A defense of the Divorcing Man in the Orthodox World.
(The original letter came as a response to some nut-job Agunah support activist from Haifa, and was first published on www.amhaaretz.com , July 2004. I have edited out all references to her name and organization, and I truly hope that she is doing well.)
Many feel that men who do not offer a Get to their wives upon separation are villians. Some surely earn the reputation of being rotten bastards. Some of these men were abusive to their wives during the marriage. It’s true, but those men are the exception, not the rule. Here are some facts/situations that the Agunah activists do NOT bother to mention. As you read them, you will know why they choose to omit them in their overall assessment of the problem. Hearing the other side of the story doesn’t fit well with their emotional need for control and revenge.
In many orthodox/religious families that operate businesses, the business, family, and marital ties are closely intertwined. A son-in-law in many cases will be brought upon marriage into an existing family business, be trained in it, and work hard, helping his wife’s family to greater economic fortune and prosperity. He is compensated for his work and reaps the benefits of such a lucrative marriage. For most of these men, short-sighted as it seems to many, that was pretty much the business plan all along.
That scenario is an envious one as long as the marriage is well and things are moving along smoothly. Gnawing at back of his mind, however, is the realization that the day he and his wife divorce, he will lose all the equity and effort he placed in her family’s business, AND he will also be out of a job and a home. Now, he isn’t only having to pay the statutory spousal/child support and the Kesubah, but he will be expected to do it without a paycheck or roof over his head; his legal fees notwithstanding.
This scenario doesn’t exist in the goyishe velt (the real world), where a man working at GM, Ford, or for the Postal Service files for a divorce and little really changes. One can marry or divorce anyone he chooses without fear of losing his primary income. In the US, it is against the law to fire an employee because of marital discord or divorce, unless it seriously affects the workers overall performance or creates a hostile work environment for others. It is also against the law to discriminate in hiring because of divorce or child support responsibilities. In many orthodox marriages, however, the business and marital ties are mutually inclusive. A divorcing man is out of a job the moment the divorce begins no matter how productive he is, or how much money he brings into the family.
The withholding of the Get may his only recourse for getting anything from his years of effort and hard work. The activists call it extortion and villiany. I think that sometimes it is more about survival and/or getting some sort of severance package from an otherwise belligerent ex-father-in-law and boss. The man is just trying to get what is OWED to him.
The author also fails to mention the slanderous gossip that some men endure in close-knit religious communities during the divorce from the woman’s family, as well as threats of loss of visitation rights and income. She fails to mention the almost completely lob-sided judicial system that blindly favors women over men in over 89% (US) of custody and support cases, even where there is good reason to favor the father. The Get, like it or not, is sometimes the only leverage a man has to get a fair shake in a divorce settlement. There are hundreds of cases of Orthodox men who lose rights to their children, or whose rights denied them by the children’s mother and relatives. All is fair in love and war it seems.
The activists also make NO distinction as to who initiated the divorce! Did she ever think that he didn’t want it? That he loved her and that SHE decided she wanted something else? Is it possible that he is using the Get as a means to hang on, as one last piece of hope? I know personally of such a case, and the man (a really nice guy) truly loved this woman. (He gave her what she wanted after she threatened to have him jailed.) The activists have absolutely NO regard for the feelings of the men involved. I don’t believe they even consider it, and therefore I label them as bitter feminists.
The Agunah activists paint the women as poor, helpless damsels crushed under the steel-toed boots of the patriarchal hierarchy and Rabbinic corruption, while at the same time, these women’s lawyers are winning bigger-than-ever settlements and making more outrageous claims against divorcing men then ever before. They also fail to mention the tougher laws for failing to comply with divorce decrees, which are always enforced upon the man, but seldom the woman. This is true in both Israel and the US, where large damage claims have been won by Agunahs.
The activists also do NOT mention that in most of the US, Canada, and the rest of the civilized world, an Ecclesiastical Divorce is now binding as civil LAW, and failure to do so is an act of contempt and could bring jail time for the offender. In places where that is not the case, a woman simply has to instruct her lawyer to put it in the decree. That is how it worked in my divorce, though I was more than happy to give her the Get anyway.
So what is man to do in such situations? For starters, he should protect himself going to into such arrangements with prenuptial contracts whenever possible. It seems cold, but if a man ends up beholden to the wife’s family for a living, he could get screwed in an instant. Couples should discuss the possibility of divorce before they marry. A reality check is always helpful. Either way, the couple should do what they can together to avoid, in the event of marital breakdown, the chaos that so often ensues.
