I think the key is not if a couple divorces, but how they behave after the divorce. I have a few close friends whose parents divorced, but remained friendly, stayed in the same town, didn’t compete to be the favorite parent, etc. My friends honestly didn’t seem to suffer as a result of the divorce. On the other hand, when my SO’s parents divorced, it was a very bitter situation and he and his siblings, to some degree, became another thing for his parents to fight about. On the same note, I have a cousin whose husband has children from a previous marriage. He moved to Kentucky after the divorce; they live in Colorado and see him once every three months or so. But kids don’t need a dad every three months; they need a dad every day, someone who can pick them up from band practice and go to school plays and make them dinner, etc. I wonder if there have been any studies showing the results of amiable v. hostile divorces or same-town v. long-distance divorced parents on children.
Of course some children are better of if thier parents are divorced. Especially, but not limited to domestic or emotionally abusive relationships.
But, statistically, by and large, for the most part, (whatever you prefer) it has to be better for children to be in a household with two parents. Two parents have twice as much resourses or time, money and love to spend on the children.
I lament that our society makes it so easy to get divorced. Again, not because I think it should be difficult with waiting periods or such, but because it shouldn’t be the social norm. Long term relationships do have peaks and valleys of happiness, IMHO. Rather than riding these out many people feel that constant, permanent happiness is an absolute right and will divorce seeking it. The social pressure (if there is any left) to remain married might make some couples stay together that shouldn’t, but overall I think it’s a good thing because it keeps many couples riding out a couple of years of hard times who end up happy in the long run.
Ehh, I meant domestic abuse, or emotional abuse in that first incoherent sentance. Hey, I have a cold… in friggan August… so give me a break, ok?
Statistically? Please show me statistics that show that, for couples who have marriage problems sufficient for them to consider divorce, that it is demonstrably better for them to stay together than to separate.
Indeed. But is this contingent on staying married? Absolutely not.
burundi said a very wise thing:
I find that this is the most true. I do not feel that a loveless marriage is better than a constructive divorce. Perhaps it is better than a destructive divorce, but if the parents really do care about their children foremost, then that need not be an issue.
I often think about my own parents. All of the true negatives comparing my parents as divorced rather than married stem from my father’s bitterness and hostility over the divorce. He has chosen to take out these feelings on his children because he knows it will hurt my mother. (He promises money for college, then decides against it when the bill arrives. He reneges on promises. He practices favoritism, sending some children on expensive trips and buying them expensive gifts, while snubbing the others that ‘have taken their mother’s side’.)
If the parents are committed to their children, living separately is not necessarily negative. Indeed, I think it is better for them to divorce, rather than staying together when they are unhappy and no longer love each other. Kids know when this is happening and it affects them quite adversely, even when the parents do not take out their anger on their kids (which often happens).
I disagree. I think the current social taboos are incredibly destructive. My mother was in a demonstrably abusive relationship, in which a conservative minister even recommended immediate separation, yet is still snubbed by some people because she initiated the divorce when my father refused to change. (Actually, he tried to bully her when he was angry about the separation, and decided he would take the ‘moral high road’ and be a ‘good Christian husband’ by trying to browbeat her into submission.)
**
Perhaps you and I are fundamentally different. I believe that it is best for the individual who is in the situation to decide what is best for them, not for society to pass off general rules which are enforced by social norms, taboos, bullying, and isolation. I believe adults have the right, and, indeed, the responsibility to decide what is best for themselves and for their family.
Of course, all relationships have ups and downs. Do people get divorced for flippant reasons? Sure. Of course some people will make bad decisions. I still think it is much better for them to have freedom of choice, rather than be pushed by society in a certain direction because of feelings and beliefs that marriage is generally just superior to divorce.
I said it was better for children to be in a household with two parents. You are adding his “who have marriage problems sufficient for them to consider divorce” clause that I never said in order to prove me wrong.
**
People that get divorced no longer live together in the house with the children. Even if they both are good parents while divorced and spend an equal amount of time with the child, it is still only one parent at a time. Two parents are better than one. Two full time parents are also better than two part time parents.
**
Yes, it is.
**
Unhappy and no longer love eachother for how long? Relationships have ups and downs. Divorce has become such a social norm that as soon as couples are unhappy society encourages them to divorce, rather than wait it out.
**
**
IMHO, organized religion does a lot more damage than just encouraging couples to stay married. But, thats another thread.
**
When did I mention taboos, bullying, or isolation?
Straw man: Of course people have the right do do what’s best for themselves and their families. I never said they didn’t. I was just expressing a little disapointment that society deems it so acceptable to divorce. Apparantly with you being an exception, people are very influenced by the norms that society has. Once a couple decides to even seperate for a short time, the divorce takes on a life of it’s own. Lawyers get involved, friends throw “divorce parties”, none of this seems geared towards staying together.
**
“freedom of choice” --> straw man again.
A balance needs to be struck. I don’t want a society that values marraige so much that people are afraid to get divorced. I just don’t want the opposite either.
BTW, I live near Boston, MA. I think geography has a lot to do with anecdotal evidence being supplied in this debate. Someone from the Bible Belt would probably have a different opinion than mine of how much value is placed on the institution of marraige by society.
I should also mention, I am deliberately speaking in generalities. Of course, many divorced couples are better parents than many still married couples. But, my arguments are all made assuming we are talking about what is true for the majority of families.
