Better a good divorce with regular parental visits, than a home where there is always misery in the air. Even if the theory is that parents are supposed to keep their animosity to themselves, this won't happen. Children do pick up on the atmosphere between their parents.
Also, generalising a bit by necessity, it is often the case that the mother has an opportunity to develop and grow in a way that she did not in the more hostile environment - an this also makes the kids happier.

The trick is to fix the misery, not divorce, though. Too many people give up without even trying. Love is something you have to work on, it doesn't just happen on its own. And when the parents give up, its inevitably the children who suffer. Even frequent visits and promptly paid child support payments do not make up to children for not having two parents who love them and are there for them when they wake up in the middle of the night.

Moreover, single parenting is an enormous stress, financially and emotionally. Sure, the mother "grows" -- but as she grows, the anxiety in the home skyrockets.

Of course there are situations that demand divorce, but they are much lower than the current rates of divorce. MUCH lower. General rule of thumb -- put a little elbow grease into a marriage and start behaving in ways that encourage a loving environment -- it's not really that hard.

Anastasia, you said
"Even if the theory is that parents are supposed to keep their animosity to themselves, this won't happen. Children do pick up on the atmosphere between their parents." - this describes the situation of many children AFTER their parents' divorce. And whilst the outward appearance of a "good" divorce may be of regular visits (is it still one third of all fathers who lose all contact with their kids after splits - never mind, let's ignore them eh) who is to say how children are affected by all the undercurrents of denial and resentment going on between the oh so civilised adults? People don't want to think they could be hurting their children so they just deny all possibility of their pain.

I have read of several studies in the US that pinpoint the breakdown of the traditional family unit as THE core reason behind the increase in crime and anti-social behaviour. While these studies probably go beyond the issues raised here, the theme is the same. That is, that the family unit is the building block of society.

Its a strange feeling in that I know for sure that I will never divorce. I am totally committed to my wife and kids. So I cant help but think that many parents who divorce are being "selfish and self-indulgent" as the author says. But you only need to look at today's sports stars, or TV personalities, to see that selfishness and egocentricity are much admired traits today, while humility and charity are to fowned upon.

MArk, how can you think other people are being self-indulgent and selfish in divorcing if you yourself, on your own admission, are enjoying the best you can imagine by staying married? People like you (and me) simply don't face a conflict between what they selfishly want and what is good for their kids (assuming that divorce is bad for kids).

Incidentally, the studies from the US that pinpoint divorce as a social ill are deeply flawed. I'm not saying their conclusion is wrong, but I wouldn't base an investment strategy on their methodologies. Similarly, studies that claim divorce is bad for kids are flawed, because they fail to control for 'quality of relationship' variables; as Anastasia suggests. Able falls into the same trap. Lesson: don;t take bad social science seriously, especially when the proponent is trained as a private school headteacher rather than as a social scientist.

Harry,

I think its drawing a long bow to suggest that because I am totally satisfied by my marriage, that I also am being self-indulgent. Rather, I find marriage (and my kids) to be challenging, and hard work. I would find it a lot easier to play golf three times a week than to take care of my family (and I might actually be able to break 80!)

I agree that its easy to judge when I havent faced the same dilemna. And I dont mean to judge them too harshly. However, you yourself said it...its a "conflict between what they selfishly want and what is good for their kids (assuming that divorce is bad for kids)."

Divorce in many cases (although perhaps not all cases) does have a negative effect on kids. You dont need to be a social science expert to realise that. So, obviously, I agree with the statement made by the author in that divorce in many cases is a selfish act.

Cheers

Obviously there are cases where divorce is for the best - such as highly abusive relationship or where there is a thunderous atmosphere between parents whose relationship has irretrievably broken down. In these scenarios it is obviously better for the parents to split up.

If these were the major reasons for divorce, clearly much less of case could be made that divorce was selfish. However, the major reason people get divorced these days is not abuse or betrayal but that great vice of society today: - instant gratification. Once the fun and the sex wear off people get bored and many people just refuse to work through the rough patches which will inevitably occur.

I'd like to know, also, exactly why studies saying divorce is bad are deeply flawed per se. Heaven knows this ground has been very well covered by now. All the evidence shows that children from single parent backgrounds are, on average, much more prone to mental and physical health problems arising from anxiety and insecurity, do worse in their careers and emotional lives than children whose parents remained together. Remember also, that cohabitation is not the answer either, as these kinds of relationships are much more prone to break up and creating an abusive evironment in the home. Child abuse is also much more common amongst step-parents than in blood relatives, which is another reason why divorce can be bad even if the parent caring for the child finds another partner to share the load of parenting.

So what can we do. Well, re-instating the married persons tax allowance would be a worthwhile first step, though clearly not the whole solution. It is often said that actively promoting marriage through the tax system would discriminate against unmarried couples. In fact we now have the reverse situation. The failure to support marriage through the tax system means that married couples have to subsidise the lifestyle choices of those who get divorced, co-habit or split-up, as society has to pay for the consequences. Looking at it in such coldly financial terms, of course, does not allow for the immeasurable sufffering children and adults suffer - often throughout their entire lives - as a result of family breakdown.

cheers,

Andrew

(and yes, I must declare an interest and say that my parents divorced when I was 9.)

OK, there are two main reasons these studies are flawed. One is correctible (in principle): they do not control for variables such as the 'kind of community in which the child is reared'.
The second, which is crucial, is not correctible, at least without using ethically intolerable means. The studies do not correct for 'quality of parental relationship' variables. So, we do not know whether the child is damaged because the parents got divorced, or because they had a crappy relationship (which, in fact, led to the divorce). I'm totally willing to believe that divorce harms children in the long term, but nobody has any good evidence for that (there is evidence that it produces short-term harms like making the child unhappy etc, but no evidence that this has lasting effects). Without such evidence I wouldn't put much weight on these studies when thinking about public policy or even on whether to get divorced.

The above refers to studies about the effects of divorce on kids. I don't know much about studies claiming that divorce harms 'society'. The general view that divorce, or the break down of the family, or whatever, is responsible for multiple social ills tends to be an article of faith, or based on the conflation of correlation with causation. Why not blame television, or increased rates of exposure to advertising, or high salaries among top sports stars. Or think that divorce is among the social ills caused by some other more fundamental factor. I suspect that people who say these sorts of things are relying on their own prejudices rather than a balanced evaluation of the evidence.

Inertia is not limited to matter.