This is embarrassing

[MorkandMindy]

I don't really know how to explain this.

I'm single because I've been separated for 8 years. I woke up yesterday and two numbers were in my head; a divorce rate of 53% for the USA and 1% for India. 53% as many divorces as marriages in a predominately Protestant Christian country and 1% in a Hindu one. What's going on? What have they got that we haven't got?

Or what are we doing wrong? The Bible-believing population here are doing the worst, which is actually easy to explain, but the liberals who you would hope talk more about about human relationships aren't doing all that much better.

Any clues to help solve this mystery would be more than welcome

 

[Rajni]

I don't really know how to explain this.

I'm single because I've been separated for 8 years. I woke up yesterday and two numbers were in my head; a divorce rate of 53% for the USA and 1% for India. 53% as many divorces as marriages in a predominately Protestant Christian country and 1% in a Hindu one. What's going on? What have they got that we haven't got?

Or what are we doing wrong? The Bible-believing population here are doing the worst, which is actually easy to explain, but the liberals who you would hope talk more about about human relationships aren't doing all that much better.

Any clues to help solve this mystery would be more than welcome

My guess would be that in India's culture, there's more of a
stigma attached to divorce.

However, even though divorce-rates are low over there, I
have to wonder what percentage of marriages in India are
genuinely happy ones compared to marriages here in the U.S.
India's rates might be low due to people (mostly the women)
feeling like they're forever stuck in what could be downright
abusive marriages.




-

 

[blackribbon]

fear...

My friend was an arranged marriage in Pakistan. Although officially, she had the right of refusal, she was told by her father that she would not be welcome in his home if she turned down this offer. She was 16 years old. When she was married, she was told not to come running back home. Luckily, her parents really did put a lot of effort in picking an appropriate man for her (even if he was twice her age at the time). However, 8 years later when they came to visit her in the US, her parents saw how how she was treated..no abuse but a fair amount of disrespect...and she was told that they changed their mind and would pay to fly and her children home to Pakistan if she wished. Her mother got in her son-in-law's face about his treatment of her. He has changed some but even now she doesn't believe that his money is hers. Luckily, he really does love her. But since it fear of how she would survive that kept her here so many years, I assume that fear place a big place in why the marriages in similar countries like India are much lower.

 

[exitstageright]

I don't really know how to explain this.

I'm single because I've been separated for 8 years. I woke up yesterday and two numbers were in my head; a divorce rate of 53% for the USA and 1% for India. 53% as many divorces as marriages in a predominately Protestant Christian country and 1% in a Hindu one. What's going on? What have they got that we haven't got?

Or what are we doing wrong? The Bible-believing population here are doing the worst, which is actually easy to explain, but the liberals who you would hope talk more about about human relationships aren't doing all that much better.

Any clues to help solve this mystery would be more than welcome

On December 2,2014, I heard on the radio about divorces in the United States. "50% of all marriages end up in divorce." Well, that is not true. That was true in the 70's.

Today, about only 15% of all marriages are ending in divorce. One reason is that more and more people are living together instead of getting married. Another reason is that poor people, because of their lack of funds, are not getting married. Therefore, only the well to do are mostly getting married, and are marrying for love, since both parties do not need to marry someone for financial support.
__________________

 

[Johnnz]

Social factors play significant roles. Until more recent times women were financially dependent on their husbands. They were constrained from leaving. There is less social opprobrium that once was directed towards a woman who left her marriage. The legal context previously made it very risky for a woman to initiate divorce proceedings.

The Indian context is very different from ours. There are many pressures working against women that can prevent her leaving a marriage. The statistics do not show the quality of marriages, only what is possible in a given society.

There are teachings within some Christian circles that are destructive of marriage too - strong patriarchy, over romanticising of marriage, unhealthy sexual concepts. teaching high on expectation but lacking genuine practical use or even validity and the general narcissism within our culture that is very much alive within the Christian community.

John
NZ

 

[MorkandMindy]

My guess would be that in India's culture, there's more of a
stigma attached to divorce.

However, even though divorce-rates are low over there, I
have to wonder what percentage of marriages in India are
genuinely happy ones compared to marriages here in the U.S.
India's rates might be low due to people (mostly the women)
feeling like they're forever stuck in what could be downright
abusive marriages.




-

Yes, social pressure could be part of the answer.

It could be suggested that stigma is not a factor because there is a lot more stigma attached to divorce in a Bible based religion than in atheism, yet the atheists and liberal Christians have a lower divorce rate.

