Wrapping up the year, let’s review some divorce studies! Yippee!
- Risk of Stroke – Canadian children of divorce may have a higher risk for stroke in their lifetime. All kinds of things can be risk factors for strokes though.
- Parents of Children with Autism – In the past research has suggested that children with autism are more likely to see their parents divorce. New research suggests the opposite.
- Contagion – People with a divorced sibling are 22% more likely to get divorced… On top of the current rate, what does that mean? Someone please do the math.
- Do your chores and be happy about it, woman! – Women normally do twice the amount of chores at home. Turns out a happy marriage in this department is not based on “equal sharing of work” but women feeling that their husbands respected and cared for them. Duh. Come on though husbands, wouldn’t your wives be THAT much happier if you respected and cared for them, AND did the laundry?
- Money Money Money – Americans with a bachelor’s degree or higher only have an 11% chance of divorce within the first 10 years of marriage. Last rumor I heard was a temple marriage leads to a 10% chance of divorce. Hold on to that 1% improvement! š
- Divorced men hit the gym – This one’s a no-brainer – men who get divorced are likely to hit the gym. For what else but to buff themselves up to find a new mate? Interestingly, women tended to workout less following a divorce.
- Children blame themselves – This is not new. The world can be a scary place for many children, and they will do anything to feel some sense of security. Blaming themselves is a natural and soothing strategy: “If it’s my fault that my parents divorced, then the world isn’t so out of control and unpredictable.” vs. “If it’s not my fault, then I have no control over what happens around me.” While children need to know it’s not their fault, caring adults need to go further than offering that reassurance and look at what their needs are behind this attribution, for example, emotional safety.
From the Huffington Post.
Finally, keep in mind that for some families, long-term contemptuous and toxic relationships may be more damaging to a child than an amicable divorce, if such a separation is possible. From the Gottman Relationship Institute: “Marital discord can influence children indirectly by decreasing the effectiveness of the parents’ monitoring, emotion coaching, and other parenting skills. And it can influence children by creating emotional distress on the children. This research… also demonstrated that children of maritally distressed couples show an amazing strength and resilience. Ongoing research continues to examine how marital discord affects children, but also seeks to understand how some children remain resilient despiteĀ the stresses and strains of an emotionally unstable home.”
Happy New Year!
Wheat & Tares 
Men are doing more chores, but children are doing a lot less. Makes for an interesting dynamic, all in all.
I have always had trouble seeing how people can have an “amicable divorce” or “co-parent” after divorce. In my mind, if the capacity for cooperation is there, than why are you getting divorced?
Well, SilverRain, it depends on the reason for the divorce. If there was infidelity the cause of divorce might be that, but amicable separation is certainly possible.
The idea that self-blame creates more security than an unpredictable, out-of-control world intrigues me.
Thanks for your post!
jmb:
Infidelity is an excuse for, not cause of, divorce. I speak from experience. I’m with Silver on this one.
Re: amicable divorce – I think it is indeed possible, when staying together is not a good option. Some couples just can’t make it work – what is happening between them is so damaging – being attached yet hurting each other so much – sometimes separation and becoming detached emotionally, while learning (even with the help of a couple therapist) to understand and work with each other as co-parents from MUCH less threatening position can be a very good thing. When you’re married, the other person is, for better or for worse, THE key other person in your life. Some co-parents do VERY well, some not so well, some can’t do it at all. Some get remarried, etc. But in my limited understanding, some people can do the amicable divorce when they are NOT able to stay together. Being married is more than being amicable.
Course Correction – glad you enjoyed it. I learned that lesson while working with a young boy in foster care. We would do stuff out in the community, and whenever he would “misbehave” I would sometimes become too angry with him, which would result in him saying stuff like, “I’m a BAD KID! I’m such a bad kid!” He’d say that while cowering. I talked to one of my profs who does attachment research, and his eyes lit up with excitement as he explained Object Relations and how kids will blame themselves because it is safer and offers more control. He said if I could work through this with the kid, still using discipline but also affirming his goodness and etc. (i.e. using both control AND warmth – he called it being “bigger, stronger, wiser, and KIND”) then kids like that will eventually grow to love you and learn to be dependent. Anyway, I think we do this as adults as well – self-blame can be bad just like blaming others.
