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.
now i'm guilty; freeped all day instead of riding......
If I might ask, what is your age group? Both my wife and I were married once before, before we met. Both of our prior marriages failed in large part due to the juvenile behavior and expectations on all fronts.
When we met, she was 31 and I was 27, and we were both looking desperately for someone to grow up, and grow old with. Had we met 4 or 5 years earlier, we probably wouldn't have worked out, ourselves.
Speaking solely for myself, I know that at 25 I was nothing more than an adolescent who shaved more often. She recounts her younger days similarly.
Sometime around the middle of the last century, the worst of all possible combinations arose. Children matured physically at an ever decreasing age, and matured mentally and emotionally at an increasing age.
Works for me.
But it does bring into question your irrational fear of the "men's movement"
That also means you condemn any woman who leaves her husband..
Right?
LOL - mine did that (no sex) about two years before I finally packed up my daughter and myself and got out. And no - that wasn't why I divorced her. Why'd she do it? Don't know - never got an understandable answer from her about it.
It's true what you say but I've seen first hand sad cases for both genders and I'm not sure what law would be "fair". I've seen a sister-in-law who was a stay-at-home mother for 15 years find out her husband was cheating, he made $25 an hour, she had no resume and could find part time work paying $6 an hour. In her case I don't think it'd be fair to her to lose her kids since it was she committing adultery and the agreement for her not to work was mutual.
I also know a man who was in a similar situation --it was his wife having an affair and who wanted a divorce ---but she expected to take the kids from him and collect child support which isn't fair at all. The laws need to be changed, the one committing adultery shouldn't end up with the kids.
That's true and would be true in the reverse. Men don't want "boring" women who would make good wives, you can see all the examples in the singles bars how both men and women select their mates.
Maybe if you were a prize worth having, the worthwhile women would be clustered around you.
The guys on this thread whine more than Phil Donahue. If you want to be men, suck it up and get on things.
Pathetic
So9
not exactly my kind of manly activity, but each to his own.....
Now that I'm way out of my 20's, I say that's not necessarily a bad idea!
You have a point, but it would be hard to find a woman with any self-respect who didn't want her marriage to be very public and very official -- and not always with sinister motives, far from it.
One of the problems is that, no matter how discerning you may be, no matter how long the courtship or engagement, people just change. For example, you might marry a woman who is pure of heart but has one fatal flaw you failed to notice, eg. too easily influenced by her girlfriends. It might never occur to her to see you as a monster until these "friends" have put in countless hours convincing her that she's better off without you.
And then there's Iago...
Certainly.
Definately.. And of course these "friends" won't have to weary themselves working double and triple shifts.. Since they have the media, "education" and the court system to help them accomplish this task.
If you turn on the garbage disposal in your kitchen sink and then stick your hand in it, it's going to really screw up your hand and your life.
Now, is that a reason or an excuse to not put your hand in the disposal?
Now, is that a reason or an excuse to not put your hand in the disposal?
Excellent analogy!
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.