Friday, March 01, 2013

Your Turn

Giuliana Rancic is in the news again and not because she suddenly decided she was going to eat. She says that she always puts her husband first and her baby second. So, what about you? Baby first or significant other first?

79 comments:

hag said...

Do you really have to choose?

Sugar said...

Nothing wrong with that! Happy parents, happy baby. Don't people say to greet your spouse first before anyone else? It doesn't mean she doesn't love that baby of hers!
I don't have any babies but I don't see anything wrong with putting your hubby first.

I'm totally BUMMED I missed B's hissy fit yesterday. I have to do something about this thing here I call work.

pegd said...

Hubby first, kids second, especially now that they're older.

VIPblonde said...

Speaking as someone who is not married and without kids, I feel like you have to put the baby first, at least until it gets to a certain age.

I heard some relationship advice once from a man who is on his second marriage (he got it right the second time around; been with second wife for 30 years). He said that in his first marriage, he and his wife each gave 50%. But that left 50% of their needs unmet. In his second marriage, he and his wife both give 100%, and all of their needs are met

The J.F. Drake Memorial LRC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mikey said...

The problem with my marriage was my husband put himself first, always.

Karen said...

No kids yet, but a happy marriage begets a happy family. How is it putting your kids first if you aren't getting along with their other parent? The times that I was unhappiest as a kid were when I feared my parents getting a divorce or when there was discord.

crila16 said...

I remember reading about a survey years ago...where a bunch of women and men were asked the same question.

The asked if a house was burning and you could only save one, would it be your husband or your children? You can't save both. Almost 100% of the women said they'd save their children and most of the men said they'd save their wives/S.O. The explanation the men gave for choosing their wives over their children...a majority said they would be devastated, but could still have more children with their wives.

CamColty said...

I think it's about balance. Obviously you need to put the baby first, at least for the first little while because that baby depends on you to stay alive ! You don't need to neglect your significant other in the process. Parenting is a team effort, anyway. But obviously I'm speaking as someone who doesn't have nannies on staff full time.

ulalume said...

I'm not even sure what she means but It was a little hard to have a conversation with my husband with our daughter crying in the background. How do you make a hungry baby wait just to finish the rest of a story?

Nothanksdarlin said...

Without knowing the context it's hard to say. Are we talking about if only 1 person gets to eat its the husband and not the baby? Ha ha or if the husband wants a blow job but really she should be changing the babies poopy diaper? If do than boo to her. But if she means she gets a sitter twice a week so she can go have time with her husband Good for her. I guess it depends on how old her kids are also. Minor one and two so that kind of changes things

rosie riveter said...

Kids first, always IMHO
If people took better care of their children in our society( love nurturing being connected) then our society wouldnt be in the shithole it is.
Look at all these postings on CDAN: cheating cheating cheating...so relationships come and go...kids are yours FOREVER.
Shameful toothy celebutards

shag said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shag said...

I meant to say I can so relate;-)

Jane said...

I put my husband first but if someone was pointing a gun at my family, I would save my children.

JSierra said...

I have neither so I can't really speak/judge her. But I feel like when the child is an infant it should be hubby first, how can you provide a good environment for your child if you live in an unhappy house? Especially when it goes from being just the two of you to now a baby that demands so much time and attention (not a bad thing!).

And just because you want to put your significant other first does not mean the baby is totally neglected either, obviously in a loving home everyone involved is receiving the love and attention they need and deserve.

scratchy kitty said...

:-(

Its a problem I wish I had. I dont have either a husband or kids and am now at the age where both are impossible to get. Giuliana is lying though--its herself she puts first just like J Ho and the kardasssions and all the other celeb moms. None of them ever raise their kids anyway--they have nannies for that.

adsum said...

Create a strong family first. The parents must have a solid connection and good communication. Then they will be able to raise their children together -- and hopefully produce well-adjusted adults with decent values.

The stories I've seen seem to imply there is something wrong with setting those kinds of priorities. Piffle! The parents are the foundation of the family unit. That doesn't mean you don't love your kids, or care for them, or nurture them. Look around the Hollywood/celebrity types. Perhaps if the adults didn't let the kids run the show (looking at the Lohans for starters) the family wouldn't be such a mess.

ljsmed said...

I have to say the child first, granted I have a toddler so there is no real choice. I think my husband would probably say the same thing. As he gets older though that may change. Happy child=happy parents (in my house).

Nothanksdarlin said...

