"AGG, I've read your threads and I think you have some red flags with your relationship with G which you seem to be aware of. (Good for you!!) She doesn't have children so therefore she doesn't understand what it is like to be a parent. She can't, it's impossible."

While we are preparing for the arrival of a child this year, I did not have a child before I was married to my husband. While I know it wasn't intended in a hurtful way, I have to say that the above statement felt disrespectful to me. I don't think that I am in any way incapable of comprehending parenthood simply because I haven't given birth yet.

Furthermore, I know a lot of stepparents (and foster parents); they aren't "less than" birth parents.

Giving birth or impregnating a woman does not automatically empower one with parenting skills. Spiders reproduce, but they don't parent. Likewise, those of us who have been foster parents, highly involved uncles/aunts, or stepparents, are just as capable of parenting well.

As I said, I know the intent of the post was not to hurt. But I think our society tends to be a bit ignorant on the whole issue of "parenthood".

Bellemere,

That statement is not disrespectful - it is true. You can not understand what it is like to be a parent until you have children. The bond between (most) parents and child is like nothing else you can ever experience. Especially when my kids were tiny babies, I sometimes literally did not know where I ended and they began.

You can not simply divide things up into needs and wants. There is a huge grey area between something that is universally accepted as a need, such as providing enough calories to grow on, and something that is obviously a want that is not good for them, such as dinners of potato chips and cookies. For instance, when it comes to activities - filling every waking moment may be a want, and probably not a good idea, but having some activities IS a need. They probably won't die without it, but it may affect their ability to have a fulfilling life.

I completely disagree with the statement that their wants should come after those of the spouse. You're not even willing to allow that the kids' wants are equally important? WHY???? There are probably certain instances where the adults wants might come first - if the adults never get any relaxation, they might burn out - but certainly not across the board. If the child had a soccer tournament and your spouse felt like going out to dinner instead, would you force the child to miss the tournament? Would you miss his school play if your spouse said he would rather stay home and drink beer? Would you make your kids drink powdered milk while you went to fancy restaurants? You will always have to balance important wants against minor ones, but given two equally important wants, the child's should virtually always come first.

tmmx,

You are going to make her kids not only move but give up their cats?? And you expect them to take that lying down? My parents gave away my dogs for what I know they thought was a good reason, and I have never forgiven them for that. And they were my parents, whereas her children do not have a parental bond with you or a sibling bond with your kids. They are going to resent you horribly. I can think of no better way to screw up your chances of having a good relationship with her children. These are their pets, not a piece of furniture.

And you are going to make your kids give up their own rooms? This sounds like a recipe for disaster. Either the marriage won't last, or you and your fiance will manage to alienate one or both sets of kids.

I agree with tb45 and Nellie


Well, very soon you will understand what these mothers said.

I agree that there are people with no children but with their excellent parenting SKILLS, in some cases better than the children had from their biological mothers... but we are not talking about that (feeding kids, educating them, disciplining them... upbringing is much more...) but UNDERSTANDING what it IS like to be a parent...
Glad soon you will know that too. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If you don't mind, what do you mean 'you make best decisions for their future'?
(I guess taking away their cats and rooms from them isn't good enough argument against... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)

Btw, can't you, for example, wait to be able to buy a bigger house, or renovate existing one to accomodate properly everyone?

I think that this is exactly the poster's point - until you have kids of your own, you will not comprehend what it means to be a parent. It doesn't make you any less of a human being than a parent would be, and no one impled that your parenting skills wouldn't be good.

The point, as Nellie stated, is whether a non-parent can understand the bond that exists between parents and their children, and I think the answer is typically "no". Sure, you can intellectually know that it is a strong bond, and no doubt you are a great aunt to nieces/nephews, but it is entirely on a different level than being a parent.

No offense was intended by that comment, but I agree that non parents will not "get" the full depth of the parent/child bond until they have their own kids. When you do have your child, I bet you'll agree <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

And, so far, my experience with childless women has confirmed this. While both of them were very much into kids, were superb aunts, and loved my kids, they still didn't "get" why I might want to see my kids on a weekend when they were with their mom. I bet no parent would have any difficulty understanding that want.

AGG

Didnt read any of the posts, but spouce if you want to be married long after the children are gone.

Besides children disown you after 10 or 12 years anyway. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

IMHO, The children should always come first. My reasoning is, your children are your children today tomorrow and always but, your spouse is your spouse today and tomorrow well, who knows, they could be your Xspouse.

