Anyone read the times article about how to save your marriage from divorce ?

[kittensinmydinner]

Very briefly, the long and short of it is ... Young children take their toll on a marriage. The 'modern' way of child centred parenting puts too much focus on the children, leading the main carer to stop putting effort into their relationship and the other spouse - working outside the home- to feel pushed out and unloved. (All the love and attention being focussed on the dcs) this leads to resentment from both parties, -Sahp feeling the other doesn't appreciate how hard child caring is, the other feeling they don't matter. Resentment builds until it goes bang - usually but not exclusively with the working parent seeking outside interests to fill the void. The solution. - a la 1950 to put the kids to bed at 7, brush your hair, have dinner ready, bit of lippy ( I'm guessing for the sahm - but who knows) and spend the evening being a spouse not a parent... The philosophy being that by putting your spouses needs before dcs you create a solid foundation for family and happier dcs. Thoughts ladies. Have we gone to far in child centred parenting or is this the holy grail of happy families. ?

Chaise...that sums it up for me. It's not good for kids either...puts a lot of pressure on them. I was born in the early 70s. When my parents programmes were on ...mine were switched off. We all sat together in the evenings and watched tv or played board games as a family...but we kids were second class citizens. That was the norm. How will this generation cope when they have kids? I think they will have a different attitude and things will go full cycle.

What if both parents work?

I am very torn with this. My first marriage ended because of exactly this situation. I didn't WANT to put him before my DCs. But my second 26 yr marriage has been very different and I has been the exact opposite, to the extent that I also believe if you have a strong foundation as a couple, it is a lot easier to communicate leading to a stronger position in which to parent. - I say this as someone who has 7 children (dsc+dcs) and worked full time outside home since eldest was 3 months old.

I definitely think we have become too child-centred over the last 15 years or so. I have always unquestioningly put my dc before my husband (ex.) Everything has revolved around the children and their needs.

In my situation we also swapped roles with me working all hours and exh staying at home. I hated it. It caused a lot of resentment. He only did it because he didn't want to work and I was earning decent money. I wanted to be at home with the children. If we had had a more traditional 1950s set-up I am adamant our marriage might have worked. The children suffered under this arrangement.

The other point is I think we mollycoddle our children too much and are paranoid about their safety in a way 1950s parents never were. In my parents' generation (and they recently celebrated their golden wedding anniversary,) children played outside all day long and just came home for tea and bed. No wonder families were larger. There was not the emphasis on keeping the children entertained and escorting them here, there and everywhere. We were very independent children - my mother never drove, my father would never have dreamt of giving us a lift anywhere and we were financially self-sufficient from the age of 18 too.

The last two relationships short thank god I have had have been with men in their early 50s who live with their parents having divorced and gone back. What's that all about?

The generation being raised now will learn the lesson. They will swing the other way and it will go full full circle. It's not good for the kids to be focused on like lab rats.

My parents never practiced child centred parenting, pretty much the opposite. They still ended up in divorce.
My in-laws are very child & now grand child centred - have their ups and downs, been through some tough times but are still very much together.
So my experience tells me I won't be taking the 1950's housewife route.

Apologies I thought my previous post had not gone through...shortened version!

I'm sure Rupert Murdoch was first attracted to his lovely third wife Wendi Deng because she puts the kids to bed early and chats to him.

Journalists as a group of course are renowned for their happy stable relationships and excellent work-life balance. I'm sure most Times journalists are at home by 7 every night.

'The other point is I think we mollycoddle our children too much and are paranoid about their safety in a way 1950s parents never were. In my parents' generation (and they recently celebrated their golden wedding anniversary,) children played outside all day long and just came home for tea and bed. No wonder families were larger. There was not the emphasis on keeping the children entertained and escorting them here, there and everywhere. We were very independent children - my mother never drove, my father would never have dreamt of giving us a lift anywhere and we were financially self-sufficient from the age of 18 too.'

It's not the 1950s anymore! Hello?! The reason kids played out is because the mum stayed home. Nowadays, most couples both work. The kids have to go to childcare. You can't just leave them on the streets all day, which are now far more full of road traffic.

But in The Times universe, Mum stays home and has a hot meal and lippy on for The Man when he comes home.

Put the kids to bed whilst the sun still shines brightly! The Man is here.

I'm not asking to go back to the 1950's expat.
But there is quite a lot of truth in what is being said.

Easter hols are 2 weeks. Yes, some parents work full time. I don't, I work pt. Dh covered some days, me others, a couple of days they went to holiday club. I think THAT is more common amongst many.

Ds1 now plays out with his mates and comes home for his dinner!!
I do think too much mollycoddling, driving them to 10 activities a week, not letting them entertain themselves.
I'm quite in favour of a mild dose of benign neglect.

I really think XH would have looked a bit funny in lipstick. Perhaps a pale oyster pink wouldn't have been too bad.

