Is divorce really reason to celebrate?
Are divorce parties in bad taste?
We love rituals. We do. They make us feel connected and purposeful. Rituals may be religious, or not. They may be shared with hundreds or few. But we love them because they are transformative. Weddings transform single people into a married couple, funerals transform dead bodies into living souls. Dinner dates make Friday night sexy. Grand finals make families from strangers, and enemies of others.
Of course, while passion for ritual process is common, commonly loved rituals are rare; one person’s sacred practice is another’s silly superstition – a waste of time, a hassle, even an inexcusable horror.
But what makes some rituals more supported than others? What makes one ritual right and another wrong in the eyes of society?
I’d like to talk here about a relatively new ritual phenomenon. The divorce party – a modern, Western ritual spawned in America sometime in 2007 that has grown in popularity since.
Though Jack White and Karen Elson’s divorce party was a shared affair, in the main divorce parties are organised independently, a la Heather Mills who famously forked out $500,000 for one of her own.
And while women may be seen as the hostesses with the mostest divorce party inclination, they aren’t the only ones doing it; many men’s events organisers cater to divorce parties for boys. In fact, the divorce party has been described as the “final frontier of the wedding industry complex”.
But are divorce parties rituals that are good or bad for society? Are they generally appropriate or in very bad taste?
The Guardian this week had an article written from a pro-perspective. In this context, divorce parties were not about celebrating the end of a marriage, but the start of a new life. Following von Gennep’s famous ‘three phases’ ritual model, the divorce party prompts healing by first separating the protagonist from their married identity, then passing them through the awkward post-separation threshold before finally rejoining them with the fresh life and love potential beyond.
Looked at this way, divorce parties can be seen as a ritual with myriad positive consequences. As a sacrament devoted to a person’s newfound singledom, the divorce party might be a ritual with power to transform woebegone broken-hearts into optimistic hoping-hearts. Surely this is a good thing in a world where divorce happens, and happens often.
Yet when viewed from the other side of the fence, divorce parties can look like very negative exercises in regret - visions of vitriol spewed into tacky, stabby invitations, cocktails of misery and bitterness served up with slices of dead-spouse blood-velvet cake.
Instead of a positive trajectory of healing, divorce parties can see the central character stuck in a regressive loop or loathing. Beginning with hate for the old relationship, middling with stewing over the old relationship and ending with refreshed hate for the old relationship, a divorce party can read like a downward spiral of doom.
How, you might ask, could anything good come from something so vindictive?
Indeed, in this age of social oversharing, it’s likely the shenanigans of a divorce party will be captured and disseminated, possibly intentionally so (especially to the wrong people, ie The Ex). Such grave-dancing is reprehensible, and gains little. Actually, it could lose the jigger quite a lot if the settlement is not quite finalised, and the ‘celebration’ is used to sucker-punch funds.
So perhaps they key factor here is time. Divorce parties might be a healthy, socially desirable ritual practice if held at the right time. That is to say after the bruising and swelling has gone down. Then perhaps the focus will be of new life, rather than ruined life. Then, maybe, likely guests would be contributing to a new future rather than being caught up in a messy war. Then the party is more ‘new-you debut’, less ‘divorce party’ – something we surely should support.
But what do you think?
Have you ever been involved with a divorce party? What do you think about them? Are they are healthy ritual practice, or should we stamp them out on the grounds they’re a socially destructive force?
kfeeney@fairfaxmedia.com.au (I promise I do read mail, even if I don't respond right away...)
Source: www.theage.com.au
Essex: Firefighters vote to strike - East Anglian Daily Times
Essex fire chief David Johnson
By Amie Keeley
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
5:22 PM
FIREFIGHTERS in Essex have voted in favour of strike action over cuts to front line services.
A total of 532 members supported the move in a ballot held by the Essex Fire Brigade Union which was announced yesterday.
The number voting against a strike was 216 out of about 1,000 members.
The news comes following a long-running dispute between the FBU and Essex County Fire and Rescue Service (ECFRS) over job cuts and changes which the FBU says have been forced through without consultation.
The FBU claims one in five firefighters will have been cut since 2008 if planned changes go ahead while back-room staffing has risen by 7.5%.
The FBU has to give seven days’ notice of any strikes and its leaders say there is still time to resolve the dispute.
