<![CDATA[Jezebel: separation]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/jezebel.com.png <![CDATA[Jezebel: separation]]> http://jezebel.com/tag/separation http://jezebel.com/tag/separation <![CDATA[O Writer Claims That Beneath Every Marriage Runs The "Chyron Of Divorce"]]> The eminently reasonable Hanna Rosin, whom you might remember as the journalist guinea pig who agreed to stay within 15 feet of her husband for 24 hours, is dismayed by an O: Oprah Magazine article called "Divorce Dreams" by New York Times scribe Ellen Tien. And Rosin is piqued for good reason: Tien says some obnoxious and depressing things about the state of her marriage. "The story's first sentence is: 'I contemplate divorce every day.'" Rosin notes. "Three paragraphs in, I was shocked that someone would write this way under her own byline about her living husband, and not her ex…The premise is that women of certain class, flush with financial independence, yoga-toned arms and infinite choices, all yearn for divorce every day." Rosin pleads with her readers: "Help me out here, ladies. Is this true? Am I living in a fantasy land? Or is Ellen Tien as bitchy as she seems?" I can answer her questions: No, this isn't true; No, Rosin is not living in a fantasy land; Yes, Tien is as bitchy as she seems.

I also don't find Tien's honesty "brave," I find it sad. When you share your life with someone, of course you will be frequently annoyed by them. But, beneath those frequent irritations, there is a deep affection, one that's so thickly layered that it's difficult to describe publicly without feeling you've betrayed your partner, or belittled your shared emotions by attempting to explain them in a way that's accessible to others.

Rosin describes the beginning of Tien's piece — it's "a portrait of her bumbling fool of a husband, who lies, always says exactly the wrong thing, scratches his armpit at a parent-teacher conference and then 'absently smells his fingers.'" To publicly denigrate someone you ostensibly still love in that way is kind of scary to me. Why is she staying with someone she doesn't publicly respect? Tien also writes that "Beneath the thumpingly ordinary nature of of our marriage — Everymarriage — runs the silent chyron of divorce." It seems like for her, the chyron is silent but deadly.

Divorce Anyone? [Slate]

Earlier: Slate Power Couple Attempts To Stay Within 15 Feet Of Each Other For 24 Hours

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5023365&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Divorce Is Not For Democrats]]> In today's Wall Street Journal, a reader named L.H. from Ohio writes to columnist Sue Shellenbarger:

You wrote that living in a Blue State reduces the odds of divorce. Democrats divorce at a lower rate than Republicans? I find that very difficult to believe.
Shellenbarger responds that the so-called "blue" states have lower divorce rates than "red" ones for a variety of reasons, including education levels that inspire the affianced to think long and hard about all the reasons for getting married before they hop the Greyhound to Vegas (resulting in lower overall marriage levels and a reduction in the reasons for divorce in the first place.) My problem with "L.H. from Ohio"'s letter is that I find it sort of difficult to believe that he/she would even ask the question, especially in an election year like this one.

Because, really? Let's count our long-marrieds who were actual contenders in the race this year: Democratic front-runners Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson are all still on their first marriages. But on the Republican side, only Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, both famously very religious, have stuck by the first women to whom they promised "for better or for worse." Last-man-standing John McCain divorced his first wife for Cindy, Fred Thompson left his first wife and picked up a younger model and Rudy Giuliani is famously on his third wife.

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to L.H. that many politicians on the right come from the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do school of thinking. Abstinence-only education and encouraging people to marry and stay married is for the electorate — the minor party functionaries and the voters who want to believe that the 1950s was the best decade in American history — not the ruling class. Because if history is any indication, the leader will likely keep leaving their wives for younger women and boning the interns. It's always good to have someone to cushion the fall when you're knocked off that high horse!

Work & Family Mailbox [Wall Street Journal]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=375676&view=rss&microfeed=true