Parents Who Separate Are Horrible

by Guest Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:23 pm

First topic message reminder :

14th January 2014

Britain should be more “judgemental” and criticise parents who split up, a senior Conservative MP has said.

Family breakdown is costing the taxpayer tens of billions of pounds a year and people should not be afraid to condemn couples who separate, Sir Gerald Howarth said.

Cases such that of Raymond Hull, the drug-dealing father of 22 children by 11 women who was spared jail this week, are being seen on a smaller scale across the country – including in prosperous areas such as his seat of Aldershot in Hampshire, Sir Gerald said.

Bishops should spend less attacking Government welfare reforms and be “more vocal of their condemnation” of marital breakdown, he added. Traditional stay-at-home mothers have been "belittled for far too long", he added.

“The men who father these children seem to have absolutely no interest in bringing them up, let alone paying for them. We cannot afford to continue subsidising people who live these kind of dysfunctional lifestyles,” Sir Gerald, a former defence minister, said during a Westminster Hall debate in Parliament on supporting married couples.

He went on: “Am I being judgemental in an age when such approach is deemed inappropriate? Of course I’m being judgemental! For the sake of the country, we need to be judgmental. Besides, there are plenty of people who never cease to be judgmental about Members of Parliament.”

Research suggests children with separated parents are more likely to live in poverty, more likely to suffer from behavioural disorders and more likely to commit crime or abuse drugs, Sir Gerald said, costing the state £40bn a year.

He added: “Some will say that in a free society people should be entitled to live any lifestyle they want. However, overwhelmingly it is the taxpayer who is picking up the tab, so the state cannot be an idle bystander.”

The number of marriages fell since the Second World War to a 150-year low in 2009, but has picked up slightly in recent years.

In 2012 a record 47.5 per cent of children were born outside of marriage, up from 25 per cent in 1988 and 11 per cent in 1979. On current trends, more than half of babies will be born to unmarried parents by 2016.

The proportion of marriages that end in divorce has fallen since 2000, with more than a third breaking up before the 20th wedding anniversary. The decline is blamed on more people cohabiting before they marry, filtering out weak relationships.

Sir Edward Leigh, MP for Gainsborough, said family breakdown had become a “modern plague”.

He blamed a “conspiracy of silence” perpetrated by the Church, the BBC, Parliament and the Press that discouraged people from speaking up for marriage. It has left hundreds of thousands of children “living a tragic life,” he said.

“In our permissive society a view has grown up that people are happiest if they are totally liberated. It is about ‘me’,” he said. “We are told Britain has changed and we have to accept it but don’t we have a responsibility to speak out for what’s right?”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10572667/Actually-we-should-judge-separated-parents-say-Tory-MPs.html

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:21 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
feelthelove wrote:

It does I admit Sphinx. Sometimes I wonder why people enter into that lifetime commitment to have children. The responsibility is HUGE. Everyone is a critic and the worst is often the parents themselves

Best and most honest answer of the day on this.

x

Thanks Didge I love you

x

You know my situation but in all honesty I wonder how I would have coped being a parent, how anyone does

We are all human and make mistakes after all.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:22 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:Christ didge go look into it yourself - the studies have been done in multiple countries and involve millions of families and children from all sectors of society - other factors are examined and checked and again and again the results repeat.

It is nothing about mother figures and men cant raise children it is about the fact that firstly children take a huge amount of their security from the primary relationship in their life be it daddy mummy, mummy mummy, or daddy daddy. The idea that such an essential central thing in their lives can be broken has an unavoidable impact - there is increasing evidence that even children who are adults are significantly adversely affected by the failure of their parents relationship. Secondly raising a child is simply the most complex challenging task any of us will every undertake - and it is not a one person job.

I am not claiming what is better for couples I am saying what will the children the best chance. It wont guarantee anything it just increases chances - like you have a better chance of winning the race if your shoe laces are done up - having them undone does not guarantee you will not win, neither does having them done up guarantee you will win - it just increases your chances.

You want me to look into something I have already looked into.
Yes and there are children you have become so much stronger minded people from having failed parents and being raised by only one, where some are in a position they only have one parent raise them it has made them so much better than some who are with two loving parents.
Your points are based on examples in some families, yet I can do the same, the fact is within each child it will be different dependent on any given situation. Take like Nems has stated with domestic violence, this is just one example but the fact is your arguments and such research is different every time because each children and parents single or couple have many varied different situations.
Again the best chance for a child is always with a loving parent, it does not need two for this, if it it was the case all children from single parents would be failed cases, except this is not the case. In fact what you really need to show is how many actually fail out of millions, can you do that?

