Listen to Tamar Epstein at about 39 minutes where she seems to assert that once the divorce is done children will adjust and that the damage from divorce is the initial shock which is being prolonged because of her husband refusing to divorce her. It seems clear that her cost-benefits analysis together with her view of "painless" divorce expressed here - led her to too readily abandon her marriage without devoting proper time and effort to save it
Recent research indicates that divorce can cause lifelong damage to the children. Unexpected Legacy of Divorce by Wallerstein & Lewis North Carolina State University NY Times The Telegraph update: National Affairs The Evolution of Divorce by W. BRADFORD WILCOX
The divorce revolution's collective consequences for children are striking. Taking into account both divorce and non-marital childbearing, sociologist Paul Amato estimates that if the United States enjoyed the same level of family stability today as it did in 1960, the nation would have 750,000 fewer children repeating grades, 1.2 million fewer school suspensions, approximately 500,000 fewer acts of teenage delinquency, about 600,000 fewer kids receiving therapy, and approximately 70,000 fewer suicide attempts every year (correction appended). As Amato concludes, turning back the family-stability clock just a few decades could significantly improve the lives of many children.
Skeptics confronted with this kind of research often argue that it is unfair to compare children of divorce to children from intact, married households. They contend that it is the conflict that precedes the divorce, rather than the divorce itself, that is likely to be particularly traumatic for children. Amato's work suggests that the skeptics have a point: In cases where children are exposed to high levels of conflict — like domestic violence or screaming matches between parents — they do seem to do better if their parents part.
But more than two-thirds of all parental divorces do not involve such highly conflicted marriages. And "unfortunately, these are the very divorces that are most likely to be stressful for children," as Amato and Alan Booth, his colleague at Penn State University, point out. When children see their parents divorce because they have simply drifted apart — or because one or both parents have become unhappy or left to pursue another partner — the kids' faith in love, commitment, and marriage is often shattered. In the wake of their parents' divorce, children are also likely to experience a family move, marked declines in their family income, a stressed-out single mother, and substantial periods of paternal absence — all factors that put them at risk. In other words, the clear majority of divorces involving children in America are not in the best interests of the children.
The divorce revolution's collective consequences for children are striking. Taking into account both divorce and non-marital childbearing, sociologist Paul Amato estimates that if the United States enjoyed the same level of family stability today as it did in 1960, the nation would have 750,000 fewer children repeating grades, 1.2 million fewer school suspensions, approximately 500,000 fewer acts of teenage delinquency, about 600,000 fewer kids receiving therapy, and approximately 70,000 fewer suicide attempts every year (correction appended). As Amato concludes, turning back the family-stability clock just a few decades could significantly improve the lives of many children.
Skeptics confronted with this kind of research often argue that it is unfair to compare children of divorce to children from intact, married households. They contend that it is the conflict that precedes the divorce, rather than the divorce itself, that is likely to be particularly traumatic for children. Amato's work suggests that the skeptics have a point: In cases where children are exposed to high levels of conflict — like domestic violence or screaming matches between parents — they do seem to do better if their parents part.
But more than two-thirds of all parental divorces do not involve such highly conflicted marriages. And "unfortunately, these are the very divorces that are most likely to be stressful for children," as Amato and Alan Booth, his colleague at Penn State University, point out. When children see their parents divorce because they have simply drifted apart — or because one or both parents have become unhappy or left to pursue another partner — the kids' faith in love, commitment, and marriage is often shattered. In the wake of their parents' divorce, children are also likely to experience a family move, marked declines in their family income, a stressed-out single mother, and substantial periods of paternal absence — all factors that put them at risk. In other words, the clear majority of divorces involving children in America are not in the best interests of the children.
Divorce does have a long term impact on children.
ReplyDeleteBut so does a dysfunctional marriage where they do not get divorced.
@Eddie, your point is not clear, but you seem to be advocating the MO feminist viewpoint, not Chazal's viewpoint.
