A 'Marriage Strike' Emerges As Men Decide Not To Risk Loss

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.

there is no there, there. Only mirage.

I disagree. Hers is one of several tacks designed to take the discussion off the topic at hand, and on to something else. It almost doesn't matter what else. The effort is quite deliberate. It is a form of rudeness, a disruption of discussion amongst others purely out of personal pique or spite.

This thread has been remarkable in terms of staying close to the topic of the opening article, and in avoiding flame wars. That's amazing for a thread that is over 700 notes. I suspect it is because this is a subject that people want to talk about, and they will not be deterred.

What I find interesting is that so few on the distaff side seem to comprehend what the thread is about. Some seem to think it is about individual marriages, and why they end, or whose fault it is if one of them does. Some see a discussion of the divorce industry as an attack on women, which itself is kind of interesting. Some see only men talking about something that doesn't interest them, or that seems like a threat to them. Their contribution is to bash. Only a few seem to comprehend that there is something profoundly odd going on... that we have as a society institutionalized a system that separates parents from their children as a matter of state policy... that we have whole government bureaus devoted to the process of removing parents forcibly from their childrens' lives.

This is on the face of it an extraordinarily brutal and inhumane thing. It is a policy that one cannot find in any previously known human society. Perhaps Herod's mass killing of newborns comes closest in terms of brutal intervention into families by the state. It rips apart a parent's love for his child, it makes children wonder what happened to their father and how come daddy doesn't want me anymore, and it does this ostensibly for the convenience of women. And huge numbers of women do not understand what might be wrong, or odd, or inhumane about this. It's like they don't consider men or children to be actually human, like they are. This whole thing is just fine with them. If anyone complains, they must be whining. It seems to me that in order to do this, one must hold both men and children, and their humanity, and their love for one another, in sufficient contempt to consider ripping a parent from a child for one's own convenience a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. This is a level of self-centeredness that defies understanding by mere males.

It is disturbing to see such an incredible violation of human dignity brushed off as of no concern by those who do not perceive themselves to be threatened by it. It's almost like the thought is, "Oh yeah, that happens to them. Good thing they have no feelings; I'd really hate it if that happened to me. Good idea, let's talk about me." And so the next thing we see posted is, "Yeah, but what about me?"

A most enlightening thread.

Because you declare it so? Ha. Or because you don't think a woman is good for anything except one usage?

OK. Let's just go over a few of your posts and shed a little light on why I think you're just plain nuts. Note that I didn't say women were nuts as you are apt to project. No, I said YOU. YOU ALONE.

In post 132, you stated: "But guess what: I moved on. I don't blame the shortcomings in my life on someone else. I work to fix them MYSELF. How novel. Some of these whiny guys could try it."

Then, in post #152, you state: "I've played by the rules all my life..he was the one who started taking vacations with boyfriends.." and in #188: "Men who cannot establish relationships with home-grown women tend to import. Sorry, but that is how it works."

Sounds to me like you're projecting your shortcomings upon others quite well. It also seems that those who recieve your elegant scorn all happen to be men. (Its also telling that the guy that you claim to have been married to decided to date men. Perhaps you left a fine impression on him.) How much does that chip on your shoulder weigh?

Then there's the embellishments. You claim to be quite an acheiver as noted in post #522:"I got a good job. I now have BETTER things than I did married. I OWN FREE AND CLEAR a house in the best neighborhood in the city (with no $$$ from the ex). I drive better cars. I MOVED ON. ON MY OWN, with no help from a guy. I did not WHINE!" "I am SOOOO special!!!". Or, this one: "Nobody pays my bills but me. I have a good, professional job and I do not need the financial help of some woman-hater who believes manhood is defined by misogyny."

Also, see #636: "Tee hee. Taking on a mortgage is such a trivial undertaking.". Its hard to own a home "free and clear" while taking on a mortgage.

More of the same in #675: "With this kind of hostility in the work place, doing the mundane is not trivial. Men don't have to justify their jobs. I had to justify myself daily, and I had to be better than any man in the same job, just so no one would damn me as incompetent." Here you are, claiming to be better than anybody else, or at least any of the "men". But of course, anybody can claim anything on the internet. Proof is a little harder...

And perhaps a bit more elusive than one might expect as shown here in #724: "I've been using PCs since 1974 to operate scientific instrumentation like FTIRs, GC, and HPLCs...I have been at this awhile, so stop stamping your feed and crowing how knowledgable you are because of your kiddie geek slang." That's a lofty claim especially since PC's weren't around in 1974. And this coming from somebody that hasn't a modicum of knowledge about a few simple HTML commands, yet claims to be better than everyone else. Save the claims for your resume.

