Stupider and stupider
This is my column in The Malta Independent, today.
The divorce campaign, with its attendant stupidities, has become so tedious that the referendum will have the effect of lancing a wound – at least for as long as it takes both sides of this inane and ultimately pointless war to re-gird their loins and go back into battle.
For make no mistake, a No vote will wipe divorce legislation off parliament’s agenda and that of the political parties, but it will not do anything to eradicate the pressing demand for that legislation.
It will instead make that demand more urgent. It will heighten resentment towards, and disengagement from, the political parties, which have sold the nation short by abdicating their legislative responsibilities and passing the buck back to the electorate.
The latest ridiculous statement in this ongoing circus is an update on the one which says that divorce harms children. I would have found the crass idiocy of this to be unbelievable had I not lived in Malta for the last four decades.
Here, rational thought is a strange creature best not let out of its cage, lest it wreak havoc in a nation of minds groomed in illogical reasoning throughout a childhood of mandatory parish doctrine classes and outdated schooling.
It is not divorce which harms children, as the Children’s Commissioner declared when she met leaders of the anti-divorce campaign, last Monday.
Commonsense, a useful tool which has gone spectacularly AWOL during this campaign – chasing after its girlfriend Rational Thought, no doubt – tells us that it is not divorce which harms children but the estrangement of their parents. Whether this estrangement occurs through divorce or separation, when those parents are married, or the end of cohabitation when they are not, is irrelevant.
The hurt is caused by the fracturing of the household and the departure of one parent to live elsewhere – or worse, the selling of the family home where the children were raised and its replacement with two alien dwellings neither of which ever really becomes home at all.
So why do research reports and analytical studies speak of divorce and not marital breakdown when discussing the effects on children? Simple: none of the reports quoted so nauseatingly by Maltese campaigners were actually written or researched in Malta.
And so they speak of divorce, rather than ‘separation’, because everywhere in the world bar here (and The Philippines), the result of marital breakdown is divorce and not a permanent limbo called ‘separation’.
Commonsense should also tell these campaigners that, were they to get their collective acts together and research the situation in Malta of children who come from what used to be called broken homes, there will be no difference whatsoever between these children of separated parents and the children of divorced parents elsewhere.
All children know is that their parents are no longer together.
Because they are not old enough to have been corrupted by the silliness that makes older people so irrational, children make no distinction between separation and divorce. To them, it is all the same because the effects, as far as they are concerned, are identical.
They are not interested in the finer aspects of the law by which divorce allows Mummy to marry Tony. They are not concerned beyond the fact that they and Mummy are living with Tony, not Daddy, and that when they go to Daddy’s flat at the weekend, they may well be confronted by some fresh hell of embarrassment and destabilising foolishness.
A hair transplant, perhaps, or a waxed chest – and then it’s only a matter of time before these drops from the fountain of youth are not enough and he produces, in his 40s or much later, one of those infants the pro-divorce campaign so charmingly refers to as ‘bghula’, announcing its imminent arrival on Facebook, where he now has 987 friends.
If all this sounds familiar, then that’s because it is. Malta does not have divorce but it has all the things which culminate in divorce, and it is those things which children find so upsetting.
The Children’s Commissioner, Helen D’Amato, was foolish in the extreme to quote studies and statistics (none of them Maltese) as proof that divorce is harmful to children because children need stability – ergo Malta should not have divorce legislation.
Is the absence of divorce legislation going to prevent marital breakdown? No – the proof of that is all around us. Is it going to stop Mummy living with Tony and Daddy waxing his chest and fathering a half-sibling with a half-stranger? No.
Is it going to bring Mummy and Daddy back together again at some point in the mythical future? No. Is the introduction of divorce legislation going to change the reality of life for children of broken marriages? No.
Helen D’Amato, like the vast majority of those who are against the introduction of divorce legislation, just doesn’t get it. I believe she is a school-teacher by training.
Does she honestly think that there is any difference in the circumstances of a child whose parents have split up without divorcing and a child whose parents have divorced?
Does she truly believe that the thousands of Maltese children whose parents live apart would suffer any greater disruption if those parents were to divorce? If so, then she had better list her reasons, because I can’t see any.
46 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Spot on! Common sense is a misnomer.
The Rock has the corner on stupid.