If you have already looked into the research then you know that all things considered (except in cases of abuse) if you split up your children are

less likely to get higher grades at school
less likely to go into higher education
more likely to develop a mental illness
more likely to end up with a criminal record

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:25 pm

feelthelove wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Best and most honest answer of the day on this.

x

Thanks Didge x

You know my situation but in all honesty I wonder how I would have coped being a parent, how anyone does We are all human and make mistakes after all.

Yes everyone makes mistakes - but when making decisions we benefit from knowing which actions give us the best chance of what we want and which will make it less likely we will achieve what we want.

We still wont get it right every time but we have a better chance with more information.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:31 pm

sphinx wrote:
feelthelove wrote:

Thanks Didge x

You know my situation but in all honesty I wonder how I would have coped being a parent, how anyone does We are all human and make mistakes after all.

Yes everyone makes mistakes - but when making decisions we benefit from knowing which actions give us the best chance of what we want and which will make it less likely we will achieve what we want.

We still wont get it right every time but we have a better chance with more information.

So if you could make your decision again in hindsight Sphinx what would you do? Parents Who Separate Are Horrible - Page 2 Questi23

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:41 pm

feelthelove wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Yes everyone makes mistakes - but when making decisions we benefit from knowing which actions give us the best chance of what we want and which will make it less likely we will achieve what we want.

We still wont get it right every time but we have a better chance with more information.

So if you could make your decision again in hindsight Sphinx what would you do?

To be fair it would probably involve me having to decide not to get married in the first place or having to be a different person throughout the marriage. I did not quit on the marriage, I did not walk out on the marriage. That was my husband, but it is a truism that no marriage fails because of just one person.

It was massively commented on that I was much happier when he did leave and I am not going to deny that - I am happier without him. However I also have to face the fact that my children suffered however much we have both done to minimize that suffering.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:41 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

You want me to look into something I have already looked into.
Yes and there are children you have become so much stronger minded people from having failed parents and being raised by only one, where some are in a position they only have one parent raise them it has made them so much better than some who are with two loving parents.
Your points are based on examples in some families, yet I can do the same, the fact is within each child it will be different dependent on any given situation. Take like Nems has stated with domestic violence, this is just one example but the fact is your arguments and such research is different every time because each children and parents single or couple have many varied different situations.
Again the best chance for a child is always with a loving parent, it does not need two for this, if it it was the case all children from single parents would be failed cases, except this is not the case. In fact what you really need to show is how many actually fail out of millions, can you do that?

If you have already looked into the research then you know that all things considered (except in cases of abuse) if you split up your children are

less likely to get higher grades at school
less likely to go into higher education
more likely to develop a mental illness
more likely to end up with a criminal record

Again taken off the back off selective children and families, which does not explain the following with single parents:

Get higher grades at school than others who have couple parents?

Go into higher education than some who have loving couple parents?

Criminal record, now the last one is pseudo science, when many factors play a part in why people commit crime, that is as bad as claiming blacks are more likely to commit a crime, when the reality is far more whites actually do! Or explains why children from loving homes also commit crimes?>

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:44 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

If you have already looked into the research then you know that all things considered (except in cases of abuse) if you split up your children are

less likely to get higher grades at school
less likely to go into higher education
more likely to develop a mental illness
more likely to end up with a criminal record

Again taken off the back off selective children and families, which does not explain the following with single parents:

Get higher grades at school than others who have couple parents?

Go into higher education than some who have loving couple parents?

Criminal record, now the last one is pseudo science, when many factors play a part in why people commit crime, that is as bad as claiming blacks are more likely to commit a crime, when the reality is far more whites actually do!

Please note I said more likely/less likely not would or would not. Saying a 100/1 shot is less likely to win the race is not to say it will not win just the probabilties.

Those probabilities are built up from studies involving millions of families.

Saying if you split up your children are less likely to get higher grades is not saying they will not get higher grades.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:46 pm

They are probabilities based again on limited numbers of families studied, do you understand how that is not conclusive Sphinx?

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:50 pm

There is also another problem with your view on this topic Spinx and what it can lead to with such beliefs in conclusions.

Stereotypes, because if people take the view single parents are less likely to be good at parenting or it has affects on children then people can badly form the wrong conclusions on such single parents or on their children, do you understand this?

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:50 pm

Actually they based on millions of families in different countries, cultures, socio-economic groups, environments, religions, etc etc etc.

I understand the meaning of the term statistically significant, and duplicated results so yes I understand conclusive.

The effect on chance of parental break up is conclusive.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:52 pm

PhilDidge wrote:There is also another problem with your view on this topic Spinx and what it can lead to with such beliefs in conclusions.

Stereotypes, because if people take the view single parents are less likely to be good at parenting or it has affects on children then people can badly form the wrong conclusions on such single parents or on their children, do you understand this?

Do you understand how studies are put together to negate such bias? Do you understand peer review?

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:54 pm

sphinx wrote:Actually they based on millions of families in different countries, cultures, socio-economic groups, environments, religions, etc etc etc.

