DH loves me more than DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the mom and I agree with your DH. So does the brilliant writer Ayelet Waldman.

Yes, she points out the difference is that she loves her kids (and she has a bunch, like 4?), but she is IN love with her spouse. I think this is healthy and best for a marriage and the kids.

No, she pointed out that she could more easily cope with the death of one of her children than that of her husband. I can't relate to that at all, and I'm a very, very empathic person. No one gets over the loss of a child.

Saying it like that minimizes how horrible it is to lose a spouse. I’m a woman and honestly I don’t know. Losing my husband would not feel as wrenching and like losing a limb. But it would leave me so alone in a way losing a child would not. I had typed out, “of course you’re right losing my child would be worse than losing my husband” and yet as I typed it I thought about losing him and wasn’t sure.

I again do not know what is gained by parsing out these differences though. Losing people is agonizing. I watched my mother lose a spouse and then a child, and it was not really that different. And it certainly didn’t seem helpful to try to figure out which was more agonizing. It didn’t feel good for me to think about what was more agonizing. I wonder if people like you have really experienced loss, to try to quantify it in some way that is “right” or “wrong” or “more” or “less” just seems divorced from the actual experience of this type of loss.

It will give you no comfort, if your spouse dies, to think that at least it wasn’t your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the mom and I agree with your DH. So does the brilliant writer Ayelet Waldman.

Yes, she points out the difference is that she loves her kids (and she has a bunch, like 4?), but she is IN love with her spouse. I think this is healthy and best for a marriage and the kids.

No, she pointed out that she could more easily cope with the death of one of her children than that of her husband. I can't relate to that at all, and I'm a very, very empathic person. No one gets over the loss of a child.

Saying it like that minimizes how horrible it is to lose a spouse. I’m a woman and honestly I don’t know. Losing my husband would not feel as wrenching and like losing a limb. But it would leave me so alone in a way losing a child would not. I had typed out, “of course you’re right losing my child would be worse than losing my husband” and yet as I typed it I thought about losing him and wasn’t sure.

I again do not know what is gained by parsing out these differences though. Losing people is agonizing. I watched my mother lose a spouse and then a child, and it was not really that different. And it certainly didn’t seem helpful to try to figure out which was more agonizing. It didn’t feel good for me to think about what was more agonizing. I wonder if people like you have really experienced loss, to try to quantify it in some way that is “right” or “wrong” or “more” or “less” just seems divorced from the actual experience of this type of loss.

It will give you no comfort, if your spouse dies, to think that at least it wasn’t your child.

There's actually research on grief and loss, macabre as it is to some. And it's the death of a child that people never, never get over. Some people are destroyed by the death of a spouse or parent, yes, but more people are able to (eventually) recover and move on in a way that's not possible when you lose a child.

The only reason I pointed it out vis a vis Ayelet Waldman is that people think she was wrongly attacked for saying she loved her spouse more than her kids, when it was more the death thing that most people found bizarre. I mean, look at the PP who was casually said she'd have another kid if one died ("we can always have more kids!" Really? Always?). That's... not how most people think about losing their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the mom and I agree with your DH. So does the brilliant writer Ayelet Waldman.

Yes, she points out the difference is that she loves her kids (and she has a bunch, like 4?), but she is IN love with her spouse. I think this is healthy and best for a marriage and the kids.

No, she pointed out that she could more easily cope with the death of one of her children than that of her husband. I can't relate to that at all, and I'm a very, very empathic person. No one gets over the loss of a child.

Saying it like that minimizes how horrible it is to lose a spouse. I’m a woman and honestly I don’t know. Losing my husband would not feel as wrenching and like losing a limb. But it would leave me so alone in a way losing a child would not. I had typed out, “of course you’re right losing my child would be worse than losing my husband” and yet as I typed it I thought about losing him and wasn’t sure.

