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.
What about the responsibilty of the father? It doesn't matter what the mother's motives were, because a man has to understand that his actions can result in a baby even if precautions are taken. His child shouldn't have to suffer because of his "failure" to do so.
Lot's of poor baby boys grow up without fathers, or mother's for that matter, and do just fine.
I'm sure you could work without pay for 1 month and do "just fine", but I'll bet you wouldn't let your employer off the hook for it. Why should it be any differnt for children?
In a perfect world, courtship, marriage, babies, mom and dad bring them up. But it is a far from perfect world.You really can't force, or sue anybody into being a good parent.
I guess not since being a "good parent" has to be a choice, but you can at least hold them responsible for supporting the babies they make. Why is that wrong?
Same old story: men marry hoping she won't change, women marry hoping he will.
And all this time I thought parents accepting responsibility for their children's support was a conservative view. If this is actually a liberal view, then yes, I am a flaming liberal.
If the father is such a stand up guy let him take responsibility. If he is not then the child is probably better off with out such a sorry role model in his young life.
And why should being a poor role model excuse a parent from paying to help support his or her children?
Surely there are other family members who can fill that role...
IOW, it takes a village.
...and if not, then Mom is in the hot seat.
But that's the child's problem, right?
I understand what you're saying. And I think everyone adapts to these situations. I just think that women often get an unrealistic idea on what changes a guy is going to make. All too often, I've seen guys that pretty much disappear from the face of the earth once they start a family. Its hard for me to agree with you when I have many friends that basically aren't allowed out of the house at all since they've had kids. It was hard enough to get to see them after they got married.
That isn't my idea of a "give and take" situation; it is a prison. And that prison is guarded by that nuclear bomb next to the bed known as divorce. And, I think that is one of the things that this article is about.
It seems like people mature a lot slower, generally, the repsonsibilities that a 14 year old would have 100 years ago would be greater than an 18 year or or even 21+ year old today. In today's world, I don't advocate young marriage like that, heck, it would be like giving a 16 year old the keys to a Ferrari. B-) Still, it is an interesting observation how society has changed that much.
Call it what it is; Wealth. The average Joe or Jane in 21st century America has as much leisure time on his or her hands as any king or queen from centuries past.
I don't advocate returning to more primitive times when one worked from sunrise to sunset, six days a week, but I think it's safe to safe that socially, we've done a poor job of adapting to modern life which is less rigorous.
Rather than freeing us, the increase in leisure time seems to have shortened attention spans, increased boredom, and raised expectations in a lot of areas.
I think of the time I spend with my wife, compared to the time my father spent with my mother. There is no comparison, and I was born in 1963, so I'm not that old. Still, he saw my mother (conscious) a few hours a week at best. The rest of the time he was working or sleeping. That world is gone. We now look to spouses as sources of both entertainment and fulfillment.
I don't know whether it's good or not, but we've certainly raised the expections we have in marriage.
I see that. And it's not like you need any help getting yourself in trouble ;)
Who me?
Well, my friend just got skewered by the divorce court - it took all of 3 months. And they nicked him for $1000 per month in alimony on top of child support. Now, she made $40K and he made $50K so why is he getting skewered? I can understand the child support, but the alimony is way over the top.
How odd. I never saw Nickel One from my ex after I left. I didn't even get what the court orders mandated.
That would make you a statistical abberation since the vast majority of divorces end up with the man paying and the woman getting the kids. In jurisdictions where alimony isn't used, they jack up the child support to compensate. Its a gold mine. I'm not sure what happened in your case.
I think you are fantasizing a lot. I don't know any women who are living well off of their ex-husbands.
I do, or at least I know a few that are taking a good chunk of his income.
I got it from the mouths of men. Actually, most women 'settle'; unlike men, they don't have a size, a hair color--but then, they're not typically fixated on superficials, either, and they don't dump the guy when he grows a beer gut.
So you have no preference among men? Would you prefer Schwartzenegger or DiVito? You can't tell me that women aren't just as "superficial" as men, as if that's a bad thing. I've heard women talk among themselves plenty of times.
And no, I don't imagine that you would dump a guy for his pot belly. You might just divorce him for "unreconcilable differences" though.
Me? I handed over paychecks for 10 years to the 'joint' account and was lucky to leave with my life. I suspect he hid the money in German accounts--he had relatives there. My cats were not so fortunate. Only God knows what my ex did to them.
Like I said, statistically, your situation is completely backwards. If what you are telling is the truth, then you know exactly what most men go through in a divorce.
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.
quote of the decade !
[/experience speaking]
I concur. I hope it is repeated a few times as it says a lot. I'm going to send it to my friend whose nephew just got divorced. Should say a lot.
that's a second amendment issue...
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.