DeleteAs we've discussed in this blog a number of times, Chazal was opposed to divorce where children were involved - see Eruvin 41b & Pesachim 87b, and other Torah sources.
@ELYAacov,
DeleteThat is because you only see things through 2 lenses, your "right" lens, and your "wrong lens".
I made 2 statements. the first was in agreement with academic research including what DT posted. It also contradicts what Tammy is claiming.
The second is regarding dysfunctional marriages - which can also be damaging. Chazal did not and probably could not ban divorce. And divorce has been taking place since time immemorial. We are not catholics. It is actually a mitzvah to give a divorce , ie one of Taryag Mitzvot.
But i am not saying that people should or not should not divorce, i am saying that damage can be done to children in a bad marriage.
@Eddie - "It is actually a mitzvah to give a divorce" - What you claimed here is NOT correct, this seems to be a common MO misunderstanding. There's absolutely no mitzvah for a man to divorce his wife. There is a mitzvah to follow the Torah divorce procedure IF a man wants to divorce his wife.
DeleteSee footnote no. 3:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/957706/jewish/Chapter-One.htm
"The intent is not that it is a mitzvah to divorce one's wife, but rather that if a man does desire to divorce his wife, it is a mitzvah for him to follow the rules prescribed by the Torah. To cite a parallel example: There is not a mitzvah to eat meat. If, however, one does desire to eat meat, it is a mitzvah to have the animal slaughtered according to the rules prescribed by the Torah"
Like I said, ELY, you have certain fixations, and you associate MO with all the evil you can perceive in the world. Giving a divorce is one of the Taryag mitzvot. The conditions under which is it given is a separate matter. There are many of the Taryag mitzvot that do not apply to everyone in every situation. Again, you are projecting your own hatred and demons on anything i say, so i have no further discussion with you. try picking on someone else.
DeleteEddie: You might have confused with the Mitzva of taking back your Grusha. Tov mize umize, lo tgaresh velo taamod beadmod vehechzer.
Deletehttp://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/756399/jewish/The-613-Commandments.htm
Delete126. To issue a divorce by means of a Get document--Deuteronomy 24:1
Is there a mitzva to remarry a gerusha? Where is that listed?
The mitzva legarsha refers when motso bah ervas dovor, not when you think you can do better or all the other immature nonsense. There is nothing better than to work it out be'emet uvsomim for the sake of your children.
DeleteEddie: Dvorim 25:4 Lo yuchal... provided that she did not remarry first.
Delete@ Isha "The mitzva legarsha refers when motso bah ervas dovor, not when you think you can do better or all the other immature nonsense"
DeleteWhere did I say the latter part? All i said was that it has D'Oraita status, which you have confirmed.
Remarry@ 24:4 says "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." I agree, but how does this relate to marriage?
Remarry - correction
Deletethe verse you want is 24:4. I quoted you which was 25.4.. a bit of confusion.
The verse you intended to quote says: her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife,
Are you implying it is one of TARYAG mitzvot to take her back if she hasn't had a second husband?
See Sefer Minchat Chinuch mitsvat Tav Kuf Peh = 580, ... before she remarries, you are allowed to take her back, and it is also appropriate to do so. I yet have to find explicitly whether it is a Mitzva from Taryag. (maybe Umbsorcho al tisalem?)
DeleteThat you are allowed is not new - it says so in the Torah. It is not a mitzah d'oraita to do so.
Deletewow. THANK YOU, DT, for getting a hold of, publicizing, and noting the crucial truth-take on which this woman justifies her twist of Torah.
ReplyDeleteOf course Eddie is also right that drawn out dysfunctional marriages are also a problem, but just like we all know that irrational forcing of a couple to remain together who do not want to be is clearly WRONG, so too the unilateral forcing of a divorce on a Torah marriage that has produced fruit (where no abuse is found).
