Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most dad's, the vast majority of them, would risk their lives to save their children if they were in imminent danger.
There's been the cultural shift maybe, so we won't know how people react today in general. But the research on WW2 confirms this attitude. In fact, Jewish researchers did an extensive research of all known situations by genders and fathers were extremely rare to kill their own offspring in order to survive, while often sacrificing themselves AND their mothers in many occasions. In fact, they concluded that mothers were significanly more likely to strangle, drown, abandon their children, etc, in case of dire need.
It has nothing with biology though, it was generally a cultural thing - where male member/father was much more ready to give up his life for either family or society, and society raised their male membres on this way. Mothers were less likely to be raised in stricter code so they'd be more prone to kill their newborn offspring so that they can remain in mutual hiding with other members, because other members wouldn't allow you to stay with a newborn offspring that would be prone to cry.
I agree with those who said it is a different kind of love. You should not have to choose. I loved my husband because of who he was...my best friend, lover, etc. I loved my children because I wanted them...I wanted to be a mother. I gave them life and would do anything to protect them from harm.
Actually, the reason you think you'd choose your husband first in a drowning or other emergency situation is simply because you have not had kids yet.
In general, once a woman has a child there's a fierce natural instinct to protect that child that comes out in them. You simply can't appreciate this right now.
Most parents agree that in such an emergency they would both choose to save the child over trying to save one another. It's just what parents instinctively do.
True. I can't appreciate that and never will.
I will try to see this with my dogs. Please understand, my animals are as children-like as it can get (they go to daycare, school, "after-school sports", homemade food, etc - not saying they are children, just children-like). If in the drowning situation, I knew hubby could handle himself, I'd go save the dogs. But if everyone was drowning and I had to make a choice. In all honesty, I'm not sure which route I'd go. My babies or my beloved. Knowing my beloved, he'd tell me to save the dogs. Knowing me, I'd save him because of his choice and that I can't live without him. But in this instance, it's only applicable to him. Any other man, I'd let drown in an instant - dogs come first. LOL.
I will say this......I agree with most people that I would sacrifice myself first and foremost to save my loved ones.
But this thread is more about who do you love more? I don't think a parent should love their child more than their spouse. I would love my spouse more because he is who I choose. The children I do not choose (I'm talking about their personality, not about choosing to have them). They will grow up and leave me one day. Spouse wouldn't (or shouldn't in a perfect world). I know parents who do not like who their children are, so that's a reality. Also, children can grow up to hate you, for whatever reason. A spouse will most likely always love you, or at least accept you. Children are fickle. Like I said about my friend, she was hurt that her spouse shows her kids love, but not her. And he said he can show her later. My thought, what if she decides not to be around later? Why not show her now also? You CAN love everyone at the same time. Just makes no sense why parents stop showing that they love one another when the baby is born. And wonder why when the kids leave, they feel like they're living with a stranger. If you kept up the love in the marriage, your spouse wouldn't be a stranger.
I will try to see this with my dogs. Please understand, my animals are as children-like as it can get (they go to daycare, school, "after-school sports", homemade food, etc - not saying they are children, just children-like). If in the drowning situation, I knew hubby could handle himself, I'd go save the dogs. But if everyone was drowning and I had to make a choice. In all honesty, I'm not sure which route I'd go. My babies or my beloved. Knowing my beloved, he'd tell me to save the dogs. Knowing me, I'd save him because of his choice and that I can't live without him. But in this instance, it's only applicable to him. Any other man, I'd let drown in an instance - dogs come first. LOL.
Still not sure about an actual child though. Sadly, children come under animals for me. For the most part, I don't like kids. Again, there's lots of good reasons I choose not to have children, these are a few of them. I'm sure parents are probably glad, LOL.
Only OTHER people's children come under animals for you
Believe me, you just can't appreciate this right now - but IF you had a child of your own he/she would be your top priority in a life/death emergency, even over your furr-kid.
I agree with those who said it is a different kind of love. You should not have to choose. I loved my husband because of who he was...my best friend, lover, etc. I loved my children because I wanted them...I wanted to be a mother. I gave them life and would do anything to protect them from harm.
