Shut Up and Cry me a River!

I have been chastised :-(

In a good way!

I agree with the chastisement, which boils down to: 'don't look at the negative aspect of life - for it may come back and bite you in the _________'.

But I have a slightly morbid fascination with separations once again.
Only this time, I hope to be more lighthearted about it.

Let's just say, this post is designed as a 'coolly detached' look at breakups.
Let's just say it is purely for the purposes of 'intellectual curiosity'.

And to this end, I apologise in advance to anyone who is currently going through a breakup, or is hurled back into the unpleasant memory of a breakup.



I think most adults have been through at least one breakup.

Some might even consider it a badge of honour of sorts, in the same way little boys consider a scar or a bruise as a sign that they are now MEN :-)

A priest I know of won't marry a couple unless they have broken up at least once.
This directly led a couple I know straight into hot water.

They had never broken up before their engagement. So to comply with the priest's known stance on this (and because they really really wanted to get married in this particular parish), they decided to fake a breakup (silly, I know! Hey, I thought it was funny too at the time - turns out I was just as immature as them, lol).

They told everyone they had broken up, including me (who happened to be in on the secret). Unfortunately, an old flame of the groom-to-be (who of course wasn't in the loop) thought the path was now clear for her to rekindle things with him...
The long and the short was that it turned out to be very embarrassing for all concerned, and the couple actually did break up for real, as a result of a series of unfortunate events.

Thankfully, things righted themselves, and they are now a very happy couple many years after their eventual marriage.

But I am sure their (bizarre) breakup helped in some way...


Breakups are of course mostly painful.
This is why I shall never understand the (mostly North American! - I never heard of this happening in Europe) trend of having a 'divorce party'.

Interestingly,
1. I have only seen this on TV. I never heard of anyone doing this in real life. (Does this actually happen in real life?)

2. It seems to be a uniquely female thing. I never heard of a man having a 'divorce party'. I think I get why.

3. It seems to be a modern trend. Which makes me suspect it is yet another feminist denial phenomenon like the 'I am so happy to be single' bandwagon.

4. It seems so inappropriate. Especially where there are children involved who are clearly distressed about the disintegration of their family, and are suffering as a result, eg. as evidenced by school fighting, poor grades, attempted suicide. So it seems so unbelievably cruel for someone to be 'celebrating' the divorce.

5. Even if the divorce seems 'liberating' as in the case of physical abuse, it still seems a bit sad to be celebrating said divorce.
It is like any death: even if the dead person is Hitler, it is still a death. Dancing on anyone's grave is still somehow bad. Better not to go to the funeral at all.
Is this a fair point?
Or are there instances where a party should be held when someone dies?
Consider this: Saddam Hussein's/Colonel Ghaddafi's deaths were not exactly a tragedy for many in their respective countries.
And yet, the scenes of glee after these men died seemed somehow equivalent to the same scenes of glee in some Arabic countries when 9/11 took place.
Is this a fair comparison?
Or is my assertion that a death is still a death, no matter whose, a travesty which will take me on a  road to hell, which is, you know, paved with good intentions and all...

Dis-moi.
Tell me what you think. Hugely off-topic, but I am suddenly interested in this.



Anyhow, moving on, I credit commenter Bill for the inspiration for this post.
This is a hat trick from Bill, who also inspired the posts The Madonna-Whore-conundrum  and The gourmet meal...of red pills!!!.
Thank you Bill :-)


A hat tip to Bill for this gem from Julie London:

'Cry me a river' from the 1956 film 'The girl can't help it'.

The film plot does not interest me so much as the song itself.
If ever there was a breakup song, this is it :-)

But what is interesting about this song is what some would call 'projection', the ultimate 'cardinal sin' of a woman.
Julie London claims to have 'cried a river' for Tom Ewell's character, and so she demands the same from him.
She wants a man to cry a river for her?
We all know that would never happen, don't we? :-)


Which reminds me of another breakup song with the same name.

Justin Timberlake's 'Cry me a river' was at the same time vicious and compelling because of its brutal honesty in revealing for all to see, how a man views a woman he believes has been unfaithful to him.
Scary viewing indeed. A window into a man's soul at the darkest moment of his life.

