Dumper-Dumpee Ratio
Kenneth S.
In a recent posting I was asked for the source of a comment that
I made, to the effect that about 75 percent of U.S. divorces are the
result of wives dumping their husbands, despite the popular impression
that it's the other way round. So it may be time to post the data
once again, with apologies to those who have seen it before.
The issue of "who dumps whom" has come up from time to time in
this news group. I have seen figures of 80 percent or higher cited
for wife-initiated divorces. However, from what I have seen
elsewhere, the figure is about 75 percent -- as a rough average of
percentages that seem to range from 66 percent to 80 percent. I am
listing below the information that I am aware of.
It may be useful to say at the outset why I think this figure is
important. In the child support context, it is not unusual for an
image to be created of fathers leaving their families. That picture
is, of course, very convenient to those who want to have high child
support levels and severe CS enforcement measures, because the
impression is created that, if there are problems for fathers. . .
well, they deserve them.
Here are the sources I know of:
(1) Wolfgang Hirczy, in an April 5, 1996, posting in the Family Law
list, summarized the data as indicating that in two thirds of cases
wives dump husbands. The main source he cites is a 1993 study by
Braver, Whitely and Ng, which asked 378 families "Which one of you was
the first to want out of the marriage, you or your ex?"
(2) A 1991 book, "Divided Families," by Furstenberg and Cherlin, which
says that "four out of five marriages ended unilaterally, usually at
the wife's insistence."
(3) According to Kimbrell, "The Masculine Mystique," (1995) mothers
initiate divorce actions at "over twice the rate of men." (Comment:
For some reason, the only specific figure in the relevant footnote is
to Texas statistics indicating that 75 percent, not 66 percent, of
divorces are initiated by mothers.)
(4) Susan Faludi, in "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American
Women" (1991) says: "From the start, men are less anxious to untie the
knot than women: in national surveys, less than a third of divorced
men say they were the spouse who wanted the divorce, while women
report they were the ones actively seeking divorce 55 to 66 percent of
the time." Faludi cites a Gallop poll survey in support of this.
(5) Wallerstein and Kelly said in "Surviving the Breakup" (1980) that
"unlike the decision to marry, the decision to divorce rarely occurs
by mutual consent in families with children. Customarily, one partner
wants to get out of the marriage with a great deal more passion than
the other. Many times, only one partner wants to get out at all. For
instance, in our study women took the final step to terminate the
marriage in three-fourths of the cases, while nearly half the husbands
strongly opposed their decision." The follow-up book, "Second
Chances" (1989), by Wallerstein and Blakeslee, talks about the serious
problems divorce creates for men, and comments that "it is no
coincidence that every man who sought a divorce in this study had
another woman waiting in the wings."
(6) On the anecdotal level, Anne P. Mitchell, a California attorney
and the director of the Fathers Rights and Equality Exchange (FREE),
said in a March 29, 1995, posting: "First, in both my experience as a
family law attorney, and as the director of FREE, I can say
categorically that yes, women DO file for divorce far more frequently
than men. It is also true, particularly given the advent of `no
fault' divorce, that the reason they give is often `I'm just not
happy' or `I need to find myself and grow.' I can also honestly say
that in eight years of being in the field, I can count on ONE HAND the
number of men who have initiated divorce for a reason such as `I just
need to find myself' or `I am not happy.'"
(7) There seems little doubt that wives file divorce papers in the
great majority of cases. I see little point in assembling detailed
data about this, since the simple issue of who files the papers seems
to have little relevance to who is the dumper and who the dumpee.
However, Anne Mitchell on June 12, 1996, filed information about this,
dating from a 1986 study by the National Center for Health Statistics
which she said was the most recent source. This study showed that
women file for divorce nearly twice as often as do men, when comparing
individual, versus joint, requests for dissolution of marriage. NCHS
Statistician Barbara Foley Wilson commented that "women traditionally
have predominated in filing divorce petitions," adding that various
studies of divorcing partners "have showed that the woman is more
often dissatisfied with the marriage than the man."
When I have referred to some of these figures before, some have
said that the figures mean nothing, sometimes referring to cases where
wives filed for divorce after their husbands had left. However, as
indicated in (7) above, that is not what this is about.
