Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: brady bunch, mom and dad, no fault divorce, no fault divorce law, stressful experience
Having grown up in California and having grown up in the 60s and 70s in California when the no fault divorce law came into effect I’ve always been amazed by the level of hypocrisy towards the topic which this state embraces.
The No-Fault divorce law was created in 1969 and was signed into effect in 1970. It was created to try to make Divorce a less difficult and stressful experience. Within the next 5 years probably half the married couples in the State were divorced. We all got through that time by watching “The Brady Bunch” on TV. It also wasn’t atypical for kids to get together to talk about their drunk and stoned out parents and how there wasn’t any food in the refrigerator. Kids were doing all the housework while Mom and Dad dated. The psychologists became very rich. Many Mothers became psychologists because they figured that being a Mom naturally led to being a shrink. What they didn’t know is that they weren’t the caretakers in their families. Their kids were probably absorbing all their talk about personal problems, failed relationships, stressed out finances, where to live, what to eat. It wasn’t the other way around. Am not sure about the Statistics but I remember hearing years ago that one in seven people living in San Francisco was a lawyer. I’ve also read that San Francisco has the lowest amount of children of all the cities in California. People move to San Francisco to repeat their childhoods. Amazingly, when I lived there I noticed that most did not actually come from Divorced families themselves (natives did, of course).
I’ve mentioned many times my frustration that the CDC keeps statistics about divorced households for every state except California. This is Bull Shit, of course. It’s an extremely deceptive and dishonest way to keep statistics. Don’t know if they’ve changed during the past year or so since I last checked, but have seen some articles which have turned to the Census bureau for statistics. I have read a few anecdotal types of articles which say that the Divorce rate for California is around 75 percent. Since California is the most heavily populated state I imagine that this would raise the National average a bit but what do I know?
What really amazes me is how the Governors of California, a state which touts extreme liberal views (these are true only if one visits select towns and cities along the coast, a total lie for anyone who travels 5 miles inland), has not only never had a woman Governor but has also never had a Governor who grew up in a Divorced family.
I’ve pondered before on this blog about how I think that Children of Divorce, having had to be the adults in their relationships with their parents, or at least having had to grow up much more quickly than the other kids at school, have no or little interest in becoming Governors. Who the Hell would want to govern a bunch of single parents? I mean, really.
Can’t remember if I posted on it but I do remember trying to wiki my way through all the Governors in the United States to see if this is typical across the entire country. It seemed that the Statistics were very low. I can’t remember what I found, but vaguely remember (and my memory is indeed vague) that the percentage was something like 10 percent of U.S. Governors come from Divorced homes. I never actually added the numbers because many people don’t discuss their childhoods and parental situations.
Barack Obama is from Divorce, though. So, things may change in this regard. He was a Senator before he became President. I’ve mentioned before about how I think that being a Senator might be something that Children of Divorce would gravitate towards. Legislation and standing around saying “Can’t we all just get along?” while everyone else fights seems to right up a Child of D’s alley. There’s no way I’m going to research childhoods of Senators. There are tons of them. And that’s only one legislative branch. From the way Congress is going, I’d say that many members of that branch have probably been through stuff that nobody is ever going to talk about.
California does have female Senators but they didn’t grow up in Divorced families. I think that Politics is a necessary evil so it doesn’t interest me.
So, from the top, we can see why the silence on growing up in Divorce. People who come from Intact homes just know that Children of D get 2 presents at Christmas and therefore are spoiled. I have no doubt that this includes all the Governors of California’s present and past who just want to give off the aura of a bucolic lifestyle full of total personal freedom.
Voters vote for people who will represent their own personal agenda. And no one thinks that Divorced kids represent their own agenda. Even the kids who grew up in divorce because even if they’re successful at what they do they didn’t get there by discussing that particular part of their lives. They probably became successful because they threw themselves into an occupation with more energy than the competition because they had no where else to hang out during childhood and adolescence and college. There’s no affirmative action for kids from Divorce even though statistics show a very reduced rate for College graduates. In the land of Psychologists and Lawyers and Real Estate Agents there are no studies about growing up in Divorce. When you think about it, these are the professions which thrive on a high Divorce Rate. In Political terms, growing up in divorce ought to be called “The Pity Party.”
Filed under: Uncategorized
Listened to an interview on NPR with a famous reviewer of technology equipment. Hmmm, can’t remember his name right now.