I understand the meaning of the term statistically significant, and duplicated results so yes I understand conclusive.

The effect on chance of parental break up is conclusive.

But not billions?

What you fail to understand is simple factors here, some single parents are good and even better than many couple parents, so if some single parents are good what is the fact behind the problem?
Is the answer single or two parents?

No

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:01 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:There is also another problem with your view on this topic Spinx and what it can lead to with such beliefs in conclusions.

Stereotypes, because if people take the view single parents are less likely to be good at parenting or it has affects on children then people can badly form the wrong conclusions on such single parents or on their children, do you understand this?

Do you understand how studies are put together to negate such bias? Do you understand peer review?

I read lost of psychology Sphinx, tons of it and I also read how studies are very biased to forming the view they want to achieve.

How about though you understand how a poor stereotype can form from such studies, would you like some examples?

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:23 pm

Uh the studies are not psychological ones didge - they are social/economic ones.

They simply take a group of people and write down their school grades, whether they went into higher education, whether they had suffered mental health problems, whether they had a criminal record.

Then they break them into groups like religion, geographic location, parental socio-economic group, etc etc

They find out things like children whose parents were manual workers are more likely to do manual work themselves, or those with religious beliefs are less likely to have criminal records.

Then they break into sub groups - parents were managers dont have religious beliefs versus parents were managers do have religous beliefs.

Parental break up is just one grouping - and it has been found that whether it is considered on its own or as any combination of sub group outcomes as measured by school results higher education mental health criminal record and reported happiness are better in those whose parents remained together.

So if you look at manual workers no religious beliefs living in city parents together versus manual workers no religious beliefs living in city parents separated you find higher grades, more further education, less mental health problems less criminal records and higher self reported happiness in those whose parents stayed together.

Sure if you compare manual workers no religious beliefs living in city parents together with managerial workers religious beliefs living in country parents separated the second group may well show higher grades more higher education etc etc in the second grouping - but that is not like to like

I think you are mixing the psychological experiments trying to determine why what happens happens with the purely statistical ones that do determine what does happen - and like for like by whatever groupings you like if the only difference is relationship status of parents the numbers show more people will have high grades higher ed and self reported happiness when their parents stayed together.

I mean hell the reasons for this are not going to be simple - I have put down two I think are of major importance the sense of security and the complexity of the job but other things are going to weigh in here - like finances, like extended family, like perceptions and stereotyping.

I am only referring to the number studies which currently indicate children have a better chance if their parents stay together.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:32 pm

Yes you have said exactly the same thing, which neither of which answered any of my points.
If there are good single parents why is it they have done not only a good job and the fact the children have been raised well?
I am trying to lead you onto what you have come to easily mistake?

Lets take an example, two mothers have each separated from their partners/husbands, both have a boy of 10, one is always good and has good grades, the other mainly bad and plays up. Both single mothers work and both have similar incomes, both have their fathers visit them every other weekend, one hangs around with a good crowd of kids the other hangs around with a bad bunch of kids. One parents listens to her child, one spends much company with friends mainly seeking company at the loss of her husband?

What is the factors here that has made one bad compared to the other?

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:37 pm

By the way Psychology has far more to do with this issue than you can begin to imagine!

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:48 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Yes you have said exactly the same thing, which neither of which answered any of my points.
If there are good single parents why is it they have done not only a good job and the fact the children have been raised well?
I am trying to lead you onto what you have come to easily mistake?

Lets take an example, two mothers have each separated from their partners/husbands, both have a boy of 10, one is always good and has good grades, the other mainly bad and plays up. Both single mothers work and both have similar incomes, both have their fathers visit them every other weekend, one hangs around with a good crowd of kids the other hangs around with a bad bunch of kids. One parents listens to her child, one spends much company with friends mainly seeking company at the loss of her husband?

What is the factors here that has made one bad compared to the other?

Nope you still dont get it.

Take 200 women whose husbands are shop managers. They all work 30 hours a week as secretaries. They have a son of 10. They all find out their husbands are having an affair. 100 of them separate from their husbands.

After 10 years there will be more 5 A to C grade GCSE results among the boys whose parents stayed together
there will be more boys in higher education among among the boys whose parents stayed together
there will be more cases of mental health problems among the boys whose parents separated
there will be more criminal records among the boys whose parents separated.

You can take any 2 individual examples to compare and get any possible result - but when you look at cases by the 100, 1000, 10,000 etc patterns start to emerge.

Every parent is going to do the best by their child but out of 200 hundred cases of women doing their best the ones who kept the relationship together are the ones who had better results.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:53 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Yes you have said exactly the same thing, which neither of which answered any of my points.
If there are good single parents why is it they have done not only a good job and the fact the children have been raised well?
I am trying to lead you onto what you have come to easily mistake?