But it could also be that the dishonour of 'living in sin' pushes unsuited people in Biblical religion to marry when in a less judgemental group this would not happen, and this factor more than equals the unwillingness to divorce, hence the higher divorce rate in the Bible teaching churches.

Perhaps more important than just the words of social pressure is the reality of it; the loss of resources that would happen to a divorced person in some societies. I suspect that is why the UK has such a high divorce rate: my wife would not have thrown me out if it had meant she would have to change her address or phone number, or indeed if she had needed to lift a finger. And as a 'single mother' the government benefits pay more at the lower end of the income range than the husband can make.

That could be exactly as you suggest; that the support structure in India makes divorce very difficult.

 

[MorkandMindy]

fear...

My friend was an arranged marriage in Pakistan. Although officially, she had the right of refusal, she was told by her father that she would not be welcome in his home if she turned down this offer. She was 16 years old. When she was married, she was told not to come running back home. Luckily, her parents really did put a lot of effort in picking an appropriate man for her (even if he was twice her age at the time). However, 8 years later when they came to visit her in the US, her parents saw how how she was treated..no abuse but a fair amount of disrespect...and she was told that they changed their mind and would pay to fly and her children home to Pakistan if she wished. Her mother got in her son-in-law's face about his treatment of her. He has changed some but even now she doesn't believe that his money is hers. Luckily, he really does love her. But since it fear of how she would survive that kept her here so many years, I assume that fear place a big place in why the marriages in similar countries like India are much lower.

That is such a shame. A few hundred miles from there the first Buddha taught that all people are to treat other people as their equal whatever appearances might suggest, be it race or age or gender or level of competence or wealth or state of health.

If only that man in Pakistan knew that her claim to money was equal to his. Not greater or less, but equal. But both have to be working within the hierarchy of claims; money for survival comes before religious obligations which could come before luxuries.

I'm pleased to hear that despite the misogyny prevalent in the area, that the husband was willing to listen to her mother. Still the religion and culture in Pakistan seem to have been unhelpful in some ways to the couple's best interests.

Thank you for your posting.

 

[MorkandMindy]

On December 2,2014, I heard on the radio about divorces in the United States. "50% of all marriages end up in divorce." Well, that is not true. That was true in the 70's.

Today, about only 15% of all marriages are ending in divorce. One reason is that more and more people are living together instead of getting married. Another reason is that poor people, because of their lack of funds, are not getting married. Therefore, only the well to do are mostly getting married, and are marrying for love, since both parties do not need to marry someone for financial support.
__________________

Thank you, that is very reassuring. I was wondering if something like that had happened. Because the divorce rate was high among atheists as well as Bible Believing Christians would suggest it was something running through American society. My guess from people I know well is that the source of the problem was the brutalization of the male population in WW2. Behaviour has improved each generation since then.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Social factors play significant roles. Until more recent times women were financially dependent on their husbands. They were constrained from leaving. There is less social opprobrium that once was directed towards a woman who left her marriage. The legal context previously made it very risky for a woman to initiate divorce proceedings.

The Indian context is very different from ours. There are many pressures working against women that can prevent her leaving a marriage. The statistics do not show the quality of marriages, only what is possible in a given society.

There are teachings within some Christian circles that are destructive of marriage too - strong patriarchy, over romanticising of marriage, unhealthy sexual concepts. teaching high on expectation but lacking genuine practical use or even validity and the general narcissism within our culture that is very much alive within the Christian community.

John
NZ

John
NZ

My ten years as a Bible-believing Christian did nothing to help my marriage. I discussed this with a Liberal pastor two months ago who said that they tell a husband he has a responsibility to make his wife happy. This is not something that jumps out of the Bible, but practically speaking it is essential, so he teaches it.

I'm very pleased I gave up the Evangelical faith before my first child was born, because I also dumped all that Dr. Dobson crap at the same time and followed my instincts which proved to be correct. So my son is successful and happy unlike the rebellious children Dobson gets his fees from forever trying to fix. All of my children wanted to please their parents contrary to Dobson's claims about most children being rebellious. Dobson is making the problems and then getting paid for dealing with them. Not a bad idea in a way...


The narcissism; well knowing that all those highly educated agnostic Europeans will be roasting in Hell at the same time as we are sitting at the banquet table in Heaven does suggest God might be just a tiny bit happier with us doesn't it?

 

[blackribbon]

Narcissim....assuming you have figured perfect child raising out because your kid turned out okay.


My kids (along with many others) raised under many of the same beliefs of Dobson have surprising turned out to be rebellion free and decent human beings too.

 

[dayhiker]

My wife and I read Dobson and while I didn't follow him to the tee, I did raise my kids on Biblical principles and only my youngest was rebellious for 2 weeks. My rule of thumb was where there is no law there is no rebellion from Romans.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Narcissim....assuming you have figured perfect child raising out because your kid turned out okay.


My kids (along with many others) raised under many of the same beliefs of Dobson have surprising turned out to be rebellion free and decent human beings too.

I guess this sort of message doesn't come through in posts very well because they are short and not really duplex. I have no sense of pride from anything I have done, only relief when things I do don't go wrong. That is an unfortunate part of my personality and related to my unshakeable low sense of self worth, which seems to work out fine 99% of the time.

If I was proud and broadcasting it, you could say I was being narcissistic, but I'm not, I'm just being empirical.

It was James Dobson who I recall commenting that the distribution of behaviour among children was not 50% low rebellion and 50% rebellious but very lopsided toward the highly rebellious. I have no data on real children; just his comment to go on so I was impressed that none of mine were rebellious, but that was based on the claim Dr. Dobson had made.

I bought his book 'Dare to Discipline' and attended film showings back in 1982 so he may have changed his opinion since.

 

[MorkandMindy]

My wife and I read Dobson and while I didn't follow him to the tee, I did raise my kids on Biblical principles and only my youngest was rebellious for 2 weeks. My rule of thumb was where there is no law there is no rebellion from Romans.

In response to both your recommendation and Black Ribbon's I will admit to using a version of one idea from James Dobson and that was his concerning the use of napkins at the dinner table. He applied total fairness rather than top down commands on that one, and had the rule that who ever started eating without a napkin in their lap had to go outside and sing. It became a game and when he forgot out at a restaurant with someone important, James Dobson was caught out and had himself to go outside and sing.

I made putting on a seat belt (safety belt - US), into a game. My oldest son, about 5 then, would be calmly sitting in his seat with his coat on and when we reached the end of the driveway I would patiently explain that we were going forward and were about to go onto a public road and were not in a delivery vehicle and not a big lorry (truck - US) and he did not have a medical exemption, at which time he would declare that he did not need to put on his seat belt.

He would then lift up his coat and say: 'I already done it'.

 

[dayhiker]

cute with the seat belt!

 

[MorkandMindy]

cute with the seat belt!

I'm pretty much bilingual in English and American, here are a few car terms:

Petrol / Gasoline
Car Park / Parking Lot
Aerial / Antenna
Wing / Fender
Boot / Trunk
Bonnet / Hood
Tyre / Tire
Accelerator / Gas Pedal

 

[blackribbon]

People in general are naturally rebellious...I believe that is the gist of what Dobson teaches. In fact, a child goes through a developmental stage where this is documented...it is when they are very small and healthy as they start to separate their identities from their parents...it is when children say "no" to everything even when they want something. If allowed to do this within well defined boundaries, it allows for healthy psychological growth. However, if the environment is too "free" or too authoritarian, it can affect the psychological growth of the child. Parenting is a delicate balance of giving both freedom and boundaries to a child. That is what Dobson teaches (and almost every one involve in scientific based child development). What Dobson does is teach it from a Christian world view.

I personally believe giving your child a faith and a God to believe in is equally important as helping them to grow into confident adults. I can't image what it would be like to live with the idea that "this is it" and that after death is nothing. And that there are no absolutes related to morality..that every thing is 'situational'. I am not sure how I could have gone on living after my husband died if I didn't believe that I'd see him again. I am not sure how I could have taught my kids that life is still worth living. If life ends at death...and there is not a living God who cares for us (which I firmly believe), I honestly think that driving my family off a bridge after his death might actually have been the kinder thing for all of us. Suffering has to be for something or else it is just suffering. What on earth makes you get up each day and struggle through another day if this is all there is? I am not talking about "going to church"...I am talking about having a living relationship with a living God that actually makes Himself present in your life. My kids are now older teenagers. Their faith is uniquely their own and is very real.

 

[blackribbon]

At age 5, you had already passed the "rebellious" child age and he already known he had to put on his seat belt. Objection to seat belts is usually around age 2 years old or so. At this age, you were just verifying that he didn't forget. I am sure you didn't have convince him that he needed to get dressed to go in public anymore or that the bathroom (loo) was a good place to empty his bowels.

 

[MorkandMindy]

People in general are naturally rebellious...I believe that is the gist of what Dobson teaches. In fact, a child goes through a developmental stage where this is documented...it is when they are very small and healthy as they start to separate their identities from their parents...it is when children say "no" to everything even when they want something. If allowed to do this within well defined boundaries, it allows for healthy psychological growth.

