Oddly enough, I got three e-mail on Friday about my blog, none of them on the same subject.
One that caught my eye (and which I was going to blog about all weekend, but didn’t get around to it until now) pointed me at this article, which both slams the Lileks critique of Rev. Gene Robinson and cites a lot more into about Robinson’s background, his marriage, and divorce, than I’d run across in my cursory examination. The letter-writer complemented me on my own observations on Lileks’ comments, and suggested I might find the further information interesting.
Reading through the material, I have a great deal of sympathy for Robinson in the pain he’s gone through in his life, related to his sexual orientation and his internal conflicts over the same. And he and his wife, in divorcing, did about as good and non-disruptive (to the children) job of it as one could imagine.
But I still think he and his wife exercised poor judgment in marrying and in having kids, given their preexisting knowledge of Gene’s conflicts with his sexuality. That is, perhaps, a contemporary perspective (1972 was a whole ‘nother world, so far as that was concerned), but there it is.
And while the article goes to great lengths to indicate how supportive both his ex-wife and at least one of his daughters (the one who was 4 at the time) are today of his decisions and life path (though I wonder how the other daughter feels about it), I’m still not comfortable with giving him (or his wife) a pass on divorcing with a 4- and 8-year-old in the house. Sure, he moved just a few miles away, and had frequent visitation, and was there for all the school plays and the like. It is not, though the same thing as being there, 24/7.
In the end, once you peel away the histrionics and inapt, offensive metaphors, Lileks’ case against Robinson really boils down to one sentence: after the separation, Robinson did not “live with [his daughters], get up at night when they’re sick, [or] kiss them in the morning when they wake.” Well, the newly single Gene Robinson did not move back home to Kentucky, either, or even to a locale that would be far more hospitable to a newly available gay man than rural New Hampshire. Instead, he moved five miles away and shared joint custody of his daughters. If one accepts that this divorce was unavoidable and for the best (as I do, and Lileks does not), then there’s nothing more that could be asked of him.
I think that misses the point, as is spelled out in the next paragraph.
Of course, even Lileks admits that divorces “ofttimes” happen for “valid reasons, sad and inescapable.” So Lileks isn’t entirely a Dr. Laura, screeching that marriage is forever, no matter what. No, Lileks just doesn’t view a gay man’s midlife coming to terms with his sexuality, and hoping for the possibility that both “he and his wife could find deeper love with other people,” as good enough. Lileks would prefer that Gene and Boo Robinson had simply trudged along through a passionless marriage, each pretending that they did not yearn for the joy of a true partnership (such as, for example, Lileks so obviously feels that he has with his wife, or that both Gene and Boo now have with their partners), on the dubious theory that this bargain would have been better for their daughters. Nothing “sad or inescapable” about that scenario, nosirree.
From all accounts (including this one), it sounds like Gene and Boo Robinson had a strong, positive, constructive partnership of a marriage — far better than many other marriages that somehow trudge along out there. Sexual passion was, clearly, not part of that equation. Is that, then, the be-all and end-all of what makes a successful marriage, or life?
Not to put down or minimize sex, but it seems to be me far too easy, as a generalization, to say that it is the sine qua non of married life.
But even if we accept that Gene and Boo could, in fact, “find deeper love with other people,” I don’t accept that tips the balance toward making their divorce the best case scenario for their children. Even if we posited that all that was possible between Gene and Boo was a “sad and inescapable” “trudging along” (something I think far from proven), I think it is far to easy to say that a deep and meaningful talk with the kids, followed by visitation rights, is as good or acceptable or as nurturing as “living with [his daughters], getting up at night when they’re sick, kissing them in the morning when they wake up.”
Lileks may have been flip in equating Robinson’s divorce with waking up one morning and jetting off to Rio with a trophy girlfriend, but making one’s self-actualization the deciding factor in whether to put kids through a divorce is not necessarily any less facile. Saying that Gene and Boo had no choice but to break up their family so that they could find their true loves is, as a principle, so open to abuse that it’s impossible to say where individual cases cross the line between justified and unjustified.
