This newsletter was prepared in advance of our leaving for the "Smart Marriages" Conference in Denver. By the time you read this, our experience in Denver should be history. We are taking a few days for personal rest and relaxation. We will stop back in Waco, Texas on our way home to participate in the fiftieth wedding anniversary celebration for Don and Joyce Ewing. Joyce is Ann's older sister and we congratulate them on their fifty years of married life. Obviously, they didn't believe in the rhetoric of "The Divorce Culture."

In this week's issue Norman reviews Barbara DaFoe Whitehead's book, The Divorce Culture. It is a sobering study and one that needs to be read by everyone who has a passion for families. Some observers may reject her premises on the assumption that she has a political axe to grind. On the contrary, she is very suspicious of government's ability to do anything about the problem. She says "the breakdown of marriage was not caused by changes in the tax codes or divorce laws, and it is unlikely to be resolved by the legislative actions of Congress or the states." She puts the burden of responsibility right back where it belongs - on the individuals who must decide whether to preserve their marriages or end them.

Mikal is back with the second portion of her essay on listening. She skillfully exposes some of our favorite tactic to avoid active listening. Read it carefully. If she doesn't indict you somewhere, you get an A+ for listening.

Norman and Ann

In 1993, Barbara DaFoe Whitehead's article, "Dan Quayle Was Right" was published by Atlantic Monthly. The article challenged the premise that children don't really need two parent families in order to do well. It triggered vigorous debate, which still rages.

The Divorce Culture is an expansion of the views presented in the Atlantic Monthly article. While Whitehead is not opposed to all divorce, she believes that we have developed a "divorce culture," - a culture in which divorce is not only acceptable, but viewed as a desirable approach to personal fulfillment and happiness.

She speaks of the "divorce revolution." She documents her case through historical, demographic and social sources. Divorce was once considered a family tragedy, but in the divorce revolution, divorce is thought to be a healthy form of personal and emotional growth. Whitehead thinks the American public has not only bought into the divorce culture, but we are paying an enormous social price - especially in terms of the way it affects our children.

She analyzes literature on the subject, all the way from popular fiction, children's fiction, to self-help books and advice manuals. She concludes, "The literature engages in a rhetorical shift . . . turning divorce, rather than marriage, into the symbol of mature accomplished identity. It is divorce, not marriage that defines a sense of self and leads to greater maturity and self-knowledge. It is divorce, not marriage that is stimulating, energizing and growth enhancing."

Part of the shift in thinking involves the attitude of married couples toward their children. In earlier times, troubled married couples often agreed to "stay together for the sake of the children." The proponents of the divorce culture argue that the children are better off if the parents don't stay together. We've all heard the rhetoric. It's better for the children not to remain in a home where parents are fighting.

Whitehead looks at the problem from the children's point of view. Virtually nobody ever bothers to ask the children what they think. She says the only window of expression can be found in children's literature. She notes that such literature deals with the loneliness of children. Their emotional instability presents an enormous problem. A child from a divorced family now has two bedrooms. She even cites cases in which lawyers have drawn up legal documents to decide which toys can be used at which house. More frightening is the fact that children's sexual innocence is often lost, especially when parents are sleeping with people without being legally married to their partners.

Whitehead would agree that a child would be better off away from parents who are abusive and violent, but otherwise, she thinks the child has a better chance at stability when the two parents stay together, even though they may not be relating to one another in the most congenial manner. She suggests that the most reliable studies refute the premise that children are better off if the parents divorce. She says, ". . . divorce carries multiple risks and losses for children, including loss of income, loss of ties with father, loss of residential stability, and loss of other social resources." She cites the results of a study published by Harvard University Press (McLanahan and Sandefur) which indicates that "Mothers and children in families that were not poor before separation suffered an average decline in income after divorce of 50 per cent." The poverty rate for children living with divorced mothers is 38 per cent compared to 11 per cent for children in two parent families.

But how are Moms and Dads faring in the divorce culture? Not too well according to Whitehead. For one thing she bemoans the weakened father-child bonds. Most people write that phenomenon off by labeling fathers, "deadbeat dads." That's far too simplistic. She cites the work of social psychologist Robert S. Weiss, who identifies five stages of the downward spiral among divorced fathers.

