Husband or Children first, or equal

[CradleJourney]

I think equal, but there is a difference in needs and responsibilities. My children are young, their needs are first because they literally can’t do for themselves yet. My older one is just starting to be able to do a lot on his own. I expect this dynamic to change greatly as children age. I’ll be the first to say though we haven’t got it all figured out or anything. I don’t like the idea of saying I prioritize one relationship over the other, in my mind they should be equal, but yeah.

Exactly right, in my opinion, that this is a constantly changing dynamic.

For me, it’s always been obvious that a young child’s needs take precedent over everything else - especially an infant’s. But as they grow up, for us, it shifts to being equal, then as they mature to being spouse first.

Example - I would postpone my own meal and ignore hubby to feed an infant. I would postpone my own meal and delay hubby’s to feed a toddler. I would fix us all a meal together (even if the child had to wait a little extra) to feed an elementary schooler. I fix hubby and I a meal and if the teen is late, then he can either fix his own or eat leftovers. Hubby and I get to go out to eat, instead of spending those same funds on an adult child’s wants/needs.

Obviously, if anyone is sick, or in desperate need, no matter their age, then I’d put their priority first. But otherwise it’s a deliberate shift from child first to spouse first.

 

[porthos11]

I’m in the spouse first camp.

Extreme example. We’re in a sinking ship and my wife and my child are both knocked unconscious, and therefore able to save themselves. I have equal opportunity to save and only one or the other, but not both.

I will save my wife. It will break my heart to lose my child, but my wife is sacramentally bound to me, and my obligation lies with her first.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m in the spouse first camp.

Extreme example. We’re in a sinking ship and my wife and my child are both knocked unconscious, and therefore able to save themselves. I have equal opportunity to save and only one or the other, but not both.

I will save my wife. It will break my heart to lose my child, but my wife is sacramentally bound to me, and my obligation lies with her first.

Your wife is going to be really mad about this after the rescue.

 

[TK421]

I’m in the spouse first camp.

Extreme example. We’re in a sinking ship and my wife and my child are both knocked unconscious, and therefore able to save themselves. I have equal opportunity to save and only one or the other, but not both.

I will save my wife. It will break my heart to lose my child, but my wife is sacramentally bound to me, and my obligation lies with her first.

Woah… really? That’s so bizarre to read. I wasn’t expecting anybody to even suggest that.

You shouldn’t love your wife less than your child, but an equal love doesn’t mean that there isn’t a prioritization in terms of protecting. Your wife is another adult, like you. Your child is young, vulnerable, and dependent. It seems so incredibly intuitive that you would save your child first without a second thought, and that your spouse would readily agree with losing their own life before their child’s.

Goodness, if I had a wife and she saved me over our kid, I can’t imagine how indescribably furious I would be with her. I could only forgive her by the infinite mercy of God. I certainly couldn’t accomplish it by my own power. Just the thought of it makes my blood boil. Left to my own devices, without Divine Aid, things would turn Spartan very quickly. Good God, I would see her crucified.

 

[pensmama87]

Woah, really? That’s so bizarre to read.

Yeah…

Instead of wondering what I would do, I just pray really hard that I’m never forced to choose (same as between children.)

I have a feeling that in the actual situation your adrenaline rushes so much that you function entirely on instinct. I would probably scramble madly for whoever I could reach. And we’d probably all end up dead. A lot of instinctive behavior is not helpful in a rescue situation (I suppose that’s a large part of why so much training is required.)

 

[TK421]

I apologize if my post sounds utterly barbaric, but I really am giving my reaction proper justice here without any needless melodrama being added. I am not exagerrating when I say I think I would have murderous, utterly wrathful thoughts. I am not justifying my reaction, but I am stating it truthfully. I would literally rather she sleep with another man, divorce me, accuse and frame me of rape, deport me to a 3rd world country, steal all of my assets, and leave me to sit in prison to rot, where I would be violently gang raped by other men before dying slowly of syphilis in a pile of my own feces and vomit. Just don’t trade my kid’s life for mine. The humiliation and heartbreak would be unbearable.

 

[Xantippe]

Yeah…

Instead of wondering what I would do, I just pray really hard that I’m never forced to choose (same as between children.)

I have a feeling that in the actual situation your adrenaline rushes so much that you function entirely on instinct. I would probably scramble madly for whoever I could reach. And we’d probably all end up dead. A lot of instinctive behavior is not helpful in a rescue situation (I suppose that’s a large part of why so much training is required.)

Right.

Also, little kids are easier to tote.

 

[EasterJoy]

I believe this question suffers from being badly defined and poorly understood. The second problem is that people believe that doing the thing that is the hardest for one person must be the thing that is the best for the other, or that the thing that is best for children is the thing that they like the best. It doesn’t work like that in families.

