|  |
 |
|
EDITORIAL: Father's Day, Part Three |
Bill Hudson | 6/19/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read Part One
As I noted yesterday in Part Two, the rate at which young American women are having babies has stayed pretty steady over the past couple of decades — while at the same time the institution of marriage has seen a marked drop in popularity. 60 percent of the children born to women in their early twenties are now born “out of wedlock.”
I’m assuming — then though I’ve not seen any statistics to support the assumption — that the percentage of unmarried fathers in their early twenties reflects that same 60 percent figure.
I also noted that 50 percent of current American marriages are headed for divorce, according to all of the research I’ve come across.
 So it’s probably understandable that people such as Christian psychologist Dr. Gary Chapman, whom I mentioned in Part One, are concerned about the state of marriage in America. The “old fashioned” view of families — which is really a very modern view — has a “family” consisting of a Father and a Mother in a monogamous relationship, raising their 2.1 children. From the (very little) research I did about Dr. Chapman — I’ve not ever read his book, The Five Love Languages, nor any of his other books such as The Marriage You’ve Always Wanted, The Love Language of God, The Five Love Languages of Children, Love as a Way of Life, and numerous other books — I am guessing that Dr. Chapman probably feels a bit of desperation as he watches the institution of marriage become ever less popular here in America.
It’s still pretty easy for a boy to become a biological father. But it’s much more difficult, it seems, for him to remain married to his children’s mother.
Singer Tina Turner had a number one hit in 1984 with a popular song, the chorus of which went something like this:
What’s love got to do, got to do with it
What’s love but a second-hand emotion
What’s love got to do, go to do with it
Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken
Christian psychologists like Dr. Chapman, who value monogamous marriages and who embrace the American nuclear family model, may see the decline of marriage — and the increase in the number of children who live absent their biological fathers — as a problem related to “love,” or rather a lack thereof. If only American men (and women) could “learn” how to “love” each other more fully, they seem to suggest, then our crumbling families might be salvaged.
But there is another plausible view of our declining rate of family unity, which is quite simply this: men and women are not meant to live in the same house, in a nuclear family. In that view, the nuclear family is a modern model which has finally run its course.
When Dr. Chapman and other marriage experts use the word “love,” it seems to me that they are using this overworked and ambiguous word is a pretty limited sense. What does it really mean for a “father” and “mother” to “love each other”?
“Are you and your spouse speaking the same language?” asks Dr. Chapman’s website, where his books are available for purchase. “While love is a many splendored thing, it is sometimes a very confusing thing, too. And as people come in all varieties, shapes, and sizes, so do their choices of personal expressions of love. But more often than not, the giver and the receiver express love in two different ways. This can lead to misunderstanding, quarrels, and even divorce.
“Dr. Gary Chapman identifies five basic languages of love and then guides couples towards a better understanding of their unique languages of love. Learn to speak and understand your mate’s love language, and in no time you will be able to effectively love and truly feel loved in return.”
Can that be true — that learning a “communication technique” can make me feel “truly loved” by my spouse? Can it really be true that I can save my marriage from divorce by telling my spouse I “love her” even when I am secretly feeling something totally opposite?
The definition of “love” as used by psychologists such as Dr. Chapman seem to be strangely at odds with the definition of “honesty.” And I am compelled to ask: can a relationship that lacks honesty truly be “saved?” Is it even worth saving?
In a marriage relationship, my wife and I may offer each other numerous pleasurable services. Those services may include regular physical and sexual contact, interesting conversation, home-cooked meals, house cleaning, car repairs, care and education of the children, verbal praise for one another’s charming personalities, and possibly even two incomes deposited into a shared bank account.
But in spite of all these benefits, my wife and I find ourselves in regular conflict — so much conflict that in America today, about 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce.
The growing number of absent fathers in America is generally defined as a “problem.” And the main thing that happens when you define anything as a “problem” is that you start to see only one side of the story. When the modern of phenomenon of men and women living separately — with the children living mainly with their single mothers — gets defined as a “problem,” we can easily get stuck looking for ways to “get back to where we used to be.”
But let’s get real here. It seems very likely that over half of American fathers will be living apart from the mother of their children in the coming decades. But subconsciously, many of us still view the nuclear family as the “perfect model” of a loving relationship. That’s crazy. Are we really so blind?
50 percent of American fathers are no longer living with the mothers of their children for one of two basic reasons: either the man finds the relationship unsatisfying, or the woman finds the relationship unsatisfying. And the usual myth is: it’s the man who has chosen to end the relationship — because he doesn’t care enough about raising his own kids. Right?
Dr. Steven Baskerville writes in Catholic World Report:
Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver has shown that at least two-thirds of American divorces are initiated by women. Moreover, few of these divorces involve grounds such as desertion, adultery, or violence. The reasons most often given are ‘growing apart’ or ‘not feeling loved or appreciated.’ Other studies have reached similar conclusions.
In short, the decline of marriage in America — and the growing number of absent fathers — appears to be mainly the result of women who “don’t feel loved,” and who are taking advantage of modern no-fault divorce laws.
I would propose that what America needs is not more advice on how to pretend to "love" each other, but rather an open and honest look at new models for the American family.
The primary situation we are facing is the woman who simply does not want the father of her children to live in the same house with her. Rather than seeing that as a “problem” that can be fixed with silly little solutions like “learning your partner’s Love Language” — can we honestly embrace the differences between women and men, and then go on to develop new and more satisfying ways for children to be around their biological fathers?
Then maybe we will find it less ironic to wish our nation's men "Happy Father's Day." |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|