Does 'people' mean people within a specific age range, if so I'd be interested to know if that is the source of the 'terrible twos'.

I guess I failed to provide the boundaries as I didn't understand what was required, I didn't see the wood for the trees, or perhaps with Dr. Dobson I threw out the baby with the bath water.

But whereas my parents were heavy handed and authoritarian at all times and all ages particularly with myself and younger sister (the oldest always gets deferential treatment), I was mostly just a playmate with my first son and he now has a better job than I have, a more enjoyable life, and is saner and knows more than I do. Maybe I erred on the right side.

 

[blackribbon]

Human development goes through recognized stages...the one being discussed is called the Erikson Psychosocial developmental stages. What people call the "terrible twos" is people recognizing that most two year olds behave in similar ways. If you study the expected psychosocial level of a 1.5 to 3year old, they fall on the "autonomy versus shame & guilt" developmental level.

In this level (quoted from psychcentral)
The child is developing physically and becoming more mobile. Between the ages of 18 months and three, children begin to assert their independence, by walking away from their mother, picking which toy to play with, and making choices about what they like to wear, to eat, etc.
The child is discovering that he or she has many skills and abilities, such as putting on clothes and shoes, playing with toys etc. Such skills illustrate the child's growing sense of independence and autonomy. Erikson states it is critical that parents allow their children to explore the limits of their abilities within an encouraging environment which is tolerant of failure.
For example, rather than put on a child's clothes a supportive parent should have the patience to allow the child to try until they succeed or ask for assistance.
So, the parents need to encourage the child to becoming more independent whilst at the same time protecting the child so that constant failure is avoided.
A delicate balance is required from the parent .... they must try not to do everything for the child but if the child fails at a particular task they must not criticize the child for failures and accidents (particularly when toilet training). The aim has to be “self control without a loss of self-esteem” (Gross, 1993). Success in this stage will lead to the virtue of will.
If children in this stage are encouraged and supported in their increased independence, they become more confident and secure in their own ability to survive in the world.
If children are criticized, overly controlled, or not given the opportunity to assert themselves, they begin to feel inadequate in their ability to survive, and may then become overly dependent upon others, lack self-esteem, and feel a sense of shame or doubt in their own abilities.

Dobson is a psychologist and is very aware of these stages and what ages they apply to. His "teachings" just give practical ways to raise healthy children within the context of the Christian community. It won't harm any no Christian families to follow either because he doesn't teach Bible but rather applies Bible to science.

So it is quite possible that you actually raised your kid very similar to Dobson recommendations without including Christianity and didn't even know it. Child rearing is dependent on the child's temperament (which can't be controlled) along with having a good understand (either with actual taught awareness or by just possessing good instincts) of child psychology.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

I don't really know how to explain this.

I'm single because I've been separated for 8 years. I woke up yesterday and two numbers were in my head; a divorce rate of 53% for the USA and 1% for India. 53% as many divorces as marriages in a predominately Protestant Christian country and 1% in a Hindu one. What's going on? What have they got that we haven't got?

Or what are we doing wrong? The Bible-believing population here are doing the worst, which is actually easy to explain, but the liberals who you would hope talk more about about human relationships aren't doing all that much better.

Any clues to help solve this mystery would be more than welcome

Hello.

1. The poll of evangelical Christians having a higher than normal divorce rate was an inaccurate general poll because it was conducted in the deep south where financial strains are high in addition to joblessness . The actual divorce rate for this Group comes in around 35% from general polls ive read.

2. The main difference between the USA and India is the culture ; we live in a culture where narcissism and hedonism rule big time along with a no fault divorce law . The two work against a marriage and against fidelity . Further, our mass media glamorizes sexual infidelity , casual sex , and lack of commitment to marriage vows and oaths.

3. The biggest reversal cure is something which isn't going to occur for America, and, that is a return to Judeo Christian principles for living / behavior . There has been such an enormous cultural shift in the USA in just over the past 50 years that it is an uncontrollable snowball picking up snow and growing ever larger with the snow representing moral degradation and a disdain for Gods loving protective moral mandates because they are 'too infringing' .

3.a . Atheistic Secular Humanism IS what our American culture is made up of and even its official affirmations found in its Manifestos are GodLESS in essence concerning how to live . Man was never meant to be his own authority , and when that gets rooted, we get the fallout that America has today including the harm it brings to the populace .