It is my genuine belief that most men do not like to see a woman cry.
They will tease her, mock her, even upset her, but the objective is not to make her cry.
Correct me gentlemen, if I have got this wrong!


But in this video, Justin makes it crystal clear that all gloves are off. He really wants to see this woman cry.
The problem is, unlike in Julie London's case, this woman will cry. Because he will ensure that she does. This is what makes this video truly dark.
And yet, one feels for him, and not the girl who hurt him.

I am not sure if my reaction to this video is normal or not. (Um, feel free to analyse this - I won't object!)
The video is at least ten years old. But it remins my reference point for 'feeeling' male pain when it comes to a painful breakup.



A less 'dark' picture of a breakup is presented by my old favourites, the Black eyed peas.
This is more of an 'anatomy of a deteriorating relationship' more than a 'breakup', but it illustrates quite poignantly the ways in which men and women react to a failing relationship.
I find it fascinating.


The only thing the man seems to be saying to the woman is...'shut up! Stop the talking, baby, or I start walking, baby!'
Hmmm. Where have I heard this before?
Men really are allergic to women's constant nuttering. Alles klar!
:-)

And the woman signs off her lament with 'is that all there is?'
But I can't help but feel for her when she exclaims 'I just want to be your lady!'
Awwwww.
This is sad. She admits to going almost insane because of this man.
But...she still wants to be his lady.
Gentlemen, you have no idea how some women feel about you :-)

I think the Black eyed peas are very good observers of human interaction.
This is why I find this video absolutely insightful.
And of course, the odd mix of 'faux classical' with 'urban-style' music is a source of interest all on its own for me anyway.




What does everyone think?
Are they right in their portrayal of man-woman interaction?

What esle is interesting about how men and women react to romantic separation?
Without making it too sombre, are there lessons to be learned from breakups?












PS: I have had to reintroduce the captcha due to excess spam. Hope this does not cause problems. If so, just let me know and I shall try to fix it.

Grounds for divorce?

My focus changed.
All of a sudden :-)
With good reason too.


This was to be the second part of a look at M3's post from JV's point of view...
But I think I have found something else to discuss.
At least, I found another angle from which to approach this topic.

To this end, I shall divorce (heh!) both M3 and JV from this post.

But the origin of this post did come from JV's second parallel to look at how a woman might get to the depths of despair that M3 describes.

Once again, just to re-iterate the point that JV was not saying that this was exactly comparable to M3's story. I hope we have firmly established that by now.

As it turns out, the story itself (that JV describes) is not required here, in this post. Just a small part of it.


Just a quick 'declaration' of sorts before I continue.

I am still as divorce-phobic as ever, no matter how much it might seem that I am now an apologetic for divorce, in this post.

But, in a flurry of maturity that I have never experienced before, I am willing to take a quick look at a deeply pertinent subject before I have to deal with it head on.

I am in some sort of race against time to clear my head of all falsehoods, inaccuracies, 'pretty lies', ugly lies, partial truths and downright porkies.

So my usual plea of 'explain it like I am a 6 year old' applies here, ever more than before :-)




In short, JV describes a woman in a marriage where the other party is addicted to pills. This renders him unable to function in all ways including, um...an important marital way.

Well, the word 'addiction' always makes me want to flee. It's one of my 'fight or flight' words.

I occasionally have the 'pleasure' of encountering people with serious addictions, for example during the course of my work, (but not exclusively).
Believe me when I say that 'pleasure' is a measured word here.

Let's just say that from what I have noticed, these people have checked out of their own lives (leaving their friends and family to pick up the pieces) but because they haven't exactly 'left the building', people see the lights on and assume there is someone home.
No, there is no-one home.

Someone married to a person in this category is effectively single.


And so I ask myself, on what grounds is divorce justifiable?

Serious question.

For me, the reference point for a question like this would be The Church. I bet their answer (if I knew it) would be better than a secular answer.

On searching a few sites (and I cannot be sure of their authenticity), I find that The Church believes divorce to be wrong, on principle, but 'civil' divorce is acceptable under the following circumstances (with the caveat that re-marriage is still not 'allowed' because despite a 'civil' divorce, one is still spiritually married to the original spouse, and so remarriage constitutes adultery:


"The Church teaches that the separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases. The Catechism states: “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”


I don't really understand this. Anyone care to explain it in simple terms citing examples?

Perhaps looking for 'grounds for annulment' might help? Afterall, many people see annulment as the equivalent of divorce for Catholics. Not true, but there we are...


"The Catholic Church can, however, annul a marriage if there is sufficient proof that the marriage was invalid to begin with. Grounds for annulment include being forced to marry someone, not having enough information about that individual – as an example – if the party was an abuser, a convicted rapist and if the individual lied (about wanting children as one example). A marriage can also be annuled by the Catholic Church if the sexual act was not consummated."


Hm, I think I have an answer to a question I didn't really ask, but wanted to, with regard to the above scenario.


In terms of 'legal rights' and annulment, what about a crime committed during the marriage, after vows have already been taken? Can one spouse claim, 'but I didn't know he was going to turn out to be a murderer?' and win a divorce/annulment case?

I mean, of course, if one spouse killed the other, then the marriage is technically over (!)...but what if one spouse killed a third party closely related to both parties, eg. one of the kids, or the mother-in-law? Is the Church going to push for saving such a marriage??

Serious question, believe it or not.
(If you don't believe me, know that at least three of the seven sacraments are granted one by the Church after one passes a 'test' of some sort (um, with the exception of Baptism and 'Last Rites'.

I may have to prove that I know the answers to some of the above answers, otherwise, I may not be granted a certain sacrament I seek.
And I ain't talking 'Holy Orders' :-)

Extreme examples only bring out the complexities of a situation. That's the extent of their usefulness.

Here is another.

This woman speaks of a phenomenon that TPM brought to our attention.
I was stunned to realise that this woman divorced her husband because (after having been 'alpha' once), he turned into a 'lapdog'.

Not wishing to sound insensitive, I don't wish to dissect this too much...

But...

I must say, it's a scary thought that this can happen.

As a woman myself, I know what extreme and permanent 'betatude' can do to a woman. I often describe this feeling as 'getting hives', but I can well imagine that it is even worse for other women, and I have heard of this phenomenon inducing an extreme kind of 'nausea' in a woman, followed by a revulsion which engulfs her until she is rid of the source of this 'maladie'.

This must be a painful experience for all concerned.
Especially if one is married to said source of maladie.
Evidently.
So much so, that a man might find himself 'friendzoned' after he has said 'I do'.

I honestly feel that no matter how much a man may become a 'lapdog', he should not be divorced for this.

There HAS to be a solution to this problem.
Anyone know?

'Inside' (as I call her) could not suggest any to me, on TPM's blog when I asked her.
But I am sure there must be something that can be done.

Surely if a man has been 'alpha' enough to attract a woman to the point of marriage, he can't be hopeless.
He can return to his alpha self from time to time, surely!

What can a woman do to help this process along, if like Inside's husband, he just won't do it by himself?
How to prevent her seeking the contact details of a lawyer?

If divorce is out of the question (eg. viewed as some sort of 'sin'), what can a woman do to ensure she is never going down that path?

Here's a challenge:

Let's say you know a young woman. She is as divorce-phobic as I am.
She is at a church.
The church is full.
The bells are ringing.
Groom's at the altar, wondering what her dress is going to be like.
She is at the front door of the church, on her father's arm.
Priest is approaching her, about to make the sign of the cross.

You have eaxctly two minutes to divorce-proof this imminent marriage, before it even starts.

What do you say to the blushing bride?
So that she will remember you and your words on her 30th wedding anniversary :-)

(Please don't say to her: 'don't do it', lol.
NB: You could have had a chance speaking to the groom, but he is now at the altar already, having cleared his head of the hangover from last night following his stag-do, and is hellbent on marrying this woman :-).
How can you help him avoid deep regrets twenty years down the line?
By speaking to the woman...



Is it all down to luck, or are there ways to efficiently prevent divorce?
I am prone to believe the latter... but I don't know why.

Prove me right :-)
Educate me.


And you don't have to be married to participate in this conversation.
All ideas welcome and appreciated.

 

 

 

How does one avoid ever seeing this piece of paper?

 

 

Marriage as a career ladder?

