It Takes a Village - NOT!
Saturday, March 10, 2007 at 05:08AM When my son was in kindergarten, only one family in his class of 20 was divorced. By the end of 5th grade only 8 families remained intact. 11 couples, bored with their obligations, had walked out on their marriages.
If this is the “village” that is going to provide community support and childcare, good luck. Because it is a village of feckless egotists who get bored easily and walk out on their obligations.
One mother took up with her paddle tennis instructor. Another mother became angry at her poor husband because he didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t make more money; she divorced him. Three Dads found lovers, one of them with a mother whose child was in the same class at school!! Another (my best friend) – tiring of 3 kids and all of the laundry - just walked out, leaving her three kids with her husband. All of the families breaking up were fairly affluent and nobody took drugs or beat each other. They just got bored.
I was shocked. Still am. What’s wrong with these people?!? Do parents getting a divorce not notice the sad eyes of their children, the tears, and the unnecessary fears they create in those they supposedly love?
Nobody in our school community said anything “judgmental” about this wave of divorces. It has been drilled into us by pop culture and leftist activists that it is more or less taboo to judge another person’s “life choices.”
Current wisdom submits: who are we to judge?
I submit : we must judge.
Judgment establishes values; it establishes consensus within a community about right and wrong. It helps people to make the choice that is right in the long term, when the wrong choice is so much easier.
I submit that the ability to keep a promise, to endure, to remain faithful – these are values to admire.
We should stop offering soothing words to our divorcing friends by saying: “kids are so resilient and it’s important that you be happy…” We need to point out that a vow is a vow, and therefore should be kept, even if in the short term happiness is not maximized. We need to entertain the truth that divorce causes debilitating stress in the young and that it is irresponsible and cruel to willfully do this.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (57)
Do I want to divorce Troll sometimes? Heck yeah! He always leaves his dirty socks under the coffee table. Every single damn day. When I was pregnant I confess to wanting to stab him. I didn't though. It is not always easy to remain married. Some days in the distant past the only thing that has kept me here is knowing how important he is to the girls.
I certainly wouldn't put up with abuse or addiction, but to leave a family halfway through the making of it just isn't the right thing to do.
Ha! Ha! re: the desire to "inflict bodily harm when pregnant." I know of what you speak - yet despite it all, we're still married...what I object to so strongly is the current trend of couples divorcing because they're not "happy." What is "happy?" It seems so shallow and what about the kids?
shouldn't they be happy as well?
That's our fluffy bunnykins!
you must be very nosey to know the cause of so many break ups in your childs class.
and thats all I have I have to say!
maybe you think they should be stoned?
>>We need to point out that a vow is a vow, and therefore should be kept, even if in the short term happiness is not maximized.<<
I think you should pitch your tent more in pragmatism than in principle. If a childless couple divorces, no damage is done, despite broken vows, etc. The presence of children, however, does require a firm commitment. There you've got somebody else's interests at stake.
And the interests of the kids should maybe be paramount no matter what the decision is. If they are best served by a divorce, then so be it. Dame Edna was right when she/he said that a traditional divorce can be a more moving experience than a traditional wedding!
Welcome to ATW! Great to see your first post and such an interesting one.
On topic, I rather agree with you. Wedding vows appear to be viewed as merely cosmetic, there to be broken. It's 20 years ago this December when I took mine and I took them for life. Of course things are never all easy, but I do happen to feel that it is FAR too easy to walk away from committments these daqys and moral relativism means that no judgement is made.
I think if parents are really unhappy and if there is no chance whatsoever of reconciliation, then perhaps separation is best. But this should be the EXCEPTION to the rule, nowadays separation IS the rule. In the UK, almost half of all modern marriages end in divorce after a few years. This must cause massive damage to the kids concerned.
So Dame Edna is your philospher of choice?
I might have guessed as much!....:-)
maybe you think they should be stoned?"
Lone Star, Patty set out a reasonable case for the immorality of *casual* divorce/breakup, politely and eloquently. Is that really the best you can manage in response? When Cunningham (possibly my most hated ATW enemy, no offence C...) writes a polite and reasonable rebuttal that I can broadly agree with then everyone else really ought to be able to.
And btw, I am a divorcee who was a single parent for six years before meeting the future Mrs Right Wing Zionist Conspirator so I do have some small experience in this area.
