of the couple is totally self-centered, there is
no relationship, and then the children must be protected.
My ex-husband became more and more alcoholic and abusive.... so to protect
the children, I took them, left, and raised them without his help... though
if he had been different I could use the help. Instead my parents
and other family members helped from time to time.
It is only now that I met my soul mate at age 65 that I can truly see the
importance of a soul relationship. Of course his children are
grown and so are mine. There as many takes on this issue as there
are types of relationships.
Cheers, Jean
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I
am at present in marriage failure, I have been in denial of it for several
years. Our agreements are, were, no put downs, no make wrong, no
resentment. It is my second marriage, and my second marriage failure.
The lucky ones are the children, there aren't any.
Your quote from Christine indicates she is not in relationship, she is
in entanglement. The real losers will be, are, the children.
Having a kid is one point along the string of futile attempts to fix a
non functioning relationship. Others are have sex, get married, buy
a house together, get tattooed with each others names, etc. following
this, are threats to leave, violence, suicide threats, and suicide.
John1
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Ya know...i can appreciate her point. But, I think it's about balance.
Clearly, one could WAY overdo it in either direction. I think the
culture tends to push us toward feeling guilty if we don't tilt it toward
the kids, but maybe the culture needs to do that if it's gonna tilt one
way or the other.
Balance. For what seems like such a straightforward concept, it's
damned hard to find...and keep... on occassion.
John2
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I basically agree with Christine's position. The family can't survive in
these days of easy divorce for the benefit of children when the adult partners
do not keep one another's well-being as their highest priority. Easy as
divorce is, it always has incalculable negative effects on the children,
so it doesn't pay to be child-centered to the point that one's adult partnership
suffers and dissolves. When this happens the children are hurt and the
after-effects can last throughout their entire lives. Considering the positive
aspect of her position, it follows that when children see their parents
in a satisfying, successful partnership, they develop a foundation of emotional
security and learn a role model that they can use in their own future adult
relationships.
I suppose one can go so far in catering to the needs and wants of the parents
that children could be neglected, but I have never seen a good and healthy
relationship taken to such an absurd extreme in real life. Clearly Christine
has a healthy, balanced marriage in mind. It may be possible that
the needs of the adults are pathological, and serving those needs can be
destructive. In that case, the well-being of the children comes first to
ensure their safety and survival.
K
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
My first thought when reading Christine's message was that a couple needs
to put "God" first, be God-centered, make God the most important thing
in their lives, then Couple-Centered. I remember the saying, "The
couple who prays together stays together." I think that if a couple
is truly living their life in harmony with the Universe, listening to their
inner-voice, seeking spiritual guidance and so forth, that "All good things
will come to those who love the Lord." Keeping in mind that I am
not of a specific faith (just reared in Christian upbringing, God forbid,
ha,ha), when I refer to God I am referring to whatever form that takes
for the particular individual. I also think that we sometimes are
"called" to be married, other times to be "divorced," other times to "parent,"
other times to "work", etc., etc. It's only when we allow our judgments,
our right-wrong thinking, of what we are "called to do" that we find ourselves
in pain.
Kay
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Since my wife and I are childless by choice I may be disqualified from
this conversation, however, that does not mean I don't have an opinion
on the subject!
The short answer for me is:
depends. I have found in my life that nearly all of the decisions I make
are contextual, and in my marriage the context has shifted from originally
being self-centered to being couple-centered, evolving now to relationship-centered.
Is this a standard developmental path? Who knows?! And because our relationship
(we're within a month of completing 13 years together) continues to change
and evolve over time, the way in which we approach major decisions affecting
our relationship today is probably not the same as it was five or ten years
ago. It is sort of like deferring to an elder in a way. Our relationship
has its own wisdom and if we consciously check in with it, we usually make
good decisions.
