womensecr.com
  • Personal relationships are related by law

    click fraud protection

    The most convincing evidence that these personal relationships are strongly linked to the social order is the existence of a code of laws on family and marriage for all peoples. This code can be written on papyrus, carved into stone, or maybe embodied in ritual-theatrical action. It can be adopted by the dictator's sole will: "to be by this!" Or by the general decision of the tribe, by the vote of the people - in all cases, it requires community members to strictly obey it."No one is forced to conclude a marriage, but everyone must be forced to obey the laws of marriage, since he entered into marriage," insisted K. Marx( Marx K., Engels F. Soch., Vol. 1, p. 162).Without a mandatory rule, the rules of personal relations would turn into chaos, and chaos is the most destructive force for society. Therefore disobedience is somehow condemned and punished. And the measures of punishment for misdemeanors of each people are different.

    Benefits are given to a large family in the distribution of housing. And the state recorded in the Constitution as a principle - helping it in educating the younger generation. To do this, the network of children's institutions will be expanded, the service of everyday life and public catering will be improved, the fund for material assistance will be increased at the expense of benefits at the birth of each child, etc.

    instagram viewer

    And the provisions of many other articles of the Constitution, it would seem, on a family not directed and notaddressed, have a direct relationship to the device of our personal life.

    Also in the interests of every citizen, and therefore - the family, written articles fixing our common rights to education, work, rest, health protection, housing;articles protecting the person from encroachments on his property, dignity and honor, on the secret of his personal life. And, of course, the most important for the family is an article on the equality of rights of men and women.

    If you carefully read, it turns out that all civil liberties aimed at the fair distribution of wealth and responsibilities, teach us honest and decent behavior and in relation to each other.

    The state is vitally interested in strengthening and developing the primary unit of society. This means that financial assistance to the family can not be regarded as charity: benefits and benefits are taken from our common pocket, which until then has been generous, while all the members of a large Soviet family conscientiously fulfill their civic, professional and human duty. That's why next to the articles on the rights of citizens are written articles about our duties. Parents are obliged to take care of the upbringing of children, to prepare them for socially useful work, to raise them worthy members of a socialist society. Children should be responsible for caring for their elderly parents.

    But, besides the constitutional norms, there is also a special set of laws - the Family and Marriage Code, which more closely defines the nature of the relationship of all family members and their duties to each other. This is a kind of reference point of law and justice, below which begins dishonesty and disorder, above which - the true dignity, nobility.

    Here, for example, this Code states that the husband and wife have equal rights to own property acquired during cohabitation. A concrete wife of N. got married to a girl who does not know how and, most importantly, does not want to do either on the public field or on the family. Her ideas about marriage are akin to the one expressed by Madame Kukushkina, the heroine of the comedy by A. Ostrovsky "Profitable place."She believed that wives existed so that their husbands could dress as best they could, admire them, deliver all pleasures, perform every whim.

    Spouse this situation over the years became unbearable, and he decided to terminate the unsuccessful marriage. Under the law of conscience and honor, the wife should not have made any property claims against her former spouse, and thanks also for saying that her - parasite - has been patient for so long. But she is addressed to the legal law, and he must award her a certain share of marital property, except that it belonged to both before marriage and that was received as a gift, inherited by each of them.

    Some husbands who find themselves in such a situation try to establish justice self-reliantly: they begin to withhold the savings, take out of the house and hide things - and thus they achieve that they lose their own face, human dignity. Still, it is better to lose by the law than to buy such a price.

    There are also opposite cases: the wife took a higher step on the public staircase and gazed at the spouse, who, although making a significant contribution to the general cash department, was, in her opinion, not a couple. Relations escalated to the extreme, and the husband left, taking up a suitcase with a nondescript suit, leaving both housing, and a car, and giving to his wife and children. This act, according to legal norms, seems to be illegal, but a person has the right to act noblerly, and then no one decides to him, he has no right only to act dishonestly.

    You ask: why both examples are taken with their husbands? Do not wives get into such circumstances? They come in and act similarly. Especially often they find themselves in the position of exploited and robbed wives of alcoholics. When a divorce court, as a rule, they are awarded most of the property, as with all equality of rights and duties, the law protects the interests of the spouse with whom the children remain.

