textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp001372.txt

Title: DIVORCE..Undermining the family?

Published: Workers Solidarity Movement

Published : 1986, 1995

Six years ago, on June 3rd 1980, Noel Browne TD introduced a 
bill into the Dail for a referendum on divorce.  when it came 
to a vote only one TD stood up - Noel Browne.  All the 
`liberals' of Labour and Fine Gael behaved as if they were 
stuck to their seats with superglue.  Despite having paper 
policies in favour of divorce hidden away in a back office 
somewhere they were scared to actually do anything.  The 
bishops were watching them!

Marriages were breaking down, at that time 8,000 women 
were receiving deserted wives benefit.  And that was only the 
tip of the iceberg.  Many more men and women were stuck in 
relationships that had collapsed but felt unable to make a 
final break because of social attitudes and the fact that they 
didn't have enough money to live without the support of a 
`breadwinner'.

Because thousands of couples have now openly declared their 
position, because support for access to divorce has become 
increasingly visible the politicians have had a rethink.  Maybe 
there are more votes in supporting a change than they had 
first thought.  Maybe the bishops' power is not as strong as it 
was.  And anyway the Coalition parties can hardly fight the 
next election on their economic record, so try a pinch of born-
again liberalism.

Anarchists support those who want the freedom to legally 
end their marriages.  We have no time for those mealy 
mouthed liberals who would allow divorce but only under 
strict conditions.  Why should anyone have to prove to a 
court that they have been separated for at least five years?  
Marriage is entered into by signing a book in a church or 
registry office.  Ending it should be just as simple.  We 
support divorce at the request of one partner.

We are told this is out of the question as the children will 
suffer.  This argument is an insult to those of even the 
meanest intelligence.  Are we really to believe that children 
are better off in a situation of unhappiness, tension and 
sometimes downright cruelty?  Would they not be better off 
with one loving parent than with two who find themselves 
in a situation of ongoing conflict.

The next argument thrown up by the Right is that it will 
weaken the family.  It would be dishonest to deny this.  The 
concept of "till death us do part" will be weakened, and with 
each weakening more people will ask a question much larger 
than "why divorce?!- that question will be "why marriage?"

Marriage means asking the church or the state to make your 
relationship "official", why should we feel it necessary to get 
the sanction of a priest or a civil servant - are we not capable 
of ordering our own lives in a responsible manner?

We say that people should he able to live with whoever they 
wish without any fear of discrimination or secondary status. 
The only social obligation there should be on couples is to 
exercise responsibility and show love to any children they 
bring into the world.

This pamphlet does not attempt to put forward all the 
arguments for allowing divorce.  That has been done 
elsewhere It sets out to address two issues that have emerged 
in the debate. Firstly, is getting the ban out of the constitution 
and enacting a law allowing divorce enough to allow an 
escape for those women whose marriages have died?  
Secondly, what is the "family" the Right have mobilised to 
defend?  Are we tampering with a "natural institution" or are 
they wrong?

1. Escape

We all have the right to travel to India, the right to own an 
expensive yacht, the right to drive a Rolls Royce.  Of course 
most of us will never go to India for our holidays, sail around 
the bay in a yacht or drive over to see friends in a Rolls Royce.  
But we have the right to do so.  There is no law saying we 
can't.

We can't exercise these `rights' because we are not rich. They 
are meaningless.  You might as well tell a starving man that 
he has the right to life because there' is no law ordering him 
to die.

So what will the right to divorce mean?  Apart from having 
to wait at least five years there is the question of money.  The 
cost will not be so great as to stop anyone going to court, after 
all they will have half a decade to save for it.  But there is 
another cost.

Many women whose marriages are effectively finished stay 
with their husbands because they have no other alternative.  
They have to depend on him to provide rent, clothes, food for 
themselves and their children.  Living for any length of time 
on social welfare payments is a living death.  The money will 
get you by in terms of food and minor expenses.  The 
problems start when the bigger bills come in or you have to 
buy dearer items like furniture.  The payments are not 
enough.

