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.
Insightful post.
What you said.
I thank God every day that I didn't marry either of the guys I was engaged to when I was young (19 for the first, 21 for the second).
I also thank Him several times a day for sending me Xena's Guy. XG is the reason, I think, that God didn't let me marry either of those two losers . . . He knew there was someone better for me out there!
It's like Bush-bashing...automatic and reflexive.
On the surface, you couldn't find two more dissimilar men than my dad and Xena's Guy. Dad's a big, boisterous, beer-drinkin', story-tellin' redneck who works with his hands and never met a stranger . . . XG is slender, quiet, musical, a techno-geek, and a listener so intense it freaks out people like me who come from a family of talkers.
But when it comes to character - integrity, honesty, work ethic, love of God and country, sticking by your woman and doing her right - well, I married my dad.
However women were never even close to power in countries which became Islamic. In fact, one of the initial appeals of Islam was that it forbid the common practice of exposure of unwanted female infants.
Nor were they ever close to power in the other regions you mentioned hence that thesis is questionable at best.
I think you missed the point of the observation...it's equally valid of little boys and mothers. It's the first oppositesex relationship. It's universally accepted that the quality of your parental relationship will influence the quality of your marital relationship.
It's not ironclad, but a valid tendency.
The voice of experience, I see...
You admit you know nothing of the situations, yet you feel you know enough to judge them...why is that?
That is the subject of this thread,after all...
Well, I think that's a conclusion he would have to draw on his own. If you can get him to ponder what signs he may have missed, it will occur to him to wonder why he missed them.
That is the point of this thread, correct?
Ah yes, men have responsibilities, but women have choices...I'm amazed at the number of people who are outside a marriage, but think they know what's going on inside it.
It's possible you do, but I'd bet you don't...
Good Lord man where did you find this? it's like 3 years old. I don't even know what I posted then much less do I feel the need to find out.
Yup, I've been posting to a dead thread.
You're one of the smart ones who knew what qualities to look for in a woman. It sounds like you didn't try to meet a trophy type in some bar, you didn't pick the one who was the best in bed or just had the hottest looking body. It's all about choices and choosing carefully.
+
+
+
One can choose carefully and still end up with a loser. After four kids and 18 years hubby cut lose with a lying and drinking binge that slid the kids from a comfortable 6 figure homeschooled lots of activities life to latchkey kids with no outside activities. I struggle 50hr+ per week to pay bills and put food on the table.
He lost his lucrative business of 25 years(think Big 6 national consultant), all savings, and a good portion of a large retirement cushion. I had him put the remaining assets in my name to forstall more losses. Five years I worked on the marriage, counseling, medical help, inpatient, prayer (he was a church elder too) you name it with him in and out of the house depending on his sobriety or lack of... The drunkeness wasn't as difficult as the lying.
Finally called it quits because there is nothing there. He is still bitter and thinks I took him to the cleaners. Does not see the losses he took as material. He walked away with about 50-50, his in cash, the remaining retirement, and I took the buildings. He works a menial job, (think brooms) lives in a trailer and drives a beater. He still drinks. He tells me he likes his life yet he is a rager these days, and vulgar at times. It is hard to look at him in his little monkey suit with his name on the pocket and remeber the handsome man, impeccably dressed and very competent getting on and off flights and enjoying the most out of his world.
The kids finally have their heads screwed back on, but one can see the pain...Sometimes, no matter what, you end up with a crash and burn. And I am not sorry he feels cheated. He screwed the kids totally.
Time to change the tags!
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.