The National Catholic Register notes that traditional-marriage advocates say social scientists won’t report how divorce, single parenting, and step-parenting hurt children:
Social scientists are concealing the harm that divorce, single parenting and stepfamilies do to children. Not only that, they are also hiding the benefits which even unhappy marriages bestow, not just on children, but on the couples involved.
So claim the heads of several organizations devoted to defending traditional marriages.
“It’s a very sad occurrence when people, for reasons of political embarrassment, won’t say what they believe,” said David Blankenhorn, head of the Institute for American Values. Blankenhorn worries that government agencies and other institutions will frame policies based on misreported scientific findings that disfavor the traditional family.
[. . .]
It is about more than protecting people’s feelings, says Blankenhorn: Political correctness is involved too in the suppression of findings.
Blankenhorn tells of being lambasted by the head of one family research organization back in the mid-2000s for using one of that organization’s studies to support an article he wrote for the Los Angeles Times against same-sex “marriage.”
“She didn’t claim I’d used the data wrongly. She just didn’t want her research associated in any way with being anti-same sex ‘marriage.’ She actually tried to forbid me from ever doing it again.” Blankenhorn says he used “blunt language” to stand up for his right to use the data as he chose.
Whenever I think about the conservative Christian academics who are afraid to stand up for what they believe, I think of David Blankenhorn. Although he is a liberal Democrat with whom I have many policy disagreements, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for his willingness to speak the truth in defense of children. Maybe one day all conservative Christians in the social sciences will be willing to follow his courageous example.
(Via: Family Scholars Blog)
Related: Dads, Don’t Go
May 9th, 2011 | 3:31 pm
I have no doubt that divorce (and single parenting) is extremely bad for children.. but where do I go for the “hard data”? After all, common sense and observation are not enough for a great many people. Where can I point my skeptical liberal-leftist friends and colleagues?
May 9th, 2011 | 5:21 pm
I am also interested in the “hard data”
Divorce is only extremely bad for children when the parents do not focus on the needs of their children.
Living in a family where there is constant conflict between the mother and father can be extremely bad for the children.
I hate blanket statements
JohnF
May 9th, 2011 | 6:02 pm
This strikes me as a no-brainer. Of course divorce and absent parents are bad for kids. (I wonder if the latter is really more a cover for step-parenting, which doesn’t, in and of itself, strike me as a lot different from a widowed parent remarrying–Cinderella notwithstanding.)
Other things bad for kids: having a parent who is an addict, deployed overseas in the military for repeated tours of duty, works long hours, a second job, a job away from home, stuff like that.
If conservatives are going to whine and blame, and fuss about those conflicted liberals, the least they can do is sacrifice some of their own sacred cows.
Recognizing that some divorces happen because two adults are ill-formed for marriage, there are situations in which parents must choose the lesser of two evils. Staying with an abusive spouse vs divorce. Making a lot less money vs being available for kids. Defending their country so other people’s kids can grow up healthier.
In the real world, it’s not so easy to find situations in which a person chooses the outright bad in favor of the good. Usually the perfect choice isn’t on the table.
May 9th, 2011 | 7:30 pm
If conservatives are going to whine and blame, and fuss about those conflicted liberals, the least they can do is sacrifice some of their own sacred cows.
Which of my sacred cows are you whining about now, Todd?
May 9th, 2011 | 7:32 pm
You know I used to believe all that stuff about “divorce is inevitable, it is better than two ill-suited adults blah blah blah”. Except that I can’t help but notice that the sort of people who make these excuses always seem to end up with new lovers who are not really very different from the old lovers. The dynamics don’t change.
It seems a very selfish sort of justification for putting kids through something that is traumatic – but, then, the sort of people who are capable of doing that to their kids are equally capable of minimizing just how traumatic it really is for the child, I guess.
May 9th, 2011 | 7:53 pm
There’s a great book – unfortunately not so current (1994/1997) – by Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton, called “Growing up with a Single Parent.” A single parent herself, she set out to prove that children of single parents fare no worse – and found out quite the opposite. It was actually required reading in one of the sociology classes I took at the hardly-bastion-of-conservatism University of Michigan.
