Three's A Crowd
That's when kids make for marital misery, contrary to the traditional thinking that they strengthen a marriage. Stephanie Coontz, of the Council for Contemporary Families, writes in The New York Times of research by UC Berkeley researchers Philip and Carolyn Cowan, that parses the details:
The Cowans found that the average drop in marital satisfaction was almost entirely accounted for by the couples who slid into being parents, disagreed over it or were ambivalent about it. Couples who planned or equally welcomed the conception were likely to maintain or even increase their marital satisfaction after the child was born.Marital quality also tends to decline when parents backslide into more traditional gender roles. Once a child arrives, lack of paid parental leave often leads the wife to quit her job and the husband to work more. This produces discontent on both sides. The wife resents her husband's lack of involvement in child care and housework. The husband resents his wife's ingratitude for the long hours he works to support the family.
When the Cowans designed programs to help couples resolve these differences, they had fewer conflicts and higher marital quality. And the children did better socially and academically because their parents were happier.
But keeping a marriage vibrant is a never-ending job. Deciding together to have a child and sharing in child-rearing do not immunize a marriage. Indeed, collaborative couples can face other problems. They often embark on such an intense style of parenting that they end up paying less attention to each other.
Parents today spend much more time with their children than they did 40 years ago. The sociologists Suzanne Bianchi, John Robinson and Melissa Milkie report that married mothers in 2000 spent 20 percent more time with their children than in 1965. Married fathers spent more than twice as much time.
A study by John Sandberg and Sandra Hofferth at the University of Michigan showed that by 1997 children in two-parent families were getting six more hours a week with Mom and four more hours with Dad than in 1981. And these increases occurred even as more mothers entered the labor force.
Couples found some of these extra hours by cutting back on time spent in activities where children were not present -- when they were alone as a couple, visiting with friends and kin, or involved in clubs. But in the long run, shortchanging such adult-oriented activities for the sake of the children is not good for a marriage. Indeed, the researcher Ellen Galinsky has found that most children don't want to spend as much time with their parents as parents assume; they just want their parents to be more relaxed when they are together.
I wrote about over-parenting (which is also a form of underparenting) here:
You're supposed to be your kids' mom, not their full-time birthday clown. This means meeting their needs, as opposed to falling prey to their ransom demands; i.e., "Send in the chopper and the cupcakes or I'll scream my lungs out until spring!" If you're keeling over from reading "Hand, Hand, Fingers, Thumb" 40 times, it's because you didn't say no 39 times. "No" is also the correct response when besieged with requests for a chunky peanut butter sandwich with all the chunkies removed. But, children can be such finicky eaters! Correction: American children can be such finicky eaters, because their parents tend to confuse parenting with working room service at a five-star hotel. In France, on the other hand, the kids' meal is whatever the parents are eating; brains, livers, kidneys and all. And while the kids can pick out bits they don't like, their choice is clear: eat or starve.Saying no to your kids will not turn them into meth-smoking, liquor store-robbing carjackers. Actually, throwing up a few boundaries might even serve to prevent this -- and less dire but extremely annoying outcomes (just what society needs, another 35-year-old snot who was denied nothing during childhood). Kids need to feel loved and secure -- and that doesn't take hours of mommy-and-me Lego. In fact, psychologist Judith Rich Harris writes that "anthropological data suggest...there may be something a little unnatural about adults playing with children." Anthropologist David F. Lancy notes that, beyond Western society, one "rarely" sees it. Regarding this apparent lack of a parental instinct for parent-child play, Harris writes, "This implies that children do not require play with an adult in order to develop normally."
I know, I know, that's not what The Cult Of The Child tells you -- when its proponents aren't too busy checking Amazon to see whether anybody's published "The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective Children." The reality is, your family is better served by a stay-at-home mother than a stay-at-home martyr. Take the advice of the late British pediatrician Donald Winnicott, and avoid trying to be the perfect mother -- micromanaging your little darlings' every move ("Harvard or bust!") -- and just be a "good enough mother." Your kids can entertain themselves -- and will, if you suggest they do. Likewise, forget going for the Good Housekeeping Seal and just resolve to keep the health department from sealing up your house. Your kitchen counters don't need to be operating-room sterile. Just see to it that nothing walks across your lasagna.
