Divorce

[totah]

Yo, I'm back for another arse-whoopin', but don't worry, this one isn't about kiddie-fiddling (which reminds me, what's in the trunk of my car and doesn't like sex? See end of post).

Is divorce between two parents bad for the child? That's my basic question, and here are some complexities:

There are different kinds of divorces. I've seen very ugly divorces where the back-and-forth unpleasantness between the mother and father no doubt had an emotional effect on their kids, though those kids were all well over 12 at the time, though this isn't always necessarily significant. Also the emotional effect created may be negative in the short term (ie. unhappiness) but positive in the long term, such as introducing the child to the full range of the rights of the mother (as the legal rights of divorce are undoubtedly the product of feminist struggle) or even, put roughly, toughening the child up to what is inevitably a world filled with conflict.

That said, I've seen sensible and happy divorces where the mother and father remain friends, and the child seems happy (the particular case I'm thinking of the child would have been around 6-8, so if he seemed happy he probably wasn't repressing emotions).

Also, the question I asked raises another question: Is it possible for a single mother or father to raise a child who will be an emotionally functional and stable member of society?

Not to put it too bluntly, yes, because many many millions of people worldwide have been raised by single parents and national as well global society does not seem to be falling apart due to people's emotional problems.

Please discuss, and I'll have no mention of the "nuclear family" in my thread please.

And oh yes, obviously the person in the trunk of my car who doesn't like sex is Maddie McCann. Extremely poor taste.

[GreyHam]

in my opinion, its more damaging for a child to live in an unhappy, argumentative and loveless marriage than for the parents to accept they cant be together anymore and start to live their lives again

however, a stable, loving family is generally the best option. sadly its not always available

[Scythe404]

It's case by case. I have quite a few friends whose parents have gotten divorced or have wanted to. Some of them have turned out the stereotypical way you'd expect of children of divorcees, and a few (though less of them) have not. I have one friend whose parents married despite serious problems, thinking that their personalities would eventually mesh. They didn't.

And yet, they learned to live with each other after they had their kid, for his sake. They didn't have the happiest marriage, but they managed to raise a stable, responsible person who is actually the most successful person I know, and one of the most intelligent too.

Of course, there are other people who simply can't make it work and would kill each other right in front of the kids. There's really no easy answer; it depends on the people involved. Marriage and child-raising takes serious maturity and thought, which most people don't put into anything. More often than not I'd say stay together for the kids, but only if you're mature enough to be able to work through your problems. A young-20's couple just barely getting by without even a High School diploma to their names is a lot different than a couple of mature, yet bitter people in their early 30's.

[totah]

however, a stable, loving family is generally the best option. sadly its not always available

Why is that the best option? I mean, it's what's been the status quo in our society for the past few thousand years, but do we know it's best?

Inuit couples who gave birth often used to (perhaps they still do, I don't know) give their child to another, childless couple, or one with less children, and the kids themselves were raised by the whole tribe. That's to say, the couple "in charge" of the kid weren't held solely responsible for raising her, which is sensible considering that a child will encounter more than just her parents. Obviously this needs a society that has a united sense of community, otherwise a child will (and does in our society) get lots of mixed messages about almost everything in life. I guess the Inuit couples were still couples, but I think that happens to be a tactical survival choice cum tradition that nowadays is unnecessary. Divorce probably became common because the traditional family unit (unit is such a military word, which is perhaps apt in terms of survival) became more and more obsolete in our society.

[Akira]

It is definitely case by case. My parents are divorced, but they still have to work with each other on finances and stuff, and it is all totally civil.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

I guess, my girlfriends parents are divorced and she's smarter than me. Not to mention a better person in general.

[GreyHam]

Why is that the best option? I mean, it's what's been the status quo in our society for the past few thousand years, but do we know it's best?

I

in a weird way i guess its BECAUSE its the standard - its the 'norm' in society which would probably keep kids happier

i think the stress of divorce or living in a loveless household is what needs to be avoided

[Already_Taken]

It is definitely case by case. My parents are divorced, but they still have to work with each other on finances and stuff, and it is all totally civil.

