Divorced men who have been royally ripped off by so called "family courts".
Baskerville is wrong. At its root, divorce is a cultural problem, not a political one. No-fault divorce laws are a bad idea but they came out of a culture that views marriage as an exercise in self-gratification, which can be ended as soon as one of the spouses tires of it. As soon as people stopped thinking of marriage as an unbreakable, lifelong commitment, they started pressuring lawmakers to “liberalize” divorce laws, to make divorce easier to get.
Telling young men not to have marry or to have children is stupid because it will only further weaken marriage, not strengthen it. Baskerville’s very negative portrayal of women in this article is untrue and only serves to worsen relations between the sexes, not improve them.
He should have advised young men to marry women who see marriage as a lifelong commitment and who are willing to remain chaste before marriage. People who cannot delay their self gratification before marriage will not be able to delay it afterward.
There is something twisted with their psyche and to prove their own point they will either choose badly or will drive their spouse away.
In the end, YOU PICKED 'EM. Blame society, your parents, their parents, friends, the church, the courts, the stars or the sheep in the meadow but the truth is the only one responsible for you not choosing the right person is you.
Here is a little light reading between weekends...
LOL! The dramatic changes in family law brought about by federal reform have effected 10s of millions of people directly, and they have friends and relatives. It’s amazing to find people who’s blinders are on so tight that they don’t seem to get it yet. LOLADH!!!
True, some men should not marry or have children. But if none did so, then the U.S. wouldn't exist for very long.
And if young men were in the habit of taking this guy's advice, that statement might mean something. As it is, I doubt it carries any weight at all.
“The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law”
That’s BS. It’s only part of the reason...the larger reasons are threefold; one, advanced industrial societies inevitably have a decline in birth rates as living standards increase, and that becomes more important than having children...in other words, we get spoiled by material goods. Second, legal abortion has cut a swath through birth rates. Third, when we were more religious and faithful, having children was seen as a good thing to do for the world, as it was part of God’s plan, even though its a lot of work. Now, in our typically spoiled Western mindset, having kids is seen as a “fullfilling” thing, something we do to please ourselves. In a way, for many people having kids is like getting a new car....something to be acquired for personal pleasure and status (and boy are they surprised when they find out how much work it is).
Marked for future reading.
It's heartrendingly pathetic to here so many men over the years proclaim "It won't happen to me/us!...we love each other...we're traditional...those other husbands musta done something wrong...my girlfriend/wife isn't like that".
We need 'Family Law Reform' to 1.end unilateral/no-cause divorce. 2. Enforce statutory 'Shared Parenting Guidelines' for equal physical custody of kids where both parents are fit. 3. End unilateral move-aways where kids are involved. 4. Prosecute cases of adultery and 'alienation of affection'. 5. Require 'cost-sharing standard' for child support with 'mutual accountability'(e.g., receipts)
That's a Pro-Family political agenda that will win resoundingly in every state of this nation. (e.g., a 'Shared Physical Custody' Ballot Referendum won with about 80% in Massachusetts a few years ago.)
Anyone who favors restoring the American family should read Warren Farrell's 'Father and Child Reunion' and his earlier 'The Myth of Male Power'. And Baskerville's writings are generally excellent. Check out www.acfc.com, the 'American Congress of Fathers and Children'.
Will a pre-nuptual agreement help negate the partiality of the law towards women?
Marriage used to be a religious institution, now it’s both mostly governmental...and therefore a sham.
If it weren’t for the tax benefit I wouldn’t even consider getting married. Write your own vows and get married in your own church, by your own rules - and who cares if it’s legally recognized by the government - keep them out of it!
I’ve been happily married for 30 years. Wouldn’t change it.
Unfortunately, the author is still pretty much on the mark here. Sad, but true.
There are men that are poor husbands and should be divorced. But that is not his point. The point here is that one can be a responsible and good husband and likely still get the same treatment in court that the bum gets. Woman gets pissed, your ass is grass. SOL.
Baskerville has been at this for over a decade. You’d think it would be enough time to get over it. Must be making money which makes him no better than the court whores he abhors.
Lets face it, in today's America, it's just too large of a liability risk.
If I am to believe what I am reading, we are the exception to the rule.
As for me, I am married 22 years and counting. We have been through Hell and back, together. My beloved is my best friend.
The vow I took in front of God & everybody was for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. It has been worse; it got better again. We fell into deep financial straits; we dug ourselves out and got back up on our feet again. We’ve both lost our health at one point; we both got it back again.
We are currently on the road to surviving the loss of a child. I read somewhere 80% of marriages fail when a child is lost. I think we’re going to make it through this trial as well, the toughest I’ve ever experienced.
Your mileage may vary.
For what its worth, I’ve never met a man who could honestly say his divorce was a good thing.
There's some truth in that.
This guy puts it much more eloquently than I could.
Advice to young men: MAN-UP
jw