Auto correct is an asshole. I mean mine are 1 and 2, not minor

Robin the Mad Photographer said...

I also think it's a matter of balance--young children, esp. babies & toddlers, are totally dependent on their parents and require a lot of time and attention, but you do still both have to make time for each other and your marriage, because if you two are miserable, you'll end up making the kid(s) miserable as well. Kids need more hands-on physical care, whereas adults can presumably take care of themselves in that regard, but need to have their emotional & sexual needs fulfilled.

I'm guessing that part of the reason for the big split between men and women in the example given above is that women think in terms of their kids being helpless compared to their spouse, and needing Mom to save them, whereas the SO is an adult who might be able to make his/her own way out. I don't see it as a question of loving one more or less than the other, but of loving them in different ways, and distributing your available resources (time, money, hands-on attention, etc.) differently. In the burning house example, no matter what, you're going to lose someone and be totally devastated, so it's not a good scenario either way. (It just occurred to me that perhaps marriage or its equivalent and childrearing might qualify as the ultimate in socialism in a weird way--you know, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Yes, I'm weird to think of it that way, but what the hell... ;-)

LottaColada said...

Full Giuliana quote:

"We’re husband and wife, but we’re also best friends, and it’s funny because a lot of people, when they have kids, they put the baby first, and the marriage second, that works for some people. For us, I find, we put our marriage first and our child second, because the best thing we can do for him is have a strong marriage.”

MISCH said...

@mikey
were we married to the same selfish shit ?

Jolene Jolene said...

This is kind of a ridiculous question. Caring for your spouse and caring for your baby are not mutually exclusive.

And the example Giuliana gave wasn't as if she ignores the baby to give her marriage attention. This is what she said:

"We're husband and wife, but we're also best friends, and it's funny because a lot of people, when they have kids, they put the baby first, and the marriage second," says the 37-year-old breast-cancer survivor. "That works for some people. For us, I find, we put our marriage first and our child second, because the best thing we can do for him is have a strong marriage. Like Oscar morning, Duke wakes up, like, twice during the night because he's so hungry and wants to eat every 4 hours. So Bill, like, no question was like 'I got it. Tonight you get a good night's sleep.' And when Bill has shoots the next day or meetings the next day, I do it…. It's kind of amazing…."

Lucas said...

@VIPBlonde - that is the same advice my gf's mom gave us. She didn't nail it until hubs #4 though, but they are going on 25 years now.

DAMD Tech said...

well, that's because she is a vain, vapid, insecure idiot. Husbands should be fairly self-sufficient and once the both of you make the decision to have a raise a child (please note here, Giuliana, I say child and not 'status symbol', 'accessory' or 'ratings booster') then you both should be committed to putting this dependent and helpless being first.

LottaColada said...

That being said, I get what she's saying. I'd like to think when me and the husband start a family we'll have a strong foundation for our kids. I know people who want to give every waking moment to their child while the spouse is an after thought. I'm taking those instances as an example of what NOT to do when the time comes.

hag said...

100% reasonable

seaward said...

Baby first! First of all, because they can't take care of themselves, obviously. Secondly, because you can explain to your husband why the baby gets more attention, and he can comprehend it. Baby's not old enough to understand "I am not the center of the universe" yet.
But that can (and probably should) change as the baby grows up and becomes more independent.

PuggleWug said...

My husband and I love each other to pieces, and still manage to eat normally. This is a bogus excuse for her being so unhealthy. She was scary skinny long before the baby.

mikey said...

MISCH, ha, but I'm afraid there's more than one out there.

Jessi said...

Huh, I think some of you may be taking her statement out of context. I am pretty confident she is not neglecting the child.

I think some people forget when they have children that you need to have that "special" time with your significant other as well and I don't mean 5 minutes of sex. Always putting the child before your significant other is just asking for trouble in my humble opinion. You need to make time for all and sometimes its baby first and sometimes its hubby first.

Taracu said...

I'm with nothanksdarlin. Depends on context! I would say kids first, but nourishing a marriage is important too. If it was food/milk/presents etc- kids! Burning building- kids!

jax said...

she was talking in general form, not a newborn baby FFS.

I kinda agree with her, so many people I know neglected their partner after starting a family and most are divorced. I know women cry foul when it's suggested, but it's true, you don't give attention he will get it somewhere else. And I'm not just talking about sex. You have to stay connected, it's not about looking hot 24/7 or greeting him with a daily beej at the door.

auntliddy said...

