ordinary woman.

This is not a question of what "society" admits; it is a personal
question between one man and one woman. It _is_ a partnership, whether
society so admits or not. And the failure of one of the partners to
live up to the expressed or implied agreement does not justify the other
party in the misdoing of her part _as long as they live together_. Does
one theft or murder justify another? No! Neither does a neglectful
husband justify a scolding or spiteful wife, nor _vice versa._

Two people marry _first_, for the happiness of love; and second, for
home privileges. No matter whether love flees or not, _as long as they
keep up_ the home-privileges partnership it should be done in the spirit
of harmony. Remember, it takes _two_ to destroy harmony and _either one
can restore it_. If marriage is not a love contract let it at least be a
harmonious business contract. If you can't, or won't, _adjust yourself_
to your husband, then leave him. Don't stay and half-do your part of the
business and cultivate hate and contempt. It's hell. _Get out_.

I have known several couples who lived years in comparative happiness
after love had flown; who were kind to each other, considerate,
business-like. The wives made pleasant homes and the husbands came and
went at will. In their spare time the wives developed their personal
interests and "lived their own lives," as critic number two advises.
When the husbands took cranky streaks the wives simply made light of it
to themselves, and forgot it as soon as possible. They lived on as
comfortable terms as if the wives were simply _first-class_ hired
house-keepers; little crankisms were all in the bargain. Eventually
every one of these couples separated, and nearly all the parties are now
_happily_ married. _And every_ _couple parted amicably_; each being