Fathers and sons

[Bells2]

Just wondered how others cope with partners who take risks with their small children that they find terrifying.. my husband is absolutely great with our 2 1/4 year old son and they often go off to the park and so on together. However, my idea of what is dangerous and his often differ sharply and I sometimes get very upset when I witness him doing something with our son which to my mind cold potentially lead to a nasty accident. I just don't think he is very good at anticipating possble outcomes of situations and a number of times, I have been reduced to tears over this.

My husband is very apologetic when he sees how upset I am and also, on a few occassions when he has realised the full potential implications of various activities but nonethless I find it difficult to know how to react. I am reluctant to turn into a constant nagging spoilsport but equally, I think I need to be able to relax and not constantly worry that our son isn't going to be put in mortal danger on a regular basis.

Message withdrawn

Gen 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, AND HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE (my capitals)

Isn't this a problem for your argument, Bloss? I really think I'd find it hard to live my life by following the bible to the letter, particularly the Old Testament, even though I think my sense of non-religious morality- such as it is- is broadly based on Judaeo-Christian tenets. I think numerous problems can spring up from a textual analysis of the bible- Abraham and Issac come to mind as an immediate example- and that to find wisdom and practical moral/religious advice one needs to remember its historical context as the writings of a tribal people with a society very different from our own.

Message withdrawn

Out of interest, I wonder how many here did include "obey" in their vows?. We didn't - it just didn't seem to have any relevance for us.

Bloss, very well explained, that made a lot of sense to me too - thanks.

Going back to the bit about wives obeying their husbands, I was trying to find where it actually said that in the New Testament. In fact, the word "obey" does NOT appear in Scripture with respect to wives, although it does with respect to children. In Ephesians 5:22 it says 'wives, SUBMIT to your husbands as to the Lord'. Now some may read this to mean the same as to obey, but the verse before (Eph 5:21) says 'Submit to ONE ANOTHER out of reverence for Christ'.

I honestly can't remember whether I said 'obey' in my vows or not! but don't think I did, but I'm going to watch the video of the service again out of pure curiosity.

Yes, I too think that's a really interesting interpretation, Bloss. However, I'm still not sure how exactly you live your life according to the bible from what you've said. I don't want to pry - I know faith can be extremely personal and that you're probably wrestling every day with religious issues. I take your point that you are trying to live your life according to the transcendent ideal of life at the creation but how do you do this given that we as humans are firmly mired in the world AFTER the fall, one of sin and suffering as you say? I'd be really interested to hear more if you want to talk about it- very fascinating issues, I think.

How is Aussie life going, btw?

Sorry if this is a bit simplistic - it's monday morning after all - but I thought the fundamental christian interpretation of the right way to conduct any relationship - man, woman or child - can be found in the ten commandments? Nothing about obeying your husband there. If this was an important element in a christian marriage, wouldn't the 10 commandments include this?

Bloss, you obviously know your bible in far greater depth than me. I think your post is really interesting and I am still thinking about it.

I personally think that the bible and for that matter any religious book contains valuable guidelines and ethics as to how to live our lives and above all to respect others, but I think that all religions at some point during their history have been perverted by fanatical interpretation (i.e. witch-hunts, crusades, fatwas, the taleban, religious wars etc;) and basically it is up to us to take personal responsibility for our lives in the ways in which we choose to live and interpret whichever religion we adhere to, to take control of our lives (that wonderful word empowerment!) and to stop blaming God and others for our misfortunes.

God created Eve as Adams partner, not as his subordinate!!!

Croppy - just going back a few days. I have two daughters who see me, their mum, have a fabulous career and the spending power to provide us as a family with pretty much anything we want. I also earn substantially more than my husband who is also a professional in a high profile job. My husband continually comments on how proud he is that I've reached this level in my career and manage to run a house and bring up two children.
To me we are, as a family, feminism working at it's best. IE we are all equal.
BUT I still hanker after a more domestically orientated life and just love taking time out from my job and to pander to my whole family's needs. It's more fulfilling than anything else I;ve ever done - and this comes from someone who has a fabulous job which I adore.
I'm bringing my children up to do WHATEVER makes them happy - as I would were they boys. I continually tell them that they can be anything they want to in this life and explain that it wasn't always like that for women.
They're both bright and articulate - and are sooo excited that they can be whatever they want when they grow up. My eldest says she is going to be Barbie and my youngest a lollipop lady - need I say more?