Yes, this line of questioning always annoys me. Why do u have to choose? Of course hubby and u first, u r the foundation, but its whoever needs the love and attention at the time. And if the adults needs have to be thwarted, so be it! Its called being a grownup.

Pogue Mahone said...

I always put my kids first.
My husband always puts himself first.
I always come last.

Lola153 said...

Husbands come and go. Children are forever.

Lola

AndrewBW said...

All other things being equal, spouse first, child second. Of course things are rarely equal.

__-__=__ said...

Kids are only with you for a short time. Unless you're raising dysfunctional leeches who can't get off the tit. Putting kids first sets them up for failure once they leave the nest. Some are quite surprised at work when they realize their little piss-ant whines don't effect anything. Just haven't seen much success with kids first. Entitlement, parasitic lifestyle is not pretty.

Maja With a J said...

I usually put myself first.
This is why I don't have children. *L*

AuntJess said...

I always put the cat first.

Lea said...

If my husband were the sort of man who expected to be put before his own children, I wouldn't have married him. Selfish people make crappy parents.

J said...

I have a son about the same age as G's. We both put him first, he's an infant, he can't speak, he can't tell us whats wrong, we're his everything. Our foundation is strong enough to do so. You can put your baby first and still not neglect each. G and her husband went off for some alone time without the baby, while I can understand that works for some people, we'd rather spend any free time we have off work together as a family, a baby grows up so fast, its so fleeting, you need to cherish your moments.

curlyhairslacker said...

I am child-free but I agree with her. Marriage, then kids-gotta keep the communication open and agree on how you are going to raise the child.

Xander Dyle said...

Equation said: "Kids are only with you for a short time. Unless you're raising dysfunctional leeches who can't get off the tit. Putting kids first sets them up for failure once they leave the nest".

jax said: "so many people I know neglected their partner after starting a family and most are divorced. I know women cry foul when it's suggested, but it's true, you don't give attention he will get it somewhere else. And I'm not just talking about sex. You have to stay connected"

Jessi said: "I think some people forget when they have children that you need to have that "special" time with your significant other as well and I don't mean 5 minutes of sex. Always putting the child before your significant other is just asking for trouble in my humble opinion".

Lotta said: "I'd like to think when me and the husband start a family we'll have a strong foundation for our kids. I know people who want to give every waking moment to their child while the spouse is an after thought. I'm taking those instances as an example of what NOT to do when the time comes".

adsum said: "Create a strong family first. The parents must have a solid connection and good communication. Then they will be able to raise their children together -- and hopefully produce well-adjusted adults with decent values. The stories I've seen seem to imply there is something wrong with setting those kinds of priorities. Piffle! The parents are the foundation of the family unit. That doesn't mean you don't love your kids, or care for them, or nurture them".

I say ALL OF THIS/\ /\ /\ /\ /\!
My wife and i discussed this lots before we even got married. We saw so many relationships (my own parent's for example) put all energy and focus on the kids. Guess what? Eighteen years later when the kids leave the nest - there is no more marriage left. It will disappear in that time if the kids are the main focus.
Doesn't make fr very happy adult children or family as a whole when your parents get divorced when you are in college "because there is nothing left".

My wife and I are the cake. Our child and any future children we may be blessed to have are bonus icing on our cake. Our job is to love them, prepare them for the world, and hopefully raise positive human beings. then let then go out into the world. We will then still have our cake - and can run our cake around the world traveling and taking cruises, and having a good ol' time!

We will send our well adjusted kids postcards from the road! ;-)


Vera L- said...

what J said. It's a baby. Baby first. You and husband are adults and can care for yourselves/delay gratification.

Lelaina Pierce said...

I agree with jax.

I'm seeing a lot of the same thing with my friends and my husband and I have already speculated who may or may not make it. It's sad, really.

Maria said...

ITA with Jolene and auntliddy.
IT's not mutually exclusive. It's like a seesaw, sometimes the kiddo is up and needs the attention, sometimes it's the relationship. As long as everyone is along for the ride it can work for everybody.

Livia said...

I see this as less about who is getting attention on a minute-by-minute basis (of course a baby has needs that must be met) and more about how you structure your family in general.