That's about how it is for me at the moment. My parents divorced before I turned a year old..

[totah]

in a weird way i guess its BECAUSE its the standard - its the 'norm' in society which would probably keep kids happier

But society changes, and so, logically, would the way children are raised. If the traditional family unit is changing (which I think is because of its fast-becoming obsolescent), then so would the traditional methods of raising children.

Besides which, anything that takes authority from it being status quo should immediately be brought into question. Leaving authority unquestioned leads to nasty places (most memorably 6 million dead).

[GreyHam]

well, the western cultural norm is to find a partner, either marry them or become commited, and start a family. so it would make sense to keep that unit constant

i cant see it being more harmful than nasty divorces etc

what would you propose instead?

[totah]

well, the western cultural norm is to find a partner, either marry them or become commited, and start a family. so it would make sense to keep that unit constant

I can't see why it makes immediate sense. Talk me through it?

i cant see it being more harmful than nasty divorces etc

what would you propose instead?

I don't propose anything concrete, I'm just making observations and trying to explain them. It's clear that the traditional family unit is being used by people in the West less and less, so I tried explaining it. I think we agree that the TFU (for short) started off as a survival tactic (because working in pairs is effective) but now maybe it's breaking up because for some reason it's becoming unnecessary and maybe even cumbersome to some people. It's possible that 200 or a 1000 years ago it was just as cumbersome, but it was necessary so people (especially women) put up with it. Maybe as the struggle for adequate living becomes less vicious, the TFU becomes obsolete by livable personal choices (such as polyamoury, bachelor/ette, single parents, gay couples etc). What do you think?

[GreyHam]

well from a practical viewpoint, having two parents would be preferable because of the increased amount of money that could be earned, leading to better education, better environment, and generally higher standard of living. also, sharing child raising responsibility probably helps build better relationships (if you have to leave junior with childminder because your working as a signle parent for example, thats not ideal)

note that i am well sleepy hence why im not realy making an in depth structured argument, more a loose generalisation and spilalge of thought

[lunchforthesky]

My parents are divorced. I don't really care either way. Even if it were bad for the child it should still be legal obviously.

[dei]

in my opinion, its more damaging for a child to live in an unhappy, argumentative and loveless marriage than for the parents to accept they cant be together anymore and start to live their lives again

Quoted for truth.

[bradc1988]

I'm okay with divorce for the right reasons, but I don't like the whole idea that the mother is the best guardian.

Maybe that idea has changed a little bit since the mid-90s though so idk

[thedeadwalk!]

Most kids move on. Only studies on rich, white kids showed more long-lasting damages.

[CarnageFairy]

My parents divorced when I was 11 or so. They remained on good terms, and I feel like my relationship with my father has gotten much better since they split. The stress of a bad marraige, combined with a whole lot of other things that were going on really made me dislike him during my early childhood. I definitely think that things are better with it having happened.

However, it kind of distanced me from my family. I was never really affected much by the whole thing and to this day continue to be an extremely apathetic person in general. I have my suspicions that the divorce was a big part of this, not caring was my way of dealing I suppose.

But I'm not screwed up in the head as far as I can tell, and neither are most of the people I know from broken homes.

So in some cases it's better for the kid, sometimes it's worse but definitely nothing that can't be dealt with by a stable kid.

[PerpetualBurn]

It's obviously good if a child is no longer subjected to an abusive atmosphere.

It's obviously not good if a stable environment breaks down.

So divorce is sometimes good for a child. And sometimes bad.

Seems pretty damned simple.

[Reaganista]

sometimes
in my opinion, its more damaging for a child to live in an unhappy, argumentative and loveless marriage than for the parents to accept they cant be together anymore and start to live their lives again
you forgot where a couple divorce lawyers take everything their parents own

[lfantwister]

I got a new sister because of a bad divorce and she's way cooler than my other one so I like divorce.

