Eye-opening new study on the harms of divorce

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one in this thread that has never seen this “divorce party” phenomenon? What do these even involve?

[Anonymous]

I will quote my late father who was married to mother for 54 years, “ the only people who don’t get divorced are people who aren’t married”. I am in a long term marriage, but my first (no kids) marriage ended in divorce. Sometimes, divorce is the best option for everyone. No one I know who got divorced chose to do lightly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, there are a lot of smug people in this thread but rest assured you will get yours. Life can turn on a dime and I hope when some calamity that is out of your control happens to you, you think back to this. Karma has a funny way of coming around.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

You either chose poorly or performed poorly. Those are the only two reasons. If you chose poorly the marriage was doomed from the start. If you performed poorly during the marriage you transformed a viable union into an unfortunate separation.

You’re right, you are better than me! Here is your cookie.

I don’t eat cookies. It’s not that I’m better than you as a person. I simply had higher standards when selecting my spouse and put more effort into my marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 3 kids would have been better off some ways had we stayed together. However, that wasn’t an option because they would’ve had one miserable mother. We have a lot of money so it made things a lot easier. So far, no teen pregnancies.

Money can mitigate so much in a divorce - kid has a pleasant home or room with both parents. I know a freshman in college who no longer has a home base with parents. She has her breaks with relatives because one divorced parent married someone and they live in a small apartment with no extra rooms. The other parent in the same boat. While this can be the case with plenty of families with have limited funds, but the kid in the case above sees it as divorce related.

^^Mitigates - Money mitigates everything.

I want to add that while divorce is tough on everyone, most people I know who divorced felt it was a last resort and are much happier, which helps them be much better parents.

Lol, how do you keep insisting this? No, they’re not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one in this thread that has never seen this “divorce party” phenomenon? What do these even involve?

No, you're not. I've only ever heard of it on the internet. Seems like a very un-DCUM thing, more for the same people who throw massive, performative gender reveal parties. Something else for social media I haven't seen in real life.

[Anonymous]

I don't really understand how this study is eye opening.

It's a known fact that the most common living arrangement for children after divorce is with mom.

It's a known fact that households where the only employed adult is female, have lower incomes than households with two employed adults, or households with a sole male earner.

So, it seems obvious that divorce is going to lead to poverty for some share of children.

The outcomes they list, such as lower eventual income, teen pregnancy, etc . . . are more common for kids raised in poverty. We know that.

So, the idea that children of divorce, as a whole, are at higher risk than children whose parents marriage is intact, for the outcomes that come with poverty seems so obvious as to not need a study.

Women who are considering divorce, and for whom an intact marriage is an option (e.g. there isn't abuse, Dad hasn't already walked out) should think about what their financial situation will be after divorce. They might think about it and realize that poverty isn't a risk to their kids in their specific situations. They might realize poverty is a risk and take steps to address that, by increasing their earning power, or by making choices that reduce the impact of poverty on their kids. They might choose not to divorce at all. They might decide that the impact of not divorcing is going to have more negatives than the impact of poverty.

The conclusion is still the same, that women need to be able to make choices, and that judging them for their choices isn't OK. That sometimes divorce is an obvious choice, and sometimes it's hard to tell what's right, but that the woman in the situation almost always has more info than you do so assume she did the best she could.

How is a study that shows what we already knows, and that leads to the same conclusions that most of us already came to, "eye-opening"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand how this study is eye opening.

It's a known fact that the most common living arrangement for children after divorce is with mom.

It's a known fact that households where the only employed adult is female, have lower incomes than households with two employed adults, or households with a sole male earner.

So, it seems obvious that divorce is going to lead to poverty for some share of children.

The outcomes they list, such as lower eventual income, teen pregnancy, etc . . . are more common for kids raised in poverty. We know that.

So, the idea that children of divorce, as a whole, are at higher risk than children whose parents marriage is intact, for the outcomes that come with poverty seems so obvious as to not need a study.

Women who are considering divorce, and for whom an intact marriage is an option (e.g. there isn't abuse, Dad hasn't already walked out) should think about what their financial situation will be after divorce. They might think about it and realize that poverty isn't a risk to their kids in their specific situations. They might realize poverty is a risk and take steps to address that, by increasing their earning power, or by making choices that reduce the impact of poverty on their kids. They might choose not to divorce at all. They might decide that the impact of not divorcing is going to have more negatives than the impact of poverty.

The conclusion is still the same, that women need to be able to make choices, and that judging them for their choices isn't OK. That sometimes divorce is an obvious choice, and sometimes it's hard to tell what's right, but that the woman in the situation almost always has more info than you do so assume she did the best she could.