    It happens, fathers and prove that they can cope with the duties of the child's teacher as well as the mother. But all the advantages are still on the side of the mother. This topic worries the public: indeed, the current practice seems to contradict the Basic Law, which affirms the absolute equality of men and women. The code of marriage is by no means frozen in the immutability of a lump, it has already been repeatedly changed under the influence of the lively, mobile practice of our society. It may well be that this problem will also find its legal solution.

    The examples given here may lead to the idea that this Code comes into effect only when a family is in trouble. Rather, on the contrary, it is present intangible in all our responsible and just actions, but it becomes obvious when we deviate from it. Knowledge of it is necessary and for preventive purposes. It is sad to see how quite adult and educated people discover ignorance about the norms of behavior in their daily life activity. There was, for example, the case when the husband refused to provide financial assistance to his wife, who became disabled. And he was indignant at the trial because he was obliged to pay her alimony: "I supposedly do not have to keep her forever, if she lost her ability to work, not through my fault. And in general, I divorce her. "But the Law is the Law. And in front of his face, as in the face of public morality, this husband found himself in a very deplorable state. Then he tried to justify his behavior by "legal illiteracy", but it's too late: he has lost his human dignity.

    Before the court, parents who involve their children in drunkenness often appear. And it is strange to hear how the guilty are justified in such cases: they say, our grandfathers and fathers did this and no one condemned them. Is not the parent the owner of his family and children? And judges have to explain the basics of socialist morality and rights to a man who was born and raised in a socialist society, to explain that he does not live with a house-building and there is no "master" in the family, whose unbridled will is the law for the household.

    Parents are responsible for the strictness of the law for child abuse, for neglecting and caring for the fact that minors become criminals. Careless and irresponsible adults sometimes refuse to feed and nurture their offspring. Then they lose their parental rights. The state takes their children from them, places them in orphanages, or transfers them to upbringing for those who are worthy of public trust. And with negligent dads and mothers, alimony is paid for the maintenance of children. And, of course, the law frees children from their responsibilities to such parents when they are in need and old.

    Divorce in a human way

    The most frequent cases with which family members go to court are requests for divorce.

    Divorce. The collapse of the family. A catastrophe for the family, for all of its surroundings. The scale of this drama can be compared only with the death of a loved one. Since the problem of divorce affects a large part of our population, we will consider it specifically.

    In the literature, in the cinema, in newspaper publications, you probably met more than once with stories whose authors presented us the next version of the divorce "by": in Italian, in Arabic, in Moscow. .. Already the very existence of this "According to "said that here we are dealing with some deviation from the generally accepted phenomenon, with an anomaly, or something. Although, if you recall, nowhere was the sample itself, the "standard" of such a complex and painful process as the breakdown of family relations.

    It turns out the same picture as with happy families. We know a lot about the fact that there is a "disease", a deviation from the norm, a bad situation in the house, but we can not say anything definite about the norm itself.

    Reading and listening to stories about painful and scandalous divorces, we often exclaim: "How terrible it is! Well, really you can not part in a good way? ! "Although, if you ask: what it means" in an amicable way ", the answers will also be very different. And those who have transferred this procedure, will doubtfully doubt: is there at all such a standard of "safe" divorce? A "good" operation can only be from the point of view of an outside observer or surgeon, but not for the patient. He knows as well as those who soothe his friends: it's not time to endure suffering, everything will pass away, it will shift. Life will not stop there, new joys will appear and, perhaps, a new family. However, at the very moment of the "operation" it is sinful for him to demand Olympic tranquility, when the created world collapses and the roof blazes above his head.

    There is a saying: "To leave means to die a little".To paraphrase it, with good reason, you can say: "Divorce - means a little kill."To kill not only that person whom you leave, but something to kill and in consciousness, in feelings of children. Kill yourself, that area of ​​your soul, your memory, your body, and finally, where in every cell there is a part of life lived together with a former husband or ex-wife. Everything that is worshiped is burned down, and this includes relations with close and distant relatives, with many friends and acquaintances whom a person acquires with a companion of life and who are also injured by broken shards.

