PETER HITCHENS: Our selfish dismantling of marriage has left children in a lonely Dickensian hell

Life is different now - people want more freedom and more choice in every aspect of their lives. Children deprive you of both and we should be telling our sons and daughters that having kids is a life sentence - don’t do it unless you really understand the consequences and how much bleakness and sadness they can cause, as well as joy. It’s all too ‘rosy’ a picture that they have about child rearing. We need fewer people to have kids, then we’ll have fewer unhappy kids.

You've nailed it GG13.

Exactly GG13. It doesn't have to be a specific configuration of people. Father, mother, child. It could be Granny, Aunty, child. Grandfather, child. Or any other variation. I've got a Indian friend, never married, none of the matches his family put together for him were suitable, but was desperate to be a father. He adopted a Malaysian orphan. He's a great dad. Granny is part-time involved too.

My parents were married. We had a horrendous childhood. I wish my mother had had the courage to leave him. I used to pray that he would die. She left him when we were grown up. It was too late. The damage was done.

Chocolatelovinggran

I would just remind Mr Hitchens that Mr and Mrs Fred West were married. Better parents than me, a divorced single parent?
Discuss.

Yep, it’s got nothing to do with being married, in a committed relationships or a single parent.

It is all to do with the standard of parenting, with the love and security given along with the wider family unit, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, cousins etc.

Nothing better than a stable and loving marriage to raise children , however it’s not always possible. Those left, sometimes in very dire straights, do the best they can to raise their children, it’s not easy in fact very hard without support. Best not to judge.

DiamondLily

Sorry, couldn't resist it. Advice to the 1950's housewife: ?

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4011366/Cringeworthy-1950s-marriage-advice-teaching-housewives-look-husbands.html

Yes, I've seen that before.

I'm sure it's true as well, not a spoof ?

Well I don't agree that by referring to children being deprived of fathers has anything to do with patriarchy Casdon, just my opinion.

Father's are an important part of a child's life and I saw nothing in his article to suggest that an example of a stable family is where the husband/father goes out to work to provide for his wife a family.

I agree that a stable family life doesn't necessarily include GP's but that shouldn't negate the important and often beneficial role they have to play.

He made no mention of women staying at home etc - not wanting an outside job or financial independence of (their) own.

What I read, was about a lack of commitment, the ease with which some people appear to walk away from relationships which sadly we've seen in our own family, and how children can suffer as a result.

Sorry, couldn't resist it. Advice to the 1950's housewife: ?

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4011366/Cringeworthy-1950s-marriage-advice-teaching-housewives-look-husbands.html

Yep, my mum did, although, to be fair, she was pretty much an exception, amongst my peer group.

Most of my friend's mums were either at home all day, or did what they used to call "little pin money jobs" such as selling cosmetics etc.

Mum didn't work full time until my younger brother was about 9 years old, because I was married then and I got lumbered with him in the holidays etc lol

I never wanted to stay at home, so my ex and I juggled hours (he was a taxi driver, so could work nights), and I worked days.

No childcare fees to find.

We had virtually seperate social lives anyway, so it worked for us.

But, every family has to do what's best for them.

Well, I think Hitchens has this strange and outdated view of women, that seems to consist of all of us just happy being "the 50's version of little wife" staying at home etc - not wanting an outside job or financial independence of our own

DiamondLily I did mention the other day that I thought the idea of a 1950s "housewife" was a myth.
My mother worked and I'm sure may other married women and mothers did in the 1940s and 50s.

Well, I think Hitchens has this strange and outdated view of women, that seems to consist of all of us just happy being "the 50's version of little wife" staying at home etc - not wanting an outside job or financial independence of our own.

Nowadays, most women work because they have to, to keep the whole finances show on the road.

Others, like me, were bored being being a SAHM, needing an adult environment, and always wanting to earn my own money.

Some women, of course, enjoy being at home, and it's a case of whatever works for each family.

But, I also think it's a good modern "role model" for children to see both parents working, outside the home. ?

The article does refer to patriarchy Smileless.
‘The general outcomes for children deprived of what we would once have called stable family life, and deprived of fathers, are just not very good.’
What is what we would once have called stable family life if it isn’t that - father out at work providing for his wife and children was the stable family life Hitchens is referring to?

With all due respect I don’t think a stable family life automatically includes grandparents either. What’s most important is surely that they are loved, secure, encouraged and supported in a conflict free environment rather than being pawns in family relationship difficulties, whatever they are?

PS. Interesting article lemsip, thanks for the link.

I would just remind Mr Hitchens that Mr and Mrs Fred West were married. Better parents than me, a divorced single parent?
Discuss.

I agree with you Elegran, he is partially right. "it is loving relationships that hold the solutions for children and families over coming adversity."

He also said "..... our culture, have encouraged the idea that life long marriage is dispensable" and not just this IMO, but other family relationships.

AC estranging their parents, one parent preventing the other parent from seeing their children because as a parent they're dispensable.

GP's denied their GC, so those GC are denied their GP's when a marriage/relationship breaks down, more often than not the paternal GP's.

I agree Callistemon about the importance of the wider family in bringing to the attention of the authorities any fears or concerns about a child's welfare, sadly often ignored with tragic consequences. There's also the support that is lost when extended family are marginalised, so unable to offer help before a situation gets out of hand.

I don't see anything in the piece that alludes to patriarchy. Casdon you've posted "get women back in the kitchen" where's that come from?

As you've said Annie what Chardy's* described is not a stable family life. I don't agree Hitchen's is dictating, he's simply giving his point of view, and while I don't agree with everything he has to say on this particular subject, I do think he has a point.

lemsip

Doodledog I meant on this site !!

Not much else going on?

I thought it was meant to be irony, lemsip!
?

A marriage doesn't guarantee a happy and stable home

What a load of bs

back in time people got to know each other for a long time and planned a marriage ........of course that didn't mean it always worked out well. My parents divorced after making 6 children that my mother raised......

Many children of broken families have a loving and stable upbringing with care divided between both parents and sometimes including extended families.

Yes, there are several amongst my DGC's friends. The children seem to have come through the separation of their parents because they know they are loved and in some cases have kind, sensible step-parents and often extended family too.

It's not always the case though and it's not always the case that when parents stay together the result is a happy, stable family life.

However, I do feel sorry for single parents (usually mothers) who are left to cope with everything whilst the fathers contribute little either financially or practically to the welfare of their children.

Before anyone says - yes I do know more than one family where the mother has left and the father is coping alone.

Divorce doesn't put children into the care system - neglectful or abusive parenting does that, no matter what mix of people the household consists of.

Children need love, good care and stability.

lets not forget that those with more money have more options open to them

A right wing rant with little real evidence and absolutely no credibility. Apparently it's OK for the upper classes to divorce but the lower orders blindly follow suit and then bung their children into care. A quick Google showed that over 60% of children are taken into care because of abuse or neglect www.statista.com/statistics/375782/main-reasons-why-children-were-taken-into-care-in-england-uk/
It's absolutely nothing to do with divorce. Although it may have a lot to do with the reductions in the number of social workers supporting families and the lack of decent accommodation available.

Doodledog I meant on this site !!

Marriage is good for patrilineage. Not so important with DNA, I would have thought GagaJo. Wasn't it the rules around marriage that made the difference, not marriage itself?