I again do not know what is gained by parsing out these differences though. Losing people is agonizing. I watched my mother lose a spouse and then a child, and it was not really that different. And it certainly didn’t seem helpful to try to figure out which was more agonizing. It didn’t feel good for me to think about what was more agonizing. I wonder if people like you have really experienced loss, to try to quantify it in some way that is “right” or “wrong” or “more” or “less” just seems divorced from the actual experience of this type of loss.

It will give you no comfort, if your spouse dies, to think that at least it wasn’t your child.

There's actually research on grief and loss, macabre as it is to some. And it's the death of a child that people never, never get over. Some people are destroyed by the death of a spouse or parent, yes, but more people are able to (eventually) recover and move on in a way that's not possible when you lose a child.

The only reason I pointed it out vis a vis Ayelet Waldman is that people think she was wrongly attacked for saying she loved her spouse more than her kids, when it was more the death thing that most people found bizarre. I mean, look at the PP who was casually said she'd have another kid if one died ("we can always have more kids!" Really? Always?). That's... not how most people think about losing their kids.

I feel like this research is important in the context of say, therapists figuring out how to work with people who have lost children. And yes, like...losing a child is like losing a limb. It will change you foundationally. But I am not sure, 'ability to recover' is the only measure of intensity and worth. Is a teenage love 'less' love than a 30 year marriage? In some ways yes, but in many ways no. It is just different. And what do you gain by ranking them? They are all experiences that we accumulate with love and relationships and loss.

I think that anyone who thinks they could replace a child who died by having another is either insane or a psychopath, but I also know people who have lost babies and who HAVE gone on to have more children and restart their lives. Of course not replacing the child that they lost, but their life goes on. I would also think anyone who thinks they can replace a dead spouse by simply remarrying sounds pretty insane and emotionless.

More than anything though, I genuinely don't understand why it matters. If you aren't in the small subset of people who think losing a husband or child is something that can be swept into the history of your life. And you aren't in the small subset of people who have to help a parent through the loss of a child (which is something you generally go through WITH your spouse). Then genuinely, why does it matter how someone privately views the people they love the most in the darkest hypothetical depths of their heart? Why would it be upsetting to know your husband can't imagine losing you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the mom and I agree with your DH. So does the brilliant writer Ayelet Waldman.

Yes, she points out the difference is that she loves her kids (and she has a bunch, like 4?), but she is IN love with her spouse. I think this is healthy and best for a marriage and the kids.

No, she pointed out that she could more easily cope with the death of one of her children than that of her husband. I can't relate to that at all, and I'm a very, very empathic person. No one gets over the loss of a child.

Saying it like that minimizes how horrible it is to lose a spouse. I’m a woman and honestly I don’t know. Losing my husband would not feel as wrenching and like losing a limb. But it would leave me so alone in a way losing a child would not. I had typed out, “of course you’re right losing my child would be worse than losing my husband” and yet as I typed it I thought about losing him and wasn’t sure.

I again do not know what is gained by parsing out these differences though. Losing people is agonizing. I watched my mother lose a spouse and then a child, and it was not really that different. And it certainly didn’t seem helpful to try to figure out which was more agonizing. It didn’t feel good for me to think about what was more agonizing. I wonder if people like you have really experienced loss, to try to quantify it in some way that is “right” or “wrong” or “more” or “less” just seems divorced from the actual experience of this type of loss.

It will give you no comfort, if your spouse dies, to think that at least it wasn’t your child.

There's actually research on grief and loss, macabre as it is to some. And it's the death of a child that people never, never get over. Some people are destroyed by the death of a spouse or parent, yes, but more people are able to (eventually) recover and move on in a way that's not possible when you lose a child.

The only reason I pointed it out vis a vis Ayelet Waldman is that people think she was wrongly attacked for saying she loved her spouse more than her kids, when it was more the death thing that most people found bizarre. I mean, look at the PP who was casually said she'd have another kid if one died ("we can always have more kids!" Really? Always?). That's... not how most people think about losing their kids.

