Posted on 07/06/2002 5:00:19 AM PDT by buccaneer81
A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss
By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson
Katherine is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this thirtysomething software analyst dates do not want to get married. These men have Peter Pan syndrome: They refuse to commit, refuse to settle down, and refuse to "grow up."
However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today, Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man.
"Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31-year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry.
"I've seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again."
Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States has dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point since the rate was measured. There are many plausible explanations for this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in the face of a family court system hopelessly stacked against them, have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike."
It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter Pan, marries Katherine, and has two children. There is a 50 percent likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be Katherine, not Dan, who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent husband. Studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men.
While the courts may grant Dan and Katherine joint legal custody, the odds are overwhelming that it is Katherine, not Dan, who will win physical custody. Overnight, Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids every day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14 percent dad" - a father who is allowed to spend only one out of every seven days with his own children.
Once Katherine and Dan are divorced, odds are at least even that Katherine will interfere with Dan's visitation rights.
Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to punish their exes.
Katherine will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of his take-home pay to Katherine in child support.
As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals.
He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders, which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them.
He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the court has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult to correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not have the time and the opportunity to earn it back.
"It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't worth the risk."
Dianna Thompson is the founder and executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. She can be contacted by e-mail at DThompson2232@aol.com. Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the male perspective. He invites readers' comments at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.
If your only bringing home 37% of your pay I wouldn't worry about keeping that job.I'd be looking into getting around this, otherwise your going to spend the next 13 yrs spinning your wheels in the mud.
Again, here where I live you don't have to be in the same school district, you only have to be able to get the child to the school he/she goes to, on time, every day. Maybe you could half the distance..... commute to work and drive your son to school the 2 or3 days hes with you.
He assures me that I am in the "zone" as far as the amount and that this is average in this area. And, talking to other men here, I believe it. And I don't have the money to file suit against the government to prove the constitutionality of the formula. Were I a billionaire, I would.
Giving up a 52k professional job with a company I've worked for and accumulated 12 years of seniority doesn't strike me as a particularly bright move. There are no jobs (unless you count truck driving or Wal-Mart greeter) where my son is now.
As far as halving the distance, that leaves me 35 miles from his school. My attorney tells me I need to live with a 15 minute drive to do shared parenting. And, even with shared parenting, some money would still go to the ex because she earns less than me.
Sadly, we are not a very organized bunch. But most guys are in the same boat as me. No money. (I still owe my lawyer $8500).
While I find it hard to believe a woman making 40k who shares custody is going to get support but in the event it does happen, how much could they possibly justify? you'd still come out better and have your child!
Those thong wearers must be the ones I haven't seen pictures of yet, so I don't really know if they're really thong wearers. :^)
So, if I read you correctly, the blame can be shared equally between men and women. Then why are the courts and laws so one-sided in favor of the women?
I hate to tell you this, as it might upset your comfy victimhood, but lots of people (men AND women) live with these kinds of battles on a daily basis. It isn't unique to you, and is generally referred to as "life" in the English language. I've been very disadvantaged most of my life, but you'll never see me stew in it or whine about it. I wish people would grow some spine; being pathetic is not an endearing characteristic, and is hardly conducive to overcoming the problems most people face in life. Women have problems unique to women, and men have problems unique to men -- so what?
Continuing to fight the good fight, and dealing with reality rather than whining about how reality is unfair, is a good starting point for a definition of "maturity". No matter how badly the deck is stacked against you, you have to stop making excuses and start taking responsibility for the decisions you make based on the hand you get. Period. Anything else is childish.
P.S. "troll" = "intentionally inflammatory for its own sake"
How true. I stayed a virgin til my wedding (3 weeks ago). When I was single, I discovered that, "I'm saving sex for my wife", is the best seduction line ever invented -- it really brings out the tigress-in-heat in some women -- except, of course, that I actually meant it.
Sadly, so-called Christian women were the worst offenders; non-religious women get tired of the endless seduction game and tend to be quite respectful of a man who decides not to play, or who quits playing. But churchy girls... Never mind. Suffice to say, thank God I found a real Christian. It took me 22 years of searching, though (from 14 to 38.)
That term ("troll") has been in use for a very long time on the Internet, and is a bastardization of the word "trawl". Apparently you haven't used the Internet very long. It has a similar genesis as the commonly used word "spam". Or do you think "spam" only refers to canned mystery meat as well?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.