Men who entered into fatherhood at around age 25 saw a 68% increase of depressive symptoms over their first five years of being dads—if they lived at the same home as their children.Translation: fathers who live at home with their children and provide for them have less sex and more responsibility than fathers who abandon them and their mothers for sex with other women.
The study, which was published in the journal Pediatrics, looked at 10,623 young men who were participating in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The study tracked the fathers for about 20 years, and kept score of their depression symptoms.
While fathers who didn’t share a home with their children didn’t experience the same high increase in depressive symptoms in early fatherhood, most of the fathers in the study did live with their children. Those men had lower depression symptoms before they became dads and experienced a spike in symptoms when their child was born and through the first few years.
One of the biggest and most common mistakes a married woman can make is to put her children ahead of her husband. This is not only bad for the husband, it is also bad for the children due to the harm it does to the marital relationship.
37 comments:
Now this is interesting. They have less sex, more responsibility, and presumably lower T levels.
Also, symptoms could be brought on by the realization they were used merely as sperm donors by women with baby rabies.
In saner, more traditional times, how involved were fathers in their
babies' care? Not very much, I would say. Pack baby and mother off to the nursery until baby was a little older.
Practically every dating profile by a mother carries some version of, "Be warned, my kids come first." I guess at least they're being honest.
Almost everyone seems to think kids are supposed to be more important than their parents, including to the other parent. I suspect that's partly because of small families. In the large families I know, there's far less "my precious prince/princess" and much more, "Keep up, kid, or the food might be gone by the time you get to the table." I joke about how they don't have to coddle their kids because they have plenty of spares.
The most important person in a married person's life should be his spouse. The kids are important because they're half that person, but they should come second. Too many marriages today invert that: the spouse is important because the kids came from him, but not that important in himself.
I'm sure every guy enters marriage hoping he will turn into a walking paycheck with no sex life once the kids come along.
So what you are saying is that women should put out for their husbands?
Outrageous!
With our first child, I had read the book "You Can Be the Wife of a Happy Husband," so I understood how important it was to make my husband's needs my top priority. However, I didn't yet have a clue what I was doing with the baby. We lived in a vibrant roach infested apartment complex where even the Pakistani neighbor came over and asked "why you baby cry so much?" I remember planning evenings "all about him" and it never failed, the baby would be impossible. With the second child, I had read "On Becoming Baby Wise" which was a God send! No problems at all which of course led to baby number three 18 months later.
So ladies having babies for the first time, I highly recommend both of these books.
This would not be the case if men had authority in their own households.
If we've surrender the freedoms and advantages of singlehood in exchange for a "mutually submissive" relationship with a wife and kids, it feels emasculating. Having actual authority over a household is a much more appealing.
Martel
Many women have said just that to me. Children first. It's backwards, relegating the husband to role of baby daddy and not husband. Once the kid(s) come along he's no more than an appendage to her, and for many disposable, like tonsils.
Is this new? Seems to me women have been putting their children first since time immemorial.
Children first seems like an odd policy. I mean, these women do know that children grow up and move out, right? And now they're stuck with a man who hates them because she put her children above his needs for 20+ years.
Is this new?
No. Doesn't make it not wrong. This is why Christians read their Bibles, for instruction of what is right. Instruction is a thing because that which is being instructed doesn't come naturally to the person seeking the instruction.
It's science! Because evolutionary psychology. You see, this study explains that men are supposed to breed and leave because happiness.
When we say one's spouse should come first, and the children second, the knee-jerk reaction is to think that means neglecting your children in order to pamper each other. That's not it, of course. And in cases of danger, I think it is natural to put children first, like a parent handing his kids to the fireman on the ladder before climbing out himself. But in day-to-day life, as long as everyone's fed and safe, your primary focus at home should be on your spouse's well-being and happiness.
I saw an old movie short, probably from the 1950s, that was about good manners for kids. One thing it talked about was treating Dad right: being quiet when he gets home from work and needs a little time to relax, possibly fetching his pipe for him, following his lead at the supper table (where he sits at the head, of course). I've heard older women talk about serving Dad first at the table and making sure he gets the best piece of meat.
I've also heard that, just a generation or two ago, the men went through the food line first at family gatherings. Now the kids go first. At least the men haven't started doing the dishes yet.
It also probably reflects the "equality" approach to raising the kids. Fathers are now expected to work their full time job, maintain the house, investments AND change diapers, get up every night for bottle feedings, help mommy redecorate the nursery 3x a year, leave work early to get JR from daycare because mommy only stayed home 3 weeks for maternity leave and its back to the HR dept. grind. If instead Mommy quits work stays home and handles the home/children, I bet that the depression in fathers would be much less. The first year in particular sucks, its all crying, shitting, pissing, dr visits and no sleep. Let the stay at home mommy and grandmas handle that era of child-rearing.
