"You have to put the husband first," she said firmly.
She was not Ayelet Waldman, but a frum married woman of 60. For those who do not recall, Waldman was vilified a number of years ago for her Modern Love piece in which she rather bluntly informed the world that she loved her children, but was in love with her husband.
Meaning: He came first in her affections and focus.
She could have spared herself some vitriol, I believe, if she eased into the topic rather than bulldozing into it. Because I do think she has a valid point.
Parenting—or is it mothering?—has taken on a competitive edge. Movies joke about obsessed soccer moms and terrifying PTA meetings, but the example doesn't have to be so extreme.
I have been around children. A lot. At a recent Shabbos meal, I was able to tell from the decibel of kvetching emanating from the crib that the toddler could go back to sleep, so take a seat, soft-hearted Zeidy.
Adults forget what their needs and wants were as children. Kids, when small, are usually not so complicated. Consistency is key: solid bedtime, healthful meals, and knowing exactly what they can and cannot do, and definitely affection. I would go further that they crave united, cheerful parents.
I remember the episode of Oprah where Waldman was sandbagged by furious mothers, who were the opposite extreme. They spent hours frosting cupcakes for Little League, their husbands vague memories. Do kids want frosted cupcakes for Little League? Not really. And if they do, they certainly would rather do without if their parents will fight over it.
I wouldn't say, "The husband comes first," but "The marriage comes first." I have heard of adults being bitter because their parents had miserable marriages or torturous divorces; have you ever heard anyone complain that their parents had a wonderfully close relationship?
Her piece ends off:
And if my children resent having been moons rather than the sun? If they berate me for not having loved them enough? If they call me a bad mother?
I will tell them that I wish for them a love like I have for their father. I will tell them that they are my children, and they deserve both to love and be loved like that. I will tell them to settle for nothing less than what they saw when they looked at me, looking at him.
That sounds pretty awesome to me.
I read her essay years ago when it was first published (in the NYT, I think), so I don't remember the details but I do recall the tone--so braggy and self righteous, it made me not ever want to read anything by her again. (And I haven't.) It also made me roll my eyes a bit. If you feel the need to show off your amazing, passionate marriage I tend to think there's some insecurity fueling your brag.
ReplyDeleteAlso, while I agree with you on the mommy martyrs front, I think there's gotta be a balance between both. Read some of Patty Davis's early memoirs, and you'll see the damage a set of totally-wrapped-up-in-each-other parents can do to their kid.
I was also going to mention Ronald and Nancy Reagan's marriage as an example of spouses who loved each other so much to the detriment of their kids....
ReplyDeleteBut generally speaking, I totally agree with the concept of putting the marriage before the kids.
Anon: Yes, she was totally full of it, I concur. And yes, as with everything, there should be balance (as extolled in Star Wars).
ReplyDeleteTYTT: *Fist bump*