A provocative headline performed its duty: I stopped to read a Huffington Post article that explores the links between divorce and shorter life span.
A breadth of research is cited, clarification of the meanings of correlation and causation is included, and when it comes to saying that divorce may mean you will die younger, the bottom line is inconclusive.
So I ask you: Is stress good for our health? (You’re shaking your head; that’s a definitive no.)
Is divorce and its aftermath stressful? (Now, you’re nodding; that’s a definite yes.)
Studies concerning divorce and its impacts are problematic. There are too many variables that aren’t addressed, and little usable knowledge drawn from these efforts. Perhaps it’s time we stop funding these studies, and spend our dollars on possible solutions that look to causes.
A few thoughts come to mind:
- Changing marital expectations – not only when we begin marriage, but visualizing it – realistically – 10 years down the line, or 20, or 40.
- Making it harder to marry.
- Dealing with the absurdity of state-specific divorce laws.
- And yes, creating jobs. Don’t we think unemployment and underemployment play into marital strife?
Interpreting Data
I used to like the idea of study for the sake of it. You know – there’s always value in expanding our collective knowledge, value in understanding human behaviors, value in history so we might learn our lessons. I still believe that research is helpful, but I’m less naive than I once was, and also more cynical (realistic?) about underlying agendas.
For every study there is generally a hypothesis. As you try to prove or disprove what is conjecture or observation, you structure your research accordingly, and interpret its results. I’d like to believe that data interpretation is less a matter of bias than “justification” suiting your purposes.
But that’s spin, and yes, I know it.
Still, don’t we all look at data and focus on those aspects that support our beliefs?
Anecdote, Observation, Authenticity, “Gut”
These days, I take all data with a grain of salt.
These days, I trust individual stories, and the complex truths which they embody.
I prefer the experience of the one or the “several” – for reality, credibility, and authenticity – over the glib, the glossy, and the remove of the global statistic.
I prefer disparate experiences to round out my picture – for greater confidence that I will keep an open mind via exposure to a range of possibilities.
But then there is the issue of statistics we once relied upon. For example, once upon a time we were told that married men live longer than single men. Is this another myth like the 7-second sex rule? And what about the married women?
As for data that tries to stamp All Divorce As Bad versus Those Who Are Entitled To Personal Happiness – I say to hell with all of it.
Most agendas boil down to self-interest, to dollars, to matters of morality – one view of morality – and a mission to persuade others.
The Divorce Experience
I know my own divorce (with children) to be a wretched and far-reaching experience.
For those who enter marriage young and idealistic, exiting in short order and before children (the Starter Marriage) may result is far less extensive fall-out.
Starter marriage or not, some who divorce go on to remarry and blend families successfully, particularly in the wake of amicable post-divorce relationships.
Others do not.
I know some for whom marriage is worse than whatever may follow – for the children as well as the adults – the so-called high-conflict marriage or the abusive marriage, wherein ending it is the lesser of two evils.
But why don’t we recognize the Abusive Divorce? Why don’t we acknowledge the reality that divorcing and its impacts may outlive the period of marriage? Why don’t we address this issue like adults – not to place blame, but to reduce its frequency and severity?
Marriage or Committed Cohabitation?
I believe in human relationships – their value, their beauty, and their necessity – for some of us more than others. We derive pleasure and purpose in sharing our lives, we benefit from the socially sanctified expression of our sexuality, we receive elements of security (benefits of various sorts) when we live as an “official” couple.
I admit to skepticism about marriage and divorce statistics as well as their reasoning, a statement Of my sentiments that coexist with belief in the committed relationship and the family unit. But I recognize that none of us can predict what life has in store, nor how we will react. For some, marriage may be a good fit; for others, cohabitation (even with its hidden costs) is the superior option. And, what works at one stage with one partner may not, under other circumstances.
Given the multiplicity of factors that comprise our social, economic, and political challenges, to highlight the demise of enduring marriages as cause or effect seems pointless.
Damaged Institutions, Obvious Agendas
Divorce detritus is emotional, financial, professional, and ideological. It is crippling for some, manageable for others, and every variation in between. To highlight an event that is fraught with stress (that can last for years), and to suggest that it shortens life span seems both obvious and simplistic.
Those who would have us believe that divorce may be tied to (correlated) a shorter life span surely have a Marriage Agenda, just as those who once informed us that married men live longer must have been inclined to convince men to marry.