I know for example that I
can pretty much "do anything I want" AND there is a price to pay if I choose
to work a lot of hours and schedule activities in to my evenings so that
my wife and I don't have as much time together as usual. The price is not
that she gets angry or resentful, but rather that the quality of our relationship
is diminished in a way. When we have less time together the resonance in
the relationship suffers. I think this gives the lie to the old "quality
time" myth. There is a lot to be said for just hanging out with no agenda,
not necessarily even speaking,or being in the same room with each other,
but just spending time together at home is nourishing us on more levels
than we know. There are ryhthms and frequencies in being with someone that
scientists have yet to discern, but poets seem to know rather intimately.
So when making decisions
about what I want or what we want, we tend to consider how it will affect
our relationship. Will it turn us toward or away from each other? Everything
comes with an opportunity cost attached, so we check in to see if we are
willing to bear that cost. Sometimes the answer is yes and sometimes no,
again it depends on a host of factors, nearly all of them contextual.
I suspect that your friend
Christine, may be suffering a little from hindsight oversimplification
with a touch of monocausalism. I am always suspicous when someone says
"The most important" anything, because the most important anything always
changes over time. At 45 the most important lessons in my life are very
different from what they were 20 years ago (thank god!) and I suspect that
if I am lucky enough to see 65, that the most important lessons of that
age will be very different from what is happening today. I don't think
there are any hard and fast rules about this type of thing. There are guiding
principles that have their exceptions and each instance requires careful
attention and sometimes more conversation than most of us are willing to
engage in if we are to make the best choices.
Anyway there's my two cents
worth off the top of my sleeply head.
Peace, Ken
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I
think the essence of cooperation is valuing relationship enough that you
will stretch to hear, see, and feel what others hear, see, and feel. That
might be with a partner, and it might be with a child, but either way it
requires getting outside one's own perspective, and taking "other" into
account on a regular basis. It's my sense that that is the
prime challenge of community.
Laird
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Yes,
I believe the couple should make each other their priority. The kids are
only around for a limited time (albeit several years). However, the couple's
relationship exists before and, hopefully, after the children have left
the nest. As parents, while the children are still at home, the couple
- as a unit - should focus on what is best for the kids, but I do not think
it is wise for either partner to put consideration for the children ahead
of consideration for their spouse.
Lorraine
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Partnership relationships should definitely be partner centered, and parenting
relationships should be child centered until the kids are adults.
And individuals have to have some individual time and interests, and the
family unit needs attention. So it is all a balancing act!
Marcia
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
sounds good to me! I don't have or want kids
so a partner being the most
important--fine!!
but then again, I am learning that I am pretty damn important
so the most important person
would have to be me!
Margaret1
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I think that she says it when she says that a couple, making decisions
with the good of the family in mind will be successful. When a couple
puts themselves first without regard to the children, the children will
suffer. If the children are put first, without much regard for each
other, the children can become pawns or the battle field between the parents
which is almost worse than their not being the focus at all. When
they are not lthe focus at all, if they have stamina and intelligence and
some luck, they may be freer to develop and have successful lives than
if they are burdened by the conflicts between their parents.
Margaret2
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
A real family is family-centered, as an indivisible relational "we", and,
therefore, can never be exclusively couple-centered, or child-centered.
Where there is real love in a marriage, there is enough love to go around
for everyone in the family, and where real love is absent, then competition
for love becomes a selfish, egotistical, consideration, which is destructive
to the family sense of "we".
Where there is real love, there is a sense of relational connection, bonding,
belonging, as an experience of emotional closeness, and it is unthinkable
that anyone who needs loving recognition, in a particular moment, would
be overlooked
Max & Barry
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Well
I wish it was as simple as that. That all it took was for the couple
to focus on each other and everything would be "swell". But the reality
guys is simply this: Men love women, and women love their children!
Don't kid yourself. If both people are focusing on the kids, then
everything seems just fine as far as the woman goes. But if there
is a conflict between attention, don't kid yourself, the woman's mammalian
part of her brain kicks in and she will go unconscious with regard to anything
else except what she immediately perceives as her kid's 'best interest'.
Partner be damned. Long term planning be damned. It takes an
extraordinary woman to get beyond this automatic reflex.
Mick
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I disagree. Everyone needs to be respected equally, all of their
needs and feelings need to be considered, discussed openly and honored.