There is a wierd aside to all this and that is that the PN may very well have just handed the next election to Joseph Muscat on a platter. This scenario goes like this:
a) The referendum is “won” by the NO group.
b) Divorce then appears in the Labour Party’s electoral manifesto. (The NP is hardly able to include divorce in their next manifesto after having come out against it in the referendum).
c) People who want to see divorce introduced into Malta help to vote in the LP.
d) The LP is elected and can then present a Divorce Bill in parliament. No second referendum needed since it would have appeared in the electoral manifesto. Since that party would have the house majority the bill would pass.
Am I missing something?
“Am I missing something?”
You’re in Malta and things don’t work on your simple logic. It is highly likely that Joseph scared a lot of moderates from his party.
I could confirm this from John Bundy’s TV circus yesterday.
It is more likely that Gonzi will call an election after a landslide victory of the NO movement and get rid of the bad rubbish from his parliamentary group.
@Pat
If the referendum is “won” by the NO group, that means it is the larger group, no? So if those who vote NO then vote PN, PN wins. But maybe that is the case of a normal country, it’s Malta we’re talking about here.
[Daphne – Why should all those who vote No then vote PN? How does it follow? Many of those who plan to vote No are Labour supporters. And many of those who vote Yes are not.If that were not the case, then the Yes vote would have a straight, clear, victorious run all the way to the polls,what with the Labour vote plus the thousands of Yes votes from people like me. Why else do you think the No vote has a clear lead in the polls, if not because people are NOT voting according to party diktat?]
Daphne, you and I might be voting YES because that is our conclusion based on reason. But do you really think that Labour supporters especially will let reason guide them in this referendum?
You are absolutely right about the apolitical sources of the YES and NO votes of course, but I still believe that there will be a huge influence from the three major players PN/PL/Curia.
Most people do not seem to understand or appreciate the freedom and responsibility that come with a democratic process such as a referendum and allow others to guide their hands in the polling booth.
[Daphne – I base myself on the survey results that have been published so far. The strength of the No vote indicates that it crosses the parties, and that there might actually be a stronger No contingent among Labour voters than there is among PN voters. Consider the fact that thousands of those who usually vote PN – people like me – will be voting Yes in the referendum. Then work out where that No vote must be coming from: Labour, in great part. The ‘youth vote’ – those famous thousands of new voters who Jason Micallef missed in 2008 and who voted to a man and woman for Gonzi and the PN will now be voting Yes. Work it out. The strongest support for divorce has always come from PN voters – socio-economic group AB and young upwardly mobile people. The only points where I can see support for No coinciding with the PN vote – again based on the surveys published so far – is among women in late middle-age and possibly among its hardcore religious supporters. The rest of the PN vote is clearly haemmorrhaging towards Yes, which indicates that Gonzi and the PN are actually addressing Labour voters on this one, and meeting agreement. It’s almost certainly the reason the Labour Party has gone silent on divorce: it’s been looking at the numbers. But then I knew this would happen, and wrote about it repeatedly even before the private member’s bill: saying that it must perforce be the Nationalist Party which introduces divorce because Labour can never do it, its supporters being extremely right-wing and conservative, and also innately suspicious of that kind of thing.]
We used to say “one man one vote”, I say “one mind one vote”. Listen, think, make up your mind, then vote. If you are unable to go through this process better stay at home on voting day. Never pervert democracy by letting anyone tell you how to vote. Maybe some day people will understand.
“Studies showed that children who lived in their first family had a 10 per cent chance of developing mental health problems while those living with their second family had a 25 to 30 per cent chance”
Here she is not referring to children of separated parents or just a fractured household, but to a divorced couple who have since remarried and set up a new matrimonial home together with their children from the previous marriage. The study states “…living with their SECOND family…”
I agree with divorce legislation, but the study does make sense, that is – it’s hard enough when your parents split up and go on with the attending foolishness (waxed chests, etc.), but it must be so much harder to live with a new mother or father, especially for younger children.
[Daphne – I agree with you that it is much harder, Ian, and I think that the worst mistake a parent can make is to have a second set of children, because it’s horrible for the first lot. I have very strong opinions about this; I believe it to be a consummate act of selfishness. Leaving your spouse, or being left, is often not a deliberate choice but done because you are left with no choice. But having a child is always a choice in that situation (people in their 30s don’t have accidents) even though several men end up tricked into it by women who want to have a hold on them – it’s still a choice (the choice to be a gullible idiot). But in no way is it dependent on marriage. Malta, with no divorce and no remarriage, is teeming with situations like that.]