I think it is a matter of perspective, and performance.
If husband and wife were enthusiastically doing twice a days pretty much everyday and then they got pregnant; the wife will have built up a very strong marital bond with her husband. When the baby comes along she may only have the energy/willingness to have at it every other day. Her husband will see the work she is doing and the toll it is taking on her. As long as she has a history of sexual intimacy and keeps regular sex, even if it isn't as frequent, part of their relationship things will work out. Men understand being exhausted from working and not sleeping. We also understand that a quickie might be all there is time for.
On the other hand, if the wife has used her husbands wiener as a baby vending machine; if her only affection for him is related to his paycheck, if she can't be bothered to see to his needs, there is going to be a problem. Cutting off sex in a marriage is like cutting off oxygen. If you want to kill something, deprive it long enough, and you will.
American women use the term "my husband", when what they really mean to say is "my Niger".
Guys,
feel free to pass my free ebook around to the women. This is how to be a good wife.
http://www.wo-man-zon.com/Categories/Books/A0001/B0001.aspx
The putting the husband first debate seems to be a little bit of hair splitting as preserving and cultivating the marital relationship is in the best interests of the kids. Women get caught up in a false dichotomy of kids vs dad/husband. It's not in the kids best interests to be at the center of the parent's relationship to the detriment of everything else.
When we say one's spouse should come first, and the children second, the knee-jerk reaction is to think that means neglecting your children in order to pamper each other
You can't have walls without a foundation. The marital relationship is the foundation.
"My Niger" -- as in, the African river?
Fogey,
Spell check don't catch the mistake if the mistake is spelled correctly. My bad. The principle holds true despite the 7 years I spent in public skoos catching up with me.
Kids first is the basic dogma of matriarchy (anarchy). "Won't somebody think of the children!" It was common from time immemorial, until patriarchy came along and motivated men invented written language and "time immemorial" became "prehistory".
I see wives sometimes serving husbands a plate of food at barbecues or potlucks or serving all the men pieces of cake at parties.
As soon as children come the wife has suddenly in her grasp, a fail proof talisman for legally subduing and controlling the man. There has never been a time in history when fathering a child meant instant peonage and slavery but that is the legal climate we have now. With this new found responsibility might some (or most) wives use this new trump card to enact complete control of their husbands? His happiness becomes immaterial as the iron fist of the family courts are ever present, standing behind him, waiting to ensure complete and unswerving obedience.
If you want children for GOD's sake do NOT have them in America or any western country and if you must, have a 2nd passport and escape plan at the ready.
cailcorishev: I joke about how they don't have to coddle their kids because they have plenty of spares.
This is also one of the reasons why you see so many girls pushed into boys sports. The father has no son, so he is going to push his daughter to perform and be the son he never had/never will have. In so doing, he masculinizes her by forcing her into boys competitive sports; while at the same time ruining the sport for boys - who now must put up with a girl who really isn’t that good, and who ruins male cohesiveness and bonding.
The woman who wants her husband to remain interested in her must renew her sex obligations as soon as possible, and work to be a wife and not just a mother. The man must, many times, literally drag her out of the mommy role and cause her to be a wife and a mother.
I agree with Res Ipsa - As long as she has a history of sexual intimacy and keeps regular sex, even if it isn't as frequent, part of their relationship things will work out. That is also why it is necessary for the wife to resume sexual relations as soon as possible after childbirth to keep this baby fixation from predominating.
Note also, that the husband is head of the house, and the child is his responsibility also. Doesn’t mean he has to be into diaper changing, but he has his role to play and she is not the head of the house.
One source of security for children is the knowledge that their parents love each other (however icky they say it is).
Maintaining the marital relationship is important for the kids, so putting kids first means putting husband first.
I can speak from experience, for I dated Ms. Jekyll and married Mrs. Hyde. Before the marriage, my ex-wife was affectionate, warm, and loving. After the marriage, she transmogrified into a miserable harpy. The birth of our daughter didn't improve things, either. My ex-wife concentrated completely upon our child and became even more distant, cold, and frigid to me. The marriage, already near dead, didn't survive this stress. To say I hate my ex-wife is an understatement. Well, at least the divorce worked out pretty well for me, unlike many men: I have a beautiful daughter who now has a better relationship with her father; my financial health has markedly improved (NB: be sure to live in a state without alimony law and make sure never to marry a greedy, white-trash woman); and I'm witnessing the death throes of marriage 2.0 and feminism. Family and friends ask me when I plan to get back into the dating scene. Never, I say. I would rather be constipated for five days than spend five hours on a date with a pre-menoupausal, emotionally labile, saggy breasted woman. As a physician in his early forties, work is stressful enough without having to deal with that. Classical and romantic music, medicine, and Walter Scott are enough to satisfy my entertainment needs.
