Are any of these from this decade. You know statistics change as society does. 50 years ago, studies would've shown a much larger anti-women-working percentile than a study done each decade until now, with each one getting smaller and smaller. Pretty much, if it's over 10 years old, get a new one, it's irrelevant.

and im saying that basing your overall opinions solely on the people you know is ignorant. youre biased.

And you're not? lol Look, keeping a marriage just because of the kids is more psychologically damaging than getting a divorce. Oddly, some twat today in speech class was trying to say the same thing you are. She even had the gall to say that even if /sexual and physical abuse exists/ it is better to get counseling than divorce. Her reasons were that chicks needed a father figure (yeah, she only spoke of chicks) and that divorce damages future relationships. Because teaching your kids to withstand abuse instead of getting out of bad relationships is totally the message you want to propagate, amirite? lol

no, im not biased. because ive based my opinions around other peoples research as opposed to my own observations. and congratulations for showing real stupidity by making up things that i am saying!! PLEASE, tell me where did i ever say ANYTHING about staying in marriages because of the kids sake. personally i think thats a stupid idea as well! im just saying that kids whose parents are divorced are more likely to have rough childhoods. not once did i say anything about parents needing to stay in self-destructing marriages for the kids sake, what a stupid idea! you cant really argue a point with me if i agree with the point being made. also, im not sure what middle school you attend, but that girl is an idiot. she wasnt saying the same thing im saying! im not even saying anything about staying in hopeless marriages! if you could read past a seventh grade level youd be able to understand that. well, actually, it doesnt even take a seventh grader... i actually believe the opposite of everything she said. so what exactly are you arguing here?? because its not anything relevant to anything i have said.

Bias: a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. It has nothing to do with where you base your opinion, if you are biased your judgement is initially inhibited no matter what. You will ignore facts that are against your opinion. "im just saying that kids whose parents are divorced are more likely to have rough childhoods." How is this /not/ saying that divorce is bad for kids, thus people should stay married for the kids? And it's college buddy. I'd not insult others' intelligence and reading levels when you can't even type correctly yourself. Seriously, your text hurts to read. Also, you are being fallacious; you think constantly insulting others is going to improve your argument? You're blowing hot air. And none of your facts were even recent. When doing research, using data from within the last five years is the optimum, not within the last 10+. Otherwise it is highly likely the data is already expired.

You're right. "Biased" was not the right word. The word I was looking for was "ignorant". ""im just saying that kids whose parents are divorced are more likely to have rough childhoods." How is this /not/ saying that divorce is bad for kids, thus people should stay married for the kids?" There are more reasons than just that one for why people stay in bad marriages. I did not say that people in bad marriages should stay married for their kids. I was simply stating the effect of divorce on the majority of children coming from divorced parents. I never said that "because of this all married couples with children should stay together". That is ridiculous. People in failing marriages should NOT stay married just for the sake of their kids. Are you surprised that I agree with you? You shouldn't be. I've been agreeing with you this whole time. Come on now, Grammar Guy. There are people on here "WiT uH lOt BaDd3r TiPiNg TheN meH". If I come home from school and I'm tired of writing properly and having to care about whether or not the periods go before the quotation marks and if I used a semicolon correctly, then I think I can type how I would like to type. In ten years do you really think I'm going to worry about whether or not I used correct grammar on fmylife.com? No, so why worry about it now? It's pointless stress and I find it rather funny that others care so much about the way a person that they've never met types on a blog site. You: "You sound like some angry kid who can't get over himself." Now what is this? It looks like the pot is calling the kettle black. :) At least there is data for what I'm saying. I bet you won't find any data, whether it's from this year or a hundred years ago, that states that "the majority of children whose parents get divorced have better childhoods than children whose parents stay together". If so, I would really be interested in seeing it.

I was not insulting. I was saying that is what he was sounding like. If I wanted to insult, I would have said "you're just some whiny [etc]" And no, really, I don't personally care, but you can't go around saying "if you have an education above seventh grade" and type like you don't. That was what I was meaning, dear. You should have worded it better, actually. Saying what you said does quite imply that divorce is just too horrible on children to bear. The data I have been supporting this time, that staying in a marriage just for the sake of the children, is all in psychology textbooks. I can go to great lengths and recover one, but I doubt you really care since it's not to do with anything you're saying. If you want to play ball, though, the children who do not recover from a divorce are those who weren't able to cope. This isn't exactly a result of a divorce, but more a result of a failure on the parents' part to recognize their child didn't understand or was angry about it - or a failure to do something about it - or even a failure in going up to their kid and saying "Sweetie, are you okay?" or something of the like. Let me fetch from an earlier comment of mine... "children that were able to reach a closure about their parents' divorce and to realize why their parents did it and to stop focusing on themselves had happier, healthier, longer relationships than those who constantly blamed themselves for the divorce or blamed their parents for "not caring enough about them." I can actually get a citation on that, if you want. Also learned in a Psychology class. :I" Not exactly playing ball per se, though, I am merely "just saying." I never said that the majority of children are fine from divorce, but unfortunately I must tell you that those children are most likely troubled for multiple reasons. It's not as simple as blaming the divorce, I mean. And really, "People in failing marriages should NOT stay married just for the sake of their kids" - why do you think people get divorced? Too many people think that the majority of divorces are over retarded things... and I blame TV. People do it all the time on TV, the shows or the celebs, or the hilarious or completely stupid/ridiculous stories, so that must be how it is for everything. People forget that bad news sells... I mean, I looked about, and apparently the top reasons for divorce fall under things like abuse, addiction, infidelity, and terrible communication. Hasty marriage (boredom, marrying young, etc) is also up there in some places I looked. That latter bit rarely includes children, unless they are the reason for the marriage, in which case the poor kid already probably has a sad start... in fact, all of those things are already affecting a kid, probably much worse than divorce would.

It was a negative statement that could possibly be viewed as offensive. A lot of people would be offended by a comment like that. I understand the whole "saying what someone seems to be over saying what they actually are" thing to avoid judging. But it doesn't really make it less offensive. I am not talking about the causes of divorce, I am talking about the effects of divorce. I also understand why children may or may not cope after divorce, all I'm saying is that the percentage of children who can cope with it is less than the percentage of children who can not cope with it. And you're right, children's unhappiness may not be directly related to their parents divorce but the chance of the children having rough childhoods is increased by the divorce. It's kind of like the statistic that says left-handed people are more likely to be schizophrenic, alcoholic, delinquent, dyslexic, amd have Crohn's Disease. Left-handedness is isn't a direct cause of all those things but it is an interesting observation. Such as the observation that children coming from divorces are more likely to have rough childhoods. What exactly is it that you're saying about staying in marriages for the children's sake? Because at first I thought you were against it, but then when I agree with you, you start to talk like you're for it. ? So, in summation, I agree that there are a lot of causes of divorce, but I have been speaking of the effects. I have only been discussing the effects that divorce may have on children as opposed to children being a cause of divorce.

When did I say something about staying in the marriage for the sake of the kid, or something similar? Please point out something that's not clear, so I can clarify. Why discuss the negative effects of divorce on childhood if you're for divorce, in appropriate circumstances? I mean, it really does sound like you're against all divorce, for the sake of the kids, especially in a place like this. It's one thing to acknowledge the correlation, but in the manner you've done you've made it seem more like you don't think it should ever happen.