Over the Shock and GALing 6

[Thinker]

One other thing does your C think she's depressed? Post child?

No comment from my C.

IMHO it is two things:

First, although Mrs. T says that she has forgiven me, etc, I think that she has a ton of built up resentment. During every R discussion she brings up how unhappy she was during the first couple of years of our M. She also holds on tightly to everything that I have done that is negative, and immediately forgets everything positive. This continuous resentful state prevents her from experiencing any attachment or positive emotions.

Second, Mrs. T has a lot of stresses in her life - family members dying, cancer, personal health issues, etc. It all compounds with her FOO issues to make her feel (at the core) inadequate and unlovable and (on the surface) unhappy. She is convinced that she needs to be M'd to someone who MAKES her happy. Since I don't (how could I in our current sitch), then I am the wrong person for her. If she stays, in other words, she believes she will never again be happy. I don't think she is capable of examining the core issues right now.


Nothing I can do about it, so I don't spend much time trying to mindread, but it does help me to have more compassion. And based on my anger last week, I need that compassion

The troubles in our M really began in a time several years ago when, within a 6-month period, her father died, our middle child got very sick, I lost my job, and we had to make a hurried move for my new work(new house, new town, etc). Our life recovered, but our M never really did.

[Thinker]

Here's this evenings thought - arrived at while lying on the bedroom floor playing with S1...

What if what Mrs. Thinker says is true?

She says "I can NEVER be happy if I am married to you."

I have always either listened while privately disagreeing, dismissed it as script, or (worse) tried to refute what she is saying by using logic (ie we can work it out, love is a decision, etc).

And, I know this is true, if she let go and worked through her own issues and I worked through mine and we worked things out, we could both be happy in this M.

but...

What if she can't do that. What if for her own reasons, she can REALLY TRULY never let go of the resentment. She can Really never stop blaming. She can Really never work on the this M. etc, and for these reasons (all internal to her) it IS true. She really never can be happy while married to me.

If that were the case, what would I want? What would I do?

In that case, I'd want her try to be happy in the only way she could - by leaving. I'd wish her well and let her go. My choice.

And, I'd want her to leave for my own self-compassionate reasons as well - so I could move on. Also my choice.

[SmileysPerson]

Hic Svnt Dragones, my brother.

A month ago I could have busted my divorce but I missed, as it were, the Opportune Moment, because I wasn't listening (back to Square One). But in part that's because I didn't want to hear that I could bust it because the price of doing so was more than I am currently willing to pay.

What I neglected (chose not?) to remember is a key part of DR - busting is about stopping the divorce, not restarting the marriage. That comes later - ideally. I couldn't imagine wanting to be married "under these conditions" -but being married isn't the point. Not being divorced is the point. So I let the Opportune Moment slip past.

So consider the end-state before you send a new play in from the sidelines.

On the other hand, you get to an important - and often-neglected - aspect of the Master Narrative one gets around here, one to which I've referred in my own thread: If it is true that "love is a decision," then we have to recognize that, by symmetry, "not-love" is also a decision. It's binary - if it is appropriate for us to say, a twinge or more of hope in our voices, "Walkaway can decide to love," then we have to acknowledge, much as it might pain us to do so, "Walkaway can also choose not to love (us)."

And if "choosing" to love is a valid outcome, then it stands to reason that choosing not to love is equally valid - if undesirable from Left-Behind's POV. Reality is, after all, that which, when we choose not to believe in it, still doesn't go away.

So perhaps Mrs. T has indeed made a choice. It would be good to know before you order the helmsman to steer the boat beyond the edge of the map to where the dragons are.

[Thinker]

Here indeed lie the Dragons...

I have been reading through Stosny's "Love Without Hurt."

I found the whole book to be pretty interesting, but in the Appendix, I found a short gem...

"Unequal Investment of Love"

"...Happens when women marry men they don't really love, but who very much love them...This is a formula for disaster if she's also addicted to blame"

In essence, he loves her. She feels guilty for not loving him as much. Her guilt becomes resentment. She blames him for everything and anything to explain away her guilt. Her blame and guilt ride her and turn into criticism of him.

