Who doesn't remember the 1996 revenge fantasy, "First Wives Club," as Bette Midler, Goldie Hawn, and Diane Keaton cook up an elaborate scheme to make their husbands pay for dumping them--for younger women?
I recall enjoying the movie, and at the time, I was married. Little did I know that a few years later I'd be divorced, broke, and raising kids on my own. No end in sight to dealing with losses, and my ex--relocated, and quickly remarried.
Now I'm not complaining, mind you. But as a veteran of the online dating merry-go-round, I'd urge us all to chuck our checklists and axe our assumptions when it comes to Good Providers or Good Lookers, Bad Boys or Boy Toys, and any other posturing that pits Types against Individuals. And if you're a woman over 40, or God forbid over 50, consider yourself lucky if you can find a decent guy to date, preferably with a pulse.
In light of my own single mother experience, I took exception to author Pamela Haag's approach to the Just OK Marriage, concerned that this grass-is-greener stance is foolhardy, if not destructive.
I expressed an opinion that we should focus on going for good in relationships, rather than some pumped up, trumped up, steroidal version of Who-To-Hold-Out-For. And that means appreciating what we have, accepting reasonable compromises, and if we are on the market for mates, setting aside unrealistic expectations.
What followed was unanticipated feedback--women generally agreeing that "good" could be great, that stability matters, and men taking the other side. But one comment was startling, as a single dad suggested that divorce is the "natural order of things."
We all concede that men remarry faster than women, and more of them do so. Second wives are frequently younger than the first. Could I assume from this that the starter marriage works well for men, but for women, not so much? Or does any marriage work well for men, including a series of marriages moving to increasingly newer, shinier models?
Specifically, my reader states:
... maybe we are supposed to get divorced. Maybe that is the natural order of things... Maybe the mother of your children doesn't have to be the love of your life. What if raising your children as a team, where you each get a few nights a week to yourself to enjoy a social life, explore your sexuality, go back to school, read a book or whatever.... is a good thing? ... It's what we do anyway.
The comment goes on to say:
Our first mate is usually a good mother, she cooks and cleans and is maternal. Once those things are no longer in demand (the kids are grown) we move on to search for a mate who has other traits we desire. Younger, hotter, more sexually open perhaps... usually someone who doesn't challenge us as much.
Now before all the ladies decide to skewer this divorced dad (might I have that pleasure?) let me clarify that he seems to be a respectful man who has responsibly co-parented for years. I may be stunned by his remarks, but I also admire his willingness to make them. And I'm guessing he's not alone in his convictions.
As for the supposed upside for the gals? The benefits of divorce, providing single mothers--as it does single fathers--a few days off to explore their sexuality? I daresay I haven't enjoyed that sort of arrangement, and if I suggested that the fairer sex required time off for extracurricular maneuvers--then I'd be the one who was skewered.
Still, I can't believe that millions of men consider their (first) wives to be disposable. Did I miss the memo?
I bristle at the premise that first wives are good for mothering, cooking, and cleaning and then the so-called natural order of things kicks in, complete with the Guilt-Free Younger, Sexier (dumber?) Missus-Number-2.
And then what? Bye Bye, Ms. Original Bride? And where exactly do we store the discarded models?
Do we pose questions, or just say why bother? Does a woman's behavior change so radically during marriage that her husband no longer knows her--or desires her? Is motherhood a romance-killer, or is that a convenient excuse for men as they set their sights on the new target? And do we care that women still raising children have a narrower window of opportunity - with time and timing not in their favor, especially over 40?
Is it motherhood that ruins us for some husbands, and just age for others? Is it too much emphasis on parenting, and not enough on coupling? Is it growing distance, independence, toilet seats and toothpaste caps, or is monogamy the problem?
Are first wives disposable, no matter what we do?
If that's the case, then what are we teaching our children about the value of women, much less marriage? It may be time to trot out Revenge of the First Wives - complete with a reunion tour for Bette, Goldie, and Diane. But in lieu of that, maybe we float the idea that there is no natural order of things. It's up to us to construct our own, and find a way to make it stick.
Follow D. A. Wolf on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BigLittleWolf
What I have been trying to do is refute this assumption/notion that women somehow believe that divorce will result in a financial payoff. And statistics have been cited relative to reasons given for women leaving marriage.
As for me - since you (or others) are implying as much - I did not leave my marriage. I fought to hang on to it, to rebuild it, fully recognizing that both my (then) husband and I were at fault in what it had become. But it takes two to rebuild. If one wishes to be done, then you're done. That wasn't my wish; it is what happened, and then you get up, keep going, raise your kids, and do what you think is right.
Yes, divorce hurts - more often than not, it hurts the one who doesn't want it more. And financially, it can devastate the one who is more naive, or has the less qualified attorney.
Thank you, as always, for the lively discussion.
But this article is very insulting to the fathers who do step up and work hard at co-parenting their children. When divorcing with children, the focus has to be on the children. Divorce is not the order of thing for either husband or wife. It is the disorder of things and the participants need to understand it is not easy for either side. Jolyn Rudelson author of IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU: A Grandparent's Guide to Surviving Divorce in the Family.
Maybe with 70% of the divorces filed by the wives, it really IS the natural order of things in our society. Maybe men are now just accepting it instead of fighting it. As it becomes more accepted, fewer and fewer will want to get married in the first place, which is definitely not a bad thing for society. You see wonderful articles written about how to file for a divorce, get the children, assets and a financial gain for the next xx years...and when the other half accept it and say, "It's just the natural order now," you think those that gain from it would want to skewer him for some reason?
And that is what we have fed our society on for the past 40 years. Signed, sealed and delivered by the media, special interest and politicians. Would you stand in front of Lincoln and tell him that? How about Einstein? Washington? Martin Luther King?
Your broad misstep in your statement is that you WANT to believe it. It's not true, but don't let that stop you from spreading the misandry that is so rampant in society. I believe there are some that are realists and then others that just follow the general flow of whatever they are fed by someone else. Yes, it may be what you want to believe because it somehow puts you on a level above those you talk about, but it is not right.
Your talk of "powers" and "men are children" lead me to believe you might be the one who hasn't yet grown up. It doesn't sound very nice, but that is what you do when you spread sexism. It sounds good until you realize you are wrongly encompassing a lot of good men, some who have died for your freedom in your stereotypical talk. Think before you subject and entire gender to your lack of understanding. Hold an objective candle to your thought process, and then see if you still hold the same line of thought.
But that being said, there are a lot of good reasons for divorce! Under NO circumstance should a woman EVER stay in an abusive marriage. And why should a man stay married to a woman turned cold? I would have to consider both of those to be legitimate reasons to âget outâ while you can. And, trust me, thereâs nothing worse than staying together solely for the sake of the children! Eventually they will grow up and move on; then thereâs nothing left, but wasted years you can never recover.
I think one of the more promising avenues for reducing the divorce rate and all the death and destruction that it generates would be to educate young girls on the realities of marriage. I'm not sure why anybody would think that the only acceptable marriage is to a person who unfailingly causes you to feel like you're full of bubbles every time you see them. I'm not sure that anybody does feel that way, or at least that very many people feel that way. But I wonder just what it is that causes women to so easily and heedlessly opt for divorce, seemingly putting their personal fulfillment ahead of the health and happiness of their children and the mate they swore to stand by. I don't think women are evil, any more than men are. But I would like to change what is happening.
A woman who divorces stands to get at least half of the estate. It's nearly a given that she will get primary custody of the children. Therefore, she can expect to receive child support payments which will include some amount of hidden alimony. In certain States, she will receive explicit alimony on top of the child support. After the divorce, she is free to shack up with a new man in the house that her ex-husband is still paying for. Meanwhile, the ex gets to see his kids every other weekend and struggles to pay for a rat hole apartment with what's left of his money. If he works hard and gets a promotion so he can afford a nicer place for his kids to visit, she can go back to court and get even more money from him. If he doesn't get a nicer place, she can go to court and have his parental rights revoked. Either way, he loses.
Infant--->child--->adult is a innovation of the agricultural era made possible by men interested in parenting and by men and women who agreed to stick with one another throughout the process. Marriage seems to be a innovation, conscious or not, designed to temper the baser instincts of men and women alike.
In its most recent form though it fails on all counts. Marriage does not tame women of their boredom when infants become children, it does not tame men of their libidos when sex grows stale with a larger family, when men have aged like wine and their wives have ripened like grapes. All of the disincentives to our worst behavior and vices have been stripped from modern marriage. Add to that the affect of technology to render obsolete the ways we were once dependent on each other and the vitality of marriage as an institution capable of serving the interests of modern society is in question. Marriage probably will not survive without an honest re-assessment and considerable reform. I wrote about this at more length in an article called "Modernity and the Obsolescence of Dance" which you can find by googling if interested.
When men have turned from wine to vinegar and women have turned from grapes to raisins. Oxidation is inevitable.
Women are humans, not angels, nor other creatures men and women tend to call women when they are unhappy with them. Women are human.
Men are humans, not patriarchal Nordic deities, nor base creatures ruled by their genitals. Men are human.
Michelle Langley (womensinfidelity.com) writes about research that holds that evolutionarily there is a "female reproductive cycle" lasting roughly 4-7 years (i.e.: "7 year itch") ... long enough to wean the children in an African savannah. When this time elapses and fathers adopt pair-bonding behaviors suited to the demands of raising children rather than protecting vulnerable mothers with infants, they no longer exhibit characteristics women find attactive. "Attractive" to women is the same as "attractive" to men: attractive is what turns women on sexually. Though attracted by different things the result is the same: sexual attraction.
When we are bonded or coupled with someone we are no longer interested in sexually we tend to resent that person or hold him or her in contempt. The whole culture milieu of "Eat Pray Love", in my view, was a sweeping validation of Langley's claims.
There are some women out there who could fool me on this one. They are as I'd imagine an angel to be.