I feel like this research is important in the context of say, therapists figuring out how to work with people who have lost children. And yes, like...losing a child is like losing a limb. It will change you foundationally. But I am not sure, 'ability to recover' is the only measure of intensity and worth. Is a teenage love 'less' love than a 30 year marriage? In some ways yes, but in many ways no. It is just different. And what do you gain by ranking them? They are all experiences that we accumulate with love and relationships and loss.

I think that anyone who thinks they could replace a child who died by having another is either insane or a psychopath, but I also know people who have lost babies and who HAVE gone on to have more children and restart their lives. Of course not replacing the child that they lost, but their life goes on. I would also think anyone who thinks they can replace a dead spouse by simply remarrying sounds pretty insane and emotionless.

More than anything though, I genuinely don't understand why it matters. If you aren't in the small subset of people who think losing a husband or child is something that can be swept into the history of your life. And you aren't in the small subset of people who have to help a parent through the loss of a child (which is something you generally go through WITH your spouse). Then genuinely, why does it matter how someone privately views the people they love the most in the darkest hypothetical depths of their heart? Why would it be upsetting to know your husband can't imagine losing you?

It sounds like it bothers the OP, hence, her post. Not that it would be upsetting for him to lose her, but that he would be more upset by that loss than the loss of their child.

I don't know that it would bother me to the extent of needing to post about it here, but it would be hard for me to understand and, in some ways, harder for me to feel close to my spouse. Many marriages don't survive the loss of a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the mom and I agree with your DH. So does the brilliant writer Ayelet Waldman.

Yes, she points out the difference is that she loves her kids (and she has a bunch, like 4?), but she is IN love with her spouse. I think this is healthy and best for a marriage and the kids.

No, she pointed out that she could more easily cope with the death of one of her children than that of her husband. I can't relate to that at all, and I'm a very, very empathic person. No one gets over the loss of a child.

Saying it like that minimizes how horrible it is to lose a spouse. I’m a woman and honestly I don’t know. Losing my husband would not feel as wrenching and like losing a limb. But it would leave me so alone in a way losing a child would not. I had typed out, “of course you’re right losing my child would be worse than losing my husband” and yet as I typed it I thought about losing him and wasn’t sure.

I again do not know what is gained by parsing out these differences though. Losing people is agonizing. I watched my mother lose a spouse and then a child, and it was not really that different. And it certainly didn’t seem helpful to try to figure out which was more agonizing. It didn’t feel good for me to think about what was more agonizing. I wonder if people like you have really experienced loss, to try to quantify it in some way that is “right” or “wrong” or “more” or “less” just seems divorced from the actual experience of this type of loss.

It will give you no comfort, if your spouse dies, to think that at least it wasn’t your child.

There's actually research on grief and loss, macabre as it is to some. And it's the death of a child that people never, never get over. Some people are destroyed by the death of a spouse or parent, yes, but more people are able to (eventually) recover and move on in a way that's not possible when you lose a child.

The only reason I pointed it out vis a vis Ayelet Waldman is that people think she was wrongly attacked for saying she loved her spouse more than her kids, when it was more the death thing that most people found bizarre. I mean, look at the PP who was casually said she'd have another kid if one died ("we can always have more kids!" Really? Always?). That's... not how most people think about losing their kids.

I feel like this research is important in the context of say, therapists figuring out how to work with people who have lost children. And yes, like...losing a child is like losing a limb. It will change you foundationally. But I am not sure, 'ability to recover' is the only measure of intensity and worth. Is a teenage love 'less' love than a 30 year marriage? In some ways yes, but in many ways no. It is just different. And what do you gain by ranking them? They are all experiences that we accumulate with love and relationships and loss.