Lets take an example, two mothers have each separated from their partners/husbands, both have a boy of 10, one is always good and has good grades, the other mainly bad and plays up. Both single mothers work and both have similar incomes, both have their fathers visit them every other weekend, one hangs around with a good crowd of kids the other hangs around with a bad bunch of kids. One parents listens to her child, one spends much company with friends mainly seeking company at the loss of her husband?

What is the factors here that has made one bad compared to the other?

Nope you still dont get it.

Take 200 women whose husbands are shop managers. They all work 30 hours a week as secretaries. They have a son of 10. They all find out their husbands are having an affair. 100 of them separate from their husbands.

After 10 years there will be more 5 A to C grade GCSE results among the boys whose parents stayed together
there will be more boys in higher education among among the boys whose parents stayed together
there will be more cases of mental health problems among the boys whose parents separated
there will be more criminal records among the boys whose parents separated.

You can take any 2 individual examples to compare and get any possible result - but when you look at cases by the 100, 1000, 10,000 etc patterns start to emerge.

Every parent is going to do the best by their child but out of 200 hundred cases of women doing their best the ones who kept the relationship together are the ones who had better results.

Still not grasping this yourself and could not answer my question, what were the factors in this instance that led to one child being bad and one being good?

If we take your stance here and use stats which I am happy to do this even helps my view point even better, we take 1000 of the same single mums one is like the first mother and child I have mentioned the other 999 are like the other mother and child I mentioned and all have their children acting the same way.

What is the factors here creating one good and 999 bad ones?

This is why your view point on conclusions is very flawed as I am happy to help you understand this!

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:59 pm

PhilDidge wrote:By the way Psychology has far more to do with this issue than you can begin to imagine!

Psychology is the reasons why the results turn out the way they do. It does not change the actual results.

Psychology might one day be able to produce an instruction list so single parents have the greatest chance of equalling couples outcomes but right now it cannot.

Sure stereotypes of single mothers will be something affecting how people deal with a child which will in turn affect how that child does at school etc - but thats life. Sure you can say if the research pretended that people did not have stereotypes then it could say the children were not affected but where exactly does that get you.

Life is not fair and for a million reasons spanning from people thinking single parents are bad through to the emotional hurt of the break children whose parents separate are less likely to do as well at school etc etc. You can either stand there and say its not fair and if we just ruled all those factors having an effect out the results would be different or you can say the fact is that children whose parents stay together are not affected by a million things that children of parents who separate are affected by and as a result have better outcomes.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:00 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Nope you still dont get it.

Take 200 women whose husbands are shop managers. They all work 30 hours a week as secretaries. They have a son of 10. They all find out their husbands are having an affair. 100 of them separate from their husbands.

After 10 years there will be more 5 A to C grade GCSE results among the boys whose parents stayed together
there will be more boys in higher education among among the boys whose parents stayed together
there will be more cases of mental health problems among the boys whose parents separated
there will be more criminal records among the boys whose parents separated.

You can take any 2 individual examples to compare and get any possible result - but when you look at cases by the 100, 1000, 10,000 etc patterns start to emerge.

Every parent is going to do the best by their child but out of 200 hundred cases of women doing their best the ones who kept the relationship together are the ones who had better results.

Still not grasping this yourself and could not answer my question, what were the factors in this instance that led to one child being bad and one being good?

If we take your stance here and use stats which I am happy to do this even helps my view point even better, we take 1000 of the same single mums one is like the first mother and child I have mentioned the other 999 are like the other mother and child I mentioned and all have their children acting the same way.

What is the factors here creating one good and 999 bad ones?

This is why your view point on conclusions is very flawed as I am happy to help you understand this!

No you are talking about the reasons things turn out the way they do

I am talking about the fact that things do turn out the way they do.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:05 pm

Ahhhh its starting to hit home at last and that you are afraid to go down the road of understanding what really is the problem, because the differences between kids raised by two parents and those raised by one parent are generally negligible. The reality is you have and I have to say poorly taken the mistaken belief it is because a parent is single or a couple which will decide the outcome of how a child will grow, that has little factor here. Many factors play a part like positive parenting or how outside factors also play a part. You have poorly look at stats of how single or couple parents come out of stats and taken the view one position is worse off than the other because of the singularity view point which of course is the wrong view point because many other factors contribute being as many families are so different as well as the people raising them hence to the view points on psychology which plays a huge part as I stated before

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:08 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:By the way Psychology has far more to do with this issue than you can begin to imagine!

Psychology is the reasons why the results turn out the way they do. It does not change the actual results.

Psychology might one day be able to produce an instruction list so single parents have the greatest chance of equalling couples outcomes but right now it cannot.

Sure stereotypes of single mothers will be something affecting how people deal with a child which will in turn affect how that child does at school etc - but thats life. Sure you can say if the research pretended that people did not have stereotypes then it could say the children were not affected but where exactly does that get you.

