Gonna Get Me A Mojo Hand

[SmileysPerson]

@fb2 offers a rich and multi-faceted comment -- much "thicker" than it first appears. I've had to chew it over for a few hours.

"You are moving on to a healthier, wiser, stronger and richer place for yourself."

Really? I don't believe that's a valid argument to make D more palatable in general.

I'm intrigued by the "in general" there at the end. To what does it refer? Did you mean, "I don't believe in general that's a valid argument to make," as if to say your general beliefs are...? Did you mean "I don't believe that's a valid argument in general..." as if to say that usually it's an invalid argument? Or did you mean "to make D more palatable in general," as if to suggest that the way one person copes has an effect on the global attitude towards divorce? Because if it's the latter, I think that's an inappropriate comment -- the sum of individuals' coping mechanisms does not equal social approval/disapproval of divorce society-wide.

When you've lost half your time with the precious kids

This is an assumption. In my sitch, I have 60-65% custody, so I lose comparatively little. And it's not at all clear to me that one MUST lose any time, depending upon how the divorce is managed. Again in my sitch, WAW will have several instances of 10-14 days' custody in a row -- because I have long overseas business trips. But I always had long overseas business trips, so she "gains" nothing and I "lose" nothing. So it seems to me to be reaching a bit to try to draw a generalized "rule" in this instance.

and their lives are potentially messed up

It is clearly the case that divorce is a net "bad" for childrens' lives. But as a friend recently pointed out to me, the 17-year-old son of our high school classmate recently committed suicide, and they were the Model American Family. So there's lots of ways in which one's life can be "potentially messed up." It happens to be the case that divorce is (or ought to be) one of the more avoidable ways.

the family is broken

I used to take a strong position like yours on this, but now I'm not so sure. As I've been talking to my son since Kid D-Bomb, I've come to think of this in a different way. There are lots of kinds of families. My mother, for example, was raised for a considerable period of time by her grandmother. Family. My parents were divorced, but We Three (Mom, Brother, and Smiley's Persons) were a family, and we spent a lot of time with gparents and aunt/uncle/cousins -- family. And I asked my son what would have happened had I been killed in Iraq instead of having the good fortune to come through? Would he and sister and mom not be a family? So I think (for my POV only -- not putting this on you, fb2) that one form of the family is broken, but Family is, perhaps, merely dented.

When you are deprived of half your assets including half your retirement and future earnings

That's an irritation -- and for some, like @Thinker, far more than an irritation. In my sitch, it's WAW's irritation, earning as she does 4x what I do.

and your WAW is off living with or having sex with OMs?

If she's a single person, why shouldn't she be having sex? I certainly intend to. And with respect to the latter, my friend recently learned that his W has been having sex with OMs for 15 years. So the fact that he was "married" had comparatively little impact on that. The whole alpha-male, cuckoldry, etc. etc. thing doesn't really play with me, I'm afraid. WAW's post-D sex life is none of my business.

When all this is done with intent and finality and often with stupidity and an awareness of how hurtful it is?

I agree that it is both stupid and hurtful. But I don't have control over the stupidity piece. I do have control, + or -, over how hurtful it is by the way I choose to act, react, and evaluate.

Why choose to be: (1) unhappily married or (2) divorced when there was always a much better path which the WA chose to repeatedly ignore?

Assumptions carry a whole lot of the explanatory power in this one sentence! Quite apart from my own sitch, why assume "there was always a much better path"? That's a retrospective evaluation.

But if we learn anything from fine colleagues like @Greek and @DanceQueen and @pollyanna [and I'm referring to women because I don't recall there being a WAH or AWAH poster here? Anyone?], it's that your claim -- "there was always a much better path" -- is to the Walkaway by no means an obvious one. That's what MWD writes -- "logical" arguments about "better paths" have no effect on Walkaway because it doesn't seem logical to her/him.

And what if there isn't a "better path"? Here, too, MWD notes that not all marriages can be saved and, more importantly, not all marriages should be saved. In my own life, for example, it is clear to me that divorce was absolutely the best thing for my parents.