I think that anyone who thinks they could replace a child who died by having another is either insane or a psychopath, but I also know people who have lost babies and who HAVE gone on to have more children and restart their lives. Of course not replacing the child that they lost, but their life goes on. I would also think anyone who thinks they can replace a dead spouse by simply remarrying sounds pretty insane and emotionless.

More than anything though, I genuinely don't understand why it matters. If you aren't in the small subset of people who think losing a husband or child is something that can be swept into the history of your life. And you aren't in the small subset of people who have to help a parent through the loss of a child (which is something you generally go through WITH your spouse). Then genuinely, why does it matter how someone privately views the people they love the most in the darkest hypothetical depths of their heart? Why would it be upsetting to know your husband can't imagine losing you?

It sounds like it bothers the OP, hence, her post. Not that it would be upsetting for him to lose her, but that he would be more upset by that loss than the loss of their child.

I don't know that it would bother me to the extent of needing to post about it here, but it would be hard for me to understand and, in some ways, harder for me to feel close to my spouse. Many marriages don't survive the loss of a child.

It is normal to lose a spouse. Unless you divorce, one spouse is going to die first. Losing a child is different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the mom and I agree with your DH. So does the brilliant writer Ayelet Waldman.

Yes, she points out the difference is that she loves her kids (and she has a bunch, like 4?), but she is IN love with her spouse. I think this is healthy and best for a marriage and the kids.

No, she pointed out that she could more easily cope with the death of one of her children than that of her husband. I can't relate to that at all, and I'm a very, very empathic person. No one gets over the loss of a child.

Saying it like that minimizes how horrible it is to lose a spouse. I’m a woman and honestly I don’t know. Losing my husband would not feel as wrenching and like losing a limb. But it would leave me so alone in a way losing a child would not. I had typed out, “of course you’re right losing my child would be worse than losing my husband” and yet as I typed it I thought about losing him and wasn’t sure.

I again do not know what is gained by parsing out these differences though. Losing people is agonizing. I watched my mother lose a spouse and then a child, and it was not really that different. And it certainly didn’t seem helpful to try to figure out which was more agonizing. It didn’t feel good for me to think about what was more agonizing. I wonder if people like you have really experienced loss, to try to quantify it in some way that is “right” or “wrong” or “more” or “less” just seems divorced from the actual experience of this type of loss.

It will give you no comfort, if your spouse dies, to think that at least it wasn’t your child.

There's actually research on grief and loss, macabre as it is to some. And it's the death of a child that people never, never get over. Some people are destroyed by the death of a spouse or parent, yes, but more people are able to (eventually) recover and move on in a way that's not possible when you lose a child.

The only reason I pointed it out vis a vis Ayelet Waldman is that people think she was wrongly attacked for saying she loved her spouse more than her kids, when it was more the death thing that most people found bizarre. I mean, look at the PP who was casually said she'd have another kid if one died ("we can always have more kids!" Really? Always?). That's... not how most people think about losing their kids.

I feel like this research is important in the context of say, therapists figuring out how to work with people who have lost children. And yes, like...losing a child is like losing a limb. It will change you foundationally. But I am not sure, 'ability to recover' is the only measure of intensity and worth. Is a teenage love 'less' love than a 30 year marriage? In some ways yes, but in many ways no. It is just different. And what do you gain by ranking them? They are all experiences that we accumulate with love and relationships and loss.

I think that anyone who thinks they could replace a child who died by having another is either insane or a psychopath, but I also know people who have lost babies and who HAVE gone on to have more children and restart their lives. Of course not replacing the child that they lost, but their life goes on. I would also think anyone who thinks they can replace a dead spouse by simply remarrying sounds pretty insane and emotionless.

More than anything though, I genuinely don't understand why it matters. If you aren't in the small subset of people who think losing a husband or child is something that can be swept into the history of your life. And you aren't in the small subset of people who have to help a parent through the loss of a child (which is something you generally go through WITH your spouse). Then genuinely, why does it matter how someone privately views the people they love the most in the darkest hypothetical depths of their heart? Why would it be upsetting to know your husband can't imagine losing you?