Your point is very interesting since I think all sensible people accept that some relationships will break down and that there is no benefit in the people concerned being linked together but hating each other in the long run. It's a sad thing when this happens and that is why I take the view that divorce may be the only way forward in some cases. But as Patty suggests, I think society now takes marriage as a triviality, a superficial big nothing which means nothing and which carries no consequences. That too is wrong, but in polite MSM circles these things must never be said! Well here on ATW, these are exactly the things that need to be said.
Did the founding fathers of your Constitution have something else in mind when they talked about the 'Pursuit of Happiness', because it strikes me that happiness is a by-product of ones outlook and behaviour, rather than an end in itself.
The consequence of taking it too literally is this hedonistic 'cult of the individual'.
If you were married as an Apache, they would have included "Now you will feel no cold, for each of you will be warmth to the other."; if a Catholic, "to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer,"; if an Episcopalian, they would include "to love and to cherish, 'til death do us part, according to God’s
ordinance;"
For all weddings, both Civil and Religious, there is a theme of constancy running through those vows, and the fact that divorce today is so easy to obtain makes it easier to forget that those words were spoken before the later, angrier sentences were voiced!
Well written and thought-provoking article. I have just one comment:
"Judgment establishes values; it establishes consensus within a community about right and wrong. It helps people to make the choice that is right in the long term, when the wrong choice is so much easier."
OK, but you first. Let's begin by judging you and helping you make right choices. Then if that works out we can broaden the program.
I think people enter into marriage too causually and leave for reasons that are less than upstanding. I also know some people feel trapped in marriages that are violent or dead, and they leave them through no fault of their own. It is a difficult process. I suppose if I were to judge (and who doesn't) I tend to view other people's marriages and the dissolution of some on a case by case basis. I do hope that people will enter into them more seriously and leave them if they must less friviously.
Cuunigham - nice reference.
>>I am a divorcee who was a single parent for six years before meeting the future Mrs Right Wing Zionist Conspirator<<<
Oh-oh! That sounds very much like Mrs. C No.1.
Now I wonder if she ever did make it to London!
Lone Star: I'm not nosey...I live in Los Angeles, land of the unsolicited confession. Taking your commentary seriously, though, I ask you the following question: Do you think intact families are better for raising children than broken families?
Cunningham: Interesting point re: principle v. pragmatism. I will have to give it some thought.
Frank: As a conservative, I don't hold out much hope for the perfectability of Man. We are highly flawed. That doesn't stop me, however, from distinguishing between right and wrong, good and evil. But there is no sense starting with me and waiting for me to reach perfection. While I'm doing the best I can, I am definitely a work-in-progress.
"land of the unsolicited confession"
lol
P.S. Is it true David found you on A Enredado Telarana (Spanish for A Tangled Web) the site dedicated to claiming California should remain a Spanish Colony?
By the way I was so moved by the story of the divorced friend who lost weight, put on a bikini and enjoys surfing that I am willing to volunteer to sort her out (provided Mrs. Mahons hears nothing of this offer).
"Frank: As a conservative, I don't hold out much hope for the perfectability of Man. We are highly flawed. That doesn't stop me, however, from distinguishing between right and wrong, good and evil."
Being a conservative, on the other hand, does.
"But there is no sense starting with me and waiting for me to reach perfection."
...I never said we'd wait until then. I said we'd try the whole judging idea out on you first. But I see you think that is a bad idea. This does not surprise me.
For example you have claimed that your neighbors are damaging their children but you've not provided any evidence. That's not very moral. If you want to distinguish right from wrong it is good to start with distinguishing true from false. This requires more than just adhering to conservative articles of faith, it requires evidence.
Patty told me to judge so what is the problem? I need evidence or something?
Good to throw your hat in the ring - couldnt agree more with the comment above.
The trouble with your friend seems very much to be that she is a product of her LA environment. She sounds lost.
Marrying young is a struggle. What did her husband do to try to hold the family together? For a family to work it takes both to be equally committed to helping each other through the bad days. Shrugging your shoulders or pretending the issues arent there wont make them go away. If she became increasingly bitter and resentful but stayed i wonder the effect that would have had on the boys. Id wager it would have been debilitating too. Anyway. Nuff said. i dont wish to analyse your friend. Its good to try to commit to the family, marriage, id argue the same way. But humans are very flawed. I wouldnt make them stay together unhappily. It leads to resentment.
Enjoy posting at ATW...:)
Please just for once in your life try not to be as deliberately obnoxious and irritating as possible. You are displaying your fundamentalism again old boy, the moment Patty describes herself as a 'conservative' you just cant help yourself can you? Mr Frank 'Im not on the Left' O'Dwyer demonstrates his evenhanded centrism once again...
