![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Where's the love?
Jan. 9th, 2011 04:51 pmParents face government fees to split up.
..........wut.
Look, y'know, I get that we don't necessarily want divorce to be something that you can put on and take off like a hat, particularly not where children are involved. But guess what? If you are forcing an unhappy family unit to stay together when they are clearly unhappy, especially where children are concerned, that is not family-friendly.That is ludicrous. What happens if people can't afford those fees? What happens if the 'early mediation' thing doesn't work and it turns out that these two people who got married and had these kids have changed and are no longer compatible? Is raising children in an environment of bitter, government-mandated resignation of a bad situation really what we're after?
*thinks about the whole tuition fee thing*
*thinks about First Past the Post*
*thinks about having to pay for the mistakes of bankers who fucked up our economy and yet are getting big bonuses*
...Apparently, so it is. Is anyone else thinking Orwell's 1984 here? Marriage isn't about love but obligation. Sex isn't about love; it's about procreation. "Think of the children" is the rallying cry ... until it involves actually being an involved parent to one's own, at which point it's someone else's job. I know love isn't something you can spreadsheet, but it isn't something that should be taken out of the equation when it comes to love, sex and family, either.
If my parents had been coerced by government nudging into staying together, I'll tell you how it'd be. My mother'd be miserable. My dad would be miserable. I'd be miserable because you can bet your bottom dollar that one or both of them, consciously or not, would blame my existence for the fact that the government forced them to keep an unworkable marriage going. Neither of them would have learned or grown from the experiences they had afterwards. Mum would never have found my stepdad, with whom she is truly happy, and Dad would not have found my stepmother, with whom he is truly happy.
...Actually, if people had been coerced by government nudging into stay together while in unworkable marriages, I wouldn't even have been born, because my dad would still be with the three-months-pregnant girl he married at age sixteen. (It was the fifties. Dad's way older than Mum. It's a thing.)
So ... yeah, I'm appalled. How are you all today?
..........wut.
Look, y'know, I get that we don't necessarily want divorce to be something that you can put on and take off like a hat, particularly not where children are involved. But guess what? If you are forcing an unhappy family unit to stay together when they are clearly unhappy, especially where children are concerned, that is not family-friendly.That is ludicrous. What happens if people can't afford those fees? What happens if the 'early mediation' thing doesn't work and it turns out that these two people who got married and had these kids have changed and are no longer compatible? Is raising children in an environment of bitter, government-mandated resignation of a bad situation really what we're after?
*thinks about the whole tuition fee thing*
*thinks about First Past the Post*
*thinks about having to pay for the mistakes of bankers who fucked up our economy and yet are getting big bonuses*
...Apparently, so it is. Is anyone else thinking Orwell's 1984 here? Marriage isn't about love but obligation. Sex isn't about love; it's about procreation. "Think of the children" is the rallying cry ... until it involves actually being an involved parent to one's own, at which point it's someone else's job. I know love isn't something you can spreadsheet, but it isn't something that should be taken out of the equation when it comes to love, sex and family, either.
If my parents had been coerced by government nudging into staying together, I'll tell you how it'd be. My mother'd be miserable. My dad would be miserable. I'd be miserable because you can bet your bottom dollar that one or both of them, consciously or not, would blame my existence for the fact that the government forced them to keep an unworkable marriage going. Neither of them would have learned or grown from the experiences they had afterwards. Mum would never have found my stepdad, with whom she is truly happy, and Dad would not have found my stepmother, with whom he is truly happy.
...Actually, if people had been coerced by government nudging into stay together while in unworkable marriages, I wouldn't even have been born, because my dad would still be with the three-months-pregnant girl he married at age sixteen. (It was the fifties. Dad's way older than Mum. It's a thing.)
So ... yeah, I'm appalled. How are you all today?