Why shouldn't women LTB?

[SunshineSuperNova]

This thread is prompted by two recent threads about the Relationship section.

It seems to me that 'society' is threatened by the thought that a woman might, of her own volition, up and leave a bad relationship. In my case, it was suggested I LTB because my DH is an alcoholic. Perfectly reasonable: but other commenters suggested I was 'selfish' and 'not taking my vows seriously' and that I should support him because he has a disease.

It seems that the 'grand narrative' is that the woman should stay with her man no matter how shitty the relationship. And this is reinforced by, for example, mainstream films. Second marriages are alway shown as flimsy, throwaway and meaningless, and the ex-wife pines after the husband she cruelly threw away. Two recent-ish offenders are 'Liar, Liar' and 'Die Hard'.

What do you think? Why is the default advice for women to stay and hold everything together, no matter how crap her man is treating her?

[DioneTheDiabolist]

My posts were in response to two posts on pg1.
So women need justification for leaving a relationship do they?
And
I think the default is that it should be a last resort. But why should it be?

[Yougotbale]

Cailindana - definitely not a good reason is, 'I left because people on the Internet told me'. So who cares what advice is given on a thread?

[CailinDana]

Certainly not I. Fwiw I'm totally in the AF/BBE camp on this one - if you want to leave a relationship, then leave.

[SinisterSal]

'just because they save the world from destruction does not mean they've changed'




sorry.....I'll go back to lurking

[BasilBabyEater]

But tbh I haven't actually understood your responses Diane.

I still don't understand why the default should be to stay in a relationship rather than to leave one.

Except that it will make you poorer if you don't, so it's sensible to accept that you have to be unhappy for the next 10 years or however long it's considered reasonable to stick it out for before you're judged to have got to the stage of last resort.

No-one ever says how long the unhappiness should be allowed to last and also no-one says how much work the other party in the relationship should be doing in order to explore the causes of unhappiness - if any. I'm still fairly in the dark as to the rules re that.

[CaptChaos]

Dionne The reason the PWC is often still worse off 5 years later tends to be down to childcare costs (money and time).

Basil, how do you suggest this can be avoided?

By making the NRP pay a reasonable amount towards their children's care, enforcing this properly, up to and including prison. Far too many NRP's are financially abusive toward their children and governments need to legislate to stop that happening, this is true of both male and female NRPs (although the majority of NRPs are female). Some people (women) stay in abusive shitty relationships for too long due to the fear of poverty or losing their present standard of living and how this will affect their children. This has been true for many people I know, and while I am well aware that the plural of anecdote isn't data, it does seem to be borne out by a lot of the LTB threads I've read on here.

The NRP is often better off because they do not have the money, energy and time sapping children. Hence they are referred to as NRP.

No, they are referred to as the NRP because they aren't resident in the same house as the children the majority of the time, not because they see their children as some kind of parasite. If it was seen as normal that NRPs (in most cases men) or in fact men within relationships took 50% of the responsibility for their children's care, then the balance of poverty would undoubtedly change.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

Basil the default position referred to was not staying, rather it was leaving as a last resort. In non-abusive relationships leaving should really only happen as a last resort for the reasons I mentioned.

Captchaos, children are money, energy and time sapping. It doesn't make them parasites.. It makes them children. As the PWC spends more time with them than a NRP, it stands to reason that most of the time, money and energy put into the DCs will be the PWC's.

[scallopsrgreat]

To suggest that someone needs 'justification' to leave a relationship suggests that they have to validate their reasons for leaving according to someone else's view of the world/relationship. Who gets to decide whether another person's reasons for leaving are valid? It sounds very controlling and basically is what has been done to women for centuries to keep them in relationships. The messages are still their now, as the OP alludes to, from media, films etc. Women, by and large know the consequences for them of leaving a relationship and those consequences are often worse than for men.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

Ultimately it is the DCs who decide whether the decision to leave was justified as it is they who live estranged from one parent and often in reduced circumstances without having any input. No one else really matters.

[SinisterSal]

I don't think an adults' vague sense of dissatisfaction should trump a childs' sense of security. (i am not talking about deep unhappiness or abuse here)

A breakup, even the most amicable type, affect children. They hate any kind of change for a start, before you add in missing the absent parent, the financial implications and all that goes with it.

