Why Do So Many Christian Marriages Struggle?

[mama2one]

They were more focussed on various housework tasks and other things, and less on childhood development.!

my mom didn't go to college so don't remember her ever helping me with homework, dad did and she did iron, a lot!

iron....ha
I don't even own an iron

work/life balance
once we became parents, husband started coming home an hr earlier from work/stopped working 10 hr days

 

[tall73]

I'm not saying anything about what your wife should have done or not done. My original point is that education has benefit beyond the workplace; working out what you want for your life and family ought to take that into account but doesn't dictate what you (plural) should do.

So if someone's life's plan doesn't involve a specific field of study that is offered at a college, would they then go there to gain those other benefits, and take on the debt, etc.? And while they take on debt they are less able to dedicate time to work or to a family, so it delays that element.

Someone who is concerned to get the benefits of education for their family, apart from career, can find many sources of education that do not cost tens of thousands of dollars.

 

[tall73]

This is the quality bit, though. I read some research a while back that said that while my mother's generation worked outside the home less than mine, overall they spent less time one on one with their children than my generation. They were more focussed on various housework tasks and other things, and less on childhood development.

But you do acknowledge then that if she did not spend all of her time on housework, and did spend it on the children, that she had both quality and quantity?

 

[ValleyGal]

Children who are adopted typically come from a place of deep trauma, as well - and not just the trauma of being removed from a birth parent. Trauma affects both cells as well as genetics, meaning it carries from generation to generation. It's called epigenetics, if you care to check it out. It is also more challenging to establish a secure attachment with those children who are adopted because it does not happen from birth (usually, unless it was a planned thing), and babies know that someone else's scent, sound of heartbeat or voice, etc, is not the one who carried them.

Additionally, I still believe that no parent can be around a child 100% of the time. In fact, studies by experts such as Gordon Neufeld, Karyn Purvis, et al. show that if you can give your child your full attention (be "present") 30% of the time, you are doing well as a parent. As Paidiske noted, you can be around them 100% of the time and ignore them, but a child will have a more secure attachment if you are around less and give them full attention when you are around them. As well, security does not come from knowing you're around; it comes from the ability to know your child and meet his or her needs.

As well, education level is not about helping with the homework. It has more to do with other life skills that parents naturally pass along to their children without thinking about it, such as valuing education, setting goals and completing them, working hard for what you want, delayed gratification, time management, internal locus of control, ability to focus, social skills, teamwork, respect for self and others, and many others. In fact, emotional intelligence is more important to life success than IQ, and because the brain does not stop growing until around age 25, post-secondary education is recommended - because it teaches EQ, SQ, and IQ. If a mother has learned all these things to a greater degree than someone who does not have a high level of education, who do you think is more equipped to pass all this along to their children?

Now... let's take a look at what all this means. If mom and dad both go to work during the day, and children are in daycare or preschool (where they receive early childhood education and social skills), then everyone comes home and they have to make dinner, eat, clean up, do homework, play for a while, bathe, then go to bed. Who is it that still spends this time with the children? Yes, it is typically still mom who spends more quality time with the children AND does most of the housework. Who are the children typically closer to? Mom. Why? Because mom spends more quality focused time on them, interacting with them, teaching them, empathizing with them, etc.

About 20 years ago, my dad came over to my house because he wanted to make some amends. One of his amends was that he thought it was his "job" to supply the family with material needs, but he regretted not "being there" enough for my sister and me. All it would have taken was half an hour a day and a few hours on the weekends. Enough to create some good memories and establish a secure attachment.

 

[ValleyGal]

Tall, there is such a thing as too much quality time. After all, if you spend all your time in quality time, the bar for quality is raised.

 

[tall73]

Now... let's take a look at what all this means. If mom and dad both go to work during the day, and children are in daycare or preschool (where they receive early childhood education and social skills), then everyone comes home and they have to make dinner, eat, clean up, do homework, play for a while, bathe, then go to bed. Who is it that still spends this time with the children?

Well in this scenario the daycare has them both beat by a long shot.

About 20 years ago, my dad came over to my house because he wanted to make some amends. One of his amends was that he thought it was his "job" to supply the family with material needs, but he regretted not "being there" enough for my sister and me. All it would have taken was half an hour a day and a few hours on the weekends. Enough to create some good memories and establish a secure attachment.

We were discussing christine40's statement. And she indicated her husband did take off earlier from work and made an effort to spend time as well.

So the child had both parents spending time, and the mother with more time to spend.

 

[tall73]

As well, education level is not about helping with the homework. It has more to do with other life skills that parents naturally pass along to their children without thinking about it, such as valuing education, setting goals and completing them, working hard for what you want, delayed gratification, time management, internal locus of control, ability to focus, social skills, teamwork, respect for self and others, and many others. In fact, emotional intelligence is more important to life success than IQ, and because the brain does not stop growing until around age 25, post-secondary education is recommended - because it teaches EQ, SQ, and IQ. If a mother has learned all these things to a greater degree than someone who does not have a high level of education, who do you think is more equipped to pass all this along to their children?

But this assumes that educational settings are the only place this is learned. I worked in one field where both high school graduates and college graduates were hired at the entry level. The company emphasized emotional intelligence, and integrated that into training and the ongoing work environment. I was mentoring for my team and the educated had no advantage in this realm. Some of of the educated seemed to have majored in booze and video games. And some from both camps seemed to do well and be able to function.

 

[ValleyGal]

Tall, 30% is enough. And no, educational settings are not the only place they can learn those kinds of skills; neither are the parents.

 

[tall73]

https://www.ssb.no/forskning/discussion-papers/_attachment/113165

Our IV analysis suggests that mother’s labor force participation is the key mechanism through which the Cash-for-Care program affected the students. The IV-estimates indicate that those children whose mother did not work at age ten because of the Cash-for-Care in average obtained a 1.2 increase in the grade point average.What does this imply about the size of the effect? The standard deviation of GPA is about 0.80. Hence our estimated effect is roughly 150 percent of a standard deviation.

In Norway they subsidize childcare, and nearly all of the formal childcare is public. They introduced a program called Cash-for-Care that could incentivize parents to stay home with young children, in lieu of receiving childcare subsidy.

The above study was done with those families who also had an older sibling in the household to determine if there was improvement for that child's educational outcomes tied to the reduction in the labor force of the child's mother. They found a significant improvement for the older child. They were able to largely control for income changes (some went up, some went down, some remained the same).

They note that the impact might be slightly reduced in the general population as there may have been some incentive for those who had struggling older children to join the program. But still indicate that for those who are struggling similar numbers could be reached in the general population, and a slightly smaller overall.

 

[ValleyGal]

Tall, this isn't Norway. However, it would also be interesting to see the results of studies where the husband/wife roles are reversed, where the dad stays at home the same as you propose the moms stay at home - and were just as engaged with their children as you expect moms to be = 100% of the time. Not going to happen. Thirty percent is enough, as long as it is time well-focused.

 

[tall73]

Tall, this isn't Norway.

No, it is not! But the program did help to see what the impact was while adjusting for income differences, so that is helpful. They found significant improvement.

However, it would also be interesting to see the results of studies where the husband/wife roles are reversed, where the dad stays at home the same as you propose the moms stay at home - and were just as engaged with their children as you expect moms to be = 100% of the time. Not going to happen. Thirty percent is enough, as long as it is time well-focused.

I think that would be interesting as well. And why do you think it won't happen?

Also, please note that the 100 percent figure is yours. I was noting that christine40 who indicated she was able to stay home and did not focus on housework had more time to spend. But I also noted that her husband reduced his work time and had more time to spend as well. In any situation where the wife is home with her children then the husband can often take pressure off by giving her a break when possible.

 

[tall73]

I'm also very fortunate. Being able to have my work space within the house means that even though I work a lot of hours, I'm here when the little miss gets home from school, and I can work flexibly so that (for example) I can go and volunteer in her classroom every so often. Lots of working parents wouldn't have that flexibility. There are drawbacks, too, of course, but I value having close integration of my work and home life.

When my children were small I was also able to work from a home office, and that was a great way to do it as we both could spend more time, and both help each other.

As you said, not all can do so, but if you can then it is great.

 

[mama2one]

Children who are adopted typically come from a place of deep trauma
It is also more challenging to establish a secure attachment with those children who are adopted .

sorry, all my posts are slanted towards APs since am one
and continue to take workshops/parenting classes to stay up on things


one "expert" said kids do not need "play dates" that they need to learn from adults

going to daycare, "peer learning" is not actually good according to him
(wish I'd written his name down but I usually listen to workshop speakers after midnight and don't always take notes)

 

[tall73]

Another trend in the have it all department:

I have read some articles that indicate educated, successful, women report being unable to find good, educated, successful men.

Because more women graduate college than men, by a significant margin, women are having a harder time finding someone with the same level of education as themselves (which they prefer). And those men who are educated, because they have a larger relative pool to choose from, are settling down later after playing the field.

Those women who are not able to find the type of mate they are looking for in this competitive environment are generally marrying later as well, holding out until it becomes clear they must remain single or lower their standards. Or some choose to remain single. Either way they report frustration.

By the time they decide to lower their standards, many of the men their age are already taken. And those men of their age who are successful, and still single, are often looking for younger women, who have more fertile years ahead.

As a result some folks who are studying the trend suggest that educated women who wish to marry and have a family lower their standards more quickly and consider dating blue collar men.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

When it comes to the phrase relating to “women having it all,” I think it’s one of the most misunderstood phrases thrown around with feminism. It doesn’t literally mean she can HAVE it all, anything she wants, without compromises and sacrifices and tough choices. It means that she can have it all in terms of her destiny. If she wants to go to college, she can. If she wants to stay home and be a wife, she can. If she wants a partner she has been with for 10 years and will spend the rest of her life with and not marry, she can. It’s up to her and she is not by virtue of her gender funneled into a preset destiny by virtue of her gender. She’s not married away by her father at 18 to have babies and stay home to raise another generation of future 18 year old wives and the men that marry them. She has a choice.

It’s like going to a buffet... When the server tells you at the table you can have it all, they don’t literally mean that you can load up your plate with every food and eat it and skip the bill and not make yourself so full you vomit. They mean you can have anything that’s up there, so choose what you like, pay the bill, and deal with the indigestion or the food coma or whatever comes with it.

I’m not unsympathetic to the issue that historically men themselves are largely relegated to working to support their family with no choices with quitting to live the life they want at home or traveling or whatever they do, and no, it’s not fair. As time has gone on things have changed and shifted a bit easier than it did for women initially simply because it’s a male-dominated society where they make and set the rules. A man who rebelled against constructs still has options. If a man was destroyed financially/career wise during the Great Depression he could adjust his sails, land in that Rockafeller-created social philanthropy field, head to a bank to try for a loan to start a business, enter into the arts... But in such a situation, women were just kind of stuck. If her husband failed, she failed along with him and had no means to help her, her husband, or her kids out.

Society right now isn’t fair for men in all ways, it’s not fair for women in all ways. I think the scales are evening out more than they have ever been, so with time I think we will see even more balance. I certainly don’t see, nor have I ever, how allowing women the ability to choose what’s best for their own lives is something that’s bad and despite all the huffing and puffing about the evils of feminism, the simple fact is most people in the US, including some of the people who rail against feminism here, are feminists. Almost 100% of the time I’ve seen people complain about feminism, how it’s bad, how it has ruined families, who throw around buzz phrases like feminism waves, who think feminism is about marginalizing men, they’re simply parroting misinformation without any true understanding of what feminism is or what it means. That’s why it’s hard to take some of these arguments seriously.

Ultimately, if you woke up this morning with a wife you chose who chose you too, and she goes about her day as she chooses in the life she constructs, who has an education and the ability to further it, or you have daughters you send to school or have homeschooled, and they work or dream of working, have chosen a career of their own without consideration of of its a field they’re allowed in, and you encourage them to marry a man who they love who treats them well and build the life they want for themselves... Congrats. You’re a feminist. Feminism is simply women being allowed the same choices in life as anybody else. Nothing more or less.

Secondly, I’m in a unique position where I’ve been the work at home Mom, the Mom who used sitters, the stay at home Mom, and pretty much every variable in between. I had one who started late to school and used almost no sitters ever, another who started school earlier and was at sitters 20ish hours a week, and a third who was at sitters off and on until he was 1.5 years old and then with me almost full time after that with no preschool. They all present their own unique challenges, they all have benefits, they all have pitfalls, and none of them mark one as a better parent than the other. And it’s not like you spend time with one and say “clearly that’s the one who was at daycare when he was 3...”

Ultimately, it’s better to make the choices that’s best for your family than to have your gender have your choices dictated for you. You’re a woman or man who works full time and had daycare because your family needs it? Woo-hoo! You stay home with your kids and take care of the house? Woo-hoo! You do you.

 

[mama2one]

even though men usually work all day, it is surprising the amt of time they can still spend with their kids

husband puts our child to bed every night (when not travelling)
we decided from day one that would give him a ritual to facilitate bonding

he also takes our child to the library every sat morn and often out to breakfast first (just daddy/kid time)

 

[tall73]

When it comes to the phrase relating to “women having it all,” I think it’s one of the most misunderstood phrases thrown around with feminism. It doesn’t literally mean she can HAVE it all, anything she wants, without compromises and sacrifices and tough choices. It means that she can have it all in terms of her destiny. If she wants to go to college, she can. If she wants to stay home and be a wife, she can. If she wants a partner she has been with for 10 years and will spend the rest of her life with and not marry, she can. It’s up to her and she is not by virtue of her gender funneled into a preset destiny by virtue of her gender. She’s not married away by her father at 18 to have babies and stay home to raise another generation of future 18 year old wives and the men that marry them. She has a choice.

It’s like going to a buffet... When the server tells you at the table you can have it all, they don’t literally mean that you can load up your plate with every food and eat it and skip the bill and not make yourself so full you vomit. They mean you can have anything that’s up there, so choose what you like, pay the bill, and deal with the indigestion or the food coma or whatever comes with it.

I’m not unsympathetic to the issue that historically men themselves are largely relegated to working to support their family with no choices with quitting to live the life they want at home or traveling or whatever they do, and no, it’s not fair. As time has gone on things have changed and shifted a bit easier than it did for women initially simply because it’s a male-dominated society where they make and set the rules. A man who rebelled against constructs still has options. If a man was destroyed financially/career wise during the Great Depression he could adjust his sails, land in that Rockafeller-created social philanthropy field, head to a bank to try for a loan to start a business, enter into the arts... But in such a situation, women were just kind of stuck. If her husband failed, she failed along with him and had no means to help her, her husband, or her kids out.

Society right now isn’t fair for men in all ways, it’s not fair for women in all ways. I think the scales are evening out more than they have ever been, so with time I think we will see even more balance. I certainly don’t see, nor have I ever, how allowing women the ability to choose what’s best for their own lives is something that’s bad and despite all the huffing and puffing about the evils of feminism, the simple fact is most people in the US, including some of the people who rail against feminism here, are feminists. Almost 100% of the time I’ve seen people complain about feminism, how it’s bad, how it has ruined families, who throw around buzz phrases like feminism waves, who think feminism is about marginalizing men, they’re simply parroting misinformation without any true understanding of what feminism is or what it means. That’s why it’s hard to take some of these arguments seriously.

Ultimately, if you woke up this morning with a wife you chose who chose you too, and she goes about her day as she chooses in the life she constructs, who has an education and the ability to further it, or you have daughters you send to school or have homeschooled, and they work or dream of working, have chosen a career of their own without consideration of of its a field they’re allowed in, and you encourage them to marry a man who they love who treats them well and build the life they want for themselves... Congrats. You’re a feminist. Feminism is simply women being allowed the same choices in life as anybody else. Nothing more or less.

Secondly, I’m in a unique position where I’ve been the work at home Mom, the Mom who used sitters, the stay at home Mom, and pretty much every variable in between. I had one who started late to school and used almost no sitters ever, another who started school earlier and was at sitters 20ish hours a week, and a third who was at sitters off and on until he was 1.5 years old and then with me almost full time after that with no preschool. They all present their own unique challenges, they all have benefits, they all have pitfalls, and none of them mark one as a better parent than the other. And it’s not like you spend time with one and say “clearly that’s the one who was at daycare when he was 3...”

Ultimately, it’s better to make the choices that’s best for your family than to have your gender have your choices dictated for you. You’re a woman or man who works full time and had daycare because your family needs it? Woo-hoo! You stay home with your kids and take care of the house? Woo-hoo! You do you.

I 90 percent agree with this. I think though that where both sides are talking past each other is when you dismiss the "waves" of feminism.

You don't have to call them waves. You don't have to draw chronological distinctions. And the wave analogy is just a simplification, so I can see it being frustrating. It is used to convey the idea that feminism started out great, and then went a different direction. And in that sense it is not completely true as most feminists don't go too far. And the reality is that most men are fine with women having the ability to be educated, to choose their course in life, etc.

However, there are self-proclaimed feminists who do take it to another level. And while some find it helpful to chart the direction of the movement by waves, the reality is you have both traditional feminists who want and celebrate options for women, and you have radicals in the movement throughout the various times it has been around.

Some do characterize any association with marriage as patriarchal, and to be avoided. Some do discourage stay at home options, rather than just presenting all the options.

And at least recently, a higher percentage of these that gain prominence are found in higher education in gender studies departments. As such they often are the ones influencing people who go to those institutions.

And there is a backlash against it. But contrary to what many would expect the social backlash that I have seen is primarily from conservative atheists, not patriarchal Christians.

They look at the biological realities of women having to take time from the workforce, for late-stage pregnancy and birth, etc. They note the ability of women to breastfeed. And they look at the high levels of testosterone in men, associated with higher risk taking, less empathy, etc. showing that for younger children the mother is advantaged as the caregiver through the process of evolution.

And as such they do not see the historical arrangement of things as an oppressive patriarchy, but the best option available for men and women to work together and have a stable society, and a continuing population.

 

[DZoolander]

@DZoolander,
Now that might not be true for everybody (and any "one size fits all" model of fulfillment is going to have problems), but having the freedom to do different things, to change if they're not working, and to put yourself in the situation that is best for you is really precious and important.

And that doesn't happen if we default to, well, women are going to have and raise babies, so they don't need an education and should be discouraged from working. (Nor does it happen if we shoehorn men into the wrong work for them, either).

Agreed. I want my daughter to be a highly educated, capable person. I want her to have the world at her feet, able to choose whatever path she wants. I don't want her tied by necessity to anyone, forced to take whatever comes due to circumstantial bad options. I want her to be able to chart her own path, do what's best for herself, at any given moment.

I used to listen to this song all the time when my daughter was an infant, and think "That's what I want for her."

I want her to have the power to always leave, and thrive. I want her to understand that in any relationship, choosing to stay when you have the power to leave is the greatest sign of love. Being a kept woman/man is always inferior to CHOOSING to stay when you have every other option in the world. You never let other people define you. You never let other people tell you what's acceptable for you. You never let anyone tell you the boundaries. You alone are in charge of that.

That's what I want for my daughter.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I 90 percent agree with this. I think though that where both sides are talking past each other is when you dismiss the "waves" of feminism.

You don't have to call them waves. You don't have to draw chronological distinctions. And the wave analogy is just a simplification, so I can see it being frustrating. It is used to convey the idea that feminism started out great, and then went a different direction. And in that sense it is not completely true as most feminists don't go too far. And the reality is that most men are fine with women having the ability to be educated, to choose their course in life, etc.

However, there are self-proclaimed feminists who do take it to another level. And while some find it helpful to chart the direction of the movement by waves, the reality is you have both traditional feminists who want and celebrate options for women, and you have radicals in the movement throughout the various times it has been around.

Some do characterize any association with marriage as patriarchal, and to be avoided. Some do discourage stay at home options, rather than just presenting all the options.

And at least recently, a higher percentage of these that gain prominence are found in higher education in gender studies departments. As such they often are the ones influencing people who go to those institutions.

And there is a backlash against it. But contrary to what many would expect the social backlash that I have seen is primarily from conservative atheists, not patriarchal Christians.

They look at the biological realities of women having to take time from the workforce, for late-stage pregnancy and birth, etc. They note the ability of women to breastfeed. And they look at the high levels of testosterone in men, associated with higher risk taking, less empathy, etc. showing that for younger children the mother is advantaged as the caregiver through the process of evolution.

And as such they do not see the historical arrangement of things as an oppressive patriarchy, but the best option available for men and women to work together and have a stable society, and a continuing population.

Just last week I read about a not small group of men who have banded together to rail against “forced abstinence” in dating and how it has damaged them psychologically. They feel the women that they date unfairly deny them sex for being too “unattractive, unsuccessful, or unintelligent” and are taking steps to fight back. Is this group of well-organized idiots representative of all men and their feelings? No, of course not. Every movement has its fringe. The fringe doesn’t define the movement.

So there’s a group of people who feel so marginalized by the patriarchy that they rail against it. They are not representative of all, or even a majority, of women. They don’t represent feminism, never have, never will. The only people who embrace it as a slice of feminism are the people who follow it and the people who want to hold it up and say “see? Feminism is terrrrrrrible!!!!”

Feminism is feminism. There is no “push the evil men out” wave of feminism no matter how much those who want to pretend they’re against feminism wants to believe there is. The fact that one of the cores of feminism is sexual freedom and empowerment, if doesn’t even make sense to say that any part of feminism is about getting rid of men.

The last part I’m not even dealing with because it’s one step above “having periods is a biological reality of being a woman which explains why women can’t work as much... It’s not patriarchy, it’s science.”

 

[mama2one]

women are having a harder time finding someone with the same level of education as themselves (which they prefer). Either way they report frustration..

seen that reported by women in 40's, on another forum
so difficult to find a man that meets their "checklist"

also, because of being hard workers, successful at their career, homeowners, and often still beautiful, they do not want to settle for anyone less than what they are themselves

seems more difficult to find a spouse as one gets older