Life is not fair and for a million reasons spanning from people thinking single parents are bad through to the emotional hurt of the break children whose parents separate are less likely to do as well at school etc etc. You can either stand there and say its not fair and if we just ruled all those factors having an effect out the results would be different or you can say the fact is that children whose parents stay together are not affected by a million things that children of parents who separate are affected by and as a result have better outcomes.

So your view on poor stereotypes is that is life, not how it affects, je wiz, that is as bad as your view point on single parenting. There is such a thing not allowing such a view to cloud a judgement a person has, because if you do you then cease to being fair and have now become prejudice over a view you have read and think is right.
That is a poor way to look at life and can lead your life in the wrong direction which is another factor than can have affects on children, not the fact that you are a single parent, something that clearly eludes you Sphinx

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:26 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Psychology is the reasons why the results turn out the way they do. It does not change the actual results.

Psychology might one day be able to produce an instruction list so single parents have the greatest chance of equalling couples outcomes but right now it cannot.

Sure stereotypes of single mothers will be something affecting how people deal with a child which will in turn affect how that child does at school etc - but thats life. Sure you can say if the research pretended that people did not have stereotypes then it could say the children were not affected but where exactly does that get you.

Life is not fair and for a million reasons spanning from people thinking single parents are bad through to the emotional hurt of the break children whose parents separate are less likely to do as well at school etc etc. You can either stand there and say its not fair and if we just ruled all those factors having an effect out the results would be different or you can say the fact is that children whose parents stay together are not affected by a million things that children of parents who separate are affected by and as a result have better outcomes.

So your view on poor stereotypes is that is life, not how it affects, je wiz, that is as bad as your view point on single parenting. There is such a thing not allowing such a view to cloud a judgement a person has, because if you do you then cease to being fair and have now become prejudice over a view you have read and think is right.
That is a poor way to look at life and can lead your life in the wrong direction which is another factor than can have affects on children, not the fact that you are a single parent, something that clearly eludes you Sphinx

You are not listening. I do not have an opinion on single parenting (this discussion is not about single parenting it is about parental breakup - children whose parents die may be raised by single parents and not show the same patterns as those from parents who break up, parents who break up may have second relationships which do affect the patterns)

Are you denying that stereo types happen? I am not asking whether they should or not I am asking whether they do.

Do stereotypes have an effect?

Therefore if a person is not exposed to a stereotype will they escape the effects of it?

It may be the case that the reason children whose parents are separated do not on the whole do so well is that they are affected by the stereotypes of broken families. In which case if we can change the stereotypes then the effects will disappear and there will be no difference.

In the meantime any parent thinking of ending their relationship must take account of the fact that if they do their child will be affected by stereotypes that will harm them whereas if they don't their children will not be affected by stereotypes and so wont be harmed. The way to protect the child remains the same - dont split up.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:36 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

So your view on poor stereotypes is that is life, not how it affects, je wiz, that is as bad as your view point on single parenting. There is such a thing not allowing such a view to cloud a judgement a person has, because if you do you then cease to being fair and have now become prejudice over a view you have read and think is right.
That is a poor way to look at life and can lead your life in the wrong direction which is another factor than can have affects on children, not the fact that you are a single parent, something that clearly eludes you Sphinx

You are not listening. I do not have an opinion on single parenting (this discussion is not about single parenting it is about parental breakup - children whose parents die may be raised by single parents and not show the same patterns as those from parents who break up, parents who break up may have second relationships which do affect the patterns)
Listening, we are all reading, to listen you have to hear and nobody is speaking on here. Again you failing to understand the parameters to failing children and using again stats to see if one or more is a worse situation based upon statistical numbers, which at the bottom I will show and prove is bad

Are you denying that stereo types happen? I am not asking whether they should or not I am asking whether they do.
Never denied them the point is you have to challenge them you are creating a poor stereotype as we debate

Do stereotypes have an effect?
In most cases yes

Therefore if a person is not exposed to a stereotype will they escape the effects of it?
No they will not always escape it either

It may be the case that the reason children whose parents are separated do not on the whole do so well is that they are affected by the stereotypes of broken families. In which case if we can change the stereotypes then the effects will disappear and there will be no difference.
The point is there is negligible difference between single and couple parents, you have as seen poorly taken the view point that out of 1000 single mums, 10 come out bad and out of 1000 couple parents 8 come out bad with no further researching into each individual case to see what were the factors that created the situation. In other words the difference between the two has little on one being single of as a couple

In the meantime any parent thinking of ending their relationship must take account of the fact that if they do their child will be affected by stereotypes that will harm them whereas if they don't their children will not be affected by stereotypes and so wont be harmed. The way to protect the child remains the same - dont split up.

