A 'Marriage Strike' Emerges As Men Decide Not To Risk Loss

The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | July 5, 2002 | Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

[Taxman]

I'm happy for you and your family. Hope you make it "til death do you part."

[SouthernFreebird]

How sweet.......a thread for male bonding.

[razorback-bert]

It's the Fem-a-nazi BS thrown at men during a divorce that hurts more than the money and probaly the leading cause of many.

[Maelstrom]

Which creates a self-fulfilling prophesy at the outset of a marriage...

[edwin hubble]

Prenuptual agreements cannot cover matters involving children, only financial assets.

The "best interest of the child" at the time (at any time) is always the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
This will take a change in the law.

[Wondervixen]

I am completely embarassed at today's wives and the complete lack of scruples they possess. Sure, it's one thing to be brainless and fall for a brute with muscles BECAUSE he's a "Bad Boy" and therefore, a project to be changed, but when you luck out and land one (like mine) who is "broken-in" and treats you and the children like gold, you don't go tossing him back, sticking a knife in him, and twisting it every chance you get just to be a bitch.

If the husband isn't giving you a legitimate reason to grab up the kids and run for it and if he treats you well and with respect, it is YOUR DUTY as a woman and mother to stand by him through the poor times and weather them till the good ones return, not play horse changer in mid-stream.

Remember, you may not be as good as you THINK you are at choosing men the next time...Your ex MIGHT have been a stroke of luck you'll NEVER live to repeat!

[Savage Beast]

Oh I believe you. I have no doubt whatsoever that what you say is true. But I do say that these people either see the injustice in what they do and choose to disregard it or that they do not see it because they don't want to. In either case, it's the same thing: injustice perpetrated by those fully capable of understanding what they are doing--and doing it anyway.

[narses]

The answer? Marry for love, not money. Include, if you want permanence, God in the contract. Make the vows meaning them. Take the time before the wedding (we took years) to really get to know each other, especially under pressure and in crisis. If money is your lodestone, study the wealthy. You'll discover that most of the wealthy (not including inheirited or 'found' wealth) marry into their own peer group and do so with the intent of permanence and with love as a prerequisite. (If you want love defined, imho it is the willingness to sacrifice for another.) In other words, imho, if you want money you first need love.

[wku man]

Watch it, bud. I mentioned on a thread a couple of months ago that I'd want a pre-nup before getting married, and man oh man did I get flamed! I wish I had a dollar for every time some sister Freeper told me something to the effect that "marriage is all about trust, and you should be willing to take that risk for love". When I mentioned that I wouldn't trust the women I meet with money for the next pitcher, I heard "well, it must be your fault for attracting the wrong type of woman".

Married Freepers just don't understand how slim the pickings are these days...whether at the local pub or the local church, most young, single women in this nation are Oprahtized, confused, money grubbing dingbats (or worse) that any man with a brain wouldn't have anything to do with! I know because I've dodged the bullet twice now. I'd like to think that "she" is out there, but the more I date and the more women I meet these days, the more pessimistic I get. If you're in college, I imagine you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Okay, flame away, you happily married folks who haven't been in the dating game for years.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Nick Danger]

Marry in haste, repent at leisure!

We're all so conditioned to viewing men as bad guys that it has blinded us to the observation that government is operating a system that routinely rips fathers out of their childrens' lives. This is a very weird thing to have in a human society. I can't think of any examples from history of a society where government took human young away from their parents on a routine basis. This is inhuman, and that we do it at all tells us that our government and our culture fundamentally view men as sub-human animals. One would not do this to human beings.

As for the reaction of the men in this article, simple algebra tells us that as 'repent' increases, the amount of time which constitutes 'haste' must also increase. For sufficiently high values of repent, haste becomes longer than the typical human lifespan.

[johniegrad]

$1000/month in child support and $1500/month in "spousal maintenance" for me X 5 years despite the fact that the ex was college educated (elementary education and immediately employable but she refused to work) and despite the fact that I single parented one of our two kids after the divorce by his choice. She paid nothing of course. Luckily, she was so dependent that she met a guy and married at year 3 out of the 5 and saved me two years of alimony. Because there were some assets involved, the attorneys quite naturally raped the situation for all it was worth and despite my attempts to get it settled, it took two years. I was the only one motivated to settle. Supposed it could have been worse but it was bad enough.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

ping

[AD from SpringBay]

I have a friend who could be the poster-boy for this article - deck is clearly stacked against him and his beautiful children.

[NMFXSTC]

Fred Reed, the witty and stinging columnist just wrote a column on this (To Marry or Not) this week...good read!:

http://www.Fredoneverything.ne t/ColMenu.html

[meyer]

We're all so conditioned to viewing men as bad guys that it has blinded us to the observation that government is operating a system that routinely rips fathers out of their childrens' lives. This is a very weird thing to have in a human society. I can't think of any examples from history of a society where government took human young away from their parents on a routine basis. This is inhuman, and that we do it at all tells us that our government and our culture fundamentally view men as sub-human animals. One would not do this to human beings.

Has the women's vote caused this? Serious question with some nasty implications, but look at how our government has changed since that time.

[JMJ333]

Wasn't it Lenin who said, "Destroy the family and you'll destroy society"...?

[College Repub]

Yeah. There are barely any girls worthy of relationships, let alone marriage. Whatever. I'm in no rush. My biological clock ain't ticking :)

[Balto_Boy]

I can't think of any examples from history of a society where government took human young away from their parents on a routine basis.

While this may be true, the majority of children in fatherless homes were born out of wedlock. Men refusing to abstain from casual sex and their slavish donations to sperm banks has far more to do with this problem than the judicial system, yet men can't seem to see it. In some areas in Europe, children born out of wedlock has reached 75%. Think about that. 25%, 50%, 60%, and men couldn't see what was happening. Now they're demanding rights to their children, but what leverage do they have now that they have taken themselves out of the family.

Unfortunately, I don't see this changing any time soon. I saw another article in which young men said they were putting off marriage because they can get sex without it. What this means is that their female counterparts will be able to have babies without marrying them, but men can't seem to see this.

None of this is to disagree with the points made in the article above, but only to point out that there are other sides to this issue. Men have the power to put a stop to this, but are more interested in proving their manhood instead. Until men change their priorities, things will only get worse.

[fporretto]

The only real surprise in this is that it's taken people so long to wake up to the results of the insane legal and economic incentives they've loaded onto marriage.

Overwhelmingly, men are the more "at risk" of the two sexes, given the way the State treats marriage and its dissolution. Add to that the prevalent belief among women that their troubles can be largely laid at men's door, and you have a formula for disaster. As if we could possibly make it worse, not even prenuptial contracts can safeguard a divorcing man's possessions, as judges in divorce actions now routinely discard them as the "fruits of emotional coercion."

There is no absolute defense. Even Miss Right can transform into Miss Militant Gender-War Feminist Harridan. That being the case, it's more of an act of bravery to marry in America today than it's ever been before, and I salute any man who's got the guts for it -- but I also commend the good sense of any man whose doubts about how his marital enterprise might end cause him to shy away from the altar.

Marriage is not for the dubious, the grasping, the self-absorbed, or the faint of heart. If you're one of these, spend a couple of years in the Army and get straightened out and toughened up first. You owe it to your children-to-be.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com