![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Dec. 27th, 2003 11:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mrsbrownI'm fed up with marriage breakdown being the bogey which causes child abuse and increases in child delinquency.
An article in yesterday's "Age" blames marriage breakdown, and serial relationships, for the increase in child abuse in Australia.
The article also asserts that child abuse was previously caused by intense poverty, slums and poor educational and health services which are now "largely relics of the past." Marriage breakdown is just a new cause of poverty, and poverty, what ever the cause, changes your perceptions of the world and makes it easy to lose focus on your role as a parent, be angry with the world, and blame your children for your state. If you don't have children, you may not be, or more importantly, feel poor
I've been poor twice in my life. The first time, I was with The BastardTM, which made the whole experience worse, but I was astonished with the way my attitudes changed. I spent a lot of time worrying about how much money I didn't have, and how I couldn't afford to do things. Because the things I couldn't do were at the top of my awareness, when I did have money I would do those things ( upgrade the computer, go out to dinner) instead of carefully squirreling away my money to spend on the things I really needed, like electricity or gas. I knew I was doing it, but the worst thing about being poor is being poor, and I needed to get away from it for a while.
The despair we felt made parenting much harder. Our emotional energy was focussed on our survival and the kids emotional needs got in the way. I had to consciously force myself to behave like the parent I wanted to be, and I was very aware that my ability to observe my behaviour helped me to "keep it together" in a way that maybe other families wouldn't. Of course M didn't handle the stress of poverty. He spent days lying in bed or playing computer games, and was more likely to lose his temper and frighten the family. I saw his response to the stress we were under and understood how people who didn't have our emotional resources could hurt their children.
The second time I was/felt poor was when I had my marriage breakdown (even if I wasn't married). My back was against the wall and my focus was on getting the money to maintain what I thought my kids needed; to stay at their school, to keep the house they lived in. I wasn't really poor, but I certainly needed more money than I had. So I made emotional decisions on financial grounds. In today;s "Age" I read:
Luckily, I had enough money coming in that meant I didn't need to do what the mother above did. But I remember contemplating it. Their father and I don't have the financial arguments we used to. We don't need to, I'm earning enough money. (minor brag; 4 years ago I earned half what he did, now I earn more)
So; Marriage breakdown doesn't cause delinquency, or increased child abuse; it causes poverty and a reduction in the choices people have. By blaming marriage breakdown, we encourage women to stay in bad relationships, we typecast children of separated families as future delinquents, and we make the issue too complicated to be dealt with by government policy.
I am the child of a broken marriage and I have inflicted marriage breakdown upon my children. I have never abused my children or been abused myself. They, and I, are at the extreme end of non-delinquency. We have always had enough money, or education, to feel in control of our destiny. Ergo, it is poverty that is to blame.
An article in yesterday's "Age" blames marriage breakdown, and serial relationships, for the increase in child abuse in Australia.
The article also asserts that child abuse was previously caused by intense poverty, slums and poor educational and health services which are now "largely relics of the past." Marriage breakdown is just a new cause of poverty, and poverty, what ever the cause, changes your perceptions of the world and makes it easy to lose focus on your role as a parent, be angry with the world, and blame your children for your state. If you don't have children, you may not be, or more importantly, feel poor
I've been poor twice in my life. The first time, I was with The BastardTM, which made the whole experience worse, but I was astonished with the way my attitudes changed. I spent a lot of time worrying about how much money I didn't have, and how I couldn't afford to do things. Because the things I couldn't do were at the top of my awareness, when I did have money I would do those things ( upgrade the computer, go out to dinner) instead of carefully squirreling away my money to spend on the things I really needed, like electricity or gas. I knew I was doing it, but the worst thing about being poor is being poor, and I needed to get away from it for a while.
The despair we felt made parenting much harder. Our emotional energy was focussed on our survival and the kids emotional needs got in the way. I had to consciously force myself to behave like the parent I wanted to be, and I was very aware that my ability to observe my behaviour helped me to "keep it together" in a way that maybe other families wouldn't. Of course M didn't handle the stress of poverty. He spent days lying in bed or playing computer games, and was more likely to lose his temper and frighten the family. I saw his response to the stress we were under and understood how people who didn't have our emotional resources could hurt their children.
