Happiness and Marriage - Elizabeth (Jones) Towne
That article, "So Near and Yet So Far," has brought forth volumes of
comment, most of it highly favorable, and nearly all of it from women
themselves. But among the writers were three critics, and among the
critics one of the brightest women I know, whose letter appears above.
And she says that article is to her disingenuous. Of course it is, for
she has not yet arrived at the point of _giving up her own way_. She is
still a Pharisee of the Pharisees--on the surface. She is proud; she
_knows_ she has done her best to bring things right--according to her
judgment of right; and she _does hate_ to acknowledge her foolishness!
She will "hold fast her own integrity" as long as there is a shred of it
left! Don't I know? Didn't I do exactly the same thing? Of course. But
the pressure of the great spirit of love, wisdom, justice, was too much
for me; I _had_ to give up my judgment; I _had_ to acknowledge that
there _must_ be the same spirit expressing in my husband's judgment; I
_had_ to let go, be still and get at _his_ point of view. Jane, too,
will have to do it. And the fact that that article "worried her to an
extent she is ashamed of," is the proof. When Truth presses her point we
worry until we can hold out no longer; then we give in.
One of the other two critics writes that over that article she "shed
the first tears in over seven years." Then she asks me if I don't think
I was a "little hard on the Taurus woman," and goes on to reveal plainly
that her tears were those of _self-pity._ Don't I know? Haven't I shed
quarts of such tears? Of course. But not more than an ounce or two were
shed after I gave up my own way. But this second critic is arriving just
as I did, and as Jane will--arriving all unconsciously to herself. Her
letter sounds like a chapter from my own thinking of a dozen years ago.
She gives a bird's eye view of her husband--no, of her husband's
_faults_; she tells how she reads new thought literature on the
sly--just as I did; and she winds up with this _piece_ of good advice:
"I will say to such, live your own life as God intended you to,
regardless of the fact of your husband. Be brave, hope, will and pray.
Dress, look sweet. If your husband tells you he doesn't care how you
look but to not come near him with your foolishness, as mine does, why,
let him live his life in his own way, make home attractive for your own
sake, read good books; and in time books will be your chum."
The third critic, too, is full of self-pity, though she does not mention
her tears; and her letter is a long portrait of her husband's faults.
She wants a little encouragement to leave him, but she is afraid he will
go to the dogs if she does. So, like a generous woman, she sticks to him
and makes the best (?) of a bad bargain.
Jane says my article was "cruel." Dearie, it was--as the surgeon's knife
is cruel. But it is the truth, and it hurts but to make way for healing.
The woman who blames has in her eye something worse than a cataract.
The woman who sheds tears over her "fate" is moved by the "meanest of
emotions." She attracts "cruelty," not only from that article, _but from
her husband._
It takes _two_ to quarrel, _and either one can stop it_. It takes _two_
to maintain "strained relations," and _either one can ease the strain_.
The principles I tried to elucidate in that article are as applicable to
a man as to a woman. But it was a woman, a Taurus woman, who asked me;
therefore I talked straight to her. And _I_ am a Taurus woman who has
been through the same mill; and I wrote not from a hardened heart but
from one made tender by experience and the Spirit of Truth. My point of
view "might have been the husband's" _if_ the husband had been an
unusually just one. And I must say the husband's point of view is more
apt to be _just_, than the wife's; for the reason that a woman is more
apt to be blinded by _emotional self-interest._ In proportion as man or
woman is ruled by emotion his judgment is distorted. _As a rule man's
judgment_ is straighter than a woman's. But judgment is a shallow thing,
based upon _already revealed facts._ Woman's intuition goes to the heart
of things and flashes facts into revelation. Women as a rule _see
farther_, but are apt to misjudge what is _close at hand._ Only as man
wakes in woman and woman in man do right judgment and love commune. Why
not judge with the husband, as I _feel_ with the wife? Is any man
_totally_ depraved?
Jane feels abused because she thinks _I_ think that in family strains
the woman is more at fault. _In a sense_ I do. _Women cannot only make
and unmake empires but they DO make or fail to make harmony_ _at home_.
Why, men with all their power are mere rag babies in the hands of women
of _tact_. Women are the _real_ power in the world--the power behind the
throne. If only they would develop that particular kind of power instead
of coming around in front of the throne to lay down the law!--instead of
measuring their _man_-strength against man. Real _woman_-strength will
move the most stubborn of men. If I "blame" the woman _(I blame neither,
any more than I blame a child for childishness)_ it is because _I know
she is the ruling power_. Her responsibility is determined by her
real power.