#2 and #5 – Perhaps people just don’t want to be married to each other anymore. And Paul, it’s wonderful that you feel that way in your personal experience, but you really have no business projecting your personal feelings into someone else’s relationship. It’s actually quite insulting. I speak from experience as well, and you know nothing about my experience.
Divorce and adultery are the largest and most destructive factors in the implosion of the traditional family in the history of mankind. Nothing else even comes close! All the rationalizations and justifications do nothing to heal the utter devastation and pain experienced by the children. It is a selfish and, most times, unnecessary act that does nothing but allow the marriage partners an easy way out of solving problems in their relationship.
No matter how much we try to scapegoat other causes or factors, divorce will eventually be looked upon as the pure evil that it is. Abortion cannot hold a candle to the human misery and pain caused by divorce and adultery. This is why the Saviour was so adamantly against it in Matthew 19.
Interestingly, 2/3 of all divorces are initiated by women.
“Interestingly, 2/3 of all divorces are initiated by women.”
Not surprisingly, seeing how stacked the economic deck is in their favor.
Thomas,
That was the EXACT same thought I had after reading allquieton’s comment!
The deck really is stacked against men when it comes to divorce and child custody.
“heal the utter devastation and pain experienced by the children. It is a selfish and, most times, unnecessary act”
Michael, I agree with you in part, but looking at the outcome research on these kids, many do very well, and even thrive in an environment that is less toxic.
Anyway, I think divorce and adultery are outcomes or symptoms of deeper issues.
AdamF,
I wonder how many of the people that accept the outcome of the research on the children of divorce cited in your post would also accept similar studies that show no identifiable harm or detriment to children raised in gay and lesbian households?
I think that a majority of those people (including LDS) that use such studies to alleviate any guilt they may have about putting their children through such an experience would not be as accepting of studies that show the same results for children being raised in stable, committed same-sex households.
I am not discounting the findings of the studies you reference, I am merely pointing out a double standard.
Okay, I get what you’re saying – looking at research is different from using it to justify one’s ostensibly poor behavior – is that it?
Many LDS folk I know have no problem with committed same-sex households… I think they’re afraid to call it “marriage.” Not to get into gay marriage though… if you want to discuss gay divorce, have at it! š
Yes, that is what I am saying. And, no, I am not trying to go down the gay marriage road in my comments. I am just trying to point out how we can find justification for selfish behaviour in a myriad of contradictory reports that are published each year. How does one sort through the morass and how does one make sure one is applying the justification consistently across all similar situations?
It still goes back to underestimating the damage inflicted upon children by divorce and adultery. It is my opinion that the studies are glossing it over.
You are probably correct in stating that divorce and adultery are symptoms of a larger issue. Is the larger issue selfishness as Elder Oaks suggested in general conference last year?
I have made no secret of the fact that I am divorced. Finalized less than a year ago. I was also, in a legal sense, the one who initiated the divorce. Naturally, there is more to the story than what ended up on paper.
I guess from my experience, although a marriage is indeed more than being amicable, I feel that in general if a couple has the capacity to be amicable, they also have the capacity to work on the marriage.
It is an honest question. What inability would a person have to have that would preserve their ability to be truly amicable while destroying their ability to be married?
And I add that I’m still asking because infidelity is not necessarily a deal-breaker in my mind. The deal-breaker would potentially be things around the infidelity.
Michael: “How does one sort through the morass” – Good question – that’s why if one really is interested, one should look at these articles directly, including the nature of the studies, sampling issues, limitations, etc. USUALLY (not always) it is then understandable why some studies are “contradictory.” Often the studies aren’t as comparable as the popular media (e.g. The Huffington Post”) would like.
“Is the larger issue selfishness as Elder Oaks suggested in general conference last year?”
That’s almost getting to it! We have to consider what is behind selfishness, i.e. WHY are people acting selfish? Usually it’s because they have, as Spencer Kimball (not to mention marriage researchers) put it, deep, unmet needs. These deep unmet needs pull for one to protect oneself, thus appearing to be selfish.
SilverRain – “It is an honest question. What inability would a person have to have that would preserve their ability to be truly amicable while destroying their ability to be married?”
