I agree, in essence, which is why I wonder (since reasons for and situations of divorce AND staying in a marriage are so variable) why we spend to much time bickering about other people's choices (outside of those made from malice or neglect) and not helping each other figure out how to love and care for children in a variety of potentially healthy and adequate household constellations in the best possible ways and not why the choice YOU (the editorial one) make to work/not work; stay in a marriage or leave it, is a bad one. Children thrive in a remarkable range of situations, and most children in this country,whether their parents work or not, divorice marry or not, are lucky compared to most children in the developing world. "Doing fine" may not be as trivial an outcome as your verbiage implies.
Mentioning day care in a list of evills that include poverty and drug abuse suggests that the writer assumes it HAS to be bad. I don't think it has to be bad or is typically bad even when it's chosen because both parents must or want to work, but there are also cases where the parents are incompetent (to some degree) and it provides a loving and nurturing alternative. Not every stay at home mom (parent) is competent. Some are downright harmful. I think to that the comparison between divorcing families and happy intact familes is one that tilts the playing field. What about the comparison to families that "stay together for the kids" resulting in years of misery to which children are exposed on a daily basis? Negative effects on children can occur in a wide variety of situations including those where the maritial contract is honored to the letter and there are no substance abuse problems. I don't think that life is devoid of "black and white" choices - I am not a total moral relativist - but I think there are many complexities and nuances here that should be respected. And I am not saying I am right, I may not be - but I think all of us should be honest about how the research results might fit with our own world views and provide comfort. I think you are as guilty of that as I am. Nancy Melucci Long Beach City College Long Beach CA -----Original Message----- From: Michael Smith <[email protected]> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Nov 3, 2009 7:30 am Subject: Re: [tips] Article in WSJ on study how brain develops "without Dad." Hi Nancy. "The social conservatives should also acknowledge that they would ather believe that I and others like me deserve to have motionally/cognitively harmed children." I doubt this would be the case for social conservatives, at least if here is nothing wrong with them. ost people, especially those with children, would not, I imagine, ish that some children be "emotionally/cognitively harmed". Even from an entirely selfish perspective (which being socially onservative does not imply), it would be better to wish/hope that uch would not be the case where divorce, daycare, constantly moving, rugs, alchohol, poverty, etc. are concerned since such damage effects ociety as a whole. I think the comparison is intended to be between a healthy, happy, ntact family compared with one which suffers divorce and or has kids n daycare from an early age. Just because the kids may be "doing ine", doesn't imply no damage was done. If psychology is willing to concede that a family enmeshed in drug or lchohol abuse has a negative effect on children then it is at least onceivable that divorce and daycare could also have a negative ffect. --Mike On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:08 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: On the other hand this sword cuts both ways, and there are many people who apparently want to read that those who choose to divorce rather than live miserably together (something that also, quite plausibly, has bad effects on children) or place their kids in day care so they can work to support their families and be emotionally and intellectually satisfied (because plausibly an unhappy, intellectually frustrated and financially strapped mother might have bad effects on her children too) are inevitably going to be punished with the certain knowledge that they've harmed their children irreparablly. Yes, I am a divorced, working mother and I acknowledge that I would rather believe that my daughter (who has had free access to both her parents, because our divorce was amicable) is happier or at least not affected one way or the other because I did not remain in my very unhappy marriage and chose to work so I can use my talents as fully as possible. The social conservatives should also acknowledge that they would rather believe that I and others like me deserve to have emotionally/cognitively harmed children. Nancy Melucci Long Beach City College Long Beach CA -----Original Message----- From: Michael Smith <[email protected]> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Nov 2, 2009 7:58 pm Subject: Re: [tips] Article in WSJ on study how brain develops "without Dad." oops At the end of my last post I meant to say that I don't know the literature but it seems implausible to me that one can claim that there are no long lasting effects of divorce and day-care etc. As mentioned, the issue is complex and their are many intervening variables between the daycare years and adulthood. But I would be suspicious anyway since it seems to be just what our society wants to hear to qualm uneasy consciences. That is, "Don't worry North America, increased divorce rates and increased farming of children out to daycare doesn't and won't have any bad or lingering effects on the kids." --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- o make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