And above all a Taurus woman may rule her home--_and does_. Either she
rules by force--for she has more than her share of the man in her--and
makes war and trouble for herself and others; or she learns her lesson
and rules by _loving tact_; in which case her husband rises up and calls
her _blessed_. The _woman who knows and rules herself_ is the woman of
Proverbs XXXI, 10th to 31st verses. Her husband is honored among men
_because he is honored at home_; and because he is honored he _lives up
to it_. Why, girls, you hold your husband's destiny in the hollow of
your hand, in a far greater sense than any man holds a woman's.
But as I said before, _it takes two to make an unhappy home and either
one can bring harmony out of discord._ Any ordinary woman can do it _if
she will_. And any extraordinary man can do it quite as well as an
ordinary woman.
This is not a question of what "society" admits; it is a personal
question between one man and one woman. It _is_ a partnership, whether
society so admits or not. And the failure of one of the partners to
live up to the expressed or implied agreement does not justify the other
party in the misdoing of her part _as long as they live together_. Does
one theft or murder justify another? No! Neither does a neglectful
husband justify a scolding or spiteful wife, nor _vice versa._
Two people marry _first_, for the happiness of love; and second, for
home privileges. No matter whether love flees or not, _as long as they
keep up_ the home-privileges partnership it should be done in the spirit
of harmony. Remember, it takes _two_ to destroy harmony and _either one
can restore it_. If marriage is not a love contract let it at least be a
harmonious business contract. If you can't, or won't, _adjust yourself_
to your husband, then leave him. Don't stay and half-do your part of the
business and cultivate hate and contempt. It's hell. _Get out_.
I have known several couples who lived years in comparative happiness
after love had flown; who were kind to each other, considerate,
business-like. The wives made pleasant homes and the husbands came and
went at will. In their spare time the wives developed their personal
interests and "lived their own lives," as critic number two advises.
When the husbands took cranky streaks the wives simply made light of it
to themselves, and forgot it as soon as possible. They lived on as
comfortable terms as if the wives were simply _first-class_ hired
house-keepers; little crankisms were all in the bargain. Eventually
every one of these couples separated, and nearly all the parties are now
_happily_ married. _And every_ _couple parted amicably_; each being
_satisfied_ to terminate the old partnership.
To me a divorce is not a disgrace, but a family row _is_. And I suspect
that most divorce _rows_ are worked up to _drown guilty consciences_.
Neither has done his best by the other, and he knows it; so he raises a
great row to fix attention on the other's shortcomings that his own may
escape observation.
Until a man and woman have succeeded in living up to their home
privileges in a manner befitting honest and intelligent man and woman,
_they can't be sure that they are not fitted for a real loving union_.
Friction over small things obscures vision and judgment, and hate hides
the lovableness that _must_ lie in every being. Get rid of the rowing
over little things of every day life, and you will be able to love as
much as your marriage will permit; _and you will be free to dissolve the
entire partnership if you desire_.
Did I _really_ change anything? _Yes_. Is it "anything" to bring peace
and quiet pleasure and comfort and appreciation where their opposites
were wont to hold bacchanale? _Yes_.
No woman who _honestly_ tries the course I have endeavored to outline
will ever doubt that she really accomplishes _something_; neither will
she regret.
Here is a word every married woman will do well to heed as long as she
lives with her husband: _If you can't have your way without a fuss, then
try his with a good will_.
Peace be unto you; peace, which is the foundation for _all you desire_.
CHAPTER VII.
SOME HINTS AND A KICK.
"And now, Elizabeth, let me suggest something. Punch up the _men_ a
little in the matter of cultivating cleanly habits, etc. Women are
preached to eternally on these matters and the men wholly neglected. It
would be a 'new thought' to take to the men a little and might assist in
making more of them fit companions for the sweet and cleanly women they
delight in associating with. The absolute neglect of the masculine sex
by writers on these subjects causes them to think that nothing in the
way of the aesthetic is expected of them. It is a wrong to the men not
to en-me and make me his chum as well as his wife. Help courage them to
aspire to a common plane with woman in the matters of purity and
cleanliness. Cleanliness is next to Godliness, but no more so in the
case of woman than of man. It is time for equality to be recognized in
this matter as in all others." Carrie.