Furthermore, for those who are devoted to Torah as truly Divine, we must admit that there is NO emphasis anywhere about a mitzvah to stop a dysfunctional marriage. Only to give weight to claims of Meus alai and abuse, while on the other hand giving definite respect to the husband's will. It may not be fashionable today, but Torah seems to hold that a man's will about his marriage is something holy that can not be easily destroyed.
Children are much better off if their parents say married then if their parents divorce absent extreme circumstances such as violence. The idea that children are generally better off if their parents divorce than stay in unhappy marriages is a myth created by those promoting no-fault divorce.
ReplyDeleteSuggested update to Daas Torah's original post:
ReplyDeleteThe Evolution of Divorce
W. BRADFORD WILCOX
The divorce revolution's collective consequences for children are striking. Taking into account both divorce and non-marital childbearing, sociologist Paul Amato estimates that if the United States enjoyed the same level of family stability today as it did in 1960, the nation would have 750,000 fewer children repeating grades, 1.2 million fewer school suspensions, approximately 500,000 fewer acts of teenage delinquency, about 600,000 fewer kids receiving therapy, and approximately 70,000 fewer suicide attempts every year (correction appended). As Amato concludes, turning back the family-stability clock just a few decades could significantly improve the lives of many children.
Skeptics confronted with this kind of research often argue that it is unfair to compare children of divorce to children from intact, married households. They contend that it is the conflict that precedes the divorce, rather than the divorce itself, that is likely to be particularly traumatic for children. Amato's work suggests that the skeptics have a point: In cases where children are exposed to high levels of conflict — like domestic violence or screaming matches between parents — they do seem to do better if their parents part.
But more than two-thirds of all parental divorces do not involve such highly conflicted marriages. And "unfortunately, these are the very divorces that are most likely to be stressful for children," as Amato and Alan Booth, his colleague at Penn State University, point out. When children see their parents divorce because they have simply drifted apart — or because one or both parents have become unhappy or left to pursue another partner — the kids' faith in love, commitment, and marriage is often shattered. In the wake of their parents' divorce, children are also likely to experience a family move, marked declines in their family income, a stressed-out single mother, and substantial periods of paternal absence — all factors that put them at risk. In other words, the clear majority of divorces involving children in America are not in the best interests of the children.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce
The situation right now is much more damaging than divorce. They are not getting back together,so the best option of happy of with two parents is not happening. Finalizing divorce would be much more beneficial to children.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. And it's in Tamar's hands, as much as it's in Aharon's, to make that happen.
DeleteIt's actually all in Tamar's hands. Her wrongful actions is precluding the Get from being issued.
DeleteChildren will adjust as much as an Amputee will adjust, they will miss that limb and Parent as a missing piece of their soul every single day of their lives. HAOD AVINU CHAI? Never in the world can you replace a loving biological father. They don't ever have menuchat hanefesh of not thinking about the loss even for one day. Look how adopted children have this inner quest in seeking out tirelessly their biological parents they have never even seen, how much more once they developed a bond. I highly suggest you to review the clip of tiny little Shirley Temple in "The Little Princess" based on a true and very moving story, in search of her widowed Father, against all odds after everyone told her he died in the war. At last, there was this reunion where she finally found her father murmuring to himself, Sarah...Sarah... and she begs and pleads to him, father... father, I am Sarah your little Princess! Now lehavdil closer to home, see Breishis 37:35 Yaakov never gave up on Yosef, could not part with Binyomin, he cried his heart out over them. In the name of your child, the child's father, and in the name of Klall Yisrael, please do not heed to all those calling you to "JUMP". That is "Kol Anos", close to shfichot domim, chas veshalom. Before you contemplate parting ways, you must not leave ONE stone unturned. Even when two yidden c'v' become enemies, they are obligated to make peace and commanded " Lo sisno es ochicho bilvovecho", "Veahavta lereacha komocho", nowhere does it state, except when you are incompatible. If the Torah says you "can", you better believe it. If the marriage Counselor agrees that you can, you should listen to him. If your heart told you that you love him, your heart will NEVER lie to you. It is for good reason that you recorded you thoughts and feelings, and happened to become public, we as maaminim bnei maaminim call it Hashgacha Protis, as "Bashert"! If the father of your child was your original Basherte, you must give your best shot as if your life depends on it. Please, if you can find Rachmanut and Forgiveness in your heart, and see how much tears the Mizbeach is shedding and pleading to Hashem for your child's sake not to become a lebedige Yosom c' v', kindly give peace a chance. And Oh' YES, I am SURE YOU CAN, and you CAN indeed! VaHashem Itech.
