Day in and day out, I have struggled with this question: "Have I done the right thing by my children by having chosen to marry someone who is gone most of the time?" This is the same husband who is their father. When we started this relationship, I knew that his career required him to be gone quite a bit. True love means being able to let someone go. True love means allowing a person to be themselves. He's said, from the beginning, that he is amazed by my ability to let him go so easily. I don't know if I'm letting him go so easily, but I am letting him go. It's the only way I know how to honestly love him.
With a husband who is out of the country for 90 days straight and then usually home for 45 days, as a typical rotation, I wonder what messages I am sending our children. Will they get to know their dad enough? He's gone for so long, but then he's home for a long time. When he's home, he's usually home all day long, every day for 45 days straight. That is some serious quality time. When I think about the wives of men that work long hours, I think I'm doing a lot better than that. I've got friends whose husbands don't get home until the little ones are in bed, and who leave for work in the morning before the little ones have woken up. I see very little quality time there, unless they're getting some fruitful vacations. Then, how often do they vacation?
I compare myself to a soldier's wife. Her husband is gone like this as well, many times indefinitely, or at least for much longer periods of time than 90 days. I wonder what she thinks, when thinking about the messages she's sending to her child(ren). I know that she has one that I can't say, "Your daddy is defending our country". What I can say is what most parents say to a child whose father works a lot, and is gone from home most of the time: "Your daddy works very hard. Because of his hard work, you are able to live in a safe neighborhood, go to a good school, eat well..."
On some days, I could really use the extra support. It really helps when there is more than one person telling them to do things or not to do things. The "Because I said so" goes a lot further this way. The discipline differences really stand out when he's home. Sometimes I think he expects the kids to be a decade older than they actually are. He is gone so long that he's lost the sense of where they are emotionally and socially, and expects more out of them than they can understand. If he were home more often, these differences might not stand out so sharply. If he were home more often, we might have a more united front. I know that, when they get older, they might need help with their math or science - - more left-brained abilities (when mommy is more of a right-brained thinker). I can always help with grammar, writing, reading, and history. What about when they've had a bad day at school though? Will I always have to be the one to have the answers (or at least the right thing to say)?
I ponder this question day in and day out. The other day I was doing some repair work around the house. Then I got to thinking that not all mothers do this type of thing. Not all mothers inflate the inner tubes to go swimming. Not all mothers replace levers on comodes, so that toilets can flush again. Not all mothers mow and trim their front and back yard once a week. I have tried to stay on the positive side of this question. I am teaching them resourcefulness. I am teaching them that they don't necessarily need a man to get something done. My husband is great about doing work around the house, and even fixes some great meals. When he's gone, I'm all on my own though.
A mistake I made in my past was thinking that I needed a man in my life to make me happy. So many of my friends were getting married, and I thought I had to as well. I thought that was the normal thing to do. That marriage ended in a divorce, because I married for all the wrong reasons: not because I loved him, but because I loved the idea of being "normal", and of having what I thought I was supposed to have. Now I am married, but he is gone so much. So it is not like I can depend on him to make me happy. Also, that is such a big burden to place on someone, to expect them to be your source of all happiness. I've been in that position as well. It might be flattering, but it's gets tiring very quickly. We're all bound to make mistakes, and let our partner's down once in a while - - especially when we're expected to be their everything. We can't be everything to someone else. We're human. That's what God's for.
So, I hope that my children understand, one day, that all of my intentions were good. I didn't mean for them to have a father gone all of the time. I am glad that, when he's home, he's home as a real father - - able to get down on the floor and play with them as if he were a child himself. I am hoping that they learn that they don't need a spouse in their lives to make them happy. I want them to learn of other healthy ways to make themselves happy. I want them to learn how to love their spouses, not put a burden on them to be everything for them. I also want them to be able to find someone who knows that as well. I want them to be able to be resourceful. I'm not saying that we don't need anyone in our lives. There are so many resources available, and we all have to learn to reach out to both help and be helped - - beyond our own four walls. I want them to know how to love both themselves and others. Letting go, and letting someone be themselves is the ultimate love. If you can't accept someone for something they're doing, then you shouldn't be with them. You can't change them, and trying will only make them that much more stubborn. This is what I've learned in the past. My husband is amazed by how I am able to let go so easily. He is amazed at what he thinks of me: being so easy-going, and accepting of him. If only he knew me years ago. I am hoping my children will be able to skip the mistakes I've made, and learn these values simply by how their parents' marriage speaks.