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

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

[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.

[carmody]

Has anyone considered that maybe, just maybe, these young men witnessed bad marriages and bad divorces themselves? Maybe, just maybe, they grew up in homes with fathers who threw their mothers away for younger models or mothers who threw the whole family away for personal freedom.

These past two generations of adults were raised on divorce. I'd like to know the divorce statistics for men and women who are afraid to get married. If you've never had a stable, happy family to model your own marriage after, how are you supposed to succeed? The art of marriage and family has been lost on two generations of Americans.

As a matter of fact, lots of people on this thread have very personal first-hand accounts of their own divorces. I'd be curious to know what your expectations of marriage and family were based on your childhood experiences.

The most successful marriages I know are of people who came from solid, happy, families... and not coincidentally, people with a strong faith in God. People live what is modeled to them in childhood (with some exceptions of course.)

[meyer]

Note to self: When women complain, it is always considered a legitimate beef regardless of how trivial it is ("someone squeezed the toothpaste in the middle"). When men decide to bring major injustices out into the open, it is considered "whining" and deserves a personal attack.

[DennisR]

"I will lose access to my kids, lose my home, lose everything that I have been working for these past 20 years. On top of that, a significant portion of my future earnings will be diverted to her (even though she has her own career) and a claim will even be made on my 401(k) retirement plan."

You are exactly right, because this is nearly what happened to me, except the kids were old enough to where I did not have to pay child support. And she got the house in lieu of any retirement benefits "owed" to her. Some trade, eh? All I had to do was wait nearly 25 years for retirement in order for that "trade" to be a good deal. And she thinks she gave me a good deal on the whole thing!!!

[independentmind]

Oh, PS.. That also means you condemn any woman who leaves her husband.. Right?

Let's not use the word condemn. With very few exeptions, I disapprove of both men and women who walk out on their marriages.

[DennisR]

Ah! You missed the one important point that the FemiNazis seem to espouse: men do not have emotions, so why should screwing them over cause any problem? They won't feel anything anyway.

[Jhoffa_]

Okay, I get it..

So marriages can be disolved only when you say so and then the man isn't to be treated with equality and fairness in court.

Brilliant.

[Bonaparte]

"...to help them accomplish this task."

More specifically, a big fat alimony/child support check and possibly the income from a portfolio or income property that she got in her own divorce. Such women often don't have to earn a living any more than the housewife mom does, giving them plenty of time to "keep her company" while her unsuspecting husband is slaving away for their "future" -- which won't include him. By inducing a happily married woman to become discontented and to divorce, they seek to "justify" their own marital perfidy through consensus -- plus, they often can't stand to see a successful marriage when their own marriage/relationships failed so dismally.

[glm]

Being one of those divorced women who got the kids, I think I agree with you guys. I don't blame a lot of young men these days. The women seem ditzy if you ask me. I have met some of them through my two sons and whoa -- I don't like what I see. Also they are pretty liberal as well, against guns, and believe we have to help the children. They all seem to have careers and believe they can take care of themselves.

When I got my divorce many years ago it was because of my husband's serious gambling problem. We parted friends and worked everything out --kids, house, money-- before we went to a lawyer. Nowadays that would never happen.

But there are many men that may not beat their wives or gamble or drink but they just plain ignore them. They never carry on a conversation --preferring to watch tv. That will drive more women away then all the rest. Gosh men could probably have an affair every week if they would just treat their wives 1/2 as good as they would a mistress.

I have a question for all of you married men -- what did your wife wear yesterday? How attentive are you?

[Jim Noble]

>>Women are insane for allowing themselves to be used by man after man, and then expecting to find a husband<<

I agree with the thrust of your comments-but I think they are quite pejorative, unnecessarily so, towards men.

I have two sons, age 22 and 18. Girls at their age are quite sexually aggressive. They have both been involved in relationships where it is quite unclear who is using whom.

I was single for several years in my 40s. I met many women whose dating policy was, "F*** first, ask questions later".

This is, as you point out, a very poor strategy for husband-finding. I'm not at all sure that women who search this way are victims, however.

[independentmind]

Jhoffa, I think you need to relax. While you're at it, you might try to stop putting words in my mouth.

[Jhoffa_]

.. plus, they often can't stand to see a successful marriage when their own marriage/relationships failed so dismally.

I think you hit a key point right there.

It bears repeating.

[glm]

men invented washing machines and vacuum cleaners and all the other wonderful efficient home appliances. Women had free time and went to work. That is the reason not that women have the right to vote.

[stumpy]

I never saw it coming, and she talked me into moving out on a "trial" separation. 3 weeks later she threw the kids out, and 10 minutes after getting the kids she hit me with the divorce papers and the restraining order.

Two months later she hit me with a custody fight for 1 of 2 children (devastated the one she didn't want). Took all of my assetts to get custody (16 years ago), and now I'm 55 and totally broke.

[Balto_Boy]

I appreciate your point, but what good does it do to talk about how fathers are being taken out of the family, when male behavior has everything to do with enabling it? What good does it do to talk about men not getting equal protection from spouse abuse, when it's men who laugh it off and redicule other male victims, and it's men in the system, whether it be police or judges, who won't take it seriously? I don't enjoy male bashing any more than the next guy, but nothing is going to change until men stop choosing to be part of the problem.

[Jhoffa_]

While you're at it, you might try to stop putting words in my mouth.

No, you believe in marriage that cannot be disolved.. except some times.. and then you also disagree in people being treated with equality and fairness before the law.

The fact of the matter is that I think you just want the playing field slanted in your direction and if little things like right and wrong get trampled along the way then so be it.

That's what I think.

[Balto_Boy]

Women who make the decision/choice to have children sans the daddy need to be aware that it is on them to support their offspring, no ands, ifs, or buts.

Why should a boy have to live without support from both parents because his father doesn't want to accept responsibility for his actions? Where is your concern for the rights of these boys?

[SarahW]

WHy did you divorce her?

[Nick Danger]

how much due diligence was performed on these wives? Were the main criteria used how good she was in bed and what she looked like in a bathing suit?

It doesn't matter. For once in your life, try -- just try -- to rise above the individual cases and look at the trend involving millions of people. The continued existence of your civilization may depend on it.

Half of the nation's children are not living in the same home with their biological fathers. You have young men, and women, avoiding marriage like the plague. Half of the men who have gone into marriage come out the other side warning younger ones not to go near it. Everything we know tells us that massive-scale single parenthood is a disaster, a recipe for a civilization that will crack apart, unable to properly raise its young. Yet the policies of our government are creating more of this every day. And the best you can do is make snide remarks about men? Thanks for thinking so hard about this.

[William Terrell]

I looked over the site and it looks alright, but there seems to be some defects of legal logic in the common law marriage piece.

[SarahW]

"don't have to earn a living any more than the housewife mom"

I see you don't place any value on the role I play in my family.