Even the NYT has recognized the problem with the divorce culture.
Even in a "good divorce," in which parents amicably minimize their conflicts, children of divorce inhabit a more difficult emotional landscape than those in intact families, according to a new survey of 1,500 people ages 18 t0 35.
I found the article interesting because the second half talked about the ways divorce affects children, especially the inner conflict the child feels: to which parent should s/he be loyal? which parent's values should come first? The effort to reconcile "two worlds" is hard on the children.
I've read about such things before, of course, but this morning it dawned on me: If the inner conflict is one of the worst ways divorce affects children, why do we praise the non-custodial parent who sticks around? Might children be better off if one of the spouses gets out of the children's lives?
It's a revolutionary idea, I realize, and awfully harsh, but maybe we oughtta be prepared to tell the philandering or abusive husband: Get out and don't come back. Let the mother find the children a father who might really care for the family, who cares enough to be faithful to the spouse. The best father, after all, is the man who loves the child's mother.
The idea is full of problems, of course. For starters: Which parent gets kicked out? And how far away does the kicked-out parent need to go? Will a divorced mother really find such an ideal new father (a possibility, but not a likelihood, I'm guessing).
But I'd like this idea to get more consideration. If nothing else, perhaps we can stop assuaging guilt-ridden parents with the idea that they can be good parents by setting up a second home and bringing the children there on Wednesdays and the weekends. They can't. The only way you can be a good parent is by loving the children's mother or father. Anything less is a charade.