...pretty much describes the dynamic I have been in for a while. Mrs. T has even recognized and talked about the guilt she feels (and how she can't stay in a R just due to guilt).

Not sure if the dynamic has always been there in our R, or has only appeared in the past few years (I think it appeared in the past few years after the death of her father), but it is sure there now.

Stosny doesn't offer any real solutions except to offer the man "I guess then you'll have to leave her" and to offer the woman the advice to look for and try to heal the real sources of the guilt.

[Thinker]

If it is true that "love is a decision," then we have to recognize that, by symmetry, "not-love" is also a decision. It's binary - if it is appropriate for us to say, a twinge or more of hope in our voices, "Walkaway can decide to love," then we have to acknowledge, much as it might pain us to do so, "Walkaway can also choose not to love (us)."

And if "choosing" to love is a valid outcome, then it stands to reason that choosing not to love is equally valid - if undesirable from Left-Behind's POV. Reality is, after all, that which, when we choose not to believe in it, still doesn't go away.

So perhaps Mrs. T has indeed made a choice.

This is the point where I have gotten stuck for a long time. "Love is a decision" holds an inherent judgment. It implies, therefore that there is a correct and an incorrect choice. I have seen the "love is a decision" choice, and chosen to love, and then been exasperated, frustrated, become argumentative, etc when it is clear to me that she is making a decision herself, but in the opposite direction.

I keep wanting exclaim to her "It's so easy, just make the OTHER decision. Why can't you do it (too)."

I am finally starting to accept that she's not going to. Especially not under pressure from me. And if she doesn't, THAT IS HER CHOICE. She is free to make it.

So the question in my mind now is, what do I do? For me, I know the answer. I need to let go and move on. If she can't initiate the D process, then I will. The thought makes me feel happy, strong, peaceful, free.

Then, however, I look at my kids...and my heart sinks...and I am back where I started.

[SmileysPerson]

@Thinker: I keep wanting exclaim to her "It's so easy, just make the OTHER decision. Why can't you do it (too)."

Indeed. There is a dominant assumption that Walkaway's decision was "wrong" -- a "mistake." All that's required is to do what you do (GAL, 180) to make that "mistake" stand out in bold relief.

But what if it isn't a mistake? What if it was a decision? Well, no, can't be -- fog, pod-person, aliens, etc. etc.

Sure about that? Couldn't Walkaway's dialog go like this: "Love is a decision? Okay -- I decide not to love you." Apart from our own needs and desires, there's very little reason to believe that this is not, in fact, what has happened.

Then, however, I look at my kids...and my heart sinks...and I am back where I started.

Yes. The Ten Kazillion Dollar Question. And, like much else, the answer is by no means obvious, though it is clear that there is a social desire here on the boards that it be obvious (i.e., divorce=bad for kids).

[O'Dog might want to go in the corner and chew a juicy bone, because Smiley's Person needs to wax academic here for a bit.]

As much as I sympathize philosophically with the proposition that divorce is bad for children, empirically I can't get behind it. This is, of course, an aggregate evaluation -- in one's own case, the answer ought to be relatively obvious (even if "wrong" in the empirical sense).

The problem with "what we know" about the effects of divorce on children are, among others (without citations):

* the studies tend to be on children in clinical settings (i.e., those that have been referred to counseling) and so are a non-representative sample because the majority of children of divorce are never seen in clinical settings

* "divorce" itself is far too-coarse a variable, because what appears to matter is the nature (i.e., quality) of the divorce, individual childrens' coping mechanisms, post-divorce interactions of the respective parents, etc.

Two authors, in a "meta-study" (that is, a study of hundreds of studies), put it this way:

children who adapted most successfully were on the whole intelligent, attractive, and more skilled socially and in sporting activities, and they achieved well in school...The children who were doing poorly had a history of problems: disturbed peer relations, speech and learning disability, were overweight, and so on

* it is not clear that the effects of divorce are not unlike the effects of any other trauma or disequilibrium suffered during childhood, so the relevant concept might be insulating children from trauma generally and not divorce specifically

* very few studies are able (either empirically or methodologically) to separate out the effects of divorce (i.e., per se) from the economic effects often associated with divorce (i.e., increased maternal poverty) which are, in turn, associated with race, education, SES, etc.