How will a child be able to partner if it has been taught that it is less-than?
Many of us were and now have difficulties with out relationships.
Miki
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I like the question, so I shall respond. I agree with Christine that
in a good relationship, the partnership comes before the parenting.
However, I can not agree with Christine's final statement that you should
make the partner the most important person in your life. For me,
the most important person in my life must be me, not my partner.
After all, I live with me 24/7. I came into this world alone, and
so too will I leave it. This is not to say that I only make decisions
based on my needs alone. I want relationship. I even "need"
it to better know and understand myself. And my partner will be the
most important "other" in my life.
I say this because, part of the reason for the dissolution of my 20 year
marriage, was because I put my partners needs ahead of my own for the sake
of family unity. I thought we were making decisions together, but
in the end, he was not being truthful....often by what was left unsaid.
If I had taken into myself as much trust as I afforded him, I might have
been more available to "see" what was actually going on underneath the
surface. I "knew" something was amiss in my life, but because my
faith/trust etc. in him was greater than that of my own intuitive sense...I
thought the sadness and confusion I felt must be because there was something
"wrong" with me. I never even considered that the relationship might
be a cause of my confusion. As you probably have gathered, my partner
and I lived amicably together with very little conflict.
Nancy
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I tend to look at life in eras. The marriage couple starts out in utter
bliss just the two of them. It is "steady dating" with commitment.
They are basically enjoying one another to the utmost in their intimate
relationship making the necessary adjustments of living together. Hopefully
learning to respect one another as individuals yet being a whole entity.
I'd much rather a couple be two whole oranges rather than each being a
half. Don't rush into the children era before cementing this healthy relationship.
Then comes children. The couple are partners in nurturing the children.
No longer is it just us. Yet you don't just live for the children. That
is not good for parents or children. So there must be times that it is
just us as couples.
When you've done your child raising era then it is just us again. Unless
one or the other has been in a freezer you find that each has changed
over the years. You aren't just like you were walking down the aisle. Hopefully
the couple has matured to accept that fact and make the necessary adjustments
to live respectfully with each other.
Now the children in adulthood must carve out their life. Yes the mother
and father are there for them as needed and it is a time to enjoy as a
couple the fruits of their labor in the past. I call these years as the
Golden Years of the couple.
Thanks again Eric. I would
appreciate any feed back.
Newt
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
This is not news. Dear Abby (or her sister) wrote about this years
ago, saying, but not directly quoting: If the parents are a couple, and
the child sees them as one, the child will adapt to almost any situation.
And I agree.
Norman
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I
suppose I would have to agree basically with Christine about ideally there
being a full trusting, partner- centered relationship being present.
But to be honest, I have a hard time doing that sort of trusting now.
My ex-wife and I came together both as professionals who were able to essentially
free lance in our work arenas. Both of us doing this allowed us to
make a good living, not have to work a 40 hour week, and enjoy life.
At a certain point she wanted to have a child again (she already had a
young teenage daughter via a prior marriage). I was somewhat interested
in the idea, but not as strongly as she was. We talked and talked,
and finally reached an agreement about getting pregnant and raising the
child.
Knowing that a baby really needs a full time mom, we agreed that when the
baby was born my wife would stop her work so she could tend to our child
full time up until it reached the age of about 5 and would be going into
school. I would take up the financial slack by moving into a full
time, 40 hour a week, work situation. Our agreement was that once
our child was into school, my wife would then go back to work, more or
less full time, and allow me a comparable sort of "time off" to investigate
and develop new work avenues which I wanted to explore but which wouldn't
necessarily pay much in the beginning.
Well at the 5 year mark our young daughter went off to school and my wife
was free. But at that point she just didn't seem to have much interest
in regular work and giving me the agreed upon time off. She wanted
to go ahead and explore her own career agenda. I can't tell you how
cheated I felt. Long story made short... it was the beginning of
the end of our marriage.
Yes, Christine's idea about 'partner-centered' relationship is essentially
a good one, IF you have a partner you can really trust. Unfortunately
I didn't and the result was a tremendous amount of pain all the way around.