No as staying together can bring as many stereotypes can it not, from the child coming to school with the mother having bruises being as the mother is staying in a relationship of abuse, that is seen by others, others then remark and a stereotype has formed has it not? The way to protect the child is through one or two parents proving good parenting and the support that child needs. In fact using your silly view on stats you will see many kids often do even worse with parents who stay together with conflict and aggression, than a single parent when there is none. A child maybe going down hill way before even the breakup and it has been the factor why the child is vulnerable not when the parent becomes a single parent. You see there are so many factors but you are looking at this poorly in black and white and that is never the situation

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:51 pm

I have repeatedly said that abuse is where parents should separate.

What the numbers tell us is that children whose non abusive parents split up face factors that children whose non abusive parents do not face which reduces the chances of them achieving.

Yes all of these factors should be challenged but right now they exist and the most effective way of protecting a child from them is to not split up.

If my view is silly it is a silly one shared by the policy makers of all the major political parties, and those whose job it is to protect and heal children.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:54 pm

Yet you are not with your children's father Sphinx. Isn't this a case of pot and kettle?

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:59 pm

sphinx wrote:I have repeatedly said that abuse is where parents should separate.

What the numbers tell us is that children whose non abusive parents split up face factors that children whose non abusive parents do not face which reduces the chances of them achieving.

Yes all of these factors should be challenged but right now they exist and the most effective way of protecting a child from them is to not split up.

If my view is silly it is a silly one shared by the policy makers of all the major political parties, and those whose job it is to protect and heal children.

You are still basing this on negligible evidence to say the least when as stated they are so many factors within this for example to show the absurdity of your claim here is another study:

In a study of math and science achievement across 11 countries, the two countries in which the children of single parents were most disadvantaged were the United States and New Zealand. There were no differences between single-parent and married-parent homes in Austria and Iceland. (The in-between countries were Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Scotland.)

Why the differences?

International research on the children of single parents – which gets little attention in the U.S. – puts American single-parenting in perspective. For example, a study of 5 Asian nations found that in only one of them, Japan, did the children of single parents show a disadvantage in reading skills compared to the children of married parents. In two countries, Hong Kong and Korea, there was little difference, and in two others, Indonesia and Thailand, children of single parents did better.

Why?

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:04 pm

Sassy wrote:Yet you are not with your children's father Sphinx. Isn't this a case of pot and kettle?

If you read all of my posts you will see I have stated it was not me who gave up on the marriage and walked out. I was prepared to stay in a situation that was unhappy for myself - in fact that is what i was doing. I also accept my inability to make the situation tolerable for my then husband has harmed my children.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:06 pm

Sassy wrote:Yet you are not with your children's father Sphinx. Isn't this a case of pot and kettle?

Why do you always have to make it personal?

Fucking low as can be, thanks but am having a really good debate with Sphinx here, I respect her views, I may not agree with them, but that is uncalled for

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:09 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:I have repeatedly said that abuse is where parents should separate.

What the numbers tell us is that children whose non abusive parents split up face factors that children whose non abusive parents do not face which reduces the chances of them achieving.

Yes all of these factors should be challenged but right now they exist and the most effective way of protecting a child from them is to not split up.

If my view is silly it is a silly one shared by the policy makers of all the major political parties, and those whose job it is to protect and heal children.

You are still basing this on negligible evidence to say the least when as stated they are so many factors within this for example to show the absurdity of your claim here is another study:

In a study of math and science achievement across 11 countries, the two countries in which the children of single parents were most disadvantaged were the United States and New Zealand. There were no differences between single-parent and married-parent homes in Austria and Iceland. (The in-between countries were Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Scotland.)

Why the differences?

International research on the children of single parents – which gets little attention in the U.S. – puts American single-parenting in perspective. For example, a study of 5 Asian nations found that in only one of them, Japan, did the children of single parents show a disadvantage in reading skills compared to the children of married parents. In two countries, Hong Kong and Korea, there was little difference, and in two others, Indonesia and Thailand, children of single parents did better.

Why?

You call the evidence negligible - the policy makers, the family court judges, the child psychologists, the teachers and others do not consider it negligible. The universities and organizations doing the research do not consider it negligible.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:10 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Sassy wrote:Yet you are not with your children's father Sphinx. Isn't this a case of pot and kettle?

Why do you always have to make it personal?

Fucking low as can be, thanks but am having a really good debate with Sphinx here, I respect her views, I may not agree with them, but that is uncalled for

She has a legitimate point which I have answered.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:13 pm

Yes the evidence is negligible because just like you they are coming at thi from th wrong perspective.

I notice you did not have an answer again not only to my earlier questions but the latest ones on your favorite point, studies?

