Parents breaking up. Is it selfish or immature.

Scanlas The 2nd

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What is a poor quality marriage? Depending on the definition the research could be completely in line with my beliefs.

Ah well, I can't argue with a belief, no matter what research I produce.

Yes you can, you can argue that my belief is wrong through reasoning and research.

No, I can argue and debate with opinions. If this was just your opinion then I would produce more of the (extensive) research which disproves your assertions, knowing that you would consider said evidence and potentially amend your judgement. However, as you are arguing based on your beliefs, there is no point engaging further. Beliefs are based on emotional responses to your personal experiences, environment, social context and intrinsic psychological state. Beliefs are not based on fact or rational thought. One cannot reason with a belief.

You can show how my belief is wrong. If I say it's my belief that eggs are a fruit you can prove me wrong through research and reasoning.

Scanlas The 2nd

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What is a poor quality marriage? Depending on the definition the research could be completely in line with my beliefs.

Ah well, I can't argue with a belief, no matter what research I produce.

Yes you can, you can argue that my belief is wrong through reasoning and research.

No, I can argue and debate with opinions. If this was just your opinion then I would produce more of the (extensive) research which disproves your assertions, knowing that you would consider said evidence and potentially amend your judgement. However, as you are arguing based on your beliefs, there is no point engaging further. Beliefs are based on emotional responses to your personal experiences, environment, social context and intrinsic psychological state. Beliefs are not based on fact or rational thought. One cannot reason with a belief.

You can show how my belief is wrong. If I say it's my belief that eggs are a fruit you can prove me wrong through research and reasoning.

MagicMarker

Speaking as someone who was happy, at 10 years old, when he was told by his mother that she was leaving his father. I'd have to say the OP hasn't a fúcking clue what he's talking about.

Scanlas The 2nd

MagicMarker wrote: »

Speaking as someone who was happy, at 10 years old, when he was told by his mother that she was leaving his father. I'd have to say the OP hasn't a fúcking clue what he's talking about.

I excluded circumstances such as abusive or immature parents.

My parents split when I was three and it was for the best as them being in the same house would have caused me more harm IMO. However I think too many parents are too quick to split up when it's not actually in the child's best interest.

marienbad

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You can show how my belief is wrong. If I say it's my belief that eggs are a fruit you can prove me wrong through research and reasoning.

was this argument so weak you had to say it twice in the hope of reenforcing it ?:)

mariaalice

Of course people should not stay in a violent or abusive relationship because they have children in fact staying in a relationship like that when you have children is likely to do a lot of damage to children, however I do wonder about relationships where people are separating JUST because they are not in love anymore or who don't feel fulfilled anymore or who feel trapped or that the grass is greener on the other side.

There is always an effect on children when parents separate the aftermath can be traumatic on children especial if there are any issues around access or around money and then there is the issue of new partners.

ChaseThisLight

mariaalice wrote: »

however I do wonder about relationships where people are separating JUST because they are not in love anymore or who don't feel fulfilled anymore or who feel trapped or that the grass is greener on the other side.

I believe those reasons are just as valid as any other reason for separating. The thing of it is how you handle it. You can do it in a civil and respectful manner, or you can be an a**. The latter of course will be traumatic for those involved. But not everyone chooses to be that way.

Cat Melodeon

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What is a poor quality marriage? Depending on the definition the research could be completely in line with my beliefs.

Ah well, I can't argue with a belief, no matter what research I produce.

Yes you can, you can argue that my belief is wrong through reasoning and research.

No, I can argue and debate with opinions. If this was just your opinion then I would produce more of the (extensive) research which disproves your assertions, knowing that you would consider said evidence and potentially amend your judgement. However, as you are arguing based on your beliefs, there is no point engaging further. Beliefs are based on emotional responses to your personal experiences, environment, social context and intrinsic psychological state. Beliefs are not based on fact or rational thought. One cannot reason with a belief.

You can show how my belief is wrong. If I say it's my belief that eggs are a fruit you can prove me wrong through research and reasoning.

If you believe eggs are a fruit and someone tells you they are not and produces evidence to show that they are not, but you choose to continue to ignore such evidence and argue that indeed, eggs are fruit, then there is no point arguing as you are not open to reason or accepting of evidence. If you were in fact interested in finding out whether children are truly better off with cohabiting parents in conflict or separated parents, you would find, examine and analyse the research for yourself. That you have not done this and choose to ignore any evidence presented to you shows you have no such interest and that your beliefs are entrenched on this matter.

Scanlas The 2nd

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What is a poor quality marriage? Depending on the definition the research could be completely in line with my beliefs.