How is a study that shows what we already knows, and that leads to the same conclusions that most of us already came to, "eye-opening"?

A large number of people on this thread are still insistent that divorce makes better parents. What are you smoking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand how this study is eye opening.

It's a known fact that the most common living arrangement for children after divorce is with mom.

It's a known fact that households where the only employed adult is female, have lower incomes than households with two employed adults, or households with a sole male earner.

So, it seems obvious that divorce is going to lead to poverty for some share of children.

The outcomes they list, such as lower eventual income, teen pregnancy, etc . . . are more common for kids raised in poverty. We know that.

So, the idea that children of divorce, as a whole, are at higher risk than children whose parents marriage is intact, for the outcomes that come with poverty seems so obvious as to not need a study.

Women who are considering divorce, and for whom an intact marriage is an option (e.g. there isn't abuse, Dad hasn't already walked out) should think about what their financial situation will be after divorce. They might think about it and realize that poverty isn't a risk to their kids in their specific situations. They might realize poverty is a risk and take steps to address that, by increasing their earning power, or by making choices that reduce the impact of poverty on their kids. They might choose not to divorce at all. They might decide that the impact of not divorcing is going to have more negatives than the impact of poverty.

The conclusion is still the same, that women need to be able to make choices, and that judging them for their choices isn't OK. That sometimes divorce is an obvious choice, and sometimes it's hard to tell what's right, but that the woman in the situation almost always has more info than you do so assume she did the best she could.

How is a study that shows what we already knows, and that leads to the same conclusions that most of us already came to, "eye-opening"?

The bolded is a juvenile sentiment. The best and most fair way to judge anyone is for their choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand how this study is eye opening.

It's a known fact that the most common living arrangement for children after divorce is with mom.

It's a known fact that households where the only employed adult is female, have lower incomes than households with two employed adults, or households with a sole male earner.

So, it seems obvious that divorce is going to lead to poverty for some share of children.

The outcomes they list, such as lower eventual income, teen pregnancy, etc . . . are more common for kids raised in poverty. We know that.

So, the idea that children of divorce, as a whole, are at higher risk than children whose parents marriage is intact, for the outcomes that come with poverty seems so obvious as to not need a study.

Women who are considering divorce, and for whom an intact marriage is an option (e.g. there isn't abuse, Dad hasn't already walked out) should think about what their financial situation will be after divorce. They might think about it and realize that poverty isn't a risk to their kids in their specific situations. They might realize poverty is a risk and take steps to address that, by increasing their earning power, or by making choices that reduce the impact of poverty on their kids. They might choose not to divorce at all. They might decide that the impact of not divorcing is going to have more negatives than the impact of poverty.

The conclusion is still the same, that women need to be able to make choices, and that judging them for their choices isn't OK. That sometimes divorce is an obvious choice, and sometimes it's hard to tell what's right, but that the woman in the situation almost always has more info than you do so assume she did the best she could.

How is a study that shows what we already knows, and that leads to the same conclusions that most of us already came to, "eye-opening"?

A large number of people on this thread are still insistent that divorce makes better parents. What are you smoking?

No one is saying that. People are saying that people who divorce make worse parents and aren’t as good as people who are still married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what some of the smug posters don’t want to admit is a lot of what is referenced in the article doesn’t apply to your average dcum-er. I am one of the posters who was left and my child and I were able to stay in the family home. We worked out a financial agreement such that nothing in my child’s life has changed, aside from seeing his dad less (I am not discounting this, of course this matters, and I feel bad about it all the time -hope you’re happy op, you smug smug little so and so) he still is doing the same activities and still has the same level of family involvement with me going to everything (book fair, games and practices), along with involved grandparents.

I’m going to be honest, I don’t think my kid is going to have a worse outcome than the kid his age up the street who has two married parents. I guess the other mom might look at me and inwardly feel smug because she’s got a big ring on her finger and I don’t but my kid is doing fine!

Jesus H. Christ you dumb little so and so, OP DIDN’T CONDUCT THIS RESEARCH.

I’m terribly sorry that facts trigger you, but don’t shoot the messenger.

Op was obviously hoping to accomplish something by starting this thread.

I think the aim was…discussion? What with this being a…discussion forum, and all? Are you OK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think what some of the smug posters don’t want to admit is a lot of what is referenced in the article doesn’t apply to your average dcum-er. I am one of the posters who was left and my child and I were able to stay in the family home. We worked out a financial agreement such that nothing in my child’s life has changed, aside from seeing his dad less (I am not discounting this, of course this matters, and I feel bad about it all the time -hope you’re happy op, you smug smug little so and so) he still is doing the same activities and still has the same level of family involvement with me going to everything (book fair, games and practices), along with involved grandparents.