Yes and many experts also think the difference is negligible between single and couple parents as they know many factors play a part. So your view point is that something seen as an acceptable view must be right then?
Good thing we have proved since then biologically we are all one race showing that racism, a scientific view once held to be right is very wrong then!

by SEXY MAMA Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:14 pm

As parents we have huge responsibility of our children and i believe children to be a gift from above.
Parents have become too selfish and only think about themselves. This mostly depends on each individual situation but i think having 2 parents is better than having 1

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:15 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Why do you always have to make it personal?

Fucking low as can be, thanks but am having a really good debate with Sphinx here, I respect her views, I may not agree with them, but that is uncalled for

She has a legitimate point which I have answered.

Sphinx, you obviously think you did the right thing, and work with your ex for the kids, as I did. Why do you think other people don't do that, as you appear to, why is it ok for you and I and not for others?

by SEXY MAMA Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:17 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:Yet you are not with your children's father Sphinx. Isn't this a case of pot and kettle?

If you read all of my posts you will see I have stated it was not me who gave up on the marriage and walked out. I was prepared to stay in a situation that was unhappy for myself - in fact that is what i was doing. I also accept my inability to make the situation tolerable for my then husband has harmed my children.

If he did that then you had every right to leave him. Or kick him out.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:18 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:

She has a legitimate point which I have answered.

Sphinx, you obviously think you did the right thing, and work with your ex for the kids, as I did. Why do you think other people don't do that, as you appear to, why is it ok for you and I and not for others?

It's alright for Tories to do it, but not the poor?

by SEXY MAMA Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:20 pm

Catman wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Sphinx, you obviously think you did the right thing, and work with your ex for the kids, as I did. Why do you think other people don't do that, as you appear to, why is it ok for you and I and not for others?

It's alright for Tories to do it, but not the poor?

Nothing to do with rich or poor Phil. No one should do it unless its a violence issue.

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:21 pm

Actually Sphinx is on the money,
part of the issue with divorced parents is complex state of relationships it can create (as opposed to a widow for example) there is plenty of evidence to suggest that most kids do poorly with step parents (which flows on to school and future opportunities) when both parents are still alive and in contact. Divorce is more variable, kids can live in hope of parents getting back together etc. Particularly when the reasons for the divorce are minimal (like the ‘we just fell out of love’ excuses) as they are very hard for a child to comprehend, this creates anxiety and other mental stresses.

You can sort of make the comparison to a Ship with 2 captains.... that hate each other.
It normally doesn't end well (unless both parties can be mature and set aside personal feelings etc.)
It is the Uncertainty that creates the problems not so much the actual number of parents.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:25 pm

veya_victaous wrote:Actually Sphinx is on the money,
part of the issue with divorced parents is complex state of relationships it can create (as opposed to a widow for example) there is plenty of evidence to suggest that most kids do poorly with step parents (which flows on to school and future opportunities) when both parents are still alive and in contact. Divorce is more variable, kids can live in hope of parents getting back together etc. Particularly when the reasons for the divorce are minimal (like the ‘we just fell out of love’ excuses) as they are very hard for a child to comprehend, this creates anxiety and other mental stresses.

You can sort of make the comparison to a Ship with 2 captains.... that hate each other.
It normally doesn't end well (unless both parties can be mature and set aside personal feelings etc.)
It is the Uncertainty that creates the problems not so much the actual number of parents.

Actually she is way off the money and as seen you are forming stereo view points on some situations, as the vast majority of the children of single parents are doing just fine.
That is the point being missed throughout this whole debate!

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:26 pm

I think that when parents get together far too young, that is a major reason for many breakups.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:26 pm

I don't think anyone can say whether it is right or not except the people in the marriage. They might say 'they have fallen out of love', that doesn't mean it's the real reason.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:27 pm

Catman wrote:I think that when parents get together far too young, that is a major reason for many breakups.

In my generation it was because people didn't live together before they got married, and when you live together you discover a lot of things you didn't know.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:29 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:

She has a legitimate point which I have answered.

Sphinx, you obviously think you did the right thing, and work with your ex for the kids, as I did. Why do you think other people don't do that, as you appear to, why is it ok for you and I and not for others?

Crap sassy I cant answer that without sounding horribly smug and self congratulatory about the pair of us - but I will answer.

It means putting what is best for the children above what is best for the self. It is hellishly hard and means exposing oneself to pain that would not otherwise be felt. It means accepting responsibility for the relationship failure. It is the opposite to being selfish.

Some people simply cannot do that - they can only concentrate on their own pain and needs. Or they choose to only concentrate on them.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:30 pm

Sassy wrote:
Catman wrote:I think that when parents get together far too young, that is a major reason for many breakups.

In my generation it was because people didn't live together before they got married, and when you live together you discover a lot of things you didn't know.

That's true!

The emphasis was on saving up for a deposit to buy a house?

Not much money to spend on just being young etc!

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:31 pm

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Sphinx, you obviously think you did the right thing, and work with your ex for the kids, as I did. Why do you think other people don't do that, as you appear to, why is it ok for you and I and not for others?