My relationship with my husband is the foundation our family is built on, and our family is only as strong as that foundation. We love our daughter to bits, but she is *one part* of our family, not the end-all-be-all of it. Hubby and I are full-fledged people with our own needs and wants, and while we obviously take great care of our daughter and see to all her needs, she doesn't get to completely subsume everything about us. Yes, that means some things get sacrificed for her (sleeping in, going out frequently) but it doesn't mean she gets to run *everything*

Happy, fulfilled parents with a great, loving relationship provide a rock solid foundation for a kid to grow on, and models what healthy, happy people in a good relationship looks like.

And I agree with what other posters have said - giving attention to a child to the exclusion of all else, including your own needs and happiness - does no favors for the kid. Children also need to learn delayed gratification (NOT talking about basic needs here, talking about wants) and to learn they are *part* of a group and the greater society, and what they can do to be good members, not just what everyone around them can do to make it all about them. Otherwise, it is one hell of a rude awakening when they go out into the real world.

It seems obvious (at least to me) but I frequently see couples who drop all interests and hobbies once they have kids and make every last single thing about the kid. THey don't go out as a couple, they don't carve out time for themselves, they don't even have adult conversations about things besides the kids, they let the kids run everything. It isn't turning out happily for anyone involved, kids or parents.

Redd said...

it's crap- she comes first, above anyone, she is a total narcissist.

Alice Tate said...

There isn't one magic formula that works for every family. For me it has been, kids, then husband, but as the kids are getting a little older we are able to re-focus on our relationship. And once I started making more effort to get MY needs met, everyone has been happier.

All about Eve said...

@Xander, completely agree! Next weekend me and my hubby are going to Atlantic City overnight, does that mean we are neglecting our two kids? No! They will stay with their aunt who loves them and we will get time together to be a couple. We need to keep our connection strong not only for our sake but for the kids too. I want them to grow up in a happy, loving home and have an example of what a happy marriage is.

feraltart said...

My husband & I couldn't have children, but from what I have observed people do need to put their relationship first. That doesn't mean children are neglected, just that children will grow up & leave & if the primary relationship isn't nurtured there are two miserable, disconnected people sharing a house instead of sharing a life. They then go out & take their misery out on the world.

Silly Girl said...

In my first marriage I put my child first. That was an excuse to not deal with my husband. Honestly, when our dog died, I knew it was OK for me to leave. My son is fine, he's doing great. I am now remarried and I put my new husband 'first'. That came out wrong. I am making my marriage a priority. Partly because I love him to bits, but partly because I want my son to see what a healthy marriage looks like. WE are the parents, the partners, the ones to are together forever. The children are the children. They have a sitter and we go out. They go to bed and we stay up and watch TV and have popcorn. THEY do NOT call the shots in our family. We make decisions as a team and present ourselves as such. We take care of each other, and our kid, too. He sees how we treat each other, and it's all good. He's learning how to be a good husband, even at his young age. It's a beautiful thing, really.

ulalume said...

@Jolene Jolene Thanks for putting up the whole quote it makes more sense now. But what I really think she meant was she puts herself first over the baby. It's great her husband helps out & takes care of feedings when she has the Oscars to go to, but she basically said she puts her needs, like getting sleep, over getting up with the baby every single night.

lyz said...

I don't think she meant that she'd save her husband over her kid in a house fire. She meant that when the parents are happy and have a healthy relationship, the kid will reap the rewards and be happy and healthy. The best thing you can do for your kid is provide them a happy home. Good for her.

Unknown said...

Wasn't Bill Rancic an out gay man before he went on the apprentice?

Silly Girl said...

@Unknown, in a weird way, that would be awesome!

just curious said...

"She says that she always puts her husband first and her baby second. "


Wished more women were like her.I can understand people's loyalty to their animals.A dog will run into a burning building to save its' master.A woman will let her husband die Friday,bury him Sunday and start dating Monday becoz after all she needs to move on with her life...with that insurance check.

NaughtyNurse said...

Giuliana is just creating a sound byte. Let's face it, all of us who are parents and married/in a relationship know that you should do whatever works best that day. You can't go through your life following some "strategy." Sometimes your kids MUST come first. Sometimes your spouse MUST come first. And SOMETIMES you MUST put YOURSELF first. We all do the best we can and hope for the best.

PugsterMom said...

My daughter first. She's 18. My new husband knew that her well-being and sports activities that involve weekend travel (college and national level) would be my priority and accepted that before our wedding.

Della said...

Husband 1st. Kids2nd. If the bond you have with your spouse is not strong enough the pressure of kids will end your marriage. I know more people who had dated for years and were married for years before having a baby and by the time the kid turned 2 they were divorced. That first 2 years with your 1st born is hard.

witwritergirl said...