Paul
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Seems
a little simplistic, to me.
I've always believed--and still do--that our primary relationship is that
with Self, as all others are colored, affected and defined through our
subjective lens. To generalize in the way she has does not take into account
that people have different and varying lessons, and we learn progressively,
usually by experiencing first what love is NOT. I get the feeling that
the writer is feeling as though she has failed in this relationship. I
understand her reasoning and her belief that perhaps she did not focus
on her partner enough. But the reasons why relationships end are myriad,
rarely attributable to one particular thing. We have karma with many
people, and everything does not hang on a romantic involvement, however
much we wish to believe it does. Relationships are assignments, and we
may require a few or many.
Such is life on Bus Station
Earth!
Randy
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I have learned that one takes care of the self first, otherwise there is
nothing to give to the relationship. That is, one needs to be an individual,
not subservient except by fiat/choice. Second, the partners relationship,
as it is longer lasting than child rearing, and a model for the child to
emulate. Third, it is being a parent. I have said that any
man can sire a child, but it takes a "Daddy" to be a parent. In the
old school terminology, "Papa!" As a male, I cannot do more than
give choice to women, no dicta!
Again, the first, If I cannot respect/love/appreciate myself, I cannot
do the same for others.
Ray
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I agree as long as the partner does not neglect or abuse the children.
If children are ever at risk, their welfare must come first. however,
in a good relationship, the two parents will look after each other
so that both have positive, lasting energy to look after the children
in a positive way. Disciplining decisions should be privately
discussed and agreed upon between partners outside of the presence
of the children and then each partner should support those decisions. If
there exists a riff in thought, (ie. one parent believes in corporal punishment,
one does not) literature and studies should be examined in favor
of BOTH by BOTH parents and then they should try to incorporate the method
that seems least damaging to the child.
Unfortunately, few parents are willing to read literature and studies that
do not support their point of view. In that case, it sort of proves my
point that parents must be equally supportive of each other and open to
different points of view and to learning new methods.
I believe it all comes down to respect and gratitude. If you respect your
partner as a person and are grateful for their love and presence, and they
you; you will both work together and the family unit will follow the
unified lead. Unfortunately
in our 'the grass is greener on the other side' philosophy of society
at the moment, this kind of respect and gratitude is unusual.
--S
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Disagree -
The woman make the child
the center, the man make the couple the center. As the child of a
Partner centered woman, not only did she loose alot, but so did her children.
Sharon
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
I certainly have some thoughts on this. First, people have
so many ideas of what "child-centered" means, that I can't definitely evaluate
Christine's statement without further discussion on what she means!
And second, I find it telling that she describes couple-centered and child-centered
as complements, without using the term parent.
For example, to some people, being child-centered means that they give
into the tyranny of what society or the child hirself thinks is needful.
Either of these views isn't likely to serve the child or the couple, but
they are popular interpretations of "child-centered."
In addition, so much depends on the couple. If, for example, both
parents are wise and secure parents who "get" kids, of course the decisions
they make will naturally involve their right-relationship to their children,
as they make the decisions for themselves. There will be no conflict.
In this sense, yes, a couple-centered relationship is always the most healthy
-- if it really means parent-centered...;)
However, if one or both parents is damaged, selfish, or otherwise needy
in ways that make parenting an insecure thing, they can feel their needs
strongly competing egoically with the needs of the child(ren). This
can cloud the parent's and as a result the couple's idea of what is good
for them, and what is good for the children. If child-centered means
neurotically focussing on the needs of the child to the neglect of the
co-parent, then of course, it is a problem.
Thinking of the children *first* may be a tool or sanity check for immature
parents who might be more likely to go off on weird tacks that do not serve
the family as a whole. However, immature parents are probably also
those most likely to have relationship issues with their spouse.
But thinking of the couple first may lead to self-involved parents who
see the children as a sort of proper social add-on, burden, impediment,
regrettable, and so on. It's another form of ego-bound neurosis.
