Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men's Marriage Strike?

GlennSacks.com ^ | 07/05/02 | Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

[FreedomFriend]

Kathleen is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this thirty-something 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."

The US marriage rate has dipped 40% over the past four decades, to its lowest point ever. 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 which is 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 Kathleen, and has two children. There is a 50% likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does the odds are two to one that it will be Kathleen, 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 Kathleen joint legal custody, the odds are overwhelming that it is Kathleen, not Dan, who will win physical custody. Over night 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 7 days with his own children.

Once divorced, odds are at least even that Dan's ex-wife will interfere with his visitation rights. Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40% 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.

Kathleen 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 Kathleen 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% or 80% 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."

[FreedomFriend]

Quite sad.

[FreedomFriend]

bump

[FreedomFriend]

bump

[FormerLurker]

Quite sad

And quite true.

[College Repub]

There is a previous thread on this with over 600 responses

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I can feel bad for Dan, to a point. Because what he's going to do now is just use women and throw them away instead of committing. Sort of a "why buy the cow when I can get the milk for free?" What Kathleen and other women need to do is stop giving it away for free.

[CalConservative]

The ultimate result of the feminist movement is being acheived. Men are basically being used as sperm banks.

I consider myself to be so incredibly fortunate to have a wife who does not buy into this garbage. I do not understand how you can expect to have a loving, rewarding relationship if the women enters into it feeling that men are scum - as she has been indoctrinated with by the "woman's" movement.

[FreedomFriend]

Yeah, kind of like an old roommate of mine who has been with the same girl for eight years, yet he doesn't want to commit. He doesn't even want to get engaged anytime soon, unless I'm mistaken.

[FreedomFriend]