Well, your question sounds rather rhetorical, but I’ll assume it’s not and try to make you see it like I do! lol. This may be difficult (if not impossible) to do given that you’re coming from your own fishbowl (we have a hard time seeing the big picture on our own lives), but try to step back and at least look at other relationships. One person’s inability is the tree – we need to step back and look at the forest – what happens BETWEEN the couple, the relationship, the systemic patterns. Often we get lost in the individual inabilities or issues and lose sight of the bigger negative patterns in relationships. So that is one factor. Getting a divorce can promote (although it might not!!!) a change in this pattern. Zooming back in to individuals, I tried to get this across earlier but failed – when you’re in a relationship with someone things are MUCH different. EVERYTHING is on the line. I know, and have worked with (in therapy) absolutely WONDERFUL people, these are great people in most aspects of their lives. However, stuck in their system, they do and say some pretty nasty things. Why? It’s not due to big flaws or pride or sin so much as it’s due to underlying fears, DEEP DEEP shame that is related to relationships, shame about never feeling worthy of love or care, never feeling good enough for a partner, etc. etc. Remove this very same person from the context of a romantic relationship (not just physically, but emotionally as well) and you have a MUCH MUCH safer place for that person, and I think the ability to be “amicable” is a possibility. Hmm… does that make any sense?
I should add, that there is something to be said for those who try to work it out. The best results for emotionally focused couple therapy (a method with a ton of research and theoretical support) that I’ve seen took HIGHLY distressed couples (according to the dyadic adjustment scale, a measure that has been around a long time) and moved about half of them into “recovery” (meeting a certain score on that measure). About 70% of moderately distressed couples overall moved into recovery, while 90% of all couples experienced “some” improvement… not that some improvement is enough. This says to me, that if ALL very distressed couples had really great EFT done by a very good therapist, at BEST half of the couples would end up working it out. Sometimes, a positive outcome of couple therapy is the couple deciding to split, and the therapist can help them do so in a kinder, gentler way.
I think we are much more complicated than pretty much all of us realize.
I knew a couple years ago who were really bad spouses. For whatever reason, when they were married they fought constantly. They divorced and things between them and their children improved dramatically.
“So what?” you might ask. “That’s true of lots of people.”
The thing is that when they divorced they turned their house into a duplex – a classic, separated-by-a-wall duplex. She lived on one side; he lived on the other side. Their kids lived in the duplex – going back and forth between their parents at night, eating meals together as a “family” quite often, going to events and school activities together, etc. If someone didn’t know there was a wall between their living spaces, it’s probable the person wouldn’t know they were divorced.
Finally, once the kids left the house and were on their own, the couple remarried – and are happy together now.
I don’t understand it fully; they don’t understand it fully. I think it is a great example, however, of what Adam is saying – that sometimes there are things that make divorce a “good” or “necessary” thing (like whatever it was that made my friends’ marriage so cancerous) AND other things that make an amicable divorce possible (like really liking / loving each other).
#16 – I think this is a fair question, SilverRain, but are we really suggesting that if someone has the “ability” to stay married then they should stay married? That seems like a ridiculously low standard for marital relations, in my opinion. Obviously the trump card for marriage/divorce decisions is children. That said, I think people are way too quick to suggest that unless two people hate each others’ guts, they should stay married as a matter of course. I don’t really get that at all. I think the LDS (and perhaps to some degree the general religious) perspective completely discounts the happiness of the individuals involved in the marriage, and I’m not sure why. For some reason, it seems like most church members feel like the happiness of the children is the only consideration in a determination of whether a couple should stay married. What about the happiness of the husband and wife?
Adam—So, essentially your answer is that by removing the element of commitment/emotional involvement, some people develop the ability to be amicable. That ability wasn’t there before, but became there through the process of divorce.
I suppose in an ideal world, we could help cure whatever it is that is making people take romantic relationships so much more seriously than their other relationships.
I also suppose that for me, it is hard to understand because I often try to separate my emotions from my behavior to analyze and hopefully change it. I do it so often it is almost a baseline reaction. Obviously, not everyone does that.
I think perhaps I also see romantic love strangely. I find it impossible to feel romantic attachment or create expectations upon that attachment without a certain level of respect (or amicability.)
#8 – Michael, it’s somewhat redundant to say that divorce is a contributing factor in the demise of the traditional family. I will say, though, that perhaps the demonization of divorce and divorcees is also a contributing factor to the unhappiness in divorced families as well as those who refuse to consider divorce as a legitimate alternative. In my opinion, encouraging late teens and early ’20s to marry and have children is a more significant contributor to the unhappiness of traditional families than either divorce or adultery, as both of the latter naturally follow the former.
brjones—Actually, I do feel that if an ability to remain married exists, a couple should remain married. (Not a reason to GET married, mind you, but a reason to stay married.)