May 9th, 2011 | 9:26 pm
Whether or not divorce is good or not is entirely circumstantial. There are many couples for whom staying together will hurt everyone, kids included.
May 9th, 2011 | 9:27 pm
@Todd
Brilliant comment.
May 10th, 2011 | 6:10 am
Whether or not divorce is good or not is entirely circumstantial. There are many couples for whom staying together will hurt everyone, kids included.
I disagree.
Even in the most intensely dysfunctional relationships, couples are better off getting skills training as a couple – learning to control their anger, raise their emotional awareness, communicate more effectively, manage their time/money/stress/etc more effectively, and so on. Splitting up does not end the so-called “cycle of violence”: a woman is more likely to be killed by her spouse after leaving him than before.
(It’s a funny thing, that we have cognitive behavioral therapy-based programs that are astonishingly effective at turning dysfunctional relationships into healthy ones, and yet we don’t advertise or even use this knowledge. We don’t do it because it is politically incorrect to do so.)
Our culture prefers – for strictly ideological reasons – to bust up troubled couples, even when they themselves want to work things out. It’s an enduring fantasy that this is somehow “better” for kids. Divorce does not fix dysfunctional families. It only makes things worse. Toxic marriages become toxic divorces. Couples too immature to work out their marriage are going to be just as immature (or worse) during the pain and stress of divorce.
There is only one real solution to the problem of troubled marriages: for the parents to grow up. In the case of hardcore marital troubles, you don’t do that by blaming everything on the other partner, walking out, then starting the whole cycle all over again with a new person.
Sometimes separation is necessary, if the problems in a marriage are so severe as to cause threats to emotional or physical well-being. Sometimes divorce is impossible to avoid because one parent simply refuses to stay and work things out. But don’t kid yourself: divorce is never good for kids, because the idea that divorce somehow “cures” game-playing, selfishness, dysfunction, etc., is a myth.
May 10th, 2011 | 10:35 am
Our culture prefers – for strictly ideological reasons – to bust up troubled couples, even when they themselves want to work things out. . . .
What evidence can be cited for this?
But don’t kid yourself: divorce is never good for kids. . . .
I don’t believe I have ever heard it argued that “divorce is good for kids.” If there is an abusive (possibly alcoholic or drug-addicted) husband who beats his wife and children, obviously it’s better that they get as far away from him as possible. If the father (or rarely, mother) is molesting the children, obviously the family needs to split up. If one spouse is in an adulterous affair that they will not end and try to repair the marriage, then what is the other spouse supposed to do? So people argue that in specific situations, the children are better off if the parents split. But I have never heard it argued as a general proposition either that people in a problem marriage should divorce rather than try to save the marriage, or that divorce is good for kids.
From the admittedly very little I know, it does seem to me that a cognitive behavioral approach to couples therapy (and to a great many other personal problems) would make more sense than traditional therapy.
May 10th, 2011 | 12:18 pm
Of course this ignores the fundamental reality that when the decision to divorce is made, the children, and what may or may not be good for them is relevant only in being used by each parent to club the other one over the head.
May 10th, 2011 | 12:38 pm
Let me start by admitting I have no hard data to back this up, but I would guess that abuse and addiction are the causes of a relatively small percentage of divorces. Most of the time one partner or the other (and I seem to remember reading that it’s usually the woman, though, again, I have no hard data to back that up) just gets tired of being married. He or she believes there is some “right” to be “happy” and no one, not even his or her children, has the right to interfere with his or her “happiness.” The dissatisfied partner usually rationalizes that “my happiness will make me a better person, ergo a better mom (or dad), so this is really good for the kid(s).” It’s part of the selfishness unto solipsism that characterizes our decayed, entropic culture.
May 10th, 2011 | 1:37 pm
” Maybe one day all conservative Christians in the social sciences will be willing to follow his courageous example.”
Maybe one day Christians in the churches will have the courage to speak up about the sinfullness of divorce.
Until then, love, prayer and forgiveness simply deteriorate into secualr heresies.
May 10th, 2011 | 1:40 pm
Michael Snow Maybe one day Christians in the churches will have the courage to speak up about the sinfullness of divorce.
