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.

divorce industry

i used to call this a "cottage industry" in this area: certain lawyers with a network of divorcees who feed them business. the more belligerently the lawyer treats the soon-to-be ex-husband, the better. the women are coached in setting up the goose so they falsely can claim domestic violence, child molestation, or infidelity while the network acts as a megaphone for the twisted half-truths and outright lies. as alluded earlier, i couldn't have imagined such a blight on the institution of marriage until it was plainly illustrated to me.

yes virginia, there are bad women out there who are scheming and no, they aren't as easy to discern as one might think.

to the response of "what about the stinky men out there": sure, there are plenty as the number of unwantedly single moms without help supporting their children will attest. that doesn't diminish the seriousness of the subject at hand, either for its inequity or its consequences.

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.

Thank you for bringing that up. That is an aspect to this that isn't talked about much. The fear of what might happen in a divorce is real, and is certainly one reason that young men are shying away from marriage. But another aspect is the knowledge that even without a divorce, they will be sharing a house with a person who keeps a nuke next to the bed. That is not the foundation of a sharing, trusting relationship.

Even though neither partner may ever mention it, both know that the woman has a nuke, in the form of a government that will step in instantly at her say-so to deprive the man of house, home, children, assets, income, and possibly even liberty. It is not a happy thing to share a home with someone who can do that at the snap of a finger. The threat is always there. Who wants to live with that? A man can't just marry a woman anymore; her government moves in with her, whether she wants it to or not. That changes the character of the relationship in some fundamental ways that could understandably turn a lot of people off.

The feminists will tell us that these are all very necessary protections to keep women from being battered, but the rest of the women will have to pardon the rest of the men for not signing up for a program that treats them like criminals.

If my experience is a true indication of how people grow up, then men don't really have the option of being islands.

Sure we do.

I don't feel a need to meet anyones reqirements for anything. God is going to deal with this and if society legislates their "marriage" (which is merely a piece of paper, like a rental contract actually. No limits on behavior, no regard for anything biblical) out of the reach of men then so be it.

I could care less about their "marriage" and what other men think of it.

(Regarding Post 302: Didn't Paul tie himself completely to the services of others?)

Yes, Paul did. And what happened when men judged him on his service?

A man can't just marry a woman anymore; her government moves in with her, whether she wants it to or not. That changes the character of the relationship in some fundamental ways that could understandably turn a lot of people off.

Are you saying that it isn't possible to find these things out before you get married? Do you put more thought into evaluating potential employees than you do marriage partners?

Please note that this applies right up to the time they actually emerge from the womb. That child is "her's" prior to this and she can kill it regardless of her husbands feelings on the matter because it's "her" body.

It's no wonder people scratch their heads and wonder what happened to marriage and the nuclear family.

I'm not married yet, but I know that it is a partnership of give and take, it is not one continuous party, and married life isn't going to be like one continuous romance novel.

Just when I thought the thread was composed of endless misogyny, I came across your post. Bravo. It's not much like a romance novel at all. Unless you can find a romance novel where a couple stares loving at each other over plates of macroni and cheese, under the harsh flourescent lights of their cheap apartment.

Poverty never happens in romance novels. I haven't read any personally, but from I've gathered in casual conversation, everyone in romance novels is already successful by 23. Unfortunately, in the real world, success usually comes a bit later in life.

BTW, true love is waving to your wife as they wheel you into sugery, and you know that she's going to be there when you wake up.

"Can't Pre-nup's take care of this?"

They're intended to, but it doesn't always work out that way. They are difficult to write well and must be revised when circumstances change within the marriage. When legally challenged, they can be quite expensive to defend, especially when agenda-driven judges make arbitrary rulings that must then be appealed -- or even when judges make proper judgments which are appealed anyway. Such battles can go on endlessly and at great expense. Therefore, many attorneys advise their clients to back off and relinquish a lot of what is rightfully theirs, even though the law and the facts are on their side.