If there is an issue of survival and crisis, by all means the adults should
"put on their oxygen masks first," and see to the kids after they know
they are in shape to care for them. If the parents are not able to
care for themselves, they can not care for their children.
So in that sense, the couple comes first -- because without the couple,
the family dissolves.
However, if the parents not caring for themselves is a chronic, rather
than acute/circumstantial/crisis event, then the entire family is in danger,
and community or counseling or extended family help should be called in!
I suppose my best thought is that relationships should be FAMILY centered.
The family is a "holon" -- it doesn't consist of a couple and their children,
but of the many balanced relationships of one-to-one, and some-to-one,
and many-to-many -- and all of those relationships as modified by outside
influences. In an ideal situation, the dynamic should flow in focus
from couple-centered to child-centered, perhaps sometimes other-to-child-centered,
sometimes father-to-child-centered, and so on organically, by circumstance.
It's a dance.
That being easier said than done, I think there is no one answer except
to see why things are not working for the family, and use introspection
and honesty to try to make things better.
My son knows that his needs come into play in all family decisions, but
ultimately it is the parents' decisions on his behalf, which he may not
always
understand, that take preference over his wishes. A sample decision
involves bedtime -- it's very clear to him that one of the reasons he can't
just stay up late, even if it were ok for him in terms of sleep, is that
late evening is Big People Time, and we need our own time for our own activities.
Beyond a point, this is simply not negotiable, and we have good boundaries
set.
As a counter example, his biological father and I divorced when he was
very small, because he had a birth defect that required either lots of
nursing care, or abdominal surgery. I wanted to avoid surgery, but
his father felt that the extra time with an ailing baby was taking time
away from him. In that crisis, I still believe that spending time
with the child was the correct answer, however, my ex's need led him to
find another woman to
spend couple-time with,
rather than helping me care for his son. In his case, he just wasn't
cut out for fatherhood, and couldn't know until he was there. My
son has since grown into an uncoddled, secure, independent (sometimes
cussedly so...;) gifted 9 year old, in a household that gives profound
consideration to childrens' needs, but considers them only part of the
needs of the household.
To my mind, the biggest conflict can be work-centered
vs family-centered dynamics, which to me seem far harder to resolve.
I have a possibly irrational belief that adults of good will can resolve
conflicts within a couple, but it seems hard to insulate our relationships
from the demands of the outside world.
I personally grew up with a stay-at-home mom, and now as a single mother,
I have a small intentional community helping me raise my son -- yet it
still seems that so much of the adult time goes into working, paying bills,
and various activities that are hard to integrate kids into -- it seems
my child hardly gets any adult time, compared to what I got as a child!
Good luck in your investigations
into this question!
Shava
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
We feel that God/Goddess/Spirit is the center of our relationship, then
our own selves, then each other, then our child. Now, I have to say that
we were very child focused during the first two to three years of our child's
life because it is what felt most right and appropriate. For it is during
that time that she was forming her image, awareness and relationship with
God/Goddess/Spirit.
Thanks for asking.
Susan and Chris
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
As you will see from my response below this questions points at an issue
that i have strong feelings about. I don't really know what is meant by
"center"- and without any sense of the people asking the questions i recognize
that i am just projecting and that my response is probably not in relationship
to the one asking. but maybe you will find it interesting or helpful anyway.
I don't think a healthy relationship should be either children centered
or couple centered. I especially think that the couple centric model
is a psychologically infantile model that needs to be out grown. What unfortunately
happens, when the model of couple centric fails, is that the usual compensation
is to place the child in the center (usually as an extension of oneself
(ones own inner-child that never got the love they needed - (who did?))
- which is rarely ever about the child or their real needs.
I believe that relationships at their best foster individuation instead
of trying to find a symbiotic place where "the couple makes their decisions
together". Not because it is some horrible or bad idea - but because it
just is never true. The problem with the united front is that it usually
creates a power imbalance in the relationship (it encourages and fosters
emotional denial and does not encourage deep truth telling). And i might
add, in a predominately male centric society it is usually the women who
suffer most from this inherent power imbalance.