Family friends seem like an effective and untapped way to temporarily or permanently raise a child in an ugly divorce

[Jharaski]

sometimes

you forgot where a couple divorce lawyers take everything their parents own

and where the parents sometimes use the kids against each other. which I guess would happen either way so idk

[PshSam]

divorced/dead parent kids have "better" or freer lives than people with structure. For this i am quite jelouse

[CarnageFairy]

Yeah my life would be totally better if my parents were dead.

That would be so awesome.



Are you serious?

[thedeadwalk!]

And children need structure, too.

[Reaganista]

maybe some of them do

[RIP Ian Curtis]

All we've got is anecdotal so far, anyone got anything concrete?

[totah]

There's not really much to do except point out the obvious. We can discuss the traditional family unit and its merits and flaws and whether divorce is essentially bad or good etc, but the question of whether a society can function with widespread divorce has been answered by history, and I think the answer's yes. Obviously we're not functioning well, at all, as a society, but I don't think that's strictly down to divorce rates and loss of "family values", whatever those are.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I actually think it might be, but not because of some lame standard of morality. Because of all the new ways of running a family, there's no shared morality or cohesion in society. The nuclear family thing only worked when everyone was doing it, because we were all
"on the same page" so to speak, now shi'ts all over the shop.

[Permanent Solution]

Societies cannot function properly if there's not a well-accepted commonality of beliefs and values.

The interesting thing is going to be how laws evolve as the traditional values here are decomposed, because laws inevitably follow the society they rule over.

[beso negro]

My parents divorced when I was 11 or so. They remained on good terms, and I feel like my relationship with my father has gotten much better since they split. The stress of a bad marriage, combined with a whole lot of other things that were going on really made me dislike him during my early childhood. I definitely think that things are better with it having happened.

However, it kind of distanced me from my family. I was never really affected much by the whole thing and to this day continue to be an extremely apathetic person in general. I have my suspicions that the divorce was a big part of this, not caring was my way of dealing I suppose.

But I'm not screwed up in the head as far as I can tell, and neither are most of the people I know from broken homes.

So in some cases it's better for the kid, sometimes it's worse but definitely nothing that can't be dealt with by a stable kid.

My parents divorced when i was 4 or 5. It did distance me from family as i don't know much about either side.

I think it did screw me up quite a bit. It definitely stunted my development socially, as I still can't really hold a conversation with anyone. I didn't care that my parents were divorced, but it had an effect on me for the worse.

What made it especially bad for me was that I was an only child. And i was shuffled between many parents and relatives which messed up my ability to form meaningful relationships. For example, I have been at college for three years now but have yet to make any friends. I prefer to stay in my room all day or in the library. That makes me happy. Being with people makes me nervous.

So in conclusion, I wish my parents would have stayed together even if they hated each other. It would have help me turn into a better person.

[CarnageFairy]

We obviously dealt with similar situations by developing different personalities.

You became less social, whereas I relied more heavily on my ability to make friends outside my family. I don't consider myself introverted, just unaffected. I'm not an only child but haven't had a positive relationship with my sister since we were both were much younger. I'm starting to build back a sort of rapport with her, though.

I often feel closer to my best friends than my parents, and I barely know my extended family at all. I'm usually the last person to know about things that happen around my house, sometimes I really feel like it's just a place to sleep and keep my computer.

I recently met my half-brother for the first time, my dad remarried a few months back and my mom will be in the fall, and even I'm suprised by how completely distant I am from all of it.

I love my family, but I find it very hard to really care about things that happen around me, like I'm just watching a movie of my life and my actual life is just going on inside my head, like ****ing Mystery Science Theather 3000. Things that don't actually affect me personally, like (most) world events and politics, might as well be fairy tales and campfire stories. I don't give a rats' *** and don't pretend to. I don't give sympathy and I don't expect it.

Anyone else in the same boat? I'm intrigued now.

[totah]

So in conclusion, I wish my parents would have stayed together even if they hated each other. It would have help me turn into a better person.

Bummer dude. You know, once you realise what your problems are you've got the ability to fix them right?

[Smokey D]

I actually think it might be, but not because of some lame standard of morality. Because of all the new ways of running a family, there's no shared morality or cohesion in society. The nuclear family thing only worked when everyone was doing it, because we were all
"on the same page" so to speak, now shi'ts all over the shop.