Ah well, I can't argue with a belief, no matter what research I produce.

Yes you can, you can argue that my belief is wrong through reasoning and research.

No, I can argue and debate with opinions. If this was just your opinion then I would produce more of the (extensive) research which disproves your assertions, knowing that you would consider said evidence and potentially amend your judgement. However, as you are arguing based on your beliefs, there is no point engaging further. Beliefs are based on emotional responses to your personal experiences, environment, social context and intrinsic psychological state. Beliefs are not based on fact or rational thought. One cannot reason with a belief.

You can show how my belief is wrong. If I say it's my belief that eggs are a fruit you can prove me wrong through research and reasoning.

If you believe eggs are a fruit and someone tells you they are not and produces evidence to show that they are not, but you choose to continue to ignore such evidence and argue that indeed, eggs are fruit, then there is no point arguing as you are not open to reason or accepting of evidence. If you were in fact interested in finding out whether children are truly better off with cohabiting parents in conflict or separated parents, you would find, examine and analyse the research for yourself. That you have not done this and choose to ignore any evidence presented to you shows you have no such interest and that your beliefs are entrenched on this matter.

The only evidence I have seen so far is that children are better off not in a hostile environment. I believe children are better off with two parents who care for eachother and their children who aren't "in love" than in a single parent house. Single parent households have been shown to cause huge damage to children, I'll post links when I find them. When you have children IMO you have given up your luxury of hopping to and from your favoured relationship, it isn't fair on the children.

Pandora2

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My parent's separated after 25 years of marriage weeks after my 18th birthday so I think they would qualify as mature parents. My mother told me in no uncertain terms that she had remained with my abusive, alcoholic father for 'my sake' - I am the youngest of 3.

Gee thanks Mam, for deciding it was better for me to grow in a house where we dreaded the sound of the gate opening sometime after the pubs closed as we never knew who was going to be the focus of my father's abuse that night - even the dog used to hide - and my brother (now in his mid-50s) talks about how the sound of a metal gate opening at night still causes him to wake up in a cold sweat.

The happiest time we had as kids was when my father lived in the US for 4 years - when he came back our childhoods ended - I was 7 years old.

How could it possibly have been in the best interests of my siblings and I to be subjected to nightly verbal and physical abuse, see our mother abused and bullied to the extent that she getting whacked out on Valium was her only way to cope as she and her children lived at the mercy of a bully from whom there was no place to hide?

I've said it before and I'll say it again...we have a lot in common, are we related??

Morag

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The only evidence I have seen so far is that children are better off not in a hostile environment. I believe children are better off with two parents who care for eachother and their children who aren't "in love" than in a single parent house. Single parent households have been shown to cause huge damage to children, I'll post links when I find them. When you have children IMO you have given up your luxury of hopping to and from your favoured relationship, it isn't fair on the children.

Ideally yes but, how many relationships which have been long term enough end in such a civil fashion that the former couple can or want to live in the same house and still be a family unit?

And how many people are able to negotiate the running of the household and the family affairs in a fair and civil fashion after the romantic relationship has ended?

And if either of them ends up in a new relationship is if fair that they put that relationship on hold?

Is it right to model a loveless relationship to children?
Our primary model of our own romantic relationships and how we will expect our partners to treat us is based on the relationship
we see modelled for us by our parents. What are we imprinting on children if they grow up in a loveless home?

Plenty of kids are reared in a varity of homes and family, just because Mammy and Daddy are not living together that does not mean they are being raised by one parent. That notion is actually pretty harmful.

It is antiquated and needs to be changed and we should have children who have equal access to both parents, (bar where there has been abuse) and who can have two family homes.

Scanlas The 2nd

Sharrow wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The only evidence I have seen so far is that children are better off not in a hostile environment. I believe children are better off with two parents who care for eachother and their children who aren't "in love" than in a single parent house. Single parent households have been shown to cause huge damage to children, I'll post links when I find them. When you have children IMO you have given up your luxury of hopping to and from your favoured relationship, it isn't fair on the children.

Ideally yes but, how many relationships which have been long term enough end in such a civil fashion that the former couple can or want to live in the same house and still be a family unit?

And how many people are able to negotiate the running of the household and the family affairs in a fair and civil fashion after the romantic relationship has ended?

And if either of them ends up in a new relationship is if fair that they put that relationship on hold?

Is it right to model a loveless relationship to children?
Our primary model of our own romantic relationships and how we will expect our partners to treat us is based on the relationship
we see modelled for us by our parents. What are we imprinting on children if they grow up in a loveless home?

