Did anybody think that by putting all their efforts into raising the kids and virtually none into maintaining their marriage that the couple might break up? I felt so sorry for the poor guy! Am I alone in imagining a fellow might get tired of being put last after all the kids and pets? He did get lucky at the end but after how many years??
shareLife was very different in those days. For the most part families and child rearing was your main focus if that was the life you chose. Life was very simple then children and adults did not live their lives with many distractions or concerns for themselves as individuals. The mothers concerned themselves with the raising of the children and the fathers worked, in many cases 6 days a week. But this was still Hollywood and prone to exaggeration and perfection (as thought of at the time). Remember "Leave it to Beaver", http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050032/; "Father Knows Best", http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046600/; and "The Donna Reed Show", http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051267/.
However this particular movie showing the husband being last on the totem pole was an integral part of the story. Remember the part when the husband, played by Cary Grant, asked about husbands feeling left out when the wife, played by Betsy Drake, was conducting a seminar on raising foster children. At least the concept was addressed and this family seemed happy enough with the arrangements knowing it would not be forever. Also consider the last scene when the children were dropped off for the night and the parents were going home with a bottle of champagne. Cary Grant's eyes were sparkling with anticipation.
Goodness I enjoyed this movie. I could watch Cary Grant all night. After the viewing of "Room for One More" tonight I watched "Every Girl Should Be Married". I was in heaven. I say there should be a Cary Grant movie on every day of the week. Are you listening Turner Classic Movies?
Those are children's tv shows. And even in Father's Knows Best there was a story about the couple trying to have time alone and getting off away from the kids. As it turned out they were too worried about them and returned but it did raise the issue that one day the children will leave home and the couple will be alone and may have no relationship. And just because they have kids doesn't mean they want to give up romance and sex. As Cary Grant alluded to in this movie, they had sex to get their first children. Is he then supposed to just satisfy his own needs by himself? Poor guy!!
My parents were born in 1916. They had six children and made a real effort to always have time for each other. Their marriage lasted to their deaths and they kept the friskiness and romance alive. It was the next generation that felt parents weren't also separate adults and everything should be about the children. It's GOOD for children to see their parents as sexual adults. It's GOOD for children to know that they aren't the be all and end all to the universe. And it's very good indeed for parents to have romance and sex and bonding to enable them to weather the storms of life.
I forgot the ages of the people posting here. Not the right generations! :)
The examples I cited were family TV shows and are commonly known to demonstrate the 1950’s way of thinking on family life; married couples and how they raised their children.
I agree with you that children need to know they are not the center of the universe and their parents are sexual beings with their own needs and wants. And I agree that Cary Grant tried (harder than his wife but that was probably because she was more tired being the main caretaker [although he did contribute to their care more than the usual father of the time period]) to make time for the couple, that was evident in this movie. Keep in mind the movie takes place over a fairly short period of time maybe 18 months or so and that during this time there two very special additions to the family. In time, like the end of the movie the family dynamics would return to a more symbiotic state.
Obviously it is important for adults to maintain their relationship to ensure there will be a relationship when the children leave the nest; it is now and was then very difficult and has continued to be a contributing factor why many couples divorce. However, in years past it was more common (not recommended) to see couples concentrate on their children and put themselves second.
My parents were both born in 1929 and I am one of four children. My sibs and I saw our parents as a unit unto themselves. They were a very connected demonstrative couple yet their first concern was their children particularly when their children were small. Unfortunately my father passed away before all the children left the nest so I didn’t get the chance to witness my parents’ marriage sans children but based on how I saw them behave as I grew up I would not be surprised to see them act like newlyweds with their new found independence.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Every family is different, but marriage (or any lifelong relationship) is hard work. It's something you may not realize when you get married. My parents were born in 1929 and 1930, and always maintained that their marriage came first, then the kids and then everything else. Their philosophy seemed to run counter to a lot of contemporary parents raising baby boomers, at least from what I saw. They remained married for 54 years.
shareYes, every family is different. But, for parents to more or less tell their kids that they come second to the marriage is rather selfish, not to mention could be hurtful, depending on how the kid takes it.
While it isn't wise to make a child the center of the universe, so too is it not wise to make he or she feel like number 2. There is something very cold-hearted about any parent openly acknowledging that their kid is not first in their heart. Because lets not forget, a parent is the first love (and sometimes the only real love) a kid ever has. So, to them, the parent is number 1. Therefore, to them, they are also number 1 to the parent.
And, yes, you all can tell me how immature I sound, or that not all kids are how I describe. Nevertheless, ranking family members in order of importance is just about as crass as when guys give their girlfriends a numerical value, i.e. "My ex was about a 5 or 6, but baby, you're a perfect 10!" Making your marriage # 1 (or "first") and your children #2 (or "second") is just about as silly as that, and I'm glad some couples know better.
Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize!
Actually I found Cary Grant's randiness toward his wife very "modern" for this 1952 movie. The way he was always trying to get it on with her and the way they showed that there was romance and not just two robot parents was very forward for the day. Until then parental roles were never shown to be interested in sex. Obviously once the kids were asleep the two of them were having a very good time in the bedroom, and that was implied by his friskiness. It was also showing how she was successful in having him wrapped around her little finger because she was fulfilling his needs, being a very good wife not just a good mother. That was the part of the movie you get if you watch closely- to his always seeking a kiss, a hug, a pat on the bottom, from her, because the romance was very much alive when the kids were asleep, and he was excited about it. Because they were so close intimately it allowed him to be generous to her generous whims. She was very wise. It was almost as though the Director was sending a message- 'OK, all you wives, if you give your husbands what they want, you'll get what you want!'
shareI find it very charming when husbands are portrayed as still being attracted to their wives after many years and/or children. It was refreshing (fascinating may be a better word) to see this chemistry played out onscreen between a married IRL couple.
share