ReplyDeleteDivorce is horrible for kids. What's even worse is fighting over the terms of the divorce. I have many friends who had to live through their patents divorce. It was very hard, but most of them are OK and are happily married themselves.
ReplyDeleteI have other friends where the dad kept the mother as an Agunah for many years. Some did it out of spite, and others to try to renogiate alimony and testimony. Out of those friends, none of them are married, and most of them are Off the Derech. There are two ways to greatly increase the odds of your kids going OTD. One is to sexually abuse them, or to not believe them when their Rebbeim sexually abuse them. The second is psychologically abuse their mother by withholding a Get after the marriage has ended. These kids see Halachah as a way for the strong to punish the weak. Speak to anyone who's worked with at risk kids and they'll tell you the same thing. If you want your kids to be happy and frum, never let them see you use Halachah as a weapon.
Unfortunately most men are unable to see the world through the eyes of a toddler, and they have no idea of the spiritual damage they're doing. To use a blunt analogy, if you care about the life of the hostages, you don't shoot at the bank robber, but you let them walk away with your money. Even if a man is 100% right and his wife is 100% wrong, if he cares about his kids being frum and happy he won't use the Get as leverage. g
It is most often the mom who caused the divorce not to be given to her by making unreasonable, unhalachic demands that she enforced in non-Jewish court in contrary to Jewish law.
DeleteWhat do you mean about a get? Tamar says that the marriage has been annulled.
DeletePuzzled,
DeleteI am puzzled why ORA continues to threaten Aharon Friedman, as a reliable person told me is happening. Didn't the wife say she is free? Obviously, some major personality convinced the wife she is free but is not dumb enough to tell anybody else this opinion. So after Tamar announced she is free but no rabbi publicly agreed with her, it is hard to convince anyone that she is free.
ORA continues to harass, and one fine day, the wife may find someone to marry, and when that happens, and people find out who the rosho was who told her she didn't need a GET, things will get very interesting.
The first batch of roshei yeshiva reshoinim at least signed their name on their inventions that everyone must humiliate the husband. But this new Rosho, he only talks to the wife. Furthermore, it is possible that the new Rosho doesn't want anyone to quote him, but told a friend of Tamar his opinion, a friend he knew would not reveal his name. Of course, if that was the case, the wife will not be believed to say that anyone freed her because she only heard from somebody else and that somebody else is probably not interested in blabbing the name of the rabbi who permitted it. It is very possible that when the rabbi goons saw that beatings didn't work and humiliation doesn't get the job done, and Tamar was desperate, that somebody told Tamar that he heard that she was freed by a rabbi without mentioning the name. She may be satisfied with that. But for her to be free we need the real rabbi who ruled that she is free. And obviously, there is nobody out there standing up and being counted. And this may never change. But if this poor woman marries, people like me will surely declare her children mamzerim, and I don't know who will disagree with me. And here is another piece of advice for that poor lady. Go to the person who told you that you are free, and ask who the rabbi is who permitted this, and ask to publicize his name. Or better, ask him when this rabbi will publicly admit that he permitted the remarriage. And if that is impossible, please don't marry and make mamzerim. Here is the important thing: You are bichezkas aishes eesh, in the status of a married woman. If somebody claims that you are not married, this statement must be presented to a serious Beth Din that will investigate the matter. But for you to go around saying you are not married will not do the job. And if some rabbi does say that you are free, the vast majority of rabbis will not accept it, so who will accept your freedom?
for those who claim that there is no Mitzvah D'Oraita of issuing a Get, perhaps this is a better source for your hashkafa:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-catholic-church-divorce-and-annulment.html
Catholic beliefs and practice have no bearing one way or another on Jewish Law.