Plenty of kids are reared in a varity of homes and family, just because Mammy and Daddy are not living together that does not mean they are being raised by one parent. That notion is actually pretty harmful.

It is antiquated and needs to be changed and we should have children who have equal access to both parents, (bar where there has been abuse) and who can have two family homes.

The two parents would still love the children, and so long as the two parents treat eachother how they would wish to be treated I think it's best for the children to stay together.

Morag

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The two parents would still love the children, and so long as the two parents treat eachother how they would wish to be treated I think it's best for the children to stay together.

The parents are not staying together, what you are espousing is that they stay and live as a family unit, not that the parents stay together.

Which means at least that they have separate bedrooms and go about living their lives separately but under the same roof and parent the children together.

I think that is a very huge ask and most people are not able to do that and while you may think it ideal other's don't.

Cat Melodeon

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

. Single parent households have been shown to cause huge damage to children, I'll post links when I find them. When you have children IMO you have given up your luxury of hopping to and from your favoured relationship, it isn't fair on the children.

I'll be interested to examine the research which shows this 'huge damage' you speak of with regard to single parent households where both parents remain involved in parenting. Anything relating to single parent familes (solo parenting) will of course be irrelevant to your argument/beliefs, unless your aunt or uncle is planning on abandoning the children entirely.

They love each other but aren't in love with each other.

I ****ing hate that statement, like everyone needs to feel like a teenager and be "in love" like "she lights my day up".
Get a ****ing life and stop having kids you muppets.:pac:

aidan24326

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I excluded circumstances such as abusive or immature parents.

My parents split when I was three and it was for the best as them being in the same house would have caused me more harm IMO. However I think too many parents are too quick to split up when it's not actually in the child's best interest.

Yet you still think that parents should stay together 'for the sake of the children'?? It's one of the most stupid arguments imo. Children will ALWAYS be better off living with one happy loving parent than in a poisonous atmosphere with two fighting miserable parents. There are surely no exceptions to that.

Scanlas The 2nd

aidan24326 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I excluded circumstances such as abusive or immature parents.

My parents split when I was three and it was for the best as them being in the same house would have caused me more harm IMO. However I think too many parents are too quick to split up when it's not actually in the child's best interest.

Yet you still think that parents should stay together 'for the sake of the children'?? It's one of the most stupid arguments imo. Children will ALWAYS be better off living with one happy loving parent than in a poisonous atmosphere with two fighting miserable parents. There are surely no exceptions to that.

Just because a couple don't love eachother doesn't mean the atmosphere is poisonous with two miserable parents. Not everyone is that bitter and hate filled.

marienbad

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Just because a couple don't love eachother doesn't mean the atmosphere is poisonous with two miserable parents. Not everyone is that bitter and hate filled.

Scanlas , I asked you already but got no answer , so I ask you again - how old are you and are you married or in a long term relationship ?

Shenshen

mariaalice wrote: »

Of course people should not stay in a violent or abusive relationship because they have children in fact staying in a relationship like that when you have children is likely to do a lot of damage to children, however I do wonder about relationships where people are separating JUST because they are not in love anymore or who don't feel fulfilled anymore or who feel trapped or that the grass is greener on the other side.

There is always an effect on children when parents separate the aftermath can be traumatic on children especial if there are any issues around access or around money and then there is the issue of new partners.

And there would be none growing up with unhappy (for whatever reason!) parents?
Such a situation is definitely detrimential to the parent's mental health, which in turn can be massively traumatic for the children.

The whole "JUST because they are not in love any more" might seem a negligable detail to some, but not to others. And some people will suffer in a relationship without love, belittling this will not help anyone.

If parents feel they will be happier when separate, then by all means they should separate.
My mother left my father when I was in my early teens, and my memories of those first years after the separation are of happiness, relief and joy, despite the financial difficulties and the fact that my mother was now working so I had to start helping more around the house and looking after my younger siblings. It was like a weight had been lifted off all of us, we were simply a very, very happy family.

Shenshen

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Just because a couple don't love eachother doesn't mean the atmosphere is poisonous with two miserable parents. Not everyone is that bitter and hate filled.

No, some people simply become depressed and sick.
Or suicidal.

Much better for the kids, obviously.

jank

marienbad wrote: »

And if you think what I describe is the Ireland of today I can only assume that you never lived in the Ireland of the 60's,70's and 80's or if you did you lived a very protected existance. Even in this most difficult of times it is light years ahead of where we were in those days and any index you care to consult will show you that.

