Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men's Marriage Strike?
GlennSacks.com ^ | 07/05/02 | Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: clintonlegacy; divorce; divorcecourt; divorcelawyer; donutwatch; familycourt; fathersrights; golddiggers; lawyer; marriagestrike; moneywhores; visitation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-211 next last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: FreedomFriend
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 happened to my dad. The custody battle cost him two houses and spiritually broke him. The man is now boderline.

23 posted on 07/08/2002 1:22:31 AM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFriend; All
Sad to say, this is very likely true. The feminazis are too happy to encourage women to take their resentments out on their exes and the children. Is that so surprising? For years, the Left has been encouraging parents to behave like demanding, whiny, spiteful children. God forbid that parents should be expected to behave like mature, responsible adults who put the children's interests above their own.
24 posted on 07/08/2002 1:26:38 AM PDT by WaterDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CalConservative
I agree with what you say. The so-called "women's movement" is nothing more than a socialist front organization, attacking our most basic institutions....marriages and families.
25 posted on 07/08/2002 1:28:14 AM PDT by WaterDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BurkeCalhounDabney
Beg to differ....the feminazis love NO ONE. Not even themselves. Their self-hatred is spewed on us all.
26 posted on 07/08/2002 1:29:33 AM PDT by WaterDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BurkeCalhounDabney
Beg to differ....the feminazis love NO ONE. Not even themselves. Their self-hatred is spewed on us all.
27 posted on 07/08/2002 1:29:34 AM PDT by WaterDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: goldenstategirl
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.

He will probably do what I have been doing for quite sometime now, surviving without any milk at all, I know this may come as a shock to you, but man can live without "milk" , I am 36 and a true bachelor (never married) but I dont use women, I just go without "milk"

28 posted on 07/08/2002 2:01:53 AM PDT by TaxPayer2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldenstategirl
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?

LOL, in return? hahahahaha, is sex nothing more to you than a commodity?

I tell you for certain, I go on dates, and turn the woman down for sex, and she gets mad at me , and doesn't return my calls.

If you think the only thing a woman can offer to a marriage is sex, then you are sadly mistaken.

29 posted on 07/08/2002 2:07:28 AM PDT by TaxPayer2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFriend
bump
30 posted on 07/08/2002 2:26:39 AM PDT by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
bump
31 posted on 07/08/2002 3:21:53 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BurkeCalhounDabney
BTTT!!!!!
32 posted on 07/08/2002 3:23:48 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFriend
ignore my Private reply. LOL
33 posted on 07/08/2002 4:58:49 AM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldenstategirl
I recall more than once having a woman explode because I wasn't in the mood. Too tired, just not interested in having sex with her, or many other reasons. They weren't being 'lady like', they were looking for a man in bed. Take your blinders off and you might see that it can be a two way street.
34 posted on 07/08/2002 5:05:50 AM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cdwright
FYI.
35 posted on 07/08/2002 6:05:02 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: goldenstategirl
I would guess that what single women are getting out of having sex outside marriage is the same thing the man is getting: sexual gratification. Last I checked women still liked sex too.

Society is being shaped by legislation and by judicial rulings which carry the force of legislation. There's obviously an agenda at work here.
36 posted on 07/08/2002 6:25:36 AM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BurkeCalhounDabney
The stories some guys who can't get a date will tell themselves....

37 posted on 07/08/2002 6:27:29 AM PDT by ReadMyMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: goldenstategirl
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.

What Dan fails to realize apparently is that the milk still isn't for free because he can find himself paying child support for children he fathers out of wedlock. Kathleen can still have children and get child support from him for 18 years.

38 posted on 07/08/2002 6:34:57 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldenstategirl
Anyone who equates marriage with a financial transaction in order to obtain sex shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
39 posted on 07/08/2002 6:47:59 AM PDT by flyervet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFriend
I didn't realize how common this men getting screwed over scenario was until our family was thrust into it.

My brother's wife of 15 years recently out of the blue asked for a divorce. He then found out why. Basically she's been having multiple affairs during the entire marriage. They have 3 children and he found out the youngest wasn't even his child.

He is getting a divorce but his lawyer told him that it doesn't matter if she "did" an entire pro football team that he was basically gonna get the shaft in divorce court. He lives in FL which is supposedly very protective of the children, which I totally agree with. Because of this they virtually always give custody to the mom, no matter what type of person she is. The mother isn't always the best parent to raise the kids.

His lawyer also told him that if they were unfortunate enough to get a certain female judge that he could be assured to really get taken to the cleaners. Apparently even if both parties agree on the settlement, custody etc and the divorce is completely uncontested she will not grant the divorce until she feels the wife is sticking to the husband enough.

MKM

40 posted on 07/08/2002 6:51:04 AM PDT by mykdsmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-211 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson