If you are a new parent who has a full-time housekeeper, an immaculate house must take second place to a lovingly cared for baby and to parents rested enough to handle their daily responsibilities. A quick pickup everyday will keep your home tidy enough to be comfortable. Heavier household jobs can be postponed or skimmed over until there’s more time, or can be delegated to someone else. The best helper will probably be the baby’s father, if his work schedule allows or if he can arrange leave or vacation, because it gives him a chance to get to know his child in an everyday unhurried fashion, as he goes about the housekeeping chores. If this is not possible, try to arrange for some extra help, either by hiring someone to come in for a few hours a day or a week, or by accepting offers of friends or family members to clean or do laundry.

Cut down your expectations of the way family meals should be prepared and served too, but do not skimp on nutrition. You need a well-balanced diet of wholesome foods that your new responsibility requires, but you do without fanciness and formality. Enjoy the casseroles and baked goods thoughtful people supply and don’t feel guilty about occasionally bringing in a fast-food meal. When you must cook, choose simple basic foods that can be prepared quickly and easily.

The development of the low, transverse “bikini cut” incision also made the operation safer and more acceptable, and decreased the risk for women who may want to have a later birth the normal way. The number of Cesareans has increased in recent years for reasons that include:

• Doctors are better able these days to detect babies in distress who need to be delivered this way.
• It reduces the use of forceps, which can carry its own risks.
• It is considered a safe surgery.
• Having had a Cesarean can predispose a woman for another in a subsequent pregnancy.
• The most common reason cited for a Cesarean is that the baby’s head is too big to pass through the pelvis, but other reasons include:
• The mother suffers from a disease, such as diabetes or chronic high blood pressure.
• The uterus does not contract properly, even with stimulation.
• There are signs of fetal distress.
• The placenta is wrongly positioned (placenta previa).

The mother’s age is also taken into account, because it is anticipated that older mothers will have more difficult labors, and the baby may be more “precious,” especially if the woman has suffered infertility or miscarriages or may not conceive again. In these circumstances a doctor may prefer to do a Cesarean than take any risk for the baby’s well-being:

“The attending staff never mentioned my age at all. They didn’t make me feel old. It was only at the end, when they discovered she was breech, that it suddenly came up, because they wanted me to have a Cesarean. They said, ‘Well, it’s your first baby, it’s breech, you’ve had infertility problems and you’re 40. This might be your only baby, so you want to be sure that nothing goes wrong.’”

Joe is an early riser. Typically he gets up before I do, quietly slips out of our bedroom, exercises, makes coffee, reads the paper, and then wakes me up. Rarely do I awaken before him. But recently I did. I marveled at how peaceful he looked. He was lying on his side, one hand underneath the pillow, the other just hanging down.

His chest was wide open, not needing his protection because he finally felt safe, open, and welcoming of me. In his sleep, he reached over and wrapped his arms around me. Like two spoons in a drawer, we lay there, side by side, a perfect fit. He let me in and I was part of him, safe, next to his heart.

He’s opened his heart. He trusts I won’t break it.

At this point we have found through the millenniums that nothing much has changed. All men would rather wander lost in the wilderness than having the appearance of being weak and stopping to ask for directions.”

Men are notorious for not asking for help, especially when it comes to asking for directions. They’d much rather travel miles and miles, trying to figure it out on their own, rather than admitting they are lost. This is one of the biggest complaints women make against men, as Deborah Tannen points out in her book, “You Just Don’t Understand” (Morrow, 1990).

Perhaps childhood conditioning has something to do with this tendency. Most often, little boys are taught to be independent and not act like sissies or babies by constantly requesting help. Even though this appears to be a “manly” thing to do, in reality, it is not. If a man needs help or assistance, he needs to ask for it.

If women understand that this merely is one of the “sex differences” in communication, they can help their mate to realize it is okay to ask for help. Instead of arguing, you can say instead, “I know you’d like to figure this out on your own and that you probably have a good sense of direction, but I would prefer if we could stop and ask someone for directions.”

An alternative to this is asking for a “pit stop” to use the rest room and then asking for directions. Once you have them you can advice your spouse that they pretty much had things worked out according to the gentleman in the store.

By saying one of these you are allowing the man to “save face,” as you are now talking his language. In essence, you are allowing him to help you by honoring your feelings of discomfort about the matter.

Another principle is: “neither fight nor give in:’ For the purpose of family education, one must add the postulates, “Win the child to an acceptance of order” and “Encourage the child.” These three principles, no fighting, maintaining order, and giving constant encouragement, belong intrinsically together. No one is possible without the other two. If we fight, we shall never be capable of making the child accept order and invariably will discourage the child. Failing to insist that the child observe order leads inevitably to fighting; a child will not be able to conform to order and will force his parents to fight him.

For many parents, it is impossible to believe that children can be brought up without being subjected to force. “Spare the rod and spoil the child” is a characteristic expression of distrust in human nature, which, in this view, can best be tamed, but never made social without coercion. Such parents need to be convinced that when they resort to fighting the child, they are inevitably the losers. The child has too many advantages in his favor-he knows so much better how to handle his parents than they know how to treat him. Devoting all his time to observing his environment, he knows each parent’s vulnerable spot. He is imaginative and invents hundreds of modes of warfare, while the rigid adult sticks to three or four measures which, in addition, are mostly ineffectual. The child knows exactly how to get his way, and the parents, despite all fighting, inevitably yield.

It becomes obvious that fighting is useless. All the methods of humiliation-shouting, scolding, and spanking succeed only for the moment, if they have any effect at all. The child strikes back at the first opportune occasion and for each apparent victory of the parents the child scores at least ten real victories. Habitual disobedience is a natural consequence. But where there is a friendly relationship with a real understanding between parents and child, how easy things are! Every child is very sensitive to kindness and to firmness, too. Children who do not respond have been taught that only force is important.

Mary was playing in the yard when Mother called, “Mary, come here.” Continuing her play, Mary showed no signs of having heard. Mother called again. And again there was no response. A family friend passing by listened to Mother’s call several times, then approached Mary and asked her whether she had not heard the call. “Oh, yes!” she replied quietly, continuing her play. The friend was a little indignant. “Then why don’t you go home?” Undisturbed, Mary answered, “Oh, I have time. Mother hasn’t yelled yet!”

Many parents-and the best ones-fail woefully to recognize the importance of order. They sincerely love the child. They want to save him any disappointment or painful experience. Because they want to make his life happy, they eliminate any rule of order. The child’s wish is their command. They hope that later on the child will learn to understand better and be more sensibly inclined. How wrong they are! Once a child has learned that his desire is omnipotent, he must regard any attempt to deny his omnipotence, whether of parents or teachers, as an injustice, as an effort to deprive him of privileges he considers his natural right, and will interpret it as a sign of rejection and humiliation. Overprotection and indulgence never win a child; never make him cooperative and courageous. They deprive him of enjoying order, of experiencing his own strength in helping himself and being useful to others. Instead of preventing unpleasant experiences, indulgence exposes the child to more and worse suffering. Instead of helping him, it endangers him; and the fight and friction, always dreaded, become inevitable.

Indulgence is often based on a faulty idea of freedom.

To give children freedom and self-expression is necessary; but freedom without order is impossible. On the other hand, there is no permanent order without freedom. In some cultures, the idea of order is exaggerated to such an extent that children are deprived of any self-expression. Strict rule and instant obedience are the main goals of education. The consequences are identical with those produced by suppression and humiliation. Toughness, strength, and success may be achieved in that way, but the human relationship suffers. On the other hand, this very human relationship is endangered just as much by another frequent misunderstanding of freedom. Freedom is not the right to do whatever we want, because such freedom necessarily means imposition on others to whom we then deny the same privilege. If everyone acts as he likes, disregarding the desires of his fellow men, then no one can enjoy freedom only anarchy results. Freedom and special privilege for one person cannot be called freedom at all. It is actually tyranny and dictatorship. Under the pretext of granting freedom parents make their children unhappy despots who are unable to get along with others and feel rejected by everyone not submissive to their rule.

Many children grow up with a very peculiar conception of order. For them order is everything that they don’t want to do. They must learn to recognize that order is beneficial to them. It is not at all difficult to teach them this. When a child refuses to submit to the routine which regulates the life of the family, we can help him to understand better what order means. There are many ways to impress a child with the real significance of order. For example, he may agree that it would be nice if each member of the family could do-for a day or so-whatever he likes best. Very soon, the child will discover that he gains very little and loses very much if father and mother also do only what they like best at any given moment. There are no meals prepared, no beds made, and no clothes cleaned. Obviously order serves not the interest of anyone person but all of them together. Freedom is only the liberty of acting independently as long as one does not infringe upon the freedom of anyone else.

And now the third and most important rule: The child needs constant encouragement. He needs encouragement as a plant needs water. Our present method of rearing children is instead full of discouragement. Indulgence and suppression create innumerable experiences of discouragement. For parents are needlessly timid. They see everywhere possible dangers; they identify themselves with their children, and, having no confidence in themselves, they can hardly believe that the child can take care of himself. Instead of recognizing the potentialities of a child, they compare his size and capacity with their own and conclude that he must be so many times less capable than they themselves are. In reality, the child generally has more physical and mental abilities than the parents credit him with. This doubt in the child’s potentialities, carried from one generation into the next, is one of the reasons why adults leave so many of their capacities undeveloped, never reaching the fruition of their potentialities.

Any educational procedure may best be evaluated according to the degree of encouragement it involves. Whatever increases the courage of a child is helpful-and whatever discourages, harmful. No child is genuinely “bad.” Every child likes to be good, wishes to be successful, loves to be “nice.” Only if he gives up hope, if he loses confidence in himself, only then will he misbehave. The technique of encouragement is not yet fully recognized and fostered. Very few people deliberately plan to encourage, and even those frequently don’t know how. Some try to be sweet how the children hate that! Children observe very closely too closely not to recognize insincerity. Dishonest praise can never encourage. Undeserved commendation is either meaningless or disgusting. Even sincerely expressed admiration may discourage a child, despite his pleasure in it, if he feels that he cannot live up to the high appreciation.

These two factors seem to be essential for encouragement: sincerity and recognition of the personal needs of the child. Each child has abilities and faculties which can be commended, and each has sore spots which need tender care. Without having faith in the child, however, no one will be able to instill in him a better opinion of himself. Self-confidence, recognition of the strength of his own faculties, means courage. Whosoever can provide it can enhance the efficiency and facilitate necessary social adjustments of any person he meets-especially of a child yearning for just this kind of assistance.

Influences that encourage, natural in a friendly atmosphere, are impossible where antagonism reigns, where hostility, non-compliance, and mutual depreciation dominate the human relationship. When husband and wife disagree, when parents fight with each other, then the children, too, compete with each other, each one trying to dishearten his adversary of the moment. How many and how subtle are the means by which parents stifle their child’s natural and diversified talents, discourage his efforts, and prevent the development of his feeling of confidence in his own value and in his creative power.

Every mistake and every fault in a child reflects the discouragement to which he has been exposed in his family.

Otherwise, he would have found a better answer to his problem. A child brought up in an atmosphere of love and understanding is eager and willing to do his share. Surrounded by friendliness and genuine interest, he develops happily and responds to the social demands. But as so many parents and teachers themselves are the product of an atmosphere of friction and competition, they fail to provide proper guidance to the child. They forget the terrible feeling of insecurity, of detachment, of being unloved, which they probably experienced themselves. They learn less from studying child psychology than from their own upbringing. Far from discovering the child’s possibilities, they oppose what he does; they hinder him, but hardly stimulate him. Yes, sometimes they achieve obedience, but at what price? They have in their efforts ruined a personality. They do not understand why a child feels neglected-they are completely unaware of why he behaves disturbingly.

In other words, in many instances of marital difficulty one powerful irritant has poisoned the relationship, and because both parties are perhaps stubborn or defensively rigid, this one destructive element contaminates the entire spectrum of marital behavior.

An example is the case of Cynthia and Joseph Special. Cynthia and Joe had been happily married for four years. They didn’t have much money and they had no children. Cynthia worked as a librarian and Joe worked for a paper-manufacturing company. Very slowly during the first four years they furnished their own home, paying cash for everything.

At the end of the four years, two things happened. A child was born-followed in a year by another-and Joe became assistant” manager of the paper plant. Now Cynthia had of course left her interesting job at the library and was home all day with two infants. Joe, as assistant manager, no longer was able to leave the office at five o’clock. He had to stay behind to check up on that day’s production, or to see about personnel, and attend the executive meeting at six o’clock.

When Joe came home at about seven thirty, he was fatigued.

Cynthia was also fatigued. With two young children, the small house was always untidy, and Cynthia didn’t have time to prepare the kind of meals Joe was fond of. They no longer spent a pleasant hour drinking a couple of cocktails, discussing the interesting things which happened during the day, followed by a simple but elegant meal, eaten in leisurely fashion, and then a play or a motion picture. Joe had his drink at the executive meeting, and when he arrived home he was eager to eat quickly and go to bed. Slowly, Cynthia began to believe that they no longer were companions or equals, that Joe had more interest in his business than in his family. Joe felt that Cynthia was being selfish when she wanted to go out after the children were asleep. He became irritable when she asked him to skip having drinks with the executives and, instead, go back to the old system of spending an hour before dinner with her in the evening.

The situation is one with which most people are quite familiar.

Slowly, Cynthia began to take less interest in preparing even reasonably fancy meals for dinner. Joe gulped his food and no longer commented on her efforts. And when Joe was amorous in bed, Cynthia said she was too tired from looking after the children, feeling vaguely angry that Joe seemed to be interested only when he was in the mood, and was unresponsive to her needs when she showed the initiative.

Joe started eating out with other executives two or three times a week. Slowly, their needs became divergent in one area of their relationship after another, and Cynthia and Joe were about ready for a divorce.

Cynthia and Joe decided to consult a professional counselor before they saw a lawyer. He recognized the falling-domino pattern almost immediately. He perceived that one basic, relatively small irritant was poisoning the whole marriage system, and he was able to suggest a solution. Here is what they did.

At the executive meetings at six o’clock, Joe abstained from having his cocktail and instead had what Franklin Delano Roosevelt called a horse’s neck, ginger ale with a piece of lemon in it. Joe found he could now enjoy a drink a little bit later with his wife.

Instead of eating immediately upon returning home from the office, Joe took a hot shower and rested for almost an hour. The children were already asleep, and Cynthia too was able to shower and nap. When they got up, both put on fresh clothes and had a cocktail and dinner. What difference did it make if they ate at eight thirty every evening instead of seven thirty? The delay enabled them to refresh themselves and enjoy the evening.

When Joe had his two-week vacation, Cynthia visited her mother for two or three days while Joe stayed at home and took care of the children. The experience gave him some perspective on what a time-consuming job and intellectually unstimulating day Cynthia usually had.

At one of the office executive meetings, Joe pointed out that the problem of working late and getting home tired was probably common to all executives. He suggested that the wives be permitted to spend a day at the office, one at a time, to gain some understanding of their husbands’ work and responsibilities. The president thought this was a good idea. Soon Cynthia spent a day watching Joe.

One night a week Cynthia hired a responsible baby-sitter and she and Joe went out to a restaurant. They gussied up, and had a gay evening just like old times.

Cynthia and Joe had a discussion as to whether his particular job with its extraordinarily long hours was worth keeping. Should he quit and find another one? Cynthia volunteered that since Joe had been promoted quite recently, it seemed normal for him to have long hours in the new position, but presumably when he became more familiar with the routine he would be able to maintain a more normal schedule again. Cynthia recognized that this was the difficult period in Joe’s career, and she was happy to share the extra hard work. Joe responded sincerely that he knew caring for two small children was the most trying part of the family-raising cycle for Cynthia, and wondered what he could do to make life easier and more pleasant for her. In their discussion neither of them came up with any suggestions for making

How to Handle the Falling-Domino Pattern

To determine if a falling-domino situation exists in their own marriage, spouses should sit down together and each answer the following question (after tossing a coin to see who will go first):’What is the one thing which annoys me the most about you?” If the major complaints involve physical circumstances or clearly defined ways of behaving, the spouses may be able to correct them without outside help. Here are some examples of such complaints.

“I can’t stand to make love when you’ve been drinking too much. It destroys your attractiveness.”

“You always eat with your mouth open at the table, and it makes me sick to my stomach.”

“Your bad breath drives me crazy.” “The house always looks like a pigsty.”

“You’re a slob. No matter how much I clean up the house, you always drop your clothes and ashes all over.”

“Half the time you’re late for dinner and you never telephone to let me know. Half our meals get burned.”

“You’ve put on twenty pounds and I’m repulsed by fat people.” All of these complaints and annoyances are reasonably correctable. Yet if they are not corrected, they will cause problems in other areas. If a person registers a valid complaint of a correctable nature and the spouse-from stubbornness or lethargy refuses to alter his behavior, it is likely that the complainer will in turn refuse to make changes requested by the other. The message here seems to be, “If you won’t change for me, then I won’t change for you.” Most people actually fear giving in to another repeatedly because they sense that this will become a one-sided pattern and they will have to give in on everything henceforth. In many cases, this fear is justified. Only when the fear is proven to be ungrounded in fact, when the other party evidences an equal willingness to compromise and to change, can the fear be relinquished and relaxed flexibility take its place.

Once reasonable complaints are remedied, quite frequently other negative factors disappear. Just the act of getting together and discussing how to improve the marriage has a general therapeutic effect on many areas of behavior. The spouses are trying to have a functional relationship and that’s half the victory. It’s one big step toward realistic trust in a responsible partnership.

A child’s first sexual experiences, also, affect his attitude toward sex. Such experiences occur very early. Growing older, he is likely to forget them, but all children do experience sexual excitement, some definitely and others only vaguely. Adults kiss a child on his mouth with no suspicion of his reaction. Titillations of a sexual nature are not restricted to any age. Some games, certain gymnastic practices or repeated movements arouse similar excitations. The sensation of fear may often provoke sexual stimulation. Children are unable to explain these feelings, although they derive great satisfaction from them. Parents could help mitigate harm from these mysterious experiences if they had the full confidence of their children. Most parents, however, through previous reprimanding interference, have lost their child’s willingness to confide in them, as far as sex is concerned. Casual discussion without excitement or embarrassment can remove the child’s bewilderment. A casual attitude prevents later conflicts and disappointments caused by established patterns of excitation.

How a childhood experience may considerably affect a later normal sexual adjustment was demonstrated by a woman who suffered from her inability to enjoy sexual intercourse. She longed for a specific gratification that she never could obtain in her marriage. In the course of our discussions, she became aware of what disturbed her. Once, as a little girl, while swinging she had experienced a peculiarly delightful sensation in her genitals. She could reproduce it by swinging. Later, although she expected the same excitement in a sexual relationship, she never found it. Consequently, she drifted from one man to another. Of course, this was not the real reason she could never find a suitable companion. This girl had an erroneous conception of love. She did not seek any real love, but was only seeking a particular genital excitement. Her first experience had given her an entirely wrong idea of sexual pleasure. Now she wanted only this specific pleasure and not a man’s companionship. Obviously, what she expected to derive from a relationship and from marriage was in no way connected with love.

Unfortunately, the ancient rule of the veto is rarely applied, as most people find it difficult to distinguish between imposing upon and merely not yielding. If they do not get what they want, they feel abused and coerced. (This attitude is typical of pampered children; its prevalence among adults is an indication of how few are actually grown up.) In the event of conflicting interests it seems advisable to let everyone do what he likes: not to impose, but not to permit imposition either. Only too often do we fail to recognize the distinction between the two and the practical applications of this principle. Behind this difficulty lies the lack of respect so often found between the closest relatives. They just do not respect each other, despite all their unquestionable love and devotion.

Sources of Mutual Disrespect

There are many reasons why people so often find it difficult to treat other members of the family with proper respect. Whatever the reason is, it can be traced to personal fears and inferiority feelings. We all are inclined to be more critical of the shortcomings of relatives because we identify ourselves with them. Their shortcomings reflect on our own value and status. We feel ashamed of their faults, as if they were our own. If we were surer of ourselves, of our own value and position, we could accept our own shortcomings and those of our close associates more readily, because we would not consider them as expressions of our value and significance. A self-confident person is able to regard faults, limitations, and shortcomings in their proper perspective, without unduly making them tests of social value. Respect for members of one’s family is, therefore, closely linked with self-respect. He who fears disgrace and humiliation in the world at large becomes over-sensitive of his relatives’ imperfections. Moreover, if one feels helpless in regard to such shortcomings, one resents them and expresses resentment, either passively and sullenly or in an openly violent and aggressive way. Both lead to disrespect of the dignity and worth of the others.

Another reason for the lack of respect within many families is the existing state of competition in which we live, in the outside world as well as within our intimate family circle. We have already described why husbands and wives of today generally regard each other as competitors. Children, too, are definitely in competition with each other. They fight for their parents’ love and attention. Each regards the other as a threat to his own position, developing a deep sense of competitive strife, and overcoming each other in turn-often, by this means, introducing an element of unrest and friction in family life. The same competition exists between parents and children. The two generations carryon a family fight, too, for prestige. In a world which grants so little security and certainty of personal appreciation, parents naturally try to impress with their own superiority those who seem to offer the least resistance. Many parents do not recognize the acts of hostility and combat which are so often disguised as exuberant love and overwhelming affection. Humiliation and worship color the relationships of parents and children more frequently than do respect and human dignity. It would be worthwhile to treat our relatives and children-and parents-as we would treat casual acquaintances whom we meet socially. We are all rather well trained to meet antagonistic interests in society, politely and with due respect for each other. Couldn’t we use this technique and knowledge also in our own family?