It also assumes that their lives were at an end, and that another fifteen years — get the kids raised and out of the house — would be a death sentence for both of them. I don’t buy that.
I think part of it comes down to a question of Quality vs Quantity Time. Quality Time theory says that’s what’s important for a kid is the big events, the major items — being there for the school play, being there for vacations, being there for milestones. Quantity Time theory says raising children is, in fact, a 24/7 proposition, and that how you serve up breakfast every morning has just as much impact as whether you were there to cheer Junior on at the Little League Finals.
Quality Time has become really popular, for reasons both good and bad. But I think the “drudgery” of Quantity Time, while far less romantic, gets short shrift. And that’s where, no matter the joint custody arrangements or understanding talks or how few miles apart Gene and Boo lived, I think they did a net disservice to their daughters. And that, I think, is ultimately where Lileks is coming from.
I’ll add (one more time) that this has nothing to do with Rev. Robinson’s orientation (hell, I wish he’d been raised to be able to accept it, had found another nice gay man, and gotten married to him). Nor do I think this was sufficient cause to bar him from the episcopacy, if the people of New Hampshire voted to accept him.
But neither do I think that it’s trivial, nor that it’s something that should be seen in a positive light, either. It was, it seems to me, a bad decision on the Robinsons’ part, though that they managed the consequences of that decision so well is to their mitigating credit.
Considering my advanced years, and lack of marriage, folks have often commented that I sould adopt a child, if I’m interested in that sort of thing.
This brings up two problems, 1)If I adopt a child, their wellfare needs to take priority over my love life, since they need the least amount of trauma that I can provide, which means I should keep that part of my life on the back burner, and I’m not ready to do that yet.
2)I think children need two parents if at all possible (and parents need each other at times), so I’d really rather have a spouse if I’m going to have a child.
And all that talk about fullfulling one’s love life rings very hollow when you know someone who stayed in a dead marriage until the children were grown, putting their welfare ahead of theirs.
“Greater love hath no man …”
Having grown up in a household where my parents only spoke to each other when it was absolutely necessary, never touched each other in any way in front of us kids, and wherein both smoked and drank to put something in that gaping maw of emptiness they both had.
And finding myself, at forty, equally incapable of having a true relationship with another – keeping them at arms length, never talking about feelings, spending hours at my computer to fill that empty maw…
I have to agree that Gene and Boo did the right thing. I wish that my dad had left my mom for Sharon when I was eight. We would have survived. Mom would have found somebody who was her emotional and intellectual equal, instead of the boy her parents liked. I might have seen how it can work, instead of how it didn’t work.
I’ve long opted to not have kids, because the legacy I carry is not one I want to pass along.
Maybe they ought to have divorced earlier, if the only way they could be together was in such a destructive fashion. But, then, were they focusing on trying to make a decent household for you kids, or on how miserable they each were, and how much they resented the situation.
I am sorry it was such a bad time for you guys, and that it’s had such an painful effect on you.
If parents are married, then they’re there (for their children) 24 and 7? To which married people does this refer? On which planet?
If, in fact, the timing of the divorce is the critical issue, then are these criteria applied to heteorsexual couples as well? Is this the case with all other members of the House of Bishops? Of course, nobody knows. Because nobody ever dared subject the (allegedly) straight ones to such scrutiny (in the Episcopal Church, the first divorce is basically a mulligan).
Nevermind the fact that the former Mr and Mrs Robinson have gone to such extreme lengths (I’m surprised there haven’t been sworn statements from child psychologists) that they might explain what was essentially a private decision. OOh, the fact that only one of the daughters was willing to stand up in front of all spectators, well then, that must mean something, right?
