Etiquette of Divorce, Part One

Divorce is peculiarly an American institution that must tally with Americanism in all its forms and adaptations that must govern the future life of those interested, particularly the woman. To the man, it signifies little, being often but the transfer of a trunk and a few parcels from one domicile to another; but to the woman it means the aftermath of social recognition.

We are aping the Old World rapidly in many of the fads and fancies that regulate the social code, but divorce is peculiarly an American institution that must tally with Americanism in all its forms and adaptations that must govern the future life of those interested, particularly the woman. To the man, it signifies little, being often but the transfer of a trunk and a few parcels from one domicile to another; but to the woman it means the aftermath of social recognition.

A man whose business standing is good among men and whose club affiliations are congenial, rarely meets a frost, no matter what kind of record he unfoids to a gaping world, whose nostrils are always ready to expand when scenting a new scandal, but it is on the woman that the burden falls, either of sorrow, shame or the support of herself and her children.

There is an infinite pathos in the matter of the divorce itself, the severing of ties where the common interest should center in the children, dear to both; but the world deals leniently, almost loosely in many instances, by condoning the moral lapses that climax in divorce.

A man is never censured by the world at large, no matter what his sins may be, and the same world that formerly so bitterly condemned the woman now seems to be inclined to smile pityingly and ignore the facts until it would appear that society is verging to a level of equality by estimating woman’s peccadilloes with the same indifference formerly on the marital obligations and by whom divorce is regarded with horror.

A woman, no matter how true and loyal her love may have been, is always an object of suspicion, irrespective of which business end of the divorce suit she may have figured. Men smile knowingly when remarking that Joseph, James or John was a “devilish nice fellow,” whom any woman should have loved and been proud of, and it is frequently the case that these “devilish nice fellows” make the most unsatisfactory husbands. They are often too devilishly nice to everybody else at the wife’s expense, and then, too, they are habitually too much in love with themselves to entertain much love on the side for a wife, and when later she is made desperate by the charms so lavishly on exhibition everywhere save in the home people tacitly condemn her because he was such a “devilish nice fellow.” 

A good, solid business proposition in the man-line will stand the wear and tear of strenuous matrimony more satisfactorily than the spoiled bargain counter products, whose sum total is an assortment of unctuous smiles and cordial hand-shakes. A woman who procures a divorce is in a very different position from one whose husband divorces her.

I do not endorse the magnanimity of a man who thinks that a woman should be shielded even in her dishonor by furnishing her the evidence against himself and allowing her to obtain the divorce, although it is common among men to protect the woman, especially in New York City, where a man who will not agree to such a compromise is liable to be subject to very harsh criticism. They fail to recognize the injustice done there-by to every good woman forced into the courts by an accumulation of wrongs.

The code of ethics governing a woman’s life and conduct after securing a decree should be rigidly adhered to if she would escape gossip. It is a difficult matter to quiet criticism or to live down adverse commentaries, but in time, despite the cruelties of calumny, a woman can do so, and provided her life be worthy it will prove itself in a wordless but all potential vindication.– By Kate Thyson Marr for the San Francisco Call, 1903

 🍽Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Etiquette for Beginnings of Endings

In May of 1938, Bette Davis starred in the newly released “Jezebel,” for which she later won the Academy Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role. By December of 1938 however, The New York Times reported on the dissolution of Bette Davis’ marriage with Harmon “Oscar” Nelson. The stated reason for divorce? The actress read too much. The news report went on to say her husband “usually just sat there while his wife read to an unnecessary degree.”

 Rules Made to Cover Divorce Decree

When the masses simply can’t understand a thing, it seems rather a pity to continue it in force. The interlocutory divorce decree, for example. It was placed on the statute books with the best possible intentions; but it seems virtually impossible to get it over to people that an interlocutory decree, the paper which so many call “my first papers,” is not a divorce at all. Because of this “blind spot” in the average understanding, we come across all kinds of complications and heartaches. The questions below show what we mean: 

“I am writing you about the ‘etiquette’ following an interlocutory decree. What is the change, if any, in the way I will be using my name. What about my wedding ring? Do I continue to wear! it?” Yes, my dear, you “continue to wear it” for you are still married and that will be your status until your final decree is signed by the judge AND, this is most important, until the decree is entered on the court records. 

Your cards, of course, are engraved as they always have been. Even following the final decree, you may if you so desire, continue to have your visiting cards engraved with your husband’s full name. If, however, he has divorced you, the matter is different. You must engrave your cards so: If, say, you were Mable Long and married John Dolittle, your new cards will be engraved Mrs. Long-Dolittle. 

As to the wedding ring: If you detest a man enough to divorce him, you will probably not wish to continue to wear his ring. But until I got the final, decree, were I in your shoes, I’d wear that ring. Personally, believing that honest ways are best, I’d wear the ring even if I were divorced. It removes from you the stigma of trying to hide your marital status. It will be time enough to remove it once you have arranged to marry another man. – By Estelle Lawton Lindsey, 1938

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia