I’m beginning to think that what we contend with now in Malta is not so much fear of and opposition to divorce as fear of and opposition to remarriage.

The tirades of the anti-divorce brigade are countered quite simply with the argument that divorce brings nothing worse than what we have already with marital breakdown and separation. The children of separated parents are no better off or worse off than the children of divorced parents (and where there are no children, who cares?). The anti-divorce brigade has no answer to this because they can see the inherent logic. And yet they remain unconvinced.

Their concerns are not assuaged by such commonsense and they are unable to put them into words, either because they have not formulated them, or because they are embarrassed to do so out loud. They are not afraid of divorce. They are uncomfortable with the idea of remarriage. Remarriage will give official status to somebody they can now disparage as a fly-by-night concubine or boyfriend. In the current situation, the spouse has superior status to that of a companion. Remarriage will put companions on an equal status footing to the spouses they have replaced. That is what people don’t like.

When those who argue for divorce say that it is a good thing because it allows people who live together to marry instead, they are unwittingly putting their finger on the root cause of the opposition to it. Others don’t want people to be permitted to remarry. They can see that the consequences of separation and divorce are identical; they’re not blind or stupid. They are identical in every respect but one, and it is that one thing on which all their fear and opposition hinges. Religion has nothing to do with it. In Malta, it never really did. It is amoral pragmatism, not religion, which lies at the heart of Maltese social culture.

It is precisely because the state of living together is considered socially and legally inferior that people who reason this way believe it to be preferable. It gives the ‘original’ spouse superior status. I am certain that if there were some way divorce could be introduced without subsequent marriage being permitted, then opposition to it would fall away completely.

Up to a generation ago, when people left their spouse and set up home with another, they were pogguti. Their status was beyond the pale. They mixed in a sort of alternative society with others who were in the same situation. Even if the relationship lasted for years, longer than their actual marriages, they still had, in the eyes of society, inferior status.

Even when things began to change and marriages began breaking down by the thousand, with people forming not just new relationships but also new families, the lack of spousal status means that the people in those relationships are regarded, at a subconscious level or even overtly, as not being official or even quite legitimate. The disparaging word pogguti is seen as politically incorrect and impolite, but like it or not, this is the way most people still think. The fact that these people ‘live in sin’ allows others to disapprove, something they will not be able to do if the objects of their disapproval contract themselves to each other in marriage.

You may laugh at what I am going to say next, but think about it and you may well find some veracity in it. What we have now is a social situation (the legal situation is something else) of Chief Wife with legitimate status, whose children are the ‘official’ ones, and concubine/s with or without children who are usurpers of the rights and inheritance of the first, official lot. I consider it mainly from this point of view because women are far less likely to have children in a subsequent relationship when their marriage fails, especially if they have had children already with their husband. Some do, but it is most unusual.

What is certain is that both women and men, regardless of the circumstances in which the marriage broke down, tend to regard their spouse’s subsequent companion as an interloper, someone extraneous to the original family set-up when that family includes children. In this, they are entirely correct, because subsequent companions are indeed extraneous when the ‘original’ family meets, and so they should know their place and stay away. They might not like hearing this, but they would do well to see the sense in it, even if only for their own sake. Nothing can endanger more the prospects for the survival of their relationship than continually engaging in battle with their companion’s original family.

Malta is only just learning how to deal with the social norms in terms of subsequent relationships. We are as yet uncertain of the etiquette involved, or how far we should go in respecting the feelings of others. This applies only where the married couple have children together, as those children will hold them together for the rest of their lives – something that subsequent companions, even when they have children themselves, often resent and fight against. They do their worst in imposing themselves on the original family unit, causing a great deal of unhappiness, which could be avoided.

The companions of fathers are usually the worst culprits in this respect. This is not just because men can be less sensitive to their children’s feelings than women are, and more prone to manipulation by the women they sleep with, and so more likely to give in to their demands even when they are in conflict with those of their children. It’s also because women who enter into a relationship with a man who has children already tend to see the situation as a competitive sport. I score points over her and her sprogs. She scores points over me. I’ll be damned if she’s going to get her way. He spent all that money on his children! Now he’ll have to spend some on me. I’ll be damned if she thinks she’s going to get away with it. My God, has he brought her to the party? He’s got a nerve. She’s got a bloody cheek.