I missed the point of your argument.
What divorce does that separation doesn’t do is to give the right to remarry.
You can argue that if you messed up your first marriage, you’re likely to mess up your second…and third….
Second marriages fare worse than first marriages, probably stemming from the fact that if one is lacking commitment, he would carry this trait in the future relationships.
I would favour divorce, but wouldn’t allow a guy who abandons a wife and kids for no valid reason (no-fault) to remarry. The same would apply to a perpetual drunk who beats up his wife.
It seems more and more obvious to me that any of those people who agree with divorce but who, either for fear of eternal damnation, or because they don’t like the pro-divorce faces, are going to stay at home and abstain, will resent that they ever did this if the NO vote had to win. I agree that the repercussions of a NO vote will be serious.
1) It will create a bigger divide between the “conservative” and “liberal” factions (for lack of finding better words) on this island – do we afford to live in the indefinite pressure-cooker mode which we so unpleasantly get a taste of come election time or this referendum campaign? The answer is an obvious ‘no’.
2) It will further increase animosity towards the church, which has in this campaign done its fair bit at scaremongering by warning people of eternal damnation should their tick go in the ‘yes’ box.
3) As you said, it will increase political apathy. But the party that will suffer most from this political apathy is the PN, as it has actively opposed the introduction of divorce (not to mention other civil rights) and will be seen as the perpetrator of our socially stagnant society. You can’t bank all your achievements on economic policy I’m afraid.
The way things stand right now, it is useless saying that you’re in favour but won’t vote because you don’t agree with a referendum taking place anyway, or because you don’t the pro-divorce’s faces (I don’t like JPO either but doesn’t change the fact that I’m in favour of divorce), or because you think the politicians won’t give a damn anyway. This is what we have to contend with right now, whether we like it or not and thanks to our spineless politicians, and anything other than a ‘yes’ vote if you’re agreement with some sort of divorce legislation is a step in disaster’s direction.
spot on
Very well written and all your points are very well presented. Just on the side We Men tend to have” our chests waxed”I am thinking of some very nice things you women do to your chests . God bless you all.
The strange (to say the least) behaviour of politicians may perhaps be exemplifed by Alfred Sant’s U-turn (yet another). During a radio interview he is reported to have said that “Divorce is (a) civil right, not to be decided by referendum” (http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/divorce-is-civil-right-not-to-be-decided-by-referendum-alfred-sant) and that the referendum is “a mistake”.
There’s nothing wrong with this statement in itself and I’d tend to agree with it. What is astonishing, however, is that, in Parliament, Afred Sant himself had voted in favour of holding the referendum.
Apparently his interviewer, a certain Andrew Azzopardi, failed to point this out.
I’m aware you’ve already given a good bullocking to Edward Fenech for telling you that you are being let down by those you are supposed to be a ‘cheer leader’ to. However, I cannot help pointing out the disgusting comments made about you on Radio 101 by some presumptious GonziPn idiot (a Jean-Pierre Debono something), all shocked that you had the audicity to call the holy host ‘rice paper’.
Of course, this guy was all ‘happy clappy’ brigade about how voting for divorce will automatically lead to eternal damnation. He also must be directly in touch with Our Lady, just as our finance minister is. Pity our finance minister did not listen to Our Lady when he was busy booking his trip to jet set with prominent businessmen.
As our politicians lumped this decision of divorce back on to the electorate, for once they should have had the decency to refrain from regaling us with their crass stupidity and tuppence opinions, and taken a back seat.
Does our finance minister actually believe anyone gives a damn what he thinks Our Lady is telling him? Does he really have the audacity to believe that only he listens to Her sorrows? Doesn’t it cross his mind that the more he expresses his religious sentiments on what is a civil issue, it brings to the fore the massive inconsistencies in the way he carries his ministerial duties?
Is it possible Our Lady was not speaking to him about the raise he gave himself?
What a disastrous class of politicians.
Logika ta’ l-Akwarju
“Logician? What’s that?”