Bottom line: A pre-nup will only keep honest people honest. If you want protection, marry someone who's not nearly as smart or Machiavellian as you, then get the goods on your prospective spouse and save them up for a legal "rainy day." That means investing in private investigators, steadily amassing your evidence, keeping track of the whereabouts and status of potential future witnesses, and always regarding your life partner as a potential legal adversary who may eventually have to be proven an unfit parent, faithless harridan, etc. Then, of course, the offspring of your union must be relentlessly conditioned to favor you in any testimony they may be called upon to make. This is a lot of work, carried out in secrecy and guaranteed to poison the relationship no matter what happens.

Under such cloak-and-dagger conditions, what would be the point of marrying at all?

It's not much like a romance novel at all. Unless you can find a romance novel where a couple stares loving at each other over plates of macroni and cheese, under the harsh flourescent lights of their cheap apartment.

I am glad you mentioned that.. Because IMNSHO I think these images of marriage in the media give people false expectations.. They focus on people who are continually happy and live their lives 5 minutes at a time.

Consequently, I think many people who do not respect the Covenant of marriage as God defines it are left with unrealistic hopes and misconceived notions of what marriage is in reality.

In short: They set themselves up to be continually dissapointed by using the media as a measure of what should constitute a "marriage" This dissapointment leads to marital failure.

Agree.

I am very curious, however, as to who all these women are that are leaving their husbands for "no reason."

I know one man who has been a dear friend to my husband and family. But he had the most peculiar ideas about marriage.
He made no bones about not being in love with his wife, who was intelligent, graceful beautifulm and madly in love with him. He, himself, though having many good qualities, was a paunchy grizzled fellow without a lot of money. But she accepted all of him and loved him with all her heart. He married her, and had a beautiful daughter with her.

But he groused constantly about the demands of marriage. In front of other people, in front of HER.
He wanted to live like a bachelor, and hated having to consider someone elses opinions or feelings.

He made little money and had no insurance. Getting a "real job" would cramp his style. He was above that. ANd while he was a very good photographer, he was lazy and slack and didn't market himself well. His wife picked up the slack. While she was pregnant, she got a very responsible job with a bank. Worked up until the last minute. Went back at six weeks, put the baby in daycare.

She rapidly became discouraged and disillusioned. He was so truclulent, inexplicably so, about behaving like a husband.

When she, the beauty that she was, caught the eye of a manager in the bank, who flattered her, courted her, and promised her a much more comfortable life, she was easy prey. That was nearly16 years ago, she's been married to the second man for about 15.

And this otherwise delightful friend of ours just could not understand how his wife's betrayal, not realizing how he had betrayed her almost every minute of their marriage.

He thought it was horrible that she was granted custody of their daughter.

He was a good and devoted papa afterwards, to his very great credit, and his wife, who encourgaged him. But it has always bothered me when he brought up his "evil ex wife" . He was rude to her, he drank too much, he wouldn't sacrifice anything for her, their marriage, or even their daughter.

He was shocked to be left and angry to have to pay support.
But he did bring it on himself.

Under such cloak-and-dagger conditions, what would be the point of marrying at all?

I agree, what would be the point? Yet, there's enough women doing just what you mention in order to steal the man's assets. That's exactly what is making marriage unattractive. Now I know, there's always been gold diggers, but this practice has reached epidemic proportions and all with the aid of the courts.

Boys, keep your drawers on and don't get married. That's my take on it.

PS: I am also going to draw a distinction between societies "marriage" and God's Covenant of marriage.

If society defines marriage as a suicide pact for the man involved, with no recourse if the wife kills their children.. fools around or does whatever she pleases with no respect for the spirit of God's Covenant.. Then their "marriage" is just a contract.

It's hollow and meaningless. Nothing Biblical about it.

Thus, I feel you can marry before God and still shun the social contract of "marriage" Because it's meaningless anyway.

Actually I did read the article this morning, but I just took another look. I'd like to know a few things:

1) how much due diligence was performed on these wives? Were the main criteria used how good she was in bed and what she looked like in a bathing suit? (If male readers of FR consider other criteria, you would never know it from their posts.)

2)What kind of discussions took place before the marriage on what each partner expected from the other?

3)Why aren't there any interviews with the wives who decided to divorce their husbands?

You know very little without the answers. All I see is men whining.

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.