Posted on 06/15/2009 8:19:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
he first week of April had me visiting many of the major national television programs to talk about my new book, "In Praise of Stay-at-Home Moms."
One typical concern various interviewers shared was the problem of taking care of children at home by a parent when there’s been a divorce, which generally results in day care and a working custodial parent . . . usually the mother.
I respond by pointing out two concepts I believe are “truths.” One, that the quality of love and attention of a parent is superior to that of hired help (nanny, day-care worker, baby sitter), and two, that children have the best opportunity to grow up healthy, happy, and functional with a married mommy and daddy. That some people can’t or won’t provide those things doesn’t change their importance to a child.
I remember when my husband and I decided to become parents. I specifically asked: “Is there any reason you can see after all the years we’ve known each other that you might decide to divorce me? Because if there is even an ounce of ambivalence in either of us to this marital commitment, we shouldn’t have a child and risk the quality of their lives.”
My follow-up joke was, “I would not consider divorce. However, if you see me driving a trash truck right at you while my face is scowling —look out!”
Sadly, too many folks don’t consider these issues out loud before they marry and before they have children. When the stresses of life pile up, their individual or mutual inability to live by their vows evaporates.
Of course, the bond may be broken irrevocably when violence, addictions, and/or infidelities occur.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
1. No one ever has their life completely together
and
2. She’s right, so what’s your beef?
Are you saying that her advice is bad?
I do. Divorce is horrible on families. I am thankful that in my family,divorce is zero tolerance beginning with my two sets of grandparents (both sets made it over 50 years before the death of their spouse). My parents are heading towards 42 in October. My sister is in her 13th year. I am in my 14th year. My brother is going on 10 years in November. Why divorce just because you had a bad day. She should not be giving marriage advice when she could not keep her own marriage from falling apart. However, her ex probably could not stand listening to her all day so I give him a pass...lol.
It’s quite badly put. I think the good? Dr. S. would rather see a stressed marriage have no kids than to gamble with kids then have the marriage cast into clumsy efforts to keep it going for the kids’ sake. But again her Orthodox Judaism is more permissive on divorce than is biblical Christianity, so it’s seen as more acceptable in the devout synagogue than in the devout church.
Wow, this sounds way too familiar to me.
So, you didn’t read the article or you think domestic abuse is ok?
I did read the article. Do you not understand my post????? Stay married! You folks have ruined marriage.
Seems to me that her life is in order....how is the mote in your eye?
I agree that Dr. Laura can appear insulting and harsh, but sometimes I think she does it to wake up the 200 other people listening that are about to make the same mistake.
However; I don’t listen anymore. It is basically the same show every day. Same stupid people making the same stupid mistakes.
I am happy for your family. And yeah I agree that divorce is hard on the kids. The fact is that when alcoholism,affairs, and being beat every day get tiresome for then is it okay for a divorce? You do not speak from personal experience at all so how in the world would you know whether or not divorce is horrible?
Honestly, I don't know how you can say you read the article and disagree with it, when she says EXACTLY the same thing you are saying! And she says it well:
Staying together is not enough, but it is the blessed opportunity to bring more joy and peace to your own life, your spouse, the children, and your family as a whole. Your extended family’s support is always a blessing, so saying nice things about your spouse to both sides of the family generates even more positive feelings all around.
While you are “staying together,” your children benefit from both mom and dad; don’t have to compete with your new “love interests” and other children you inherit or create; don’t have to live two lives; don’t have to exist in the middle of perpetual rancor; and don’t have to resort to drugs, alcohol, sex, and other misbehaviors to get attention or get back at you.
All of the preceding won’t make your divorced life much of a pleasure, if you think about it.
Yes, short of dangerous or destructive, I vote for staying together for the sake of the children, because everybody wins if you do it right.
What is it that you disagree with?
Her husband of over 20 years, who is the father of her soldier son, is still her husband.
She constantly discusses her conversion from amoral secular feminism to traditional morality. Since that conversion over 15 years ago, she has not been involved in any marriage scandals.
She has only the one son, so there could be no hint of any hypocrisy regarding the headline and her personal life because she has not faced the issue (staying together for the kids) in her own life since her conversion from wicked feminism to traditional morality.
I don’t think that people should be married just to be married. In some cases divorces are good.. If the parents keep on bickering and stay married, if there some emotional abuse, or realize there is a mistake and can’t work things out and don’t love each other anymore, well I guess a divorce is warranted..
Many can't handle her straight forward no nonsense advice. Turning her off is an option they can take advantage of.
Dr. Laura remains happily married to her one and only husband and has never been married to anyone else, never been divorced, and never had an anullment.
You truly have no idea of what you are talking about.
Judith Wallerstein’s research, studying the children of divorce at 5 and 10 year intervals over a period of 25 years or more supports Dr. Laura’s position: except in cases of physical abuse, children are worse off if the parents divorce. Even if they are bickering, staying together for the sake of the chldren, as bad as the situation is, is still better than divorcing. You may not like this evidence, but Wallerstein started out on the other side, assuming that children are resiliant and bounce back and that it’s better to divorce than live bickering. She discovered to her surprise that the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary and, to her credit, she is a good enough scholar to admit she was wrong and accept the conclusion her evidence points toward.
She has numerous books, most of them coauthored with fellow researchers. Her work is supported by that of other researchers in the same field.
The damage to the children often does not emerge until they are young adults, dating, thinking about marriage. One cannot assume that because the children seem to be “handling it well,” that the divorce is not wreaking real damage on them. That’s Wallerstein’s conclusion.
Fine. You advocate divorce and I am on the anti-divorce side. Just like I am pro-life. You seem pro-choice. I guess we differ on issues. Who that happens all the time. No biggie.
Not necessarily. Those that can, do; those that can’t, teach :)
Besides, if she’s right, and I think she is, then she’s right. Whether or not she can follow her own advice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.