“Okay, I will explain it to you: Do you have an aquarium?” – “Yes …”
“Then you certainly have some fish in it!” – “Yes …”
“And as you have an aquarium with fish in it, you certainly like animals.” – “Yes …”
“And as you like animals, you certainly like children.” – “Yep …”
“And as you like children, you certainly have some.” – “Yep …”
“And as you have children, you certainly have a wife.” – “Yes …”
“And as you have a wife, you certainly love women.” – “Yeah …”
“And as you love women, you do not love men!” – “Of course!”
“And as you do not love men, you are not gay!” – “Right!”
The mathematician leaves, and a friend of his “erudite student” turns up:
“Imagine that: I’ve just met a logician!” – “A what?”
“A logician. I will explain it to you: Do you have an aquarium?” – “No …”
“Queer!”
Helen D’Amato foolish? Come on, Daph, you can do better than that.
Someone who interprets the results of that research the way she did must be either a cheat or someone with an intellectual capacity of a laboratory chimpanzee. I am more inclined to believe she belongs to the former category.
My gut feeling tells me you would have been more creative in your use of adjectives were it not for her political leaning.
Daphne, when I read this title, I immediately thought it was about GonziPN. You know where my political allegiance lies, but I am flabbergasted at the appointment of Josef Bonnici as Governor of the Central Bank.
I just can’t believe this: THE most incompetent minister in the Fenech Adami government, who fortunately was not re elected in 2003, has resurfaced in 2011 as governor of the Central Bank.
And Peter Busuttil as Chairman of the Malta Film Commission – did anyone bother do a CV check?
Both these appointments fall under the remit of free-flights-in-private-jet-non-VAT-registered-housekeeper-Madonna-weeping-Tonio-Fenech.
U hallina, Tonio, clearly you are out of your depth as minister.
U hallina, Lawrence that your cabinet accepted these nominations.
I am truly speehless.
Excellent article. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Daphne, during a previous thread you did not agree that Maltese Catholic adults can remain brainwashed with the indoctrination that they received as youngsters , yet the above column that you wrote shows how shackled to church dogma and church religious interpretation people here can be.
The sad fact that glaringly comes to light is that people of a supposedly disposition to open mindedness coupled to a higher level of intelligence are reverting to unthinking serfs of the Roman Catholic church. All we need now is for Darwins theory of evolution to be removed from the curriculum and replaced with’ intelligent design creationism ‘.
Helen D’Amato and Tonio Fenech grew up less than 60 metres from each other, have a slight age difference whilst both received a staunchly Catholic upbringing.
Their opinions show a stunted view of the world around them biased towards church doctrine.
I guess dabbling in world affairs could not have lasted long with an attention span narrower than a termite’s hole.
Here’s an 8-minute idea. Why not descend from your highly boring high-chair and let a mere redneck teach you a fact or two about world politics while you’ve still got your senses in order?
After all, Alex Jones is nowadays alternative-lite.
If the redneck stereotype distorts your pre-judgemental sensations you can always imagine he’s a Kenyan with a Rwandan accent. Or Lawrence with Kate’s voice.
http://youtu.be/7ksatFd8gkY
Succinctly put….as usual.
Problem is no one is listening anymore. It’s all gone “Jihad” both pro and against.
I just wish that all concerned could see that it is 2011. Nuclear family went west in the 50s!
The argument that divorce harms children lies on two assumptions, one is an unfounded guess, one is a blatant lie.
1.Divorce legislation will make more families split up (unfounded hypothesis).
Assuming that the introduction of divorce legislation will have a long term impact on whether couples stay together is a very big assumption which betrays a very basic lack of insight into why people get together in the first instance, why they stay together and why they leave. This sort of knowledge is as qualitative as it is quantitative so figure-quoting from both sides of the argument is naive to say the least. Additionally, as you observed, the quoted statistical data is made irrelevant due to the fact that it is situated in a very different context)
2. For children, parents staying together is worse than them splitting up (untrue).
Children are more likely to be irreparably damaged by witnessing their mother being beaten up by their father (or vice-versa) to a pulp every other week, than by never seeing their parent once in their lifetime. Anyone who argues against this should try discuss it with an adult survivor of childhood abuse (maybe someone who has witnessed violence on their mother/father by their spouse over an extensive period in the course of their formative years).
