“When you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other end.”
This is an important book. In fact, I suggest it is a “”must-read” book for anyone who is seriously considering divorce. As an experienced divorce attorney and a wise and caring person, Lorie Fowlke has done an absolutely needed and masterful job in presenting a balanced and comprehensive picture of “the other end of the stick.”
Several years ago, I was on a sabbatical in Hawaii and had a life-changing experience in learning a fundamental principle of life which also directly relates to the divorce decision. I was wandering around the stacks of the library in a very reflective mood and pulled down a book. In it I read three sentences that were so profound and meaningful that they literally staggered me and became the foundation for my work on the 7 Habits. Here are the three sentences:
Between stimulus and response there is a space.
In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response.
In those choices lie our growth and our happiness.
Notice carefully what it said. Between all that happens to us (stimulus) and our response (decision, action), there is a space. In other words, stimulus and response are not connected. There is a space between them. In that space lies our capacity to think, to pause, to consider the consequences of our response, and finally, to make a decision, to choose our response.
Those choices, those decisions, those actions, will have consequences. If our decisions are unwise, bad consequences will follow. If our decision regarding terminating a marriage is unwise, the consequences could literally be disastrous. I mean really, horribly devastating. Lorie Fowlke, drawing upon her wide and deep experience as a divorce attorney, identifies those consequences (the other end of the stick) in clear and compelling language, illustrating each one with real-life situations and real people with whom she has worked directly.
With animals, there is no space between stimulus and response. They are completely and totally a product of their instincts and/or training and therefore have no ability to reinvent themselves, to choose another path or a higher way. Human beings alone possess this capacity, this special and unique endowment, this space. Only human beings can stop and pause and observe their own involvement and think about the consequences of their actions.
The problem is, when people contemplate divorce, their stressed mental and emotional state drives them into “”either/or” thinking: should I get a divorce or should I not? People are also usually so full of self-justification and a spirit of victimism and accusation that they simply fall into the animal “fight or flight” approach to stress. Stimulus and response then become inseparable. There is no space. They literally abandon their human endowment of self-awareness, of self-reflection. They begin to define winning as beating. The only alternative they see to this win/lose approach is lose/win, or martyrdom, which by then they are sick and tired of taking anyway.
This whole fight (active or passive) or flight (divorce) is compounded by the wider culture that sees divorce as an acceptable, if not a desirable, alternative to marital conflict or simply marital numbness. It’s therefore becoming more and more common, even epidemic. Sympathetic friends and colluding loved ones who join in finding or interpreting evidence against the offending spouse also nourish the divorce decision. They massage one another’s hearts. Any discussion about a possible third alternative, other than fight or flight, is seen as giving in, capitulating and continuing to lose. They abandon their human self-reflective endowments as well, and a social conspiracy is often formed, justifying the divorce decision.
Remember, that which a person most earnestly desires, he or she most easily believes. When an offended spouse simply wants out, wants relief, wants some peace, some space, some respect, some self-esteem, then they easily believe that divorce is the answer. And sometimes divorce is the best answer. Lorie Fowlke has been around the block so many times she knows full well that there are justifiable reasons for divorce. But she also beautifully illustrates the seven huge consequences that inevitably follow such a decision and why they must be thought about carefully and in depth so that principles and wisdom, rather than naiveté and foolish hope, win the day.
If you are considering divorce and debating whether you want to give this book a serious read, just read the short introduction and the final chapter, called “Decision Time,””which is only three pages long. In it the author cites scientific studies that have shown that two-thirds of unhappily married people who remained married reported that their marriages were happy five years later. Even 80% of those who rated their marriages as “very unhappy” said that they were happily married five years later. Let me quote Lorie’s own words: “The most startling statistics in this study show that if a couple is unhappy, the chances of their being happy five years later is 64% if they remain together, but only 19% if they divorce and remarry.” Lorie told me, “Studies show that divorce does not make people happier, yet families are impacted for generations.”
The thing that will go through you like osmosis as you read this book is that you do have control over your decisions and actions, but you do not have control over the consequences. They are controlled by natural laws, by principles. If you decide that divorce is the only way out of the “”hell you’re in,” be prepared to be powerfully, negatively affected— – economically, emotionally and in your whole lifestyle. Perhaps worst of all is the impact upon the children, both short- and long-term, and in their own ability and capacity to make and keep commitments and to sustain the inevitable rigors of an interdependent marriage.
I know many will say, “Yes, but all of those bad things are not as bad as the situation I’m in now.” This may be the case and may justify a divorce decision. But it may not be the case if you have not thoroughly examined what those consequences may really be.
Nevertheless, you may be hurt and frustrated and justified. What then can be done? Lorie basically brings out that if people were to expend the same effort, energy, resources and creativity on improving themselves and their marriages that they do in fighting and flighting strategies and the divorce process, they could find third alternative solutions.
Of course it would take great patience, great endurance and great courage. One would need to redefine love as a verb instead of a feeling, and use the space between stimulus and response to perform acts of love that will restore or heal the relationship.
It is a well-established principle that the best way to change another is to change yourself. This is an “inside-out” approach. The world basically teaches “outside in” for problem solving: “Others must change. Circumstances must change.” The inside-out approach is painstaking and often “culturally incorrect,” but experience with relationships has proven it to be the only solution that truly lasts. Sometimes for various reasons, it won’t work either— – it may not salvage a marriage. But at least you go out knowing you tried your best, maintained your integrity and didn’t get sucked into a cycle of self-justification, victimism and an incessant need for external validation.
I remember a man visiting with me one time about his unhappiness in his marriage. He basically said that the feeling was no longer there, that both of them felt the same way, and that neither saw any hope for the future. But he was very worried about its impact upon their three children and asked for my counsel. After listening for quite a while, I said to him, “Love her.” And he said, “Well, as I told you, the feeling isn’t there anymore.” I said, “I heard that. Love her.” He asked, “How do you love when you don’t love?” I replied, “Where you get the idea that love is a feeling? Love is a verb. It’s Hollywood that has dramatized love as a feeling.” If you study any of the great and enduring literature that has sustained the great institutions of society, like the family, you will discover that love is always referred to as a verb. It is something you do. It is the love you give. It is the sacrifice you make, the service you give. Love the feeling is the fruit of love the verb. It’s like the mother who goes into “the valley of the shadow” in bringing forth a child that creates the feeling of love. Again, love the feeling is the fruit of love the verb. We have control over the action, and if we consistently maintain the action of love, eventually the feeling of love can be restored.
Too idealistic? Perhaps. But perhaps not. I have found that deep in their hearts, most people know there’s a great deal they can do to improve themselves and thus to improve a relationship. There are so many different kinds of deposits they can put into what we could call an Emotional Bank Account of another. Admittedly, this takes a different mindset and a different skill set, but these things are learnable, particularly when you think about the magnitude of the issues at stake.
Finally, the interesting perspective of this book, in contrast to the various anti-divorce books by therapists and social scientists, is that it comes from a very practical and legal perspective. It comes from a person in the divorce business who has continual first-hand experience with its consequences. Lorie is a person of integrity and wisdom who would love to work herself out of a job.
Henry David Thoreau taught, “”There are a thousand hacking at branches of evil to one striking at the root.” I believe Lorie is striking at the root.
— – Stephen R. Covey