What's Wrong With Putting Your Children First?
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 4
Sara, I agree with your defense—in response to Katie Roiphe's piece about women hiding behind their children on Facebook—of a woman's right to put her kids first. I'm 25 and enjoying my selfish years now, because, as Judith Shulevitz pointed out in her piece about the seasons of a woman's life, I fully expect them to end when I have kids. And I think that's natural. Just as natural, in fact, for fathers as it is for moms.
My mother once relayed to my sister and me a hypothetical question she'd posed to my dad. A bus is hurtling down the street, about to hit her. Would he jump in front and sacrifice his life to save hers? He wavered. Perhaps to protect herself from having to hear him deliver a "no," she quickly presented a second scenario. "What if it were one of the girls?" This time, no wavering. "Yes, I'd jump in front of the bus."
My dad's response is more about evolution than self-definition, though. It's not that he would save my sister or me because we're his proudest accomplishments. It's that we're his genetic offspring who still have kids of our own still to produce—kids that will carry on his DNA. Isn't that how the whole circle of life thing is supposed to work? And while the bus scenario is farfetched, the same mentality would apply to everyday decisions, like whether to miss a big conference to take care of a sick child.
I think in discussing Roiphe's piece (and what a discussion it's triggered in the comments section!), we're conflating too many things. While I agree with you, Sara, that it's okay (good, even) to put your children first, I'm with Roiphe on the point that that shouldn't mean your kids are all you can talk about, their faces all you care to have anyone see when they type in your name. One of the things I'm most grateful to my parents for is raising me in a home where dinner table conversations were interesting, involving thoughts on the day's news, the books we were reading, their issues at work. If Roiphe's women friends can only talk about their kids at dinner parties, I hope—for their kids' sake, at least—that their family-dinner conversations are a little more expansive.

Comments
While i certainly don't think
By: chrisawalik | Tue, 07/28/2009 - 06:38
While i certainly don't think there is anything morally or inherently "wrong" to put one's children first, i do think there is INCREDIBLE societal pressure where anything less than putting one's children first is considered a moral failing.
Accounting degree | Marketing degree
I find it amusing when people
By: chrisawalik | Tue, 07/28/2009 - 06:37
I find it amusing when people without children want to enlighten the world with their view of parenting child-rearing, especially when they discuss their "far richer and expansive view of what is important in life other than having children, or even familial ties".
DNP degree | BSN degree | BBA degree
I am not so sure that
By: Rooj | Mon, 05/18/2009 - 10:04
I am not so sure that Samantha's father's response is really an ingrained genetic one, and not more of a social construct.
Remember in terms of genetic progeny, it would be far more "efficient" for the father to save the mother and leave the kids. With the mother alive, more progeny can come around. In fact you can see this type of behavior all the time in the "animal" world, with mothers who kill their own babies in times of stress.
While i certainly don't think there is anything morally or inherently "wrong" to put one's children first, i do think there is INCREDIBLE societal pressure where anything less than putting one's children first is considered a moral failing.
Despite being an only child, i was never the end all or be all of my parents' existence. And i knew that, but rather than scarring me for life, it has provided me with a far richer and expansive view of what is important in life other than having children, or even familial ties.
Uninformed.
By: phpeter | Fri, 05/22/2009 - 12:40
I would argue that the man could always find another mate to deliver more offspring, so saving the mother is unimportant relative to saving the current offspring. I would also say that a father reacts when something happens, and that I doubt societal pressure really has bearing on that. It is either inate to save that life or not...that simple. The feminist thought is that nearly everything can be explained via societal construct, which is a convenient explaination for behavior. It is very easy to claim and very hard to argue against...almost full proof.
As to your discussion on parental relationship, I find it amusing when people without children want to enlighten the world with their view of parenting child-rearing, especially when they discuss their "far richer and expansive view of what is important in life other than having children, or even familial ties". I feel sorry for anybody who has this view because it paints you into a corner, pitting uncultured life with children and family verses a life of whatever else you find important (books, theatre, friendships etc). That is a pretty immature look at the world and your understanding of it, one dimensional actually. Frankly, I would say you were scarred.