Is Divorce Only for the Rich?
That’s the question that this Huffington Post op-ed by Judith Acosta begs:
Since 2008, most of us have been walking budgetary tightropes — cutting a piece off of this, snipping some off of that. For a significant percentage, it’s been a steady slide into fiscal chaos, foreclosures, and fear. . . . Inevitably, a change so vast has also affected our relationships.
There seem to be two trends at the same time:
On one hand, with less expendable income, there are less expendable marriages. Our new economic realities may be forcing yet another belt tightening — or heart tightening — process: People can no longer afford to get divorced.
One attorney in White Plains, N.Y., Joy Joseph, Esq., has been a specialist in matrimonial law for many years. In the last six years, she has seen a very clear downward trend in the number of divorces:
“For people of moderate means, the economy has had a big impact. It is very expensive to get divorced. Only a part of it is attorney’s fees. The bigger part is that the assets are split or devalued in the process. Usually that’s the house, in which they have very little equity. Plus there’s the risk of losing the partner’s health benefits. They’re afraid to live uninsured. So, they cling to an unhappy marriage because they can’t afford to leave.”
On its face, this makes sense: beyond being able to pay the fees associated with divorcing, wealthy people are also more likely to be able to independently sustain themselves financially following a divorce. But is this the reality? Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart, which I wrote about here, discusses at length how marriage is much stronger as an institution among the rich than among the poor. And there have been studies done suggesting that the more educated (and, therefore, wealthy) a demographic is, the lower its divorce rates are–and the happier it is.
Acosta’s piece appeared in the “divorce” vertical of the Huffington Post, a section of the news and opinion website whose motto is “marriages come and go, but divorce is forever.” Given that, it would be fair to assume that Acosta would be a marriage skeptic. Certainly after reading the portion of it I excerpted above, you would be forgiven for assuming that she sees a certain injustice in the fact that poorer people may not be able to divorce as easily as richer people. Yet, she concludes her article on a pro-marriage note:
I think of the few moments I was angry and fleetingly considered bailing on my marriage–probably the same time my husband considered a similar solution. What made us stand still and work it through? Admittedly, besides occasional pride and obstinacy, our marriage is very stable. Was it just love, then? Surely love was a good part of it, but I don’t believe it was all of it. I believe the commitment and the difficulty of feathering apart two completely interwoven lives overrode the momentary instability. In being faced with staying, we had to work at it. Easy? Far from it. Humbling. Frustrating. Wearisome. Not easy.
But eminently worth it for us. The process brought us to an entirely new level of intimacy, validating everything the optimists hope for and all that clergy argue: that most of us take the easy way out far too easily and leave before the miracle happens. . . .
While I am certainly not in favor of someone staying in a marriage that puts him or her (or children, especially) at risk, I think it might do us all a bit of good to slow down, to take a bit more time between the fight and the time we scream, “I’m outta here!”
Acosta’s conclusion is not only refreshing, given the venue it was published in, but it is also running against the grain of popular culture, where marriage skepticism reigns supreme. The “I’m outta here” impulse defines the most public and publicized divorces of our age—those, in other words, that appear in the tabloids. Celebrities are always filing for divorce. As soon as the first marital conflict arises, as soon as they realize that marriage requires work and compromise, they call their lawyers. When Kim Kardashian divorced Kris Humphries, they had been married for a mere 72 days.
The ceaseless coverage of these high-profile divorces, like the Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston split, undoubtedly glamorizes them. The intrigue, the conflicts, the drama, the fallout, the feelings–us mere mortals can’t seem to get enough of it. Meanwhile, the message being sent is that marriage is supposed to be easy and, when it’s not, we are justified to throw our vows away. The idea of “commitment” has been supplanted by the selfish vogue of personal “convenience.”
The stars of the real world are not the only ones with broken families, either. Divorce is the hip new thing on television too, as Slate reports:
Turn on your TV tonight. Or tomorrow. . . .The odds are good you will see a divorced mother. On TV, if nowhere else, divorced and separated moms are the demographic of the day: Cougar Town, Breaking Bad, Parenthood, Mad Men, Californication, Damages, Hung, The Good Wife, and now I Hate My Teenage Daughter all feature divorced or divorcing mothers. . . I Hate My Teenage Daughter, uses divorce as a casual plot device, one that allows it to plunk two insecure moms on the same couch, where they can make weight jokes and commiserate about how their daughters treat them. Meanwhile, Louie, one of TVs best comedies, is about the daily life of a divorced dad.
So divorce is not only a trendy topic in today’s pop culture, it is also a source of comedy (which would be news, by the way, to the children of divorced parents). The reality is that breaking a family up is nothing less than tragic, a fact that Acosta captures when she begrudgingly acknowledges that the divorce rate will likely climb once our country pulls out of the recession: “[experts] predict that as the downturn resolves, divorce rates will quickly go back up again, which make some people hopeful. That statistical prediction strikes me as sad, even if it is necessary or inevitable.”
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: Is Divorce Only for the Rich?
I think that casual divorce along with draconian rules punishing men for.... being men, is probably the number 1 thing that hurts the institution of marriage.
May '10
Re: Is Divorce Only for the Rich?
Divorce is one of the worst plagues to have ever struck our nation.
Take it from someone who has had to deal with plenty of marital issues and yet is happily married at least 80% of the time. Stick to it! Yes, there are still issues. But it's worth it. Your life will (ironically) be so much better if you sacrifice yourself for your spouse, unless you are truly married to an abusive psycho. And having a fight from time to time does not qualify your spouse as a psycho.
A wise teacher once said: Those who lay down their lives will save them; those who try to save their lives will lose them. Ironically, or perhaps not so ironically, when I lay down my interests (not as a doormat, but with love, even if I have to grit my teeth) in favor of my wife's, we both end up better off, and my interests end up mostly being served too-- certainly more than if we were to divorce. And that is not even considering the kids' interests.
Our culture is far too lacking in this kind of self-sacrifice or wisdom.
May '10
Re: Is Divorce Only for the Rich?
Seems to me that Murray's point was that marriage these days has become only for the rich. Hard to see divorce as an issue when they simply cohabitate instead and move out whenever they get bored.
May '10
Re: Is Divorce Only for the Rich?
And-- what would you define as "being a man" in the above context? I hope you're not including being unfaithful as part of that.
However, I do think that in today's world and under today's rules, casual divorce hurts men more than it hurts women.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 9:00pmMay '10
Re: Is Divorce Only for the Rich?
But it always has been. In 1932 Cole Porter wrote the words and music for a Broadway show called the Gay Divorce (retitled The Gay Divorcee for the movies). Back then to get a divorce you had to show grounds, the most convenient of which was adultery. The plot of the show revolved around the heroine being caught with a paid "co-respondent" so her husband would divorce her and free her up to marry her true love.
In 1937 Leo McCarey directed Gary Grant and Irene Dunne in The Awful Truth, the story of a divorcing couple drawn together by their communal property, Mr. Smith, a wire fox terrier.
Back then a divorce took a year to finalize and you could call it off simply by re-consummating the marriage.
Other examples include Noel Coward's Private Lives, Philip Barry's The Philadelphia Story (and its musical remake, High Society). And of course there is Much Ado About Nothing by some guy from England.
Dec '11
Re: Is Divorce Only for the Rich?
Chris Deleon
And-- what would you define as "being a man" in the above context? I hope you're not including being unfaithful as part of that.
However, I do think that in today's world and under today's rules, casual divorce hurts men more than it hurts women. · 11 minutes ago
Edited 11 minutes ago
By being a man, I mean having an X and a Y chromosome, and/or having a penis and self-identify as male.
Feb '12
Re: Is Divorce Only for the Rich?
Good News: Finally something that lawyers are'nt getting rich from.Bad News: They now have time to look for other things to sue about
May '10
Re: Is Divorce Only for the Rich?
Guruforhire
Chris Deleon
And-- what would you define as "being a man" in the above context? I hope you're not including being unfaithful as part of that.
By being a man, I mean having an X and a Y chromosome, and/or having a penis and self-identify as male.
Good... when some people say, "Men will be men" they are really excusing truly bad behavior as inherent to males.
Re: Is Divorce Only for the Rich?
Divorce is no more a comedy for the couple getting divorced than it is for their children (if they have any). Even when it is a great relief, there is ample cause for regret.
Back when I lived in Oklahoma, I read a piece in the newspaper reporting that Oklahoma had the highest divorce rate in the nation. That, however, was due to the fact that evangelical Christians tend to get married in the first place.
May '11
Re: Is Divorce Only for the Rich?
"So divorce is not only a trendy topic in today’s pop culture, it is also a source of comedy."
Following up on EJHill's comment, unmarried dads (usually widowers, back then) have been a sitcom staple since the beginning of TV. My Three Sons, Bachelor Father, A Family Affair, The Courtship of Eddie's Father...
Edited on February 25, 2012 at 1:37amNov '10
Re: Is Divorce Only for the Rich?
This is the kind of statement that drives me absolutely bonkers. She is saying, in effect, it wasn't love that kept us together, it was commitment, and so we had to work at it. This is what is wrong with modern marriage; that people distinguish love from commitment and from working at a relationship. Love is commitment and working at a relationship. Love is a decision, not a feeling you get swept up in.
If people understood that love is not a feeling, then there would be no divorces caused by "falling out of love."
End rant.