Surely having some 1950s middle class set up (cos actually working class women always worked anyway) is not the same thing as being less child centered?
I do think things have gone a bit nuts these days, with the emphasis on childrens activities coming first all the time. In fact, even the idea of children having multiple activities is quite a new one. My son has one per week. That's all I am prepared to commit to. This is unusual in his friendship group, as most have about 3.
I often have people asumming I get up at 7 am at the weekend because I have a child, even though I haven't since he was about 5.
My parents basically fed and clothed us (most of the time adequately ) and took us on holiday once a year. Whilst on holiday it was up to us to entertain ourselves.
I don't see those days as some kind of golden age, and in fact there was some actual low level neglect going on in my view, but I am more child focused than they were . I just don't sacrifice my entire life to my child, figuring that in a few years he will have his own life, and I'd better have one too.
I do find it a bit idiotic when people ramble on about how kids used to pay out all the time. Ok, check the stats on cars on the road now compared to 1975. Then go and look at the size and height of a 70 s car, as compared to a 2010's one. Even those two elements make it much less safe for children to be out on heir own roaming here there and everywhere.
Kids on my street do play out, but stay fairly close to home.
All that is really needed is some common sense, and balance. It's fine to kick the kids out into the garden when they are bored and sit and drink coffee with the papers. It's also fine to enjoy taking them to the park and playing with them (something my parents would not have dreamed of doing).
It's not good for any child to have all the focus on them all the time. It makes them feel like the most important being in the universe, which is actually rather a heavy responsibility for a child.

Haven't read the article, but does it address any of the reasons why I SAHM might not exactly feel like putting on her lippy and welcoming her man home? . Anything about how the working parent needs to demonstrate their commitment to their family by doing their part, showing appreciation, etc, etc?

Agree IfNot, no one is suggesting we go back to the 50's.

3 of ds1's friends can only come round one day per week. One of them is only free on a Monday because he has activities every other day, tues, wed, thurs, fri, plays football Saturday and Sunday.
The other 2 same, just different days free.

Average is 3-4 activities. Minimum. Round here.
I am considered odd for only allowing karate and scouts.

We won't even start on how absolutely furious and despairing I would have been if some bastard had saved our marriage. BUTT OUT, YOU MEDDLING FOOLS.

The kind of "Journalists" who thrive on telling people (normally women) what to do are desperate angry types with no sense of self.

Rupert Murdoch is a colossal twat. Wendi Deng was wanking herself to death over Tony Blair whilst married to him. I really can't even be bothered to read it.

What happens when your kids are all teens and stay up later than you do? I don't fancy asking my DS17 & 6 foot tall DS15 to go to bed at 7! DS12 wouldn't go to bed that early either.

After they've done their various after school hobbies (which involves me as taxi driver) it's at least 8pm by the time we've all got home, I've cooked dinner (DH works afh 4days a week) & had a chance to chat round the table.

Oh, yes, and heterosexual men generally are capable of being attracted to and drawn to and enjoying the company of their wives without requiring them to be in a pinny and heels with red lippie on.

I actually think many men in todays' society (and I mean very "alpha" types) expect their partner to be in cosy trackies so they can snuggle in front of the sofa and watch TV and chill out, not standing there in a lacy apron with big hair and a candlelit dinner and pressure to Make Scintillating Conversation.

"What happens when your kids are all teens and stay up later than you do?"

You can go out. Spontaneously!

The day you no longer need a sitter is a seriously important, but not always recognised, rite of passage.

RadioBedTea, I'm with you, my DP doesn't like me wearing lippy as he gets it on his face when he snogs me and he likes me wearing something accessible for lounging on the sofa of an evening

We do make time for each other though and on the nights when the dcs are up later and we don't get as much time to ourselves there is a noticeable difference. Parents do need that time together to forge their bonds as couple, probably more so in a blended family situation.

One thing I remember reading in a book about step parenting is that the DCs shouldn't always come first (controversial I know, but it makes sense). They have already been through one broken relationship, they need stability to be happy and anything that jeopardises the marriage is also going to cause she them upset and distress if they have to go through another break up.

Sometimes children need to accept that the adults' relationship needs some time and attention, to see a strong and bonded couple who love each other as a couple, not just as a mum and dad.

Probably true if one of the partners is a special snowflake who cannot possibly share any attention of the partner with anybody. Lucky I didn't marry one of those.
And if I put DS to bed and out of the way at 7, he would be only vaguely aware that there are some people who call themselves parents, their main role being to pick him up from the babysitters. Interestingly, DH feels the same and we still have plenty of adult time.

I can't say I've put the children first, above everything , over the years...obviously I've looked after them etc but their needs are not more important than mine particularly.

I think it needs to be pointed out that the article makes it crystal clear that they are talking about THEIR marriage and not anyone else's. It is not, as the title of this thread suggests, an article about "how to save your marriage from divorce." It is about how THEY saved THEIRS. I think she even expresses incredulity that something that sounds so sexist and old-fashioned could have worked for them.

Put the children's needs first v put the husbands needs first?
I am 51 and all done with putting other people first.
Its time my fucking needs came first!

"After they've done their various after school hobbies (which involves me as taxi driver) it's at least 8pm by the time we've all got home"
I think this sort of illustrates what I am on about Mrs Poldark, although I cba to read the actual article either!
Plus I don't have a husband to maintain a relationship with, thank gawd.