    - And you can not avoid such suffering by canceling all divorces?

    For several centuries the Christian religion has solved the problem in this way, the marriage is once and for all. In Russia, divorce was permitted only in special cases: when one of the spouses was childless, when treason was committed and it was proved by witnesses of adultery, when one of the spouses was mentally ill or was sentenced for a long time.

    What tortures resulted in the impossibility of divorce for both spouses and children, when people who hate each other were condemned to perpetual stay under a common roof, one can only imagine by tragic narratives( Anna Karenina is a textbook example).

    The Revolution decisively destroyed such an installation. Lenin believed that the right of a person to freely marry must necessarily be reinforced by the right to divorce when marital feelings have become obsolete. There was a period( after the Great Patriotic War, it was caused by the great upheavals and losses suffered by the Soviet family), when it was a long and humiliating act to formalize the breakdown of the family legally. But life has convinced: at the extinguished fire and spouses will not get warm and children will cool.

    A change in the divorce law has led to an increase in the number of divorces. Began to divorce not only bad wives with bad husbands, but also good with good, ceasing to be necessary and dear to each other. So it turns out that divorces are less and less perceived as a scandalously catastrophic event. Most often - with a sigh of relief from both sides.

    We have to hear dissatisfaction with the simplicity of the legal procedure. Say, it is necessary that the husband and wife sacrificed in a divorce something serious. Maybe they would stop and think, and there - the anger has passed, here, you see, and reconciled. I'm not sure that much will change the procedure itself. Yes, it is still not a pleasant one, and time is given to the couple to meditate. The right to divorce is a great conquest of the human race. As VI Lenin said: "... in fact, the freedom of divorce does not mean the" disintegration "of family ties, but, on the contrary, their strengthening on the only possible democratic foundations in civilized society"( VI Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.25, p. 286).

    Some researchers divide the increased number of divorces in the category of evidence of the "family crisis".It seems that this phenomenon rather means not the decline of its authority and opportunities, but the growth of the requirements of the spouses to each other, to the style and the image of the joint being. Hence, the family will grow in quality with time and will gain new value and attractiveness. But, of course, neither the man nor the woman is the semblance of family relations, "if only marriage, if only the house" - now will not suit. They are looking for a truly human, humane, highly moral connection. By divorce they do not deny the family, they deny formal marriage in the name of the genuine.

    And anyway, it's time for us to admit: family joys and labors are not the lot of everyone. As in earlier times there were women and men who considered themselves "not created for bliss", so it always will be. And blaming them for this inability is a waste of time. But, of course, we can not allow them to invade our home with the preaching of their installations, as the only true and best. Our family is under the protection of the state and in this sense - in the sense of propaganda and agitation in its favor, and not to its detriment.

    The state has done a lot to neutralize or even destroy the social roots of divorce: this is facilitated by the already mentioned rights - the equation of women with men and the free choice of couples, the prohibition of forced marriages, the condemnation of calculating relationships, the removal of national and religious obstacles to marriage, As for the natural roots of divorce( the inconstancy of attraction of husband and wife to each other, for example), attempts to "correct" the situation in the legislative order did not yield good results.

    - But what causes divorce if 90% of modern marriages are for love?

    The answer to this question can be statistics.

    The biggest evil for the family is alcoholism, it is this reason that most often pops up on ships. In particular, when the initiator of the divorce are women, they are now filing almost 2/3 of the applications for divorce.

    These figures have nothing to add: they themselves say that such vice as drunkenness is incompatible with family life, with normal conditions for the upbringing of children.

    About 25% of divorces due to marital infidelity. And here, too, nothing to object, no new-fangled theories can not cover. People never betrayed anyone anywhere: neither in friendship, nor in love, nor in business relations, nor in relations to their people, to their Motherland. Everything can be forgiven: error, oversight, thoughtlessness, even an accidental fall, but not a deliberate betrayal!

    Why is mankind so irreconcilable to this vice? Because no joint action can be done without faith in each other. The family does not survive, the nation can not resist the alien onslaught, if one can not rely on the closest.