1. Contact with children is diminished by separate residency.

2. Diminished contact results in diminished involvement with the routines of a child's life.

3. Diminished involvement in a child's routine weakens the incentive for involvement.

4. With less incentive for involvement, the father's role tends to be reduced to one of binding legal obligation (support payments)

5. Eventually emotional disengagement and loss of commitment takes place.

Neither does it work out all that well for mothers. While many mothers believe they will become better mothers when they get out of an unhappy relationship, such a belief often amounts to wishful thinking. Some mothers get caught up in new romances and their relationship with the children suffers. Family life often becomes disorganized and chaotic. Houses fall into disrepair. Divorced mothers are less likely to read to their children, share meals with them and to keep close tabs on schoolwork. Besides that, the mother and the child are quite likely to have different attitudes toward the child's father. A mother's cohabiting or dating experience may well have a profound influence on a teen age daughter's sexual behavior.

She also believes the divorce culture has a devastating effect on society. She says, "The shift from a family world governed by the institution of marriage to one ruled by divorce has brought a steady weakening of primary human relationships and bonds." She suggests that the feminist movement has been largely responsible for promoting the divorce culture, but she does not believe the divorce culture has moved society closer to gender equality. Altruism is lost; commitment becomes a thing of the past.

She argues that the divorce culture must be dismantled for the protection of women and the preservation of a civil society. She contends, ". . .divorce is never merely an individual lifestyle choice without larger consequences for society." To support her premise she cites increased bureaucratic interference in family life, welfare dependency, increased burdens and responsibilities placed on schools, the rising crime rate among juveniles and the increased risks of unwed teen parenthood.

Whitehead believes we must be brutally frank about the social consequences of divorce, that we must stop treating divorce as if it has no moral or social consequences, that we must see children as the key stakeholders in divorce. Most of all, we must work at salvaging marriages. She contends that many marriages are salvageable, but that couples lack the will to pay the price of salvaging their marriages when divorce is regarded as an inconsequential matter. We've also got to place a much higher priority on marriage. One of the most shocking revelations of our low priority is the disappearance of talking about "marriage" among marriage counselors. The leading professional organization of family therapists is the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. In their annual conventions, they rarely discuss marriage. It showed up as a topic only twice in 1992 and not at all in 1993. One wonders why they keep the word "marriage" in their name. She quotes columnist John Leo, who said, "The therapeutic custodians of marriage don't believe in it any more and seem determined not to bolster, promote, or even talk about it much."

Finally she suggests that we must go beyond calling for stronger families and better marriages. We've got to address the fundamental issues that are driving a wedge between men and women in our society. She laments the public cynicism that causes men and women to doubt whether they can live together in a lasting marriage. She calls for a change of mind and heart and pleads with her readers to turn away from ". . . the contemporary model of relationships offered by Madison Avenue, Wall Street or Hollywood."

Barabara DaFoe Whitehead does not write from a Biblical perspective. Hers is a pragmatic point of view, but in terms of marriage and family, she comes out at a place that is "not far from the kingdom."

There are several skills that have already been noted which can assist in listening well. But just as there are skills to perform there are barriers and blocks to healthy communication which must be avoided. Following is a discussion of some of these:

• NEEDING TO WIN will prevent the listener from really understanding what the speaker is saying. When the listener needs to win he/she is acting out of fear and low self-worth. Time will be spent on debating rather than solving the problem. Both parties lose.

• DERAILING OR BEING IRRELEVANT will avoid the intended subject altogether by changing to a totally unrelated topic. The speaker will feel most invalidated. The relationship will suffer.

• MIND-READING is listed by many experts on the topic of listening as a barrier to the process. Mind-reading is impossible. To attempt to do so will prevent you from paying attention to what is really said. Whatever your spouse says, you can check it out with the skills of paraphrasing or clarifying.

• PLACATING used repeatedly will end honest communication. A healthy partner wants to share information with you and wants genuine feedback. Placating inhibits the growth of true intimacy.

• PROBLEM SOLVING interrupts the process of being heard for the speaker. If the listener enters into finding solutions before the speaker has asked, the speaker will not feel heard, the desired end of listening well.
• JUDGING what your partner is saying will also inhibit honest communication. The speaker will not feel safe to share him or herself in the future. It is up to the listener to be inviting and accepting of what the speaker is saying. Then the speaker will want to share again.
• SELECTIVE LISTENING is quite effective at frustrating the speaker. A selective listener will pick out only parts of a message and miss the true message in doing so. A selective listener does so to his or her advantage. Such a listener will hear only the parts that are desirable or will hear only the parts of a message which can be attacked.

Virginia Satir wrote:

I believe The greatest gift
I can conceive of having
From anyone
Is
To be seen by them,
Heard by them,
To be understood
And
Touched by them.
The greatest gift
I can give
Is
To see, hear, understand and
to touch another person.
When this is done
I feel
Contact has been made.

Listening well can help accomplish such contact between a husband and wife.