Intimacy can hamper Friendliness

Family ties alone do not guarantee friendly relationship.

Wooing and charming are no less necessary after the wedding than before, notwithstanding the mistaken adage regarding the futility of chasing a streetcar after one has caught it. On the contrary, close association demands more consideration and understanding for the preservation of friendship and affection. It is much easier to get along with people whom we see rarely. Distance facilitates harmony. It is necessary in marriage to accept and like each other, even unwashed and unkempt. But why must we take more pains to appeal to perfect strangers or casual friends than to those for whom we care the most? Parents make the same mistake when they expect their children’s love merely because they have begotten them. The devotion and respect of children must also continuously be won anew. A friendly atmosphere within the family is evident in many ways. The tone of voice in which father, mother, and children address each other reveals whether friendliness and respect reign, or friction and humiliation and force. We should sharpen our ears to realize these subtle signs of disturbed cooperation. Unfortunately, we cannot hear ourselves as we sound to others. A discovery which would enable us to do so would certainly merit the Nobel Peace Prize.

Intimidation Instead of Firmness

Kindness, however, does not exclude firmness. On the contrary, one can be kind only if one is sure of oneself, sure of the impression one makes, and sure of the final success. To be firm requires the same self-confidence. Firmness does not imply imposition. The less firm and sure we are, the more we tend to intimidate and impose. This mutual intimidation is only too often found in family life. Of course, we do not inject fear deliberately, but we ourselves are certainly afraid. Like two men unexpectedly meeting at midnight on a dark street, each afraid that the other wants to rob him, neither suspecting that the other one, too, is shivering in fear, many a husband and wife live in fear, the fear of being neglected, of not being appreciated, of being dominated or abused, frustrated or humiliated. They will admit their fears confidentially to a third person, but it is difficult to convince either that the other is afraid, too. None recognizes the fears of his opponent, especially in regard to relative superiority; we are all inclined to suspect others of being, or at least attempting to be, superior to us. Of course, the methods and weapons of warfare are clearly recognized as such only if used by our opponent; we consider ourselves harmless and full of good intentions, denying others any reason for self-defense with regard to us.

Logic Used as a Weapon

All marital quarrels show fundamentally the same structure. Listening to husband and wife, one feels sure that the one who talked last is right. And they are both right-or at least they believe they are. Otherwise, they would act differently. Logic becomes only a weapon which can be used, and is used, by everyone who fights. But fundamentally, the quarrel is never a question of right or wrong only of pleasing or antagonizing, of agreeing or opposing. The bone of contention plays, generally, a secondary and accidental role. The issue of right or wrong arises only when cooperation is disturbed and each wants to shift the blame for the discord. Human beings are remarkably clever and astonishingly adept at finding reasons to justify their actions. Their scheming minds invent slight provocations to incite the other to more drastic actions which then are justifiable causes for open hostility.

Demanding Instead of Winning

Methods of pleasing are easily available, but are far less frequently utilized. When we want to please we are all able to do so, although some are so discouraged that they have stopped trying, desperate of ever being liked. We all have hundreds of little ways to show affection and to attract it. Yet in family life we insist on legal rights first and try to get before we are willing to give. Otherwise we feel abused. If we do not get what we want, or what we believe we deserve, we punish, although in that way we diminish the readiness of the other one to do his share.

Shifting the Blame

Since we do not know ourselves, or admit our real intentions, or hear the way we sound, or realize when we provoke, how can we be sure whether we violate the fundamental rules of cooperation or observe them? We are able to evaluate ourselves properly only if we look at the consequences of our actions. Then we may determine whether we are provoking more friction and tension or promoting a better understanding. This procedure, however, demands that we abandon all hope of putting the blame for any family discord on factors outside ourselves. Nor will blaming ourselves help. Blame, excuses, and complaints - all indicate discouragement and resentment. ‘Whenever we detect in ourselves any sign of such inclinations, we can be sure that we are going to violate rules of cooperation. Our own emotions are good guides, if we regard them as indications of our own intentions, and not, as many foolishly do, as a natural “reaction” to stimulation from the outside. Taking full responsibility for our emotions deprives us of easy excuses, but it enables us to gain mastery of the situation. When we recognize hostile emotions as deliberate weapons of warfare, they may stimulate a reorientation, a new evaluation of living conditions and family members, so that new emotions, more benevolent and more courageous, may develop. Properly understood, the alleged lack of affection will no longer be an excuse for neglected human duties but a challenge to develop a new social interest.

Innumerable reasons are given for falling out of love.

One woman complained that she could no longer love and accept her husband, for the reason that he had absolutely no faults. “You can’t imagine how terrible it is to live with a man who is perfect. I really can’t stand it any longer. If he did something wrong only once! If he would be angry with me! But no, whatever I do is all right. Whatever I don’t do is all right, too. He never loses his temper. Can you live with an angel?” Unbelievable as it may sound, one hears such a complaint not infrequently. It only shows that if someone wants to find a reason for opposing, he always can. A lack of fault serves the purpose as well as too many.

The question arises, then, of whether personal faults are the actual causes of marital friction. Is it true that we reject someone because of his faults? I do not think so. As long as we accept and love someone, his faults do not matter; when we refuse to accept him, his faults simply supply us with a good reason for our hostility. We discover faults which we readily overlooked before when they fitted into our plans. Then why do we reject each other, causing endless pain to ourselves as well as to others? It is always the question of our own importance which interferes with our happiness and our cooperation. As long as we feel recognized, appreciated, worshiped-and pampered-everything is all right. But as soon as we feel inferior and unequal, our closest friend becomes our enemy.

This feeling of inferiority generally has no actual basis, yet compensations, namely, a state of superiority, may be sought in various ways. The position of a victimized martyr may seem to any observer a state of definite inferiority and humiliation, but the person who evokes this position for himself finds in it an opportunity for moral superiority. Suffering physical and mental torture may even enhance the spiritual “victory,” and martyr and torturer can get along happily on the basis of their distribution of power. One enjoys his physical dominance and the other one his righteousness. But the martyr may immediately rebel and reject his mate should he ever attempt to be virtuous and considerate, for considerateness would spell defeat and disrupt the equilibrium. This situation is, of course, extreme, but we must keep in mind that mutual acceptance means agreement about the equilibrium which permits each party to compensate in his way for his feeling of inadequacy. Friction is never caused solely by external disturbances. Economic or social pressure or misfortune can normally bring husband and wife closer together. If the equilibrium between the couple is shaken by these hardships, then friction results. Most frequently these adversities are not the cause of marital disturbances-they are merely a test of the ability to cooperate. They bring hidden conflicts and resentment into the open which indicate that the feeling of belonging is inadequate in both parties, and that they are unwilling to stick together through hardship. They look only for an occasion each to blame the other for the reverses.

The individual’s attitude toward his own sex corresponds to his attitude toward the other sex; both attitudes determine his behavior. The conception of the opposite sex is developed during early childhood. The first emotional responses to a person of the opposite sex are of lasting importance. Generally, father and mother set the first example of man and woman living together. A little child, with his limited comprehension, cannot recognize that the conditions at home are characteristic only of his own family and are not generally prevalent. For him the situation at home represents the whole world. And, therefore, the relationship between the parents appears as the only possible one between men and women. Thus the child constructs his conception of married life. Without realizing it, parents thus influence the child’s attitude toward marriage. The parent of the opposite sex, as its representative, often affects the future sex-life of a child decisively. A sibling of the opposite sex may have the same fateful significance.

If a boy and his mother or a girl and her father are too devoted to each other, the relationship may become an obstacle to the child’s later mating. A young boy who is favored and therefore very much spoiled and pampered by his mother cannot imagine that another woman will be equally devoted to him. Very frequently, this doubt prevents his falling in love and marrying. He is not prepared to meet a woman on the basis of give-and-take, as required in a happy marriage. The same often holds true in the relationship between father and daughter. A girl who is strongly attached to her father may expect from her husband the same understanding patience, guidance, and protection. She is apt to forget that no man of her own generation could possess the same relative superiority as her father, especially since girls now have for the most part the same educational and professional opportunities as boys.

This problem seems particularly prevalent in our day.

Women protest against being the inferior sex, but, on the other hand, they dream of a husband to whom they can look up. They still cling to the idea that men must be stronger, more reliable than they. But how many men can a woman find to excel her as much as her father did when she was a child? She is bound to be disappointed, because she can rarely find such a man. Even should she eventually do so, she will not accept him. Resenting his superiority, she may withdraw from him or find fault so that again she may look down upon him.

