Considering the instability of all our tastes and desires and the
almost total want of personal discipline which prevails in the present
day, it is really remarkable that the legal marriage goes on even as
well as it does!--but that the state could be much happier is patent
to any understanding, and it may be interesting to look at one or two
aspects of it, and see from whence comes the discord. A woman enters
into matrimony for various reasons, but, in the majority of cases in
England and America at least, it is because she is, or fancies she is,
in love with the man at the time. He, therefore, if this is so, starts
with an enormous power over her, which, if he chooses to keep it, will
enable him to turn their future life in any way he will, because the
greatest desire even of the most strong-minded and domineering woman
when in love is to please the man. A woman only becomes indifferent as
to whether or no she is doing this when she no longer cares.
Therefore, it is the man's business to keep her in this state if he
wants his home to be happy. The first thing for him to realise is that
she cannot remain in love with him by her own will, any more than she
can cease to love him by her own will--these states are produced in
her by something in himself. And if he discontinues using the arts and
attractions which awakened her love, he cannot expect it to continue
its demonstration, any more than a kettle will go on boiling if the
heat beneath is removed from it. This argument, of course, applies to
both sexes. Unfortunately, in a great many cases of marriage, the
simple attraction of sex has been the unconscious motive which has
caused the man to enter the bond, and naturally, when he has gained
his wishes he ceases to endeavour consciously to attract the woman.
And then one of two things happens; either she grows to love him more
for a time, because of that contrariness in human beings which always
puts abnormal value upon the thing which is slipping out of reach--or
she herself becomes indifferent; and then it is a mere chance if they
both, or either of them, possess character and a sense of duty as to
how the marriage goes along. We will take the case of a union when
both parties are in love when they start, and really desire that their
marriage should remain happy. Each ought to decide that he or she will
do his or her uttermost to continue to put forth those charms which
enchanted the mate before the ceremony. No one would expect the bloom
to remain upon grapes if he carelessly rubbed it off, but both man and
woman are extraordinarily surprised and disgusted when they find their
partners are no longer in love with them, and at once blame them for
fickleness, instead of examining themselves to see what caused this
ceasing to care--what they did--or omitted to do--which made
themselves no longer able to call forth love from their mates. And
until it can be grasped that all emotion of love is produced by
something consciously or unconsciously possessed by the other
person--and that it is not in the power of the individual to order
himself to feel it, or not to feel it, but that only the demonstration
of the state is in his power--unions will go on with mutual
recriminations and the hitting of the heads against a stone wall.
Some natures are naturally fickle and unstable--and no matter how good
and sweet the partner may be, they break away. These cases are
misfortunes, but in analysing the facts the actual responsibility
cannot be laid at the doors of such people, since they could not _by
will_ have kept the sensation of love for their partners, any more
than by will they could have ceased to care for them. They could only
_by will_ have been able to control the expression of their feelings.
I seem to be reiterating this point to the verge of tiresomeness, but it
is so vitally important to understand, because its non-comprehension
produces such injustice. If John _by his will_ were able to make
himself remain in love with Mary, and failed to do so, then she might
have a right to blame him because he had sworn that he would at the
altar. But as he cannot command his actual emotion, she can only blame
him for infidelity of the body, since of that, at least, it is
possible he could be master. But, alas! Mary very seldom realises
this, and reproaches John for ceasing _to feel loving_ towards her!