Children do not want to be nor do they benefit from being in a competition for affection. They want to feel that there is plenty of affection to go around, that everyone they love counts. The number one thing that benefits children is a secure and affectionate relationship of mutually high regard between their parents. They want to know that no matter what conflict comes up, their parents are going to be there for each other and for them. They love their parents, and they love their parents to be loved, since this reinforces their belief that their parents are worthy of their high esteem.

Children benefit from being involved in the give-and-take of true domestic charity. They benefit from knowing, for instance, that sometimes they need to be quiet so Mommy can rest or that they need to help out with chores so Daddy won’t have so much to do when he gets home. They benefit from knowing that while everyone in the family is allowed to have personal interests and pleasures, everyone in the family is willing to forgo these from time to time when someone else in the family has a true need that prevents it.

All a child needs to understand that Mom and Dad like to have alone time together is for the child to occasionally get alone time with just one parent by himself or herself. If they have enjoyed spending time alone with just Mom or just Dad, they can understand that yes, Mom and Dad also enjoy having time with just each other. With the understanding, they can accept that sometimes Mom and Dad find them someone to take care of them, and that they are just fine when this happens. Maybe they don’t like it, but that isn’t a case of harm. That’s just disliking something that you have to accept even though you don’t like it! Everyone needs to learn to accept that life isn’t always cut out to suit their personal whims! Having more than parents alone as caretakers from time to time is also good preparation for the time when someone else has to take care of them because Mom and Dad have an emergency to deal with. If they are used to another caretaker, these emergencies are not so upsetting. (I would definitely try to arrange for children to spend some time with whomever you think will get the nod if both parents are knocked out of primary caretaking for awhile.)

My parents routinely made sacrifices by which they put the needs of their children ahead of their own. Having said that, there was no more serious offense we could commit against one parent than to show disrespect for the other. They did not countenance disrespect shown directly to them, but they really jumped in and brought us up short if they saw the other being given sass. Another “felony” was to try to use one to do an end-run around the other or to play them against each other in any way. Oooo…wow, that was going to be the worst kind of trouble!!

 

[EasterJoy]

Like anything else in life, it is all about balance. I personally think if you devote all your time to one (either spouse or children) to the detriment of the other you are bound to have problems.
There may be some times in a family, where one particular member, whether it is the spouse or the child, will require most of the attention due to a number of factors for eg. health problems, school problems etc. Or as you stated in the early stages of development, the family resources (time, money) may be focused on the children because they are so dependent.
Instead of saying spouse first or child first, I would rather say, make sure that a balance is achieved. I don’t think it is as straight forward as most say it is. In some cases the spouse’s needs will have to have to take precedence while in other cases the childrens’ will be the deciding factor. It just varies from family to family.

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32-35)

Now the older son had been out in the field and, on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing. He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean. The servant said to him, ‘Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’ He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleaded with him. He said to his father in reply, ‘Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends. But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.’ He said to him, 'My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours. But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’" (Luke 15:25-32)

This balance you talk about is the balance of Christian charity, where the greatest of all are the servants of all. It is a hard way to live, sometimes, but it is the best way to live.

 

[Xantippe]

I’m in the spouse first camp.

Extreme example. We’re in a sinking ship and my wife and my child are both knocked unconscious, and therefore able to save themselves. I have equal opportunity to save and only one or the other, but not both.

I will save my wife. It will break my heart to lose my child, but my wife is sacramentally bound to me, and my obligation lies with her first.

Here’s an analogy that might help.

A mother and father of minor children are like fellow police officers or firefighters. They have a powerful bond to each other, but in case of an emergency, their primary duty is to protect those entrusted to their care, not each other.

 

[EasterJoy]

Here’s an analogy that might help.

A mother and father of minor children are like fellow police officers or firefighters. They have a powerful bond to each other, but in case of an emergency, their primary duty is to protect those entrusted to their care, not each other.

That is a good example…or even how veterans take care of the younger firefighters. The older ones have been through more together, but they watch out more for those less likely to figure out how to give themselves the best chance. They do this because when they were rookies someone watched out for (or should have watched out for) them. They also expect the younger ones to buy into the traditions of virtue that have been handed down. It is how tribes work, too.

 

[1990Domer]

Our family mimics the domestic church. I do not see one prominent mention of one family member. Yes, there is the concecration, but it mentions the Holy Family and the Trinity. There is no pecking order.

 

[marymary1975]

I’m in the spouse first camp.

Extreme example. We’re in a sinking ship and my wife and my child are both knocked unconscious, and therefore able to save themselves. I have equal opportunity to save and only one or the other, but not both.

I will save my wife. It will break my heart to lose my child, but my wife is sacramentally bound to me, and my obligation lies with her first.