One of the questions asked was what age did he recommend buying a cell phone for his children. He apparently is still married to his children’s Mother because the issue of divorce didn’t come up. He said that he had bought his oldest son a phone at age 14 but was planning on buying his 12 year old daughter a phone.
I’ve looked around a little and it seems that most parents feel it’s best to give a child their phone when they are around these ages. Except in Divorces when the average ages seem to be around 8 and 10. The reason is not as much as for safety, the reason the married parents say they give their children a phone. But, in divorce it seems that this reduces stress for the parent over having to talk with the ex. Parents can talk directly with the children.
I definitely haven’t researched this. It would figure that children of divorce would have cell phones at a much earlier age in the same way that they have to take airplanes by themselves at a much earlier age and they have to adapt to living with strangers. It sort of amazes me when experts who are married parents don’t even think about children in divorce. Even at this late date and with single parents bursting out the seams in society. I looked at one legal site set up out of Massachusetts which talked about how age that children are given cell phones is a huge argument between divorced parents which often requires lawyering. If it’s not one thing it’s just going to be another. Divorcing people will have to argue over every last thing.
http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/810085/should-kids-have-cell-phones
Filed under: links to articles
A little slow, finally found Google Scholar where one can look up Scientific studies about Children of Divorce.
Don’t like Horror movies but this one is about having to go live with Dad and his Girlfriend in a haunted house. In this case, the hauntings are done by 19th century artists who turn into tooth fairies. And the house gobbles up the Girlfriend so everyone’s happy in the end. Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark.
Filed under: biological, Blame, Living with Grandparents, Long Term Fallout, Stepfamilies
The advice columnist Ask Amy tries to tackle the issues of how to deal with kids and divorce. Her advice isn’t great because she doesn’t take a stand but at least she publishes articles from all sides, from the point of view of the parents that is.
The Biological Mother who resents the ex-StepMother calling the kids “her own:”
The StepMother who resents not being able to call her stepdaughter’s kids her “Grand children.” This one is interesting because the blame is placed on the daughter. No mention of how overwhelming it would feel to have to take car of your first child, your Mother’s resentment of the overbearing and needy step-mother, as well as the overbearing and needy step-mother. Oh and there’s the noncomittal father who doesn’t give a shit but mostly blames his daughter for his wife’s b.s. The message is written as if the Father had written it. Which never happens because Father’s never intervene, so obviously the column is bogus. Amy says that he can’t expect anyone to “reason” things out. I think the daughter is being extremely reasonable about how much she really owes her parents. She is probably trying to not repeat their mistakes, after all, and in that case, the girl-child can’t give into everyone else’s selfish needs all the time or she will end up hating her husband just the same way her Mother probably hates her Father.
Anyway, Amy does actually publish this stuff, so at least she’s not in denial that the issues exist. Advice columnists, like Psychologists, are like large corporations. They know where the bread is buttered and they side with the money. Amy could tell the parents that their situation is simply way too stressful for most children to handle and to back off. I guess that would get boring to read week after week. And who wants to confront an overbearing woman who has taken on the role of “Stepmother?”
Filed under: Courts, Custody, Living with Grandparents, Relationship with Father, relationship with Mother, Total Weirdness
If a couple in England plans to have children then they had better not get married. The courts have completed a new study which rewrites the laws to try to put the welfare of the children first. Boy, this is really shocking.
A review on family justice which was headed by a man named David Norgrove has just published a 220-page study on divorce which is intended to become law. I’m not sure if it actually is law at this point or is just pointing out that current studies show what is actually best for the children. And that’s scary.
The study suggests that couples do their own divorces rather than jam up the legal system. I’m sure if they could, they would, but anyone who has seen a divorce from a kid’s point of view knows that parents going through a divorce don’t exactly think in logical, straight lines.
Nearly half of all British children will become Children of Divorce by the time they are 16 years old. That’s higher than in the U.S.
Britain has free health care and can track children’s health better so probably can truly look at the effects of divorce on children. One of the following links says that 75 percent of children are said to suffer significantly from their parents’ divorces.
Grandparents have very restricted access to their grandchildren and will have to apply through the courts for access to visit grandchildren. There’s something in this that I’m not understanding. In the U.S. I doubt that Grandparents create worse conditions. I think that kids whose Grandparents let them live with them are in better shape a lot of the time. I think that this might be true if there is only one boy in the family, because Grandmothers probably favor their grandsons. That might not be true, but, who knows? There aren’t any studies in the U.S.
