MARRIAGE CONTRACTS.
"That article of yours, 'So Near and Yet So Far,' has worried me to an
extent I am ashamed of. To my 'judgment' that article is disingenuous.
It is not so much that you jumped on that poor soul with hob-nailed
shoes, but that you formulated the 'jump' quite as the husband might
have done. That is, if _she_ would repent and change her course, she
would soon find that _he_ was all right, and--inferentially--all the
trouble was of her making. Not one word on the other side! You even
quote your own experience _against_ her. My dear, _did_ you really find
that your 'trouble' was of your own making, and _did_ you really change
ANYTHING except your own amount of distress during the process of
disintegration? Marriage is the only contract which society does not
promptly admit to be broken when either party refuses to fulfill his
obligations--as agreed to. And in view of the custom of ages, and the
instinct in woman formed by such custom (when instinct makes the
establishing of Individuality the _very_ hardest thing in life for a
generous woman), I think that your implication against the woman, trying
with all the light she's _got_ to keep her side of that very one-sided
contract is simply--cruel! I wish I could get at that girl and tell her
that her _only_ chance for happiness is through the paradox 'Whoso
_will_ not lose his life _cannot_ find it.' Whoso will not 'let go' of
the love which his five per cent judgment claims as his only _righteous_
chance, cannot inherit that which the ninety-five per cent would attract
if the five per cent were 'offered up' to the spirit. This is the first
time I have ever disagreed with your point of view." Jane.
That article, "So Near and Yet So Far," has brought forth volumes of
comment, most of it highly favorable, and nearly all of it from women
themselves. But among the writers were three critics, and among the
critics one of the brightest women I know, whose letter appears above.
And she says that article is to her disingenuous. Of course it is, for
she has not yet arrived at the point of _giving up her own way_. She is
still a Pharisee of the Pharisees--on the surface. She is proud; she
_knows_ she has done her best to bring things right--according to her
judgment of right; and she _does hate_ to acknowledge her foolishness!
She will "hold fast her own integrity" as long as there is a shred of it
left! Don't I know? Didn't I do exactly the same thing? Of course. But
the pressure of the great spirit of love, wisdom, justice, was too much
for me; I _had_ to give up my judgment; I _had_ to acknowledge that
there _must_ be the same spirit expressing in my husband's judgment; I
_had_ to let go, be still and get at _his_ point of view. Jane, too,
will have to do it. And the fact that that article "worried her to an
extent she is ashamed of," is the proof. When Truth presses her point we
worry until we can hold out no longer; then we give in.
One of the other two critics writes that over that article she "shed
the first tears in over seven years." Then she asks me if I don't think
I was a "little hard on the Taurus woman," and goes on to reveal plainly
that her tears were those of _self-pity._ Don't I know? Haven't I shed
quarts of such tears? Of course. But not more than an ounce or two were
shed after I gave up my own way. But this second critic is arriving just
as I did, and as Jane will--arriving all unconsciously to herself. Her
letter sounds like a chapter from my own thinking of a dozen years ago.
She gives a bird's eye view of her husband--no, of her husband's
_faults_; she tells how she reads new thought literature on the
sly--just as I did; and she winds up with this _piece_ of good advice:
"I will say to such, live your own life as God intended you to,
regardless of the fact of your husband. Be brave, hope, will and pray.
Dress, look sweet. If your husband tells you he doesn't care how you
look but to not come near him with your foolishness, as mine does, why,
let him live his life in his own way, make home attractive for your own
sake, read good books; and in time books will be your chum."
The third critic, too, is full of self-pity, though she does not mention
her tears; and her letter is a long portrait of her husband's faults.
She wants a little encouragement to leave him, but she is afraid he will
go to the dogs if she does. So, like a generous woman, she sticks to him
and makes the best (?) of a bad bargain.
Jane says my article was "cruel." Dearie, it was--as the surgeon's knife
is cruel. But it is the truth, and it hurts but to make way for healing.
The woman who blames has in her eye something worse than a cataract.
The woman who sheds tears over her "fate" is moved by the "meanest of
emotions." She attracts "cruelty," not only from that article, _but from
her husband._
It takes _two_ to quarrel, _and either one can stop it_. It takes _two_
to maintain "strained relations," and _either one can ease the strain_.