So there you have it.

Again this is just my opinion.

MND2K <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If a spouse doesn't make his children and family their priority, making him priority won't help; consequences for M are the same (i.e. why we are here)...

I wonder, how many of us really learnt...
... for nobody said - 'Priority? Me!' (Then my children, etc. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)

Agree

And I understand that, I have not been the mother all my life... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

What is the most sad for me is, in most cases, they can like/love your children before marrying you, but after having their own child, they quite change (negatively) toward her/his children from previous relationship... 'my child comes first'...

Lexxxy - we'll probably put the 2 youngest girls together, and my 2 boys together, and the 12-y.o. girl (who's reached puberty) in her own room. Two-thirds of the time, my two step-daughters will have their own room, which is an upgrade from their current situation. My two boys have previously shared a room in the marital home, and for a couple years after I separated we were all in the same room at my apartment.

Right now I have 3 real bedrooms plus 1 in the basement. Realistically we might find a place with 4 real bedrooms, plus 1 in the basement. The main impetus for moving is to establish "our" house rather than "my" house.

Everyone has already bonded with our dog. The cats could possibly end up with the step-daughters's dad and his wife, or with another family member, as has already happened with a previous cat.

Nellie2 and Belonging2Myself - those replies meet the textbook definition of disrespectful judgement. I'll just point out that people move quite frequently for a variety of reasons, and the same with pets.

tmmx,
Caring people do NOT get rid of their pets "quite frequently for a variety of reasons." It is quite possible, nay, even highly probable that your fiancee's children will resent not only your separating them from the four legged members of their family, but see it as an additional betrayal that you get to keep your dog. Aside from the fact that suggesting that someone is making a mistake is hardly a "disrespectful judgment," and the obvious point that it doesn't matter if I do make disrespectful judgments, because I am, thank goodness, not married to you, I think you are acting extremely disrespecfully toward both your and her kids - making decisions about their feline loved ones without consulting them, referring to your son's ideas as "bogus," stating that it is possible for your ex-wife to "plant" ideas in his mind, like he isn't perfectly capable at the age of 14 of thinking for himself, thinking that somehow you can make life-altering decisions that are "best" for the children without consulting or even notifying them. The children are people, with thoughts, feelings, and opinions that are no less valid or important than yours.

I absolutely meant no disrespect by my comment regarding not being able to understand what it's like to be a parent until you have children. Before I had my first son, I had lots of nieces and nephews whom I loved with all my heart. I love my son quite differently. Until you have a child, you can't possibly understand this.

I also think parents that raise children are probably a little more understanding than parents that don't raise their children. That at least has been my experience.

tmmx,
Don't worry about the disrespectful judgements. This is after all, only a chat board! LOL Personally, I've known a lot of intact families that have had to get rid of pets because one of the family members developed an allergy to the pet. Really, what is more important, a child's health or keeping an animal? Additionally, Children need to be taught at a young age to look beyond their "wants", to other people's real "needs". Many relationships end because of this very reason. One person in the marriage hasn't developed the ability to look beyond their wants to other's real needs.

When looking for guidance or advice regarding how to create and maintain a successful marriage, you might want to ask people who actually have a successful relationship. Look around you in life and find a couple or two that do have a great marriage and use them as a sounding board and example. Just my opinion. (BTW, I do have a long term loving, successful marriage and blended family)

For many children, having to give up a beloved pet would be devastating. Keeping a beloved pet often falls in the "need" category, not the "want" category. I am guessing that you are not an animal person.

Many families with allergic children have no trouble keeping their pets - there are many alternatives, including special dander-reducing shampoo, keeping them out of the children's bedrooms, etc. Actually, research has shown that children raised in multiple-pet households are less likely to develop allergies.

I have a friend whose daughter has asthma, and who was allergic to many animals. They managed to have a dog, a cat, and some kind of lizard, and the first thing the daughter did after graduating from college was to get herself a dog.

by John Rosemond

There is but one proper place for children within a family-the backseat. Exclusive possession of the front seat belongs to the marriage.

The marriage is the bedrock upon which the family is built and everyone in the family depends. The marriage is "where it's at" and always will be. The marriage precedes the children and was meant to succeed them. But if you put your children first, if you plan your life around their presence, if you think that the meaning of "family" is synonymous with their existence, then the fabric of your relationship may not be able to endure the wear and tear of life together.