I agree on that. There should be no choosing there, because it's mutual interest of a nuclear family. It's not quite same with the siblings and parents towards the married couple, because they generally have interest in their own child and that's where priorities are at conflict in the hierarchy.
But when it comes to nuclear family, it's pretty clear that it exists based upon the compact unit itself and that compact unit has BOTH parents placing the children as their mutual priority. If one parent values children over the other parent, that's perfectly acceptable by the other parent (and vice versa) because they also place children on first place. That's how it should be.
However, there's the "personal fulfillment" part which is very present in today's culture and it says that they should do whatever they want because they are center of the earth and "you only live once" philosophy kicks in. This literally results with one parent, and by observation it's generally the father being jealous on the fact that children take the major part in the mother's life.
It is once again cultural thing why father is more prone to do that - because the society treats the father as disposable member. An old saying goes like "away from the eye - away from the heart". On another note, many fathers also question paternity in this promiscuous era since they can only be sure via DNA sampling, which is not done by most parents yet.
The proportions of this jealousy syndrome aren't quite sure so you cannot know if this is the attitude of 5% or 95% of parents, because nobody did an extensive research.
Only OTHER people's children come under animals for you
Believe me, you just can't appreciate this right now - but IF you had a child of your own he/she would be your top priority in a life/death emergency, even over your furr-kid.
Can you guarantee that? What if I have a child and my fur-kids come first? Remember. Not every parent puts their child (or spouse) first. Some do put animals, career, other family, other people, etc first.
Can you guarantee that? What if I have a child and my fur-kids come first? Remember. Not every parent puts their child (or spouse) first. Some do put animals, career, other family, other people, etc first.
Nope, can't "guarantee" it, was just giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a sociopath, narcissist or otherwise mentally deficient
Short of having some kind of emotional/mental issue mothers of small children generally always put them first in a life/death crisis.
I will try to see this with my dogs. Please understand, my animals are as children-like as it can get (they go to daycare, school, "after-school sports", homemade food, etc - not saying they are children, just children-like). If in the drowning situation, I knew hubby could handle himself, I'd go save the dogs. But if everyone was drowning and I had to make a choice. In all honesty, I'm not sure which route I'd go. My babies or my beloved. Knowing my beloved, he'd tell me to save the dogs. Knowing me, I'd save him because of his choice and that I can't live without him. But in this instance, it's only applicable to him. Any other man, I'd let drown in an instant - dogs come first. LOL.
Still not sure about an actual child though. Sadly, children come under animals for me. For the most part, I don't like kids. Again, there's lots of good reasons I choose not to have children, these are a few of them. I'm sure parents are probably glad, LOL.
I will say this......I agree with most people that I would sacrifice myself first and foremost to save my loved ones.
But this thread is more about who do you love more? I don't think a parent should love their child more than their spouse. I would love my spouse more because he is who I choose. The children I do not choose (their personality, not having them). They will grow up and leave me one day. Spouse wouldn't (or shouldn't in a perfect world). I may not even like my children, let's be real. I know parents who do not like who their children are, so that's a reality. Also, children can grow up to hate you, for whatever reason. A spouse will most likely always love you, or at least accept you. Children are fickle.
I'm sure many will say I won't know because I won't have kids. However, I do know to a point what I would do.
Well, you have no and don't plan to have children, so your decision is quite obvious, you place low emphasis on children in the equation. And that IS correct as well, children can grow up and hate you and many in fact do (though not majority).
However, there was an old saying in that probably applies even today to some extent, something like: until the age of 5, your mother takes care of you and you listen to your mother. From age 5 to 10, your father takes care of you and you listen to your father. From the age 10 to 15, you should serve your family and act like full family member. After the age of 15, your parents either got their best friend of their worst enemy. Take note that it stems from Medieval Europe, probably even older.
There were many variations of it, but the general conclusion is that children tend to be what environment (and their family, before anyone else) makes of them. Children are a huge responsibility.
I was reading that interesting thread posted by a guy some hours ago and it made me curious about it .
It was obvious that,the poster was generalizing a bit too much .
So,just for the curiosity " Who do you love more ,your husband or kids " and why ?
Not married...but even when I was, the love I have had for my son is pretty incomparable to anything else.
Do you have children? Because I assure you - my husband and I would BOTH save our son first.
Most parents I know would say the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
