THE TEST YEAR OF MARRIAGE

Evening Star, Issue 20687, 9 January 1931, Page 14

THE TEST YEAR OF MARRIAGE

WHICH IS IT? “Marriage is merely an agreement l<> live together . . said Mr .luslicn M'Cardic at the Leeds Assizes remit ly. Tin* best way tu lacc the leal year of marriage is . • • to regard marriage as an agreement—a contract (writes Mary Borden). If there is any particular year in marriage that may he termed the lost year it is surely the llrst year. The point wc have to keep in mind is that marriages do not break' the moment they go wrong. The actual break occurs long afterwards. Whatever comes after the first year is more or less settled by (hat year. The breaking away may not occur lor ten years. The increase of divorce" is duo to the fact that women have changed much more than men. The women were not worn out by the war. They did not suffer as men did. The men came hack from the war exhausted. retaining their old ideas of a dutiful wife doing needlework hy (lie fireside; hut a phase of extraordinary development had set in, and (lie women were (and still are) bursting with activity. WIVES MOKE EXACTING. The result is a maladjustment betwee men and women in these post-war limes. And this is a fact that must he taken seriously into consideration in any discussion of marriage. Men still have the Victorian idea that a woman must do ail she can to hold her husband. But women don't want to hold their husbands as much as they used to—certainly not at the same price—for (hey have many more interests in life to-day. They arc therefore more exacting, and they do not see why there should be one moral law for men and another for women. The best way to face the test year of marriage is not to go into it with such ocnventionally romantic notions, but ratherto regard it as an agreement—a contract—ns the French do. ff (hat were done Iherco would he far greater chances of success. If Ihe parlies were not so much concerned with their pride and their vanities, things would not go smash at the first difficulty. Many people expect too much of marriage. They appear to think (hey are entering inlo a perfect state hy (he mere art of marrying. Vet (hey arc ready to break it up when they find it is not giving them what they had hoped for. Which is unreasonable, to say the least. It is not the state of marriage that is at fault, but the people concerned in it. The fact- is, married people are often extremely selfish. They expect all sorts of extraordinary things of marriage, and when they arc not forthcoming there is disunion. A BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP. If children fail to come up to our expectation wo do not stop being fond of them. When a man goes into a business partnership ho knows quite definitely (hat he will have to put his brains, his 'lime, and his money into it, if ho means to succeed. Ho knows lie will have all sorts of obligations to meet, and he is prepared tu meet them. Why don’t men and women enter matrimony in the same spirit? Why don't they go into it prepared to give their all, to meet every obligation, in order to make it a success? For that is the lest they will face in (ho first year of marriage, and if they will not give then disaster must sooner or later ensue. , It seems to mo that many people, whilst acting perfectly sensibly with regard to their business relations, are utterly nonsensical in their matrimonial relations. All sorts of reasons are given for matrimonial failures, hut the most ridiculous, i think, is to blame the children. A writer, summing up the factors in the divorce sittings recently, had this to say;— “It was noticeable that in the groat majority of cases the early years of marriage were the critical ones, and that the arrival of children was frequently a wrecking factor. . . ‘1 noticed a change after the baby was horn,’ caino often from the witness box, 'We were quite happy for the first year or two,' was another common phrase.” The idea that children bring disasterwell, I can but gasp in amazement. Surely marriage exists for the children? If it does not—why be married at all? Married people who claim that they arc perfectly happy without children seem to me to ho quite abnormal. Children are far more important than the parents, They have more rights. Their whole lives aro before them. We have no right to consider thorn so much baggage. If 1 were reforming the divorce laws, I should pay little attention to the parents, but I should give all my attention to the claims of tho children, they c.anno defend themselves. They have no say in the matter. They arc at the mercy of their elders. In most cases where parents are seeking divorce tho very act is an admission that their first thought is for themselves. The case comes on and the rights of the children —what is to become of them, what will be their rights henceforth —is scarcely considered. MAKE MARRIAGE- DIFFICULT. I am not opposed to divorce. 1 realise that there are cases in which it is the only just way out of the difficulty. For two people who hate each other to continue in marriage, and to bring up children in an atmosphere of hate, is disastrous. It seems to me that the. problem is not one. of making divorce easier, but of making marriage more difficult. There ought to he a lest before marriage. People are not admitted into business relations without, qualifications, yet how many many without any qualification? Tho only interesting thing about marriage is its permanence. Otherwise it is no more interesting than a love affair. If tho parties concerned in a marriage had to qualify for (ho right to marry there would ho no lest year afterwards.