    Well, does the husband and wife go to eternity to be chained to each other like convicts? And if love is gone?. . There is a contradiction to the idea of ​​freedom of divorce.

    Love the person - sometimes, we are by nature - alas!- not monogamous. Otherwise, there would not be the first and other love, would not marry again and divorced and widowed married, would not visit us, as the most painful punishment, the attraction of a married or married to someone else's husband or wife. What to do here? Probably, first of all, it takes time, a separation, to experience a new feeling - is it not a fraud, not just the languor of the body and soul taken for a deep feeling.

    And yet we are useful to remember that love has its ebb and flow, its periods of rapid flowering and temporary colds. Biorhythms are inherent in all living things, they determine, in the opinion of physicians, 90% of physiological processes, including the need for physiological intimacy with the spouse or spouse. Candidate of Philosophical Sciences V. I. Zatsepin in his book "On the Life of a Matrimonial" paints a kind of diagram of the rise and fall of a love attraction for different individuals. He found that increased conflict arises between spouses, who are superimposed on each other by a wave of tide and a time of recession.

    It would be well to know the spouses about this, cyclicality and for a period of indispensable complications and chillings to go on a business trip, on vacation, to be distracted, finally, by some interesting occupation, in short, to move away from each other to a safe distance. You'll see that "unmotivated" skirmishes would flare up less often and the attraction to another object would become weaker, which, perhaps, became attractive, that temporarily "half" became unhappy.

    You can use this knowledge in relationships between friends who are in love. These relationships are also subject to biorhythmic fluctuations, and then between always soulfully close people like a black cat runs through. Quarrel over nonsense and can not understand: what happens to them? They would also move away for a time without resentment and reproach, then the return would be joyful.

    "We hurry, brothers, we hurry. .. And the most bitter thing that many people understand: divorce did not bring them happiness! According to foreign studies, even after two years, 25% of women and 20% of men regretted that they broke up. So they cry at night in the pillow: "Come back, I'll forgive everything."Forgive me sooner - and reproaches, suspicions. .. I think, not every hobby puts the marriage into question, it is not always treason, although, it seems, it is always a deceit of trust. Well, we call for being tolerant of the shortcomings of the other - perhaps in some cases this also applies to infidelity. But, I emphasize: if it is accidental, if love has not left the family. "

    But this same scientist categorically excludes forgiveness, which is preached not only by writers, filmmakers, artists, but also by some scientists of foreign countries. It is unthinkable in a house where children grow up. Such a situation is exacerbating them. When two people come together and disagree - these are their problems and their business: to whom to forgive or not. But the appearance of the child, as Lenin pointed out, is of public interest, and society demands of the father and mother compliance with all norms and rules of moral conduct.

    Again I quote N. Ya. Solovyov: "... both the pre-divorce and post-divorce situation inflicts irreparable harm to the child's health. .. After the parents' divorce, three-six-year-olds experienced feelings of guilt and self-abasement, seven- and eight-year-olds were angry and offended, mostlyon the father, ten-eleven-year-olds - an insult to both parents. More than a third of children usually learn worse, violate discipline, some begin to clash with everyone, even with friends, others run away from home. "

    Thus, children protest against the arbitrariness of parental feelings and attitudes. And it's fair: they need both parents, and not just one, no matter how much he loves or spoils. Children are the main sufferers in the breakup of the family. Therefore, when a mother or father decides not to overstep the extreme features in inevitable disputes, they show not only foresight, for and true love for their children.

    But if unbearable cohabitation, it is necessary to try to dissolve the marriage as much as possible to anesthetize and ennoble the mind. We are looking for the means that help the anesthetization of labor, although this is a natural process. And the first such tool, in my opinion, is the conviction: a person is a blacksmith not only of his own happiness, but also of his unhappiness. The very "operation", it happens, does not depend on his will. But it depends entirely on him whether it will be carried out by "little blood" or bleeds both his and his close people in meaningless and unworthy battles.