Those of you who knock MrsHudson should step back and think about what you're saying and how your comments might make her feel. She's her own woman because she's following what she believes to be her path in life and has the guts to stand up and defend it when she really shouldn't have to.

Free choice - fair enough melsj - I can't argue with that at all, but MrsHudson says, quote, 'I feel that mothers really should be the ones to stay at home if possible as we are genetically geared up to raising a family'.There are other biblical bits I could quote as well.

To me, this is not simply asking for freedom to choose a more 'traditional' wifely role.

As Tigermoth says, I think all of us here applaud the freedom to choose whether to work or not and I certainly haven't seen any criticism of anybody's decision to be a SAHM. It is the suggestion that we would somehow be better off if we ALL followed more traditional gender oriented role which I object to. Mrs Hudson has since softened her stance but her earlier messages appeared to suggest that she held these views.

As a matter of interest, I work in a male dominated field and do punishing hours. I am also intensely domestic however and do all the cooking etc at home and love nothing more than ironing my sheets to a crisp finish. I even bake my own bread!. I love the fact that I can do both but would suffocate if only the domestic role was available to me.

Any comment I have made here is my own personal opinion and I don't expect anyone else to follow my beliefs. I do believe in traditional gender roles and I won't make any apologies for this. Some of this comes from my religion and some from my own beliefs. Even if I had earned more than my husband in my career, I would have still given it up to raise my family. After all, I carried the baby in my womb for nine months and gave birth to her, so I believe that a mother's bonding runs far deeper than a father's can. We seem to have a sixth sense as far as our children are concerned, which is why women make far better carers than most men (I will put 'most' here as there are always exceptions and I don't want to offend any men listening).

I think that society expects too much in the name of equality, so that women are expected to return to work much sooner after giving birth, and to resume their careers along with their male counterparts whilst the baby is placed in the care of a third party. Whilst I would not condemn anyone who chooses to do this, it is not in my nature to condemn, my thoughts are on the moments that they are missing with their child and the extra stress they are laying on themselves with a paid job and the care of their children.

The Bible gives us many strong women characters, some of whom empower their men (Samson), but the strongest of the women are mothers (Mary, Elizabeth, Rachel). They were happy to accept their roles without question and they did not try to rise above their men. Yet by doing this they did succeed in gaining a greater status than the men in the afterlife, hence Mary is now referred to as Queen of Heaven whilst Joseph is merely Saint.

Though I don't know why I give these opinions as nobody seems interested other than to criticise me for speaking out, though I have never criticised any of you for holding different views than myself. Thank you Melsj for sticking up for me.

Nobody is criticising you for speaking out Mrs Hudson. Some of us are however disagreeing with your views as you are clearly with ours.

Yes, Croppy. Please don't feel defensive, MrsHudson, you have the right to bring your family up in whichever way you feel is best for you, as we all do, but equally we have the right to agree/disagree with others opinions, I think.

To be honest, MrsHudson, I personally think that you have met with quite a lot of support on this site, especially with regard to the freedom to choose to stay at home or work element. Apologies if I am misreading you - and I will read your messages again when I have more time - but I do not think they extend the same level of open-minded tolerance to mothers who out to work, or who do not believe that the bible says we are here to serve and obey our husbands. Sorry.

MrsHudson, just to add I DO find your views interesting. I guess I will just have to keep saying to myself that your statements are 'in your opinion'.
I have been mulling over something you have stated:
"We seem to have a sixth sense as far as our children are concerned, which is why women make far better carers than most men (I will put 'most' here as there are always exceptions and I don't want to offend any men listening)"

Am I being over sensitive or could this remark be deemed offensive to women too? Personally, I would hate to think that my husband makes a 'far' worse carer of our children than me, simply for being born male.

I don't think that just because we give birth we are automaticlly good at rearing - I wouldn't say I find it instinctive at all. And I work full time. Do I work because I don't find it instinctive and would be bored out of my mind at home or do I not find it instinctive because I work full-time?