The principles I tried to elucidate in that article are as applicable to
a man as to a woman. But it was a woman, a Taurus woman, who asked me;
therefore I talked straight to her. And _I_ am a Taurus woman who has
been through the same mill; and I wrote not from a hardened heart but
from one made tender by experience and the Spirit of Truth. My point of
view "might have been the husband's" _if_ the husband had been an
unusually just one. And I must say the husband's point of view is more
apt to be _just_, than the wife's; for the reason that a woman is more
apt to be blinded by _emotional self-interest._ In proportion as man or
woman is ruled by emotion his judgment is distorted. _As a rule man's
judgment_ is straighter than a woman's. But judgment is a shallow thing,
based upon _already revealed facts._ Woman's intuition goes to the heart
of things and flashes facts into revelation. Women as a rule _see
farther_, but are apt to misjudge what is _close at hand._ Only as man
wakes in woman and woman in man do right judgment and love commune. Why
not judge with the husband, as I _feel_ with the wife? Is any man
_totally_ depraved?
Jane feels abused because she thinks _I_ think that in family strains
the woman is more at fault. _In a sense_ I do. _Women cannot only make
and unmake empires but they DO make or fail to make harmony_ _at home_.
Why, men with all their power are mere rag babies in the hands of women
of _tact_. Women are the _real_ power in the world--the power behind the
throne. If only they would develop that particular kind of power instead
of coming around in front of the throne to lay down the law!--instead of
measuring their _man_-strength against man. Real _woman_-strength will
move the most stubborn of men. If I "blame" the woman _(I blame neither,
any more than I blame a child for childishness)_ it is because _I know
she is the ruling power_. Her responsibility is determined by her
real power.
And above all a Taurus woman may rule her home--_and does_. Either she
rules by force--for she has more than her share of the man in her--and
makes war and trouble for herself and others; or she learns her lesson
and rules by _loving tact_; in which case her husband rises up and calls
her _blessed_. The _woman who knows and rules herself_ is the woman of
Proverbs XXXI, 10th to 31st verses. Her husband is honored among men
_because he is honored at home_; and because he is honored he _lives up
to it_. Why, girls, you hold your husband's destiny in the hollow of
your hand, in a far greater sense than any man holds a woman's.
But as I said before, _it takes two to make an unhappy home and either
one can bring harmony out of discord._ Any ordinary woman can do it _if
she will_. And any extraordinary man can do it quite as well as an
ordinary woman.
This is not a question of what "society" admits; it is a personal
question between one man and one woman. It _is_ a partnership, whether
society so admits or not. And the failure of one of the partners to
live up to the expressed or implied agreement does not justify the other
party in the misdoing of her part _as long as they live together_. Does
one theft or murder justify another? No! Neither does a neglectful
husband justify a scolding or spiteful wife, nor _vice versa._
Two people marry _first_, for the happiness of love; and second, for
home privileges. No matter whether love flees or not, _as long as they
keep up_ the home-privileges partnership it should be done in the spirit
of harmony. Remember, it takes _two_ to destroy harmony and _either one
can restore it_. If marriage is not a love contract let it at least be a
harmonious business contract. If you can't, or won't, _adjust yourself_
to your husband, then leave him. Don't stay and half-do your part of the
business and cultivate hate and contempt. It's hell. _Get out_.
I have known several couples who lived years in comparative happiness
after love had flown; who were kind to each other, considerate,
business-like. The wives made pleasant homes and the husbands came and
went at will. In their spare time the wives developed their personal
interests and "lived their own lives," as critic number two advises.
When the husbands took cranky streaks the wives simply made light of it
to themselves, and forgot it as soon as possible. They lived on as
comfortable terms as if the wives were simply _first-class_ hired
house-keepers; little crankisms were all in the bargain. Eventually
every one of these couples separated, and nearly all the parties are now
_happily_ married. _And every_ _couple parted amicably_; each being
_satisfied_ to terminate the old partnership.
To me a divorce is not a disgrace, but a family row _is_. And I suspect
that most divorce _rows_ are worked up to _drown guilty consciences_.
Neither has done his best by the other, and he knows it; so he raises a
great row to fix attention on the other's shortcomings that his own may
escape observation.
Until a man and woman have succeeded in living up to their home
privileges in a manner befitting honest and intelligent man and woman,
_they can't be sure that they are not fitted for a real loving union_.
Friction over small things obscures vision and judgment, and hate hides
the lovableness that _must_ lie in every being. Get rid of the rowing
over little things of every day life, and you will be able to love as
much as your marriage will permit; _and you will be free to dissolve the
entire partnership if you desire_.
Did I _really_ change anything? _Yes_. Is it "anything" to bring peace
and quiet pleasure and comfort and appreciation where their opposites
were wont to hold bacchanale? _Yes_.
No woman who _honestly_ tries the course I have endeavored to outline
will ever doubt that she really accomplishes _something_; neither will
she regret.
Here is a word every married woman will do well to heed as long as she
lives with her husband: _If you can't have your way without a fuss, then
try his with a good will_.
Peace be unto you; peace, which is the foundation for _all you desire_.