I think that is actually a very high standard for marriage.
I believe that happiness for adults is not something that happens to people, it is something that is created by people. That is, perhaps, where we differ.
Although, I do admit that my perspective in #24 is probably partially why I remained in an abusive marriage so long, so that is possibly not a recommendable outlook.
What about the happiness of the husband and wife?
Bingo, BR Jones. If the husband and wife are unhappy, the children know this.
Interestingly, I believe that happiness is both created by people, and something that happens between them.
#24 – I actually agree with you about people making their own happiness, SilverRain. I guess what I don’t understand is the concept that because two people made a decision at an earlier time, based on information available to them at the time, and years later things have changed, why those two people should feel like their options to find happiness are limited. For many people there are tweaks and adjustments that can be made to their behavior or their marriage that will allow them to achieve a high degree of happiness. For other people, it’s just not going to happen. In a marriage, where so much of one’s happiness is dependent on things out of one’s control, I just don’t understand the position that people should continue to try to jam a round peg into a square hole. If two people can salvage a marriage and a relationship and be happy, I think that’s the ideal solution. If that’s not realistic, though, or if one person honestly feels he or she cannot be happy in the relationship, then he or she should absolutely consider other options, in my opinion. And when I talk about a low standard for a marriage, I’m referring to athe standard that if two people can deal amicably with each other then they should be able to stay married. Is staying married a goal in and of itself, or is the marriage meant to be a vehicle to achieving happiness? I think the standard of happiness between two married people should be much higher than being able to coexist peacefully.
#26 – I’m not sure what this means, Henry. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
Actually, SilverRain, I’m curious. Why do you feel that if the ability to remain married exists the couple should remain married?
Agreeing with you.
.prezi-player { width: 550px; } .prezi-player-links { text-align: center; }http://prezi.com/bin/preziloader.swfConflict on Prezi
Interesting! I was able to embed this Prezi I made (and had some feedback from Andrew S on). Basically, this is the what happens “between spouses” that, if unchecked and negative/toxic enough for a long enough time, can really hurt a relationship (think spouse A on the left, spouse B on the right). This is what happens “between” people. The root of this infinite cycle is what happens below the water: the primary emotions of fear, sadness, shame, loneliness, helplessness, etc. and the unmet needs such as the need for connection, to be soothed or calmed, to be valued or admired, etc. Sometimes in relationships neither partner can get these needs met, and it contributes to a cycle like this becoming worse. Most couples get into patterns but it’s when they are very escalated and toxic that things are especially difficult.
I believe women are more likely to FILE the paperwork for divorce because if they want custody they want to file it first. Waiting to file means the father can file and petition for custody first and might therefore be awarded temporary custody.
Women are more motivated to start the paperwork because of custody. Another way they are more motivated is that once their husband quits depositing his paychecks into their joint account she can no longer pay all of the bills. He is happily enjoying his full paycheck and only “giving” her some out of the “goodness of his heart” and it may not be enough to pay the bills.
Women therefore are more motivated to start the paperwork for temporary child support that can be set before the divorce is final.
brjones #28—Well, I don’t think that marriage IS a vehicle for achieving happiness in the sense that you’re describing.
What you seem to describe is the way most people think of happiness, largely because that is the way advertisements sell happiness. If only you have the right car/insurance plan/house/gym fitness membership/spouse, you can find happiness.
I don’t buy that. I believe that to be a cheap imitation of real happiness.
I believe that happiness is not a product of circumstance, it is a product of progression.
The reason I believe that a couple should stay together if the capacity for amicability on both sides exists is because I believe that all the other aspects of marital problems can be resolved if there is at least that level of mutual respect.
In the toxic cycle above, for example, if any level of respect can be found and nurtured between the spouses leading to both spouses resetting expectations in the marriage, the cycle falls apart.
#34—Interesting that you say this, jks, because that is precisely the reason I had to file. Though you didn’t mention one thing in my case that made it even more desperate, that he left with several months of back bills unpaid as well as stealing our entire tax return. I went a two months on two weeks worth of bishop’s storehouse food, a $10/week budget and food storage while 3-5 months pregnant. That’s just more of the same, though, really.