    Let's try to formulate some conditions for "safe" divorces, sometimes resorting to proofs by the method of the opposite. I want to draw attention to the possibility of reasonable actions, when the heart is offended and irreconcilable.(Again, I draw your attention to the fact that judgments about divorcing spouses are quite applicable to friendly relations, to relationships between lovers.)

    Medea, the heroine of the ancient Greek myth, in order to take revenge on the traitor Jason, kills his( her) children! Attempts by various thinkers and writers to understand and justify the murderer-mother, did not reach the goal. Of course, you can not imagine more betrayal on the part of your husband. Jason left not just his wife, he left a woman who was obliged to fulfill his historical mission, glory, success and even the salvation of his life. He betrayed the one who folded at his feet everything that is rich, strong and strong man: the love of his father, his ideals( his gods), she left her homeland, replaced the royal dignity with the bitter bread of the exile. The measure of Jason's crime was to receive appropriate retribution. And Medea found him. However, as this often happens not only in art, but also in life, the punishing sword turned out to be double-edged.

    I think this legend carries a very important warning to all mortals. No matter how great the sacrifice brought on the altar of love and matrimony, no matter how great betrayal and ingratitude, it is impossible for the victim himself to act as a judge. Punishing a traitor, you can brutally wound the innocent and torture yourself. The moral experience of mankind tells us the first "divorce": do not judge and you will not be condemned. Pass in the impartial hands the decision of the disputed cases: guilty - not guilty, to what extent and how to punish? On this there is a court: state, human, finally, the court of conscience of the traitor himself. The patient is more proud of his patience.

    We are taught a lot by the researchers of human destinies closer to us. For example, NG Chernyshevsky and LN Tolstoy skilfully reproduced the behavior of unusual, "new" people in such rather traditional circumstances as awareness of the bitter truth that you are disliked that you were preferred to another. Dmitry Lopukhov( the hero of the novel "What to do?") And Fyodor Protasov( hero of the drama "The Living Corpse") acted in surprisingly the same way: they feigned suicide and disappeared from the eyes of their honest, decent but not loving wives. The thoughtful reader will object to us: the first has not yet developed a relationship with his wife, they were only legally married;in the second, these relations have already disintegrated and also remained married only by documents. So, there was nothing to "divide" between the two pairs. It was necessary to bring the form in line with the content, which was done in a very delicate way.

    All this is true. But there is, in my opinion, a certain moral lesson here. They are not "guilty", but "victims" who sacrifice their well-being, not those who preferred another partner( let only in thoughts, in the soul, and not in deeds), but those who realized: the choice was made not in their favor.

    What is wisdom and justice in this sacrifice?

    Wisdom is that both spouses preferred a kind attitude, respect and gratitude to the wife of her hatred, contempt, humiliating clarification of relationships - everything that accompanies attempts to forcibly keep the "legal half", exacerbating the feeling of her guilt for involuntarily arising attraction to another person.

    VA Sukhomlinsky rightly wrote that the more often a child is judged and condemned by others, the less he has conscientiousness, the more he wants to do his own judges, too, guilty, "too bad".Or at least imagine them as such in your own imagination. This truth is also applicable to adults. The guilty "half" often seeks the means to convict, accuse the partner, so as not to look bad at all.

    The second commandment itself, which would be nice to remember us in any conflict and critical situations, is asking for itself: do not multiply evil, do not aggravate the guilt of the guilty. According to conscience, the commandment is very difficult to perform.

    In the process of family dissolution, people sometimes reveal themselves from the most unexpected side even for themselves. Always disinterested people suddenly become petty. Soft, all-forgiving - irreconcilable haters. As doctors say, pathology often reveals something that was hidden in the norm. Hidden. .. But not absent at all. Cataclysms reveal strata of feelings and relationships, but do not bring "something unprecedented. Therefore, the true price of marital ties, their culture and decency is just revealed during the break. And when we hear about the scandalous divorce of "quite decent" people, we can, with a large share of the foundation, put their decency into question. For all that, we will not confuse the painfulness of the divorce with the scandalousness. These are completely different concepts. The first is social behavior, and the second is a state of mind.

    Many men and women find wise and humane solutions when they part. They do not deny each other of respect, friendship. Their children continue to love and appreciate both.

