| let's just leave it that we have a disagreement about means.
|
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.
I strongly disagree with this. People who fight are likely to say things that they don't mean, wouldn't say otherwise and will regret later. I almost always think fights are foolish, upsetting and embarrassing and generally not the way to solve problems effectively. If you disagree with this, tell me where I'm wrong.
A for instance.... I home school the girls during the day, and work at night. This way, we have two incomes but I am home during the day and he is home at night. We do not have childcare costs by doing this. Bryant has no trouble helping me with housework or with the children but he loves to stay up late and sleep in.
Our new baby is 7 weeks old and does not sleep during the day. As you can imagine this presents some scheduling problems. Frequent interruptions in our education program was driving me crazy and I finally (out of frustration) yelled at him that he had to get up with the kids so I could home school.
He was stunned. He very calmly asked me why I had waited until I was angry instead of telling him I needed help. "Do you think I would not help you if you just asked?" and the answer of course is a resounding NO. He never has. If I ask him to do something he does.
I think most of our problems with married life would melt away if women stopped expecting men to prioritize in the manner we do. They do not. They are not as stressed about keeping a home clean, having well rounded nutritionally balanced meals, or matching outfits. Doing the dishes for a guy means you move them from the sink to the dishwasher. I count myself lucky if he remembers to rinse them first.
For some reason we seem to think we can 'do it all' 'have it all' and not become resentful and frustrated when we find out we are a far cry from the modern image of 'supermom'. Most of our problems stem from disappointed expectations. I have come to realize men do not perceive we need help, mainly because we make our work load look so damn easy, and we do not ask for it. Instead we are content to let frustration and exhaustion build until we have reached a breakpoint.
Unfortunately I watch all my friends do this same thing. It is like a universal thing I guess. Women take pride in being able to better multi-task than men and feel it somehow diminishes their role if they simply say ..."Hey I need help."
Most of my girlfriends have said to me "He should know I need help with the kids! I should not have to tell him all the time!" Believe me. They don't. They don't think the way we do, and they don't perceive or prioritize the way we do. Expecting that is like expecting ourselves to play all parts without falling short somewhere and then blaming our humanity on our men.
| let's just leave it that we have a disagreement about means.
|
Not just pets, but any personal property (I should know; it says so in my restraining order).
I don't suppose it's occurred to you that what's going on in this thread is part of a process comparable to the one that made most of those issues go away. Now the issue is men having to "justify" why they should be treated as human beings by the court system following divorce. There is a comparable sort of prejudice driving that issue.
Remember how women needed men the way fish need bicycles? You're hearing the flip side of that here. Are you surprised? Don't be. Goes around, comes around, and all that.
Why was the struggle by women heroic and liberating, while this one is "whining" and "immature?" Is that characterization not just self-centeredness and conceit? It sure sounds like it. You've come a long way, baby. Now comes the other half of the deal. You didn't think it was all going to be one-way, did you?
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.
That is an interesting response, because I did not describe a means. I described only an outcome, a system in which a woman could not know for certain that she would always win. You appear to oppose this reflexively. Why?