Update on Wanting to Leave Marriage

[yjacket]

You don't think calling your child "stupid" and "retard" (don't even get me started on the usage of that word, at all) is abusive?

Actually it depends on how it is being used-it certainly can be abusive, but it may not be depending on the context and the situation. Because yes, kids can be really dumb at times; big difference in saying to a child "well that xyz behavior you did was stupid" vs. "you are stupid".  

[Vort]

You don't think calling your child "stupid" and "retard" (don't even get me started on the usage of that word, at all) is abusive?

 

In the literal sense of the word, yes, I think it's abusive.

 

But you said that absence is better than abuse. If this is what you meant by "abuse", I strongly disagree. Shame on any father who calls his child stupid -- but a present father who occasionally loses his temper and calls his child a nasty name is still a great deal better than an absent father.

[yjacket]

In the literal sense of the word, yes, I think it's abusive.

 

But you said that absence is better than abuse. If this is what you meant by "abuse", I strongly disagree. Shame on any father who calls his child stupid -- but a present father who occasionally loses his temper and calls his child a nasty name is still a great deal better than an absent father.

Amen brother.

[Vort]

Funny topic. I remember one time when I was a teenager and my mom told us -- all six children -- that she hated us. We had driven her to insanity (almost literally), and She. Had. Had. It. This was not the only time she said something nasty to us, but it was one of the more egregious.

 

I can hear the mothers (and many fathers) on this forum shaking their heads in sympathy, commiserating with her and ruing that any mother should be driven to such an extreme by selfish brats. I doubt anyone would condone my mother's statement, but would anyone here seriously say that I and my siblings would have been better off without her? I assure you, we would not have been. She was (and remains) one of the great blessings of our lives.

 

Yet many would condemn men for pretty much the same conduct, getting frustrated and saying something stupid. Better that he was absent, completely uninvolved in the children's lives, than that he might sometimes say something nasty.

 

Fathers are important.

 

Fathers are important.

 

Yes, even we fathers who are less than perfect. Even we fathers who sometimes raise our voices. Even we who are impatient when we shouldn't be. Even we who exhibit our immaturity when the situation calls for adult judgment.

 

I daresay even those fathers who sometimes curse or who might even call their kids "stupid" on occasion -- evil though such actions are -- are still important, and that their children are still MUCH, MUCH BETTER OFF with them than without them. I am disappointed that any Saint, much less those I admire, might not agree with this most obvious truth.

[Guest]

It sounds like this is regular behavior though, not "on occasion" behavior. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I have to disagree with you there. Absent is better than abusive.

I agree. As child, I was ecstatic when my mom divorced her first husband who abused both of us. My only regret is that she didn't do it sooner.

[Sunday21]

I agree with above. A great day when my father left.

[Vort]

It sounds like this is regular behavior though, not "on occasion" behavior. 

 

Eowyn, where do you think the line should be drawn? How "regular" must "regular behavior" of calling a child "stupid" be before the father's important presence is better done without? Once a day? Once a week? Once a month? What's the magic number?

 

Do you apply the same standards to imperfect mothers who do stupid and hurtful things to their children? Does "She's doing the best she knows how" have any application at all? Because bad is bad, even if it's someone's best. If it matters, how about "He's doing the best he can"? Even if his "best" is calling his own children "stupid"?

 

The obvious gap in how we treat men vs. how we treat women rankles, I admit. But the bottom-line question is: How bad is too bad? And who is to make that judgment?

[Guest]

I think common sense needs to be applied so I'm not even sure how to communicate with you about it. I feel like whatever I say, you're going to argue back at me. So I'll just say, if daily interactions with either parent tear down a child's self worth more than building them up and creating a loving, nurturing environment, it's worth considering that the absence of that parent might be better than the daily tearing down of a child. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I don't care to argue nits to your satisfaction. 

[Vort]

 

I feel like whatever I say, you're going to argue back at me.

 

So then, my appropriate place in a discussion on this list is to listen to and accept at face value anything you care to write? Anything I say in response is now considering arguing?

 

I'm sure you'll disagree, but I don't care to argue nits to your satisfaction. 

 

Wow. I honestly had no idea that you thought that way about me. This is not the first time I have had such a surprise on this list, but it is no less unpleasant for not being the first time.

[Guest]

I'm sorry if I misread the situation, but I do honestly feel like a handful of people here try to win arguments by beating their opponent into submission, and that's how I'm feeling here.

[Backroads]

So it's good for a child to suffer daily at the hands or words of his parent because said parent only has to be around to be an okay parent? How does this scenario better the child? Have you compared stats of children in fatherless homes to children in abusive homes?

This seems to come down to a simple situation: if you have the power to remove a child from an abusive home... don't.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Backroads

[estradling75]

I'm sorry if I misread the situation, but I do honestly feel like a handful of people here try to win arguments by beating their opponent into submission, and that's how I'm feeling here.

 

You might not care for certain poster styles but I think the question is valid. Certain things are very horrid. Abuse is one of them.  However it seems now a day we are calling everything abusive.  When we do that we justify taking equally horrid actions ourselves (destroying families)

[The Folk Prophet]

Ah yes...the beating of others into submission...with......good logic and hard questions?

 

Is that abusive too? (I couldn't resist.)

 

But seriously...beating into submission?

[Guest]

Nice, FP. that was flat-out rude, and now I suppose you'll mock me again for thinking so.

I didn't say I don't like Vort, first of all, so that's not fair. I do find the communication style of some to be frequently abrasive, and I'm not the first to say so.

Its not that I'm saying the question is invalid, maybe just that the line of questioning feels more like Spanish Inquision than back-and-forth conversation meant for mutual understanding (not necessarily agreement). Between Vort and yjacket and now 2 more of you, I feel like I'm being made out to be a man-hating home wrecker with no respect for fatherhood, which couldn't be further from the truth.

I have specified more than once that I am talking about either parent, and I've also specified that we are talking about a frequent problem with verbal abuse. The OP used the word "constantly", which I interpret to mean several times a day. Calling a child "bad", "stupid", "retard", etc. several times a day, to me, constitutes abuse. I never said that the occasional loss of temper or slip of the tongue or other mistake that we all make is abuse, and I suppose my reaction is offense at being painted that way.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Eowyn

[The Folk Prophet]

Nice, FP. that was flat-out rude, and now I suppose you'll mock me again for thinking so.

 

Sorry, but you've responded to me in the same way (as do, as you say, others). I have a problem with people who react to questions and logic as if it's "beating people up". If someone calls someone rude when they are then that is legitimate (which, in this case, I suppose I was "rude" -- though the big grinning face and the "I couldn't resist" was meant to imply casual and playful rather than "flat out rude", though in retrospect, based on the fact that you were already offended by feeling "beat up", I suppose I should have resisted). When someone claims another is beating them up, picking on them, ganging up on them, etc. when it's just a matter of disagreement by way of logic and questioning then that is a bogus thing.

 

I didn't say I don't like Vort, first of all, so that's not fair. 

 

I didn't say you said that you didn't like Vort. So I'm not sure what you point is.

 

maybe just that the line of questioning feels more like Spanish Inquision than back-and-forth conversation meant for mutual understanding (not necessarily agreement). Between Vort and yjacket and now 2 more of you, I feel like I'm being made out to be a man-hating home wrecker with no respect for fatherhood, which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

If your point of view is legitimate and you can stand behind it, then do so. Don't accuse others of picking on you.

 

(Point of note: I see both sides of the conversation equally and only joined in by way of supporting what I felt was an invalid attack on Vort. I think your point of view is legitimate and you could easily go head to head on the points without resorting to the personal claims of being beat up.)

 

I have specified more than once that I am talking about either parent, and I've also specified that we are talking about a frequent problem with verbal abuse. The OP used the word "constantly", which I interpret to mean several times a day. Calling a child "bad", "stupid", "retard", etc. several times a day, to me, constitutes abuse. I never said that the occasional loss of temper or slip of the tongue or other mistake that we all make is abuse, and I suppose my reaction is offense at being painted that way.

 

Then point these things out to Vort if he's missed them somehow or didn't understand you.

