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."
Vengeful divorces seem to be the hardest on the kids. I know kids who have been put in the middle of whatever problem happened between their parents and are torn apart being forced to take sides ----which they should never have to do. No matter what caused the divorce, for the sake of the kids the parents should drop all spite for the other. Independent women who have their own careers might be better in a divorce, the most vengeful seem to be the dependent woman who is facing an uncertain future with no job skills who is very bitter about the loss of a certain lifestyle, especially if they got dumped for someone else. Even for that the kids shouldn't have take sides.
Just a little reminder!!!!!!
Secondly, my initial statement still stands. God does and always will hold the husband responsible for the marriage relationship. He does also hold the wife responsible for taking care of her husband and children.
If you have refuted that, it's news to me.
I'm not sure I agree - I have always believed Adam was there because of one thing - when Eve ate the apple and nothing happened to her, Adam never questioned what God had said to them (don't eat of the tree - you will die). I have always wondered why Adam never questioned the fact that Eve didn't die when she ate the apple. But ... when he saw that nothing happened to her (Adam had to assume God was lying about it), Adam decided it was safe to eat of the apple too. How would Adam have known Eve had eaten of the apple and didn't die, unless he had seen her doing it. I mean, if she had just simply told him later, would he really have been convinced enough to eat the apple anyway?? . . . I don't think so. This reason alone convinces me Adam watched her eat the apple.
These actions by Adam also convince me God holds the husband responsible - mainly because Adam did not try to stop Eve from eating, and he did not go to God and question why nothing happened to Eve; Adam assumed it was okay for him to also eat - even though God had told him not to. I believe God then said to Eve "what have you done" because Eve never reminded her husband of what God had said, "if you eat you will die"; which I do think was her responsibility.
Sometimes people can be committed to helping each other but are not exactly competent. This can be a problem too.
Spirituality comes in , becasue people that go to church tend to spend at least a little time in self inspection. They are open to the fact that there might be issues in their life that need correcting. So people that go to church and are spiritual tend to also be more reponsible.
In summary, marriage needs both people to be committed to the interests of others in the family, marriage needs competence, and these things generally don't happen without spirituality.
You have no authority to make me do anything!!
Typical female passive aggressiveness. No one, least of all me, said they were going to make you do anything.
Secondly, my initial statement still stands. God does and always will hold the husband responsible for the marriage relationship. He does also hold the wife responsible for taking care of her husband and children.
What are you basing your lack of culpability on now? I'll eat a bible if you can find one breath that makes this nice little psychobabble case of Man/relationship, woman/housework nonsense.
Like so many of your contemporaries, you will admit women bear some responsibility "in concept," but never "in particular." I personally don't have a problem with your stance. Indeed, I expect it given your demonstrated aversion to critical thinking (with regard to Genesis 3). What demands a response is your outrageous attempt to do a "thus saith the Lord" on the issue. (I know...your pastor says...and that much glitz and hairspray just can't be wrong...)
If you have refuted that, it's news to me.
Why should I have to refute it? In posts #325 through #330 I (and you) showed conclusively you had no basis by which to make it in the first place. That you would actually stoop so low as to trot out the Bible in a serious attempt to show God endorses this sick idea you have that others are responsible for the way you act defies description.
You are, of course, absolutly correct in your observations. If God (IMO) is not the REAL head of the household (from BOTH spouses POV), then the relationship is probably doomed. Only one spouse believing and trying to do right to maintain the "marriage" will usually fail.
Such as, "You can go bowling with the boys, but you have to do this for me", etc. Personally I couldn't live with the strain of using a calculator to make sure I'm coming out ahead or dead even in the marriage game, doesn't seem like a fun way to live to me.
That is why native western populations can no longer reproduce their numbers. It's difficult for American overgrown teenagers to overcome a lifetime of brainwashing to become a genuine man. However, those who can will have no trouble getting and keeping a woman.
A man who has surrendered his role as head of the family is already in trouble. Women soon loose respect for and grow tired of a mere equal.
Infidelity is not a marginal cause, my friend. It's the result of the "free love", "do your own thing", "if it feels good, do it" thinking of the 60's. Then you have the case, like my ex-wife, of an alcohol problem coupled with a veiled hatred of men masquerading as a seductress. She enjoyed the feeling of being able to get any man she wanted. It was a power trip for her, because deep down, she hated men. She hated me, but I didn't see it for a long time, because I loved her. I divorced her, to get away from the destructive, emotionally abusive situation. Fortunately, even though my 3 kids stayed with her, they turned out fine (they're grown and have lives of their own), not because of her influence, in spite of it. I was able to stay involved with them, despite her efforts to prevent me. They were able to see the difference, and I am closer to them now than ever. Each one of them had to declare their independence from her, and stand their ground. My son did so at 16 (he's now 25), and became fairly self-sufficient (he's now married with 3 kids, a wonderful wife, and a very supportive extended family). My oldest daughter did so at 18 (she's now 23), is now married with a wonderful husband and son, and my youngest daughter (22) is in college, working her way through because mom won't help her, and I don't have a cent to help her with. I'm still digging out of the financial hole the divorce put me in.
My ex remarried almost immediately, and got what she deserved, a wife beater. I never laid a hand on her, never even raised my voice to her in our 16 years of marriage. Now she gets knocked around every so often, and I have no sympathy for her at all. She got what she deserved.
I have not remarried, mostly because it's hard to find a woman that hasn't had her mind poisoned by the feminists, the media, and the idea that money will buy happiness. If I ever find a good woman, I'll think about it, but I won't be an easy catch.
LOL
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.