[Nick Danger]

Would you like to explain to me how improving men's rights in divorce proceedings advances this end?

Easy. It will reduce the divorce rate, probably dramatically. The wholesale bias of the family court system in favor of women almost pays women to get divorced. As others have pointed out here, a woman who is "thinking about" getting divorced because she's bored, or because he puts the toilet paper roll on backwards, or some other stupid thing does not find her friends recoiling in horror -- as would have happened thirty years ago. Instead, she's immediately surrounded by Helpful Friends who tell her that she can have the house all to herself, the Benz and the Land Rover. She'll probably get the savings account, and of course custody of the children is a slam dunk. Hey, everybody's doing it... you can join our divorced wives club... we hit Chippendale's every Thursday. C'mon, Linda, it'll be fun.

The lawyer, whom her friends put her in touch with, tells her not to worry that John will be angry. "We'll get a restraining order. He'll be out of the house so fast his head will spin." It will all be hers in no time flat. No fuss, no muss, no bother. Best of all, there's no fee for any of this... the judge will stick ol' John with the bill for his own hosing.

Given that we didn't used to have a 50% divorce rate, and given that the human condition has not changed all that much in thirty years, we have to suspect that a lot of angst that today causes divorces was once considered part of the game... something you slogged through because that's what life was... slogging through. We have, however, made it so easy, and so lucrative, for women to actually pursue divorce, that situations that never would have gotten that far in our parents' day turn into knock-down drag-outs with lawyers and psychologists and restraining orders flying in every direction. How do we stop this?

Suppose when the next woman mentions to her friend that she's "thinking about" a divorce, her friend tells her, "Well, you know, it's not like it used to be. You could lose the kids. And the house. You might not, but it's a possibility. They don't just automatically give it to the woman anymore."

When this one calls a lawyer, she hears, "We'll need $1,000 up front to prepare the paperwork. If you're seeking custody, we'll need another $8,000, just to start."

Wanna bet the day that happens, the divorce rate drops like a rock?

[independentmind]

ND, let's just leave it that we have a disagreement about means. I prefer the abolition of no-fault divorce as the solution.

[FITZ]

That would lower the divorce rate, custody of the children should be given more often than it is to men, if the wife is having an affair and wants to leave the husband for another man, she should not get custody. Divorce shouldn't be made harder if any of the 3 A's are involved (abuse, addiction, and adultery) because those marriages need to end but it shouldn't be as casual as it apparently is.

[wanderin]

How many men will admit or remember if they encouraged/silently watched their sister (daughter,or any other married female in distress of their acquaintance) take a hubby to the cleaners. Who said nothing or encouraged it because "this" woman deserved it.

Are they standing up for other men on a regular basis defending and urging what is right? How many male relatives are encouraging the wife to clean hubbys wealth?

[SauronOfMordor]

The wholesale bias of the family court system in favor of women almost pays women to get divorced.

That, and the fact that it's much easier to hound the husband for money than it used to be. Forty years ago, no judge would be stupid enough to allow a settlement that would leave the husband feeling raped, because it was easier for the husband to disappear and start a new life elsewhere, leaving the woman with no cash and a big mortgage on the house

The reason why more women initiate divorce is because the men realize they'll get the short end of the stick, and are more likely to slog on thru any problems, rather than call the lawyer.

[Skooz]

Outstanding post. Bravo. I agree with every word.

[Torie]

Are you a divorce lawyer or what? I think you are exaggerating the lucrativeness of divorce in California. It of course depends on the circumstances. And absent a contract, half the community property is goes to the non wage earner or lower wage earner spouse in any event. I suspect you know more about the economics of the federal reserve than about divorce, but that is just a guess.

[Rebelbase]

"When this one calls a lawyer, she hears, "We'll need $1,000 up front to prepare the paperwork. If you're seeking custody, we'll need another $8,000, just to start.""

Those are very realistic numbers.

[Taxula]

I would add that with women in the workforce as much as they are, men have also become primary caregivers, or at least share the burden of child-rearing to some capacity. The stay at home hubby is more widespread now than ever.
However, the automatic assumption that it is women is still reflected in our courts and in our divorce laws. The reasoning behind it, which I believe was well founded-- The younger the child, the more important that the primary caregiver maintain physical custody should joint custody be impossible, simply because the bond is stronger there and the child more comfortable and trusting. Women could, in earlier years, claim a monopoly on this traditional role, but no longer.

These reasons, to a large extent, have been demolished by our culture first, and economic necessity second. Many women now hold full time jobs and work as many if not more hours than men. This leaves either the male to bond with the kids or some daycare worker.
Whatever the situation, the divorce laws have hardly kept up with the changing times. They still reflect the assumption that women are the primary caregiver and therefore the child is best off in her care.

[Post Toasties]

Excellent post that all who are accusing men who question the status quo of 'whining', 'mysogyny', etc. should reflect upon deeply.