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 would say it's a matter of whether you want your kids to feel their pain now, where you can have some influence over how they navigate it, or later, when they are older, less likely to seek out your guidance and more likely to hold it against you.
I'm not seeing this... Wife certainly didn't hold it against her mother and a friend in the same situation doesn't either (father in this case). Wife is very close (a little too much if you ask me) to her mother who didn't divorce until college... but that might be different because in her case there is an element of verbal abuse.
I'm not seeing this... Wife certainly didn't hold it against her mother and a friend in the same situation doesn't either (father in this case). Wife is very close (a little too much if you ask me) to her mother who didn't divorce until college... but that might be different because in her case there is an element of verbal abuse.
There are as many examples as there are couples on earth. They won't all fit the theory.
There are as many examples as there are couples on earth. They won't all fit the theory.
Of course... there are examples all over the map... but that's just avoiding the discussion all together.
There are people who came out very nicely as orphans without any stable childhood but that doesn't mean that is norm nor ideal..
WE have threads that say stick it out because of economic stability and others that say divorce when the love is no longer present in the marriage. Which is it?
As I said, I'm in the boat that it takes two parent (not necessarily biological) figures to raise a child. Divorcing when love is no longer present in a marriage is a sure fire way to eliminate one of those two parents. As I said, I've seen far more problems from children of single parent households.
Marriage shows your children a stable home and happy and loving relationship.
Having just a baby momma or baby daddy shows carelessness and less love and commitment.
I'm old school and I preach to my children the way I was raised and taught. It's about doing what you feel is right and commitment to one another. Sure it's only a piece of paper, but for 23 years in my household we've lived by and honored the vows we made to one another. It's easier to just up and leave without a "contract" so to speak.
My opinion and view. Others differ but the above is mine.
That is all
I would say it's a matter of whether you want your kids to feel their pain now, where you can have some influence over how they navigate it, or later, when they are older, less likely to seek out your guidance and more likely to hold it against you.
This.
I'm of the view that kids are more resilient than adults give them credit for. I used to be the kid who longed for my parents to get back together because most of my cousins' parents were still married. However, even their dynamic wasn't great, and their parents remaining married didn't necessarily produce desired results (troubled, failed relationships, having children outside of marriage, delaying college, addiction issues). Also, once I became an adult and understood marriage dynamics and compatibility, it was absolutely for the best that my parents divorced. They were incompatible.
In any case, not everyone sees the economic and co-parenting "stability" as a reason to stay married. 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?
Divorced parents can co-parent effectively while modeling the behaviors and attitudes they want their kids to adopt. Also, staying together for the kids implies both parties are involved, engaged and invested in the day-to-day dynamics and routines of raising children. What kind of stability is there when one spouse is gone for long periods of time or isn't involved? I see this more often than not. The bulk of childcare still rests on the primary parent, so the "for the kids" doesn't work if both parents aren't involved and engaged. It's just a matter of portraying a certain image.
My in-laws are still married, but my husband has long said his mother raised him and his sister because his father traveled a lot and wasn't really involved in the everyday dynamics. So had his parents divorced, what difference would there have been in "stability"? This is why the argument of stability doesn't work in every situation and each marital/family dynamic is unique. His mother took care of school stuff, took them to appointments, assisted with homework, established routines, interacted with them on a daily basis, took them shopping, and other everyday routines and interactions.
Divorced parents can co-parent effectively while modeling the behaviors and attitudes they want their kids to adopt. Also, staying together for the kids implies both parties are involved, engaged and invested in the day-to-day dynamics and routines of raising children. What kind of stability is there when one spouse is gone for long periods of time or isn't involved? I see this more often than not. The bulk of childcare still rests on the primary parent, so the "for the kids" doesn't work if both parents aren't involved and engaged. It's just a matter of portraying a certain image.
I agree with the underlined.
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.
Of course... there are examples all over the map... but that's just avoiding the discussion all together.
I'm still here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit
WE have threads that say stick it out because of economic stability and others that say divorce when the love is no longer present in the marriage. Which is it?
Are you looking for definitively specific answer? There won't be one. These are opinions.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit
Divorcing when love is no longer present in a marriage is a sure fire way to eliminate one of those two parents.
Of course... there are examples all over the map... but that's just avoiding the discussion all together.
There are people who came out very nicely as orphans without any stable childhood but that doesn't mean that is norm nor ideal..
WE have threads that say stick it out because of economic stability and others that say divorce when the love is no longer present in the marriage. Which is it?
As I said, I'm in the boat that it takes two parent (not necessarily biological) figures to raise a child. Divorcing when love is no longer present in a marriage is a sure fire way to eliminate one of those two parents. As I said, I've seen far more problems from children of single parent households.
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.
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.
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.
