Jamie's mother's primary allegiance was to her husband, not her children - a not uncommon family dynamic a few decades ago. Has this dynamic changed? Do you know mothers who would put their children before their husbands?

On page 169, Jamie remembers her mother: "Her primary allegiance was to her husband, not to her children, which Jamie now understood wasn't an uncommon family dynamic a few decades ago." Has this dynamic actually changed? Do you know many mothers who would put their children before their husbands?

My allegiance is to both my husband and kids. it depends on the situation but I view my allegiance to both equally as important.

I know many mothers who feel their first allegiance should be to the children when they are very young but as they grow older and more mature become more aligned with their husband. Perhaps generations ago women were more dependent on their husband for everything so felt they had to side with him first. As women became more self-sufficient and independent they were empowered to stand up against the husband if they felt he was wrong.

I think a mother's first gut reaction is to protect her children, trusting in some way that the spouse can take care of themselves during the first few hours of a crisis. As you settle into working on the situation, hopefully, most spouses will extend that protection to include the partner. I think all of us are more realistic now and know our spouses are just human and can make mistakes like anyone else can. I believe my mother's generation felt their spouses could do no wrong -- many times thinking of them as just an extension of their parental protection when they were younger. It's much healthier now for us to rightly consider marriage a partnership with the responsibility for handling crises evenly distributed between the two parties.

When the babies are born it's all about them and not the father. Some fathers today jump in and share all that responsibility and chores and the couple work as a team. As the children grow up and become more selfl-sufficient that all starts to shift back to the way it was in the beginning. That is, if the couple work on their communication and trust skills. As a mother my allegiance was always to my children first and then my husband - until he became my ex-husband.

I think many mothers I know put most of their allegiance with their children. Sometimes the men may feel left out and unappreciated and sometimes move on. I think it is natural in the early years to focus on the children but as they get older, it is important to let go. It is a balancing act to stay together as a family during these years and even more work to end up with a partner that you love and want to be with when the kids are gone. Wow, that sounds pretty cynical doesn't it?

Yes the dynamic is changed as I think a mother or parent would save their child first. It's like Super Helicopter Parenting. Our parents allegiance was to their spouse and this generation favors the children as they have been taught that they cannot fend for themselves.

I think its natural to put your children first-husbands are adults that can take care of themselves. My mother always put my father first and he was such a narcissist. I agree that that was a fairly common theme back in the 50's and 60's. Thankfully men have evolved some (?) these days. My son in law is a fabulous father and I feel so lucky to have him as my grandchildren's father.

This dynamic has definitely changed and is probably one of the main contributors to marital strife. Husbands don't get the same attention they had before children, especially physical attention. All of th comments highlight how the novel reflects the current family dynamic. Walk in to any marriage therapy and they will say spend more time as husband and wife! My mother tells me the same thing, lol.