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 I were a man I would be mad too, and I would very definately think twice before I put my whole future in the hands of some woman who could wreck my life if I squeeze the toothpaste from the middle. It was bound to backfire!
I sincerely believe that most divorces are initiated by the woman: she needs to "find herself", she "grew out of the relationship" or she's hanging out with too many other divorced women who sit around with their coffee and cigarettes and bitch and moan about the ex-SOB and what a great life they have now that they're away from him.
I have a WONDERFUL guy who treats me like a queen and is an awesome father to our children and I wouldn't give him up for anything. Thank God for marriage and I hope that there are still some men out there who haven't been kicked in the teeth so many times that they completely despise women. Marriage can be terrific when you're with the right person and you have the same outlook on life and you really love each other and are committed no matter what comes down the pike during your time together.
It's a real shame that marriage has been twisted so badly.
No it's not..
We don't play identity politics, the liberals do that.
(but you already knew this.. and I agree with everything you said. )
Seven years ago I was "raped" by the Ex whom literally stole everything I owned and drummed up a bogus domestic abuse charge, signed by a judge from another city whom was an in-law family friend. I went six weeks without seeing my two kids, then was thrown a bone of 4 times a month visitation and ordered to pay 1/3 to 1/2 of my take home pay as child support.
It took years of ass kissing, record keeping and selfish stupidity on the Ex's part before I was able to get myself back on a fair and equal footing with regard to custody and visitation.
So, I can understand a bitter post when I see one because I've been there, been bitter and now, thank God, I am better. The courts are slanted in favor of the woman, that is a fact. And it is unfortunate that the outcome of custody preceedings are not based on fairness, but rather courtroom games, favoritism and politics.
I encourage you to do some Googling on a fellow by the name of Robert Sides. Sides was a mens rights activist who had done some good things, but who became disillusioned at the lack of progress -- and the seeming indifference of most men to the kinds of things that this thread is about. A thread like we are seeing here was not possible ten, or even five years ago, when Sides was doing most of his work. To the extent a thread like this did not fall on deaf ears, it would have drawn only shrill comments from a whole coven of women like Dark Whatserface, and condecending tut-tuts from happily married men in their 60's whose advice was to shut up and take it like a man.
Sides grew weary of this, and began lashing out... not at the feminists who were lying their way to legislation, nor at the media who promulgated their lies and made the lies real, but at men themselves. More and more, his output started to sound like, "You guys are all wimps for not following me into battle. I'm out here trying to save your skins, and you're all sitting around doing nothing!"
I used to call that "insulting the customers." You don't invite the guy into your store and try to sell him your activism package by telling him he's a wimp. Yes, it is very easy to get sour on the prospects for ever changing any of this, but the alternative to plodding through it -- however long it takes -- is to watch things slide to Hell in the handbasket, and do nothing. Or stand on the sidelines, and crab at all the guys who are doing nothing. So I plod along.
I'm glad I have. This thread is absolutely amazing to someone who has been at this for a few years. Things really are changing. Men are waking up, and even women are waking up, to the fact that this "divorce industry" thing we have in this country is wrecking the joint. It is making it impossible for young people to have what we used to call "lives." And our country is much the worse off for it.
This is the beginning of how things change. It will never happen fast enough. But please do not follow Mr. Sides into the dark side. That way lies only bitterness and frustration.
Try this one. My daughter lived with my ex-wife and my son lived with me (still does). I was required to pay $1000/month to her for child support. I received nothing. My daughter eventually reached the age of 18 the age at which child support ends in this state. My son was two years younger and remained with me. I had no further child support responsibilities according to law but she had none either despite my single parenting him for two years as a minor. Explain to me how this is fair and then explain to me how I am irresponsible or whining. When you're done with that explain how the laws aren't stacked against men in the divorce courts.
I didn't mean to offend - sorry. I was just passing on my experience. I do not know any mature people who have shrunk from committing their lives to others.
If my experience is a true indication of how people grow up, then men don't really have the option of being islands. (Regarding Post 302: Didn't Paul tie himself completely to the services of others?)
Can't afford KFC (only on special occasions like Thanksgiving dinner) LOL!. It's Kroger brand macaroni and cheese for me!
Really? I think the roots go deeper. Not many here have any concept of the sacramental nature of marriage. All I hear is a lot of complaining that things were unpleasant as a result of a divorce. Too many are only interested in their "rights"; they could care less about strengthening the institution of marriage. If they did, they would start by attacking no-fault divorce laws.
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.