He says:
It is worth mentioning that [his fiance], as anyone who knows her would attest, is one of the most kind hearted and gentle people in the world. The cliché that has been propagated, of me abandoning a devoted wife to "run off" with a young actress, could not have been more falsely applied.
I've met his fiance and I think she is very cool (and smart and witty and a talented actress besides). But my ex seems to be suggesting that the nature of a woman's character is somehow directly responsible for actions that he himself either did or did not take. Which falls in line with the idea that it's "the other woman" who is always "the homewrecker", that she is the one to be blamed for "stealing" the man (no matter that the man allowed himself to be "stolen").
(No one is responsible for the end of my marriage except my ex-husband and me, but that's not the point I'm trying to make here.)
Of course, what my ex is really saying is I did not have sexual relations with that woman before I was officially separated, and no one can fault him for that, or for defending the woman he soon plans to marry. But he does this through a rejiggering of certain female stereotypes. His fiance, he is assuring us, is not and was never "the other woman" or "the homewrecker". Both of these stereotypes carry the connotations of whore, which is the "ultimate" degradation of reducing a person to her sexuality (what's more, that evil female sexuality that kicked us all out of Paradise and continues to plague and victimize helpless men). She is instead "one of the most kind-hearted and gentle people in the world". She is an angel.
Because he's also (wittingly or not) juxtaposing her against me, pulling me into the 'cliche' as the 'devoted wife' even as he states that this cliche could not have been more 'false'...
...because he then, a couple of paragraphs down, goes to some length to assure the reader that Dude (whom he makes a point to identify in full, and also to claim that Dude was a "friend" of ours throughout the marriage) did not play a role in our divorce. By saying this, he is implying -- "framing" -- that, in fact, Dude might have done just that. (This is a rhetorical device called 'apophasis', where you communicate one thing by stating its opposite.) He also refers to Dude as my "long-term" boyfriend, which might make a reader wonder, How "long-term" could he be if they just got divorced?
(We started dating nine months after my separation, but that's not my point either.)
Of course, what my ex is really saying is, Justine is no angel. Which is fine; I will admit that I am infinitely more complicated than that (and so, for that matter, is his fiance).
But if I'm no angel, then what am I? What are the options? You're a good girl or a bad girl. You're a madonna or a whore. And if his fiance is the good girl, then I must be...?
And then he swings into the rest of it, including his interpretation of the events surrounding our divorce. Which I won't get into here, but needless to say it puts me in a less than flattering light. One might even use the word (and say it with me, boys and girls): golddigger. And what is a golddigger but a glorified....[fill in the blank]?
So by saying that he is "correcting the record" about our divorce, by putting himself forward as the final and real authority on the situation, he is also defining a certain kind of reality in which his fiance and I get slotted into our "proper" places.
And I must roll my eyes.
I agree whole-heartedly with my ex about "the danger of cliches". People cannot and should not be reduced to cartoon characters. And women should have the freedom and dignity to exist in a space that does not involve pedestals of any kind (whether you're still on it, or you've been knocked off it). That is not truth. It's distortion, and it hurts.
Profile
moschus- Justine Musk
- Tribal Writer (my other blog)
Comments
Furthermore, I'm curious, if things had turned out differently, and your ex-husband's enterprise had failed whereas you had launched a wildly successful fantasy series--along the lines of Twilight or Harry Potter, say--would you be willing to give him the house, $80 million, a stake in your work? Would you be willing to give him everything you're asking for now?
I'm completely happy and willing and "prepared" to settle for much less. What I asked for -- which was never a "demand" -- was meant to be a jumping off point. You know, bargaining. Negotiations. (And the only reason why stock was involved was because he was cash-poor.) Because you're right -- I don't need "so much" of my husband's money. There is, however, the issue of what that money stands for. Namely, respect. He's the one who made it clear that there are to be "no negotiations"; he's the one who would rather pay lawyers astronomical fees than sit down with me to negotiate an end to this; he's the one who has framed this an an all-or-nothing, capitulate-or-else situation. Let me be very clear on that, because I want this to be over. I've always wanted this to be over.
This is about women refusing to let men define what they're worth in ways that are convenient to the *men*. (When is a woman a golddigger? When she asks for more than what the man -- and other men -- decide she's "worth". And who gets to decide what she's worth? And how does that get to be decided?)
Edited at 2010-07-27 06:33 am (UTC)
The answer is so simple. You're worth what you earn.
Did you earn anything selling novels? Then fine. That's good. That's yours. That's what you're worth.
But your husband's fortune? A fortune that was made before he even met you (PayPal)? What does that have to do with you??
I think it's fair you lost. Hope you lose in appeal too.
My husband had a nervous breakdown a few years ago. He was in the hospital for more than two weeks, and he didn't realize anything was wrong with his perception of reality. He did things that could have had terrible ramifications for his career if I had not been there to smooth things over by explaining to his workplace what was happening and by insisting that he alter his behavior.
I quit my job in the middle of this whole mess because my husband needed me. Does this mean that what I did during those weeks and months had no value because I wasn't pulling down a paycheck? I can tell you this: My husband, who successfully returned to work a few months after his hospitalization, would certainly disagree.
I realize that this is an extreme example, but anyone who believes a person is only worth what he or she earns is not well-suited for the self-sacrifice that's required in marriage.
It's not about the numerical value, it's about how you treat her and handle the situation, showing some respect and recognition for the time you spent together and how she stood by your side and raised your children.
It seems clear to me that the marriage fell apart not because Justine was difficult or independent (I suppose in contrast to his fiance's gentleness)- but the opposite -- that Justine wanted more time and affection with the father of her kids. Her anger seems only because she was deeply hurt, not because she's mean, and I don't think her itemized list of what she wanted was out of greed, but because a) she was trying to start a point of negotiation as a matter of business and b) because she really felt she put everything into the marriage. I don't think that list though is what she really wants.
It's sad that E may think of you as this cold, gold-digging, monster ---> when you're angry because you're hurt - and you wouldn't be hurt if you didn't really love him before. If you didn't love him and just wanted out -- you'd be apathetic because it does not seem to me like money is your main motivator -- but rather respect and recognition.