Delete@M, that's what you may think, but some people are suggesting there is no such thing as Divorce in jewish law, and that it was opposed by Chazal. They also make the ignorant statement that the giving of a get is not a Torah level mitzvah. It doesn't matter that the mitzvah has certain obvious conditions to fulfill, it is still from the Torah.
DeleteBTW, I read that Yashke attacked the Perushim - ie the Rabbis of his generation - who were essentially Chazal - for practicing and allowing divorce. he made up this catholic nonsense that men and women marry and become on, so therefore they cannot ever divorce (despite the Torah giving the heter to divorce).
Now, I always thought that Yashke was just some lost hippy who went off the rails and formed a cult that was then marketed by the romans. But he was a complete rasha and shaigetz - willfully perverting the Law.
The second to last Rashi in Gittin explains that even according to those who hold that someone can unilaterally divorce without good reason, such person who divorces without good reason is despised by G-d. And Rabbeinu Tam prohibits unilateral divorce without cause.
Delete@Eddie - "some people are suggesting there is no such thing as Divorce in jewish law" -
DeleteCan you please cite where anyone posting or commenting on this blog ever claimed "there is no such thing as Divorce in jewish law"?
"They also make the ignorant statement that the giving of a get is not a Torah level mitzvah" -
Can you please cite where anyone posting or commenting on this blog ever claimed that when a man divorces his wife with a GET procedure, he is not performing a Torah mitzvah?
quote 1: "EmesLeYaacovJanuary 12, 2014 at 11:13 PM
Delete@Eddie - "It is actually a mitzvah to give a divorce" - What you claimed here is NOT correct, this seems to be a common MO misunderstanding. There's absolutely no mitzvah for a man to divorce his wife. "
quote 2: "The MItzva is to Hold on to your basherteJanuary 12, 2014 at 11:46 PM
Eddie: You might have confused with the Mitzva of taking back your Grusha. "
An insightful article by an (apparently) non-Jewish lady reminds me how much the Orthodox Jewish community has lost its sechel in dealing with divorce.
ReplyDelete(Allan Katz may have provided the link below in a posting - thanks Allan).
The lady understands a crucial concept that seems to have been lost in the Orthodox community - yes there are a few "bad guys", but in many cases women who are married to "good guys" are unnecessarily destroying their marriages for superficial reasons.
Its outrageous that we have intelligent non-Jews admitting that marriages are being unneccessarily destroyed by certain women, yet the Orthodox community is completely oblivious to this issue, and is instead focused on proclaiming marriages are over and then forcing divorces whenever possible.
"Some women tell me that they realize they were married to a good guy, but divorced because they lacked the skills to have a happy relationship. Sometimes it causes them enormous grief."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-doyle/women-five-reasons-your-d_b_2341955.html
Hallelujah! A family court judge has told the truth about the damage divorce wreaks on children
ReplyDeleteBy MELANIE PHILLIPS
Academic researchers who tried to tell the truth about the devastating effects of divorce on children found themselves professionally ostracised and at risk of having their grant funding cut.
The actual damage to children from divorce and elective lone parenthood was further masked and minimised by other researchers, who were either consumed by guilt over their abandonment of their own children, or cravenly chose to go with the flow. Meanwhile, research carried out mainly in the U.S. which produced overwhelming evidence of the relative harm done by family breakdown in virtually every area of children’s lives, was wickedly brushed aside.
Of course, there are many lone parents who do a heroic job against all the odds raising their children well. And there are some situations where it is indeed best for truly warring or abusive couples to part.
