Plus - It's Cheaper to Keep Her
Years ago, I listened to Dr. Laura, Rush, and Glenn Beck for the same reason - to hear how the other side thinks. Helpful when crafting arguments, making me a hit at dinner parties. Unlike the other idiots, Dr. Laura made sense from time to time. Plus her abrasiveness made me giggle.
Dr. Laura was right about the importance of preventing divorce. I'd nod or say "Amen" when she told callers who didn't feel passion or love for their partners to stick it out for the kids.
I know. How 1950s of me.
I encouraged friends who were going through troubled marriages to quit watching the Lifetime Channel and aim for friendship instead. I believe it today. When two people bring children into this world, they no longer live for themselves. They loved each other once and, at the very least, should live as friends united in the noble goal of raising fine and well-adjusted human beings. Kids shouldn't pay the price just because you no longer get it up for your wife.
"Easy for you to say! You still love your husband and the two of you get along and sex is still fun and..."
Calm yourself. Yes, all of this is true and maybe it is easy for me to say. However, I still say it. Unless abuse is involved, fulfill your promise. Treat your partner with dignity. Surround your kids with a healthy and positive environment. Seek comfort elsewhere if you must, just keep it discreet, and our world would be a hell of a lot better off.
Yes, I am a child of divorce and threw a party when my parents split up. Again, abuse was involved. Bio Dad likey the drinkey. And therefore we were better off on our own. We are the exception, not the rule.
Turns out more couples are co-existing in such a matter. More than a few stay together for financial reasons, but the end result is a bunch of folks putting family first. I don't care about their motivations - my hat's off to them. Such couples are showing their kids what it means to be an unselfish parent and I admire the strength it takes to raise kids under less than perfect circumstances. Since Husband has been back and forth from Colorado, single parenting does a number on my psyche and patience. And this is only temporary!
No one should have to go through a divorce. Especially kids.
posted by kate @ 11:58 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Kate
I actually agree with you on this one.
That's a pretty conservative veiw comming from you
moderate
Kirby - If you don't have kids then my argument is null and void. I'd say to childless couples in an unhappy marriage: get out while the gettin's good cause it's still about you. Kids change all that. And you're right, kids would do better than to live in a house that's full of hatred. What I'm saying is easy and complex - build a bridge and get over it. Seek whatever support you need to live as friends in a positive environment because that's what you owe your children. Doing so does not mean you are denying who you are, it means you are making a sacrifice for the kids *you* brought into the world. Feel me? Ultimately I'm saying: have children with the person you are willing to be connected to for the rest of your life. Or don't. But make that decision ahead of time. Cause once those little babies are born, you ought to sacrifice a part of yourself before you sacrifice their mental health or time with daddy or time with mommy etc.
And moderate - I do sound conservative. But I say what's right without cruelty or judgment. Or addiction to pain killers. So that makes me better than conservative. Makes me a liberal. ;-)
I agree with you completely. And I'd say you've provided a pretty good defense of your belief, so I can only add my two cents in. I understand that everyone should enjoy the total happiness that comes with finding someone that you truly love to share your life with. But as with everything else, this hope/desire becomes subordinated to the well-being of your children. And despite what some who divorce might tell themselves, your children will not be happier that you've found true love when they either don't see you or see their other parent on a regular basis because the people who brought them into the world couldn't "make it work" for some reason or another. Kids aren't stupid, and I'm not saying you should or that you even could fool them into thinking that mom and dad are madly in love with each other, but I also think that kids will take two parents coexisting if not in love, than the insecurity that comes from having two parents who live apart and are often in contention with one another. At least, that's how I felt when I was a kid and my parents got divorced. Now being as we're liberals, we're also capable of accepting nuance and complexity in our beliefs, meaning that yes there are times when this standard won't apply. When there's abuse, or the parents simply cannot behave like adults and get along, then perhaps it would be better for them to part than to put the kids through the wringer of living with one or two obviously miserable people. But this still a failure of one or both of the parents.
As for this position being conservative...no, it's not really. Only conservatives or those who buy into the conservative spin think that behaving irresponsibly towards people to whom you have a duty-like your kids-is a "liberal" value. In fact, liberals universally believe in the value and the rights of children, which means that we believe also that adults should subordinate their sometimes selfish concerns when it comes to their kids. In other words, we believe that people should be responsible family members, just as conservatives do. So really this isn't a "conservative" or a "liberal" standard. The only people who oppose it are those who would put their own selfish concerns first, which is also neither liberal nor conservative.
In other words, there are plenty of things that conservatives and liberals agree on. The importance of a child's happiness is definitely one of them.
I believe that only a very few people can "live as friends" and fool the kids into not believing they are miserable. It takes TWO very mature people to be able to pull this off. That being said, if you can be successful at it, then GREAT! Go for it, and your kids will likely be better for it.
But for the majority of us, who may have married an emotional two-year old, this is probably not feasable. And staying together just for the kids when there is no happiness, love, or peace in the home can be, IMHO, more detrimental than a divorce. Kids deserve to see their parents happy, either single or re-married, as we are who they will emulate the most in their lives
Besides, Dr. Laura is a farce.
Right. Both parents have to be in it to win it. Then it's not an act - they aren't miserable and the family thrives. It happens more often than we realize - look it up. Late life divorces are on the rise. Couples raise their kids and part ways soon after. Should happen more often. When married to emotional infants, often the situation resembles emotional abuse and divorce is the only alternative.
I have to side with those who jump ship. My wife of twenty years could talk to me for weeks at a time prior to the divorce. She had two affairs that I knew about, and was not in anyway remorseful about them. She was arrested for theft at her place of employment, where she was having an affair with one of her coworkers. I took her to a marriage counselor, who shook his head tell me to get out and start my life fresh at forty. She wanted for nothing but someone else apparently, though she was willing to take money, jewelry, our 40 acre ranch from me, but she gave herself to her boyfriends. Our son, who was sixteen years old at the time of our divorce was so confused, he still doesn't talk to me fourteen years later. There are a lot of reasons to try and hold a family together, but there are some situations where it just cannot be done.
Post a Comment
<< Home