13 Jun 06
Originally posted by shavixmirTwo problems with your theory:
Yes. Stop stigmatising everyone.
The only reason kids weren't abondoned as much 60 years ago is poverty. There was no way the mother and child would be fed, if the father wasn't bringing home the dough.
1. I'm willing to wager that the statistics will show that poorer fathers abandon their parental responsibilities today more often than richer fathers. The higher incidence of single-parent (the mother, in the vast majority of cases) households in the under-privileged segments of society would support that.
2. 60 years ago, it was easier to abandon your family than it is now. Even if the abandoned wife could afford to hire an attorney (which would be more difficult considering the rarity of working moms back then), the legal system would not have been as expedient in tracking you down and ensuring you pay child support. If you really wanted to leave - all you had to do was walk away.
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by catfoodtimBecause every relationship will appear not to "work" at some point or another. You can't live perpetually in Valentine's Day-land. Relationships take work, hard work. When a relationship eventually falls apart irreparably, it means that one or both parties failed to recognise that.
Why is it necessarily a bad thing for men and women to seperate in a relationship that doesn't work for whatever reason? Immaturity is as much a relationship wrecker as infidelity. Surely less argument and conflict at home makes for a better childhood, even if it means travelling across town to see Daddy on a weekend.
Is it better to have less argument and conflict at home? Depends. Every couple is going to bicker and even fight at times; if we're going to separate couples every time their relationship is not "perfect", we might as well give up on the idea of permanent relationships altogether. Granted, separation may be the only option when the conflict is violent or abusive - but I doubt if that's why most people split up.
When parents split up, children often blame themselves. How does that guilt make for a better childhood? Children are also going to ask if their parents really cared for their well-being enough to at least try to stay together. How does that sense of abandonment make for a better childhood?
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by catfoodtimRewind feminism? Force everyone to go to church? Bring back corporal punishment? There's a little Baptist church out in Kansas that might appeal to you. It's called the Wesboro Baptist Church.
I think Shav and ATY are partly correct - poverty was just one reason why parents stayed together for the children. Didn't religious and family social structures also play a bigger part? Today those structures exert far less pressure - on men [b]and woman - to stay in a traditional family.
Cure alls?
Rewind a century of feminism, abolish oppor ...[text shortened]... an get back to halycon days of traditional family values that subjugated women and children.[/b]
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by catfoodtimYou don't run out of stereotypes, do you?
I agree that relationships take hard work, just not the idea that they should stay together solely for the sake of the children. I think you don't credit children with enough intelligence to understand that both parents can love and care for them without necessarily being together - and that children from 'broken homes' (such a loaded phrase) can grow in ...[text shortened]... s well.
You'll be telling me next that children should be seen and not heard in the home.
Staying together for the sake of the children is a perfectly good reason for couples to work on their relationship. Every relationship has its peaks and its troughs - couples need greater motivation to work to work through their troughs and children can provide that.
Far from not crediting children with enough intelligence, I'm crediting them (the older ones who don't blame themselves) with enough intelligence to realise that, while their parents love and care for them, they don't love or care enough to work through their problems.
Of course, many children from broken homes can and do grow into well-rounded individuals. But, in general, they don't. In fact, in a low-conflict family situation (which is what we're talking about - I've already said that high-conflict/violent situations do call for separation) the children end up far worse than they would if the couple work it out. And two-thirds of all divorces are low-conflict.
You might want to check the following article out:
http://www.rps.psu.edu/0201/happy.html
The Amato-Booth study is the most definitive one on the subject.
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by catfoodtim"A really biased piece"?? AFAICS, the article simply presents the conclusions of their study.
That's an interesting article. It looks like we're not going agree on this, though as I found it a really biased piece.
And you're right, perhaps my stereotypes are a little fatuous too.
I thought the article contained 3 very interesting sentences:
"we found that coming from a low-conflict marriage that ends in divorce had a devastating effec ...[text shortened]... and care for them, they don't love or care enough [b]about each other[/b]
catfoodtim: "Are there any studies of children from homes not broken, where parents didn't get on?"
The Amato-Booth study did include low-conflict households that stayed together - many of whom (as the article implies) managed to work out their problems.
(I could direct you to the Glenn-Marquardt study as well - but if you say Amato-Booth is biased, you're definitely going to assert that Glenn-Marquardt is biased. In any case, here's the Marquardt article in the Wash. Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110402304.html?sub=AR)
catfoodtim: "How would either situation help produce happy, well-rounded children? I'd say that such situations would teach children defeatism and escapism respectively."
I'm not sure where that conclusion (especially the escapism) comes from. Booth's comment deals with the variety of happy and unhappy families.
catfoodtim: "Less religious, traditional and liberal = bad then?"
No.
Less religious, traditional and liberal = more likely to divorce.
Disagree?
catfoodtim: "And you missed a crucial bit from one of your paragraphs - I've added it in bold - which sums up where we differ."
