Posted on 07/06/2002 5:00:19 AM PDT by buccaneer81
A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss
By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson
Katherine is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this thirtysomething 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."
Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States has dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point since the rate was measured. 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 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 Katherine, and has two children. There is a 50 percent likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be Katherine, 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 Katherine joint legal custody, the odds are overwhelming that it is Katherine, not Dan, who will win physical custody. Overnight, 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 seven days with his own children.
Once Katherine and Dan are divorced, odds are at least even that Katherine will interfere with Dan's visitation rights.
Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40 percent 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.
Katherine 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 Katherine 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 percent or 80 percent 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."
Dianna Thompson is the founder and executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. She can be contacted by e-mail at DThompson2232@aol.com. Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the male perspective. He invites readers' comments at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.
Every woman has a heart and a brain. We may not let the brain have a say as often as we do the heart, but when BOTH know a good thing, outsiders need to butt out and leave things alone. Good men aren't growing on trees. You have to hunt to find them and have the sense to know when you missed the target BEFORE he is your spouse.
Part of the problem is that the divorcing women have excessive self-esteem. They have no clue about how much harder it is for a woman 35+ with kids to get another guy. On the flip side, a guy who keeps himself in reasonable shape and has a decent job can get female companionship at pretty much any age (Actor Anthony Quinn managed to father a child by his mistress at the age of 78)
You might try dating older, divorced women. When I was 23, I dated a lady in her late 30's, and it was fun. The older ones who've already had their quota of kids are not under time pressure, and you may even be able to hold an actual conversation with them
Seems to me that the men on here were sharing their side of the divorce story. There are at least two sides to every story, you know. So how do you decide who's being honest?If you ask my ex, she'll tell you that she did nothing wrong.
Men are not innocent victims an this thread is nothing but fluff because you refuse to share responsibility for your roles in the family break-down.
Sure, I accept my responsibility for the breakdown. I also accept my responsibility in keeping the family together for ten years while she went and did her thing. It has a lot to do with what she said about a year and a half before I packed up my daughter and myself and got us the hell out of there - "The only reason I keep you around is to take care of the kids," meaning her three and the one child between us.
Let's talk about responsibility, shall we? In the two years plus since the divorce went through, this paragon of virtue called a mother has gone through three boyfriends and an abortion. Her oldest child was pregnant at fifteen, and a single mother at sixteen (mom let that daughter's boyfriend live with them for a time). The middle daughter has been busted and banned from Walmart for shoplifting, and the youngest daughter has been living with her father and his parents out in Las Vegas. According to to this "mother," none of that is her responsibility.
My daughter and I live with my parents while I'm finishing college. She gets good grades in school, attends church, goes to summer camp, and is healthy. She doesn't like going to her mom's house to visit, because, according to her, mom's house is too dirty.
Am I bitter? No - because I've got my daughter and we got out of that house alive and in one piece. I regret the time wasted, but that's water under the bridge. I look at it as a learning experience, and I got my PhD from this one.
Responsibility - yeah, right.
Guys denied access to their homes, children, financial documents, etc., and who are treated like thieves by escorting law enforcement personnel when they go to get their underwear are a candidate for becoming verbally abusive, at a minimum.
Thank God my Ex was foolish enough to record herself and paramours in flagrante delecto on videotape while I was out-of-town at work. The copy I made made the divorce much smoother.
Yes, I did see it coming, but tried to get things turned around(put the romance back). That was before I found the tape....
Cost: $380.00, two six-packs of Dos Equis (to retype the stipulation so it would be uncontested), and half of what we had purchased together. Not bad, but it did hurt.
That was twelve years ago, and I have remarried--one of my best friends.
It isn't marriage that is bad, but be incredibly careful who you marry.
My point is that men can protect themselves from women like this by abstaining from casual sex, but men don't want to hear it. Men want to be considered victims when this happens, but this has been going on too long for men to still be unaware of it. Fine, if men want to have sex with this woman, then let them support their children.
Waiting too long to marry can be a lot of the problem. The happiest marriages I know of are with couples who married between 19 to 23 years of age, waiting until you're set in your ways doesn't help and in his mid-thirties he can expect to meet women carrying a lot more baggage which makes things harder, plus by then he's likely to have more himself.
The early warning signs of marital incompatibility
by Smokin’ Joe
1) Credibility: Do they make a habit of saying one thing and doing another? Does the story change? Are there significant inconsistencies in their descriptions of past events? How much of their past is polished to make them look better? to make others look worse?
2) What is their attitude toward their ex-spouse (in my age group, that is there in most cases)? Why? Is it justified, or is it a rationalization?
(NOTE: this one is tricky, guys, a lot of guys/girls seem one way around 'the guys/girls' but are another critter around--or to a person of the opposite sex.
3) What are their priorities? List them by time/money spent. Do they have any incompatible compulsive behaviors?
4) Where are their kids? Do they put the children ahead of you when the children need it? All of the time? Never? Are the kids in trouble? For what, where? What attitude do their children have toward them? Why? Are the children trotted out for show and then sequestered or are they active participants in the developing realtionship? Are they being used to bait the hook? Do they denigrate their ex in front of the kids?
5)How do they treat the hired help, or other people of the same/opposite sex who know you? Shoddy treatment of undeserving waitresses, clerks, etc. shows a lack of civility which may run deeper than those they consider inferior. What are they saying about you behind your back? Are they blatantly two-faced in thier dealings with others? Do they leave a decent tip or protest when you do? Do they feel threatened by your few close friends--or do they get along well?
6)Are they scrupulously honest? Lying about little things indicates a tendency to bend the truth when convenient. Small dishonesties lead to greater ones. This comes with a caveat: Don't ask the question if you do not want to know the answer. Most of the past's details belong there.
7)Can they be genuinely happy for someone else's triumphs or good fortune? Even if they were competing for the same thing (like a promotion?) What will their attitude be if you do well? Vice versa?
8) Will they tell when they think you are wrong? Right? Will they admit, gracefully to an error? (Can you?)
9) Do you have common and differing interests. One provides a basis for discussion, the other provides room to learn and grow.
10)Are your political/religious/philosophical beliefs compatible? Not can you 'bring them around?', but compatible now.
Put all of this in the context of an impending relationship, and many will not get far past the first date.
While sex can be the crown jewel of a relationship, sex alone will not make for an enduring partnership. Aside from a few physical parameters, the essence of good sex is communication. If you are not communicating, you are doing it by yourself anyway.
The benefit for men was the (more or less) reliable identification of heirs and the ability to be involved in their children's upbringing.
Otherwise, women are the only beneficiaries: they obtain food and shelter for themselves and their offspring, companionship despite shrewishness, relative security, and status.
Interesting. Women use biased courts to steal the earnings from men in divorce. Men call them on it. Women suddenly call it "whining". If a thief breaks into your house and swipes all your favorite jewelry, do you "whine" to the police or just sit back and take it?
And is the judicial system forcing men to make babies out of wedlock?
Not wanting to marry does not mean they do not want to have sex.
Well, men want sex, their children need support. If you don't want to pay, don't play.
Oh, and last time I heard it takes two....
That's right, it takes 2, both of whom had the choice, and both of whom made the choice to do their part to make a baby.
But the men on here were saying that fathers never got their chldren and always have to pay the ex.......you appear to have your daughter and you didn't mention having to pay this ex so I assume you don't, both of which belies the gist of this thread.
Take your Lovely Legs off this thread. It confuses us and we forget what we were ranting about...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.