And of course, your claims of superiority are also blemished by this response "Except that I can discern that there are males who are black and females who are black. Can you not tell the difference?" to this post "(and most of my friends are men, because I do like them--I just don't expect much) Replace "men" with "black" and see how it looks. Not pretty, is it?" where you completely miss the simple concept of word substitution. That doesn't help the verbal score on your SAT at all.

The circumstances of your marriage and subsequent divorce also raise concerns as to its genuinness. I mean, first you state in #152 that.."he was the one who started taking vacations with boyfriends.." Then, in #635, you claim that "I handed over paychecks for 10 years to the 'joint' account and was lucky to leave with my life." Finally, back in post #205, you ascertain that "And then there was my ex trying to kill me...for a $35,000 insurance policy."

Now I've got to get this straight; each of these situations strengthens you divorce case. The total of them makes him out to be the scum of the earth in the eyes of all. And yet, you propose that "Mine was in the courts for 7 years and cost $25,000." As well, you state "I lost everything of $$$ value in my divorce." I simply cannot see how you could have had to deal with those situations and still end up spending a small fortune and 7 years fighting it; especially in relatively liberal Ohio.

No; I suspect there's more to the story if it is even true. Which I doubt.

I've watched your posts throughout this thread and that other "he-man whatever" thread. Your tactics are consistent. Any time anybody calls you on your sometimes outrageous claims, you make some snide remark about men "in general". Here's a few of my favorites:

"I just know better than expect much from men. They're okay to work with, and better to talk to than most women, but the maturity isn't there."

"I like men, at a safe distance where they cannot harm me or my animals."

"Ah, the good old days when men could abandon wives and children. Is this the kind of society men long for?"

"Men fantasize about women as nonverbal slaves, that's why they think Asian women will be the answer to their adolescent wishes."

"Yes. I contradicted all-knowing, all-powerful, should-control-everything men."

And of course, everyone's favorite: "What sane woman would want any of the hateful misogynists posting here? Why don't you just go forth and kill all the women and make the world perfect?"

You paint with a broad brush; no, with a spray gun with no nozzle. You just close your eyes an squeeze the trigger. You know exactly what goes on in the courts, yet you claim otherwise. The stats are way against you.

I suspect that you have such a huge chip on your shoulder that you simply cannot help but be abusive to those around you; particularly males. Any time a man makes a comment critical of you, you cast it off as some kind of blanket statement about all women and then proceed to demonize him. You've done that to me once or twice including the opening quote of this post, though it doesn't stick too well.

Your credibility suffers. You are not the ideal spokeswomen for women. You've tried to hijack this thread, tried to make legitimate claims out to be "whining" or "woman-hating". You've demonized those who choose not to put you on a pedistal. But other women are seeing through your little rant. They know that you are just like the feminazis, playing word games to try to get what you want. Sorry, darlin', but that dog don't run here. You're trying to fool conservatives; we don't get fooled too easily.

the fact remains that the majority of fatherless children are born out of wedlock. Men have the ability and the choice to prevent 100% of this. That many choose not to can't be blamed on the divorce courts.

They might well be caused by other anti-family government policies. I remember reading an article about welfare reform's impact on teen pregnancy. You'll recall that it used to be government policy to pay teenaged girls to get pregnant, provided they did not marry.

Apparently there was a concept in the housing projects called "liberty day," or something like that. Liberty day was a girl's 14th birthday, because once she turned 14 she could get her own apartment and move out of her mother's place. She did this by getting pregnant. Once pregnant, she was a "mother with dependent children" for welfare purposes, and out came the government bennies: her own apartment, a monthly income, free medical care... all kinds of stuff. You or I might laugh at the amounts involved and wonder how anyone sane could put themselves in that position at that age, but to a 14-year-old living in a ghetto, an apartment and $1200 per month sounds like the promised land. But note the requirements: she has to be pregnant, and she can't be married. Can you think of a more perverse set of economic incentives to dangle in front of young people?

Anyway, this "irresponsible young male" they are interviewing explains that it is his job to get these girls pregnant. The girls all agree with this. This is how the free apartments happen in their world. The boys get the girls pregnant, and that's how housing is provided. The benefits were sufficiently generous that no young ghetto male could possibly compete with them. He'd have to make $38,000 a year or something like that to provide her with the same lifestyle. Out of the question. So this is how they adjusted.

Thank goodness we finally ended that program. I've forgotten what the age is now, but unwed teen pregnancy has taken a dive since that reform went into effect. And now the unwed mothers are told that they have only a few years to get themselves on their feet, and here's the job training program, so get busy.

So now the government policy is to compete with males as providers only after age 18, and to provide the women with job training so they can support themselves. As for the men in these neighborhoods, the government's policy is as it has always been: let them rot, and then jail them when they screw up.