The next time you decide to reword/change something I've written - please make it more explicit that you're doing so.
catfoodtim: "Far from not crediting children with enough intelligence, I'm crediting them... with enough intelligence to realise that, while their parents love and care for them, they don't love or care enough about each other".
At that particular point in time. As I said, every relationship has its peaks and troughs.
13 Jun 06
1 edit
Just to point out - both the Amato-Booth and Glenn-Marquandt studies indicated that, in most low-conflict divorces, the children didn't even realise something was wrong in their parents' relationship until the divorce announcement was made to them.
EDIT: I'm surprised at your skepticism. Why don't you cite a study that shows that children benefit from low-conflict divorces? All the evidence and research from the last three decades or so (a good listing can be found in the Wikipedia article on 'Divorce'😉 demonstrate conclusively that parents in low-conflict divorces are attempting to purchase their own happiness at the expense of their children's - and failing (Amato-Booth).
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerAll other claims aside, this one I highly doubt. Children are extremely good at picking up even minor conflict between parents. They may not be able to acknowledge this on an intellectual or even conscious level, but there are very real behavioral manifestations of the drama being observed.
Just to point out - both the Amato-Booth and Glenn-Marquandt studies indicated that, in most low-conflict divorces, the children didn't even realise something was wrong in their parents' relationship until the divorce announcement was made to them.
-JC
13 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ChurlantI'm not saying they might not have sensed the conflict at some subconscious level (which, IMO, is over-rated). I'm saying they did not feel there was anything out of the ordinary - and certainly not something that would precipitate a complete and permanent separation of their parents.
All other claims aside, this one I highly doubt. Children are extremely good at picking up even minor conflict between parents. They may not be able to acknowledge this on an intellectual or even conscious level, but there are very real behavioral manifestations of the drama being observed.
-JC
EDIT: Do you, like catfoodtim, hold that divorces do not have a net negative impact on children in low-conflict situations?
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI was aware that the studies were "saying" these things, not you specifically - and I simply don't agree.
I'm not saying they might not have sensed the conflict at some subconscious level (which, IMO, is over-rated). I'm saying they did not feel there was anything out of the ordinary - and certainly not something that would precipitate a complete and permanent separation of their parents.
EDIT: Do you, like catfoodtim, hold that divorces do not have a net negative impact on children in low-conflict situations?
As to whether or not low-conflict marriage trumps divorce as far as the welfare of children is involved - I would tend to agree with you, actually. My actual inclination is to distrust subjective terms such as "low-conflict," but I'll accept a relative definition for the sake of argument.
-JC
13 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI dont trust many statistics and data from longitudinal studies I feel would probably suffer from an all too self conscious gain saying which leaves me with my 2 cents and that is comparing my fathers generation with mine. He was born in the 20's , me in the 60's.
I'm not saying they might not have sensed the conflict at some subconscious level (which, IMO, is over-rated). I'm saying they did not feel there was anything out of the ordinary - and certainly not something that would precipitate a complete and permanent separation of their parents.
EDIT: Do you, like catfoodtim, hold that divorces do not have a net negative impact on children in low-conflict situations?
They just got on with it. They didnt have the time, education, self involvement, to be interested in the attainment of self actualisation and self improvement. To inddulgently wallow and obsess over the impact and influence that every little thing had on a childs life. The requirements of living were such that you did what you had too and that was that. People stayed together and squabbled. People separated and had acrimonious relationships targeting the other partner often mercilessly. Were they any less pragmatic than couples who now divorce? I think a lot of them stayed together because it was the best economic option for all concerned. The point is that the generation labelled as the builders who gave birth to the baby boomers were raised in some of the most atrocious circumstances that anyone could hope to be. Is it any wonder that as personal wealth and choices became more prevalent (ie less of a societal pressure to stay together, more economic empowerment for women) that these builders and boomers voted with their pocket books and found some personal space and PEACE! Its all very well looking at trends and trying to define a pattern or make some profound statement as to what that will do to the next generation, the facts IMHO are that no generation that is yet too come will ever suffer as much as the generation that built the whole current shebang did. They lived through 2 world wars and a depression and many personal deprivations and from anecdotal evidence their home lives were pretty shocking. They just didnt have the time to navel gaze the way that we do. In fact they were the quintesential NIKE generation. They just did it. And whatever happened they let fall and they simply played their cards the way that they landed.
In every generation there are probably markers that signal the end of something. Someday, oneday, the doomsayers will be right. They would have to be if the make the same old prediction year after year. Its just if you see glasses half full and closing doors presenting opportunities for opening newer ones then the potential of a society that would not weigh people down with guilt at the thought that they may have made a mistake aand would be better off starting all over again might mean that the kids being free'd of an expectation that people must just stick it out come what may, may actually value the institution of marriage more in the long term.
If marriages are not seen as a trap and if people are able to not be so insecure that they would try and destroy another's life because they were just not suited then surely in the long run with no pressure hanging over the institution, people may actually think about it before entering into it. By not being forced into it in any way and not being held in it in any way would probably mean that over time the only people wanting to be in it would actually want to make it work.
And never you mind the kids will always be allright