It sounds like it bothers the OP, hence, her post. Not that it would be upsetting for him to lose her, but that he would be more upset by that loss than the loss of their child.

I don't know that it would bother me to the extent of needing to post about it here, but it would be hard for me to understand and, in some ways, harder for me to feel close to my spouse. Many marriages don't survive the loss of a child.

I am trying to ask what about this bothers her. I genuinely don't understand. Like, its not like he WOULDN'T be upset losing a child that isn't what he's saying. Just that he loves them both. What about this would make it hard for you to feel close to your spouse? I'm not asking that as a gotcha or anything, genuinely I don't understand.

At this level of love and relationship, it is really like, fringe differences. It seems kind of cruel and unfair to hold against what is in someone's heart of heart. Probably why its best to just never ask these things.

[Anonymous]

Holy moly. One of the best things for a child is a strong, loving marriage. Your kids will be gone one day and your spouse will still be there. Aren’t you happy he loves you more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Holy moly. One of the best things for a child is a strong, loving marriage. Your kids will be gone one day and your spouse will still be there. Aren’t you happy he loves you more?

This is what my BIL said to my sister.

I would hope though, that if the house was on fire, my DH would get the kids out before me. My kids are teens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the mom and I agree with your DH. So does the brilliant writer Ayelet Waldman.

Yes, she points out the difference is that she loves her kids (and she has a bunch, like 4?), but she is IN love with her spouse. I think this is healthy and best for a marriage and the kids.

No, she pointed out that she could more easily cope with the death of one of her children than that of her husband. I can't relate to that at all, and I'm a very, very empathic person. No one gets over the loss of a child.

Saying it like that minimizes how horrible it is to lose a spouse. I’m a woman and honestly I don’t know. Losing my husband would not feel as wrenching and like losing a limb. But it would leave me so alone in a way losing a child would not. I had typed out, “of course you’re right losing my child would be worse than losing my husband” and yet as I typed it I thought about losing him and wasn’t sure.

I again do not know what is gained by parsing out these differences though. Losing people is agonizing. I watched my mother lose a spouse and then a child, and it was not really that different. And it certainly didn’t seem helpful to try to figure out which was more agonizing. It didn’t feel good for me to think about what was more agonizing. I wonder if people like you have really experienced loss, to try to quantify it in some way that is “right” or “wrong” or “more” or “less” just seems divorced from the actual experience of this type of loss.

It will give you no comfort, if your spouse dies, to think that at least it wasn’t your child.

There's actually research on grief and loss, macabre as it is to some. And it's the death of a child that people never, never get over. Some people are destroyed by the death of a spouse or parent, yes, but more people are able to (eventually) recover and move on in a way that's not possible when you lose a child.

The only reason I pointed it out vis a vis Ayelet Waldman is that people think she was wrongly attacked for saying she loved her spouse more than her kids, when it was more the death thing that most people found bizarre. I mean, look at the PP who was casually said she'd have another kid if one died ("we can always have more kids!" Really? Always?). That's... not how most people think about losing their kids.

I feel like this research is important in the context of say, therapists figuring out how to work with people who have lost children. And yes, like...losing a child is like losing a limb. It will change you foundationally. But I am not sure, 'ability to recover' is the only measure of intensity and worth. Is a teenage love 'less' love than a 30 year marriage? In some ways yes, but in many ways no. It is just different. And what do you gain by ranking them? They are all experiences that we accumulate with love and relationships and loss.

I think that anyone who thinks they could replace a child who died by having another is either insane or a psychopath, but I also know people who have lost babies and who HAVE gone on to have more children and restart their lives. Of course not replacing the child that they lost, but their life goes on. I would also think anyone who thinks they can replace a dead spouse by simply remarrying sounds pretty insane and emotionless.

More than anything though, I genuinely don't understand why it matters. If you aren't in the small subset of people who think losing a husband or child is something that can be swept into the history of your life. And you aren't in the small subset of people who have to help a parent through the loss of a child (which is something you generally go through WITH your spouse). Then genuinely, why does it matter how someone privately views the people they love the most in the darkest hypothetical depths of their heart? Why would it be upsetting to know your husband can't imagine losing you?

It sounds like it bothers the OP, hence, her post. Not that it would be upsetting for him to lose her, but that he would be more upset by that loss than the loss of their child.

I don't know that it would bother me to the extent of needing to post about it here, but it would be hard for me to understand and, in some ways, harder for me to feel close to my spouse. Many marriages don't survive the loss of a child.

I am trying to ask what about this bothers her. I genuinely don't understand. Like, its not like he WOULDN'T be upset losing a child that isn't what he's saying. Just that he loves them both. What about this would make it hard for you to feel close to your spouse? I'm not asking that as a gotcha or anything, genuinely I don't understand.

At this level of love and relationship, it is really like, fringe differences. It seems kind of cruel and unfair to hold against what is in someone's heart of heart. Probably why its best to just never ask these things.

I'm not the OP, so I can't answer for her. All she really said was that her DH told her he loves her more than their child, which is hard to interpret without nuance. Who knows how it came up.

As for the bolded, and again only speaking for myself, if DH had the horrible choice of saving my life or the lives of one of our children, he damn well better pick the kids. I don't want to die, but I'm far more accepting of that reality than the possibility of one of my children dying before me. That's the issue. (My DH and I agree on this front, so it's not an issue for us--I'm speaking hypothetically.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the mom and I agree with your DH. So does the brilliant writer Ayelet Waldman.

Yes, she points out the difference is that she loves her kids (and she has a bunch, like 4?), but she is IN love with her spouse. I think this is healthy and best for a marriage and the kids.

No, she pointed out that she could more easily cope with the death of one of her children than that of her husband. I can't relate to that at all, and I'm a very, very empathic person. No one gets over the loss of a child.

Saying it like that minimizes how horrible it is to lose a spouse. I’m a woman and honestly I don’t know. Losing my husband would not feel as wrenching and like losing a limb. But it would leave me so alone in a way losing a child would not. I had typed out, “of course you’re right losing my child would be worse than losing my husband” and yet as I typed it I thought about losing him and wasn’t sure.

I again do not know what is gained by parsing out these differences though. Losing people is agonizing. I watched my mother lose a spouse and then a child, and it was not really that different. And it certainly didn’t seem helpful to try to figure out which was more agonizing. It didn’t feel good for me to think about what was more agonizing. I wonder if people like you have really experienced loss, to try to quantify it in some way that is “right” or “wrong” or “more” or “less” just seems divorced from the actual experience of this type of loss.

It will give you no comfort, if your spouse dies, to think that at least it wasn’t your child.

There's actually research on grief and loss, macabre as it is to some. And it's the death of a child that people never, never get over. Some people are destroyed by the death of a spouse or parent, yes, but more people are able to (eventually) recover and move on in a way that's not possible when you lose a child.

The only reason I pointed it out vis a vis Ayelet Waldman is that people think she was wrongly attacked for saying she loved her spouse more than her kids, when it was more the death thing that most people found bizarre. I mean, look at the PP who was casually said she'd have another kid if one died ("we can always have more kids!" Really? Always?). That's... not how most people think about losing their kids.

I feel like this research is important in the context of say, therapists figuring out how to work with people who have lost children. And yes, like...losing a child is like losing a limb. It will change you foundationally. But I am not sure, 'ability to recover' is the only measure of intensity and worth. Is a teenage love 'less' love than a 30 year marriage? In some ways yes, but in many ways no. It is just different. And what do you gain by ranking them? They are all experiences that we accumulate with love and relationships and loss.

I think that anyone who thinks they could replace a child who died by having another is either insane or a psychopath, but I also know people who have lost babies and who HAVE gone on to have more children and restart their lives. Of course not replacing the child that they lost, but their life goes on. I would also think anyone who thinks they can replace a dead spouse by simply remarrying sounds pretty insane and emotionless.

More than anything though, I genuinely don't understand why it matters. If you aren't in the small subset of people who think losing a husband or child is something that can be swept into the history of your life. And you aren't in the small subset of people who have to help a parent through the loss of a child (which is something you generally go through WITH your spouse). Then genuinely, why does it matter how someone privately views the people they love the most in the darkest hypothetical depths of their heart? Why would it be upsetting to know your husband can't imagine losing you?

It sounds like it bothers the OP, hence, her post. Not that it would be upsetting for him to lose her, but that he would be more upset by that loss than the loss of their child.

I don't know that it would bother me to the extent of needing to post about it here, but it would be hard for me to understand and, in some ways, harder for me to feel close to my spouse. Many marriages don't survive the loss of a child.

I am trying to ask what about this bothers her. I genuinely don't understand. Like, its not like he WOULDN'T be upset losing a child that isn't what he's saying. Just that he loves them both. What about this would make it hard for you to feel close to your spouse? I'm not asking that as a gotcha or anything, genuinely I don't understand.

At this level of love and relationship, it is really like, fringe differences. It seems kind of cruel and unfair to hold against what is in someone's heart of heart. Probably why its best to just never ask these things.

I'm not the OP, so I can't answer for her. All she really said was that her DH told her he loves her more than their child, which is hard to interpret without nuance. Who knows how it came up.

As for the bolded, and again only speaking for myself, if DH had the horrible choice of saving my life or the lives of one of our children, he damn well better pick the kids. I don't want to die, but I'm far more accepting of that reality than the possibility of one of my children dying before me. That's the issue. (My DH and I agree on this front, so it's not an issue for us--I'm speaking hypothetically.)

I think my DH loves me more than the kids, and I think he might be more upset losing me than the kids. I also think he would choose the kids lives over mine, because he has a fully comprehensive understanding of how our responsibility to our children is tangled up in addition to that love, and that our love for our children means sacrificing for them and prioritizing. I think its a big leap to say, 'he said he loves me more so he would save me over them'. My husband loving me as much as he does means he knows he would have to save them first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the mom and I agree with your DH. So does the brilliant writer Ayelet Waldman.

Yes, she points out the difference is that she loves her kids (and she has a bunch, like 4?), but she is IN love with her spouse. I think this is healthy and best for a marriage and the kids.

No, she pointed out that she could more easily cope with the death of one of her children than that of her husband. I can't relate to that at all, and I'm a very, very empathic person. No one gets over the loss of a child.

Saying it like that minimizes how horrible it is to lose a spouse. I’m a woman and honestly I don’t know. Losing my husband would not feel as wrenching and like losing a limb. But it would leave me so alone in a way losing a child would not. I had typed out, “of course you’re right losing my child would be worse than losing my husband” and yet as I typed it I thought about losing him and wasn’t sure.

I again do not know what is gained by parsing out these differences though. Losing people is agonizing. I watched my mother lose a spouse and then a child, and it was not really that different. And it certainly didn’t seem helpful to try to figure out which was more agonizing. It didn’t feel good for me to think about what was more agonizing. I wonder if people like you have really experienced loss, to try to quantify it in some way that is “right” or “wrong” or “more” or “less” just seems divorced from the actual experience of this type of loss.

It will give you no comfort, if your spouse dies, to think that at least it wasn’t your child.

There's actually research on grief and loss, macabre as it is to some. And it's the death of a child that people never, never get over. Some people are destroyed by the death of a spouse or parent, yes, but more people are able to (eventually) recover and move on in a way that's not possible when you lose a child.

