Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And this assumes both parents are actually involved in the raising of said child/ren. I've observed undesirable outcomes of two-parent households. I continue to observe two-parent households with one uninvolved parent. Just being the fun parent on occasion does not equate to being involved. My mother did a great job. I would have resented my parents if they stayed together for appearances. My father was the involved type when I visited with him; however, that wouldn't have substituted for their obvious incompatibility.
He and my stepmother weren't/aren't compatible in many ways and he's admitted to staying together for their boys and due to financial entanglements and complacency (also, they're super religious and don't believe in divorce, despite being close to it several times). Their marriage dynamic taught me what NOT to look for. So, thanks for that.
Both parents would need to be involved in the everyday dynamics for a separation to really disrupt stability. The economic changes often affect women where an adjustment in their standard of living could alleviate certain stressors. Yes, there is a change in standard of living when families have to downsize their lifestyle to adapt to their new dynamic, but this needn't result in long-term problems, and if said kids develop a complex over it, they need have their sense of entitlement checked.
Let'say the premise of the discussion is no abuse (like already said) and both parents are involved in the children.
In cases of neglect/not-involved/abuse I think the answer is obvious and not really interesting in discussion. The children and the involved parent are better on their own.
But again... what about the gray line that some will find themselves in. Both parents doing their best but simply fall out of love in the process (for whatever reasons).
There is another thread in the non-relationship forum that speaks to the same.
Given the ultimatum of choosing between staying and leaving (with children), he chose to leave. THat's good right? because we've seen post again and again that a loveless marriage is bad for the children. However, he is still villified for that decision.
Why do you keep trying to compare apples and oranges???
That guy isn't being villified for divorcing.
He's being villified for abandoning his kids and prioritizing his new wife over his existing family.
Are you looking for definitively specific answer? There won't be one. These are opinions.
I understand.... then maybe we as a whole should hold back on dishing definite answers to similar threads like candy.
Quote:
But there are recent studies that show that it isn't divorce itself that affects children as much as the way the parents deal with each other during and after the divorce.
Yes.... In general, how parents handle conflicts with each other greatly affects children. It doesn't have to be during divorce but even if the parents choose to remain together for the children. Still avoids the discussion however....
I understand.... then maybe we as a whole should hold back on dishing definite answers to similar threads like candy.
What?
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit
Yes.... In general, how parents handle conflicts with each other greatly affects children. It doesn't have to be during divorce but even if the parents choose to remain together for the children. Still avoids the discussion however....
No, it doesn't.
We are in the process of discussing this. Disagreeing, sure, but the discussion is happening. IDK who you think is avoiding it.
The fact is there are actual studies that say staying together for the kids is a bad idea. There is less stigma surrounding divorce because more people get divorced than back in the day. So children can relate when their friends' parents get divorced, which keeps them from feeling ostracized. That doesn't make divorce a GOOD thing, but it's not anything like a death sentence.
A bad parent is gonna be a bad parent regardless of whether they are married. But a good parent who is in an emotionally unhealthy marriage is not "doing the best they can."
The fact is there are actual studies that say staying together for the kids is a bad idea. There is less stigma surrounding divorce because more people get divorced than back in the day. So children can relate when their friends' parents get divorced, which keeps them from feeling ostracized.
A bad parent is gonna be a bad parent regardless of whether they are married. But a good parent who is in an emotionally unhealthy marriage is not "doing the best they can."
I'm not saying either parent is bad. I did say that absent of abuse which makes for an obvious non interesting discussion.
There are studies that single parents post divorce is also a bad thing....
This thread seems to agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD
It’s not a popular opinion here but marriage is an economic union. The path to economic success is to get your education, get your career launched, meet someone with similar socioeconomic status, get married, then think about reproducing. And then stay married. Violate any of that and the odds of a good outcome for you or your offspring having a good outcome drop dramatically.
I’m not talking some reality TV couple popping out a dozen kids. I’m talking 0, 1, or 2 kids, what your economic picture looks like after 35 years working, and how any kids end up.
So rectify the seemingly conflicting advise.
Given two involved parents in amicable situation but in a loveless union....
Divorce and split because of loveless relationship for the children.
Or
Stay together for economic stability for the children.
Or a combination/compromise/it depends.... then explain.
I'm not saying either parent is bad. I did say that absent of abuse which makes for an obvious non interesting discussion.
There are studies that single parents post divorce is also a bad thing....
...
So rectify the seemingly conflicting advise.
Eh?
The more you type, the less sense you make.
The thread you reference in Non-Rom is about an obviously bad parent. So you brought it up. "Absent of abuse..." yet you reference abuse. Even in the example you used re: your wife.
At any rate, I've said what I think: "Staying together for the kids" sounds noble but isn't actually better. Others will disagree, and I know that. There's nothing to "rectify."
This is tedious, and I'm ready to watch some football.
However, I see more uninvolved parents in divorced situations... hence why I am trying to spark the discussion. Kid can only be in a single household (yes I know that they can be shipped back and forth but I don't think that's healthy either). Divorce almost guarantees a two households and one is the primary the other is a part time parent.
Divorced parents can co-parent effectively.. I don't disagree but the physical separation of two households makes that ever so more impossible.
