Be careful who you marry.....

[Boris Bajic]

I wasn't trivializing the absence of a mother - I'm sorry if it came across that way. The point, which may seem insensitive but is no less important for it, is that the value of motherhood has nothing whatever to do with femininity. As to your last sentence, the very point of Smith's argument is to distinguish between the two things which you once again help to yoke together. We have made children's fortunes the hostage to our extremely constrained notions of fidelity and honesty - notions which, I might add, have no right to claim a monopoly on affection, respect, and love.

It didn't come across that way (trivialising). I might have sounded spiky in my reply, but I was just trying to put into words things whose words are hard to write. It wasn't deliberate.

I have (reluctantly) to agree that motherhood and femininity are not the same thing and often quite different things. I blur concepts and confuse one with the other. I stand corrected.

I also accept my yoking together of the topics Smith distinguishes. To my mind (and I am often wrong) the wellbeing of children is and always has been hostage to the caprices and jealousies of their parents and the adults around them. And also to fortune itself. It is in the nature of childhood to be bewildered and baffled by the storm overhead. It is in the nature of parents to say "We've spoken to them and they understand". Usually they do not understand.

I do not mean this in a snotty "what would she know" way, but I'm not sure that Smith has children. She may, but I am under the impression that she does not. I imagine she had parents, which is the other half of the equation. The former fact is of limited consequence, but it may inform her thinking. I have valid opinions on space travel although I'm not an astronaut, but my lack of time in outer space informs my thinking.

I agree absolutely that fidelity and honesty have no claim to a monopoly on affection, respect and love. But I see them drinking together more often than I do dishonesty, infidelity and the other three.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Now that the thread has died down...

I note that many of those who posted their own negative experience of break-up are the wronged party who did everything they could to smooth things over and keep it civilised, but were thwarted by an ex or the ex of their new spouse of their spouse... or similar.

Where are all the posts saying "My ex's new spouse is utterly reasonable and cares very well for the children, but I am a nasty, controlling piece of work and have dedicated myself to ruining his/her new marriage"?

I suspect there may be an extent to which it suits people to heap all the malefaction and accusations of personal enmity onto another party whilst saying "I was lovely to him/her and did all I could to make things work". There may be some clouding of judgement where one is required to judge one's own behaviour.

Being a poor judge of character carries a penalty. In marriages, it seems from this thread that the penalty is large and is paid in part by the offspring.

I find that sad.

 

[Puddles]

Now that the thread has died down...

I note that many of those who posted their own negative experience of break-up are the wronged party who did everything they could to smooth things over and keep it civilised, but were thwarted by an ex or the ex of their new spouse of their spouse... or similar.

Where are all the posts saying "My ex's new spouse is utterly reasonable and cares very well for the children, but I am a nasty, controlling piece of work and have dedicated myself to ruining his/her new marriage"?

I suspect there may be an extent to which it suits people to heap all the malefaction and accusations of personal enmity onto another party whilst saying "I was lovely to him/her and did all I could to make things work". There may be some clouding of judgement where one is required to judge one's own behaviour.
.

Bingo! and there is the reason why I wish to push the Ex-mil under a bus because, of course we all realise that "it takes two" - oh and in case my type is not quite clear on my tone, that would be sarcastic biatch!

I am going to go and sit on my hands now.

 

[Sara_H]

Now that the thread has died down...

I note that many of those who posted their own negative experience of break-up are the wronged party who did everything they could to smooth things over and keep it civilised, but were thwarted by an ex or the ex of their new spouse of their spouse... or similar.

Where are all the posts saying "My ex's new spouse is utterly reasonable and cares very well for the children, but I am a nasty, controlling piece of work and have dedicated myself to ruining his/her new marriage"?

I suspect there may be an extent to which it suits people to heap all the malefaction and accusations of personal enmity onto another party whilst saying "I was lovely to him/her and did all I could to make things work". There may be some clouding of judgement where one is required to judge one's own behaviour.

Being a poor judge of character carries a penalty. In marriages, it seems from this thread that the penalty is large and is paid in part by the offspring.

I find that sad.

Hmmm.... well to be fair if you go back and read my posts you'll find that I have on more than one occasion mentioned how me and my ex husband work together for the best interests of our son. And the reason that those of us who are reasonable and in your words "wronged" are more vocal is because those who've broken up families and hurt their own children through pure selfishness tend not to be very proud of the fact and so keep quiet.

But you can't control other peoples behaviour, we have real problems with my step sons Mum. Thats the way it is. Every one around the kids can see the harm it's doing, the only person who can't is the woman herself.

 

[BigonaBianchi]

It takes two to make a marriage and two to break it.

 

[Sara_H]

It takes two to make a marriage and two to break it.

Not always.

 

[theclaud]

It didn't come across that way (trivialising). I might have sounded spiky in my reply, but I was just trying to put into words things whose words are hard to write. It wasn't deliberate.

I have (reluctantly) to agree that motherhood and femininity are not the same thing and often quite different things. I blur concepts and confuse one with the other. I stand corrected.

I also accept my yoking together of the topics Smith distinguishes. To my mind (and I am often wrong) the wellbeing of children is and always has been hostage to the caprices and jealousies of their parents and the adults around them. And also to fortune itself. It is in the nature of childhood to be bewildered and baffled by the storm overhead. It is in the nature of parents to say "We've spoken to them and they understand". Usually they do not understand.

I do not mean this in a snotty "what would she know" way, but I'm not sure that Smith has children. She may, but I am under the impression that she does not. I imagine she had parents, which is the other half of the equation. The former fact is of limited consequence, but it may inform her thinking. I have valid opinions on space travel although I'm not an astronaut, but my lack of time in outer space informs my thinking.

I agree absolutely that fidelity and honesty have no claim to a monopoly on affection, respect and love. But I see them drinking together more often than I do dishonesty, infidelity and the other three.

Liking the subtle misrepresentation! "Our constrained notions of fidelity and honesty" was what I said - the point being that particular forms of behaviour might connote honesty or pass for fidelity, whilst in fact concealing forms of dishonesty - not least dishonesty with ourselves. Which isn't meant to imply that some form of absolute honesty is the necessarily the thing to which we must aspire, but merely to try and rattle the enduring and monumental complacency of bourgeois morality.

And I'm afraid your ludicrous astronaut analogy looks just about as "snotty" as it is possible to be, disclaimers notwithstanding. But of course the voluntarily and/or happily childless/childfree woman continues to be a threat to the normative nuclear family and its values, even as such values are inevitably losing their grip - so dismissal or ridicule of her perspective is one of the obvious strategies left to those determined to defend them at all costs. Doesn't make it any less disappointing or shabby.

 

[ColinJ]

It takes two to make a marriage and two to break it.

Is that a typo?

It does take two people to build a good relationship, but it only takes one selfish, lying, violent b***ard to destroy it!

 

[Sara_H]

Is that a typo?

It does take two people to build a good relationship, but it only takes one selfish, lying, violent b***ard to destroy it!

Yes, well said.

 

[ColinJ]

Yes, well said.

Obviously, sometimes fate throws two selfish, lying, violent b***ards together, but hopefully they either split up or kill each other before they get round to having any kids!