The nuclear family's not the only thing that's worked. In terms of human history, it's a pretty recent invention.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I'm not saying it always worked, or it will work now. I'm saying everyone has to be in a fairly similar family unit for society to work. You need societal consensus on family, basically.

[totah]

Why? Isn't it possible to live with different family structures and still exist as a society?

[Smokey D]

I'm not saying it always worked, or it will work now. I'm saying everyone has to be in a fairly similar family unit for society to work. You need societal consensus on family, basically.

Oh.

I sort of agree with that.

I think family models need to be accepted for them to work best, but I don't think they need to be a particular shape, or all one shape.

[Violent_Bill]

in my opinion, its more damaging for a child to live in an unhappy, argumentative and loveless marriage than for the parents to accept they cant be together anymore and start to live their lives again

however, a stable, loving family is generally the best option. sadly its not always available

Agreed, not much more can be said I think.

[Der Übermensch]

Why? Isn't it possible to live with different family structures and still exist as a society?

I don't think its easy to argue with the fact that a conformist society operates more smoothly...
Doesn't mean I support it...

[DougJI]

My parents have been fighting really badly for like 5 years, and it got to an extreme in the past 6 months. I dont feel like going into it, but my mom eventually left and got a legal separation, and the week she was gone i actually felt better because my dad didnt freak out, and things were calm, even though through all the crap i've come to hate my entire family. My mom came back and crap resumed...

anyways, its had a significant effect, espescially in conjunction with all the other bull in my life.

[Turtle Soup]

of course it is. the child needs both parents and he doesn't want to have to ****ing go to a different house for each parent

on a side note my parents will probably divorce when i leave the house

[The Door Mouse]

I think that divorce is terrible for a child. Actually, really good friends of my family across the street are getting a divorce. My best friend used to live their until his bitch of a step mother kicked him out for supposedly slicing her cloths with a knife (which I know for a fact isn't true). Plus they have 3 other kids under the age of 7. In the midst of all of this they are getting a divorce plus the is the males 2nd divorce. Not only does it affect the children but it affects their friends.

Also statistics have proved that if you parents have been divorced than you will more than likely get divorced.

[Smokey D]

I think that divorce is terrible for a child.

pfft, I resent that.


Also statistics have proved that if you parents have been divorced than you will more than likely get divorced.

Yeah, but that's only bad if you beg the question.

[italic zero]

Well it's not begging the question if you already proved the point previously, which he thought he did with anecdotal evidence (which evidence didn't really prove anything like that even anecdotally).

[tehbuttesecks]

my parents divorced 3 years ago. im going to a good college, my parents make good money, my mom lives in a 5000 square foot house. divorce isn't that bad. my mom and dad are still friends, and we get along fine right now.

[Keaira]

My parents got divorced when i was like 10.... had no effect. Then they got back together a year later. I am now 19 and my parents got divorced a few months ago and it is bad for me

[Super Nintendo]

i think its possible for a single parente to raise a functional kid in the society... its just not really a common case...

[Reaganista]

wtf do you mean by functional

[Knifeboy]

I'd argue that two miserable parents staying together >> Having mom-weeks, and dad-weeks, being ping ponged back and forth between locations all the time, not having a stable environment to grow up in

[lfantwister]

you can create your own environment too, through friends or school or some unifying interest

[Super Nintendo]

wtf do you mean by functional

emotionally functional...

[Smokey D]

I'm pretty functional.

[Danish]

Instead of leaving parents (which in reality means women) on their own with children, we ought to take more social responsibility for raising and educating our children. Atomization is bad for democratic societies; such policies would foster social development and cohesion.

If we're ever going to get to the bottom of this problem, we need to focus on two things: early childhood education and economic security via stable, long-term employment, generous unemployment benefits, access to skills training and post-secondary education, and public health care. But as long as neoliberalism remains so deeply entrenched, this is unlikely to happen. Not even the Democrats propose to do these things anymore.

[Luc214]

My parent's divorce was the best thing that happened for my mom, sisters and me.

