I feel strongly that people who are "book" smart are not always socially as smart! I also believe that divorce is a social issue, and therefore this teacher's suggestion that persons who are not successful at the union of marriage are failures is absurd. yes, our marriages may be failed but that does not make us as humans FAILURES!!! I highly encourage you to send in a rebuttal to this person who is taking a social opinion and making it into something that it just should not be.....good for you if you do rebutt it! this is just mho!:) I certainly do not feel like Iam a failure in any way shape or form because my marriage is failed!

I can completely understanding why he would say this. I won't go into it but there was a lot of that in me when I got married. I have seen other other people live this way as well.

It's not the only reason, but it is a reason.

I absolutely don't view divorce as a failure. People who feel that way have never experienced it or have blindrs on in their own relationship and do the "everything is great" routine when we all know, behind closed doors, no one's marriage is perfect.

I will not feel shame for divorcing...I would have felt more shame staying, knowing I was fighting fo something my EX was too cowardly to admit he wanted out of. No, choosing to waste your time in a loveless marriage is so much more of a self-failure then cutting ties and taking a chance on life.

I suppose people think he sounds smart just because he works at Harvard..lots of dumb asses come out of Ivy League schools, so I wouldn't worry about it.

I don't feel shame for divorcing, but I do feel shame for being young and thinking that marriage would solve a myriad of problems for me.

I guess I should feel grateful for recognizing my mistakes and being able to fix them in my life.

It may well be the case for some, but not all. If the HBS professor was applying it to all divorces, then he's a dumbarse, or an arrogant arse, or whatever. If, however, he was applying it as a reason for some, then yes, it probably fits. No one reason fits every divorce.

(((((((((((((((((aditi))))))))))))))))))))
Like doxy said: book smarts don't equal social/street smarts.
(((((((((((((((((aditi))))))))))))))))))))

I don't know a lot about business and management techniques but I imagine Mr. Harvard Business School would not advise holding on to an employee that was no longer maintaining or increasing productivity. I imagine he would say that if an employee is sitting on their ass or running the company into the ground he would advise immediate termination. Would that be considered a failure? He would probably deem it as a wise business practice. And now I'm thinking about Borders Bookstores who are bankrupt because they refused to change and grow with the new e-reader technology. By the time they realized it was time for an overhaul it was too late. So while I can understand the whole "family unit as purpose" point he was trying to make, I think there are arguments to dispute that divorce is a failure. I'd like to think of it as a protype relationship. A life experience that didn't pan out but that gets you to another life experience that does. That's by no means a failure!

Prototype* sorry!

I think MrHarvardBusinessType has the business model as his paradigm, so that lens would like be pretty thick and comfy in front of his eyes.

All the power to him. If it works for him, great.

I just think, MrBusinessTypes are not in the majority so his paradigm doesn't sit comfortably with the rest of us. My whole way of thinking and living is about as far removed from that as a person can get.

We're going to have to love the paradigms we have, or go shopping for one we like better, to hell with him.

Savor, I think it's more that anyone who goes into an arrangement/partnership with the wrong expectations will likely end up later breaking the partnership. I don't think HBS was trying to apply this to every marriage, but I think that for some marriages it does. I think he was trying to show that the same principle applies in business as well.

Well, jstu reding what you paraphrase him saying in your oriignal post, I think I can see what he is saying. Of course, I am not relaly ehairng or reading what he is saying, jsut doing a take on your take. For me, I kidna fell into marriage without being particualrly thoguhtful, and I don't bleieve that a goal or purpsoe was ever really thoguht about, by either of us, and then the marriage failed. Dismally. The partnership failed. So, yes - I failed at marriage, and part of that was because I did not have an articulated purpose that included a solid concept of family. We just got married, for not really good reasons, that's all.

But, more generally, I think he is talking about a failed marriage. I am not a failure - my marriage was - there's a difference.

Sorry. That's a lot of typos. Strike that reply, please.

I found many replies to this post interesting --some funny--the one by Savour--where this guy's logic tunrs upside down when applied to a nonproductive employee ! --true!!
Imagine if all life experiences were 'eplained' by theories , what would Eienstien say for a divorce ?!! Or Newton?!; Newton would probably say-- gravity applies to relationships as well ! or Eiestein's e=mc2 could mean ' Evarlasting marriages= Mutual respect x commitment x commitment.'
So, like my people here say, Sir (HBS prof), : dont force theories into unpredictable life experiences, esp., marriages ! There is no 'hence proved' here.

*like*