My parenting partner and i discuss many issues, disagree profoundly in
some areas, find common ground in others. When it comes to raising
our children we try to take not only our own opinions (which are occasionally
just covers for our own patterns of fear) and balance them with the
opinions of others who love and care for our children. There is no united
front. The children get to witness and participate in the variety of options
and choices and we guide them and ourselves towards what seems like the
best possible solution in any given situation.
This is also true of my personal relationships. I try to love with a generous
amount of spaciousness and an unyielding commitment to what is best for
each individual. Which i might ad creates plenty of fear and insecurity.
But every bit worth it. There are no simple answers. People are beautiful
and complex. Lives lived well are beautiful and complex.
AS a women, who has had in the past the habit of placing just about everything
besides my own life "central" i would encourage your friend (while she
finds herself single) to take some time to place herself central. It a
beautiful and frightening and liberating experience. I
would also hold to this belief when discussing community. I do not believe
in Tribal Consciousness. I have no desire to go back to the mythological
matriarchal time when we were all of one united mind - where the individual
was sacrificed to the good of the group. I believe we have lived
through that time and emerged as a species destined towards individuation
and co-creation (which should not be confused with individualism -
that close cousin to narcissism). (Which taken to far has its own
set of problems.)
I think we stand on the threshold of an incredible time in history - a
time when the matriarchal and patriarchal (masculine/feminine) archetypes
can be brought together in love and celebration. I believe that individuality
can and should be embraced within the community context - but not at the
expense of either. I long for a time when diversity and uniqueness
is honored and respected and even cultivated - within ones relationships,
families and ultimately ones community.
I would love to see others responses. Would you forward them to me?
thanks for the question.have a beautiful day.
Susan
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Season's Greetings from the great white north! Hope all is well.
In response to relationships and their center, although the women has come
to a new understanding which includes her partner I wonder if the center
of a relationship may be in recognizing that all beings in the family unit
be the center so the relationship is as that of one. Just a thought!
Susan D P
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Everyone
has needs, from the parents to the children. The dance is in creating that
quality of connection between everyone which encourages everyone's needs
to get met, not some at the expense of others. I would refer you
to the work of Marshall Rosenberg (www.cnvc.org), creator of "Nonviolent
Communication" or "Compassionate Communication". In this work,
no one is higher or lower; there is no domination or submission of anyone
to anyone or to any ideals. When Christine says "with the family
in mind" I hear her talking about what would meet everyone's needs.
This is the focus. In a family in which the parents have needs, express
them, and ask that they be fulfilled, while also engaging with the children
in a way which values the children's needs equally, the children have an
opportunity to learn how to identify, own, take responsibility for, and
value their own needs.
I lead a practice group in NVC in Laguna Beach, California.
-- regards, Upgeya
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Greetings!
I don't know how I came to be on this list, but I rarely shrink from offering
an opinion when invited. Sometimes, believe it or not, I opine even
without being asked! :)
I'm sympathetic to Christine's feelings about losing her marriage, but
I don't think it's wise to deliberately try to prioritize any family
relationships. That's like favoring one leg of a three-legged stool.
Marriage partners bring their individual characteristics to the family,
and not all individuals thrive in an intimate environment of more than
two. Trying to make these folks fit requires increasingly bigger hammers,
and hammering doesn't help anyone.
This isn't to say that every family is a perfect whole, of course. Core
families are artificial systems--as opposed to natural ones--because we
didn't evolve as a monogamous species. Our simian forebears relied
on the group to rear children, and we have inherited their DNA--and their
instincts.
The one instinct we have in common with many other animals is the primacy
of the mother-child relationship. Without the nurturing of the mothers,
no species could survive.
Instinctive father-child relationships are quite different. Indeed, the
competition between father and child for the attention of the mother is
prominent, not only in humans, but in many other species. The instinctual
role of the father is to strengthen the species, not to nurture the individual
child.
Cheers!
Don W.
Return to top Return
to Names Return to Subjects
Copyright Eric N. Best, Ph.D. December 28, 2002
(C)