My dad is a ****ing cunt.

I'd argue that two miserable parents staying together >> Having mom-weeks, and dad-weeks, being ping ponged back and forth between locations all the time, not having a stable environment to grow up in

My mom has sole custody, and my dad has only seen us twice since the divorce, even though he has liberal visitation rights.

He doesn't give a **** about us. Maybe my situation is rather rare however.

[Reaganista]

emotionally functional...
wtf do you mean by emotionally functional

[Danish]

emotionally functional...

I had two loving parents and I'm not "emotionally functional".

[DBoons Ghost]

Not even the Democrats propose to do these things anymore.

Because they are unrealistic and absurd.

You cannot fault the government. Things like this are not their responsiblity. Parents who divorce still have the same responsiblty to their children. It makes no difference if they split up.

The laws should be stiffer when it comes to child support and prosecuting deadbeat dads and/or moms for that matter.

That's about it.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Instead of leaving parents (which in reality means women) on their own with children, we ought to take more social responsibility for raising and educating our children. Atomization is bad for democratic societies; such policies would foster social development and cohesion.

If we're ever going to get to the bottom of this problem, we need to focus on two things: early childhood education and economic security via stable, long-term employment, generous unemployment benefits, access to skills training and post-secondary education, and public health care. But as long as neoliberalism remains so deeply entrenched, this is unlikely to happen. Not even the Democrats propose to do these things anymore.

1. The government isn't obliged to provide long-term unemployment to anyone. If you want it, get into a professional field, do your work and be lucky, it's no-one elses problem.

2. Fu'ck generous unemployment payouts. Bare standards of life, I am not paying for bums, get a job.

3. Agree with you on the skills and universities, I can't in good concience shi't on people for being unprofessional and lazy when they don't have a chance to be anything else.

[Danish]

Where do you guys get this stuff?

[DBoons Ghost]

Where do you guys get this stuff?

Don't play that smug crap.

At least argue the points. Work with what's in reality not a pipe dream.

Realistically, a simple bit of legislature would solve the problem. The government isn't a parental guidance system. Mom and dad can still be great parents.

It's up to the individuals who divorce. Not the government.

[Danish]

Don't play that smug crap.

At least argue the points. Work with what's in reality not a pipe dream.

Realistically, a simple bit of legislature would solve the problem. The government isn't a parental guidance system. Mom and dad can still be great parents.

It's up to the individuals who divorce. Not the government.

Like, they're not even legitimate points. You didn't argue my points either. You're using the intellectual equivalent to four-letter words: "pipe dream" "unrealistic" "absurd"

Just because my ideas are against-the-grain doesn't mean they're any of these things. No effort on your part.

More than 50% of marriages end in divorce. When that's the case, it isn't just a problem experienced by individuals, but a social issue. There are underlying reasons why so many marriages end in divorce, reasons that not only require a lot of work to fix, but are major social issues in-and-of themselves (ie. deindustrialization, underemployment, etc.).

And why should reproduction be solely the responsibility of individuals? It clearly has social significance.

[DBoons Ghost]

Like, they're not even legitimate points. You didn't argue my points either. You're using the intellectual equivalent to four-letter words: "pipe dream" "unrealistic" "absurd"

Just because my ideas are against-the-grain doesn't mean they're any of these things. No effort on your part.

More than 50% of marriages end in divorce. When that's the case, it isn't just a problem experienced by individuals, but a social issue. There are underlying reasons why so many marriages end in divorce, reasons that not only require a lot of work to fix, but are major social issues in-and-of themselves (ie. deindustrialization, underemployment, etc.).

And why should reproduction be solely the responsibility of individuals? It clearly has social significance.

You've got a point. I disagree entirely with your plan for solving this problem. I don't want the any government monitoring my family or marriage, and taxpayers care little about the state of their fellow man's affairs.

To those stats though, 50% of marriages as a whole? Or 50% of marriages in America? Is America spoiling it for everyone?

Even in the day when housewives were more prevelent in American society, divorce was still there. I believe that both spouses working and struggling to meet the social status quo is what causes some divorces, but not all.