Message withdrawn

MrsHudson - I'd like to add my support for you here. Please don't think no-one's interested in your opinions
You have shared with us YOUR way of doing things, a way that obviously works for you. I think this is precisely what Mumsnet is all about, ie sharing our experiences (however different) with others. You have also made this thread a much more interesting read.
I don't share all your views, but that's beside the point.

Hold on a minute..most of you have been quite balanced in responding to MrsHudson so far and I've read this whole string this lunchour (phew) and have noticed that no-one has picked up on her original point...

"The Bible maintains that a wife is there to obey her husband and he should treat her with respect, if that were followed I am sure that society would not have half the problems it faces now. "

Its the last part that irritates the hell out of me.."if that were followed I am sure that society would not have half the problems it faces now. "

Doesn't it wind anyone else up???

MrsH What on earth gives you that idea!!!That if women stayed at home ,and men went out to work life would be lovely. Come off it. Women have only been working in great numbers for the last 100 years if that, and I don't think history shows us that society had "half the problems it faces now" Quite the reverse actually when you think how poor standards of living were for many and the effects of a male dominated society.

Grrr.

Lil - if men treated their wives with respect then domestic violence would be a thing of the past. It's also about mutual respect. I do disagree with my husband at times but we try to compromise where possible, some people just won'r compromise and some radical feminists I have come across are guilty of this. That is not to say that you are all radical feminists. I am probably not putting my message across very eloquently.

My point is that there is an expectation of men to be earners, loyal husbands, good fathers, domesticated, etc, etc. And women must be good mothers, independant career women, good wives, as strong and as equal as her husband. Yet what do we do with our children? We give the girls toy kitchens to play with, vacuums, dolls, etc, preparing them for a role in domesticity and then when they are grown up we push them to be independant. Same for boys, how many of you would buy a doll for your boy? Or a toy kitchen? We do not prepare them for a nurturing or domestic role yet we expect it of them when they are older. If society does not want traditional gender roles when why does it advertise them so freely on television and in newspapers? Why do we bring up our children to this stereotype if we disagree with it?

Bloss I really do respect your stance on the Bible and I do agree with all that you are saying, you command a lot of respect in your postings. I have mentioned throughout my posts that my domestic role has nothing to do with my religion, it is my personal choice. I just make the point that a lot of women in the Bible accepted their roles, even though they may have disagreed with them, because they trusted in God that it was the right thing to do.

And I hope that I have not given out the impression that men make worse carers than women. Many women make awful carers for some reason. My point was that women have an advantage over men as we are with our child during pregnancy and childbirth and we experience that closeness in the beginning that men do not have. Of course, some women reject this and some men more than make up for this. But it is an advantage that only women can have.

I will now go and read Bloss's post again as I found it most interesting.

MrsHudson, I can assure you that my son of two has both a baby doll (a bed for it is coming for Christmas) and a kitchen/teaset.
He also has Duplo, cars and a firefighter's dressing up kit. He enjoys playing with all of them. He helps both of us in the garden and both of us with the housework and laundry.
You have a right to your point of view but there are a lot of people in society and on this website who have NO choice but to resume their careers after giving birth because it is simply not possible to keep the family roof over their heads without two incomes. I don't need it pointing out how difficult life can be for us and our child when you are both working outside the home. Or do you think that the appropriate thing would have been not to have him in the first place?
Bloss, than you so much for your informative postings. I am one of those Christians whose view of the Bible is just what you've described: eroded from Confirmation onwards by successive overlays of RE at school, sensationalist media coverage of the "decline" of Christianity in the UK and, dare I say it, muddled preaching and lack of clear leadership at times in my own church. You should run a virtual Alpha course on here! Is that how your beliefs developed?

Bloss your views are certainly about self-improvement and being kind to your fellow-man, but why did you feel the need to 'convert' to christianity? Wouldn't your views be on par with current humanitarian views anyway? Why did a confirmed atheist such as yourself suddenly feel the need to run their lives according to a religion, instead of commom humanity? (not having a go, just immensely curious!)