If the woman can find a job it will usually be a low paid one. 
Unless she lives close to her mother or friends who are 
willing to mind her children while she goes out to work, she 
will end up paying a large chunk of her wages for child care.  
Back to square one,

OF course some women will have to make the break no 
matter what the cost.  Others will be able to build a new life 
for themselves.  But nobody can deny that there are many 
women who have no choice but to stay where they are.  These 
women will not come in large numbers from Foxrock or 
Montonotte.  Legislation, like anything else, reflects the class 
division in society.  That is why there is no mention of 
providing the conditions whereby working class women can 
freely choose.

But what about alimony?  Having the Courts grant a share of 
a #60,00O income is grand....but your ex-husband would have 
to be a businessman or a professional.  What will alimony 
mean for the ex-wife of a worker on #130 a week or the ex-
wife of unemployed man?  Those who are doing alight at the 
moment will be looked after to at least some extent.  But most 
working class women will be relegated to an existence on the 
poverty line.

Should we call for alimony payments anyway?  Men should 
have to take some of the responsibility for their children but 
that is not what we are talking about.  Alimony is not a 
payment towards looking after children.  It is based on the 
notion that a woman must always be provided for by a man, 
it only ends when or if the woman remarries.  It ends when 
the woman becomes the responsibility of another man, we 
reject this backward and sexist thinking.

Women should have the right to an independent life, they 
should not be forced into dependence.  That is why the fight 
to make divorce a real option has to be connected to the fight 
for decent welfare payments, for an end to the barriers that 
prevent women working outside the home, for good child 
care facilities, for an end to all discrimination.

At the end of the day it is only in a society of equality that 
there can be a meaningful choice.  Any change short of this, 
while very welcome, is only a half-measure.

2. The Family

Divorce which is a source of much hope to women who are 
unhappy in their married life, simultaneously frightens other 
women, particularly those who have been accustomed to 
considering their husband as the `provider', the sole support 
in life.

It is generally thought that the family is a `natural' and 
unchanging institution.  Many people believe that the love, 
warmth and security family life provides are sufficient 
compensation for any disadvantages.  It is often said that a bad 
family is better than a good institution.

This opinion has had great influence on the ruling class what 
passes for a Welfare State has been even more reluctant -3 
provide good institutions than to provide help for families 
who need support.  It is, of course, nonsense.

Nobody knows how many battered wives there are but we do 
know that the number of places in womens' aid refuges 
cannot satisfy the needs we do know about.  Over half of all 
women murder victims in Britain are killed by the men they 
live with, we have no reason to suppose it is not the same 
here.  Ask the ISPCC about child battering, ask the Rape crisis 
Centres about the recently uncovered incidence of incest.

The small family household can be a boiling cauldron of 
intense emotions focused on a few people.  Hate as well as 
love, selfishness as well as caring, competition as well as 
sharing. And the lid is screwed down ever more tightly by the 
modern notions of privacy.  As we have smaller households, 
less contact with other relatives and neighbours, and more 
indoor entertainment's, it is no wonder that family 
explosions can be so terrible.

This is not to say that all or even most families are teetering 
on the brink of self-destruction but it does raise the question 
of can we do better?

First of all let us be very clear that there is no `natural law' 
governing the family, nothing to say that things cannot 
change. Human history shows that, as the means of 
production and social order change, so does the way we relate 
to each other. The modern nuclear family is a relatively new 
relationship.

In primitive societies the level of technology was low and 
there was no surplus product to be taken by a non working 
section of society.  There was an elementary division of 
labour.  The men went out hunting while the women 
worked in the fields and looked after the children.  In large 
part this seems to be due to the impossibility of leaving 
behind babies being breastfed or of bringing them on hunting 
expeditions.

