What do you think? Is it better to stay in an unhappy marriage for the sake of the kids? Or is it better to split?
Join us in the Mom to Mom group!
I know some that have done this and I'm not a proponent of it. I think kids see/know more than we give them credit for.
I believe if a parent is unhappy then they need to either work things out or get out because in the end...the kids know. Unless the unhappy parent is a good actor/actress.
But this is just my opinion.
Quoting ffirsttimemommy:I say no. You don't want your kids growing up thinking it's ok to be unhappy.
I think it would be better to split. Esp. if the marriage has verbal, or physical abuse. And also, I think the kids would eventually know (if their parents have a good marriage or not). IMO
I don't think staying together for the kids sake is a good reason to stay married.
I would never stay married for the sake of my dd. I'm not married to her biodad anyway. I think putting a child through an unhappy marriage is worse than putting them through a divorce.
I think it's a false dichotomy.
Much of what makes an unhappy marriage is really trying to control other people. Take that attitude with you, whether your divorce or stay together, and you're just moving your problems to another field.
I have seen some instances where parents who totally gave up --stayed married but only as a financial/parenting arrangement, and no longer held any expectation of any kind of love or specific behaviour from the other-- have in time found the key to a happy marriage:
Realistic expectations and genuine respect.
It is not realistic to expect the person you married to stay the same OR to change and grow the way you want them to. Trying to live 'as if' that's possible is crazymaking.
It is not respectful to hold someone in mind as a 'project' who must become what you think they should become, in the timeframe you've decided is 'reasonable.' It is, in fact, highly offensive.
I think that unhappy marriages are based on what John Gottman discovered: the 4 horsemen of the (marital) apocolypse: disrespect, rejection, contempt and stonewalling.
The simple answer is to concede control, utterly and completely. He's free. Just as she's free. They can, and will, do what they choose to do. To believe otherwise is to believe that rocks can fly.
Too often, the position that people take up on either side of 'you can't control me/oh yes I can' is exactly the opposite of what they vowed to do: to love and cherish. Would you seriously marry someone with every intention of telling them how to live their lives and get super-frustrated at them when they continued to be the whole, opinionated, individual humans they were loved for in the first place?
People get really good at re-writing their own histories, complete with absolute lies about what they were thinking and feeling when they walked down the aisle. That day, they were genuinely happy and felt completely free --had someone told them that they were a victim of an overbearing asshole, she'd have punched them in the head. But, now, 3, 4, 5 years of frustration in attempts to control him into being a mirror of her best qualities (and a compensation for her worst) she'll claim it's exactly what happened then.
What I ultimately mean is: how you make up your mind about something later is how you will report events from earlier. It's entirely human and entirely irrational.
But nothing in the world is so frustrating, or so repellent, a behaviour as attempting to control another person.
So I say: stop looking at that as the solution to what is ultimately a personal problem.
Part of the CafeMedia family
© 2016 CMI Marketing, Inc. All rights reserved.
Already Joined? LOG IN