Easy for him
Behold: an idiot.
…this idea that like well, ok, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy, and so getting rid of them, and making it easier for people to shift spouses, like they change their underwear, that’s gunna make people happier in the long term. And maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, I’m skeptical, but it really didn’t work out for the kids in those marriages, and that’s what I think all of us should [clip ends]
So it works out for kids to grow up in a family where there is violence, which of course Vance doesn’t mention is nearly always man on woman violence? It’s healthy and inspiring for kids to see their fathers beating up their mothers?
I am skeptical.
There can never be any, ever, under any circumstances, an excuse for a man to get violent with a woman. Such violence in a marriage commonly results in an enormous demoralisation of the children of the household. I speak from first-hand experience, having been only 10 years old when my father started bashing into my mother. (Amongst other issues, he had a girlfiend on the side whose company he preferred.) She,as an escape or whatever, turned to the bottle, and duly became an alcoholic.
So I suggest that JD Vance should shove that idea where the Sun don’t shine.
Oh jeez – how sad for both you and her.
And yes about Vance.
As someone whose parents divorced when I was 2 because their marriage was one of those ones that was merely mutually unhappy, but not ever violent, I have spent most of my adult life thanking whatever power I happened to believe in at the time that I did NOT grow up in a household with both parents. They were both amazing, loving, deeply ethical and caring people, and when in one another’s presence for those family occasions that necessitated both be present, had the incredible ability to turn mere words into daggers that they did not merely hurl at one another, but could cause to spin in the air so as to land in the other’s back, or neatly slice a hamstring, all while being able to have their speech seem utterly blameless.
Had I grown up with both of them, sniping and prodding one another with such savage gentility, I honestly think I would’ve been a complete basket-case by the time I was 18. What’s needed for most kids whose parents are not violent but unhappy to such a degree is not for the parents to stay together, but for the non-custodial parent to do as my father did–decide that, first and foremost, being estranged from your spouse does NOT have to estrange you from your children. He made sure to live close enough that weekend trips were easily doable, would often have my brother and me stay for the occasional week during the summer when it wouldn’t interrupt school, and made absolutely certain we never doubted that he cared for us.
Sadly, what happens in all too many cases is that the non-custodial parent (usually the father) decides that without a sexual relationship with their former spouse, there’s no point in bother about the kids, either. Vance, of course, doesn’t mention this trend, and if forced to acknowledge it would doubtless find excuses for the n-c spouse to act a complete sack of shit.
Growing up in a two parent household is overrated. If it’s a loving home, yes, it’s best for the kids. My parents stayed together, partially because their religion found divorce intolerable, and because they had kids. We paid for their unhappiness.
A friend of mine, about the same age, said her parents’ divorce is the only thing that saved her relationship with both of her parents.
“For the sake of the kids” is a sword that does more harm to the parents than divorce, and probably does more harm to the kids.
My parents divorced while I was a young child. It was a protracted and bitter proceeding that certainly left its scars. Despite that I think it was better for me, my siblings and certainly my father. Probably my mother as well since although we were left financially impoverished and mum was very bitter, she ended up leading a full and interesting life.
Vance is an utter arse who’s clearly happy with the idea of women being little more than sex slaves who’ll get the back of the hand if they’re uppity. Contemptible. Also, there’s been plenty of studies that show if you want to breed dysfunctional young people (mostly men) who resort to violence in many aspects of their lives, just bring them up in dysfunctional family settings. Fathers who resort to violence is a primary indicator.
The best response I’ve seen to vance being picked as VP today was on Bluesky. The poster linked to the old clip of Vance likening Trump to Hitler and then said “He hasn’t revised his opinion of Trump, just Hitler.” When you look at what else he’s been saying the last couple of years there’s a case to be made.
I can imagine my bio Dad is a huge fan of Vance; would’ve saved him a lot of money that he spent trying to sue my mother out of existence and he wouldn’t have lost half his cash money to his gold-digging third wife. Maybe after seeing how he’d treated my mother it would’ve taken me fewer years to realize I was bigger than him.
Meanwhile we did pretty good with my real father having been married to my Mum for nearly thirty years.
Didn’t Trump “shift spouses” a few times? I’m sure the selection of Vance was merely a calculation to secure the most Christian conservative votes, as Trump clearly doesn’t require VP’s to approve of him.
Well, looks like Trump has the wifebeater vote locked up.
Papito, I think he already had that. Now they’ll vote for him twice.