A frequent theme in literature, as in life, is the Eternal Triangle of Man, Woman – and interloper. A married couple, in the usual portrayal, whose pair-bond is strained by the presence and attentions of another; the lovely stranger who captures the desire of the man, the handsome rogue who captures the desire of the woman. The subject of the whole story, of course, is the strains that are visited on the pair-bond, and the attempts of the jilted partner to win back the heart of the partner gone astray.
For the past few decades, though, the Eternal Triangle has gained a new and sinister interloper. It doesn’t come to steal your partner’s heart, or to steal you away from the bonds of an old relationship. It comes instead, as a “White Knight,” to rescue the “afflicted, powerless, victimized” partner of a strained marriage from the “dominating, dangerous, threatening” other; and it brings not seduction or flattery to the table, but overwhelming power – guns and handcuffs and restraining orders, and a court system to back up its will.
The new Eternal Triangle is Man, Woman – and The State.
For 97% of the “History Of Marriage,” the union between a man and a woman has been a private matter, not one of the State. In many societies, it was a matter between families; the Smiths had a husband-high daughter, the McCoys had an old-enough son, and the two were introduced and induced to “kindle a spark,” with the goal of a June wedding. (Or a May wedding, if she “may be pregnant.”) In others, the parents were introduced by a matchmaker, whose business it was to “arrange these matters;” the lucky couple might not even meet until the ceremony. Among the aristocracy, marriage was less about love or happiness than about political unions – and power, a power to be joined and sealed by the next generation. (Hence the famous motherly advice to the bride – “Lie back and think of England.”)
It’s only recently that love, romantic love, between the partners, became the primary and even the sole criterion for selecting and marrying a mate.
Now, I’m not saying that’s a problem, certainly not for the engagement and the wedding and the honeymoon. It does leave an open-ended question, though, that can, and often does, become a problem: What happens when the “romantic” period, the giddy head-over-heels infatuation of young love, loses its force to long familiarity and custom? What happens when “the honeymoon is over” and that “love” fades?
For 99% of “History,” the fading of giddy infatuation was ignored. By the time it faded, the couple were too busy raising children, and providing for them, to give it much thought. “Romantic” love naturally was superseded by motherly/fatherly love, by the comradeship of the shared struggle to raise a family; or else some sort of accommodation was reached, with the help and encouragement of the extended family and the community, to keep Maw and Paw at peace and keep the family together. Divorce was rare, and it was regarded as failure; as failing your families, failing your spouse, failing your children.
When marriage was the province of the Church, dissolving the marriage bonds was not an easy task. (Consider Henry VIII, who is said to have founded the Church of England in anger over Rome’s refusal to let him divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn.) As the Church relinquished control of marriage to the State, the bar was still set high; the State still regarded that it was in its interest that the marriage should survive, and so a petition for divorce had to include solid reasons why the marriage should be dissolved (such as desertion, adultery, or the classic “cruel and abusive treatment”). This eased off some in the 1950s and the 1960s, but with the advent of “no-fault” divorce laws (starting, in the USA, with California in 1969), divorce could be granted virtually on the say-so of an “aggrieved” spouse; the marriage could be dissolved almost on whim, as in “I’m not ‘in love’ with him any more.”
But what about the children? And what about the joint property of the marriage – the cars, the house, the furniture, the “joint” income? What happens to them? Especially “the children – the poor, poor children,” as Society would say. “No-fault divorce” led to “plenty-of-fault” custody battles, and the lawyers were not slow at taking these issues to court.
Feminists, and their White Knights in the legal system, labored mightily and effectively to make this a “winning situation” for the ex-wife – and they continue to do so. “Domestic Violence” is a fruitful area, and the DV laws and procedures stack the deck heavily in favor of the “little woman,” the other “DV” in this scenario – the “Designated Victim.” And modern White-Knight jurisprudence, following the “Duluth Model” of domestic-violence resolution, designates Woman. She can be found standing over his slashed body, knife in her hand, bloody and crazy as Lucia Lammermoor, and The Law will arrest … the man. It may be his blood on the knife, his blood on her hands, but The Law still holds him as the “primary abuser.” Yes, It’s All His Fault ™.
Even better is a charge of “child abuse,” especially “sex abuse.” This will definitely bring out the neighbors with torches and pitchforks. Even the accusation alone could get him fired, blacklisted, shunned as a pariah. And it actually takes no more than her statement, “I’m afraid of him,” to set the juggernaut to rolling inexorably over his rights, his liberty, his everything. She can get a restraining order in a heartbeat; he’s forbidden to visit his own house, talk with his children, visit or even call on the phone in many cases. He is out of the picture. Meanwhile … she keeps the house. He keeps the mortgage. The children, of course, stay with her. There is an immense governmental machine ready to help her, if she needs help; he might find a sleeping place on a friend’s sofa, if he’s lucky.
The Family Court process completes the drama. Family Court is quite completely biased in favor of the Designated Victim. Her tears, her emotional histrionics, can only be out-weighted by serious “hard’ evidence; the Court is biased against him, especially if she accused him of domestic violence or “sex abuse.” Professional witnesses, social workers and court-appointed guardians, are biased against him too. He’s likely to lose fifty percent of everything he’s managed to put together for his family, his children, his-and-her future. And court costs, attorney’s bills, and administrative fees will likely strip him of whatever he may have left after the Court levies child support on his wages.
At the end of this “Eternal Triangle,” then, we get the man, cold and lonely, on his own; and the Woman, safe in the protection, the enveloping and supporting arms, of The State.
Happy ending?
Fade to black….
Beyond The Sunset 