It is funny how many women squirm when reminded that it is they who set
the pace in the home! We are always longing for power and a field of
effort, and then when a 20th century prophetess arises and tells us we
_are_ all but almighty, and shows us how to direct our almightiness to
accomplish results, we--well, we squirm. One would think some of us are
a little bit ashamed of the pace we have been setting, of the things we
have been accomplishing with our almightiness! You know, our first
impulse when we see an error in our own selves is to sound the trumpet
and charge upon the error in the other fellow. Is this why Carrie wants
the men scolded?
Well, _don't_ they get scolded? What are their wives and daughters and
sweethearts for but to scold 'em or coax 'em into cleaner ways of
living? No use to talk to men as a class, about anything but politics.
Don't you know that Adam couldn't even taste an apple until Eve coaxed
him? Adam is a great theorizer; he will gaze at an apple and tell you
that he ought not to eat it, and _why_ not; he will even amble long and
wishfully about that apple; but it takes _Eve_ to wake in him the
_living impulse_ to take it. Just so with matters of personal neatness.
He knows--oh, yes, knowing is his long suit!--he knows he "ought" to be
neat; and he thinks he wants to be; but unless Eve and the serpent come
along he hasn't the _living impulse_.
And Eve must not lose sight of the serpent, however far away the dove
may fly. Eve must use wisdom and tact, as well as example; if she would
have Adam accept her standard of cleanliness she must see to it that her
example is _beautifully_ clean instead of _painfully_ so. There are men
who are careless about their persons simply as a matter of relief from
the painful cleanness of their surroundings.
Then there are Adams who are careless for lack of interest in pleasing
Eve. In these cases you will find that Eve has little or no interest in
pleasing Adam; or that she overdoes the matter of trying to please, and
frequently dissolves in tears and precipitates countless reproaches upon
luckless Adam.
Then there are Adams who are careless from petty spite--with shame I say
it. And with greater shame I say, you will find their Eves are spiteful,
too; probably more spiteful than the Adams; for Eve, you know, is
generally smart enough and ambitious enough to outdo Adam in any line of
endeavor--especially in the use or misuse of the tongue.
In matters of niceness it is Eve who sets the pace. Adam is built for
strength; Eve for beauty and adornment. It is _natural_ for Eve to set
the pace and for Adam to follow, in all matters of detail and niceness.
Whether Adam follows with good grace or ill depends upon Eve and the
serpent. If Eve is wise as the serpent in her, and harmless as the dove
in her, she can lead Adam a _willing_ captive to heaven or hell.
Now will you rise again and--squirm--because I attribute to Eve all
power over Adam? Will you say I excuse Adam's transgressions and come
down hard on Eve? I suppose so. But the very fact that you resent the
imputation is proof that in your heart of hearts you know I have hit
_very close_ to the mark. When an arrow flies wide we are merely amused
at the poor marksmanship; but the closer the arrow strikes to the center
the more excited we grow--either with resentment or admiration,
according to our sympathies.
In matters of cleanliness, niceness and adornment Eve sets the pace; and
if her pace is a graceful one and _not too fast_ Adam follows. In due
time he _acquires the habit_ of doing the little ablutions and adornings
Eve has taught him.
If your Adam is _very_ careless about these matters you may depend upon
it that when he was growing up his mother was either dead or careless or
tactless; and you may safely suspect that Adam in his previous state of
existence was a forlorn old bach. So be gentle with him, for it will
take time to correct the faults of such an Adam.
But don't give up, Eve, dear. Be gentle, but be firm and persistent. Use
your ingenuity in finding ways to make Adam _want_ to please you; and if
you can look back over a year or two and see that he _has_ improved in
_some_ respects at least, that there are even one or two little tricks
of niceness which have become almost if not quite habitual, then hold a
little praise meeting and rejoice. Praise him for learning, and praise
yourself for what you have succeeded in teaching him. And if your
success has come _without friction_, if you have inspired Adam to _want_
to please you, then glorify yourself exceedingly--_all to yourself, of
course_. If you let Adam know you are managing him even for his own
good, he will show his independence by going back to his old
tricks--just as _you_ would do if in his place. If there has been
friction, or lack of success, let it wake you up to use henceforth _more
of the wisdom and love which is in you_.