There appears to be no real way convince some people they made the right choice for their lives, since they’ve said as much about a billion times — and it’s still not enough. (PS: The people in the Diocese of New Hampshire, mind you not exactly a hotbed of liberalism, know all this and still elected the guy on the first ballot, which practically never happens, especially to the hometown candidate, who almost always is at a distinct disadvantage. Maybe they’re all negligent parents. Yeah, probably.)
And all this “quality/quantity” time crap. Where is it written that cohabitating parents must be shortchanging their children? My divorced sister’s son LOVES having basically two houses full of adults who fawn all over him, but nevermind real people here.
And how MUCH time was enough (that is, to prove that the Robinson daughters got both quality and quantity?) It seems the so-called quantity-time camp gets to set the bar at a convenient spot: check the timecard and subtract 5% or so — that is the valid measure of quantity (and anything less, tsk tsk, is only quality time, selfishly meted out with predictably disasterous results).
Those who school their children at home, those who have a normal quantity of children (my mother has particularly harsh terms for the dangers of bearing an only child), and lots of other super-parent types can claim a moral high ground when it comes to members of couples who are so selfish as to have only one child and, in fact, be with them anything LESS than 24 and 7 (that is, having jobs, or being so negligent as to actually let other people into their kid’s lives).
These folks may — as you did with the Robinsons, it seems — ultimately decline to give YOU a pass on Not Being Enough of a Parent. But then again, if you’re heterosexual (or at least pretend to be) then you’re above reproach because, see, you’re NORMAL. So, then, you only make normal mistakes.
Dave, Gene Robinson did not grow up in a world that would lead him to avoid the mistakes he made, in a desperate and futile attempt to become heterosexual. Where is your bile for the real culprits here: a psychiatric establishment that would subject him to conversion therapy in the first place (read Duberman’s “Cures” for the truly gristly details). A harsh church of childhood and only marginally less so version in his early adult years? It’s blaming the victim, cleverly in the apparent service of other vicitms (the children). And the fact that, generally speaking, the kids in question seem to have done okay, it’s not okay enough.
And THAT is what makes James Lileks so infuriating. But at least he’s got the courage to grab a big, knobby stick and swing.
If parents are married, then they’re there (for their children) 24 and 7? To which married people does this refer? On which planet?
Me and mine. Not that it’s possible, and not that it’s an ideal that I ever reach. But it’s the duty I’ve taken on, by being a parent.
If, in fact, the timing of the divorce is the critical issue, then are these criteria applied to heteorsexual couples as well?
It certainly would be as far as I’m concerned.
Is this the case with all other members of the House of Bishops?
I don’t know.
Of course, nobody knows. Because nobody ever dared subject the (allegedly) straight ones to such scrutiny (in the Episcopal Church, the first divorce is basically a mulligan).
I can’t speak for previous bishops. I would feel the same, though, about any candidate who divorced with a 4- and 8-year-old in the house.
Nevermind the fact that the former Mr and Mrs Robinson have gone to such extreme lengths (I’m surprised there haven’t been sworn statements from child psychologists) …
I acknowledged the length to which they had gone. They dealt with the results of a bad decision in as positive and admirable a fashion as one could imagine.
… that they might explain what was essentially a private decision.
To the extent that Rev. Robinson is presenting himself as a spiritual leader, his spiritual decisions, regardless of their personal/private nature, are certainly open to discussion.
OOh, the fact that only one of the daughters was willing to stand up in front of all spectators, well then, that must mean something, right?
I don’t know. It seemed an odd omission, but certainly not proof of anything.
There appears to be no real way convince some people they made the right choice for their lives, since they’ve said as much about a billion times — and it’s still not enough.
No, it’s not.
(PS: The people in the Diocese of New Hampshire, mind you not exactly a hotbed of liberalism, know all this and still elected the guy on the first ballot, which practically never happens, especially to the hometown candidate, who almost always is at a distinct disadvantage. Maybe they’re all negligent parents. Yeah, probably.)
As I said, several times, I didn’t consider my objections here sufficient to trump the decision of New Hampshire, which clearly had more opportunity to thrash this debate out. Since they are electing him as their bishop, to a very large extent it is their decision — though since canon law requires confirmation at the GC, clearly it’s not solely their decision.