which is as sensible on her part as to reproach him for the skies
pouring rain. John, on his side, in like case does the same thing,
because he also has not understood the truth. A valuable point for
both to keep in remembrance is that the attraction of sex is the basis
of all "being in love." However ennobled the emotion may become
afterwards, it always starts with that. (This fact is explained and
elaborated in the conversation between the Russian and the Clergyman
in my story, "The Point of View.") If common sense is used in thinking
about this matter, it will be seen that if this was not the foundation
of "being in love" the emotion would be calm, and like that of brother
and sister. So, admitting that this is the foundation, it can be
understood how important a part it plays in the happiness of two
people bound together by law for life, and how important it is to the
woman to endeavor to continue to make herself lovable in the eyes of
the man--and _vice versa_--_it is of supreme importance to whichever
of them cares the most_. When the thing starts equally, the man nearly
always cools the soonest, because of his fundamental instincts, and
the force of satiation. He then probably goes on liking his
wife--perhaps he admires and respects her intellect, but the thrill
which used to come when her hand even touched his hand is no longer
there, and he only feels emotion towards her _when he is in the mood,
which would make him feel it towards any woman_ who happened to be
there at the moment. And just in the measure that he was passionate
towards his wife, so he will be the easy or difficult prey of a new
emotion. And if this aspect of the case distresses the woman, she must
look to her guns--so to speak--and use the whole of her intelligence
to regain her hold over his affection. She will not improve matters by
lamenting or reproaching the man. If it does not distress her, then
she can congratulate herself that a time of peace has come!
A woman must face the fact that man is a totally different creature
from herself, governed by other instincts, which can be best explained
by realising them in animals in their boldest nature aspect, _i.e._ a
male dog at times will tear down any barrier that is within his
personal strength to enable him to get to his mate, and a female dog
will fight through unheard-of obstacles to reach her puppies. Here is
a plain illustration of the different ruling original instincts in
animals, and human beings are only the highest form of animal, given
by God a more developed soul and a choice of action, but still
influenced by fundamental nature instincts, which, beneath all the
training of civilisation, unconsciously still direct their actions and
affect their point of view. Civilisation, on its good side, teaches
man to overcome his bodily desires and to keep them in check, but not
to eliminate them, to do which would militate against the Creator's
scheme of things. Civilisation on its evil side has frequently
perverted woman's natural instinct, so that in numbers of cases the
wonderful devotion of the animal to her young has become numb in her,
or dead. If only all women would bravely face these facts of nature
instincts in themselves and in men, they would approach marriage with
much broader-minded views, and would have a much greater chance of
happiness, because they would realise that they must be lenient to man
in the matter of his fidelity to them; and if man realised these
instincts, he would enter marriage knowing he must make a fight with
nature to keep the vows he has sworn, and so he would be on his guard
against the first inclination to stray, instead of an easy prey to it.
For, as it is, there is a recognised unwritten law among most men that
honour must always be kept with "the other woman," but that it is not
necessary with a wife. A man's honour towards a woman is only certain
of holding with his inclinations--that is: A married to B will be
unfaithful to her with C--which is technically dishonour. He will not
consider that, but will tell any lie to protect C and stick to her,
because his sense of honour has gone with his inclination. He feels he
must "never give away C to B," although he experiences no qualm in
having already tacitly "given away" B to C, by his very part of taking
C for his mistress. B is also a woman, but only his wife! He has not
been the least aware of it, but his sense of honour has followed his
inclination, in a way it would never do over a business arrangement
with another man. To give a parallel case in a business arrangement: A
makes a bargain with B that he will deal with him alone; he then finds
he likes the goods of C better than those of B--but no honest
tradesman would think of breaking his contract even secretly with B
and dealing with C, for, if he did, he would know himself that he was
dishonest, and that all his fellows who knew he had done this thing
would despise and ostracise him. But a man when deceiving his wife not
only generally feels no shame himself, but knows his male friends will
probably not think the worse of him for it. There is not the slightest
use in arguing about these facts, any more than, as I said in my first
paper upon marriage, there is in arguing about fundamental instincts,
and it would be well for women to realise this elastic, unwritten law
of honour in men towards them, and so not expect, at the present state
of man's evolution, that they will receive anything different. They
must never forget that this adjustable sense of honour springs from
the same fundamental male instinct we spoke of--and therefore cannot
be turned round by women and applied to their own cases, because the
same instincts do not come into force with them. Woman must always
remember that _man is conquering primitive nature in being faithful to
her at all_, and therefore she ought, if she desires that he shall be
so, to look to her own every point of attraction to make it possible
(if not easy!) for him to fulfil her desire. I must reiterate again
that it is wiser to remember that it is civilisation alone
(civilisation embracing development of moral sense, and religious
sense, and the force of custom) which keeps him from straying whenever
he feels inclined, and that all she can do to prevent it is to
redouble her own attractions, and to help the women of the future by
instilling into her own sons' minds the idea that, as marriage is _an
ideal and not a natural state_, the man who enters into it must be
prepared to school himself to live up to an ideal, and control his
vagrant emotions. To teach the boys a new and higher sense of honour
is the only possible way to alter matters, as a grown man is seldom
changed. In marriage, both partners must understand that they are
undertaking to do a most difficult thing in vowing to live together
and love for ever! Whichever cares the most will have to use
_intelligence_ to keep the other--and if it is the woman who is
unfortunate enough to occupy this position, she generally absolutely
sacrifices herself to gratify the man's smallest wish, and so makes
herself cheap. She should use her wits and keep a firm hand over
herself so as not to let herself become in his eyes of no importance.
Selfishness is another basic instinct of man, caused because he was
originally and unquestionably Lord of Creation, and only in the
countries where men are in the majority are the greater number of them
unselfish even now to woman. In England, where women are in the
majority, selfishness in every male child is fostered from his cradle.
So women must not indiscriminately condemn every man as being selfish,
as though it was his personal fault; they must look to the cause, and
condemn that if they want to, or, better still, try to eradicate it in
the future by influencing their own sons to desire to be chivalrous
and unselfish to the woman of the next generation. In this way they
would help to raise the standard of honour and responsibility in
humanity in general.
The most selfish man is not often selfish to the woman whom he is in
love with. While she excites these emotions, however he shows his
cloven hoof to the rest of the household, he will not show it to her.
And even when he ceases to be in love, if his wife has filled him with
respect and admiration for her, he will hardly dare to exhibit his bad
qualities. You will see a man with the most odious character showing
only the nicest ways to some particular person, when he wishes to
stand well with that person. Therefore, to deal successfully with a
selfish man, it ought to be obvious to a woman that the only effectual
method to employ is to seek to create in his mind _the desire to
please her_. If only men could understand that to be kind and
courteous to their wives in the home would give them much greater
liberty abroad, they would greatly add to the happiness of most
marriages. It is her daily life which matters to a woman, because, as
a rule, her brain is not developed enough to be looking ahead to the
great questions of the day; and to have joy in her home is her earthly
paradise.
Nearly all love marriages begin with too much emotion and too little
self-control, and so become shipwrecked upon the rocks of satiety and
indifference. Young people undertake the most risky experiment in the
world as lightly and unpreparedly as they would go on a summer
holiday!
It must be understood that all these arguments are used from the
standpoint of supposing the married pair start with love. When they do
not, but are entering into a marriage simply from expediency, their
minds are generally calm, they have no illusions, and are therefore
free to use that judgment which they would employ over any business
affair of their lives, and often, therefore, they get along very well.
But these cannot be considered as ideal marriages, or likely to
produce highly endowed children. And in England, at least, such unions
are the exception and not the rule.
Broadly speaking, to make any marriage happy each partner ought
deliberately to use every atom of his or her intelligence to think out
the best method to live in sympathy with the mate, and should not
simply be set upon expressing his or her own personality, regardless
of the other. Chain any two animals together and watch the result!
Nothing will teach what marriage means more effectually. It is only
when the two poor beasts are of one mind that their chains do not
gall. But human beings are above animals in this, that they have wills
and talents and aspirations, and can judge of good and evil, so that
their happiness or misery is practically in their own hands, and to
quote an immortal remark of a French writer--"If as much thought were
put into the making a success of marriage as is put into the mixing of
a salad, there would be no unhappy unions!"
V