FBU brigade secretary Mick Rogers said: “No-one in the fire service ever wants to take strike action and no-one will be happy if we are forced to do so.
“It is crucial the fire authority now wakes up and joins with us in genuine moves to resolve this dispute.”
But Chief Fire Officer David Johnson said the service had already agreed to the majority of the FBU’s demands and it was time for a compromise.
“This vote only represents half of the FBU members – we have 1,300 firefighters in Essex so it does not reflect the majority of our employees.
“We agree with 95% of their demands, now we need them to compromise on the remaining 5%.
“If they do go ahead with the strike, we have effective contingency systems in place, but I’d like to think that the leadership at the FBU are decent enough not to drag their members into strike action for the wrong reasons.”
Source: www.eadt.co.uk
Paramedic 'deflated ambulance tyre at end of her shift to avoid overtime and answering 999 call' - Daily Mail
- Victoria Parker avoided helping an elderly lady who had suffered a fall in Essex
- Five former colleagues accused her of intimidating and bullying them
- She was suspended by East of England Ambulance Service and has since resigned
- Panel found her guilty of misconduct and dishonesty and banned her for five years
By Rob Preece
|
A bullying paramedic who let down one of the tyres on her ambulance to dodge an emergency call-out has been struck off.
Victoria Parker admitted she had been a ‘stupid a**e’ for sticking a pen into the tyre to let out air so she could finish her shift on time.
She was guilty of misconduct and dishonesty by avoiding the call to help an elderly lady who had suffered a fall, a Health Professions Council panel ruled.
Accusation: Victoria Parker let out air from an ambulance tyre to avoid attending an emergency call-out, a hearing was told
Parker, who was a paramedic with the East of England Ambulance NHS Trust, was adjudged to have put patients at risk by deliberately putting the ambulance out of service.
Parker, who has since quit the service and moved to Australia, was also found to have bullied and intimidated junior colleagues.
She was banned from practising for at least five years.
Panel chairman Clare Reggiori said: ‘The registrant’s actions on more than one occasion of causing an otherwise sound ambulance to be taken off the road for entirely selfish reasons had the potential to put patients at risk.
‘There was very little evidence that the registrant had shown insight into the possible impact of her conduct on patients who might have suffered as a consequence of the ambulances being off the road.’
Parker, who did not attend the hearing at Whitefield House in London, admitted letting a tyre down 30 minutes before the end of her shift on May 19, 2009, to avoid treating the elderly woman in South Woodham Ferrers, Essex.
Allegation: Parker used a pen to deflate the nearside front tyre of the ambulance, the Health Professions Council heard
During the trust’s internal investigation, she admitted: ‘I untwiddled the valve cap and with my pen I let a little air out of the tyre.
‘I told control we had a slow flat. I didn’t tell anyone about this.
‘I am a stupid a**e.’
Parker had also confessed to repeating the trick on March 10, 2010, during an internal assessment day, but the panel said it could not be sure this was true after hearing ‘vague’ witness evidence.
Parker was responsible for supervising student paramedics at Rayleigh Ambulance Station.
Parker claimed to have got on with paramedics Clair Flynn, Gail Newman, and Samantha Watson, but they gave evidence contradicting this.
They described a ‘clear pattern of sustained intimidation and bullying’ during a deteriorating relationship with Parker.
Ms Reggiori said: ‘The registrant’s actions were serious, deliberate, wilful and reckless. As found by the panel, they were also dishonest.
‘They also involved student paramedics for whom the registrant was responsible while they were in her charge.
No-show: Parker, who has moved to Australia, did not attend the hearing at Whitefield House in London
‘She was a person to whom they should be able to look to for guidance on proper professional standards and behaviour.
‘Her conduct in bullying her colleagues demonstrated, in the panel’s view, a deep-seated attitudinal problem about which the registrant appeared to have virtually no insight.
‘We saw at first hand the very profound effect which her conduct still has on those of her colleagues who gave evidence at this hearing.’
Parker has shown little remorse for her actions, the panel ruled.
It also raised concerns about the training of student paramedics at the trust, and ordered for a copy of the ruling to be sent to the chief executive.
An allegation that Parker instructed a student paramedic to falsify paperwork following the tyre incident was not proven, the panel found.
Source: www.dailymail.co.uk
Sign in to leave your comment
0 comments