Posted on 07/07/2002 10:55:29 PM PDT by 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."
(If you really believe that alluded to prostitution, why don't you bring those posts to the attention of relevant authorities. Tell them you have evidence of prostitution and see what they say)
Good post. I reread the original article. Then I read some of the responses and I see much of what you see. I went back to the original 600+ post thread and saw it there as well. There were an overwhelming number of supportive responses by men. There were quite a few women that also understood the gyst of the article and were supportive. In fact, as far as I can see, most people seem to understand the motives behind this growing number of men shying away from marriage.
But there were and remain a few who's best response is something akin to "we didn't want them anyways" or "I can do without" or a host of other things including what you have written. Some have taken it to a personal level and some just plain think that anybody that doesn't kiss their butt is some kind of "woman hater" or some other such nonsense.
Myself, I've seen the same things that the guys in this article have seen. The vast majority of divorces I've seen end up with the male getting the short end of the stick. Not all of them, but the vast majority. Is there any wonder that men are becoming less willing to tie that knot?
Did somebody say it did? Where in the world did you get that idea?
I was born during the second world war, and my upbringing was old-fashioned even for
that long-ago time, (when dinosaurs roamed the earth, as my kids like to say). I think
of myself as half of a psychologically complementary matching set, although, of course,
my complementary half no longer exists. I must say, the notion of a woman
as an item of chattel was not part of the world-view that was imparted to me or my social
partners in the place I grew up.
Well, thanks again for your thoughts; I may be one up on you, come to think of it :),
- I have a female cousin my own age, who lives alone, with whom I can take in some
chamber music or dinner at a nice restaurant, without it being an actual date for either of us :)
Nothing about any of this affects me personally. All attempts to paint me as being as self-centered as those who can't imagine advocating on either side of this without a dog in the fight, will just have to settle for the fact that I'm fightin' for Truth and Justice for their own sakes. I see something going on that I think is wrong. So I flame it. It's the difference between FR and a chat room.
Read what you wrote, it doesn't sound like, ``Nothing about any of this affects me personally.'' And it doesn't pass the test for, `` fightin' for Truth and Justice for their own sakes.'' Truth and justice isn't these kind of personal insinuations. If you want to comment on the weaknesses in the U.S. legal system fine, but weren't even in the neighborhood here.
Robert Heinlein made that point in one of the essays in Expanded Universe -- citing the old adage as proof that marriage needed to offer more than a regular sex partner in order to remain a viable institution.
Absolutely, and it's disgusting. Sex is a normal human drive, not a commodity. Both sexes have a sex drive and interest in sex. God made it that way for a reason. He did not make the sex drive glorified in men and deplorable in women.
Interesting you should say that about feminism, which is a very big subject. There is lots to think about, but one little thought that has occurred to me from time to time, which is congruous with your post, is this:
1. The United States was historically settled and run by white males, who were always less than 50% of the population because of the presence of minorities in some degree.
2. At the present time, the United States is about 75% European-American.
3. Half of 75% is 37.5%.
4. Now do you see the significance of feminism?
The liberal dream of a free people taken captive by a hostile socialist, dystopian fantasy and lorded over by apparatchiks who hate them, could never be achieved without feminism.
The feminazis do not credit these early women Americans with anything but 'victimization'. No credit given to their contribution then, and none now.
The feminazis demonization of men does not equal an elevation and respect for women....just the opposite, in fact.
I consider the women's movement since the 1960s nothing more than a Communist Front Organization. They fool a lot of people, though.
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.