Spouse first, children next. The children grow up and leave the nest. If you've not developed a life without them you've got nothing left when they're gone. Big plus is children see a couple devoted to each other and (hopefully) look for the same type of relationship one day.

LisaBelle said...

My husband and I *both* put the little guy first. But we still find little ways to let each other know how much we like each other and even miss each other.

We were together for 7 years before we got married and married for 5 years before we decided to have a baby. I think we both realize that 18 years will go by in a flash and we'd better enjoy the time with our boy as much as we can. We'll still have the rest of our lives with each other.

Renoblondee said...

What Jessi, Xander, Jax, and a lot of you said! Marriage first. Your kids grow up and leave to start their own families. Your spouse is with you forever (hopefully).

MadLyb said...

Stupid misogyny. Husbands are ADULTS. You should put your kids first. Jeebus.

Henriette said...

I put my husband first because without him there would be no babies. My sons are not neglected in any way. We are teaching them how to have a good relationship with a partner.

I agree with Jax and others about what happens to marriages when kids come first---end of marriage.

I think a lot of people use their kids to ignore the problems in their marriages.

jimmyjam said...

Married for 15 years and the kids came first when they were little. Husband is a grown up for god's sake. We discussed all of this well before we even got married. Now that they're older we have more time to do adult things w/o kids. Your children only want to be with you for such a short time. If you're with the right guy you'll agree on this and put kids first while they're young. If your husband is jealous of the time you spend with HIS children, he's an asshole.

audrey said...

Why can't my SO save his own ass in the burning house? I hate the idea that a woman has to choose one over the other when one is perfectly capable of getting his fat ass up out of a chair leaving the beer and game on the TV behind to save himself. And I would feel that way if my child was over a certain age and capable of doing the same thing. Babies take a lot of time and attention from everyone in the family especially in the first few months when everything is new and confusing. I would always choose sleep over a date night. This all may explain why I am a single parent.

just curious said...

Should men apply that logic to women as well? Any woman can pop a baby out for a man.Hell,some women give you kids you don't even want!!! I think society consider men expendable (women and children first,captain goes down with the ship).

fancyscreenname said...

Children first. The dynamic of a relationship changes when a tiny HUMAN BEING enters the picture. Things cannot be exactly the same, IMO. Time and energy MUST be split between all parties. The lions share of it goes to the little one who cannot fend for themselves. A healthy relationship will withstand the shift in emotion and energy. Mature adults will do what it takes to nurture the relationship AND the child simultaneously. Guilianas child is 5 months old. A bit selfish, IMO, to b speaking about the relationship in contrast to the needs of such a young baby.

:^(

Just my opinion though. But I am speaking as a woman of limited resources. She is not. Her reality is much different than mine.

alice said...

God, Family, Career..husband/wife always should come first.

Susan said...

This question thoroughly annoys me. That is all.

fancyscreenname said...

It is a loaded question. Too broad. Too black or white. Something like this has to b broken up into mini scenarios in order for a REAL discussion to occur.

Sherry said...

I have seen marriages die after the children became more self sufficient because the parents forgot to take time on their relationship while the kids were growing up. It varies from couple to couple obviously but remember what created those kids in the first place. Your love for one another. Life is a balance but couples (parents) need couple time away from children and there is nothing badly selfish about that.

We are childless by choice, the Opster and me.

Krissie said...

What an incredibly weird thing for Giuliana Ranic, of all people, to say. She never shut up for, like, two years about how all she wanted in life was a baby. If you read any of her interviews from before her son was born it is a constant stream of "I want a baby, I want a baby, I want a baby, I WANT A BABY!!!" And now thats he actually has a baby, she says she puts her husband first. Huh? Maybe she is feeling let-down by motherhood.

Jenn said...

A baby comes first, always, but that doesn't mean you can't go away for a weekend once in a while. She could've worded that better IMO, especially after all the shit she went through to get that kid. Maybe she's over compensating for some sort of neglect..hmm. OT, she has a flat head, seriously I noticed it today on Fashion Police(don't judge, I like watching people meaner than me) and her forehead is like, an inch high. Weird.

Anna Nonymous said...

why can't both be first? and yourself second? a baby has needs that they can't take care of themselves, and a relationship needs to be healthy for life to be happy, but why do you need to choose?

Agent**It said...

Poorly worded my turn. Her actual statement, noted within the comments, was quite reasonable.