I don’t know how to start explaining how patronised I feel when I come accross anyone using the second argument above. Although I won’t claim that divorce legislation will reduce the ammount of Domestic Violence in Malta down from its current atrocious levels – the fact is children are NOT better off living with both their parents under EVERY circumstance.
P.S Daphne, I can’t say I know the Mrs Ferriggi who you remember from 1984, and its certainly not me as I’m a guy and was probably still in nappies at the time!
You are absolutely right and bang on, yet is it possible that these people including others who hold public office cannot see this rational reasoning?
I have a feeling they do, but it’s convenient for them and their political and religious alliance to distort, twist and cloud the whole issue and debate with so much rubbish that Joe Public, or let’s say a big chunk, gets more confused and misled.
Stupider and sad.
That’s the problem: public office + jobsworth – rational reasoning + lack of cojones = PN Inquisition circa 1540 Torquemada Govt
I wonder what the anti-divorce campaigners – with their “bghula” campaign – think of church annulments, where the church is, effectively, calling any children produced during any now-declared-as-null marriage … “bghula”.
Grudgingly, I congratulate you on your article. Taking it further, imagine for argument’s sake that personal separation was not yet part of our marriage regime, and when nationally some one-third of spouses are “de facto” separated and living apart and/or with another.
I am sure that if the introduction of legalising personal separation was the referendum in 2011, you would see the same superficial billboard debate we are seeing now.
I’m morally convinced that Helen D’Amato does get it. But few Maltese will bite the hand that feeds them.
We have lost the plot – actually we never had the plot in the first place. Observations re effects upon children are spot on. It is not divorce that harms children but that which led to divorce (separation) in the first place.
A YES or NO in the referendum will not make one iota of difference to this fact.
The question is whether our country is to have divorce LEGISLATION – it is nothing to do about whether we as individuals accept that divorce is right or wrong for us or whether the Catholic Church accepts divorce or not.
Unfortunately for the Catholic Church it has a poor hand to play in this debate. The ‘moral’ and ‘religious’ stance is seriously weakened by acceptance of separation, annulment and the other ways of bypassing the oft quoted ‘what God has joined etc’. But as Daphne points out – rational thought is not high on our list of attributes.
This is not a swipe at the Church but a serious thought – if married couples cannot ‘renege’ on a lifelong ‘contract’ why should that facility be extended to the clergy? And how come that those same clergy can then apply for leave to get married? Double standards – surely not!
There is one compelling reason for the YES vote to prevail – who am I to tell others how to lead their lives.
If Ms. D’Amato’s argument really is:
a) children need stability, and
b) divorce undermines stability by breaking up a marriage,
therefore:
c) divorce should not be permissible
Then why does she not recognize further that:
a) children need stability, and
b) separation undermines stability with children constantly wondering if their parents are still together or not (no clean break – no severing and starting over)
therefore:
c) separation should not be permissible
I begin to wonder what planet some of the ‘no to divorce’ adherents are living on.
Newsflash: Even without divorce in Malta there is rampant infidelity, separation and a general indication that ‘marriage’ in and of itself does not have the normative force to ‘keep a couple together forever’.
If I may be so bold, I’d hypothesize that children who grow up in an unhappy household (parents who stay together “for the children” but fight all the time, often pitting the children against the relevant parent) suffer far more damage than children whose parents are divorced. The worst I’ve seen from “childhood divorce” cases is a rather skeptical outlook on marriage itself. Who can blame these children? Look around, people.
Of all the people who get married, a significant number of those marriages end up in divorce. Of the ones that do not get divorced, we need to account for adultery and/or unhappiness and/or separation. The ones that are left may qualify for the status of “happy marriage”, and *these* are the marriages we should be promoting.
Trying to “increase happiness and stability” by preventing people in desperate scenarios from divorcing their partners is absolutely idiotic. I hate to write a comment of this nature but the lack of logical acumen and the obvious bias displayed in the argument I characterized initially in this post irk me.
Then we get this utter tosh from Tonio Fenech
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110513/opinion/When-that-lifelong-commitment-goes.365076
Daphne, I think this is the first time I don’t agree with you. Divorce is worse than separation for the simple reason that parents are given the go-ahead to legally start another family and I am sure this will encourage more to do so.
Unfortunately children from shattered families will not have a home of their own, but will have to live with a new family unit which isn’t theirs – further emphasizing their broken home.
