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

The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | July 5, 2002 | Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

[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.

[William Terrell]

Well, I seriously think that she's not aware. It seems to use a similar mechanism as the storage and retrieval error so often seen primarilly in women.

The storage and retrieval error goes like this: if you say something innocent or with more than one possible meaning, a woman will choose the worse possible meaning and store the feeling of her emotional reaction to it, without storing the circumstances. Then, when the issue comes up later, she will play back the stored feeling and the discussion will focus on what you must have said to make her feel that way regardless of what you actually said originally.

And she will be completely unaware of the process and if you point it out, well, she knows what you must have said or she wouldn't have felt that way. You will lose this conflict, bank on it.

[Jhoffa_]

PS: Paul says it's better not to marry.

So eternal life does not hinge on marriage alone.

(provided one is celebate, fornication brings on a host of new and interesting problems.)

[buccaneer81]

My pleasure. You might also be interested in: THIS

[johniegrad]

Thanks for your post. I'm 48 now and remarried after 10 years of being single. It has worked out very well and my kids are 25 and 23 respectively. No more kids for me though. My wife is fine with that. I've recovered financially and life is better. As you have said, if something happened to this wife I would also probably live out the rest of life alone. Good luck to you my friend. Keep in touch from time to time.

[Jhoffa_]

Thanks for the link.

However, I kind of draw a distinction here..

I mean, you have the good man who is legislated out of marriage. Him I respect and understand.

The "don't buy the cow" guy who is basically dishonorable and cares less abou tthe institution of marriage.. Him I dislike.

I don't respect him and I don't agree with him.

[Rebelbase]

Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter, Bitter........................

[buccaneer81]

The "don't buy the cow" guy who is basically dishonorable and cares less abou tthe institution of marriage.. Him I dislike.

I agree. But as a society we're heading there at the speed of sound. The only think that will reverse course is a radical change in all aspects of domestic law. Unfortunately, not in our lifetime.

[johniegrad]

Good post. Has it really been 5 for you? Man, you better quit (getting married that is).

[buccaneer81]

All your bitters are belong to us! LOL!

[Jhoffa_]

I agree. But as a society we're heading there at the speed of sound.

Absolutely.. And again, life immitates law.

[Little Bill]

You must be a NUN.

[Tennessee_Bob]

I thought that was you on the board of AG. So, what have you been doing lately? I was recruited to Illuminatus AmbGH from AG a couple years ago. The money is good, and the benefits are great!

[luckodeirish]

I (female) have to agree on this too, but with a couple of comments. The men I have known who have been financially ruined seem to have married fairly low functioning women, the ones who have little or no skills that would allow them to have a well paying career. Additionally, these women, maybe because they have not been in the "real world" of work, political office nastiness, finance, have little or no emotional coping skills and seem unable to effectively deal with life's daily stresses.So, when the divorce happens the women end up with the kids, living in the house, not having to work, while the guy lives in an apartment sucking down KFC...

Now, on the other hand, I have known women who make great money who have end up paying alimony to the husband.

[Tennessee_Bob]

So what exactly are you trying to say here??

[Rebelbase]

Ping for more of what we were talking about earlier today.

[happytobealive]

How many bachelors do you know who have turned their lives over to the service of others? I can't think of any except some good priests, and they really are married in that they've been faithful to their life-long commitment to Christ and his flock.

[Jhoffa_]

How many bachelors do you know who have turned their lives over to the service of others?

LOL!

Sorry, but I fail to see where that's a negative.

A man's service is offered to his wife out of respect for her, but it is not the way marriage is structured or defined in the Scriptures. It's given freely but cannot be demanded by the wife.

And quite frankly the very wording of your post offends me.

[Wondervixen]

Mr. Terrell, those girls need to grow the heck up and learn (like I did from my mother & grandmothers) to stand on their two feet and be responsible for their actions.

Sure, I have friends, but I keep a balance of male and female and never get so close that their thoughts become MINE. It's a matter of keeping your nose out of other people's business. I have 3 little girls with my husband and I'm co-authoring a true crime book on the side...I don't have the time to be a problem solver for friends in a committee and I refuse to let one of them solve mine either.

[Jhoffa_]

It's almost as though you get to both define the terms ("service") and the extent to which I must practice them to be worthy of life.

That's God's job.. you just let him decide what constitutes "service to others" and who is keeping up with the task..

[Da Rev]

It's 'cheaper to keep'er' and always will be. And, as men, we will always need to show that we are deserving of the superior title we bear. I've been married for, oh, 16, 17 years or so (who remembers) and have the battle scars to prove it. I'm proud to say I have weathered the storm. I know it's sad commentary but there's not much else to add to that pathetic statement. Besides, I still get to be 'on top' if not in bed then at least in my mind - or what's left of my mind...damn this is going from bad to worse. I'll quit while I'm behind. Which compared to most other men is well ahead, sadly.