Now this little homily is written ostensibly to women; but all my men
subscribers will read it and applaud. _I wonder how many of them will
see that every word of it is as applicable to themselves, as to their
mothers, sisters, sweethearts, wives_? Every Eve is Adam at heart, and
every Adam is Eve; and what in sauce for Adam will prove equally
effective with Eve. Adam and Eve are both green, and growing. They are
the two halves of a ripening peach, brought together by the Law of
Attraction or Love because at this stage in their development _they
fit_. You will be inclined to doubt that every Adam's nature fits his
Eve's, but I say unto you judge not according to outward appearance but
judge righteous judgment. Now listen:--Every human being has his
manifested good points and his _latent_ good points. The manifest good
points of a man are the Adam of him; the _latent_ good points--the weak
places in him--are the Eve of him--the interior as-yet-undeveloped part
of him. The strong points, the good points, of a woman are the Eve; the
weak points, where she is as yet undeveloped, are the Adam or interior
nature of her.
If it were not for personal attractions, particularly the attractions of
one man and one woman, the _latent_ parts of both men and women would
remain forever undeveloped and their strong points would continue to
grow stronger. In time (supposing the race did not die out), there would
be two classes of people utterly different and at variance with each
other--two opposites with no understanding or sympathy for each other.
Attraction brings together opposites; the strong, steady man falls in
love with a frivolous butterfly; a handsome woman attracts a homely man
and _vice versa;_ a strong, capable woman marries a sickly, incompetent
man--and supports him; a sentimental woman is attracted to a
matter-of-fact man who develops her common sense by pruning her
sentimentalities; an artistic temperament is drawn to a phlegmatic; a
sanguine to a bilious; a mental to a vital; an active man marries a lazy
wife, or _vice versa_; a bright man marries a stupid girl; and so on
and on.
Man and wife are a rounded whole in which the man manifests what is
latent in the woman, and the woman supplies that which in the man is as
yet undeveloped. Just as Eve coaxes, or scolds, Adam into habits of
neatness; as Adam coaxes, scolds or drives Eve into having his meals on
time, thus developing her self-command and _promptness_; so they act and
re-act upon each other to develop a thousand latencies of which they,
and the onlookers, are more or less unconscious.
The foolish Adams and Eves fret and strain against these processes of
development, and bewail their "mistake" in marrying; not seeing that the
association is really benefiting both. The wise Adams and Eves reduce
the friction _by kindness_, by _co-operation with each other_; Adam
_tries_ to please Eve, Eve tries to please Adam, and both are kind about
it, wherefore in due time their _appreciation_ for each other grows, and
mayhap their love grows with it. If love wanes instead of growing at
least they are _friends_, and can _part_ as friends if they so desire.
Someone has well said that without a model husband there can be no model
wife. I believe it. As long as man and woman are held together by love,
attraction, or "conditions" (in its last analysis it is _all_ the Law of
Attraction, or _God_) they are literally _one_, no matter how hard they
kick against the oneness; and neither man nor woman can _alone_ be a
model, any more than one side of a peach can be _entirely_ ripe and
sweet and the other side entirely hard and green.
So when I speak to Eve about tact and kindness I speak to _the Eve in
Adam_ as well as in Eve herself.
And what I say of the attractions of man and wife applies equally well
to other family relationships, to friendships, to acquaintanceships and
even to our relationship to the people we pass on the street or _the
heathen we never saw_. Every person who touches us even in the
slightest degree, _is drawn by the law of attraction because we need him
to bring out some latency in ourselves, and because HE needs us to help
develop some latency in him_. IT IS OUR OWN HIGHEST DESIRES (the god in
us) WHICH CONSTITUTE THE ATTRACTION.
"Oh, but _that_ can't be," you exclaim, "because So-and-So brings out
only the _evil_ in me. He makes me feel _so_ hateful and mean." Let us
see, dearie. _The hateful and mean feelings are due to your RESISTING
that which his influence would bring out of you._ For instance, you were
late at your appointment with him. Of course you _thought_ you had a
good excuse; but if promptitude were _one of your strong points_,
instead of one of your latencies, you would have been on time in spite
of that excuse--if it were your _habit_ to be on time you'd have swept
aside a much greater hindrance before you would have allowed yourself to
be behind time. Now So-and-so is naturally prompt and, having had some
experience with you he knew you were not; so when, he having arrived
fifteen minutes ahead of time as it is _his_ nature to do, _you_ came
tripping in fifteen minutes late--smiling confidingly as you excused
yourself (he, having spent the half hour in cultivating a grouch at you
for not being as prompt as himself)--he, of course, looked sulky and
answered shortly. Then you pouted and finally _worked yourself_ into
quite a temper over his inconsiderateness and crankiness because of that
paltry little fifteen minutes he had to wait. He _worked himself_ into a
temper because you were not on time; you _worked yourself_ into a
temper because he wasn't "nice." All that working was your
individual doings.