In these societies "group marriage" was common.  As a result 
it was difficult or impossible to know the father of any 
particular child.  Such societies are called 'matriarchal' 
because the line of descent was acknowledged in terms of the 
mother.

With improvements in technology (the discovery of copper 
and bronze, the manufacture of tools, the development of 
new methods of raising crops and rearing cattle) it soon 
became possible for "two arms to produce more than one 
mouth could consume".  War and the capture of slaves 
became possible and worthwhile.

The economic role of the men in the tribe changed to a degree 
that it was no longer in keeping with their equal social status.  
As wealth increased it gave the man a more important status 
than the woman and it encouraged him to use this 
strengthened position to overthrow the traditional system of 
inheritance in favour of his children.  But this was impossible 
as long as descent in terms of mothers prevailed.

A profound `change took place, probably spread over many 
centuries.  The men gradually became the dominant sex, both 
economically and socially.  Women became a commodity to 
be exchanged for weapons or cattle.  With further changes in 
production, a very definite surplus was being produced.  
Those who had access to this, the ruling group among the 
men, sought to institutionalise their right to it as their 
`private property' and to leave part of it to their descendants.

But before they could do this they had to know who their 
descendants were.  Hence the appearance of the first family, of 
monogamous marriage and of a sexual morality that stressed 
female chastity and which demanded virginity before 
marriage and faithfulness during it.  Female adultery become 
a crime punishable by death because it allows doubts to arise 
as to the legitimacy of the descendants.

A whole philosophy and set of social customs then emerged 
to justify this and portray it as natural.  The sacred texts of the 
Hindus limit womens access to freedom and to material 
belongings. Pythagoras reflected the view of ancient Greece 
when he said "a good principle created good, order and man - 
and a bad principle created darkness, chaos and woman".  The 
fathers of the Christian church soon put down the early hopes 
for emancipation that had led many women to martyrdom.  
Saint Paul states that "man was not created for woman, but 
woman for man " Saint John Chrysostome proclaims that 
"among all wild beasts, none are as dangerous as women ".  
According to Saint Thomas Aquinas "woman is destined to 
live under man's domination and has no authority of her 
own right".

These attitudes were perpetuated by the dominant ideology of 
the Middle Ages and even into recent times.  The poet Milton 
in `Paradise Lost' wrote that "man was made for God and 
woman was made for man".  Nietzsche calls her the 
"warriors' pastime". Kaiser Wilhelm II defined a role for 
women (later echoed by the Nazis) as "Kirche, Kuche, 
Kinder" (Church, Kitchen, Children),

So we see that the origin of the family lies in the 
appropriation of the means of creating wealth by a small 
minority of rulers, and their need to pass it on to their 
descendants so that this wealth didn't become too dispersed.  
As in all societies the ideas of the dominant class became the 
dominant ideas in society as a whole.

Therefore there is no need for us to be afraid of the idea of 
change.  The family is changing.  There are more single 
parent families.  For some this is a deliberate choice but for 
others it is anything but.  Most single mothers are young 
women who, faced with no future apart from the dole, find 
that having a baby is the only adult occupation open to them.  
Because of social attitudes and financial pressures they find 
themselves worse off than married mothers, and many marry 
later as the only way to improve their position.

More couples live together without getting married than ever 
before, though this is not a new idea.  For all the changes 
occurring the family survives.  It continues to exist because it 
is the most convenient way of reproducing and caring for the 
workforce in a capitalist society.  No government is going to 
spend millions on alternative care - community restaurants, 
laundries, nurseries, etc. - and if they did we can be sure they 
would be miserable and regimented institutions because they 
were planned from above for cost cutting and maintaining 
state control.

The family continues to exist for two main reasons.  The first 
is that it's the way `private property' is transmitted within the 
ruling class.  In Western capitalism it is done through 
inheritance.  In state capitalist countries like Russia the 
privileges of the ruling bureaucracy are passed on to their 
children through better education and job opportunities.  East 
or West we are told that you get where you are by individual 
effort but in each case the family reinforces existing class 
divisions.