If you go to a church that doesn’t speak about the sinfulness of divorce, then maybe you’re going to the wrong church. I’ve heard many more sermons about the evils of divorce than I have about the sin of homosexuality. And for good reason—divorce is more common, and thus, more dangerous to the church.
May 10th, 2011 | 2:30 pm
Same thing happened a few years back with the feminist movement. Any research that showed any difference between men and women, if it could get published, was labeled as anitfeminist and the scientists had a hard time getting funding. Same thing also happened re global warming. The more things change the more they remain the same.
May 10th, 2011 | 4:02 pm
Our culture prefers – for strictly ideological reasons – to bust up troubled couples, even when they themselves want to work things out. . . .
What evidence can be cited for this?
There’s plenty of evidence out there. I’ll content myself with just one argument and let you do the looking-up, if you care.
1. cognitive behavioral therapy works. It has high success rates (as evaluated according to whether the couples are still practicing the targeted negative behaviors five years later). You can look this up if you doubt me.
2. And yet, cognitive behavioral therapy continues to remain underfunded and inaccessible. In the few places (mostly major cities) where “batterer’s classes” are available, they are not only limited – focusing only on basic anger management, without offering skills training in vital related skills such as communication or resource management – but have waiting lists. To make things worse, those waiting lists are often impenetrable, since “court ordered” couples are put to the head of the list – so that a truly committed couple, experiencing the early-stage difficulties, would be denied access until they’re “cycle of violence” problems have escalated to the point of judicial involvement (making the situation much more difficult as well as unpleasant).
3. And yet, even as we starve cognitive behavioral therapy of funds, we continue to waste funds on assorted resources committed to the “blame the man” vision of domestic violence (another fact that you can look up if you care), even though it’s been documented (something else to look up) that it’s not particularly effective, results-wise, treating the woman as an innocent victim and holding the man responsible for all the dysfunction – not only past but also future dysfunction (since we know he’s going to hurt her more in the future, right?) – is not “fixing” the problem, but only escalating – retaliating against the man’s physical abuse by abusing him socially and emotionally. Hardly a cure for the problem, but feminists remain ideologically committed to this model.
By the way, ask any shelter worker what percentage of “their women” are repeat visitors.
Women are not children. They have to be expected to take responsibility for their share in making the mess. They chose the man, and they failed to set appropriate boundaries from the start; when their boundaries were violated, they opted to permit this boundary violation instead of just walking away (or even pressing charges). Any woman who has married an abusive man either knew what he was like and married him anyway, or married him without getting to know him first. What’s worse is that there is ample evidence (something else for you to look up, if you care) that the entire idea of evil men attacking helpless women isn’t how it really falls out anyway: women frequently abuse the man as much as vice-versa, and engage in their own games of control and punishment. This whole cycle is a game in progress, not a random attack on an innocent, helpless victim. Saying all of this violates our ideological commitment to ‘identity politics’, where who is responsible for what is sorted out according to gender, rather than behavior.
You don’t end games by blaming and escalating. You end games by learning how to behave in a more mature, appropriate manner.
May 10th, 2011 | 6:04 pm
And yet, cognitive behavioral therapy continues to remain underfunded and inaccessible.
Blake,
Cognitive therapy is also very effective in treating OCD, but it is greatly underutilized. Does this mean our society is in favor of obsessions and compulsions? Even assuming that you are correct that CBT works to prevent divorce, the mere fact that it is underutilized and not sufficiently promoted is no proof that our society wants to “bust up troubled couples.”
May 11th, 2011 | 8:37 pm
mere fact that it is underutilized and not sufficiently promoted is no proof that our society wants to “bust up troubled couples.”
Well, the level of proof you want is beyond what is possible in a comments section.
If I ever start a blog, I will document the situation more fully. There’s ample proof that our ideological commitment to identity politics is the reason why we continue to overfund programs that not only don’t work, but actually make things worse (escalating the problem), and also why we neglect solutions that are proven to work.
But quite frankly, I’m pretty sure that no matter how much I brought in, you wouldn’t be convinced, because – after all – we’re talking about the idea that people are avoiding the facts because they are ideologically committed to denial, right? :-)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact