Divorce has been a developing hot topic for decades now. Have you ever heard someone quote the statistic that 50% of all marriages end in divorce? It's referenced throughout churches, pop culture, and even entertainment. However, this statistic is outdated.
There was a spike in the number of divorces shortly after the Baby Boom, and the children of that generation of divorce were affected. Another spike in the number of divorces occurred in the 1970s, when a group of researchers decided to make a projection of what the divorce rate would be at this time. The divorce rate was not 50% then, and it is not now. Many census surveys indicate a rate more comparable to 25%.
Even though the correct rate is considerably lower than the public's perceived rate, there is still caution to be taken. Some family scientists say that divorce rates increased when California precedented a "No-Fault Divorce", in which there does not need to be a legitimate reason for divorce approved by an authority for it to occur. Why do you think this would affect people's choice to divorce?
A spiritual point of view would bring up the term "covenant." A covenant is an agreement made between two parties under the conditions of a superior party. The inferior parties must play by the superior's rules in order to benefit from the arrangement. When No-Fault divorces were passed, individuals in marriages were no longer inferiors. They weren't playing by anyone else's rules. The idea that marriage was a covenant practically vanished.
You may have heard that people that are religious are more likely to stay married. That's true. With an understanding of what a covenant is, it's easy to recognize that individuals who hold themselves and their marriage accountable to a supreme being find it unreasonable to divorce.
Divorce is a hard event, and often leaves a lifetime of adjustments and adaptations for families to fight through. Although it's unfair to say that divorce is 100% preventable, it IS fair to say that understanding the purpose of a marriage is crucial to its success.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Saturday, March 26, 2016
The Deal With Punishing Children
Let's iron out this first issue. "Punishment" is used in psychology talking about training animals. Children are not animals. Parents should not implement punishment, they should regulate consequences.
Parents often find themselves in a battle of whether or not they should interfere with children's dumb decisions. Michael Popkin, a revered expert in parenting, offers some advice in this area. He suggests that parents take a very hands-off approach when it comes to allowing their children to learn by trial and error. After all, it's argued that one of the best ways to learn is by your own mistake. However, that suggestion comes with a big fat, BUT.
Children do a great job learning from natural consequences of their actions. For example, let's say a child leaves his bike in the lawn overnight. The next day, when his bike is rusted and non-functioning, he will remember not to leave his next bike on the lawn. Popkin explains that there are three scenarios in which parents should, in fact, intervene and implement consequences. LOGICAL consequences.
1. If the natural consequence is dangerous for the child. Example: a child wants to do drugs. That's dangerous. A parent should intervene.
2. If the natural consequence is too far in the future to effectively be the teacher. Example: a child doesn't want to go to school. They desire to drop out. A parent should intervene...because a child wouldn't be able to learn from this mistake until many years later.
3. If the natural consequence affects another person besides the child themselves. Example: a child keeps a friend out past their curfew. A parent should implement a consequence if the child doesn't understand their fault.
It's only under these three scenarios that Popkin feels it's allowable to implement LOGICAL consequences. So then, what is a logical consequence? A logical consequence is one that can be reasonably connected to the offense. It's illogical to hit a child for leaving the milk out. It IS logical however, to not allow them to drink milk the next time they ask for it...considering they might have ruined the milk.
How children feel around their parents greatly affects their well-being. With Popkin's idea of only implementing consequences when absolutely necessary, children will feel more trusted, more loved, and will be able to develop in a natural manner.
Parents often find themselves in a battle of whether or not they should interfere with children's dumb decisions. Michael Popkin, a revered expert in parenting, offers some advice in this area. He suggests that parents take a very hands-off approach when it comes to allowing their children to learn by trial and error. After all, it's argued that one of the best ways to learn is by your own mistake. However, that suggestion comes with a big fat, BUT.
Children do a great job learning from natural consequences of their actions. For example, let's say a child leaves his bike in the lawn overnight. The next day, when his bike is rusted and non-functioning, he will remember not to leave his next bike on the lawn. Popkin explains that there are three scenarios in which parents should, in fact, intervene and implement consequences. LOGICAL consequences.
1. If the natural consequence is dangerous for the child. Example: a child wants to do drugs. That's dangerous. A parent should intervene.
2. If the natural consequence is too far in the future to effectively be the teacher. Example: a child doesn't want to go to school. They desire to drop out. A parent should intervene...because a child wouldn't be able to learn from this mistake until many years later.
3. If the natural consequence affects another person besides the child themselves. Example: a child keeps a friend out past their curfew. A parent should implement a consequence if the child doesn't understand their fault.
It's only under these three scenarios that Popkin feels it's allowable to implement LOGICAL consequences. So then, what is a logical consequence? A logical consequence is one that can be reasonably connected to the offense. It's illogical to hit a child for leaving the milk out. It IS logical however, to not allow them to drink milk the next time they ask for it...considering they might have ruined the milk.
How children feel around their parents greatly affects their well-being. With Popkin's idea of only implementing consequences when absolutely necessary, children will feel more trusted, more loved, and will be able to develop in a natural manner.
How the Industrial Revolution Ruined Families
Take a quick peek into history and think about the pattern of work and the family. In ancient times, what were the careers of most fathers? What about most mothers? Even children? With very few exceptions, families throughout history have been together in their daily life. The nuclear family in the early 1800s would most likely consist of a father who farmed, a mother who farmed, and children who helped farm. This situation, having little to no variation, allowed families to spend the majority of their time together.
Contrast this scene to today's nuclear family. A father who has a day job, a mother who may also have a day job or works at home, and children who attend school during the day. How did we go from families who spent their entire lives together to a state of established independence from one another?
The Industrial Revolution was the first major implementation of what I call "optimization". Optimization is the process of making every part of a system function to its greatest capacity, in a system where production is at its greatest capacity. It's utilizing every part. It's become the most efficient. It's organizing in a way that gets the most results. It's....intense. Men, women, and children were offered jobs for pay in which their unique skills were utilized...apart from each other. In regards to the purpose of families, the purpose of growth and learning and strengthening friction, can you see how this change in organization affects relationships?
I don't think it's wise to analyze this situation we are in with only a lens of disgust. I don't think the Industrial Revolution has ruined families' chances for growth, love, and healthy relationships. However, what adaptations need to be made so that families can still fulfill their purpose in today's world of optimization?
Contrast this scene to today's nuclear family. A father who has a day job, a mother who may also have a day job or works at home, and children who attend school during the day. How did we go from families who spent their entire lives together to a state of established independence from one another?
The Industrial Revolution was the first major implementation of what I call "optimization". Optimization is the process of making every part of a system function to its greatest capacity, in a system where production is at its greatest capacity. It's utilizing every part. It's become the most efficient. It's organizing in a way that gets the most results. It's....intense. Men, women, and children were offered jobs for pay in which their unique skills were utilized...apart from each other. In regards to the purpose of families, the purpose of growth and learning and strengthening friction, can you see how this change in organization affects relationships?
I don't think it's wise to analyze this situation we are in with only a lens of disgust. I don't think the Industrial Revolution has ruined families' chances for growth, love, and healthy relationships. However, what adaptations need to be made so that families can still fulfill their purpose in today's world of optimization?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)