These activists are well meaning in their intent (I think), and are obviously concerned for the happiness of those in very unfortunate situations, but they lack in their willingness to see the other side of the story. To them, it is black or white, and nothing else is possible. I get a little tired of anti-male one-sided tirades, often masked as intelligent research and caring endeavor, when in truth, the caring should be spread in both directions.
Sometimes in our heated quest for ‘ justice’ (a socially acceptable synonym for revenge), we lose sight of the ‘other’, that person who is really neither victim nor criminal, but one who, out of desperation, seeks any means available to maintain his humanity. When you can no longer testify to his, then it is most likely that you have already lost your own.
(There are follow-up letters to come.)
1 Comments:
All Is Fair In Love & War
Now we have the ideal meeting the real. Fortunately for those in happy marriages or relationships, the sense of peace and contentment seldom overshadow one’s common decency and civility. However, once the emotional ball gets rolling out into traffic, the story changes. How many otherwise decent, loving people have become insane with rage and vengeance when emotionally hurt? Why do so many, both men and women, justify lying, stealing, and violence upon those who they once, and not a long time ago, professed undying love and everlasting affection?
Take a look back through history into wartime behaviours. An otherwise moral man may even be brought to deception, and the timid man becomes a hero. Both from their need to survive. It is unknown who will become what in a desperate time. That instinct is directly relational to the biochemical changes that occur under specific conditions. Individuals will have varied degrees and often completely opposite responses to identical circumstances based solely on their biochemical ability to produce adrenalin. Relative differences in the cogntitive processes of each contributes to this, as well. (This is why some say that ignorance is bliss, because you may not know enough to be scared!) It is precisely for this reason that cognitive training and practice are essential to controvert the sometimes overwhelming biochemical/emotional responses that we possess.
Love is different from war only in that if we do it once and fail, most of us are willing to give it another try, since the rewards are so incredible. That, however, is where the differences end. Love is a chemical reaction to feelings and thoughts of pleasure that another person, idea, or thing bring into our lives. The rush is no less powerful, stemming from the same source and does the fear that ensues during wartime. Soldiers train for battle and the rigors of warfare, and therefore survive better than civilians. A warrior trained for every possible event practices his response and developes better ways of coping and overcoming adversity on the battlefield. He has deep ranks of superiors who study the art of warfare and impart their experience directly and effectively to the recruit.
Who trains us to love? To deal with the emotional rush and fallout? To remain civil under the pressure of broken dreams?
Well, you know who does that. Our parents, grandparents, teachers, peers, and the media contribute to our view of love and how it operates. They aren’t always the best sources for information either. Love has been interpreted in a wide range of ways, from ‘allowing freedom’, to ‘seeking our own path’, to control freakism. We are not being trained in any rational way to deal with highly emotional situations, like the soldier who practices keeping his cool under fire. We simply mimic the behaviour we see from others without giving it much thought. (There are of course fine examples of people who unconsciously and effortlessly handle all kinds of highly charged situations with elegant poise. Make those people your leaders. )
A man goes out into combat and murders another man from another country sent out to murder him. That is definitely what I would call an emotionally charged event, even for the battle hardened soldier. Then after the war, the very same man goes home to his wife and family and is no longer the warring conqueror. He pets his dog, waters his lawn, and reads the paper like anyone else. How can that be? The answer is simple. It’s situational! The wife poses no threat to her husband (and vice versa) so there is no reason to form the biochemical responses that come from fear or anger.
Let’s say the relationship goes awry. The man feels his livlihood and sense of worth threatened by the impending divorce. The woman may feel quite helpless, abandoned, or angry, and compensate by becoming aggressive in her demands from him. Persons, who in the everyday workplace are the most caring, poised, effective, and engaging persons, once in contact with each other and emotionally charged, become raving maniacs. Just like in war. It’s situational. So many allow themselves to fall into behaviours that under normal circumstances they could never consider as options, let alone solutions.
So, do not misinterpret my statement of “all is fair” as some kind of moral imperative or some guideline to live by. Not at all. This is simply a statement relative to the scientifically observed and tested patterns of behaviour that, considering the biological and social factors, we should expect from those in emotionally charged situations to display. Having this understanding leads to compassion, because is recognizes the humanity of all involved and mitigates the judgement based upon that recognition. It does not mean we don’t hold them accountable or responsible, but that our assessment of them must be tempered with compassion.
Lets stop making victims or criminals and get back to helping people think straight. They’re just human.
(Oiginally posted on www.amhaaretz.com July 2004
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home