Another reply has been that, if wives are seeking divorces, then
they must have reasons for doing so. But the implication of THAT
reply is that, whatever the evidence, wives are always entitled to
innocent victim status. In addition, if husbands were typically the
spouses seeking divorces, would anyone try to argue that they must
have had a reason for doing so (i.e. that they were justified in
breaking up their families)?
There is room for dispute about what the exact percentage is.
What cannot be disputed, I think, is that the typical picture of
husbands ditching their wives is clearly wrong. This has implications
for all kinds of things. For example, it raises the question of
whether the approximately 10 percent glass ceiling on paternal
custody, plus high levels of child support, are not an incentive for
mother-initiated divorces.
There's a comment in a book by Jack Kammer, "Good Will Toward
Men" (1994), that seems very relevant to me: "When I was a little boy
and I heard that my parents' friends were getting divorced, I had the
very clear impression that divorce was always the man's fault. That
made me feel bad about men. Only later did I realize that the reason
I thought that divorce was always the man's fault was because it was
only the women who were talking about it."
It seems to me that it's about time that men spoke up on the subject
of the circumstances of divorce.
Shrub7
>t is also true, particularly given the advent of `no
>fault' divorce, that the reason they give is often `I'm just not
>happy' or `I need to find myself and grow.' I can also honestly say
>that in eight years of being in the field, I can count on ONE HAND the
>number of men who have initiated divorce for a reason such as `I just
>need to find myself' or `I am not happy.'"
Yeppers. The ex was whining about not being 'self-actualized', as she lay
around the house thinking of interesting volunteer work to spend my money on.
If I heard she was hit by a truck and torn in two I really wouldn't give a
damn. I am glad she is gone but not glad she took all my money. But hey, it's
my fault. I chose her, right?
SoccerStepMom
Does my Mom or Dad count as the dumper, if he had the affairs and she
dumped him when she found out he'd been cheating on her for several
years? He wanted to stay in the marriage, but he had broken it by
cheating. I assume she filed the papers, though I was too young to
know
Leslie
> >t is also true, particularly given the advent of `no
> >fault' divorce, that the reason they give is often `I'm just not
> >happy' or `I need to find myself and grow.' I can also honestly say
> >that in eight years of being in the field, I can count on ONE HAND the
> >number of men who have initiated divorce for a reason such as `I just
> >need to find myself' or `I am not happy.'"
This may be true. I've heard that men don't usually leave until they have
someone to go to. That was the truth in my case. So maybe they weren't
happy but they don't leave until they have someone in the wings.
Leslie
--
*****************************************
Count Chockula
Oh Leslie why attribute a female proclivity to males. The truth is that
women usually hook up before packing up. Seems they can't stand to go it
alone.
Count Chockula
Leslie wrote in message ...
Jean Coyle
Kenneth S. wrote:
>
> I think the question some need to ask is, "Will ANY data
> suffice to eradicate the typical picture of husbands as invariably to
> blame for the break-up of families?" My own view is that for many,
> particularly many women, no data will suffice. There will always be
> some way of turning information around so that, despite all
> appearances to the contrary, wives are made out to be the victims.
Aside from obvious fault cases ,how on earth can you FORCE a partner
into even hearing your issues with their marital behavior, let alone
get them to agree to couples/ family work if they feel satisfied with
how things are ?
my ex-husband, like a lot of men and women didn't want a divorce quite
simply because from his perspective everything was hunky dory, he was
quite happy, I was the one with the problem !
> And of course, there's every reason to try to do this, since victim
> status is a good way of defending a system that brings such rich
> rewards.
yeah...real rich rewards... I had a traditional divorce where I lost
everything...but now that the dust's settled the kids are back here
minus the assets I earned that could be used to care for them.
> As I said in my original message, the data seem clear: wives
> typically initiate family breakups over the objections of their
> husbands.
Again,Let's get real here,why would somebody who's real happy with an
inequitable situation agree to a divorce ?
Do you really think my ex objected to the divorce because he was still
deeply in love with me and was willing to work on the marriage... or
could it have possibly had more to do with the fact that he had it good
as things were ?
For the most part, women choose to be single parents,
> whether through divorce or through non-marital births.