I am always more then willing to argue pertinent points in regards to divorce. My folks divorced when I was 10, and I almost got divorced myself. I know this subject from experience.

Divorce has been around forever.

[Mr. Ron]

1. The government isn't obliged to provide long-term unemployment to anyone. If you want it, get into a professional field, do your work and be lucky, it's no-one elses problem.

2. Fu'ck generous unemployment payouts. Bare standards of life, I am not paying for bums, get a job.

3. Agree with you on the skills and universities, I can't in good concience shi't on people for being unprofessional and lazy when they don't have a chance to be anything else.

Yeah, because its so simple just to get a well paying job, especially with class/culture/societal barriers that keep a lot of people from work.

[DBoons Ghost]

Here is this from Wiki:



An annual study in the UK by management consultants Grant Thornton estimates the main causes of divorce based on surveys of matrimonial lawyers.[10]

The main causes in 2004 (2003) were:

Extramarital affairs - 27% (29%)
Family strains - 18% (11%)
Emotional/physical abuse - 17% (10%)
Mid-life crisis - 13% (not in 2003 survey)
Addictions, e.g. alcoholism and gambling - 6% (5%)
Workaholism - 6% (5%)
According to this survey, men engaged in extra-marital affairs in 75% (55%) of cases; women in 25% (45%). In cases of family strain, women's families were the primary source of strain in 78%, compared to 22% of men's families.

Emotional and physical abuse were more evenly split, with women affected in 60% and men in 40% of cases. In 70% of workaholism-related divorces it was men who were the cause, and 30% women.

The 2004 survey found that 93% of divorce cases were petitioned by women, very few of which were contested.

53% of divorces were of marriages that had lasted 10 to 15 years, with 40% ending after 5 to 10 years. The first 5 years are relatively divorce-free, and if a marriage survives more than 20 years it is unlikely to end in divorce.

[Lupus]

More than 50% of marriages end in divorce. When that's the case, it isn't just a problem experienced by individuals, but a social issue. There are underlying reasons why so many marriages end in divorce, reasons that not only require a lot of work to fix, but are major social issues in-and-of themselves (ie. deindustrialization, underemployment, etc.).
How about, people stop loving each other sometimes.

[Smokey D]

Divorce has been around forever.

It's way more prevalent now than it was even 50 years ago because moral strictures against it have declined.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Yeah, because its so simple just to get a well paying job, especially with class/culture/societal barriers that keep a lot of people from work.

Standards of basic life. Food, bills + rent (if proof of residence is provided) that kinda stuff. Dunno bout you but I actually pay tax, I'd rather not pay more for keeping the worthless in luxury.

[BridgeToSolace]

Dunno bout you but I actually pay tax, I'd rather not pay more for keeping the worthless in luxury.

omg poverty is SO luxurious!

What makes a human worthless? Do homeless people not deserve food? They're just lazy ****s for not getting a job, neh? Not being able to bathe or afford clothes makes it easier to get a job, dammit!

Who's actually sitting around all day not working because they can get basic needs provided by the government?

Does anyone work just to maintain the minimum standard of living?

Or has this stuff already been covered in the thread and I'm just bringing up old ****. It's a looooong thread :(

[Reaganista]

i think a person who lacked the ability to either produce or consume would be worthless
also dead though

[Danish]

i think a person who lacked the ability to either produce or consume would be worthless
also dead though

People don't have intrinsic value?

[Reaganista]

no why would people have intrinsic value

[Danish]

no why would people have intrinsic value

You know, human rights and stuff. :)

The truth is, I can't really answer that question. I haven't read that philosophical material in a while.

[Reaganista]

someone who couldn't produce or consume would have to be like a fetus or in a vegetative state or maybe ridiculously retarded so i dont really care about them anyway

[Danish]

someone who couldn't produce or consume would have to be like a fetus or in a vegetative state or maybe ridiculously retarded so i dont really care about them anyway

lol I suppose it depends on how loosely we define produce and consume.

[Reaganista]

i guess i meant it pretty loosely