The brawl at that First Holy Communion ceremony in Dingli last week was a case in point. The mother left her companion at home. The father did not. He brought his girlfriend to his son’s ceremony, where she did not belong and had no place. He probably reasoned that it would have been disrespectful towards her to leave her behind. He thought little or nothing of the disrespect he showed to his wife, her family and above all, their son. The girlfriend probably felt the same way. She was damned if she was going to let anyone ‘disrespect’ her. Neither of them stopped to think that it was not about them, that what they felt and thought was not important. One of the most ridiculous examples of poor behaviour that I have heard of is that of the man who took his pregnant girlfriend – for whom he had abandoned his family – to his child’s First Holy Communion ceremony (seems to be where all the action is nowadays). The pregnant girlfriend, not content with upsetting everyone by her presence, also felt the pressing need to go up the aisle, hands meekly folded, to receive the Eucharist with her eyes closed. You can imagine how well that went down.

A situation like that involves the child only – the child and his biological parents. Third parties, even if they share a bed and a home with one of those parents, are completely extraneous. They do not have any place at or part in the ceremony, and so should have the dignity and the decency to stay at home of their own volition. There is no shame in this. There is only honour. On the other hand, foisting yourself on the original family unit, when you know you are going to cause unhappiness because you do not belong there, is dishonourable, vulgar and downright nasty. It is true that women can be utter bitches, but then men let them. It is as though they enjoy, in a perverse way, having two sexual partners – one current and the other former – tying themselves up into knots of difficulty about them. Then there are the men who actually get a thrill out of parading their current sexual partner in front of their former one, especially if she has a baby on her hip. It’s all so very tedious.

When the children grow up, the situation might change. Depending on what sort of relationship you have had with them, you might be a tolerated, if not necessarily welcome, guest at their wedding alongside their biological parent. But even then, if you see that your presence at the wedding is going to cause unhappiness and disruption to those who have more right to be there, then just don’t go.

Continues on page 17

At one wedding I knew of a couple of years ago, the groom’s mother stayed home because she couldn’t contend with the presence of her ex-husband’s second wife. The second wife made a point of going despite knowing this would happen – or, as I suspect, deliberately to provoke it, even though she knew this would cast a pall over her stepson’s big day.

Of course, you can argue that his mother should have overcome her unhappiness for his sake, but a stronger argument is that the stepmother shouldn’t have been so spiteful and manipulative. You can also argue that that her husband shouldn’t have been so weak, and should have demanded that she stays home, rather than throw a shadow over his son’s wedding day. I know that some people will find this a controversial position, but I believe that the parents-child relationship should be respected at all times and that those who willingly and knowingly enter into a relationship or marriage with somebody who has children already should be fully aware that a different code of behaviour is required.

A woman should never oblige a man to choose between her and the children he has had with somebody else. Yet women do this all the time. Sometimes, they even have children for the sole purpose of competing in status with the first wife. Then they put their children into competition with the first wife’s children. I don’t feel sorry for the men in this position. In general, I think they are idiots who have brought it upon themselves. But I do feel sorry for the children. When women are too old to have children, they engage in other competitive stratagems, like making scenes, forcing the man to choose, and other attention-seeking behaviour. This is most unwise, because though some men are weak, in general, the surest way a woman can ensure she gets dumped by her man is to compete for attention with his children. The woman who does this knows that she is in a double-bind. Every woman knows instinctively that if a man chooses her over his children, then he is not worth having. The man who treats his children cavalierly will treat his companion in the same way, sooner or later.

Those who enter into a relationship with somebody who has had a family already have to learn that the rules of play are completely different. A wife with children does not have the status of an ex-girlfriend. The father of your companion’s children is not the same thing as an ex-boyfriend. You are not entitled to make scenes if they ring in the middle of the night with bad news about a child, or in the middle of lunch with good news about examination results. You are not entitled to demand that your companion buys you a car when he buys one for his daughter. You have no right to ban your companion from meeting her husband for coffee to talk about problems with recalcitrant teenage children.

When you take on a companion with children in his or her present, a marriage in his or her past, and plenty of emotional and financial baggage, then you just have to accept it, and do so with honour and dignity. End of story.

www.daphnecaruanagalizia.com