Children Become Afraid of Sex

Our children grow up in a world of confusion, where all values, traditions, and customs totter. Their keenly observing eyes cannot fail to discern our fears and inhibitions. Their concept of sex is warped by the recognition of friction between men and women, and by the irritations caused by sex. The phantom of masculine superiority intimidates boys by imposing on them an obligation which they can never expect to fulfill, and invites girls to rebel against their secondary role. The masculine protest of boys and girls invests sex with all these threats of social humiliation, suppression, and degradation. The manner in which children make their first acquaintance with sex as a physiological mechanism intensifies the sense of danger. Long before children experience the functions of their own bodies, they hear about love-making, about sex relations and their consequences. What they hear is seldom pleasant. Adults talk freely in the presence of young children, because they believe that a child does not understand. Yet even if a child cannot understand the real meaning of words and ideas, he can sense the significance of remarks. So children learn about the dangers of pregnancies, about the disgrace connected with sexual experiences. Much of what they hear about sex is linked with suffering, disgrace, disadvantage, or even disaster. Especially girls become aware early that the disadvantages and dangers affect women mainly. No wonder that women are more inclined than men to regard sexuality as brutal, inhuman, and bestial.

The self-assurance of American mothers has been seriously undermined in recent years. More and more) women have been bombarded by the often conflicting opinions of child psychologists) pediatricians and early-learning educators. Women’s Lib has also complicated the mothering role. The Movement has convinced many women that to be nothing but a mother is to be a failure. Such a mother then cannot help but resent the supposed cause of her failure: her child) her children. The resentment that sets in only takes her further away from her mothering core.

But the problem goes back further. There is a serious lack of instilled mothering knowledge in this generation of mothers. Women are educating themselves well about pregnancy, birth and often breast-feeding, but that is as far as they go alone. Within hours after hospital delivery, new mothers realize that the living beings thrust into their arms are little-known quantities.

Panicked and disoriented, we are suddenly aware we were not taught the craft of mothering. Our mothers knew how to cook real oatmeal for the three-month-old, embroider a smock or make a dandelion chain for the toddler. They were taught the craft, but few passed it down. Though they knew the old ways they had lost the conviction that anything “old” mattered.

The World War II generation of mothers is the missing link with the past.

Even before their time, the chain was weakening, but mothers after the war fell prey in vast numbers to the Age of Technology. Commercial entrepreneurs assaulted them. Gerber, Walt Disney, Matte, and many other companies convinced those young mothers that to be modern and efficient, they should buy rather than make.

Sociological changes also worked against these women. Postwar families grew smaller and smaller; daughters had less and less chance to watch their mothers take care of younger sisters and brothers. Also, the nuclear family structure excluded grandmothers, great-aunts and others who used to contribute mothering information. Even women’s education got in the way. Mothers became obsessed with their daughters’ homework. Night after night, year after year, they insisted on neat geometry assignments rather than sitting with their daughters for an hour to sew.

For our children and ourselves, we have to find a way to keep the benefits of twentieth-century education, technology and change while also recapturing the older, slower sense of mothering calm. In this book I have tried to set down classic mother craft tools, most of them safely rooted in the pre-World War I era. The recipes and household suggestions call for few prepackaged aids-they begin at the beginning. The samples of old songs, rhymes, stories and art forms are widely varied but dependable, well-anchored and in general of better quality than much of what are being offered today. In the Playtime and Nature chapters, I emphasize things to invent and do with a child that cost little, that will make a parent’s time with a child more fruitful, and that will give the child a sense of creating on his own.

The last thing I hope for is to push mothers into doing more for their children. The old) basic ideas put forth here are meant to help a mother save her energy and yet have more of a sense of accomplishment at the end of a day. Even more important are the seeds each mother can add to this garden. We can reach back into our childhood and family past and unearth whatever crafting tools of our own give us each the most personal confidence and joy.

Little children in both England and America have always been taught the rudiments of education at home, as a matter of course. The mother, the aunt or the older sister usually was the teacher. Thus the child began his learning naturally: he scarcely knew he was being taught.

Once started, the child learns many things fastest by himself. “Teaching” can actually interrupt the momentum of personal thought.

A mother gives a clue. The child draws out the thread, tracing his way through the labyrinth by himself. When he finally arrives at the center, he is alone and triumphant.