To my 'judgment' that article is disingenuous.
It is not so much that you jumped on that poor soul with hob-nailed
shoes, but that you formulated the 'jump' quite as the husband might
have done. That is, if _she_ would repent and change her course, she
would soon find that _he_ was all right, and--inferentially--all the
trouble was of her making. Not one word on the other side! You even
quote your own experience _against_ her. My dear, _did_ you really find
that your 'trouble' was of your own making, and _did_ you really change
ANYTHING except your own amount of distress during the process of
disintegration? Marriage is the only contract which society does not
promptly admit to be broken when either party refuses to fulfill his
obligations--as agreed to. And in view of the custom of ages, and the
instinct in woman formed by such custom (when instinct makes the
establishing of Individuality the _very_ hardest thing in life for a
generous woman), I think that your implication against the woman, trying
with all the light she's _got_ to keep her side of that very one-sided
contract is simply--cruel! I wish I could get at that girl and tell her
that her _only_ chance for happiness is through the paradox 'Whoso
_will_ not lose his life _cannot_ find it.
Pages:
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52