How about the index of personal debt, crime and happiness?

marienbad wrote: »

As for people nowadays abdicating responsibility, you could'nt be more incorrect - the last 20 years are the generations that have forced accountability on the church the politicians etc and improved every aspect of Irish life.

This harking back to some golden age in the past is just rubbish, it was a national cover up in every aspect of life - particularly for women and children .

Ya wha? So because a church scandal was un-covered it means that people are more responsible now then say 50 years ago? You got to be kidding me!

hondasam

Staying together for your kids is a big sacrifice to make and while it might work for some people it would not necessarily be the best thing for the kids.
What happens when the kids grow up and leave home, what do the parents do then.

maninasia

It really depends on the individual setup. I'm sure some people can stay together and look for kicks or relationships outside the marriage but try to preserve the family unit for the kids.

Having a family does mean you should put the family first, however you need to make sure that the decision is the right one, as much as possible.

I've seen people go off and get re-married and have more kids with somebody else. It happens, it's natural, but it's not ideal. You are inevitably splitting your attention and resources.

dharma200

marienbad wrote: »

Scanlas , I asked you already but got no answer , so I ask you again - how old are you and are you married or in a long term relationship ?

I would hazard a guess that the op has no children, and probably has never been in a long term relationship.

No harm.

Scanlas The 2nd

Shenshen wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Just because a couple don't love eachother doesn't mean the atmosphere is poisonous with two miserable parents. Not everyone is that bitter and hate filled.

No, some people simply become depressed and sick.
Or suicidal.


Much better for the kids, obviously.

This post is childish, no where did I mention kids are better off depressed, suicidal or sick parents and you are well aware of that.

Single parent households clearly cause harm to children.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php

This it's why it's so important to ensure if you do decide to raise a child in a single parent household you have a very good reason for doing so, not being "in love" doesn't cut it IMO, sacrifices need to be made for your children.

Shenshen

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

This post is childish, no where did I mention kids are better off depressed, suicidal or sick parents and you are well aware of that.

Single parent households clearly cause harm to children.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php

This it's why it's so important to ensure if you do decide to raise a child in a single parent household you have a very good reason for doing so, not being "in love" doesn't cut it IMO, sacrifices need to be made for your children.

So you want other people to sacrifice their happiness for your idea of what is a good enough reason?

The reason my parents split up was because they weren't in love any more, and hadn't been for a long time. Over this time, them not being in love but forcing themselves to stay together "for the children" had made our family a very muted and depressed one. As I said in an earlier post, I hadn't even realised how dark and down we were feeling on a day-to-day basis, until they split up.
I count spending the second half of my childhood in a single parent household as one of the happiest times of my life. The relief was palpable. One thing I vividly remember was that I saw my mother laugh, for the first time I could remember. She would have been smiling occasionally before, but I could not even remember her ever laughing out loud.

If that is a sacrifice you ask parents to make for their children, I will tell you as a once affected child that it is a pointless sacrifice. It will not make the children happy to have parents who are miserable, no matter how much they try and hide it.

Scanlas The 2nd

Shenshen wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

This post is childish, no where did I mention kids are better off depressed, suicidal or sick parents and you are well aware of that.

Single parent households clearly cause harm to children.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php

This it's why it's so important to ensure if you do decide to raise a child in a single parent household you have a very good reason for doing so, not being "in love" doesn't cut it IMO, sacrifices need to be made for your children.

So you want other people to sacrifice their happiness for your idea of what is a good enough reason?

The reason my parents split up was because they weren't in love any more, and hadn't been for a long time. Over this time, them not being in love but forcing themselves to stay together "for the children" had made our family a very muted and depressed one. As I said in an earlier post, I hadn't even realised how dark and down we were feeling on a day-to-day basis, until they split up.
I count spending the second half of my childhood in a single parent household as one of the happiest times of my life. The relief was palpable. One thing I vividly remember was that I saw my mother laugh, for the first time I could remember. She would have been smiling occasionally before, but I could not even remember her ever laughing out loud.

If that is a sacrifice you ask parents to make for their children, I will tell you as a once affected child that it is a pointless sacrifice. It will not make the children happy to have parents who are miserable, no matter how much they try and hide it.

It's not as black an white as that, each situation needs to be determined on a case by case basis. The parents need to at least stay together and see how it works out, then make a decision if you think the environment for the children would be better if with the parents living apart.

dharma200

op your point is, parents of children should stay together for the children, but its not black and white, case to case basis. The parents should atleast stay together and see how it works out, then make a decision?