    Here, perhaps, the most place and time to tell about a situation when it was divided( the wife's undefined feeling, the child, the hard-earned shelter) and yet the spouses escaped humiliating scenes. Merit in this primarily belonged to a woman. As the "victim" explained, the knowledge, albeit amateurish, was helped by the principles of autosuggestion and auto-training.

    When she recognized her husband that he loved another, she almost lost her head. Then I restrained myself, remembered the advice of psychologists: in any, most desperate situation, you can find the point of the moral support, clinging to which you will hold, you will not fall into the abyss of despair. You just need to find it. This point of support, she found in the thought that she had love, she has her baby fruit. Not everyone is so lucky in life. That is, she concentrated her thoughts not on what she was losing, but on what she had.

    Her past joys, happiness, memories of them, no court and divorce will not take. But human health is not alone in the present day. Yesterday's passions and hopes for tomorrow's success are tightly woven into him. When there is uncertainty and even more so - sadness, especially carefully, it is worth keeping the light coming from the past.

    This self-hypnosis helped her to find a balance, and then new, pain-relieving arguments appeared. She began to accustom herself to look at her husband as a "strange" man, whom she loves, and he does not reciprocate with her. Well, does this happen rarely? But no one at the same time does not expose his feelings for show, does not poke his finger in the direction of the "guilty".As, however, do not usually show a happy love. Means, it is necessary to hide the wounds, to hide the pain from others and, first of all, from the child. He does not need to know anything about mother's heart experiences. For him, the pope simply lives separately.

    One more commandment can be derived from this story: do not trample on your happy past. It will give strength to survive the difficult present. At the same time I also wrote down this rule: in material affairs, keep the norms defined by law. What and who should - give without discussion. If someone is unhappy, let him argue with the civil code. As the woman explained, and in this unselfishness there is a "calculation".

    - I decided, if I began to infringe on his legitimate rights, by this I would only take from his soul the consciousness of the injustice of what he had committed, the preference of me to another woman. This consciousness will be the heaviest punishment for him.

    I'm not going to be cunning: there was no happy end to this story. As I said, the woman was left alone. But the process of disintegration of the family did not take away her extra strength, health, nerves, her own dignity. She kept it all. How to preserve and respectful attitude of the ex-husband to himself and a caring father to his child. In my opinion, this is one of the options for a "divorce in a human way."Many other cases are known. They are not so few, contrary to the general impression. Unfortunately, art( and science), I repeat, is only interested in loud dramas and tragedies. Quiet divorce? On it, because the attention and interest of readers and viewers can not easily be mastered.

    As we recognize the multivariate nature of love, we can also expect a multivariate "safe" divorce. To soften the guilt of two people who could not build a common house, they can be convinced: they lost only a part of their former ties, they ceased to be beloved, but did not cease to be the parents of their children, friends, they did not cease to be decent people, finally.

    . .. To what extent are all of these issues relevant to your current life? In the most direct and immediate. We have already said so many times: the main thing in the family is the general mood, the moral climate. And it is created by every member, regardless of age, sex, state of health and material support. It is your compassion and not enough for the elders, when they happen to fall into heavy arrears of quarrels, failures. When there is trouble in the house, it is not bred by someone else's hands, but by own ones. And in your power to either help put out the fire, or pour oil on the fire, "warming your hands" on this fire.

    Perhaps the true manifestation of your human maturity may be the decision to see in the failures, in the collapse of the family, not someone's evil will, but rather a natural disaster. And steadfastly, courageously overcome its destructive impact: to save in the souls of their relatives all the good that united them before, remind of bright joys and holidays, about support and participation from the "warring sides".And, of course, overcoming their own pain and confusion, the desire to hide, to hide from the piled up mischief.

    You now know the moods and feelings that take possession of children in the divorce of their parents: help younger brothers and sisters overcome alienation from adults and peers, their audacious conflict, help them acquire special interest in studying, in sports, in art. In short, do not close yourself and do not let the older and the younger close on the woeful thoughts.

    Sometimes it is the steadfastness of adolescents and young men that is the "straw" that allows sinking adults to reach the saving shore.