With the arrival of married woman Jacquie at The Sanctuary, my thoughts turn to marriage :-)
Jacquie and also her partner-in-crime Stingray have some exquisitely beautiful things to say about relationships/marriage.

NC showed his displeasure at the fact that not many people ahd bothered to tackle Danny's question in Bellita's brilliant post 'Manhaters': 'why should a man bother get married nowadays'?
Some of us took the bait and tried to appease NC. I think NC was satisfied with our efforts :-)

JV stole the show as usual (um, is there no end to JV's talents? lol).
I post here her comment in its entirety because it would seem a travesty to leave something out:

But Belita's Rocky analagy puts words into something that I couldn't put my finger on. You grow as a person. But you also grow as a soul.
There is a range of experience that comes from marriage. And not all of it is sunshine and rainbows. A lot of that growth comes from sacrifice. Not a popular concept in this day and age. But, there's a depth and range that comes from feeling, experiencing,examining and asking the big questions. And living through it.

You can experience love and intimacy without commitment. But there's an added dimension, a quality that requires you to think and feel outside of the box when you can't just walk away when things are difficult. And there's a wonderful dimension to being someones ideal, and being with your ideal.

There's no better feeling in the world than being in love and the two of you being on the same page, growing, and both trying to be the best possible people that you can be.

I know I am not the only one who felt the power of these words.


To me, marriage is still an abstract concept. And it will remain so until I say 'I do'.
I have no expertise in this subject. So anything I say about it is theoretical.
Bellita's response to JV's words is exactly the right attitude to have to such powerful words:

 It takes one who has lived it to describe it properly. While I still see it "through a glass darkly," you have seen it "face to face."

This is precisely why I think JV's words are so powerful. She has lived it. No guesswork here...




I don't usually get to spend time with my married friends. It is usually because they are too busy. And much as I would like to get closer to them and learn stuff from them, it would seem churlish (not to talk of selfish) to add to their list of priorities (their marriage commitment to each other, kids, work, running a household, etc.) by imposing myself on them.

But occasionally, I get a 'free gift' as they say. (By the way, I find this term highly amusing as a gift is supposed to be free anyway...)

But I digress...
One of my friends has been married. For ten whole years.

She is a wonderful woman. As Red Pill as it gets. Very feminine (inside and out), she is a hard worker and definitely what I would call a 'masculine woman' of the type we describe here.
I vaguely knew she is divorced. But I was never curious about that.

Then one day, out of the blue, she told me more about herself than I expected.
In one unforgettable sitting I learned so much I am still reeling from the lesson.

She married young. For ten years she had a blissful marriage, according to her own estimation. Then after one catastrophic event in her marriage she divorced her husband in what she thought would be a swift and painless end to her pain.
But no. Instead, it took her close to ten years to finally get over this episode in her life.

This woman had plenty to be bitter about. But she is not.
From what she told me, I tried to work out why not.
Knowing her character, I think I know why now.

She says she prefers now to see her ex-husband as he once was before that catastrophic event in their life together.
She prays for him everyday.
She wishes him well.
She didn't say this, but I got the sense that she wishes she could turn back the clock. (Even though she is now with a great guy she adores).

I KNOW that she would have done things differently if all that stuff happened now.

I think (guesswork from me) that one realisation makes her the epitome of human strength that she is:
Horrendous as things were with her ex-husband, I think she realises that she was lured into the divorce-court by the hype built up by the divorce industry.

Crucial to understanding my logic here is that she is very Catholic (yes, Capital C) and never actually wanted the divorce she instigated. But quite apart from the fact that she wanted to punish her ex-husband to some degree, (which is entirely normal given what happened), she did not take the allocated 'cool-down' period she so desperately needed and which was freely available to her.
She (much to her chagrin now) accepted the 'low-hanging fruit' that divorce has become for a lot of women.

Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of that is that all of a sudden, she had become the 'bad guy' when it was her ex-husband who deserved to be labelled as such.
She told me that despite what he had done, he blamed her for the divorce (simply because she had irreversibly set it in motion).

If for one second, I step into his shoes, I imagine this is what he might have thought at the time:
"So....when I was a good boy for 10 years, it was all good with the missus. The minute I put a foot wrong I was rather unceremoniously and unbelievably harshly dealt with..."

Gentlemen, is any of this familiar to you?