The only reason I pointed it out vis a vis Ayelet Waldman is that people think she was wrongly attacked for saying she loved her spouse more than her kids, when it was more the death thing that most people found bizarre. I mean, look at the PP who was casually said she'd have another kid if one died ("we can always have more kids!" Really? Always?). That's... not how most people think about losing their kids.

I feel like this research is important in the context of say, therapists figuring out how to work with people who have lost children. And yes, like...losing a child is like losing a limb. It will change you foundationally. But I am not sure, 'ability to recover' is the only measure of intensity and worth. Is a teenage love 'less' love than a 30 year marriage? In some ways yes, but in many ways no. It is just different. And what do you gain by ranking them? They are all experiences that we accumulate with love and relationships and loss.

I think that anyone who thinks they could replace a child who died by having another is either insane or a psychopath, but I also know people who have lost babies and who HAVE gone on to have more children and restart their lives. Of course not replacing the child that they lost, but their life goes on. I would also think anyone who thinks they can replace a dead spouse by simply remarrying sounds pretty insane and emotionless.

More than anything though, I genuinely don't understand why it matters. If you aren't in the small subset of people who think losing a husband or child is something that can be swept into the history of your life. And you aren't in the small subset of people who have to help a parent through the loss of a child (which is something you generally go through WITH your spouse). Then genuinely, why does it matter how someone privately views the people they love the most in the darkest hypothetical depths of their heart? Why would it be upsetting to know your husband can't imagine losing you?

It sounds like it bothers the OP, hence, her post. Not that it would be upsetting for him to lose her, but that he would be more upset by that loss than the loss of their child.

I don't know that it would bother me to the extent of needing to post about it here, but it would be hard for me to understand and, in some ways, harder for me to feel close to my spouse. Many marriages don't survive the loss of a child.

I am trying to ask what about this bothers her. I genuinely don't understand. Like, its not like he WOULDN'T be upset losing a child that isn't what he's saying. Just that he loves them both. What about this would make it hard for you to feel close to your spouse? I'm not asking that as a gotcha or anything, genuinely I don't understand.

At this level of love and relationship, it is really like, fringe differences. It seems kind of cruel and unfair to hold against what is in someone's heart of heart. Probably why its best to just never ask these things.

I'm not the OP, so I can't answer for her. All she really said was that her DH told her he loves her more than their child, which is hard to interpret without nuance. Who knows how it came up.

As for the bolded, and again only speaking for myself, if DH had the horrible choice of saving my life or the lives of one of our children, he damn well better pick the kids. I don't want to die, but I'm far more accepting of that reality than the possibility of one of my children dying before me. That's the issue. (My DH and I agree on this front, so it's not an issue for us--I'm speaking hypothetically.)

I think my DH loves me more than the kids, and I think he might be more upset losing me than the kids. I also think he would choose the kids lives over mine, because he has a fully comprehensive understanding of how our responsibility to our children is tangled up in addition to that love, and that our love for our children means sacrificing for them and prioritizing. I think its a big leap to say, 'he said he loves me more so he would save me over them'. My husband loving me as much as he does means he knows he would have to save them first.

PP you're quoting and yes, exactly. Saving our kids over each other would be an act of love for each other, strange as it sounds.

It's not about not having a strong marriage or not liking your spouse, as some PPs have tried to twist it. Then again, I still don't know why the OP is so bothered, because she hasn't elaborated on her original post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the mom and I agree with your DH. So does the brilliant writer Ayelet Waldman.

Yes, she points out the difference is that she loves her kids (and she has a bunch, like 4?), but she is IN love with her spouse. I think this is healthy and best for a marriage and the kids.

No, she pointed out that she could more easily cope with the death of one of her children than that of her husband. I can't relate to that at all, and I'm a very, very empathic person. No one gets over the loss of a child.

Not "no." She talked about the death issue as well, but she she absolutely did distinguish between loving her kids and being in love with her husband. I think that point is important.