One reason that only Western parents play with their kids is that only Western parents have such small families and live in isolation.
When there is an infant, it gets all of the attention .. and when there are several siblings (or for that matter kids of different families living in close proximity) they just play with each other
Aba at February 5, 2009 6:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/02/05/threes_a_crowd.html#comment-1625088">comment from AbaAccording to the work of Boston College child behavior expert Peter Gray, play between children, but especially between children of mixed ages is very important for child development. At NEEPS (the NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society Conference) in New Hampshire last year, he talked about how a 9-year-old playing with a 4-year-old has to throw the ball gently, and how the 9-year-old has the ability to catch the 4-year-old's wild throws. It teaches both something to play together.
I see this in very few families, serious engagement between children of different ages. My friend who's a cop has set an incredible example of this. Her older sons, 16 and 18ish, take care of (like by putting to bed)/play with the 4- and 7-year-old, and just see it as part of being in their family, not some horrible duty, because they were raised to think of it that way.
Amy Alkon
at February 5, 2009 7:02 AM
In tribal cultures, it was the grandparents that took care of the kids. The parents were both out working in the fields or doing other adult activities.
The spoiled brats I've got to deal with (in their 20s & 30s), with their overblown sense of entitlement, make me want to scream!
Chrissy at February 5, 2009 8:02 AM
I try not to play with my kids. The 4 year olds play well with the 2 year old, for certain amounts of time. My god, how do people get anything done if all they do is build block towers all day?
momof3 at February 5, 2009 8:04 AM
"but especially between children of mixed ages is very important for child development. "
I remember hating having to play with older kids. They always thought they were so cool and weren't very nice.
I, in turn, behaved like a spoiled jack ass to my younger sister at times. I am not proud of this. I was, however, excellent with younger kids who I didn't know.
Parents do need to monitor play b/w kids that are more than, say, two years apart. Older kids will try to shock younger kids. I.E: tell a 3 year old there is no Santa, then laugh about it. Or reveal their body parts. Even the generally nice, good kids can turn into bullies (b/c they can...). Not to make parents all paranoid, just pay attention if your kid walks away from something and is acting funny.
Gretchen at February 5, 2009 10:45 AM
Have to second Aba and Chrissy, it is all about the lack of extended family.
I've got a 1 year old, I'm not leaving him alone with the neighbor's high school kid so the only real option for alone time with the wife is a $14 and hour professional nanny. It's just not that much fun when the timeclock is ticking.
smurfy at February 5, 2009 10:50 AM
>> Parents do need to monitor play b/w kids that are more than, say, two years apart.
So true Gretchen. This can result:
http://www.glumbert.com/media/gayspank
Eric at February 5, 2009 12:43 PM
Smurfy,
I do over-nights for people which usually entails a 24 hour period, one afternoon to the next. I charge $125 for two kids, but in the wealthier suburbs of Boston (Weston, Wellesley) sitters are paid up to $300. That's pricey, I know, but it's definitely relative to where you are.
You might look into this fixed-pricing scheme, which are more common for over-nights. $125 isn't cheap but if you only do it once or twice a year you can enjoy it more. Book a hotel room with a jacuzzi, window shop and go for a cheapo picnic in a nice park. Definitely worth forgoing your daily latte for.
Also, try checking out sittercity dot com. You might find a perfectly responsible 15 year old from your town, with references from parents, who only charges $8/hour.
Gretchen at February 5, 2009 2:27 PM
Thanks for the link Gretchen. I know a woman who does home daycare. She was complaining that with the economy and unemployment she is facing increased competition from unlicensed day care providers. I'm like, where do they advertise?
But really i don't care so much about the price, well worth it to keep my in laws 2,000 miles away.
"$125 isn't cheap but if you only do it once or twice a year" sorry, but if you do it once or twice a year, your marriage is as good as dead anyway.
smurfy at February 5, 2009 3:37 PM
Leave a comment