So this is how a man in that environment arranges his own government benefits: he knocks over a 7-11. For that he gets two years' free room and board, and mostly what he has to do all day is watch TV. For many, it's a better life than the one outside. We used to pay poor women to get pregnant. We're still paying poor men to commit robbery.

It's easy to sit here in our middle-class enclaves and criticize the behavior of these people, but paying them to behave this way was the liberals' idea of "caring" for the poor. For decades we had waved sums in front of poor women that their men could not match. Why marry some guy who went to the same lousy schools you did, who has no more future than you do, when Uncle Sam will marry you and give you the the equivalent of $38,000 per year?

We had illegitimacy rates approaching 95% in those neighborhoods. Was that moral turpitude, or a perfectly sane response to the economic incentives provided by government? Liberals called that system "compassionate." It was anything but.

BUT, and a big but, she has a mean streak. I have learned to never cross her. NO SANE GOVERNMENT WOULD GIVE POWER TO A FEMALE.

The Ancient Romans found that out the hard way:

Livy, a Roman historian, described the women's demonstrations and a portion of the debate between Consul Cato and Tribune Lucius Valerius in the Tribunal.

1) The Demonstration

"The matrons whom neither counsel nor shame nor their husbands' orders could keep at home, blockaded every street in the city and every entrance to the Forum. As the men came down to the Forum, the matrons besought them to let them, too, have back the luxuries they had enjoyed before, giving as their reason that the republic was thriving and that everyone's private wealth was increasing with every day. This crowd of women was growing daily, for now they were even gathering from the towns and villages. Before long they dared go up and solicit consuls, praetors, and other magistrates.

When the speeches for and against the law had been made, a considerably larger crowd of women poured forth in public the next day; as a single body they besieged the doors of the tribunes, who were vetoing their colleagues' motion, and they did not stop until the tribunes took back their veto. After that there was no doubt that all the tribes would repeal the law."

2) The Debate in the Tribunal

Cato: "If each man of us, fellow citizens, had established that the rights and authority of the husband should be held over the mother of his own family, we should have less difficulty with women in general; now, at home our freedom is conquered by female fury, here in the Forum it is bruised and trampled upon, and because we have not contained the individuals, we fear the lot...

Indeed, I blushed when, a short while ago, I walked through the midst of a band of women. I should have said, 'What kind of behavior is this? Running around in public, blocking streets, and speaking to other women's husbands! Could you not have asked our own husbands the same thing at home? Are you more charming in public with others' husbands than at home with your own? And yet, it is not fitting even at home for you to concern yourselves with what laws are passed or repealed here.'

Our ancestors did not want women to conduct any - not even private - business without a guardian; they wanted them to be under the authority of parents, brothers, or husbands; we (the gods help us!) even now let them snatch at the government and meddle in the Forum and our assemblies. What are they doing now on the streets and crossroads, if they are not persuading the tribunes to vote for repeal? Give the reins to their unbridled nature and this unmastered creature, and hope that they will put limits on their own freedom. They want freedom, nay license, in all things.

If they are victorious now, what will they not attempt?As soon as they begin to be your equals, they will have become your superiors... What honest excuse is offered, pray, for this womanish rebellion? 'That we might shine with gold and purple,' says one of them, 'that we might ride through the city in coaches on holidays as though triumphant over the conquered law and the votes which we captured by tearing them from you...'

Pity that husband - the one who gives in and the one who stands firm! What he refuses, he will see given by another man. Now they publicly solicit other women's husbands, and, what is worse, they ask for a law and votes, and certain men give them what they want...

I vote that the Oppian Law should not, in the smallest measure, be repealed; whatever course you take, may all the gods make you happy with it."

I reflexibly oppose a system which would pit men against women even more so than the current one does. I suspect that the men's rights movement could actually destroy the remains of the institution of marriage that the women's movement has not already destroyed.

I think we already have a system that pits men against women, but with a prearranged winner. Men are becoming antagonistic towards marriage precisely due to the knowledge that it can be ended easily and that except in extenuating circumstances, they will be at the losing end. I would think that if things continue on the present path, this "marriage strike" phenomenon will only grow.

And, I'll readily admit that while I haven't been on strike, I've been particularly careful when it involves potential marriage. One has to cover their own butt and if that includes staying single, that's fine with me. I've been that way all my life, despite a bout of temporary insanity when I almost tied the knot.

As much as I might sympathize with the injustices faced by some men in divorce proceedings, I sense that what is motivating the men's movement is retribution, and not a concern about posterity, or about women, in particular.

The primary concern in the men's movement is one of fairness - men have traditionally gotten the short end of the stick, not only financially, but also WRT to issues centered around seeing their kids. These concerns are legit and need to be addressed.

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.