If this would me.and my husband, I can assure you that my husband would be in.a massive.massive problem after the rescue and will regret it for the rest of his life.

 

[Kelfa28]

If this would me.and my husband, I can assure you that my husband would be in.a massive.massive problem after the rescue and will regret it for the rest of his life.

Yup.

I dislike these scenarios anyway. They aren’t very realistic and are only designed to give you a sick feeling in your stomach.

 

[EasterJoy]

If this would me.and my husband, I can assure you that my husband would be in.a massive.massive problem after the rescue and will regret it for the rest of his life.

If your spouse is going to “be in a massive massive problem” and “regret it for the rest of his life” because he didn’t make an emergency decision that suited you, *that *is a massive problem right there. You get through life together. Second-guessing after the fact or tormenting someone for how he acted in an impossible situation runs counter to that.

 

[Xantippe]

If your spouse is going to “be in a massive massive problem” and “regret it for the rest of his life” because he didn’t make an emergency decision that suited you, *that *is a massive problem right there. You get through life together. Second-guessing after the fact or tormenting someone for how he acted in an impossible situation runs counter to that.

It is helpful, though, to explain in advance what the priorities are–save the kids, then come back for me–but get the kids safe FIRST.

Related:

When our kids were littler, I was once telling my husband that I really wanted us to do a print version of our large collection of digital photographs so that I would have something to tuck under my arm in case of fire. Husband said, “In case of fire, I expect you to tuck a CHILD under each arm and leave.” Point taken.

 

[bitterhope]

You all do realize that those types of improbable scenarios don’t really work out the way you plan right? I mean if something that horrible is happening and there is absolutely no way to get everybody out, most likely you will not be thinking of saving one over another. You will be trying to get out alive and with whomever you are capable to take with you, and doing all you can to save everyone. If people are going to start being upset because an improbable catastrophe doesn’t go according to the way you planned, there’s a major problem with them.

I can see the merit of saving a spouse over a child because at least then you have someone to help support you while you deal with the aftermath, instead of needing to deal with the aftermath AND being the sole support (financial, physical, emotional, spiritual, etc. ) to others. Personally I pray I’m never in an improbable situation where those choices need to be made, and if I find myself in one I would pray God miraculously intervenes. But yeah, I agree no one should even consider saving pictures or other material objects during a fire. That’s a sure way to get yourself killed. Not sure how that has anything to do with whether spouse or child comes first anyway. Hopefully both, and much more, come before pictures.

 

[Xantippe]

You all do realize that those types of improbable scenarios don’t really work out the way you plan right? I mean if something that horrible is happening and there is absolutely no way to get everybody out, most likely you will not be thinking of saving one over another. You will be trying to get out alive and with whomever you are capable to take with you, and doing all you can to save everyone. If people are going to start being upset because an improbable catastrophe doesn’t go according to the way you planned, there’s a major problem with them.

I can see the merit of saving a spouse over a child because at least then you have someone to help support you while you deal with the aftermath, instead of needing to deal with the aftermath AND being the sole support (financial, physical, emotional, spiritual, etc. ) to others. Personally I pray I’m never in an improbable situation where those choices need to be made, and if I find myself in one I would pray God miraculously intervenes. But yeah, I agree no one should even consider saving pictures or other material objects during a fire. That’s a sure way to get yourself killed. Not sure how that has anything to do with whether spouse or child comes first anyway. Hopefully both, and much more, come before pictures.

There are less high-pressure, time-sensitive situations where the same issues come into play and where there’s less of an issue what people would do in emergencies. (Mostly nothing, I think, in real life, at least at first.)

For instance, my husband was a child in Eastern Europe in hungry communist days, and his parents shorted themselves of food so that he would be well-fed. It would be kind of gross under those circumstances to say, “I am sacramentally bound to my wife, so she should get the last piece of potato, not little Lolek.”

 

[E_7]

I asked hubby “if our baby and I happen to cross a street and a car is going to hit us, who would you save, the baby or me?”. He said “I would push you both.” I went and he says “you are always wearing the baby, right? so I will save both.”

Then I asked, “what if the plane goes down and baby and I are drowning, who would you save?” He said “both, he’s always with you…”

“But what if he is not a baby, but a big child?”, I say. “For now, I don’t want to think about that. Right now, our son is just a baby.”, he said.

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

Yup.

I dislike these scenarios anyway. They aren’t very realistic and are only designed to give you a sick feeling in your stomach.

Yep.

When my oldest was born I had postpartum depression. There was a bridge that we would need to cross on occasion depending where we were going. I couldn’t drive over it with just my son. I only could if DH was with me. DH is a strong swimmer, so I felt that God forbid something were to happen on the bridge DH could save the baby.

Not a good thing to think about.