I don't buy the suing at all! It may be permitted by man's law but its certainly not God's law.

Suffice it to say that not all of us live in accordance with your god's law, either personally or as a society. And marriage is, at the end of the day, a judicial creation, not a theological one. The gods can say you're married until the cows come home, but until you have a certification of marriage from the secular state, you're just shacking up. So I can see where this would cause anguish in the hearts and souls of the faithful, but in my case it's not operational.

reflects a certain lack of respect for life and basic understanding of what marriage and family was intended to be.

That's a pretty bold statement. A lot of hubris there. Though I long ago abandoned them institutionally, the teachings of the Jesuit fathers always have a way of cropping up in my mind, and I seem to recall them admonishing us not to over-reach in our claims of "basic understanding." Without straying too far afield, I had occasion once to engage some very interesting historical work on the evolution of marriage as a social institution, and there is a great deal of evidence that what we consider to be "normal" marriage and family is really an artifact of the Protestant Reformation and only emerged in a recognizable form between 1550 and 1700. Even a cursory reading of the Old Testament certainly reveals a pretty flexible definition of "family" (how those old goomers managed to keep pumping out the babies....).

There's a point at which raging against the prevailing weather patterns becomes somewhat self-destructive, I think.

Sorry, I'm getting sick of this "validating" and rationalization approach.

That's certainly your prerogative and no "sorry" is required. I wouldn't necessarily conflate the " 'validating' and rationalization approach" with approval of divorce as an institution. If I understand the DB method correctly -- a problematic assumption, but that's another discussion -- one is validating WAS's feelings, not course of action, because refusing to validate them would likely be perceived as an "attack" and would serve only to push WAS farther away. That might be satisfying from moralistic and/or revenge-centered frame, but would -- it is said -- be counterproductive in terms of regaining the relationships.

If WAW's weren't so "rewarded" for their actions they would choose the 3rd option much more frequently.

Based on what evidence? Are we expected to believe that the 40%-50% divorce rate in this country has been produced by amicable divorces? Whether divorce is juridically "easy" or not is beside the point -- do you really believe that if one attacked and cursed and damned WAS, the marriage would be saved? Among other things, you seem to be giving yourself (metaphorically) a free ride. So LBS is perfect and it's all WAS's fault?

People are having affairs and MLC's and doing all sorts of nonsense and are not "at fault" for it; they are actually rewarded for it.

Where has anyone ever said that? (And in terms of the MLC, I'm not at all convinced by your argument. My understanding is that the MLC is involuntary.)

Sorry I simply do not agree with validating people who file for D for stupid or selfish reasons.

And who is the Stupidity and Selfish Judge? Each LBS? It seems to me that in at least some sitch's WAS is the Stupidity and Selfish Judge -- WAS says, "Hey LBS -- you've been Stupid and Selfish in this marriage, and I'm done." And what about those who file for smart and excellent reasons (from their own POV or even objectively [i.e., physical abuse, addiction])?

Divorce is willful, state sponsored destruction!!!

I completely disagree. If anything, the state makes it much HARDER to get a divorce than to get married. Blood test, 20 bucks for a license -- and Bob's Your Uncle, you're married. Divorced? Mandatory waiting periods (so much for state-sponsored), division of assets, (often) mandatory restraining orders, court filings, court fees, (often) mandated parenting plans, custodial supervision, litigation..... Doesn't sound all that easy to me.

The best some of us can do for ourselves is forgive the WA and the legal system in order to keep our sanity.

True enough. But doesn't forgiveness include precisely the kinds of acceptance that you're rejecting earlier in your post?

But what continues to go on remains plain wrong and there needs to be much better awareness of this.

I don't believe there isn't awareness of it. I don't think anyone -- not even the authors of the silly "how to have a good divorce" books -- think Divorce as an institution is a social good.

That was a very passionate post, fb2, and I'm glad you put it up here. I'm sure it will generate very interesting discussion.