@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:
Quote:
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?
