THE TRUTH ABOUT DIVORCE.
In January _Psychic and Occult Views and Reviews_ the editor, M.T.C.
Wing, presents a view of "Wives and Work" which is anything but an
_occult_ view of the subject. He evidently still clings to the old
notion that man was made for the family, and not the family for man. He
inveighs against George D. Herron and Elbert Hubbard _et al_ because
they permitted themselves to be separated from their wives. Apparently
he thinks the chief end of man is to tote some woman around on a chip,
and the fact that in his callow youth man picked out (or was picked out
by) the wrong woman, cuts no figure in the matter. Man must keep on
toting her even if he has to give up his life work by which he has been
enabled to supply the chip, not to mention the other things the
woman demands.
All of which is the very superficial view of the world at large, and
has no place among new thought, "occult" teachings. It is entirely too
obvious--to the old-fashioned sentimentalist, who is blind to the real
facts in cases of separation.
The sentimentalist gets just two views of the family, and draws his
hasty conclusions therefrom. He sees first a happy family, a charming,
clinging little simpleton of a wife, with half a dozen or so infants
clinging to her skirts and bosom, and her round eyes lifted in adorable
helplessness to the face of that great, strong lord and master, her
husband. In his second view of the family he beholds this strong man
turn his back upon this adoring family and walk deliberately forth to
self-gratification, leaving them to perish from hunger and grief. Fired
with these pretty and entirely fanciful pictures the superficial
observer burns with indignation and calls down anathema upon the head of
the deserter.
The fact is that _no_ man ever deserts a family under such conditions.
There is always a long period of disintegration before any family goes
to pieces--a period of which _both_ man and wife are well aware. When a
separation comes it is _really_ a relief to _both_ parties. The only
real pain in such cases comes from the spirit of _revenge_, or a desire
on the part of one or the other to pose as injured innocence, that she
or he may rake in the sympathy and fire the indignation of just such
uninformed friends as M.T.C. Wing.
I have known a lot of people who separated--known them intimately and
observed them well. In not one of these cases did the deserted party
claim to _love_ the deserter. In all there was a real _relief_ when it
was all over. In every case the one thing which had held them together
so long was _fear of disgrace_. "Oh, _what_ will people think of
me?"--is the first cry of everybody--especially women. It was _that_
which made the deserted one unhappy and resentful. It is that which
makes many women pose as injured innocents and rate the deserter as a
villain. And all the time _in secret_ they are glad, _glad_ that they
are relieved of the burden of living with an uncongenial husband
or wife.
Of course there are other reasons why women hate to be left by their
husbands. One is that their support is apt to go with the deserter.
Public opinion keeps many a family in the same house years after it
really _knows_ it is separated widely as the poles.
The dread of having to take care of herself keeps many a woman hanging
like grim death to a man she knows she does not love, and who
despises her.
The fear of public opinion and the love, not of money, but of _ease_,
holds together under one roof tens of thousands of families who have
been _occultly_ and really separated for years.
A man is held by the same sentimental notion that M.T.C. Wing has--that
he must "protect" the woman. So he stays in hell to do it. He _has_ to
stay in hell _until she gets out_.
In almost every one of these separation cases it is the woman and _not_
the man, who gives the signal. In George D. Herron's case the wife
offered to take a certain sum of money and release him from supporting
her. He met her conditions--and bore all the odium like a man. To her
credit be it said she did not pose as an injured woman. I know nothing
about Elbert Hubbard's case, but I venture to say that if he and his
wife are separated that _she_ was the one who did the leaving act.
We hear a lot about the "Biblical reason" for divorce; but I say unto
you that infidelity is no reason at all for divorce. The one just cause
for separation is _incompatibility of temper_.
A man is an Individual; a woman is another Individual; and neither can
make himself or herself over to please the other.
When two people from lack of similar ideals and aims cannot _pull
together_ the quicker they pull apart the better it will be for
them--and the children, too.
I know well a couple who lived together long enough to have grown
children. For nearly a score of years they pulled like a pair of balky
horses--what time they were not doing the monkey and parrot act. The
husband stayed out nights and tippled. The wife sat at home and felt
virtuous. Finally the woman worked up spunk enough to do what she had
been dying to do for years. She packed up and left. Now she is happily
married to a man she can pull _with_, And he is married to another woman
who pulls with him. She has quit feeling virtuous and he has quit
tippling. They are both prospering financially. The children have _two_
pleasant homes, and more educational and other advantages than they ever
dared hope for. Everyone of the family is _glad_ of that separation.
The family is an institution of man's own making. It is a good and
glorious thing so long as it serves to increase the happiness and health
of its members. But whenever the family institution has to be maintained
at the expense of the life, liberty or happiness of its members it is
time to lay that particular institution on the shelf.
What God does not hold together by LOVE let not man try to paste
together by law.
One great cause of the increase of divorces is the financial
emancipation of woman. Women can now get out and take care of
themselves, where a few years ago they had to grin and bear it; or bear
it without grinning.
If the new thought means anything, Brother Wing, it means that every
individual man or woman, has the RIGHT to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness wherever and with whom he chooses to seek it, so long as he
or she does not attempt to abridge the same rights for others. It means
that a woman is as much an Individual as a man, and must stand or fall,
hold her husband or lose him, _on her own merits_. The new thought deals
with Individuals regardless of sex.
Marriage is a partnership, subject in the eyes of Justice to the same
rules which govern other partnerships. Let us be just to the deserter,
be he man or woman, before we are sentimentally generous to
the deserted.
And don't let us be _too_ sure that we know all the facts in these
separation cases. It is human nature to fix up outward appearances for
the benefit of the passer-by.
Seek rather to _understand_. Condemn not.
Has any one told you it is lucky to be married?
I hasten to inform you it is just as lucky to be divorced, and I know
it.