Crap sassy I cant answer that without sounding horribly smug and self congratulatory about the pair of us - but I will answer.

It means putting what is best for the children above what is best for the self. It is hellishly hard and means exposing oneself to pain that would not otherwise be felt. It means accepting responsibility for the relationship failure. It is the opposite to being selfish.

Some people simply cannot do that - they can only concentrate on their own pain and needs. Or they choose to only concentrate on them.

I don't know anyone who is divorced who hasn't done that.

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:42 pm

@phil
That is part of what I am saying SINGLE parents are NOT a problem. (not statically anyway)

It is the Stress Children go through WHEN Their parents are getting divorced that creates a negaitive impact on their education and the flow on effect that has on their lives. Even then we are talking averages, I am sure if the parents relatiosnhip was really abusive/volitile the kid will be better off with them seperated and probably already has Worse issue due to the exposure to domestic violence etc.

@sassy
we used to have at fault divorce the move to no fault divorce has had a negaitive impact on society (particulary children), no one denies the right of people to leave abusive relationships but that right still must be balanced against the Duty to raise the child they bought into the world. So Like I said 'minimal' reason as opposed to someone that hits you etc which is a big reason, the balance should shift accordingly.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:44 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:Actually Sphinx is on the money,
part of the issue with divorced parents is complex state of relationships it can create (as opposed to a widow for example) there is plenty of evidence to suggest that most kids do poorly with step parents (which flows on to school and future opportunities) when both parents are still alive and in contact. Divorce is more variable, kids can live in hope of parents getting back together etc. Particularly when the reasons for the divorce are minimal (like the ‘we just fell out of love’ excuses) as they are very hard for a child to comprehend, this creates anxiety and other mental stresses.

You can sort of make the comparison to a Ship with 2 captains.... that hate each other.
It normally doesn't end well (unless both parties can be mature and set aside personal feelings etc.)
It is the Uncertainty that creates the problems not so much the actual number of parents.

Actually she is way off the money and as seen you are forming stereo view points on some situations, as the vast majority of the children of single parents are doing just fine.
That is the point being missed throughout this whole debate!

No didge the majority of children with separated parents are not doing fine - a recent study by netmums has shown parents massively underestimate how hurt and sad their children are.

http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/general-coffeehouse-chat-514/news-current-affairs-topical-discussion-12/1040646-true-impact-divorce-children.html

I am sure you will point out the numbers are too small and will no doubt criticize netmums for being unrepresentative but it is only a continuation of what I have been saying from the start - Separation hurts kids and no matter how much we pretend they are coping fine as soon as they are actually asked or their progress over time monitored the pain shows up.

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:46 pm

veya_victaous wrote:@phil
That is part of what I am saying SINGLE parents are NOT a problem. (not statically anyway)

It is the Stress Children go through WHEN Their parents are getting divorced that creates a negaitive impact on their education and the flow on effect that has on their lives. Even then we are talking averages, I am sure if the parents relatiosnhip was really abusive/volitile the kid will be better off with them seperated and probably already has Worse issue due to the exposure to domestic violence etc.

@sassy
we used to have at fault divorce the move to no fault divorce has had a negaitive impact on society (particulary children), no one denies the right of people to leave abusive relationships but that right still must be balanced against the Duty to raise the child they bought into the world. So Like I said 'minimal' reason as opposed to someone that hits you etc which is a big reason, the balance should shift accordingly.

Do you think we should return to divorces needing to decide fault?

by Guest Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:59 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Actually she is way off the money and as seen you are forming stereo view points on some situations, as the vast majority of the children of single parents are doing just fine.
That is the point being missed throughout this whole debate!

No didge the majority of children with separated parents are not doing fine - a recent study by netmums has shown parents massively underestimate how hurt and sad their children are.

http://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/general-coffeehouse-chat-514/news-current-affairs-topical-discussion-12/1040646-true-impact-divorce-children.html

I am sure you will point out the numbers are too small and will no doubt criticize netmums for being unrepresentative but it is only a continuation of what I have been saying from the start - Separation hurts kids and no matter how much we pretend they are coping fine as soon as they are actually asked or their progress over time monitored the pain shows up.

No you are clutching at straws Sphinx now, dear me, am off to be early start and will answer this tomorrow, you prove my point how you are taken in now by a study of 1000 people, again showing you still do not understand the variance between people as I have already explained.

Again this study was flawed, can you see why?

Look closely into it!

Ciao

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:23 pm

@sphinx
I think we need something other than no fault, just like anything if the penalty is nothing people will not respect it.
I do sort of think the at fault system is in principal better. As it is a fairer way to determine custody and child support payments etc.
But it would all depend on implementation, as long as it is unbiased and fair to either gender. Why shouldn't the one that broke the contract pay?

by Sponsored content