Posted on 12/14/2001 3:21:12 PM PST by Dr. Octagon
WASHINGTON, D.C — One of the messiest areas of the law is divorce and child custody cases.
"Legal Notebook" guest, Stephen Baskerville, says that fathers are more often than not treated no better than criminals. Baskerville is a professor of political science at Howard University in Washington DC, and a spokesman for Men, Fathers and Children International.
Host Tom Jipping said to Baskerville, "In some of your writing, I´ve seen a contrast between fatherhood and fathers, particularly in terms of things that the government does. We see a lot of public relations talk about supporting fatherhood, and then, of course, you do a lot of writing as to the way fathers are treated. Distinguish fatherhood versus fathers."
Baskerville said, "It´s an important distinction. Fatherhood has become a buzzword for the government. Increasingly there is awareness of the importance of fathers -- I think it´s reaching general knowledge that fathers are important to children, that many social pathologies – most social pathologies today – result from fatherless homes, fatherless children. And the fathers are very important not only for the upbringing of their children, but for our social order as well."
Jipping said, "To me, some of the most interesting newer work in that area, not just kind of divorce generally, or broken homes sort of generally, but specifically fatherless homes -- that to me is some of the most interesting social science research that´s been done -- and not just by what you might consider conservative activists or something. There are lots of folks at your prestigious universities that are coming to the same conclusion."
Baskerville noted, "That´s right. What´s not being realized, though, is what the cause of this problem is. The assumption that is often unstated is that the fathers have abandoned or deserted their children. This is almost never the case. There´s no solid evidence whatever that large numbers of fathers in this country are simply abandoning their children. There is very solid evidence that fathers are being thrown out of the family systematically by family court, primarily."
Jipping asked, "Do fatherless homes also result from marriages not taking place – is the family simply not forming, while the mothers have the kids and the kids just stay with the mom?
Baskerville answered, "That´s true. And those cases are much more difficult to document when there´s never been a marriage in the first place. But even in those cases, most of those fathers have court orders either regulating when they can see their children, or ordering them to stay away from their children altogether."
Jipping asked, "Is there specific research on what portion of the broken homes, or the fatherless homes, result from these different causes, whether it´s [that] simply no family forms in the first place, fathers abandon their children, or the category we´re talking about here, which is intervention by family courts and fathers being ordered out of the home."
Baskerville stated, "Well, if there´s a marriage, then there is documentation -- we know who files for the divorce. And in most cases, when children are involved, it´s almost always the mother, two-thirds to three-quarters of the time. So in those cases, we have solid documentation that fathers very seldom voluntarily divorce when their children are involved. For the non-married cases, it is difficult to document. But there´s no reason to assume these fathers love their children any less. If you talk to those fathers many of them will tell you -- almost all of them will tell you -- that they desperately want to be with their children and to be active parents, and they are forcibly kept away."
Jipping mentioned an article he read in the Washington Times, on September 19, of an author, Judith Wallerstein, PhD who has been studying the effects of divorce, and has a new book out, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, a 25 year study, documenting what divorce does to family and children.
Baskerville said, "I think we´ve been denying this for many years now, that divorce is, in fact, harmful for children. I don´t think there´s any question. In many ways, divorce is kind of a conspiracy of grown-ups against children. And this is especially the case when it´s only one of the parents who want the divorce."
Jipping asked Baskerville if he agrees with the author of the book that at the time of the divorce itself, it´s really about problems and the effects that that has on the mothers and the fathers. But, the effects on the children are much, much more long-term and occur decades later.
Baskerville agreed, "Absolutely. For a child, the most terrifying thing is to lose a parent; the fear of losing a parent is horrible for a child. And also by the institution of forced divorce, we´re sending a lot of very harmful and destructive messages to children. We´re showing children that the family and the state are in effect dictatorships, in which children can be ripped apart from their parents for no reason, or for any reason, and they don´t have to have done anything wrong, or their parents don´t have to [have done anything wrong]."
Jipping asked, "We hear the phrase ‘no-fault divorce´ is that what you mean by forced divorce – is that what that becomes?"
Baskerville replied, "Absolutely. This was this deception that was brought [with] no-fault divorce. The idea was that this would be for mutual agreement -- you could have a divorce without a contest. What, in fact, it has become is [what is known as] unilateral divorce. And 80% of the divorces in this country are unilateral. They are over the objections of one parent. And that becomes even more when children are involved."
Jipping questioned, "So, does no-fault divorce really mean, under the state laws that govern the stuff, a divorce by only one of the two spouses for whatever reason that spouse chooses, not specified reasons?"
Baskerville said, "Overwhelmingly that´s true. And what´s even more shocking is that the parent that divorces is almost always the parent who expects to get custody of the children. A study by the University of Iowa found that the expectation of getting the children was the single most important factor in deciding who files for divorce."
Yes God does hold men repsonsible, but he holds women responsible as well. And I also would disagree that the wife doesn't ALWAYS respond in the most positive way. I can testify to that personally and I blame a lot on culture and this whole idea of 'finding yourself'. Listened to a sermon just today that a lot of the issues are brought upon by the fact that we have become a right here, right now world and the world culture is teaching that unless you're getting everything out of the relationship that you want(be it status, possessions, wealth, etc) then you not only have the right to leave, but the responsibility to leave and go find what makes you 'happy'. Interestingly enough, the sermon was 24 years old and is still true today.
A woman's responsibility for her husband and her family is outlined in Proverbs 31. However, nowhere does it say anything about "her" being responsible for the "relationship" itself.
And ... God clearly indicated who was responsible for the relationship when he ask Adam, "What have YOU done". After all, Adam was responsible for "tending" the garden - and Eve being deceived proved Adam was not doing his job.