I see here in England a lot of the time, the women even drop the "mother" role. Oh sure they'll use the excuse that their kid is "their world" and takes up so much time and stress and blahblahblah. But every chance they get, they'll drop the kid off with someone else to take care of, while they go out getting drunk and fucking random guys. Partying all night thinking they're still in their 20s.
Because as a mother, she deserves some time off to relax!!11 (all the time), and everyone applauds her for that. It's the me, me, me, personal celebrity outlook that they have for themselves, tis sickening.
My newlywed daughter bought her husband a Rossi .38 revolver for Valentine's Day. At the range a few days ago I told him, "She's a keeper." He heartily agreed.
"American women use the term "my husband", when what they really mean to say is "my Niger". "
What woman are you willing to bet is gonna call him Lord and Master? After all the holy women of the bible did so(1 Peter 3:1-6). But you know. Authority of Man=abuse.
That definitely was the case in my marriage and that of my brother-in-law. I suspect it is quite common: once the kids come along the husband is just some stranger in the house who just happens to pay for everything. Which is why the Europeans (at least in some countries) have the venerated institution of having a mistress. Everyone accepts it as long as it is done discreetly. After all, it is too much to expect one woman to be both mother and lover. Unfortunately such a thing is frowned on in the US mainly by women. She (your wife) is unwilling or unable to give you what you need but she'll be damned if you think you're getting it anywhere else.
We had our first child when I was 26. We now have four (the oldest is 12) and the trend is certainly accurate. Most couples go through this but after I went to counseling and learned to extend grace to myself, things have changed. My wife saw my transformation and went to group counseling as well. Our sex life is almost as good as before kids (it can't be better due to the logistics of having kids in the home) and our relationship has never been better. She is much better at putting our marriage before the kids but it will always be a woman's struggle.
'Translation: fathers who live at home with their children and provide for them have less sex and more responsibility than fathers who abandon them and their mothers for sex with other women.'
Well, yeah, because in this SMP, sex goes to the sexy, and men who leave their baby mamas for other women, or just impregnate women and forget about them, tend to be sexier to women, on average, than the men who stick around and help take care of the kids and provide for them.
They do more of the things that women reward with sex, so they are paid more in the currency of the SMP.
BTW I'm not saying I endorse or agree with it; I'm just saying that's the reality that we're dealing with here.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA! While the article glosses over a lot if you look at the actualy *study* you learn a lot
First, while 68% of these guys experience increases in depressive *symptoms* only about 5% actually become *depressed* and then usually 'self correct' (i.e., get over it) within 5 years.
And the most common reported 'symptoms of depression' reported?
1) Feelings of fatigue and tiredness
2) Trouble concentrating or remaining focused.
3) excessive sleeping during the day
Guys, that's called 'missing sleep' which is part of having little humans around. I've got 5 sons at home; this happens and it doesn't mean I'm not getting any nor that my wife is ignoring me.It means they are up all hours.
And note how the articles switch back and forth between 'depressive symptoms' (which means nothing) and how 'depressed parents' are bad for kids (which refers to people with an actual medical diagnosis, a much different thing).
This article is just concern trolling at its best.
As a father of 3, the youngest now 11, I've joked for years how the first 5 years of having kids was like "dad did not exist"...from either the kid's or wife's perspective. I attributed this to:
1) The kid obtains sustenance from mom, therefore only pay attention to mom.
2) Mom is pre-occupied with kids + stuff and is learning to adjust.
Result: dad is "odd man out".
The funny thing has been how the roles have reversed. As the kids grow, dad becomes their center of attention and now mom is feeling left out. Through the process the frequency of intimacy waxes and wanes, but because of our focus on each other's needs and not the kid's, life overall is great!
Studies like this tend to focus on only one aspect of life and therefore miss out on the overall "balancing effect" God worked into much of family life.
You can give your doll a ball and dress it in a shirt sort outfit to make it resemble a b-ball player. The thoughts are perpetual. Be imaginative and utilization materials you jump at the chance to make the doll your remarkable. Give your doll an identity by making it life like. Baby Hazel Games
This is interesting. I wonder how much of the depression comes from the realization that they have no power in how to raise the child. The mother probably tends to be a hard-ass American broad and she probably helicopters over the child, and the Dad knows that if he puts up a protest it is off to divorce court.
Learn to Pick Up Attractive Women!
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.