I would assume most parents who split up do not just wake up and decide to feck off. It is neither easy being a single parent or a parent who has limited access. I cant quite work out what on earth it is you are saying.. 'they should stay together until they split up?'............... so it seems you may have argued your own point around to face itself? You state parents should stay together, then state each situation is different. Ofcourse it is, and this is why no one should make sweeping generalised statements about the family/love lives of anyone else. Every situation is different, and that is exactly why saying parents should stay together for the sake of their children seems (especially to me as a parent) a rather childish statement, with no experience of actually being in an unhappy relationship with someone whom you have children with.

Shenshen

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's not as black an white as that, each situation needs to be determined on a case by case basis. The parents need to at least stay together and see how it works out, then make a decision if you think the environment for the children would be better if with the parents living apart.

Exactly what I've been saying, thank you.

ash23

OP, about 4 years ago I'd probably have agreed with you. Back when my partner of almost 6 years dumped me and left me broken hearted with a child to raise alone. Having to move out of our home and go through all the horrible, gut wrenching crap that comes with the end of a relationship. Mopping up the childs tears and seeing how it affected her.
I would have agreed that someone should try to do everything they could to keep a family together. And to a point I still agree with that. If I get married, I intend to do it once and forever. But then again, doesn't everyone?

However, a few months after the breakup, I noticed a big change. In myself and in the child. Others did too. I wasn't so stressed and snappy. My child was also more relaxed and at ease. It's not like myself and my ex spent every night screaming at each other. We weren't abusive and we weren't angry. We didn't break things or hit or get drunk. We were 2 people who worked, had everything they wanted and were just going through the motions because the relationship wasn't fulfilling either of us and it was very stressful and draining trying to pretend all the time that everything was ok when it wasn't.

So to answer the question, I think if both parties try really hard to make it work and it's not happening, then the best thing is for them to amicably separate and try to make their lives apart the best they can be.

My parents were separated and I had a very very happy childhood. I am raising a child alone and she seems happy out. I don't think separation or divorce or single parenting is quite the hellish experience you think it is. It's all down to the parents and how they handle it.

marienbad

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

It's not as black an white as that, each situation needs to be determined on a case by case basis. The parents need to at least stay together and see how it works out, then make a decision if you think the environment for the children would be better if with the parents living apart.

At last, this is just about what every other poster has been advocating, a little bit of realism goes a long way.

Mint Sauce

My parents split when I was 10. Although I was upset, even then I knew it was for the best.

Sometimes people just dont get on, and stayting together will only just make them more misreable and will only impact on the kid(s) in the long term.

marienbad

jank wrote: »

How about the index of personal debt, crime and happiness?




Ya wha? So because a church scandal was un-covered it means that people are more responsible now then say 50 years ago? You got to be kidding me!

You are not seriously advocating that the Ireland of 30-50 years ago was a better place than the Ireland of today ! Or are you ?

Of course the uncovering of all those church scandal shows that people are more responsible today.

No longer were people prepared to sit on the fence as children were committed to a Magdelene Laundry on the sayso of the local clergy or let generations of those kids be violently assaulted and abused by those charged with their care.

Or let those self same forces dictate to women what to do with their bodies or how and when they remain in the workforce .

There are countless examples of of more individual accountability/responsibility and societal accountability/responsibility

We still have a long way to go , but that dos'nt mean we hav'nt come a long way also

Cat Melodeon

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Single parent households clearly cause harm to children.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php

This it's why it's so important to ensure if you do decide to raise a child in a single parent household you have a very good reason for doing so, not being "in love" doesn't cut it IMO, sacrifices need to be made for your children.

The Deputy Director at Civitas (Anastasia de Waal), the organisation you linked to, says that:

marriage doesn't create stability - it signals it. What many of those on low incomes are missing are the prerequisites for this stability: employment and education.
...
The second cause of single-parent poverty is negligent non-resident fathers. The government's failure to enforce paternal responsibility - defying its gender equality agenda - again goes back to Labour's squeamishness about family structure. This extends much further than advocating the intact two-parent family. The two-parent structure ought to refer as much to the parenting structure as to the household. Treating fathers as optional extras is no longer liberating women; on the contrary, it is simply liberating men from their parental responsibilities.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/21/socialtrends

The findings you have linked to in that piece relate to fatherless families, not separated ones. Fatherless families are more likely to struggle with all the issues listed at your link, but we are not discussing a fatherless family here.

Again I ask, is your uncle planning on abandoning his children? Because separation does not necessarily result in a fatherless household. You are once more arguing about eggs and using data pertaining to fruit...