What's weird is that I could 'see' all of this by simply studying her face when she was telling me her story. So I know that she too could see his point of view now, after many years of reflection.

Some women, I think, never arrive at the point of introspection that my friend achieved in regaining her life after her divorce.
This I find is a major difference between women like her and those who are bitter.

My friend achieved the impossible. I take my hat off to her. And I know that whatever happens in her life from now on, she will be OK.


In the course of one evening I suddenly realised that bad things really do happen to good people...
But what else did I learn from her?

Because the laws governing divorce and child custody are the way they are, indivuduals who want a lifelong marriage really do need their own system of maintaing the high standards they have set up in life.
How?
I found a nice analogy with 'careers'.

Some careers are a lifelong commitment, just like marriage.

A dentist friend of mine once did a brilliant 'compare and contrast' between doctors and dentists. Apparently, dentists, on qualifying are 'good to go'. They can set themselves up in private practice almost immediately.
Apparently not so for doctors. A newly qualified doctor is like a fish out of water. He or she would need years more of specialisation to get to the point where they are 'independent'.
I think the same applies to lawyers, accountants, nurses, engineers and teachers, to name a few professisons.

All of these careers are conspicuous by their requirement for ongoing training.
In some of these, 'qualification' is simply an 'entry level' milestone. It takes years to get your 'exit level' landmark that can get you established in that profession.
No-one sees you as 'fully cooked' in that profession until you have got your 'exit level' qualification.


How does this pertain to marriage?

Amy helped me by saying something to the tune of 'you don't have to be 'fully fledged' as a wife on your wedding day. The marriage itself helps you to become a good wife'.

This helped me because I realise now that this is rephrasing exactly what The Catholic Church has been saying all along (but I wasn't paying attention lol until Bellita and Amy pointed it out like I am a 6 year old), which is ... marriage is one of the seven sacraments. It is a channel of grace.

I am acutely aware that my friend's marriage even though it failed, was very much a channel of grace for her. I know she knows this too.

And even though I feel I should be an expert before marriage to be attractive enough as a marriage partner in this day and age where the rule-book got thrown into the river, I also realise that I should perhaps chill out a little :-)

Where marriage is concerned, I really am a newly-qualified doctor as opposed to a newly-qualified dentist.

It helps me to see myself this way, because then I can see marriage as a way to grow and develop...

If the end-goal is the wedding day, then the marriage is in trouble.

Part of the problem why many marriages fail may be that (again this is a guess from someone who hasn't even achieved 'rookie' status!!) too many people see marriage as the 'exit' qualification and not the 'entry' qulaification.

The whole wedding industry is geared towards making brides see the big day as the former and not the latter.

It is time for potential brides to develop a new 'frame' for one of the most important days of their lives.

Because the old 'frame' is a dangerous one.
A really bad trap that even good women can fall into - like my friend did.


I really like how The Queen's jubilee celebrations get bigger and bigger every time...I can bet that the recent diamond jubilee celebrations were much bigger than the golden, which were much bigger than the silver...

Maybe young brides today will do well to look forward to 'bigger and bigger' celebrations of their marriage timelines. If they thought this way, they wouldn't pour all their efforts (and money!) into the wedding day, which is actually nothing but 'Time zero'.
Because they would be so keen to be saving up (emotionally, finacially, psychologically, etc) for Time 5, Time 10, Time 20 and so on...
If everything one has is given to Time zero, there is nothing left, physically and figuratively for Time 20...

Does this make sense?
If there are any runners among us, perhaps a switch to this as an analogy might help?
If a person thinks they are in a sprint, they will give their all for 100m or so and then stop.
But if they are 'psyched up' for a marathon then they are more likely to 'pace themselves', no?

So marriage should be thought of as a marathon, not a sprint.
It's not a 72 day affair, it's a lifetime affair.





Any excuse to post this man's picture...
And I still maintain I am NOT VISUAL!!!
:-)
(OK, who am I kidding lol)
:P

Well, it IS the Olympics afterall... :-)

The Quiet Man

The following is a typical scenario:

During a divorce or separation, a woman rallies round her friends.
She tends to be very vocal, even if she is usually not very talkative. This is good for her in many ways. As in, 'a problem shared is a problem halved'. Sometimes it may not be so good for her, as in, the collective rationalisation hamster of a group of provoked women can get unbelievably out of control and become destructive rather than constructive.