You do realize there are part-time parents even in two-parent households? I favor quality over quantity. Just being around does not mean one is engaged or available. You seem to think that just sharing space under one roof means both parents are involved.
If, say, the non-primary parent gets home at 6:00 pm and there are young kids, so their bedtime is, say, 7:30-8:00 pm, that allows for maybe a couple hours of interaction before dinner and bath/bedtime routine. Then off to bed. Repeat for five days. Maybe this parent does daycare or school dropoff. Throw in various other things like homework, extracurricular activities, etc., and a lot of these routines are on the parent who is available at this time. But even then, the time is taken up doing other routines and it's hardly stress-free for many. The race to get home, get dinner ready, get kids to settle down, assist with school stuff, get caught up, bath/bedtime routine. Which means you end up using the weekend to do a lot of the quality time stuff as you have a good chunk of 12+ hours that is not filled with work, school, homework, activities, chores, etc. This, of course, is all dependent on the parents' schedules. But when I lived with my father and stepmom, my father worked 2nd shift and graveyard, so he slept a lot during the day. Most of our interactions and quality time were on days he had off, which weren't necessarily consistent. My stepmom routinely got home at 6:30-7:00 pm. I was a latch-key kid in both households. My mother was usually home at 6:30 pm.
There are far too many factors and variables to apply "stability" in an absolute context. Sharing space does not mean there are quality interactions and investment. Sure, two separate households make it more difficult to be face-to-face, but this still assumes these interactions are the default.
That weekend is looking pretty sweet. That's the fun stuff. Not the stuff that involves stricter routines and schedules. So the parent who has the kids on the weekend misses out on the weekday dynamics and gets a good chunk of free time. So, yes, while there are two households, the amount of time spent with both is not necessarily equal, in quantity or quality.
Also, staying together-living separated for the kids won't look the same for every couple. Some can make it work. I dated a guy who was separated, but they decided to carry on for their daughter despite living their own personal lives. They made a concerted effort to do this and they were both very involved to equal degrees. How successful this approach depends on the individuals involved. I don't think all couples can achieve this kind of dynamic.
Let'say the premise of the discussion is no abuse (like already said) and both parents are involved in the children.
It depends on the definition of "involved." I have a lot of acquaintances and friends with spouses who are present, but the household dynamics/childcare load falls on them.
Quote:
In cases of neglect/not-involved/abuse I think the answer is obvious and not really interesting in discussion. The children and the involved parent are better on their own.
But again... what about the gray line that some will find themselves in. Both parents doing their best but simply fall out of love in the process (for whatever reasons).
That's still not a relationship dynamic I want to model.
Quote:
If, as a married couple, we intend to model healthy relationship dynamics, staying together for appearances does the opposite of that. Because if our intention is to model a dynamic based on compassion, empathy, consideration, unity, support, compatibility, and emotional, mental, and physical intimacy, then staying together for the kids/living as a separated couple, is simply putting on a front/facade. What does that tell them once they start to form romantic or intimate connections? How will it color their perceptions of long-term relationships? If we spend years talking about healthy and authentic relationship dynamics and emotional intelligence, then I can see how, as they get older, they question what they were modeled.
And kids and teens are observant. They can sense when both parties are simply going through the motions. If they come to learn that this is what long-term relationships or marriages are like. Something miserable or a thing you tolerate, I can see it affecting their future relationships. What's the point if "most" couples only tolerate each other until the kids are grown? What's the point if long-term relationships/marriage is just a civil/economic contract/union? Is there any point to getting involved or invested in someone if it's just for practicality?
My position is dependent on the relationship and family dynamic. What does splitting up change? How does the dynamic shift? What are the changes in everyday routines and quality time/interactions? Answers to those questions are unique to each family dynamic. In the case of my first marriage, my then-husband was away for over five and a half years of our marriage w/kids. He was away for 3 weeks to 12 months at a time. I was a solo-parent for most of the time we had kids, and while I was familiar with and adapted to the dynamic, there was no loss of stability for my kids because they were accustomed to it. He was engaged, supportive, and involved when he was available, though he didn't always have much time to spend with them due to his commute and the limited hours in the day. But this would have continued and was part of his career plans even after we separated as he was applying for 12+ month overseas contract work. So...I was their stability. That was a major factor in our decision for me to SAH with them.
However, in the case of my now-husband, he works a part-time schedule with the flexibility that allows him to be home and involved in all aspects from doctor visits, parent-teacher conferences, errands, activities, homework, dropoff/pickup, downtime, quality time/interactions, etc. We're both on the same page when it comes to our family dynamic. It's important for us to keep a flexible enough schedule to be involved and available for the kids and their different needs. We share compatible parenting philosophy and outlook in that regard. There *would* be a disruption to the dynamic should we ever split. A major one. Because we're both involved and engaged. There is a level of involvement at which point a split can negatively impact the family dynamic. I think something needs to be said about what involvement can look like. I don't think it's exclusively tied to specific routines, though those are a major component, rather, I think downtime, the space in between those routines and activities, is equally important. This is where the quality of interactions count...a lot and this is influenced by a lot of things like personality, temperament, communication styles, interests, etc., -- even among parent-child relationships.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did say that absent of abuse which makes for an obvious non interesting discussion.