I’m not sure what the study actually has to say about this but there appears to be a tightening on father’s rights as parents. It has been decided that children suffer too much from being shuffled back and forth between households so Fathers will have less access to their children.
I agree that the shuttling back and forth seems nuts to me, but I think that it works in some families. It’s great that the courts are aware of this and it’s too bad the parents and the shrinks stayed in denial on this one. In the U.S. there are studies about how boys suffer from divorce because they don’t have Father figures, so I doubt that back-peddling into the single Mother household mentality helps. Boys end up hating themselves if they have to see how much their Mothers suffer because they are alone.
To be honest, I doubt that daughters will suffer too much by having limited access to their step-mothers and step-sisters in most cases.
I think that it’s much more important for courts to make certain that remarriages don’t screw kids out of their education, healthcare, and inheritances, than by trying to intervene and deny parent-child relationships. Those are areas which I think a court should write in to the law. If the parents can’t provide an emotionally safe situation for their kids then I don’t think that the courts will help by controlling who has access to the kids. In the end, I agree with Norgrove, but I don’t think that his study is coming up with the correct solutions.
It would definitely make sense if Britain completely got rid of marriage since the divorce rate is so high anyway.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Bloomberg BusinessWeek has compiled statistics from the U.S. Census on Most Extreme Towns (20,000 people or more) in America. The town which ranks as having the most divorced people is Denison, TX.
According to the U.S. Census 1 out of 5 people, age 15 and older, in Denison is divorced.
Amongst the children, 41 percent live in a single parent home. The national average is said to be 31 percent.
Age is a factor in small towns where people marry very young.
Filed under: Astrology stuff
An “Atlantic Monthly” article describes a study from 2004 that was performed on children in adolescence. The IQ’s of 33 children between the ages of 12 and 16 were tested and the results show that IQs rise or drop significantly between those ages. This was only in a study of 33 children, we don’t know what demographics they were from, etc. etc. but this does show that children who come across as either very bright or very slow should not be judged further on down the line because their performance can change.
The changes were in Verbal IQ, which is activated by articulating speech, and non-verbal IQ, which is activated by movements of the hand. Astrologically, this looks like a situation that is ruled by Mercury.
One can see that at Age 12 the child is most influenced by his/her Jupiter Return. This is related to broad minded thinking and expressing opinions and optimism. This would be a time when a child could be best introduced to the idea of going to college because he will interested in broadening his vision.
At roughly Age 13-14 children go through two major cycle transits involving oppositions and maturation. Oppositions are related to relationships with the outside world. If stressed at that time and ignored and not guided/allowed to develop properly a child could develop all kinds of problems related to energies related to Moon and Saturn.
First, at roughly Age 13, a child then goes through his first secondary progressed Lunar Opposition. This is a time when a child goes inward and seeks out his own needs (among other things). A child at this age needs emotional support in order to allow this interior process to go on so that he can make meaningful decisions. There is a tertiary progressed Mercury, Venus and Mars return which occurs around these ages which might influence how this works. Mercury rules hands and communication. Venus, as I’ve shown, is also very connected with how a child develops his mercury as she exhibits the desire to connect with things and people which makes development of Mercury communications possible. Mars rules the brain and head. When these teritiary progressed returns happen varies widely from chart to chart because of retrogrades.
Second, at roughly Age 14, a child goes through his first Saturn opposition. Saturn is considered the planet that exhibits maturity through planning, life goals, concern over status and career, and decision making.
Saturn and Moon at this point are farthest from their natal spots so there will be a test of some sort in this regard. Saturn rules tests and needs guidance in understanding how to deal with failure and/or success properly within society. The Moon is concerned about how to deal with failure and/or success within the family.
Some children who are born during Sun-Venus conjunctions will follow a strong 8 year cycle in their lives. This year for example, there has been a very long period of Sun and Venus transits so many children will perhaps deal with this energy in 8 year cycles. The famous idea of “Sweet 16″ for girls is typical of this energy. Venus rules girls and social popularity and being pretty. Adding the Sun enhances the need to be popular. Both boys and girls will have a strong desire for Romance and Chivalry.
One could look at these return cycles to try to understand what are sensitive times for a child. Anything related to Moon and Saturn will show a stunting of development as these two planets are strongly tied in with insecurities and feeling picked on which can literally stop development.
http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/10/study-of-the-day-iq-rises-and-falls-during-teenage-years/246917/
Can’t do the linky thing because I posted to weird version of wordpress.