Edited January 20, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

I have specified more than once that I am talking about either parent, and I've also specified that we are talking about a frequent problem with verbal abuse. The OP used the word "constantly", which I interpret to mean several times a day. Calling a child "bad", "stupid", "retard", etc. several times a day, to me, constitutes abuse. I never said that the occasional loss of temper or slip of the tongue or other mistake that we all make is abuse, and I suppose my reaction is offense at being painted that way.

 

We all color things with our own experience...  For example I have done things that are foolish and stupid (we all have) then a few years later do it again and have my wife tell me I am doing it "constantly".  Years apart but "constantly"  She uses the word as an intensifier to convey how she feels about it.  Once I learned this we stopped getting into fights about how unfair she was being (because I viewed it more conventionally)

 

Given that how people treat our kids can be a trigger for strong emotions I am less inclined to read into constantly certain number or time frame.

 

Which brings us back to the initial question (not just for Eowyn but for everyone) at what point does the damage caused by parental weakness overcome the damage caused by an absent parent?

[Guest]

I am abusive.  I thank God everyday that my husband AND CHILDREN don't just up and give up on me.

 

It doesn't matter that children do not understand words or remember incidents from age 3 by age 30.  Children learn by being sponges.  Do you remember learning to speak in sentences?  No.  You learned it by conditioning.  Do you remember learning to be moral?  No.  You learned it by conditioning.  That's how children grow up - they learn through the conditions of their environment - positive and negative feedback.  They learn more from the emotions than the words when you call them stupid - and know that they're not loved at that moment and after repeated exposure starts to learn that that's the normal expression of displeasure that he will eventually apply when he is put in that position.

 

THAT'S WHY it's important to have both a Father and a Mother - both male and female traits in constant cooperation in a child's environment for him to absorb.

 

Now, what happens to the child if one parent becomes abusive?  Well, abuse goes against the light of Christ - he'll instinctively know it's not a good thing.  But, if there's no positive influence for the child to make sense out of it and to take refuge, he'll eventually begin to think this is normal and absorbs it as a learned behavior that will eventually manifest itself when he himself has to react to some stimuli - he'll react the way the abuser reacts (the cycle of abuse continues with the child as he grows up and starts his own family).  As the "better parent" - your positive influence can protect and insulate the child from the abuse, teach the child that it is wrong (by your own reactions to the abuse), and at the same time learn that people are not perfect but are still loved (by your actions as well) - while the abuser tries to work on bettering themselves.  It is then imperative that you help the abuser learn better coping mechanisms, reactions, and communication skills than lashing out in abuse.  This is the marriage covenant - to help you and your spouse come closer to Christ - something the child will also absorb.  The abusive spouse is not going to be open to learning if he sees you as an enemy instead of an ally.

 

I hear the argument of an absent father is better than an abusive father and I understand the sentiment behind it.  But I have a different take on the matter.  A loving mother checking the abuse of the father is a better lesson for the child than the "dump when the going gets tough" lesson.

Edited January 20, 2016 by anatess

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I think common sense needs to be applied . . .

Im with you Eowyn. The thing is each situation is different. We can't create one size fits all rules around this issue because there are too many variable factors.

As Latter Day Saints we have some extra help though. That's why I tell people in these situations to fast, pray and get a blessing. Then perhaps do it all again because some situations require MUCH fasting and prayer.

As humans we have certain limitations, and we see thing through the lens of our own experience which may or may not help someone else's situation. But the Lord not only sees the beginning from the end, but He knows our hearts. So He is the perfect one to advise in such situations.

[Guest MormonGator]

I'm sorry if I misread the situation, but I do honestly feel like a handful of people here try to win arguments by beating their opponent into submission, and that's how I'm feeling here.'s

 No, you aren't alone Eowyn. I've noticed that too. It's tough because I want to give people the benefit of the doubt-somtimes words don't come across right here. But I agree with you. 

 

The internet also attracts people who enjoy arguing. Not debating or discussing, but arguing. Lit said it best, that there is a huge difference between the two. 

 

The best thing to do is to remember that we are all brothers and sisters and should show respect, even if we disagree. You don't to write anything you wouldn't want your mother to see. I honestly wonder sometimes-what would your mother think? Are you proud of yourself? Are you using the internet because you have anger issues? 

Edited January 20, 2016 by MormonGator