I chose to be divorced...hell I wanted NO part of primary parenting
during the marriage, let alone single parenting after the divorce.
That being so,
> if we want to reduce the number of single parent families, we need to
> create disincentives for those who make the decisions to set up these
> families. There's little point in penalizing fathers, since they
> don't make the decisions.
by doing nothing to address the repeatedly stated unhappiness of a
spouse who is requesting marital counseling and some change, you are
most certainly making a decision that contributes to a divorce!!!!
My ex totally refused to even hear,let alone hammer out any compromise
to serious problems in our marriage. To his way of thinking he had me
over a barrel, why should he change ? He is in no way excused from
liability in the divorce action simply because I filed first.
The stance of "I'm going keep on doing what I want, fuck you if you're
unhappy, deal with it" equaling total blame for a partner who refuses to
accept this and files anyway won't cut it .
Jean
Count Chockula
So Jean I really need the answer to this question. If you had gotten your
EX into counseling and accepting that he had the stance of "I'm going keep
on doing what I want, fuck you if you're unhappy, deal with it" equaling
total blame for a partner who refuses to accept this and files anyway won't
(Don't misinterpret here) but what was your problem? What would have made
you happy? Dig down deep, don't run on the surface here, this is the change
that would save your marriage.
Count Chockula I'm telling you I've heard this before but there's no
solution, no resolution.
Jean Coyle wrote in message <34B82A...@earthlink.net>...
Kenneth S.
I think the question some need to ask is, "Will ANY data
suffice to eradicate the typical picture of husbands as invariably to
blame for the break-up of families?" My own view is that for many,
particularly many women, no data will suffice. There will always be
some way of turning information around so that, despite all
appearances to the contrary, wives are made out to be the victims.
status is a good way of defending a system that brings such rich
rewards.
As I said in my original message, the data seem clear: wives
typically initiate family breakups over the objections of their
husbands. For the most part, women choose to be single parents,
whether through divorce or through non-marital births. That being so,
if we want to reduce the number of single parent families, we need to
create disincentives for those who make the decisions to set up these
families. There's little point in penalizing fathers, since they
don't make the decisions.
On 10 Jan 98 04:33:41 GMT, lba...@sd61.bc.ca (Leslie) wrote:
>
>
>> >t is also true, particularly given the advent of `no
>> >fault' divorce, that the reason they give is often `I'm just not
>> >happy' or `I need to find myself and grow.' I can also honestly say
>> >that in eight years of being in the field, I can count on ONE HAND the
>> >number of men who have initiated divorce for a reason such as `I just
>> >need to find myself' or `I am not happy.'"
>
>
>
ShyOne8950
This may be true. I've heard that men don't usually leave until they have
someone to go to. That was the truth in my case. So maybe they weren't
happy but they don't leave until they have someone in the wings.
Leslie
Either that, or they're being supported by the wife like my ex. LOL
Carol Levy
Website Dealing With Deadbeat Parents, a discussion regarding positive changes
through better legislation. Lots of links for research and information, links
to state statutes; plus a petition.
Wanda
Actually, I think Leslie's right. Men who file often have another woman
waiting in the wings.
Wanda
Count Chockula wrote:
>
> Oh Leslie why attribute a female proclivity to males. The truth is that
> women usually hook up before packing up. Seems they can't stand to go it
> alone.
>
> Count Chockula
>
> Leslie wrote in message ...
>
> >This may be true. I've heard that men don't usually leave until they have
> >someone to go to. That was the truth in my case. So maybe they weren't
> >happy but they don't leave until they have someone in the wings.
> >
> >Leslie
> >
> >--
> >*****************************************
Jean Coyle
Count Chockula wrote:
>
> So Jean I really need the answer to this question. If you had gotten your> EX into counseling and accepting that he had the stance of "I'm going keep> on doing what I want, fuck you if you're unhappy, deal with it" equaling> total blame for a partner who refuses to accept this and files anyway won't> cut it.
> What is it that you wanted changed? How did you want him to act?
> (Don't misinterpret here) but what was your problem? What would have made> you happy? Dig down deep, don't run on the surface here, this is the change> that would save your marriage.