Okay. I hate to sound like this. But I am only 25, got married when I was 17 (yes, it was too young, and that’s a huge part of why i divorced), and I am currently trying to deal with the huge blow of custody unfairness. I have a great job which more than adequately supports my three children; my ex-husband is currently in and out of our state’s finer penal institutions. I have no psychological or physical addictions; my ex-husband is a self-professed crack addict. Yet when we went into court for the custody hearings, his MOTHER got full custody of my daughters. She couldn’t get it of my son because he is not my ex’s child, and this divorce has been ongoing for four years. I was hysterical, to say the least… i mean, I’m not a great parent, but Im decent (no abuse, etc etc) and I thought I was doing the right thing for my kids when i picked up and left my ex. Apparently the judge did NOT see it that way. I don’t know what this has to do with this board, but I have to vent somewhere. Can anyone explain to me this obvious lack of sense on the ruling party’s part? I just don’t get it. I’m currently appealing, by the way, but some days I think I should have stayed with the bastard, let him cheat on me, possibly kill me, and then I wouldn’t have had this unfairness visited upon me too.
In my experience, both people in a marriage need to want to be there, or one will leave. If he or she doesn’t have an easy out (“I don’t want to be here anymore”) they will create an out - an affair, abuse, overspending, gambling, addiction. If you’ve been left you SHOULD get divorced and move on (as well as seperating yourself from the legal responsibilities of your spouse).
I have an acquantaince whose parents have been married for 50 years - Haven’t lived together for 35 of them - but divorce is against their beliefs. She grew up in a home where Dad didn’t live there - he lived with his girlfriend - but, by God, they weren’t divorced! Can’t figure that one out.
No, you never said it, but it stands to reason. Why should we consider happily married couples where neither partner wants a divorce in a thread titled “on divorce”? Why should they be considered in determining when divorce is better for the child?
Just because you say it doesn’t make it true. Why are two parents better than one? Would three parent figures be better? You need to support your statements.
**
What do you mean by this?
You’re apparently not living in the same society that I am. Divorce still carries quite a stigma, especially for women.
IMHO, love isn’t something that comes and goes (though unhappiness is, to a certain extent). If you don’t love someone anymore and you are unhappy, there isn’t a certain amount of time that validates this. I’d simply have to leave it up to the individual.
If a marriage has problems, waiting it out does nothing to solve those problems. I am very much in favor of people trying to resolve issues, but if they cannot be resolved or one partner does not wish to compromise, I cannot see why divorce is not an acceptable option. The children in the marriage are not going to be more happy if their parents are in a loveless marriage, in my experience.
**
Those are the means by which society enforces what is acceptable or favorable vs what is not. If you think that homosexuality, for example, is unacceptable, those are often the tactics you use to ‘encourage’ a person not to be gay. I’m afraid I simply can’t believe society can say “staying together is inherently better than divorce, but should you choose to divorce, we’ll positively encourage you not to and that’s it”.
But what do you intend to do to change that, if not the tactics that society usually enforces to create norms?
I’m not sure what you mean by this. It is certainly inaccurate. I am very much influenced by those norms, just not in every case.
**
1.) Lawyers do not ‘get involved’ unless one of the parties gets them involved. I have never heard of a divorce lawyer soliciting business from couples who had separated but were trying to repair their marriage.
2.) Divorce parties? Can you give me evidence that this is a prevalent phenomenon? I’ve never heard about it.
I disagree with your final point, as well. There are many forces that encourage people to stay together (though there are exceptions and this does fluctuate based on a number of factors such as area of the country, religion, and so on).
**
Why? Just because you say it doesn’t make it so, as I’ve said. You want to encourage people to do things your way. You won’t say how, except that you’ve said that it wouldn’t include the tactics I assumed you would. You want society to pressure people to take one choice over another. What are the consequences of this? I presume that one may very well be loss of freedom of choice. If you wish to debunk this, then you will just have to be more explicit in stating your position and what exactly you wish to be done.
I don’t think that is the case.
I live in Iowa, now. I grew up in New Jersey. I have lived and visited many areas of the country. I do not know of one where taboos against divorce do not still exist.
Just another anecdote, to show a point: my parents divorced after moving to Iowa. Many local people refused to speak to my mother or were unfriendly to her afterward. My mom wrote back to friends on the East Coast about it and wanted their support. Many of them (women who were still married) snubbed her, though she did receive some responses later from women who had later gotten divorced.
I do agree that the extent to which divorce is approved/disapproved of varies greatly. It would be very different among people my own age (in their twenties) vs my mother’s generation (and those are who I am really thinking of, as my own generation has not had time to be married, had children, and be divorced). I just can’t agree that couples are strongly encouraged not to resolve after they separate or show marital problems. In my experience, it is quite the opposite.
This board is an example of why divorate rates are at an alltime high of 60% in the U.S. Marriage as an institution is flawed and media/society often misrepresents the reasons why people should get married to begin with. I have several young friends (i’m only 24 myself) that think marriage will be a “solution” to their problems. They think highly of married life in general but don’t consider the complications of having that constant relationship with someone. These aren’t immature people but unrealistic people who believe in the Cinderella story and the Gala wedding with thousands of people.
I have nothing against people falling in love and wanting marriage but more people should consider the longterm implications. I find most relationships to be based more on frivolous things than anything else. I’m being cynical but it’s true in American society. There’s really no reason to marry anymore and less reason for a husband/wife to stick together for decades like in the old days. There’s no longer any stigma of the single woman or the unmarried bachelor. Religious reasons may exist for two people to remain together but it is also diminishing.