Is it normal to think children first is a fallacy

This is not an anti-child or anti-breeding post. This post is logically wants to explain when children in a family are put first, then what happens is the spouse or significant other is left behind and not cared for up to 18 years or more. This type of thinking has led to communication breakdowns among partners, breakups and in the end, wrong ideas for what an ideal partner is in the minds of children. Regardless of our thoughts on former spouses or partners, putting in the minds of children that using a spouse is acceptable is not only ethical but not sustaining for any size family. When a spouse is put first, this allows guidance of both partners for children and allows children to see a stable relationship and sees that they will be cared for. No spouse or partner should have to wait eighteen years for their partner to be available. No one even for eighteen months will tolerate it.
The idea that it only takes one person to create a family is outrageous. A male and female model should be available for children in order to know their future role. It has been proven years of longitudinal studies of relationships that two-parent families set better role model standards and behaviors in children. It should be maintained that way or not have children together in a relationship. Simply living with each other is not a romantic relationship or any guarantee for relying on the other partner.
We have been having children for quite some time now, and why this is a difficult process now to accept that without two partners, we don’t produce children, in other words, alienating one spouse over the other sets a bad reputation in the mind of children. If we put spouses first, then when children grow up and move out, then spouses will always have each other and not worry their life feels empty. Marriage is a longitudinal relationship, not something that spontaneously that happens when you meet or by impulse.
In conclusion, putting spouse first allows relationships to last longer and in the past it has proven so to stage a better platform for families in ages to come and not ostracize a spouse and preset for children good manners and healthy relationships because working together allows better growth and better quality ties in the family.

I am unsure/don't know 2
Other (please explain in comments) 0
I agree, spouse first 4
I disagree, children first 4
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 18 )
  • justbecause11

    I'm not sure what ideas or principals you are trying to convey in this post. You are all over the place with this one. I'm not sure where you got your sociology degree, but you might want to do a little research. Maybe figure out how to better explain what you are trying to say. I don't understand any of it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • charli.m

    I think the best view is putting the family as a whole first. It's not so black and white as what suits children best or partner best is going to be best for the whole family unit.

    Also, family put first takes into account what is best for you personally. A lot of parents (particularly mothers, but fathers fall into this, too) of not taking their own needs into account, and that has a negative affect on the family.

    If you consider everyone's needs, and try to balance how that fits in with the rest of the family as best as possible, that is what is best for the family unit as a whole. That's what makes sense to me, anyway.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • xfg-48

    The spouse should always come first. The needs of children and pets are secondary. It is important to lead by example and if you are constantly arguing or ignoring each other, it will have an impact on your children's future relationships.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • llamalover

    Child first. Always.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • bubsy

    You need to understand the two types of love. There's unconditional love and conditional love. The former is sacrificial, and it's the Disney one which loyalty and devotion stem from.

    Women can only unconditionally love their children.
    Men can unconditionally love their wife and children.

    So a man must hold up the house, for everyone. A wife can and should focus on the children. The father gives more love than he gets, but it is he who ultimately decides the quality of the children and family.

    It's no coincidence that homosexuals and gang members both come out of father-less or father-weak households.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • satanniggasandpopsicle

      Thats not true. Girls can unconditionally love their husband

      What kind of lies is that?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • bubsy

        They cannot. We can only selflessly love those weaker than ourselves (dependents).

        If a woman sees her a man as her equal or inferior to her, she won't be attracted to him.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • satanniggasandpopsicle

          What if both the male and female see each other as equal?

          And where is your crazy theory coming from anyway? haha

          So I cant love someone stronger? Your vision is weird. And wrong.

          Love is about a relationship. You love by getting to know someone. I dont know what you would classify as "weaker" anyway.

          Your wrong though

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • bubsy

            I won't be able to convince you of anything, I can only point you in a direction: look into masculinity and femininity.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • charli.m

              Or you could...y'know...point to any factual evidence of this. Say, research? No? Anything to prove this isn't just your personal belief?

              We can wait.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
            • satanniggasandpopsicle

              i already know about those haha

              and your still wrong

              Comment Hidden ( show )
        • Freedom_

          This is an interesting theory and it almost makes sense, but I don't buy it. A woman can love a man unconditionally, but if she's strong that won't be enough to keep her attached to him if he's too weak to provide. And even after she's left him, that love is still there and she may even continue to sacrifice for him, but she will no longer let him take too much from her once it's done.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • bubsy

            Can you elaborate on your point that a woman can love a man unconditionally?

            I think you may be confusing love and attraction here. What's so interesting about male attraction vs female attraction is this: the ability to provide and protect are factors in how women find men attractive. It's not a matter of women not loving or hating weak men; they are simply unattracted to them.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • Freedom_

              Fair enough, but you contradict yourself. You are saying that women cannot love men unconditionally because they would only be attracted to a man who they perceive as superior and that love only stands as long as his status as protector and provider holds, no?

              Therefore, by this logic, should such a man become dependent on the woman, she can then love him unconditionally, but will no longer be attracted to him.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
            • Freedom_

              As an example, think of the marriage between an elderly couple in which the man has lost his mobility. He's can no longer provide and he's certainly no protector. Those are his wife's duties now and yet she stays and cares for him because she loves him unconditionally.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
    • llamalover

      wow, you're so dumb

      Comment Hidden ( show )