On the subject of agendas, I will state mine directly. Marriage can be wonderful, marriage can be dreadful, marriage can be a little of both; marriages change, as do we, as do our circumstances.
Marital Rethink?
We should not force the marital agenda where it doesn’t fit. Nor should we shrug at the potentially devastating effects of divorce that we cannot anticipate. But we should seek to rectify the inequities that exist not only in the divorcing process, but in its aftermath.
In the article I cite, I’d like to reference one comment. I smiled when I read it:
[It] should cost $250,000 to get married and $20 to get divorced. We have it backwards.
I’d move a decimal place or two (though not by much), disallow the wedding costs from inclusion in the marital membership fee, and provide some discount credits for legitimate marital education.
Is it really so far-fetched? What about $25,000 to marry and $200 to divorce?
You May Also Enjoy
Divorce doesn’t have to be expensive. Neither does marriage for that matter. I think it cost me about $1,800 total to get married and hopefully will be able to exit for about the same. We’ll see.
Our adversarial system sometimes makes reasonable cost exits very difficult. I hope whatever happens in your situation that it goes as smoothly as possible – calm heads, compromise, and so on. Wishing you all best.
I guess money is something we think about, and that might help us slow down and consider our options first. But I don’t think it would solve things. The problem is that our expectations are all out of whack. We think we can get everything we need emotionally from one relationship, our emotions are tied in knots about financial support, we buy into fairy tales. Marriage is complex. Unless you grew up in the same family (gross), you bring two sets of expectations into this complex mix of desires, needs, joys, sorrows, better and worse.
And I wonder if cohabitating without marriage makes separation easier? I doubt it when kids are involved. Cheaper, perhaps.
I think reading the Huffington Post is bad for your health. Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see. I love this: These days, I trust individual stories, and the complex truths which they embody.
$25,000 to get married sounds right to me.
You probably knew I couldn’t resist this topic! I am pretty open about having an agenda. I am a marriage advocate and I hate divorce.
Cost
“What about $25,000 to marry and $200 to divorce?”
Um, no!
It is the wedding that can be so costly and it doesn’t have to be. But with the absurd focus on weddings rather than what it is to be married, the cost for the wedding is now often well above $25,000. Rather than a financial cost, how about other obstacles. Otherwise marriage will only be for the well-off and sadly that disparity is already being seen on the divorce side of the equation.
An uncontested mutual divorce also does not have to be costly. But it is a bit simplistic to say divorces should cost $200.00. Which part? The court costs? So are the lawyer’s fees not included in that amount? Yes, the system does often promote adversarial divorces. But so does the context of many divorces and thus they may feed off each other.
One spouse leaves and refuses to pay anything for the support of the children or to continue paying bills. They use the excuse that they don’t live there anymore. And yet they up and left only two weeks ago to live with their girl friend in her trailer.
It costs to process the paperwork and go through court just to get a decision requiring the estranged spouse to pay. And then he may still not pay. More court costs?
I’m not a fan of divorce attorneys. Though they aren’t all sharks; some hate divorce as much as I do and are in it for other reasons than to profit and help people stick it to their spouses. And sure, attorney’s charge for a 5 second phone call and maybe they could and should charge less. But they shouldn’t charge nothing. So use mediators? But you need to pay them, maybe not as much, but something.
When there are children involved or just a lot or intertwined assets, there may be a lot to review and separate. There may be a lot to go back-and-forth about even when both parties are cordial. Maybe the $200 flat fee for divorce could be for starter marriages with no assets (or few) and no children. But add children to the mix and it will likely take longer just to settle the terms.
Should it be harder to marry?
I want to say YES. But is that something we can or should regulate more? I mean, where is personal freedom and choice? I do think it should be harder, but some of that difficulty might be more in cultural change so that we don’t have to keep adding legal obstacles. Or in incentives rather than requirements.
Required for High School Graduation
Marriage and Family Coursework
Highly Encouraged College Elective
Marriage and Family Coursework—at least if not available in High School
Required for Marriage
License
Other stuff??? Age requirements…
Encouraged for Marriage—by offering tax credit or some other incentive
Pre-Marital Counseling
Pre-Marital Coursework—required attendance as couples: this time it would be more specific to the individuals in the class, so different from those in High School. Couples who took it together in college may transfer credit if it was within a certain recent period (3 years?)