What would have possibly saved my marriage ??? Well, to begin some
honest, direct explaination of what was going on in my husband's head to
cause the lives of the entire household to change.
Make no mistake, I wouldn't have been thrilled to hear that he no
longer wished to be the primary parent to kids he had to work to
convince me to give birth to. However, we had been married a long time,
one doesn't throw a long term marriage into the dumper even when faced
with serious crisis without making some effort to work out a compromise
What would've saved the marriage...some directness, willingness to
share why his goals had changed and what those goals were, his asking
me for help and imput into trying to plot a different course of action
together instead of just trying to bully me into some unspoken agenda
thru passive-aggressive behavior.
To this very day I have no idea what on earth sort of epithany went
thru the man's head to cause such a drastic shifting in his stated
goals for his life and for our marriage...which is probably in the end
the most maddening aspect of it all.
Jean
Tazzles2
In article <lbatema-0901...@sdial133.pacificcoast.net>,
lba...@sd61.bc.ca (Leslie) writes:
>This may be true. I've heard that men don't usually leave until they
>have
someone to go to. That was the truth in my case. So maybe they
>weren't
happy but they don't leave until they have someone in the
>wings.
Leslie
My husband and I had this same discussion last night. I say that most men
won't leave a marriage unless they have a woman on the side. My husband didn't
think so. So, we started naming all the men we knew that had been divorced,
including my present husband, my ex-husband, my brother, my uncle, my
grandfather, his former son-in-laws, etc. Total of 36 men....25 left for other
women...11did not. The 11 that did not had wives that dumped them...and out of
the wives that did the dumping...6 had boyfriends and the other 5 for other
reasons. I don't know the reasons why they all felt they had to cheat. My
husband fell asleep...end of discussion...lol
Tazzles......
Mel Gamble
>Leslie
>
>My husband and I had this same discussion last night. I say that most men
>won't leave a marriage unless they have a woman on the side. My husband
>didn't
>think so. So, we started naming all the men we knew that had been divorced,
>including my present husband, my ex-husband, my brother, my uncle, my
>grandfather, his former son-in-laws, etc. Total of 36 men....25 left for
>other
>women...11did not. The 11 that did not had wives that dumped them...and out
>of
>the wives that did the dumping...6 had boyfriends and the other 5 for other
>reasons. I don't know the reasons why they all felt they had to cheat. My
>husband fell asleep...end of discussion...lol
>
>
>Tazzles......
>
And how much did the government pay you for this study to present to congress
along with their others? <G>!!
Mel Gamble
Kenneth S.
>Count Chockula wrote:
>>
>> So Jean I really need the answer to this question. If you had gotten your> EX into counseling and accepting that he had the stance of "I'm going keep> on doing what I want, fuck you if you're unhappy, deal with it" equaling> total blame for a partner who refuses to accept this and files anyway won't> cut it.
>
>> What is it that you wanted changed? How did you want him to act?
>> (Don't misinterpret here) but what was your problem? What would have made> you happy? Dig down deep, don't run on the surface here, this is the change> that would save your marriage.
>
>What would've saved the marriage...some directness, willingness to
>share why his goals had changed and what those goals were, his asking
>me for help and imput into trying to plot a different course of action
>together instead of just trying to bully me into some unspoken agenda
>thru passive-aggressive behavior.
>
>To this very day I have no idea what on earth sort of epithany went
>thru the man's head to cause such a drastic shifting in his stated
>goals for his life and for our marriage...which is probably in the end
>the most maddening aspect of it all.
>
>Jean
I cannot, of course, comment on Jean's situation. However,
from what happened to me prior to my divorce 11 years ago, and from
what I have heard from others, I think a high proportion of family
breakups occur for totally undramatic reasons. My own theory (totally
unverified by objective data) is that two of the leading, but largely
unconsidered, reasons for divorce are: (a) unrealistic expectations
about marriage (and about life) by one of the parties, and (b) one of
the parties carrying over grudges from his or her family of origin and
directing them at his or her spouse.
I'm a fan of NPR's Car Talk, in part because the Magliazzi
brothers have sensible things to say about life, as well as about
cars. A while back a woman called in about some problems she was
having with her very old Honda. One of the Magliazzis told her
essentially that she couldn't expect much from such an old car. He
said that "happiness equals reality minus expectations," meaning that
if your expectations exceed reality, you will be unhappy. I think
that's a good basis for marriage as well as for cars.