If God was so concerned about the woman's responsibility, why didn't he ask Eve, "What have you done?" Surely God already knew what Eve had done? The fact that God did not inquire to Eve indicates God was placing responsibility upon Adam - whether he wanted it or not. And ... Adam only added insult to injury by insinuating it was God's fault ("it was that woman YOU gave me).
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree,of which I commanded thee, saying,Thou shalt not eat of it:
Also, that bit about Adam blaming God..."12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done?"
Talk about only seeing what you want to see...
Just a little reminder.
While SOME of what you say is, no doubt, true, I would hasten to point out that in many, many cases the woman is the one who initiates the divorce due to the fact that hubby has gotten into the habit of having his cake (home life, wife, children) and eating it (girlfriend, bars, drinking buddies, etc.), too. Not all (nor, maybe even, mostly all), but a great many. Also, when you see REAL incidents of "domestic" violence, it is generally the man who is the perpetrator and I'm not talking about all the poor guys who have only been "accused" of this by some vindictive, slutty, moron of a "wife".
Now then, having gotten THAT out of the way, I see the REAL problem that is contributing to the high divorce rate as lack of morality and spirituality. I think that all would agree that we saw the divorce rate (AND pre-marital sex rate) spiral in wake of God and Christian morality being systematically removed from schools and public life. People no longer believe that sex is something to be shared WITHIN a LIFE-LONG marriage as ordained by God. Sex is to have "fun" and thus, nothing is sacred to a marriage between a man and a woman. Nowadays, marriage is not really viewed as an "until death do us part" committment. It is viewed more as a "until I see something better" arrangement. The FACT is, that more men seem to be "straying" than their spouses. Let's all be realisic here, shall we? Women (espcially after giving birth to two or three children) tend to lose a lot of that svelt figure (too tired to exercise at the end of the day - espcially if she's having to work outside the home as well as deal with the needs of little ones in the evenings and at night), she doesn't have as much free time to "pay attention" to that "fragile" male ego nor does she often-times have the energy to desire sex (although she would probably still like to cuddle and snuggle). The men, in the mean time, see the expanding waist-line and lack of attention to them as total disinterest and begin to (maybe) unconsciencely seek the attention of another woman. If/when they DO receive this "outside" attention, they carry things too far (an affair, etc.) and then when the wifey finds out and files for divorce, SHE gets blames for "initiating" said proceedings.
Now, I realize that to a large part, this is an over-simplification, but it is entirely too prevalent to dismiss completely (and yes, I DO know that this door swings both ways). Until we can get back to seeing divorce as a BAD thing and until we can start re-teaching our children the REAL meaning and responsibilities of marriage, we will see this trend continue and the nanny-state government providing a "safety-net" only makes the entire "single parent" thing more viable.
Sorry here, dear, but you are flat out wrong on this one. Sometimes, although, granted, not often, SURVIVAL is THE key issue. When one spouse is REALLY in fear of their and/or their children's survival, there is a REAL cause/necessity for divorce. Case in point: I married in my early twenties to a man who, like myself, was a "social drinker". Two children later, he began keeping company with several single guys who drank heavily (probably due to the fact that I saw it as our responsibility to stay home MOST nights and raise our children instead of allowing his mother to do it - so he started going out by himself). Well, to make a long story of several deteriorating years short, he turned into a full-fledged alcoholic, later got into drug abuse (never mind the AA meetings that a long-time friend of his and I tried to support him through), became verbally AND physically abusive (almost killed me twice - once after being released from a rehab center because the insurance ran out). With a few more twists and turns to the process I finally filed for divorce. Does it make me selfish that I wanted to be able to live and raise my children (the ones that I had already been essentially raising by myself for over 10 years) or does it simply mean that I had done all I could to rectify the situation and finally realized that I coulnd't do it and wanted my children and I to spend the next years in a safe environment? Go ahead, make sweeping generalizations if you wish but, be careful about lumping ALL divorces or ALL situations into one category please. Not every situation will fit the generalization.
Morality means little to them. Commitment means nothing. Our society has become one of sex for pleasure only. We have a shallow society. People seek meaning in life, but they cannot find it. Look at how many people are on drugs now. They look for pleasure and happiness, but these things are like puffs of smoke. They cannot grasp it. They can see it, but when they try to close their hands on the smoke, it wafts between their fingers.
Such is our modern life.
Wait a minute. Wives have a responsibility as well. Marriage is still a two-way street. Lets not beat up on the guys with baseball bats while handing the ladies a rose and say, that's ok, it's not your fault.
You need to rethink your reasoning on this point. The marriage vows say nothing about society, and there is a reason for this. What happens between a man and his wife is between them only.
Yeah, you are right. Adam should have hit her up alongside the head with a tree branch. Things would have gone much better.
Many pasters today have a good reason, to them, for doing that. I think that many Church women are naive. Many divorces are taking place in Churches today.
Actually, the increase in the pre-marital sex rate closely parallels with the acceptance of and increased usage of the Pill. Contraception (especially the non-barrier kind) severed the link between procreation and sex in a lot of people's minds.
I, like you, am somewhat put off by all of the accounts of horrible wives that are frequently made by Freeper males. (And they tend to confirm the stereotype of conservatives as angry, white males. )Is it possible that American women are the pampered, demanding, inconsiderate witches as they are so often described? Perhaps, but my guess is that there are a lot of unrealistic expectations about marriage out there, also.
BINGO!! Even children are no longer taught about personal responsibility, hence, have NO conception of how to handle hard-times, adversity nor conflict and how to accept responsibilty.
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.