[Daphne – See my reply to Ian Castillo, who brought up the same subject. People do not need to remarry to start new families and have second and even third lots of children. The proof of that is all around us. I actually think – if I read the psychology right – that divorce legislation, which permits remarriage, will actually make men more careful (women tend to know what they’re doing most times). Right now, there’s a lot of cavalier behaviour going on and casual relationships entered into with no risk of pressure to get married, that nevertheless result in the birth of children when the woman works out that this is a most excellent way to build a permanent connection even if the relationship itself fails.]
Whereas when a couple seperate the children definitely suffer but at least they do not have to deal with another family which is not their own but is made up of either their mother or father?
Do these people even think about the repercussions? Don’t they realise that they will be shattering their children’s home and security?
[Daphne – The short answer to that is that they don’t a give a damn, or they try to convince themselves that a half-sibling is an exciting prospect, when it is never anything more than something to be coped with as best as possible. You will notice that the vast majority of half-siblings are produced by men, with women who have no children of their own. This is not a coincidence, and very often more children are the last thing on the man’s mind, but he gets talked into it or tricked into it. The reason why women tend not to give their children half-siblings is because they can rarely be talked or tricked into it, have a keener awareness of how it will affect their existing children and because they have less to prove, too. But there you go. Men who have a vasectomy when their marriage breaks down, because they don’t want to take risks of that sort of thing happening, deserve a medal. It does happen.]
People argue that there are a hundred valid reasons why people should separate/divorce, but I believe as hard as it is to make a marriage work, it was our choice to get married in the first place and it is definitely our duty to our children who we chose to bring into this world and whom we are responsible for, to give them a stable home.
When unfortunately a couple separate I don’t think they should flaunt their private/love life in front of their already devastated children. Some things in life are not reversible like having children and getting married. Let’s stop acting like hormone-crazy teenagers and start acting like responsible parents.
[Daphne – I couldn’t agree with you more, but you can’t legislate against idiotic and ridiculous behaviour or having more children with another man or woman. Divorce has nothing to do with it, and I believe it will serve to cut down on this damn-fool behaviour by leaving them with no excuse. Right now, it’s a case of ‘I can’t marry again so instead I’ll act 16’.]
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110513/local/co-author-of-study-cited-by-commissioner-for-children-rejects-interpretation-given.365177
Prosit, you could’t have argued in a better way. I fully agree but unfortunately this is Malta and as you very well know the Helen D`Amatos of this world (or shall I say this country) are not appointed on merit or competence to do a good job but on past or present affiliations.
What Helen D`Amato said and quoted just shows her ignorance and patronising bias on the subject. Unfortunately she is not the only one with such an attitude.
It’s fascinating how Andre Camilleri, the frontman of the No to Divorce movement, speaks like he’s the next Messiah. The trouble with these people who preach at us how to live our lives and who try to control the behaviour of others is that they have families and families, fortunately, cannot be controlled any more as they were in the past.
But still it’s not easy for the children of parents who are forever preaching about what God wants and doesn’t want, when they themselves live lives that are far removed – and good for them – from the autocratic ideals preached by their parents. And like it or not, the credibility of the parents is affected when those who are listening can accuse them of trying to control the country because they failed to control their own as they would have liked.
Maybe that’s why Roman Catholic priests are not allowed to marry and have children.
The man who fought so much for us, for our civil liberties and for so much more has dismissed the pro-divorce arguments as: quick-fix divorce.
What a let-down.
It is becoming extremely difficult to see myself voting PN at the next elections.
Can I stomach any more of this hypocrisy, lack of compassion, religious fundamentalism – nah, not when it is even claimed that the Finance Minister is guided by the Virgin Mary or when the country is “threatened” by Minister Gatt with his resignation if divorce is introduced.
Never mind the divorce issue, in a general election I will be compelled to re-think all I have believed in for the last 40 years.
Wow! Rational journalism and yet not toeing the party line in the same post.
Excellent piece of observation. If only more of the electorate were as tuned into the realities of life.
Although average differences are not huge (Furstenberg and Kiernan, 2001; Le Blanc et al., 1995; Sun
and Li, 2002), children whose parents are divorced (and even after they are remarried or re-partnered)
are more likely than children whose parents remain together to:
• suffer from depression, anxiety, and other emotional disorders;
• exhibit behavioral problems including hyperactivity, aggressiveness, fighting, and hostility;
• become young offenders;
• do less well in school and remain in school for a shorter period of time;
• experience more relationship problems, in part due to their behavioral problems.
Source : DIVORCE:
Facts, Causes
& Consequences
Dr. Anne-Marie Ambert
York University
(3rd Edition, 2009)
n o
[Daphne – “There is no reason to expect that the psycho-social outcomes for children whose parents divorce, get an annulment, or legally separate would be any different. Divorce and legal separation are the same, from the perspective of the children. I don’t like my articles (or interpretations of the research of hundreds of researchers) to be misinterpreted or misrepresented,” she said.” http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=125259 ]
I am not even in favour of separation or annulment. The best thing to do is to reduce all these bad things. With divorce we are increasing the problem.
[Daphne – I don’t think anyone is in favour of separation or annulment. But what are your options, given that not everyone falls madly in love and lives happily ever after?]
“…Studies also indicate that a sizeable proportion of marriages that end in divorce were actually quite “salvageable,” even happy, and that many of these ex-spouses are no better off after (Ambert, 1989). It seems that there may be two types of divorce: those resulting from a truly unhappy marriage and those resulting from a weak commitment to marriage (Amato and Hohmann-Marriott, 2007; Ambert, 1989). After 30 years of studying divorce, I have come to conclude that, although divorce is necessary, some divorces are avoidable and unnecessary; the same remark certainly applies to serious cohabitational unions that dissolve. In light of this, couples who marry or who live together should be encouraged to face the inevitability of ups and downs in relationships—and I am not referring here to severe conflict, which afflicts far fewer couples than in the past. Connidis (2003) remarks that relationships are changed after divorce and have to be re-negotiated over the years. The effects are felt across several generations within a family.
Source : DIVORCE:
Facts, Causes
& Consequences
Dr. Anne-Marie Ambert
York University
(3rd Edition, 2009)
n o
Source:
[Daphne – “There is no reason to expect that the psycho-social outcomes for children whose parents divorce, get an annulment, or legally separate would be any different. Divorce and legal separation are the same, from the perspective of the children. I don’t like my articles (or interpretations of the research of hundreds of researchers) to be misinterpreted or misrepresented,” she said.” http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=125259 ]
Although average differences are not huge (Furstenberg and Kiernan, 2001; Le Blanc et al., 1995; Sun
and Li, 2002), children whose parents are divorced (and even after they are remarried or re-partnered)
are more likely than children whose parents remain together to:
• suffer from depression, anxiety, and other emotional disorders;
• exhibit behavioral problems including hyperactivity, aggressiveness, fighting, and hostility;
• become young offenders;
• do less well in school and remain in school for a shorter period of time;
• experience more relationship problems, in part due to their behavioral problems.
Source : DIVORCE:
Facts, Causes
& Consequences
Dr. Anne-Marie Ambert
York University
(3rd Edition, 2009)
n o
[Daphne – “There is no reason to expect that the psycho-social outcomes for children whose parents divorce, get an annulment, or legally separate would be any different. Divorce and legal separation are the same, from the perspective of the children. I don’t like my articles (or interpretations of the research of hundreds of researchers) to be misinterpreted or misrepresented,” she said.” http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=125259 ]
Increased risk of problems for children of divorced parents
Finally, adults whose parents divorced during their childhood and teen years, compared to adults from
intact two-parent families (Martin et al., 2005), tend to:
• have a child out of wedlock more often, particularly during adolescence;
• achieve lower educational levels;
• be more often unemployed and do less well economically;
• have more marital problems and divorce more;
• are more likely to have lost contact with their father and to report a less happy childhood (Williams, 2001).
Source: DIVORCE:
Facts, Causes
& Consequences
Dr. Anne-Marie Ambert
York University
(3rd Edition, 2009)
n o
[Daphne – “There is no reason to expect that the psycho-social outcomes for children whose parents divorce, get an annulment, or legally separate would be any different. Divorce and legal separation are the same, from the perspective of the children. I don’t like my articles (or interpretations of the research of hundreds of researchers) to be misinterpreted or misrepresented,” she said.” http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=125259 ]
If people want to know anything about divorce and its effects you can read the following article. Its not too long. There is afurther proof about the increase in divorces due to the introduction of no-fault divorce. Search on the internet.
