The most absurd thing about this lawsuit is that it judges the happiness of others. It was originally an emotional problem, but it turned into a problem that needed to be proved by evidence. Such a distortion is doomed no matter how long the trial lasts, no progress can be made.
For Eliza, what they tried to prove is that Eliza is a good man and a qualified husband. This is the argument they use to impress the judge from beginning to end. Eliza may indeed be a good man in a certain sense, standing guard, gentle and gentle. Vivienne did not deny this either. But this is the absurdity. Could it be possible to prove the correctness of this marriage by proving that Eliza is a good man and has the ability to be a good husband? And is it true that judges judge the success of marriage only by virtue of this kind of character?
Not to mention that no one has more say and judgment in this marriage than the couple, just talk about marriage. The foundation it builds is not in personality right and wrong, but in tolerance. The highest level of tolerance is the same-mindedness, the same character, to achieve a complete fit. The lowest level is just being able to tolerate each other. This is the bottom line for the marriage to continue. The reason why Vivienne filed for divorce after enduring for decades is that the bottom line finally collapsed after being constantly challenged.
Regardless of whether it is a judge or a witness who is trying to defend Eliza, the reason why they are naive to judge whether a marriage is good and feasible for others is because they have a fixed template for judging happiness and contentment in their hearts. According to the template conveyed to them by their beliefs, they can judge whether a marriage should be, whether it is good or not. Of course, this template is biased towards men. If a man has good conduct and no physical defects, he is the righteous party in the marriage. And brutally concluded that such a marriage is satisfying. This emotional endorsement is the same as rape.
Looking at Vivienne again, what she constantly emphasizes and proves is the pain that marriage brings to her. This kind of proof is originally unnecessary. Going to court is the best proof of suffering, and suffering should be the best reason for divorce. If we need to prove it further, how can it be expressed through words? The testimony of others was originally just the perception of the couple on the surface, and could not really involve the emotional depths of both parties. No one can fully understand and explain Vivienne's pain, we can only judge by her tears and accusations. However, it is very ridiculous that the court does not believe in tears.
The crux of this lawsuit is that Eliza firmly disagrees with the divorce, and also vowed to say that he loves her. I don't doubt whether his love is true or false, but it can be judged that this kind of love is deformed, it is a kind of possessive desire flooded by a superior patriarchy. The final divorce was also because Vivian compromised Eliza's savage possessiveness. Eliza seems to me to be an extremely eccentric and rigid person with no life style. He reminds me of the person who can't laugh in "Ten Years of a Hundred People" whose expression is always so stiff. When his girlfriend found out that he couldn't laugh, she was very sad and hit hard, and hesitated to leave him. The reason for this is very simple, because it is too boring to live with such a weird guy for a lifetime.
Vivienne originally hoped to achieve the goal of divorce through a judge, but in the end it took five years to obtain this freedom at the expense of another freedom of her own. This result shows that in such an environment, no matter how hard women struggle, they cannot avoid falling into a sad situation. To change the tragedy of women, the only way to change this environment is from the root cause.
View more about Gett reviews