Tazzles2
In article <19980111081...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, melg...@aol.com
(Mel Gamble) writes:
>And how much did the government pay you for this study to present to
>congress
along with their others? <G>!!
Mel Gamble
ROFL....funny you ask, hehe...I do work for the govt...so, in a 'round about
way, they DID pay for it!!!!! hehe
Tazzles......
Wanda
Kenneth S. wrote:
<snip>
> I cannot, of course, comment on Jean's situation. However,
> from what happened to me prior to my divorce 11 years ago, and from
> what I have heard from others, I think a high proportion of family
> breakups occur for totally undramatic reasons. My own theory (totally
> unverified by objective data) is that two of the leading, but largely
> unconsidered, reasons for divorce are: (a) unrealistic expectations
> about marriage (and about life) by one of the parties, and (b) one of
> the parties carrying over grudges from his or her family of origin and
> directing them at his or her spouse.
>
> I'm a fan of NPR's Car Talk, in part because the Magliazzi
> brothers have sensible things to say about life, as well as about
> cars. A while back a woman called in about some problems she was
> having with her very old Honda. One of the Magliazzis told her
> essentially that she couldn't expect much from such an old car. He
> said that "happiness equals reality minus expectations," meaning that
> if your expectations exceed reality, you will be unhappy. I think
> that's a good basis for marriage as well as for cars.
I couldn't agree more - about "Car Talk" and about Ray Magliazzi'
philosophy. (Was it Ray?) One of my favorite quotes is, "Expectations
mean that you're looking at something, not at someone."
However, I'm not entirely sure that I agree with your two stated reasons
of why a lot of divorces occur. When two people either start out with
or grow to share the same ideals and basic assumptions about life,
they both have a right to expect that this will continue. Granted, we
all change, and often we change at different rates than the person we've
chosen to share our life with. But when one changes drastically through
substance abuse or another sweeping change that somehow negates the
original ideas of what a relationship/family should be, sometimes there
is no choice but to either divorce or to live with pain that is greater
than divorce.
Wanda
Jean Coyle
Wanda wrote:
>
> Kenneth S. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I cannot, of course, comment on Jean's situation. However,
> > from what happened to me prior to my divorce 11 years ago, and from
> > what I have heard from others, I think a high proportion of family
> > breakups occur for totally undramatic reasons. My own theory (totally> > unverified by objective data) is that two of the leading, but largely> > unconsidered, reasons for divorce are: (a) unrealistic expectations> > about marriage (and about life) by one of the parties, and (b) one of> > the parties carrying over grudges from his or her family of origin and> > directing them at his or her spouse.
> >
> > I'm a fan of NPR's Car Talk, in part because the Magliazzi
> > brothers have sensible things to say about life, as well as about
> > cars. A while back a woman called in about some problems she was
> > having with her very old Honda. One of the Magliazzis told her
> > essentially that she couldn't expect much from such an old car. He
> > said that "happiness equals reality minus expectations," meaning that> > if your expectations exceed reality, you will be unhappy. I think> > that's a good basis for marriage as well as for cars.
ummm.. well I never thought about my ex in terms of his being an old
car, nor did I expect that a life involving the realities of work,
children would be like some Hollywood movie or that neither of us would
ever change. I did expect however that certain fundamental ,very serious
lifestyle choices we made together that involved the lives of others
(our children) would be honored and that any deliberate deviation would
be discussed and planned for by both of us.
I had no intention of being anything other than a career primary woman
and made my intentions and limitations towards childrearing very clear
prior to our marriage.I never intended to be a primary stay at home
spouse and certainly never intended to end up as a single mother
(had the marraige ended due to his death ) the life insurance would have
been ample enough to cover the services of a professional nanny.
Now I'm sitting here trying to muddle thru the logistics of still being
the sole breadwinner(something I know how to do), while also juggling
practical/emotional care needs for these kids. Though they're older now
and I probably have an easier time relating to them (just as a
traditional father would) and I do think that even though I have much to
teach them now that they're older, that they're really missing out by
not having contact with their father who tended to have a much more
sympathetic, handholding style than I do.
It gets really rough here sometimes. I'm many times at a total loss
with a daughter who approaches problems as emotionally ladden things to
be endlessly processed and discussed as opposed to my stance that a
problem requires a practical solution and then needs to be dropped,
letting us move on to the next item on the agenda.
As popeye says" I yam, what I yam" and I made what I am pretty clear
prior to having them. Anybody can learn to change a diaper,
keep a toddler from running into the street, totally revamping your
personality type is another matter entirely. While I've become
more traditionally emotionally nurturing it's been a real struggle
to accomplish. Being made to feel guilty for equating my ability to
keep my family fed as a very real form of nurturance and commitment to
them is also quite difficult.
Jean
is also quite difficult.
Leslie
In article <19980111052...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
tazz...@aol.com (Tazzles2) wrote:
> In article <lbatema-0901...@sdial133.pacificcoast.net>,
> lba...@sd61.bc.ca (Leslie) writes:
>
> >This may be true. I've heard that men don't usually leave until they
> >have
> someone to go to. That was the truth in my case. So maybe they
> >weren't
> happy but they don't leave until they have someone in the
> >wings.
>
> Leslie
>
> My husband and I had this same discussion last night. I say that most men
> won't leave a marriage unless they have a woman on the side. My husband
didn't
> think so. So, we started naming all the men we knew that had been divorced,
> including my present husband, my ex-husband, my brother, my uncle, my
> grandfather, his former son-in-laws, etc. Total of 36 men....25 left
for other
> women...11did not. The 11 that did not had wives that dumped them...and
out of
> the wives that did the dumping...6 had boyfriends and the other 5 for other
> reasons. I don't know the reasons why they all felt they had to cheat. My
> husband fell asleep...end of discussion...lol
>
>
> Tazzles......
LOL at the falling asleep part!
Leslie
--
*****************************************
Tazzles2
In article <lbatema-1101...@sdial108.pacificcoast.net>,
lba...@sd61.bc.ca (Leslie) writes:
Leslie
Yeah, the rest ain't too funny, thats for sure...BTW, my husband gets up at
1AM...he falls asleep a lot...hehe...I used to take it personally (we are
newlyweds) but if he is sleeping and the child is sleeping, this is MY time to
play around on the puter...while the laundry is going, the dishwasher is
going...hmmm, wonder if I puts the socks in the dishwasher and the plates in
the washer...afraid I am gonna do that one day from lack of sleep, ya'll are so
entertaining..
Tazzles......
Empire LLC
I agree count, woman hook up, and cash in.....
Mark Jebens
> Kenneth S. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I cannot, of course, comment on Jean's situation. However,
> > from what happened to me prior to my divorce 11 years ago, and from
> > what I have heard from others, I think a high proportion of family
> > breakups occur for totally undramatic reasons. My own theory (totally
> > unverified by objective data) is that two of the leading, but largely
> > unconsidered, reasons for divorce are: (a) unrealistic expectations
> > about marriage (and about life) by one of the parties, and (b) one of
> > the parties carrying over grudges from his or her family of origin and
> > directing them at his or her spouse.
I couldn't agree more. I have long said that unrealistic expectations
are a major problem that marriages face.
[Car Talk stuff deleted...]
> However, I'm not entirely sure that I agree with your two stated reasons
> of why a lot of divorces occur. When two people either start out with
> or grow to share the same ideals and basic assumptions about life,
> they both have a right to expect that this will continue.
Why? I would think that if there were one thing that was constant in
life, it would be change (as you state below).
The valid expectation is that there is a willingness to work through
the change and the hard times of the marriage. I have often found it
true that people expect change, but that they want the other person to
change their behaviour to something that will meet their standards.
>Granted, we
> all change, and often we change at different rates than the person we've
> chosen to share our life with. But when one changes drastically through
> substance abuse or another sweeping change that somehow negates the
> original ideas of what a relationship/family should be, sometimes there
> is no choice but to either divorce or to live with pain that is greater
> than divorce.
Two of the unreasonable expectations people have are 1) people should
not be judged and 2) people should be tolerant of "bad" behaviours.
