Divorce versus DemocracyChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
Philosophy
Divorce versus Democracy
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
Divorce
But this test of technical cruelty, which is rough and ready as applied
to the rich, is absolutely mad and meaningless as applied to the poor. A
poor woman does not judge her husband as a bully by whether he has ever
hit out. One might as well say that a schoolboy judges whether another
schoolboy is a bully by whether he has ever hit out. The poor wife, like
the schoolboy, judges him as a bully by whether he is a bully. She knows
that while wife-beating may really be a crime, wife-hitting is sometimes
very like just self-defence. No one knows better than she does that her
husband often has a great deal to put up with; sometimes she means him
to; sometimes she is justified. She comes and tells all this to
magistrates again and again; in police court after police court women
with black eyes try to explain the thing to judges with no eyes. In
street after street women turn in anger on the hapless knight-errant who
has interrupted an instantaneous misunderstanding. In these people’s
lives the rooms are crowded, the tempers are torn to rags, the natural
exits are forbidden. In such societies it is as abominable to punish or
divorce people for a blow as it would be to punish or divorce a
gentleman for slamming the door. Yet who can doubt, if ever divorce is
applied to the populace, it would be applied in the spirit which takes
the blow quite seriously? If any one doubts it, he does not know what
world he is living in.
It is common to meet nowadays men who talk of what they call Free Love
as if it were something like Free Silver--a new and ingenious political
scheme. They seem to forget that it is as easy to judge what it would be
like as to judge of what legal marriage would be like. “Free Love” has
been going on in every town and village since the beginning of the
world; and the first fact that every man of the world knows about it is
plain enough. It never does produce any of the wild purity and perfect
freedom its friends attribute to it. If any paper had the pluck to head
a column “Is Concubinage a Failure?” instead of “Is Marriage a Failure?”
the answer “Yes” would be given by the personal memory of many men, and
by the historic memory of all. Modern people perpetually quote some wild
expression of monks in the wilderness (when a whole civilisation was
maddened by remorse) about the perilous quality of Woman, about how she
was a spectre and a serpent and a destroying fire. Probably the
establishment of nuns, situated a few miles off, described Man also as a
serpent and a spectre; but their works have not come down to us.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account