DIVORCE:
Facts, Causes
& Consequences
Dr. Anne-Marie Ambert
York University
(3rd Edition, 2009)
The referendum debate has put to rest the myth that the PN is not a conservative party, irrespective of whether the other bunch are any more or less conservative. I have pointed out in the past on your blog that a party with Gonzi, Tonio Borg, Jason Azzopardi and the crackpot Tonio Fenech cannot in any way be thought as mildly liberal and you had taken me to task for suggesting that.
I agree with your article in today’s The Malta Independent that this referendum will mean Labour are elected in 2013 and in all probability it will be a landslide victory. Hopefully there will be a change at the helm and we won’t have to worry ever again about having religious dogma influence state affairs.
Ismani Ronnie illum timxi mar-religjon regghet saret moda. Allura minn huwa progressiv il-labour jew in-nazzjonalisti. Il-fatt li ir-religjon regghet gejja moda tfisser li il-hsieb filosofiku ser jinbidel u ser jgib kuncetti religjuzi f’hafna seggetti. Il-fatt li ir-religjon regghet gejja moda tfisser li ha jkun hawn revival tal-kuncett tal-familja u hafna precetti religjuzi ohra.
I meant a change at the helm of the PN in the post above
Mela Dun Vella ta’ Kana hareg jghid li hawn hafna zwiegijiet li huma nulli mill-bidu. Allura x’naghmel naghti id-divorzju lil dawn biex jerghu jizzewgu u joholqu problema ohra.
U ma irrispondejtx x’uhud mill-kummenti li ikkwotajt perezempju li hawn zwiegijiet li tkissur b’kapricci u setghu gew salvati u xorta isseparaw u iddivorzjaw. Ghal din ma irrispondejtx.
[Daphne – Robert, please try writing in English because not everyone on this website understands Maltese. The internet is INTERNATIONAL. A comment in Maltese here and there is OK, but consistently writing Maltese is not OK because it excludes others. Your comment here shows that you are uncomfortable with democracy and are more at home with autocracy, with control of the private lives of adults. Centuries of thought, philosophy, and political development in Europe and North America have arrived at the point where it is accepted as a given that the lives of individuals are theirs to control and not for the state to interfere with unless they break the law – and that law itself is circumscribed and underpinned by this very reasoning, so that a state cannot, for example, make cohabitation illegal and then arrest those who cohabit. Acknowledging and understanding that people are free to make their own decisions and live their own lives as they best deem fit does not mean agreeing with what they decide and do. I disapprove of the way many people live their lives but any attempt by the state to stop them from living their lives that way through force of law would fill me with horror. I am opposed to divorce because, just as it is not the state’s business, or yours, whether somebody marries or not, so it is not the state’s business, or yours, whether somebody divorces or not. The business of the state is to regulate for the results of those personal decisions, not to decide.]
Allura peress li issa dahhalna id-divorzju ghal dawk li joqghodu barra la ghamilna zball issa inkomlu sejrin bl-izball u nghamluh ghal kullhadd.
[Daphne – Robert, you haven’t understood the situation. Malta did not ‘introduce divorce for those who live elsewhere’. Those who live elsewhere do not need a Maltese divorce because….they live elsewhere. Malta has no choice but to recognise and register divorces obtained elsewhere because those are its international obligations and its obligations towards individuals who are divorced. If two people are divorced, then they are divorced and Malta just has to accept it. It cannot treat them as though they are still married, and – for example – prosecute them for bigamy if they marry somebody else. Or refuse to allow them to marry. Or not recognise their pension rights, etc. This is what I mean when I say that Gonzi trying to invent a substitute for divorce is like Sant trying to invent a substitute for VAT. You can’t. The world is enmeshed. There are systems which are proven and obvious. Another thing: you don’t have to live outside Malta to get divorced. A Maltese person living in Malta can get divorced without ever leaving the island, if the other spouse is not Maltese or a Maltese who lives elsewhere. It’s easy to forget that only one person needs to apply for a divorce, not both. And that’s ironic, isn’t it. A Maltese person living in Malta can’t apply for a divorce, but can be divorced all the same.]
IVA ghalija tfisser nuqqas ta’ serjeta.
Le tfisser serjeta.