Paulie;TomGuy;Regulator;Reagan wuzthebest;Fish out of Water;MarineInspector;Chaser;w illyone;Seamole;Dutchy;Lion's Cub;Patriotic American;antidemocommie;mjanea ngels@aol.com;janetgreen;Rodge rD;WRhine;conserve-it;brat;Uncle Bill;dougherty;usa dave;Walkin Man;Angelique;infowars;Pelham; Read My Mind;skeeter;Brownie 74;DoughtyOne;MissAmericanPie; Fitz;DonMyers;sabertooth;sarca sm;Semaphore Heathcliffe;Ga. Confed;ratcat;blue river;Joaquin;right of rush;snippy_about_it;kattracks ;Son of liberty;Right_Makes_Might;luti ne;cynicom;mdittmar;MyKdsmom;S R71A;SciFiGuy;Arnold Bronstein;henderson field;Ricky J;boris;Lysander;harpseal;time stax;Capt.Yankee Mike;ny goose;concerned about politics;TruthNtegrity;Ted TC;Steamship Time;Howie 66;lawdog;1lawlady;Mulder;Iren e Adler;B4Ranch;Carry_Okie;askel 5;Paulus Invictus;68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub;upchuck; RIGHT IN SEATTLE;Jethro Tull;Chatham;Arleigh;exit 109;firebrand;waxhaw;mercy;dir t boy;okie_tech;Loopy;america 76;Israel;Twodees;Eagle 74;Jorge;boston_liberty;Shermy ;underdog;travelin_man;Stryker ;JediGirl;brat;donut watch;Arkinsaw;Slyfox;RnMomof7 ;Icthus;Captainpaintball;Tancr edoFan; christine11;Eqlizer;tenderston e jr.;Righty1;Mad_Tom_Rackham;Re dbob;hattend;Squantos;gitmogru nt;2witness;filzwup;RobbyS;F16 Fighter;BigMeanie;Truthsayer20 ;Salvation;Rustynailww;raybbr; rdavis84;Bommer;7.63Broom;Stea mshipTime;redskin;joesnuffy;Po isedWoman;scholar;CatoRenasci; Jamten;rebelsoldier;adx;Iris7; FryingPan101;Razz Barry;Kaslin;Eva;Texas Gal;Eddie Haskell;Be Active;Angkor;freedomtrail;rml ew;Paleo Conservative;RebelDawg;brightx ;A Navy Vet;GailA;Tancred;BullRider;Ja sper;Syncro;LasVegasMac;Incred ibleHulk;backhoe;sistergoldenh air;Ecliptic;Baware;monkeywren ch;tacis;American spirit;summer;WOSG;MeeknMing;b andlength;lowbridge;Balding_Ea gle;catholicguy;4ourprogeny;SC alGal;TravelGirl;Charlotte Corday;grania;Phillip Augustus;browardchad;born yesterday; Birds Of A Feather;Rowdee;Tailgunner Joe;superdestroyer;gubamyster; Mr. Jeeves; Kobyashi1942;Digger;3AngelaD;O hioan;neutrino;stimulate;Fishr rman;HENRYADAMS;iopscusa;golds tategop;B Knotts;al_possum39;Travis McGee;RonDog;Kevin Curry;Attillathehon;Nancy;Stan d Watch Listen;AR15_Patriot;Myrddin;jp sb;lentulusgracchus;sandyeggo; varon;Clara Lou;traditionalist;JessicaDrag onet;ex-snook;sixtycyclehum;Pining_4_T X;philetus;Roscoe;Nea Wood;Texas_Jarhead;ET(end tyranny);skemper;isthisnickcoo l;Grampa Dave;HennepinPrisoner;Aim small miss small;I Corps;gitmo;Pennsylvania_Farme r;evad;GuillermoX;cowgirlcutie ;Puppage;muawiyah;AAABEST;Issa quahking;M Kehoe;Uncle George;Fredgoblu;robertpaulsen ;CWRWinger;madfly;remaininligh t;wattsmag2;Fishing Fool;meenie;DLfromthedesert;E. G.C.;Jeff Head;Jack Black;4.1O dana super trac pak;WhiteGuy;jragan2001;tender stone jr.;Dakmar;daiuy;texson66;INSE NSITIVE GUY;Dixielander;EBUCK;nanny;Bi llyBoy;Exit148;Billy_bob_bob;B igg Red;hedgetrimmer;Geezerette;Hi Jinx;NorseWood;CIBvet;It’salmo sttolate;ijcr;luvbach1;Old Fud;pnz1;MistyCA;ajnin;healey2 2;glockmeister40;flamefront;Ja ckelopeBreeder;Elsie;jrewingjr ;doc;ATOMIC_PUNK;.45MAN;Blackb irdSST;Joe Hadenuf;sarasmom;realpatriot;e comcon;Elkiejg;Texas Mom;jpl;nothingnew;EggsAckley; Ciexyz;archy;MarMema;maximus@N ashville;Zack Nguyen;Mom_Grandmother;AntiJen ;

[sourcery]

Either the laws change, or marriage dies. It's that simple, and that certain.

[FreedomFriend]

Can you please delete post 9. I goofed up.

[Mariner]

"stop giving it away for free"

I'd do without before I'd marrry again. Why commit to 30 years of paying 50% of your GROSS income to a woman........no matter what she decides to do, or for what reason.

It's stupid under all scenarios.

[Lurker]

Sorry love, but there isn't one single woman anywhere in the entire world 'giving it away for free'.

There's no such thing as free p****.

Now, feel free to ask the AdminModerator to delete my response. I'll understand.

Regards,

L

[FreedomFriend]

I disagree, for the fact that marriage is a bond that allows for a sane and just society, not to mention that it is the bond that is sanctified by God.

Granted, I've never been married, that is besides the point. Without the family, our society would fall into complete and utter chaos, much worse than the muck that we're currently in.

[Keith in Iowa]

Under Discussion in the general interest forum... http://www.freerepublic.com/fo cus/chat/711656/posts

[FreedomFriend]

I checked for the title, but nothing came up in the search. Perhaps the individual changed the title.

[drjoe]

You betchum, Red Ryder

[FreedomFriend]

Huh?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I'm not going to ask for it to be deleted. I don't understand it. What do you think these single women are getting in return? They hang in there because they think the guy will eventually marry them and he knows he has no intention of doing so. Most of these women are acting like fools.

What I've seen in other women and personally experienced creates the view I have on this subject. Granted, there are a lot of nasty, predatory women, but there are a lot of guys out there simply looking for a piece of a** and they will say anything to get it. It's hard to believe anything anyone says anymore and it's simply a game of defense now.