But research has shown that most marriages are not broken by such extremes but merely by grumbling dissatisfaction.
And in that kind of situation, it is usually better for the children if the parents stay together.
To which liberals have sneered that staying together ‘for the sake of the children’ is a cruel and heartless doctrine. But since when was putting the welfare of their children ahead of parents’ own interests considered cruel and heartless? Only since society decided that children were an inconvenient obstacle to the right of parents to live lives of unfettered selfishness.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2137076/Hallelujah-A-family-court-judge-told-truth-damage-divorce-wreaks-children.html#ixzz2qEbdsJKM
@Parent - Thanks for posting the enlightening article by Melanie Phillips.
DeletePhillips is a Jewish political conservative who is not afraid to challenge and expose feminist and liberal hypocrisy. I don't know if she is Orthodox, but she must be well aware of how these feminist hypocrites dominate the Jewish community. Regrettably the Orthodox Jewish community is not getting exposed to her type of thinking too often.
Instead the "Orthodox" feminists and their puppet rabbis constantly brainwash the Orthodox Jewish community with pro divorce on demand propaganda, while promoting their "righteous" cause of saving agunot.The heavy damage to Jewish children being caused by the divorce on demand culture is largely ignored and suppressed in the mainstream Jewish media.
Sir Paul Coleridge, British jurist
ReplyDelete"The Hollywood/Hello! image of marriage has a great deal to answer for. The more we've spent on weddings, the greater the rate of family breakdown. The graphs would be interesting to plot," he says. "People also seem to think good, stable marriages arrive fully formed and drop out of the sky, and if you're lucky you'll catch one. But, actually, long, stable marriages are carved out of the rock of human stubbornness and selfishness and difficulties. The way you make them work is by chipping away bits over the years so you end up with something beautiful."
http://www.marriagefoundation.org.uk/Web/Content/Default.aspx?Content=403
Stars if the children think the mother is oppressed it is only because the mother has been brainwashing them as such. And that is because the mother has too much control over the children. The father is always to blame no matter what and no matter how evil the mother is in the view of the feminists.
ReplyDeleteMelanie Phillips - A very bright Jewish lady who stands up for the emes. If only we had more like her in the Orthodox Jewish community:
ReplyDelete"For years we have watched helplessly the undermining of the traditional family, which has been relentlessly attacked by an alliance of feminists, gay rights activists, divorce lawyers and ‘cultural Marxists’ who grasped that this was the surest way to destroy Western society...And what we know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that children need their fathers. Fatherlessness lies at the heart of just about every social ill our society faces, from educational failure to drug abuse to violent crime...A child needs to be brought up by a mother and father for the fundamental reason that the child’s identity was created by a man and a woman, and is only safely nurtured in a household that embodies that fact..."
http://www.melaniephillips.com/a-fatherless-law
I have indeed known families that split up after one or both of the parents grew dissatisfied with what seemed like a cordial and functioning, if not passionate, marriage, and it does seem to have hurt the children.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I also knew a couple who everyone thought were wonderful people, and who both seemed quite pleasant when we visited. The were well liked and well respected in the community. However, my daughter was very friendly with their daughter in elementary school, and used to come home with tales of how the husband behaved when there were no other adults around, which made him sound like a very manipulative and psychologically abusive person. We insisted after a while that the kids play only at our house, and told the wife why. She knew; however, she wanted to keep the marriage together for the sake of the children, and did so. The result of that was not positive for the kids; tragically, one of them committed suicide in high school, and the others displayed self-destructive behaviors.
It is often very hard to know what is best in a specific situation, especially for outsiders. It is not always obvious to anyone else what the reason for a divorce is. This is one reason I refuse to try to judge whether a divorce is justified in a family I don't know, and I urge the rest of you to do likewise.
Mike S.,
DeleteAre we supposed to believe your anonymous fairy tale which flies against logic and honesty?