But it all resulted in your resolving that if ever you had another
engagement with that man (you'd take good care not to if you could help
it, though!) you'd be _on time_ if it killed you. Of course you didn't
tell him so. And _he_ resolved that the next time he made an engagement
with you he'd know it, but _if_ he did he would make up his mind to be
_on_ time instead of ahead of time, and he'd not care if you
_were_ late.
So you see, the Law of Attraction accomplished its divine purpose in
attracting you two to make that engagement--it waked in you a
_resolution_ toward promptness; and it waked in him a _resolution_ to be
_on_ time rather than _before_ time in future, and to be civil if you
happened to be late--since you are only a woman and can't be expected to
appreciate the value of promptness!
This is the way all our associations in life work together for good _to
develop our latencies_, to strengthen our weak points. _The wiser we are
the less emotion we waste in resenting the developing process--the more
readily we see the point and take the resolution hinted at._ You see you
and your friend had had other such experiences as the one described--you
had been late before when So-and-so condoned the matter and said
nothing. _He let you off so easily that you never thought of resolving
not to be late again._ You _felt_ that he had been displeased but you
depended upon your niceness to make it all right again, and it never
occurred to you to call yourself to account and _resolve_ that it
should not happen so again. You were _too heedless_ to take a hint, so
you had to have a kick.
You may set this down as a rule without exceptions: _That all the kicks
you get from relatives or friends come after you have ignored repeated
hints from your own inner consciousness and them_. You have gone on
excusing yourself _without correcting the fault_ (perhaps without seeing
it) until the Law of Attraction stopped hinting and administered a kick.
And if _one_ kick will not cause you to develop that weak point the Law
of Attraction will bring you other and yet harder kicks on the same
line. _You will attract_ worse experiences of the same sort.
It is this very law which makes married folks (or other relatives or
friends) quarrel. Adam refuses Eve's _hints_ about neatness, and Eve
kicks--harder and harder. Eve refuses Adam's hints and he gets to
kicking. _It_ ALWAYS _takes two to start the kicking_, AND EITHER ONE
CAN STOP IT. _A frank acknowledgement of error and a_ RESOLUTION _to
mend your end of the fault no matter what is done with the other end;
then a pleasant expression and_ NO MORE WORDS;--this will stop the
kicking. _And in proportion as you learn to take the_ HINTS _you
attract, you will cease to attract kicks_.
By all of which I am reminded of that old testament statement that '_the
Lord hardened the heart of Pharoah_.' The "Lord" or "Lord God" of the
old testament is what I call the _God in us_, or the Law of Attraction
in us; and the "God" of the Bible is The Whole--the God _over all_ as
well as _in the individual_. It is the _God in us_ which attracts to us
our experiences, _in order to teach us wisdom and knowledge_. Pharoah
was not _wise_ enough to let those people go, so the God in Moses gave
him a hint--which he failed to take. Wherefore he attracted a gentle
kick in the way of a plague. This dashed his ardor a bit and he gave
permission for the Israelites to go; but he was only _scared_ into doing
it; and after the plague was called off he was not wise enough to keep
his word--here was a great lot of valuable slaves which he _could_ keep,
and why shouldn't he?--his word was easy broken and all's fair in
business; so _his heart hardened_ and he held the Israelites. So he
attracted a harder kick; which failed to accomplish its purpose. Kick
after kick came, each a bit harder than the last; each scaring Pharoah
for the moment, but _none convincing him_. He still thought it _right_
to hang onto his slaves if he could, and he had the courage of his
convictions. A man of such splendid courage seems worthy of a better
fate. Pharoah had the courage of a Christ, coupled with the ethics of a
savage, whose only law is his own desire of possession. Because he could
not take the hint and _see his mistake_, he attracted a series of kicks
increasing in power until one finally landed him in the Red Sea. Perhaps
a glimmer of the truth reached him as the waters rolled over. But his
soul goes marching on and his mistakes are still re-incarnating here
on earth.