* researchers agree that divorce is associated with increased probabilities of seeking psychological assistance later in life (twice as likely), dropping out of high school (three times as likely), teen pregnancy (twice as likely), of cohabiting rather than marrying (two to three times as likely), and of leaving home in adolescence because of friction with the “surviving” parent (five times as likely).

While all that sounds pretty scary, what research is unable to do is isolate those effects from the antecedent conditions that led to the decision to end the marriage. For example, if a couple in poverty decides to divorce, their children are more likely to become runaways in adolescence. But children in poverty are more likely (than children in the general population) to become runaways in almost all cases. So the direct effect of the divorce is extremely difficult to measure.

* most research (that measures it) shows that children of divorce perform more poorly in academic measures in the first 3 years post-D, but also that these effects fade with time. Again, however, other factors (parental involvement in school work, books in the home, etc.) play difficult-to-separate roles.

So what does all this pointy-head blather mean?

From my POV -- apostate though it may be -- one needs to consider the children, but not consider them absolutely. Is it "better" for them to be in a two-parent household where the parents are separated? Some researchers -- i.e., Wallerstein, et al. -- say yes.

On the other hand, we know that kids are remarkably attuned to what's going on around them. Are they better or worse off if they sense and/or understand their parents are living unhappy lives? Some say better, some say worse.

One of the recurring findings in research on adolescents and young adults and divorce is that, if the parents "stay together for the kids" and then subsequently divorce as empty-nesters, there is an even greater sense of betrayal and, in fact, measurable negative effects on the late-teens/early-20-somethings. So in a more philosophical sense is that "better" or "worse"?

I've come to the conclusion that, at the end of the day, the better off I and WAW can be, the more resources we will have at our disposal for helping the kids cope. They hate it -- and (importantly) they tell me this on a regular basis. But just because they hate it doesn't mean they can't adjust to it.

And there's a more broadly philosophical (perhaps even theological) question -- is parenthood, in essence, a suicide pact? Is it the case that you're "supposed" to sacrifice "everything" for your kids?

So a lot to think about and very little in the way of robust data on which to make decisions. But what about the elusive Middle Ground or Third Way? Is there an intermediate stage for the Thinkers? Separation? Or is that too cost-prohibitive?

[Thinker]

I agree with your philosophical wanderings here. I see both the pro's and cons of separation from the kids point of view.

Honestly, though, there is another consideration. Me. I look at my kids and I don't want to separate from them. I don't want to miss half of their weekends and half of their birthdays and half of the holidays etc.

But what about the elusive Middle Ground or Third Way? Is there an intermediate stage for the Thinkers? Separation? Or is that too cost-prohibitive?

Unfortunately, we live in an expensive (but not large or luxurious) house in an expensive area of the country. I have the only real income. Mrs. T works hard at a low paying, but rewarding, part time job in the evenings, and is trying to start a business which takes even more of her time and pays nothing. My income currently pays just enough to pay our mortgage and expenses. Even while receiving a fair alimony from me, she would not be able to afford to either maintain our current house, or rent a house nearby that is big enough for the kids.

The only financially feasible separation would mean me moving to a small inexpensive apartment while she stays in the house with the kids - not a situation I want to be in.

To create a separation realistically simulates the conditions of D, we would have to sell our house.

[Coach]

So why are you holding all the income responsiblity?

She's not happy because of you.
She wants a divorce.
She wants space.
She doesn't want to do the Retro post-session work.


Brutal reality time:

She needs to get a real job.
You need to discuss selling the house.
Discuss how to split things and how the money might work in a divorce.

You are owning too many of her issues. That's why 180s work. Give her issues back, they are her problems now.

[Dia]

I second what Coach says. If she is not willing to do her part to work on the R then she needs to find work that will allow her to live adequately on her own. Time for the big girl panties.

[Thinker]

Just concluded negotiations on a new SUV. Going to pick it up in an hour.

Freedom.