And all this “quality/quantity” time crap. Where is it written that cohabitating parents must be shortchanging their children? My divorced sister’s son LOVES having basically two houses full of adults who fawn all over him, but nevermind real people here.
As a generalization, I would say that having two parents in the house is better for kids than having one parent. As a further generalization (though a fuzzier one), I think having a single parental household is probably better than having two.
And how MUCH time was enough (that is, to prove that the Robinson daughters got both quality and quantity?) It seems the so-called quantity-time camp gets to set the bar at a convenient spot: check the timecard and subtract 5% or so — that is the valid measure of quantity (and anything less, tsk tsk, is only quality time, selfishly meted out with predictably disasterous results).
Whereas the Quality Time camp gets a pass if they’re there for N school plays, Little League Games, or other Big Events, as defined by the parent looking to validate how good a job they are doing of parenting.
Simply spending time with kids is not enough, but neither is being there for the Top Ten Events of the Year. It would seem to me that both are important (with the clear and evident desire to do both being equally important).
Those who school their children at home, those who have a normal quantity of children (my mother has particularly harsh terms for the dangers of bearing an only child), and lots of other super-parent types can claim a moral high ground when it comes to members of couples who are so selfish as to have only one child and, in fact, be with them anything LESS than 24 and 7 (that is, having jobs, or being so negligent as to actually let other people into their kid’s lives).
I don’t think I said anything about number of children, nor do I think it’s relevant.
Letting “other people” into their kids’ lives is fine, even laudable. It does not relieve parents of the responsibility that they have to spend as much time as possible with their kids. Ideally, it should be icing on the cake, not the cake itself.
I do believe that schooling outside the home is important, for a variety of reasons — socialization being one of them. But while it’s a relief for parents to have that time “free,” that shouldn’t be the primary motivation for providing such an opportunity.
My thoughts on both parents working full-time are a subject for another post some time.
These folks may — as you did with the Robinsons, it seems — ultimately decline to give YOU a pass on Not Being Enough of a Parent.
First off, if I decide to present myself as an heir to the apostles and as a spiritual leader for a community, I would expect folks to judge my shortcomings, as well as my strengths.
I don’t think I ever said, btw, that the Robinsons, were not “enough of a parent.”
But then again, if you’re heterosexual (or at least pretend to be) then you’re above reproach because, see, you’re NORMAL. So, then, you only make normal mistakes.
Right. Straights get a pass on all moral behavior, with a snigger and a wink. Right.
I don’t care about the reasons why Rev. Robinson and his wife divorced — the mistake was not in the motivation, but in the action.
Dave, Gene Robinson did not grow up in a world that would lead him to avoid the mistakes he made, in a desperate and futile attempt to become heterosexual. Where is your bile for the real culprits here: a psychiatric establishment that would subject him to conversion therapy in the first place (read Duberman’s “Cures” for the truly gristly details). A harsh church of childhood and only marginally less so version in his early adult years? It’s blaming the victim, cleverly in the apparent service of other vicitms (the children).
I’m a deucedly clever sort of blamer, that’s for sure.
I think I’ve already expressed a great deal of sympathy for Rev. Robinson. And I don’t believe in “conversion therapy” not because it’s so awful, but because I don’t think that being gay is anything that needs changing.
But Rev. Robinson is responsible for his actions. If he’d gone out and shot his conversion therapy shrink, should he have gotten off with that, too? At what point is his victimhood insufficient to excuse his decisions?
And the fact that, generally speaking, the kids in question seem to have done okay, it’s not okay enough.
No, it’s not. I’ve gotten over traumas I was put through in my childhood by various individuals. That I’ve “done okay” doesn’t mean that those actions were okay.
And THAT is what makes James Lileks so infuriating. But at least he’s got the courage to grab a big, knobby stick and swing.
I don’t understand, but, whatever.