If This Is Divorce, Why Should Any Man Get Married? Pt. 2

A few years ago on a panel show, Hill Harper, the always engaging, very affable star of CSI-NY, and author of the book ‘The Conversation,’ and one of my favorite people, made a heartfelt observation concerning marriage and happiness, “When a (man) who is happily married shows up to a group of other (men), he doesn’t just show up and go, “Hey, my wife is so good; i’m so happy!” He’ just quiet about it, right? But a (man) who is unhappily married can’t stop talking about it. So what happens, if you’re a single (man) like me, you’re hearing so much from the unhappy (men). But what I found out when I did the book, more (men) that are married are happier, than the (men) who aren’t.”

Harper went on to observe that men and women must listen to each other to ensure coupling and marriages. On the surface, Hills observation seems logical. In fact, if having people get married is the ultimate goal, Mr. Harper’s observation is logical. Listening to happy couples may persuade single people to get married. But while happy-couple tales may ensure single people get married; getting married doesn’t ensure happy couples. And when *divorce occurs, which is more than likely (fact not opinion); men are almost always ensured plenty of

misery. So, knowing that half or more of all marriages end in divorce, and that most men will sustain the most misery of the divorcing couple, why is it pertinent that we encourage marriage, or that we encourage single men to listen to happy couples to ensure they get married? Men (and women) can get their doses of ‘good relationships’ from entertainment: movies, TV shows, literary works, and especially commercials for diamonds and greeting cards. However, real life is not entertainment, and to that fact, men need to know the truth about marriage…and especially about divorce. Women warn other women about the pitfalls of marriage/divorce, right? Of course they do. Why wouldn’t they? It’s the right thing to do.

But sometimes women are the pitfalls. There are plenty of crazy women out there, and sometimes men may not realize it until they are married to, and especially divorced from, one. A crazy woman will usually try to draw a man in as deep as she can until she reveals her craziness. Usually by the time her crazy is revealed to her man, she will legally have him exactly where she wants him. Relax ladies, don’t consider that a misogynistic remark. It was basically a paraphrased statement from one of the most popular women-empowerment voices in America. Just check her out on the video (‘Women hide their craziness…’ {at the 2:00 mark}) as she dispenses advice to the legions of women who hang on her every word. Pay close attention guys, as she suggests a game plan to crazy women. No disgruntled guy could ever deliver better a better warning for those of you who think, “but my girl would never be crazy like that.”

If you just watched the video, you realize the saintly Hasslebeck is instructing women to ‘fake it’ until their married, or worse yet, hurry up and get married before their fiancé’s ‘figures out’ how damn crazy they are. And Ms. Hasslebeck is instructing these women to dupe their men because she is well aware of one thing — once these charlatans are married to the men whom they have duped, they have those men firmly by the nads, both in marriage, as well as divorce.

As we addressed in ‘If This is Divorce..Pt.1,’ for men, divorce means many foul things: a forced separation from their children, doubling of their financial strain, devastating depression, and absolutely no margin for error. Any error, any misstep, or any deviation from the divorce map, is a jailable offense…for men. And women know this. Most women may love their children and do what’s right for the benefit of everyone involved in the stressful event, but ‘most women’ are not who a divorced man must worry about; a divorced man must worry about only one woman, the one he divorced. And that one woman may choose to exploit every jailable offense hanging over a divorced fathers head. Men should never disregard the lengths an angry woman will go to destroy her ex. An angry women will do almost anything to destroy a man, and while she carries out her plan, she will continue to be considered the victim, while the abuse suffered by the real victim, the Invisible Victim, the man, will be ignored. Knowing this, why wouldn’t men (and women) regularly offer warnings to single men? Isn’t it the right thing to do? Of course it is!

We offer cautions to people in every other facet of life: wear your seatbelt or you could die in a car accident; don’t take drugs or you could get thrown in jail; don’t drink and drive; don’t invest your money in a business that appear too good to be true, etc. And women even get an extra set of cautions, don’t go to a guy’s house if you’ve been drinking; don’t date a guy with no job; don’t stay with a man who uses harsh language towards you; travel in pairs when walking at night; don’t take a drink from a stranger; don’t leave your drink unattended; and the list goes on. So why wouldn’t abused guys warn other guys, or provide examples to other guys, of the hell they are likely to endure if they marry, then divorce? On a fairytale basis, I understand Hill Harpers’ appeal for happily-married men to evangelize marriage to single men; but in reality, it seems counter intuitive to regale single men only with tales of great marriages, or amicable divorces, when it’s the not-so-great marriages, and deplorable divorces, which may define or destroy the rest of their lives?

So, if bolstering the marriage industry, or pushing the idea that a person is somehow a better person if he or she is married, are the only reasons to persuade people to get married, then, by all means, tell single people all the happily-ever-after stories they need to hear. But if honesty about the potential devastation of rushing into a marriage is the ultimate goal, then we should be rattling off the horror stories every time we are asked about our experiences. Every man on the planet should be made aware — divorce is slanted harshly against men.

In an article titled, ‘How to Divorce: How Can I Win in Divorce Court?,‘ divorce lawyer J. Richard Kulerski’s writings tell readers just how fickle divorce, and divorce advice, can be:

In order to obtain a result that is better than what your spouse has offered, you must be able to prove a set of facts that warrant a finding in your favor, and you must have the law on your side. You must also resist the temptation to say or do something to shoot yourself in the foot, e.g. act in a way that could make the judge think less of you. This last part is where you have some control over the outcome.

Remember that once the trial starts, the only person you must convince is the judge. Let your lawyer worry about the evidence, the law, and the overall delivery of your case. Your job in the courtroom is to do what you can to present yourself as a reasonable, good, and credible person.

With this in mind, do not grimace, roll your eyes, or use body language to suggest that whoever is testifying on your spouse’s behalf is lying. Do not make faces if you hear something you do not agree with, and do not pass notes to your lawyer when he or she is addressing the court or questioning a witness.

Make things easier on yourself by accepting that your sense of justice or fairness will not dictate the outcome. It is the law that counts, not your personal beliefs.

Accept the law that applies in your case as it is, and not as you wish it to be.

In the span of a few paragraphs, Mr. Kulerski manages to contradict himself greatly, while exposing the true nature of human perception, prejudice, bias, and judgment (legal and otherwise). If we pay close attention to his words, he first tells us provable facts count in divorce matters, but then one sentence later he insists the way you ‘act’ can make the judge think less of you. When Mr. Kiruleski tells readers to do what they can to present themselves as reasonable, good, and credible, he is basically telling us that judges tend to ignore ‘facts.’ He is informing us that presentation, or looks, seems to be the determining factor in these court cases. Then he flips back again by claiming ‘(our) sense of justice or fairness’ will not dictate the outcome. So then, if the law counts, not your personal belief, does that go for the judge as well? If a set of items are provable, why would a judge worry about appearances, eye rolling, or body language? The law should count, not a judges personal beliefs, right?

All of this should scare the hell out of us. We all know how devastating it can be when people (judges included) begin condemning, or excusing, other people based on their looks or disposition, because there are certain groups of people that society has predetermined to win and lose these judge-by-appearance battles: white people consistently win these battles over non-white people; Chrisitians consistently win these battles over Muslims; wealthy people consistently win these battles over lower-income people; and, of course, women consistently win these battles over men. Mr. Kiruleski merely confirms what we all know (but don’t always admit) — in a divorce, or any other male-female dispute, no one is more sympathetic than a crying woman, and no one is less sympathetic than the man who supposedly made her cry — even if she is, in reality, the abuser, not the abused.

**

So now, when we ponder Hill Harpers’ call for single men to listen to happily married men as a solution to have more people to get married, we see that encouraging men to get married may be a little irresponsible. If men get married, great! Almost everyone would like to find the one. If his marriage is successful, great! Hardly anyone wishes bad fortune upon others. If he and his wife happen to get a divorce, and their ex is not a bitter and vindictive psychopath, great! A non-bitter ex makes things better on everyone. But if a man gets married, abused, divorced, and ripped away from his children, then every previously-unhappily-married man who didn’t warn him of his potential fate, should be ashamed of himself. If you’re an unhappily-married man, be one of those men who “can’t stop talking about it.” I assure you, unhappily-married women are doing the same thing. It’s the right thing to do.

Please pass along the warnings. You may just save an Invisible Victim.

Joe,

INVISIBLE VICTIMS

*The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce

Check out the highest divorce rates state by state.

**Please note that neither the Terrell Owens, nor the Katie Couric photo is divorce- or abuse-related. The images are used to simply convey thoughts on perception.**

This form is not for commenting on this article. It will not show up in the comments on this page. The comments box for this articles can be found below.