You wouldn’t understand…
[non essential photo removed ]
Before I was a parent if there was one thing that annoyed me about other parents it was the phrase, “you wouldn’t understand you’re not a parent”. Or varients of. I’m now a parent, and still it makes my hackles (whatever they might be) rise. It’s one of those phrases almost certainly guaranteed to start a fight on an internet forum, and I imagine if the participants were drunk enough, it would do so in real life also.
I’ve been thinking about this partly because of watching that Family Guy episode where Bryan gets to look after his son (anybody else curious as to why son is not half dog?), but mostly because I seem to hear it quite frequently of late (both in real life and virtually).
The reason it annoys me so is that it has no basis in reality. Admittedly, if you’re a non-parent and you’ve never had to spend much time with children, then some of the practical aspects of parenting might be tricky to imagine. I think though that most people have seen enough documentaries, reality television and been ill themselves to make a good guess at what a nasty nappy is like. The practical aspects aren’t generally what people mean when the patronising speech pops up.*
What is usually meant is something emotional. Maternal (and paternal, but mothers seem to make more noise) affection is elevated to some mysterious force where “women will do anything for their children”. Their love is, according to endless books and Channel Five afternoon movies, more powerful than anything else. The instinct to protect is limitless etc etc. Not only is it a highly romaticised view of parenthood, but it’s incredibly offensive.
The emotional bond from parent to child is yes a different love as from spouse to spouse, but so too is the love of friend to friend. Indeed I’d argue that since the dynamics of every single loving relationship are different, that the love you have for one partner is different to that you will have for another. It doesn’t make either love any less worthwhile, nor mutually exclusive. Hence why I believe that it is entirely viable to be in love with more than one person at once, and why I find the argument that parental love is some how stronger nonsensical. Many will argue that the basis of powerful maternal love is the hormone oxytocin, which is released during labour and in breastfeeding.* It’s true that the hormone is a biological safeguard to ensure that the mother animal is compelled to look after the newly born young rather than eating them or something, but apart from those who attempt re-lactation/induced lactation,* this argument almost wholly disregards the love that adoptive parents have for their children. Do those who strengthen their argument with hormones feel that their love for their children is somehow better than the love that those who have adopted have for their children? In some cases I think I probably don’t want to hear the answer to that.
The other part of the argument is the protective instinct. Many an Hallmark movie has been written around the protective instinct of mothers, from those who rescue their offspring from sinking cars to the team-mate murdering kind of mummy. The “You Wouldn’t Understand”[YWU] theory proponenets make much of the delicate nature of children, and the need to look after them. Does the man who cares for a relative feel any less protective than a parent over their child? Does the old lady who has doted on her strange little terrier for ten years want to rescue him from a house fire any less than the parent would rescue their child? No.
If you’ve ever loved someone (whether or not they returned the affection is irrelevent. Irrelevent too is the someone’s species).
If you’ve ever felt protective (ditto above).
If you’ve ever had to get dressed at the speed of light (or in the dark).
If you’ve ever had a conversation with someone who is fixated on one subject.
If you’ve ever cleaned something disgusting up.
If you’ve ever been woken up in the middle of the night.
If you’ve ever watched TV that made you feel like you were on drugs (or indeed while you were on drugs).
Then you would understand what it’s like to be a parent.
By my, not terribly scientific calculations, that will be everyone, and even if you were fortunate enough not to have cleaned up something disgusting you still can, and do understand. We’re capable of understanding experiences without having to go through them ourselves, we do so constantly, everytime we read a work of fiction or watch a television drama (unless everyone else leads considerably more exciting lives than I). I do wonder if the YWU folks also dismiss male feminists, and white civil rights activists. If all learning is only experiential, to people who believe you cannot understand without experiencing, then are they constantly in pursuit of new experiences to understand others better? I fear not.
*Unless it’s part of a lecture on lie-ins, and general sloth, and how non parents a sooo lucky that they have these things. Which also baffles me, just because he wakes up at 6am doesn’t mean he won’t go back to sleep again once he’s had some milk 
* It is also released during some sexual activities, and apparently during cuddling.
* Occasionally people who have adopted newborns will attempt to breastfeed. This is easier for women who have themselves given birth, as the body is designed to be able to re-lactate, but with a combination of hormones and supplements it is possible for those who haven’t to do so.
Tags: love, parenting, whinging
Lovely knees.
Fantastic post. Please go and offer it to a lifestyle magazine to replace some of the Polly Filler drivel therein.