The marriage is the nucleus of the family. It creates, defines, and sustains the family. It transcends the identities of the two people who created it, and yet a healthy marriage not only preserves those identities but also brings them to full flower.

To say that your commitment is to your marriage, rather than to your spouse, it to recognize that YOU are an equal partner. For the marriage to remain vital, you must take care of your OWN selves as well as take care of each other – no more and no less.

But what about the children? Well…what about them?

Children's needs are met if the needs of the marriage are met. Children who experience their parents' relationship as an ever-present core of stability at the center of the family will feel as secure as they can possibly feel.

From their parents' example, they learn how to share, how to disagree in ways which don't compromise anyone's dignity, and they learn the human art of caring. They learn that their parents' relationship does not include them-and yet they eventually realize that they are protected and nurtured BECAUSE of it.

Children discover who they are by first having it defined for them who their parents are, and who they are not. They discover their OWN place by first being told where it CANNOT be.

It is this clear sense of "separateness" that encourages the growth of autonomy and pushes children toward the fulfillment of their own promise.

There isn't a child on earth who needs more than that.

... and nobody answered some questions here, re: what does that priority mean in a daily life... it seems rather you go to extreme, stating your child decides all or your spouse (and you) does it... your child has right of voting and no your spouse, or opposite... you take your spouse as equal and not your child, or opposite... and this is NOT white-black picture at all...

so, in general...

I could agree with Mr. John in a sense - happy parents = happy children

but could never agree with this part:

Nor ever this one:

"Separateness" does NOT mean FAMILY, nor marriage either.


Also, nothing easier than find some articles on the web supporting our views...
There are many of them about neglected children, for example...

Like the rest of the article, this is a fluffy statement that says nothing useful. What does a "back seat" mean? What does the "front seat" mean? Does it mean we treat the kids like second class citizens, feeding them only after the "couple" has had its fill? Or does it mean we don't spend thousands on the lastest i-pods for the kids just because their friends have them? If it's the latter, it has nothing to do with "who comes first", it is simply a question of good parenting. Anyway, since the author did not cite a single example of what "front seat" and "back seat" are, I have no clue what to make of it.



This is the other key point here. On this board, most of us are referring not to the original family that created the kids, but rather to one original parent and a step parent. That is a wholly different dynamic than what the author is talking about here.

AGG

IMHO, I don't take the above statement to mean that the children should be treated as second class citizens but, that the parents, whether in a marriage or not, must take care of themselves first in order to take better care of the children.

It's like being in an airplane and the oxygen masks come down, you should put yours on before you put one on your child as your child will have to depend on you if the plane has to make an emergency landing.

I believe that the children should always be first in your heart but, you should remember that you're the adults, the driver of sorts and you must be in the front seat to better navigate your lives as well as their's as you will be making most if not all of the decisions for your children, at least till they're old enough to make them for themselves.

Now as we all know, children are very perspective they know when there's something wrong, whether it be in the marriage or with a single parent, and unfortunately, if the parents are unhappy most times so will the children so please drive carefully through life.

Again, this is JMO.

mNd2k

I don't think anyone is arguing this point. Clearly the parents need to take care of running the household in order to properly provide for the kids' wellbeing and safety.

The question that we are debating is when it comes to "choices", rather than emergencies, who should come "first"? Example - a biological parent wants to go to his child's school performance, while the stepparent says that she would prefer for them to watch a TV show. So this is not an issue of survival, as in the oxygen mask scenario, but rather who do we put "first" when there are conflicting "wants".

Like I said, both need to be first, and this question of choosing sides is inherently flawed. I also disagree that if the parent/stepparent put themselves first, the kids will automatically be taken care of. That is nonsense. There are plenty of neglected kids whose parents have all they happen to need and want. Putting the "marriage" first at the expense of the kids does nothing to assure that the kids' needs and wants will be nmet.

I say still it's important to POJA this, and to keep things in balance. If the parent/stepparent always choose to put themselves "first", i.e. do stuff for themselves without nurturing the kids, the kids will suffer. If the parent/stepparent always do everything for the kids and forget about themselves, then the marriage will suffer.

BALANCE.

AGG

A child should know that their NEEDS will always be most important to their parents (AND their stepparents, if applicable). One should marry with that in mind -- will your second spouse feel your child's needs are a priority?

A child should also know that their WANTS will come second to the wants of our spouse and to the health of the marriage and the family.