So, yeah, for parents of young children there should be a good reason to split. Relationships have a strong social aspect to them, they impact on the people around. They are not only about the people in them.

[BasilBabyEater]

The reasons you mentioned Diane, were mainly financial.

[CailinDana]

Do people leave otherwise happy relationships because of a "vague sense of dissatisfaction"?

[AnyFucker]

Only twats do that, and I don't want to be partnered with a twat thanks very much. Off you pop, twatface.

I don't get why people would pressurise anyone to keep it together with such a person. I would be packing the bags, swigging wine and singing hallelujah as they walked out the door, tbh.

[BasilBabyEater]

Well yes, exactly.

Why would anyone think that someone who is so destructive and selfish, would be a good role model as a parent?

I'm seriously struggling to grasp this.

I understand that his or her purse or wallet is valuable, I do.

But I also think there are more important things than a family's standard of living - I think emotional and psychological health is immensely more important, call me a hippy.

[CailinDana]

Well exactly AF. I seriously doubt that many nice sane people in good relationships wake up one morning and think "hmmm feeling a bit vaguely dissatisfied today. Think I'll kick that lovely family of mine to the kerb."

[DioneTheDiabolist]

Basil the first and main argument I made was DC welfare. Indeed I said that where there are no DCs, no justification was really needed to LTB.

[scallopsrgreat]

Well exactly CailinDana. Least of all women with young children.

Why is separation automatically considered a negative impact for children? What about living with unhappy parents? Is that not a negative impact? In fact is the negative impact that people consider happens when a relationship splits sometimes actually the result of the build up to that split?

[scallopsrgreat]

And what AF said.

[CailinDana]

I would always think living with not much money is better for children than living with two unhappy parents and that seems to be borne out by a recent thread with so many people saying they wished their own parents had separated.

[BasilBabyEater]

But you don't explain why the welfare of the children is adversely affected by a break up except from an economic POV Diane.

Which is a valid point, but unhappy parents who don't like each other, can wreak an awful lot more damage to a child, than growing up in poverty can.

And also we're back to the thing of the threat of poverty being used as a means to keep unhappy people together. It makes sense on one level to agree to stay together to maintain a good standard of living, but only if both people respect and value each other. If they don't, then what they're teaching their DC's about life and relationships, is incredibly destructive IMO.

[FloraFox]

Dione how unhappy do you have to be to justify leaving a relationship? I don't get this, how do you measure it?

When DH and I were engaged and talking about the future, his attitude was (and is) that we would be together forever, through thick and thin, come what may. My attitude was (and is) we'll be together forever etc. unless we're not happy any more. He thought this meant I wouldn't take my vows seriously. I don't agree, I would try to make things better, address problems etc. more than if we were just in a casual relationship but I couldn't live in an unhappy marriage, it would be too corrosive for everyone.

He probably wonders every now and then if I'm going to fuck off for no good reason just as I sometimes wonder if he's only staying out of some sense of obligation. According to some people on this thread, we shouldn't have gotten married as we don't see eye to eye on this. But since we've bumbled along for nearly 20 years it's just as well I didn't post on here and ask for advice at the start not that I would have paid any attention to it.

[SinisterSal]

Well is justification needed or not then?
It's up to the person themselves, whether other people feel it's warranted or not. No matter if anyone here thinks they are destructive, selfish, self indulgent or whatever. or if their kids or ex partner thinks it

[CaptChaos]

dione children are money, energy and time sapping. It doesn't make them parasites. It makes them children.

Children are money, energy and time consuming whether a couple are together or not. Something that saps energy, time and money is a parasite, not a child.

As the PWC spends more time with them than a NRP, it stands to reason that most of the time, money and energy put into the DCs will be the PWC's.

However, if, as I said before, the NRP has their child support payments enforced and they take their parenting responsibilities as seriously as the PWC then this won't be the case, will it.

It's a win-win for some people though. They get to look down their noses at women people who leave or are left by their partners, because they 'should have worked harder at the relationship'. It enables NRPs to not take financial responsibility for their children by not enforcing child maintenance decisions. Then they get to vilify women PWCs who have to fall back on the social security system in order to help to pay for those children the NRP has decided they don't have to pay for/have anything to do with.