In the case Wanda uses, the substance abuser expects that the abuse
should not affect things.
On the first part (i.e., people should not be judged), the problem
seems to be that people are afraid that if they judge others, then
they will be judged themselves. It is hard being selfish and
inconsiderate if you are being judged. But somehow, at the same time,
it is acceptable to judge people to be "good". There can be no "good"
people if there are no "bad" people.
--
Mark Jebens
Xmje...@primenet.com - to reply, remove the X from the user name
"I am happy and content because I think I am." Alain-Rene Lesage
Mark Jebens
Wanda <wco...@pan-tex.net> wrote on 13 Jan 1998 04:25:48 GMT:
> But Mark, that's exactly the point. The substance abuses expects that
> the abuse *should not* affect things, but it affects everything. I
> agree that change is inevitable, indeed should be welcomed, but some
> changes like substance abuse bring changes that have a very negative
> effect on a relationship/family. Why should the family be expected to
> deal with those changes when it's the substance abuser who has chosen to
> introduce the changes into a previously successful/happy family? In
> most cases of substance abuse, the straight spouse has passed through
> many stages trying to deal with the situation - denial, anger, grief,
> counselling, etc. - before reaching the acceptance that they cannot
> change the situation. At that point, you choose to live with it or grow
> beyond it, and sometimes divorce is very necessary for that growth.
> > On the first part (i.e., people should not be judged), the problem
> > seems to be that people are afraid that if they judge others, then
> > they will be judged themselves. It is hard being selfish and
> > inconsiderate if you are being judged. But somehow, at the same time,
> > it is acceptable to judge people to be "good". There can be no "good"
> > people if there are no "bad" people.
> I don't quite understand where you went with my post and how you got
> there. Guess we're just operating on different planes today. I'm
> operating on a Monday plane, so maybe I'm just being incredibly dense.
> I started to write that I can't argue with what you wrote, but then I
> decided that I could. :) I don't really see it as "bad people" and
> "good people." In the case of divorce, we could certainly fall into
> that trap and say, "Hey, I'm the good guy here, and s/he's the bad
> guy." And I think we'd be making a *big* mistake. Now I'll be the
> first to admit that at times I rail against my ex-husband's actions, but
> it's his actions - what he does, not what he is.
To the outside world we are nothing but the behaviours we exhibit.
A person with mostly bad behaviours is a bad person. A person with
mostly good behaviours is a good person.
>This is a person that
> I loved very much at one time, that I had two children with, and for
> those reasons part of me will always love him. But there are things
> that I cannot live with, and for that reason I am now divorced. I wish
> it had been different, but it wasn't. I never considered divorce an
> option, but in my eyes in became the only option that permitted me to
> raise my children in a loving, laughing, caring home.
--
Mark Jebens
Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
Wanda
it's his actions - what he does, not what he is. This is a person that
I loved very much at one time, that I had two children with, and for
those reasons part of me will always love him. But there are things
that I cannot live with, and for that reason I am now divorced. I wish
it had been different, but it wasn't. I never considered divorce an
option, but in my eyes in became the only option that permitted me to
raise my children in a loving, laughing, caring home.
Wanda
Pat Winstanley
In article <Xmjebens-120...@tlauren.fu.hac.com>, Mark Jebens
<Xmje...@primenet.com> writes
>>Granted, we
>> all change, and often we change at different rates than the person we've
>> chosen to share our life with. But when one changes drastically through
>> substance abuse or another sweeping change that somehow negates the
>> original ideas of what a relationship/family should be, sometimes there
>> is no choice but to either divorce or to live with pain that is greater
>> than divorce.
>
>Two of the unreasonable expectations people have are 1) people should
>not be judged and 2) people should be tolerant of "bad" behaviours.
>In the case Wanda uses, the substance abuser expects that the abuse
>should not affect things.
>
>seems to be that people are afraid that if they judge others, then
>they will be judged themselves. It is hard being selfish and
>inconsiderate if you are being judged. But somehow, at the same time,
>it is acceptable to judge people to be "good". There can be no "good"
>people if there are no "bad" people.
And the other thing to remember is that apart from extremely rare
exceptions every one up us (and every one of our ex spouses) have good
points and bad points.
Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html