Secondly, for all its faults, family life is a haven from a harsh 
world.  It offers a sense of belonging, of security.

How can we live in way that is freeer and more equal?  The 
family can only disappear when people choose to live 
differently. There can no question of banning it or 
`abolishing' it.  We say this not because we believe this to be 
impossible (which it would be) but because if the alternative 
is better people will take it up, if it isn't they won't.  We do 
not set ourselves up as dictators who will decide what is good 
for everyone else.  Our task is to offer an alternative which 
can stand on its own merits.

Only an anarchist society, with its socialist plan of production, 
workers control and love of freedom, can offer a better way of 
life because it would respond to human needs instead of the 
race for profits.

Some people already feel they are happier outside a 
conventional marriage/family situation, and think that if 
enough other people followed their example a new lifestyle 
would replace the old one.  That is alight for those who can 
afford it.  It is much easier for people with well-paid 
professional jobs to run their lives differently, to pay for child 
care, to arrange their home life in a more satisfying way, and 
even afford to eat out more often rather than slave over a hot 
cooker.  (It is also possible for people on the dole to do some 
of these things..if they don't have children and don't mind 
the limits set on what they can do by a lack of money).  For 
the vast majority of working class people these alternatives 
are just not available.

That is why most of us can't opt out and try something new. 
That is why we say that a real choice is only possible within 
the context of an anarchist/socialist society.

And it is a choice that we propose.  Those who wish to carry 
on in the old way will be free to do so, those who wish a 
change will have that possibility and those, probably the 
majority, who want a mix of the old and new will be able to 
avail of just that.

So what are these alternatives?  We are not in the business of 
drawing up blueprints for the future, what actually happens 
will be decided by people in the post-revolutionary situation. 
But we cannot either make no proposals.  We are not 
incapable of seeing possibilities.

At present the wives of the rich are free from household 
duties.  Why should all women not enjoy the same freedom?  
There could be free, pleasant restaurants in every locality.  
This does not mean drab canteens serving steamed food at 
every meal, it means good food in nice surroundings.  This 
would mean that cooking at home becomes just another 
option, something you do if you want to, and not a ritual 
chore.

Play groups and creches for children would be provided. 
Bright, fun filled places staffed by workers who have chosen 
to do that work because they enjoy it.  Instead of mothers and 
children being cooped up in the house all the day, children 
can be with others of their own age in happy and safe 
surroundings.  Mothers will have time to get out of the house 
and live their own lives. This would relieve much of the 
tension that exists in the home. today.

Women will be free to work outside the home without 
having to pay through the nose for babysitters and without 
having to constantly worry if their children are alright.

Does this mean that children will be forcibly taken away from 
their mothers?  Of course not.  what it does mean is that 
society will guarantee a decent life for all parents and child. It 
will offer all the facilities required for the well-being of both.  
But if a mother chooses to stay at home 24 hours a day with 
her child, society will also grant whatever support she needs. 
The same would apply to a father who wishes to take such a 
role in raising his child.

Because society will refuse to swallow the line that the 
individual family must be left isolated to manage as best it 
can without anymore than the most minimal outside aid, 
everything can change.  Women will no longer fear being left 
without support if their husband deserts.  There will be no 
more anxiety about the fate of the children.

Couples who decide to live together will no longer be 
governed by worry about social attitudes or money 
calculations This free union will be based only on love and 
the desire to make each other happy.

Anarchism stands for a new relationship between the sexes. 
In place of legal marriage based on the secondary status of 
women we shall see the free union of two individuals, equal 
in their rights and obligations fortified by love and mutual 
respect. This new way for people to relate to each other will 
give to humanity, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, 
all the joys of so-called free love, joys which under capitalism 
rarely exist outside the covers of the story book.

WSM, PO Box 1528, Dublin 8, Ireland