And I might add that I think expecting a spouse to be a vehicle for happiness is vastly unfair to a person who, in the end, is just as imperfect as you are.
Stripped down to basic economics, the simple fact that typically, a woman gets paid to leave, whereas a man must pay to leave, is sufficient to explain much of the greater number of divorce filings by women.
Ironically, marriage has gone from one of the strongest contracts — which could be dissolved only for good cause — to one so weak that it’s not really a contract at all anymore. When you can breach without consequence, the contract is illusory.
In the research I’ve read, marriage benefits men more than women, in terms of life expectancy (7 years longer for men, 2 years longer for women). When a woman’s husband dies, she inherits the financial security(which is the primary benefit men bring to the relationship), but when a man’s wife dies, he often loses his social network (the primary benefit a wife usually brings to the relationship). Apparently, friends and support are more vital to longevity than wealth.
I’m wondering what the statistic is for a sibling who is divorced and is not religious vrs. a sibling who is religious and is not divorced.
#35 – SilverRain, I don’t believe one’s spouse is a vehicle for one’s happiness, or that he or she is obligated to try to make the other person happy. That wasn’t my point at all. My point is that human beings are ostensibly capable of a high degree of happiness. We engage in many behaviors and put ourselves in many situations in our lives to try to facilitate that happiness. I don’t evaluate job opportunities based on which one is going to “make” me happy, but it’s not wrong of me to consider which one will create an environment in which I can be most satisfied or happy. Conversely, I think it’s legitimate for me to consider which circumstances and relationships are impeding or reducing opportunities for happiness. Why should marriage be immune from these considerations? It seems to me that many religious believers feel that marriage is not subject to the normal evaluations to which human beings subject virtually every other situation and relationship in their lives; namely, if something is not working for you, stop doing it. I don’t see why marriage should be evaluated on any different grounds.
Obviously there are many other considerations in evaluating a marriage besides simply one’s personal happiness, such as that of the happiness of one’s spouse, and even more importantly the health and happiness of one’s children. I would not suggest otherwise. But I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about. If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that any married couple that CAN stay married SHOULD stay married. I just can’t see the sense in that. I agree with you wholeheartedly that people do and should make their own happiness. But to extrapolate that to mean that everyone can be equally happy in any situation as long as they really want to and try really hard, is just incorrect, in my opinion. Moreover, I don’t see why anyone should feel compelled to pay such special deference to marriage.
Take a look at some stats before arguing that divorce is good for women financially. It is, in fact, devastating. Mothers’ standard of living declines precipitously after divorce, while fathers’ available income actually increases. Even in states with the _most_ generous child support requirements, the percentage of a man’s income that actually goes to supporting his children decreases in most divorce settlements, while the fraction of the mother’s income devoted to housing, etc. for the children rises.
I understand the resentment about custody, but the financial argument above is just wrong-headed.
i echo kristine. the comments that divorce is financially advantageous for women are incredibly short-sighted.
Even in states with the _most_ generous child support requirements, the percentage of a manās income that actually goes to supporting his children decreases in most divorce settlements, while the fraction of the motherās income devoted to housing, etc. for the children rises.
Kristine, you are just repeating the truth based on cold hard facts and logic. I’m not sure that has much place in some discussions.
The reason I believe that a couple should stay together if the capacity for amicability on both sides exists is because I believe that all the other aspects of marital problems can be resolved if there is at least that level of mutual respect.
It seems that if a couple is at that point, then they are better off courting each other than leaving — they preserve their joint history, have known quantities, and, quite frankly, are in the place that they would be with an arranged marriage — a practice with a higher “success” rate (with success measured by happiness).
brjones—You are right, all of those things should be considered before marriage. But marriage is a contract, a word of honor.
Something that you are unfortunately not alone in failing to “see the sense in”.
From a broader point of view, there is societal and economic value in stable households. From a more narrow point of view, there is immeasurable personal value in 1) remaining true to one’s word, 2) learning patience and strength through hard times rather than jumping ship at the first sign of brighter waters, and 3) learning to work with less than the ideal in another person.
And I agree with Stephen’s #43 comment, and appreciate the reference to arranged marriages, as that captures something of what I’m trying to drive at.
#2 SilverRain – I agree with you. If there’s just a cooperation to save the marriage, then divorce will never happen, right?! If good harmony between spouse will just stay the same, no worries at all.