I’m going to be honest, I don’t think my kid is going to have a worse outcome than the kid his age up the street who has two married parents. I guess the other mom might look at me and inwardly feel smug because she’s got a big ring on her finger and I don’t but my kid is doing fine!

Nothing changed, aside from seeing dad left? Such a typical Divorce is No Big Deal response.

-Having to shuttle between two households
-Having to say no to friends because “I can’t, it’s my dad’s weekend,” blah blah
-Awkwardness with holidays, graduations, weddings, visits and vacations now and in the future
-Not having a healthy marriage as a model growing up, leading to potentially problematic relationships in the future

And, according to this study, some very serious increased likelihood of significant hurdles in the future. You don’t have to like it, but it is a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand how this study is eye opening.

It's a known fact that the most common living arrangement for children after divorce is with mom.

It's a known fact that households where the only employed adult is female, have lower incomes than households with two employed adults, or households with a sole male earner.

So, it seems obvious that divorce is going to lead to poverty for some share of children.

The outcomes they list, such as lower eventual income, teen pregnancy, etc . . . are more common for kids raised in poverty. We know that.

So, the idea that children of divorce, as a whole, are at higher risk than children whose parents marriage is intact, for the outcomes that come with poverty seems so obvious as to not need a study.

Women who are considering divorce, and for whom an intact marriage is an option (e.g. there isn't abuse, Dad hasn't already walked out) should think about what their financial situation will be after divorce. They might think about it and realize that poverty isn't a risk to their kids in their specific situations. They might realize poverty is a risk and take steps to address that, by increasing their earning power, or by making choices that reduce the impact of poverty on their kids. They might choose not to divorce at all. They might decide that the impact of not divorcing is going to have more negatives than the impact of poverty.

The conclusion is still the same, that women need to be able to make choices, and that judging them for their choices isn't OK. That sometimes divorce is an obvious choice, and sometimes it's hard to tell what's right, but that the woman in the situation almost always has more info than you do so assume she did the best she could.

How is a study that shows what we already knows, and that leads to the same conclusions that most of us already came to, "eye-opening"?

Oh oops, you avoided mentioning earlier death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought this was interesting and insightful: a study on the economic and social impacts of divorce. For children whose parents divorce when they are young, more likely to experience teen pregnancy, jail and early death, less earning potential:

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/baltimore/news/children-divorce-finance-economy-university-of-maryland/[/quote

Well no one has to worry given project 2025 divorce will be a thing of the past

Kids and wives will be beaten to death who cares because divorce is worse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought this was interesting and insightful: a study on the economic and social impacts of divorce. For children whose parents divorce when they are young, more likely to experience teen pregnancy, jail and early death, less earning potential:

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/baltimore/news/children-divorce-finance-economy-university-of-maryland/[/quote

Well no one has to worry given project 2025 divorce will be a thing of the past

Kids and wives will be beaten to death who cares because divorce is worse

What a compelling, nuanced point of view you have there. It’s not at all hysterical or overly sensitive or defensive…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand how this study is eye opening.

It's a known fact that the most common living arrangement for children after divorce is with mom.

It's a known fact that households where the only employed adult is female, have lower incomes than households with two employed adults, or households with a sole male earner.

So, it seems obvious that divorce is going to lead to poverty for some share of children.

The outcomes they list, such as lower eventual income, teen pregnancy, etc . . . are more common for kids raised in poverty. We know that.

So, the idea that children of divorce, as a whole, are at higher risk than children whose parents marriage is intact, for the outcomes that come with poverty seems so obvious as to not need a study.

Women who are considering divorce, and for whom an intact marriage is an option (e.g. there isn't abuse, Dad hasn't already walked out) should think about what their financial situation will be after divorce. They might think about it and realize that poverty isn't a risk to their kids in their specific situations. They might realize poverty is a risk and take steps to address that, by increasing their earning power, or by making choices that reduce the impact of poverty on their kids. They might choose not to divorce at all. They might decide that the impact of not divorcing is going to have more negatives than the impact of poverty.

The conclusion is still the same, that women need to be able to make choices, and that judging them for their choices isn't OK. That sometimes divorce is an obvious choice, and sometimes it's hard to tell what's right, but that the woman in the situation almost always has more info than you do so assume she did the best she could.

How is a study that shows what we already knows, and that leads to the same conclusions that most of us already came to, "eye-opening"?

Oh oops, you avoided mentioning earlier death

We already know that shorter life spans are correlated with poverty. Again, anyone who had any sense knew that a higher percentage of kids of divorce end up in poverty, and that poverty reduces life span. Where, again, is the eye-opening part of this study?