The man stays 'shtumm' and goes about the cold business of sorting out the logistics. The legal proceedings, the financial paperwork. The moving of personal belongings from one residence to another.
At least on the surface.
He says nothing. He does nothing. He just ignores and avoids.

Away from absolutely everyone.
Until he can work out something in his head.
Until he rejoins his social setting as a returnee from wherever he went, or he becomes The Angry Man and then The Indifferent Man.
That's how things are. Both men and women revert to their respective natures especially during times of stress.

Neither party is 'wrong'.

But no-one is enjoying this party, so something has to change.

Otherwise men and women will drive each other literally insane.

Albert Einstein said this: 'the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results'.

So what can de done differently?

In general, it is clear that women tend to get more sympathy, from both men and women, during situations like divorce.
There are at least 3 reasons for this:

1. Women are physically and emotionally more vulnerable, at least on the face of it. To this effect, I believe it is right that support in the shape of sympathy is accorded to women.

2. Women are simply more vocal in a social setting. They advertise their needs more. Unlike a man, who is bound by concepts like 'pride' and 'stoicism' and 'honour', a woman has free rein to vent her frustrations in public for all to see. She is also an exceptional spin-doctor, because she is a great rationaliser.

Here's the crossover line between 'nice girl' and 'not so nice girl':
Even when 'not so nice' is in the wrong, and knows it, she can spin it to look like the other party is the culprit.
'Nice girl' will get all emotional too and make a scene. But it will not be as venomous and as far-reaching as the damage done by 'not so nice'. There is a big difference in attitude.

The 'nice girl' will calm down after a 'cooling down' period. She will be civil to the man again. Even if the marriage is irreparable, she will be pleasant again whether or not there are children involved. She might even 'chase' him a bit.
The 'not so nice' will go for the jugular and in fact get the carotid. She doesn't want the man back in the village ever again. She wants him dead.

Most women need a 'cooling off' period after an emotinal outburst, same as most men need  'peace time' after coming home from work.
Some will use this time well. Some will not.

3. The post-feminist world encourages mindless male-bashing.
This is a sticking point for many men, and the women who care about men.

Reasons 1 and 2 can be to some extent explained away as 'female nature'.

Reason 3 is a social 'add-on' and does not reflect female nature.
It is why men are demonised unnecessarily.

Here are examples of specific male behaviours that may be interpreted wrongly by women:

1. A beautiful woman passes by a couple and the man of the couple stares at her for 3 seconds. The woman of the couple gets offended.
This is a natural biological response, like a woman's response to a newborn baby. It need not escalate into an affair. If it does, I agree the man has crossed a line.

2. A man in a longterm marriage is denied sex on a longterm basis outside of reasonable circumstances such as illness, pregnancy, extreme life-changing events like grief and physical separation from partner . He resorts to porn, affairs or prostitution.
No need for explanation.

3. A man takes a good two minutes to answer what to a woman is a simple question.
This I agree is frustratingly difficult on a day-to-day basis. But there is actually a scientific basis for this. Rather than label as 'slow' or 'inattentive' and interrupt his thought processes, a woman would do so much better to wait for the answer.

And so on...

The point of this post is that, in keeping with human nature, we tend to hear and see what's thrown 'out there' much more than what's hidden.
That's the whole point of advertising. If you have a great product to sell, you make sure it is highly visible to your target market.

40+ years of feminism have 'advertised' the 'sins' of men to women. Even to women who weren't looking to buy.
 We now know it was a case of 'false advertising' because feminism was not such a great product afterall. It has made life worse rather than better for everyone concerned.

Women can bridge the gap by taking time to gently probe and try to understand The Quiet Man instead of following the herd and beating him down.

But will the Quiet Man pipe up sometimes and tell 'his side of the story' at the time it is happening and not retreat? Is this an admission of guilt? Is this a way of getting away from a source of stress? Is this because he is being gallant? Is he simply giving a woman her 'cooling off' time? Or is it simply his Nature?'

Whatever it is, the Quiet Man appears not to help his cause. At a time he really needs to.
Self-preservation or wilful self-destruction?