The second time I was/felt poor was when I had my marriage breakdown (even if I wasn't married). My back was against the wall and my focus was on getting the money to maintain what I thought my kids needed; to stay at their school, to keep the house they lived in. I wasn't really poor, but I certainly needed more money than I had. So I made emotional decisions on financial grounds. In today;s "Age" I read:
And a motive for the mother to minimise the father's contact, he says, is money. "The more contact the father has with the children, the less child support the mother would be entitled to. I have personally heard a mother say: 'You will never get more than 109 nights per year contact because that will then cost me money'."Boy, can I identify with this.
Luckily, I had enough money coming in that meant I didn't need to do what the mother above did. But I remember contemplating it. Their father and I don't have the financial arguments we used to. We don't need to, I'm earning enough money. (minor brag; 4 years ago I earned half what he did, now I earn more)
So; Marriage breakdown doesn't cause delinquency, or increased child abuse; it causes poverty and a reduction in the choices people have. By blaming marriage breakdown, we encourage women to stay in bad relationships, we typecast children of separated families as future delinquents, and we make the issue too complicated to be dealt with by government policy.
I am the child of a broken marriage and I have inflicted marriage breakdown upon my children. I have never abused my children or been abused myself. They, and I, are at the extreme end of non-delinquency. We have always had enough money, or education, to feel in control of our destiny. Ergo, it is poverty that is to blame.
no subject
Date: 2003-12-26 05:11 pm (UTC)It sounds like your typical reactionary article: people who end bad relationships are Going To Hurt Their Children.
Because children are really happy being around two people who hate each other's guts and are only together to make the kids happy....
*shudder*
I get the distinct impression your kids are a lot better off.
Have you thought of writing a letter to the Age? They could do with an intelligent perspective.
A good rant but
Date: 2003-12-26 10:26 pm (UTC)After all, if you don't want to have it implied that marriage breakdown == child abuse, I am not sure it is an improvement to imply poverty == child abuse, though it may well be true that poverty is generally a greater stress factor than the actual process of marriage breakdown. Even so, plenty of poor families are not scenes of child abuse, some rich families are.
There is increasing evidence that children in single parent families are more at risk than those in dual-parent families. I can't see that there is anything surprising in this. Parenting is a hard business and it is harder with just one than two, so of course the chances of things going badly wrong are increased if there is just one parent. Probabilities are not destiny (they are, however, things to take account of in social policy).
And single parent families are going to be, on average, poorer than two-parent families simply because there is only one potential adult income-earner.
Anyway, your children now have three parent-figures, so they are supplied above the standard level :).
Re: A good rant but
Date: 2003-12-27 02:24 am (UTC)However, I have been in several situations where the increase marriage breakdown has been blamed for an increase in delinquency, a paragraph in the article quoted prompted me to write.
My general premise is that it is the poverty associated with single parent families which should be blamed for increased child abuse and delinquency, not marriage breakdown per se.
Policy options for government to do something about marriage breakdown are limited (and probably draconian). However, addressing poverty is much more achievable.
By discouraging single parent families we are also perhaps denying the positive alternative family structures people may develop in response to their single parenthood. Hmmm maybe that's my next rant.
Re: A good rant but
Date: 2003-12-27 03:11 am (UTC)And current policy hardly discourages single parenthood, given that it is actually a basis for welfare payment (against public opinion, as it is an unpopular form of welfare payment, according to opinion polls -- which is possibly why it is a particularly charged subject).
There is also a fair lack of historical perspective. The first half or more of the C20th was a time of unusually stable family structures across a remarkably high proportion of society. Current patterns are not as unprecedented as is often pretended.
As for delinquency, I would hesitate to blame marriage breakdown as such, except as an extra stress factor. There was a notable rise in the 1960s, which was (from memory) before marriage breakdown began to rise.