Research & Data:
“These days, I trust individual stories, and the complex truths which they embody.”
Oh most definitely. But what I find so frustrating is that often people use their story as though it is global evidence. “My parents divorced and I’m fine therefore divorce does not harm children.”Or “I divorced my husband and life is so much better for me and my children now…so it will be better for you too.” Often there are more sides to that story anyway. The kids may not feel fine, or they may and yet there may be an unforeseeable negative impact in the future when they marry and have children. I don’t think that every marriage can or will reconcile because mine did. Admittedly I wish that would be the case—that they would reconcile and be happy and stable. But get real! My story is just another story. It has a happy ending. My best friend Lingy was also a Stander like me—we met in an online support group. Her story does not have a happy ending. No she did not get divorced. She died. And I don’t care what it says was her cause of death, her Stand killed her. We are just two people and our stories span the spectrum from best to worst. What an irony that out of all those people in our support groups, we chose each other to latch onto.
Read my story and Standing saves marriages. Read Lingy’s and Standing kills—literally. Neither is accurate. Lingy and I aren’t data, we are people. But put enough of us together and we can get a clearer picture of the entire group.
As for data… I love it, I hate it. I don’t know what to do with it sometimes because it is needed in what I do. I want to influence change in the divorce laws. To do that studies are needed to provide data. I’m not a liberal Democrat and I’m not a conservative Republican. I vote for people. But people may often assume I’m a conservative Republican or even part of the Religious Right because of what I do. I think I vote more for more democrats and yet if I say which I am I may say a bit more Republican. But I try to hide that because I find the party embarrassing in their intolerance. When I was a college student I wanted to be more of a democrat because they seemed to care about people—and yet I did not always agree with their methods—or the Republican methods. But that is often still how it appears in general; democrats care about people and Republicans care about morality (while sinning just as often as everyone else).
“don’t we all look at data and focus on those aspects that support our beliefs?”
A lot of the data relevant to what I do and need is collected by conservative groups. They have an agenda. But then who doesn’t have an agenda. Why study something without having some sort of interest and possibly a hope that the data will point a certain way. And yes that hope creates a bias. But is it the data that is biased or both the interpretation and manner of collection? Though perhaps if it is the manner of collection, then the data itself is considered to be biased? Should we dismiss data because the collector or examiner hoped for a specific outcome? Maybe we should remain skeptical, we may want to be unbiased, but our subconscious interpretations sneak in, but to dismiss out of hand would be inappropriate.
A lot of people complain about wasted and unnecessary research. But who is one person to deem what is necessary or interesting to others? Often what I think is going on is that the people who think a research project was wasteful do not find it necessary for their lives or the conclusion may not have been to their liking, or they often think the conclusion is a big DUH. The research about marriage and divorce is necessary to and for me. And it is important to my reading audience as well as my personal agenda—regardless of conclusions it is important.
I was just asked for more statistical data on a recent evaluation. ARGH. The commenter acknowledged an understanding as to why I don’t have more, but said she would like it—she thinks it would benefit my forum audience—if I were to start sending out occasional surveys. She admits this would be soft data since it would not be a random population sampling, but she thinks it would be helpful for my people as well as for my own targeting. But since it would be such soft data and the scientist in me cringes. And yet to get hard data…even more cringing with the massive variables and parameters. The training of questioners and the cost would be beyond reach—I think longitudinal studies would be the way to go for a lot of what I want. Ugh, the logistics are just too overwhelming and I’m interested in seeing the results, but not in the collection. It’s one of those things I just wish someone else would take on.
Not all studies that include marriage and divorce as some of the parameters are about marriage and divorce. The Longevity Project which began around 1921 and followed children throughout their lives—a few may still be living and thus the project is still following them. It found that parental divorce in childhood was the greatest factor to earlier death. Now that does not mean young death. Those who experienced their parents’ divorce during childhood lived on average 4 or 4.5 fewer years. The study was not trying to make a statement about marriage and divorce as a main agenda, that was just one of the conclusions. In the book reviewing the study, that little piece of data is just one of many conclusions on a variety of fascinating topics. And now the anti-divorce crowd is running with that little piece, but that doesn’t mean it originated from the anti-divorce crowd.
You know the old saw: Do married couples really live longer? No, it just feels that way. (I must be feeling wicked today.)