Nobody except a true anti-family fundie requires specific 'evidence' for the idea that walking out on your husband and kids because you're bored is going to be damaging to the people concerned. Its called common sense. Try looking it up.
"Please just for once in your life try not to be as deliberately obnoxious and irritating as possible"
After you, hypocrite.
"Nobody except a true anti-family fundie requires specific 'evidence'"
Only fundies require evidence? You really are losing it.
You can talk about judgement but once the behaviour is sufficiently widespread people can create a peer group of like minded individuals who don't particularly disapprove of self centred behaviour.
"You can talk about judgement but once the behaviour is sufficiently widespread people can create a peer group of like minded individuals who don't particularly disapprove of self centred behaviour."
The GOP.
You have kids, you do your best to bring them up in a caring and loving way. Provide for their emotional and physical needs.
Every year our taxes rise, and we have less to spend on our children. Selfish? No, we are not. The selfish are those who think others should bail them out for their life choices.
Sure, I accept there will always be a minority of couples with children for whom things have broken down irretrievably. Help yes, but ensure they help themselves. There are too many now who think the state, distributors of our money, should provide everything.
In the end it is not money, it is the selfish indulgence of those concerned in many cases. They have little thought as to the emotional impact on their children.
Careful Mahons - a little bird told me Patty's surname used to be Hearst ;)
Have to admit that name came to mind too when I read that ATW was going to be joined by a Californian called Patty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhRRWwH3Fro
"In Ireland, in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Berkley;
Patty Hearst heard the burst of Roland's thompson gun and bought it."
-Indeed, that is one of the effects of having a comments section under each post. And, like the majority of commenters here, I judge that Patty is essentially correct in what she says.
send lawyers, guns, and money Dad get me out of this...
It's the American way :)
The GOP."
Yes Frank, its obviously the GOP which is by far the greatest encourager of rights without responsibilities in the US.
"Only fundies require evidence? You really are losing it."
What does that even mean? The point I was making was that asking for specific ways in which a person walking out on their family through boredom would hurt the children is like demanding to see a battered wife's bruises before conceding that hurt has been done to her.
Like I said, its called common sense.
Her point was that it is far to easy, and far to easily validated, to walk out on a family due to boredom. Or dirty socks.
"DSD is right. It is clearly obvious that separation of parents hurts children at the very least in the short term , because every child wants their patrents to make up and be happy rather than seperate, even though in some cases separation really is the best long tern answer, it doesnt stop children being traumatised by it."
Doesn't follow. You overlook that the alternative may be just as likely to make the children miserable in the short term, since that doesn't involve the parents making up and being happy either. You also overlook that the children have an interest in their parent's happiness as much as vice versa, and may be hugely relieved to see the separation. Or they may even be indifferent as long as they still get to see both parents and not much changes. As for trauma there is no evidence of that as that would probably lead to hurt in the long term.
There are some instances where it could be economically disruptive or the kids might have to move. They might not like that. But then that could also happen without the marriage or partnership failing. Indeed it could happen as part of someone's job (most obviously the military, which might even result in the parent's death). But the judgement would not be forthcoming then.
I didn't overlook anything. It's not as if I said that sperating was worse than staying together. I was simply stating an obvious truth. To a child The break up of the parental relationship is a traumatic event evn though paradoxically it can also be a relief. It is an event that will cause distress however necessary it might be.
Yep. Sadly there are good reasons for calling it quits, but the easy option for many problems is not always the best one.
BTW - we have heard your gripe (dirty socks) - what do you do that drives Troll to the edge ? ;)
"I didn't overlook anything. It's not as if I said that sperating was worse than staying together. I was simply stating an obvious truth. To a child The break up of the parental relationship is a traumatic event evn though paradoxically it can also be a relief. It is an event that will cause distress however necessary it might be."
The implication of the article is clearly that it is better for the children if the parents stay together, i.e. they are long-term damaged by the separation but not by continuation of an unhappy marriage. But it is unreasonable to consider it long-term damage if there is no evidence of it and if the alternative is just as damaging or might even be worse.
To consider only one side in looking at short term suffering is equally unreasonable since they may still suffer more in the short term - and for longer - if the marriage continues. You may as well criticise the parents for vaccinating the child because the needle stings and there is a brief reaction, or a doctor for giving the child stitches because it hurts.