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.

[yankeedog]

God gave man a penis and a brain, but only enough blood supply to run one at a time.

[Hostage]

No doubt.

But one can imagine the extrapolation to common law horrors.

[independentmind]

Okay, I will retract my comment about whining. Some men have a legitimate gripe about the way they are treated in divorce court.

Do not for a moment assume that I underestimate the gravity of the situation. I know full well what an important influence good fathers have on their children; I have had a lot of time to think about that since the death of my own father a few years ago.

What I think you are missing, though, is that the type of conversation that is occurring on this thread will do nothing to heal the wounds that men and women have inflicted upon each other in the last few decades. Conservatives need to find ways to support the lifelong commitment of one man to one woman-which just happens to be the best known environment to raise happy, healthy children. Would you like to explain to me how improving men's rights in divorce proceedings advances this end?

[buccaneer81]

Would you like to explain to me how improving men's rights in divorce proceedings advances this end?

Fairness and equality. That's all that's necessary. If that had been the applied standard from the start, there would be no men's rights movement.

[Bonaparte]

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

Not so, not so. I simply pointed out that women of "independent means" do not have to show up at a regular job or pursue a living and therefore have lots of free time for meddling and other mischief -- if they're so disposed. Such opportunities are as close as their telephone.

[2sheep]

For you guys who are still shopping, some notes from the trenches.  The early warning signs of marital incompatibility

Your post #113 is excellent.  It shows a lot of wisdom and understanding of what to look for, good and bad, in a prospective spouse.  Many people only pay attention to the outside when you have pointed out 10 crucial items which demonstrate what is on the inside...character or its lack.

[independentmind]

Fairness and equality. That's all that's necessary. If that had been the applied standard from the start, there would be no men's rights movement.

An interesting comment, buccaneer81. Wasn't it women's cries for "fairness and equality" that, in large part, created the current mess? Women and men will never be equal; they weren't designed to be.

[Centurion2000]

"If if flys, floats, or f****, rent it. While the original price of ownership may seem low, the maintenance will kill you."

Extremely cynical, but I'd still nominate it for quote of the day.

[balrog666]

What I think you are missing, though, is that the type of conversation that is occurring on this thread will do nothing to heal the wounds that men and women have inflicted upon each other in the last few decades.

Absolutely wrong. Only through discussions like this do most people find out that their story is not unique, not even as rare as they thought, and allow them to put the blame where it belongs. Which is on stupid laws with perverse incentives passed by idiot legislators appeasing the horrors of feminazism at the behest moronic advocate-buffoons like you.

Note: that's not a personal attack.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Oh, and DC9 captains cant be stupid, can they?

[Nick Danger]

Would you like to explain to me how improving men's rights in divorce proceedings advances this end?

Easy. It will reduce the divorce rate, probably dramatically. The wholesale bias of the family court system in favor of women almost pays women to get divorced. As others have pointed out here, a woman who is "thinking about" getting divorced because she's bored, or because he puts the toilet paper roll on backwards, or some other stupid thing does not find her friends recoiling in horror -- as would have happened thirty years ago. Instead, she's immediately surrounded by Helpful Friends who tell her that she can have the house all to herself, the Benz and the Land Rover. She'll probably get the savings account, and of course custody of the children is a slam dunk. Hey, everybody's doing it... you can join our divorced wives club... we hit Chippendale's every Thursday. C'mon, Linda, it'll be fun.

The lawyer, whom her friends put her in touch with, tells her not to worry that John will be angry. "We'll get a restraining order. He'll be out of the house so fast his head will spin." It will all be hers in no time flat. No fuss, no muss, no bother. Best of all, there's no fee for any of this... the judge will stick ol' John with the bill for his own hosing.

Given that we didn't used to have a 50% divorce rate, and given that the human condition has not changed all that much in thirty years, we have to suspect that a lot of angst that today causes divorces was once considered part of the game... something you slogged through because that's what life was... slogging through. We have, however, made it so easy, and so lucrative, for women to actually pursue divorce, that situations that never would have gotten that far in our parents' day turn into knock-down drag-outs with lawyers and psychologists and restraining orders flying in every direction. How do we stop this?

Suppose when the next woman mentions to her friend that she's "thinking about" a divorce, her friend tells her, "Well, you know, it's not like it used to be. You could lose the kids. And the house. You might not, but it's a possibility. They don't just automatically give it to the woman anymore."

When this one calls a lawyer, she hears, "We'll need $1,000 up front to prepare the paperwork. If you're seeking custody, we'll need another $8,000, just to start."

Wanna bet the day that happens, the divorce rate drops like a rock?

[independentmind]

There certainly are some buffoons on this thread, but I'm not one of them. I'll give you a word of advice. Before you start slinging around what you think are clever insults, you may want to check your grammar. A poorly phrased barb loses it sting as soon as it leaves your keyboard.

[philomath]

Would you like to explain to me how improving men's rights in divorce proceedings advances this end?you're right. from that perspective it won't solve what you (and most of the male posters here, believe it or not) see as the culprit: shattering of the foundations for the nuclear family. where we disagree is how we came to this place, and how to move beyond it. demonization of males, so much so that legally accomodated discrimination is countenanced, is undesirable in and of itself. having to be in divorce court in the first place is probably worse, but the solution is much harder....

[jackbill]

Any time you feel like marrying, find a woman that you hate, buy her a house - and get on with your life.

[buccaneer81]

Oh, and DC9 captains cant be stupid, can they?

The one in question sure can be. He sleeps with men now.

[independentmind]

ND, let's just leave it that we have a disagreement about means. I prefer the abolition of no-fault divorce as the solution.

[buccaneer81]

Any time you feel like marrying, find a woman that you hate, buy her a house - and get on with your life.

So THAT's what I did wrong! I did it out of order! ;-)

[FITZ]

That would lower the divorce rate, custody of the children should be given more often than it is to men, if the wife is having an affair and wants to leave the husband for another man, she should not get custody. Divorce shouldn't be made harder if any of the 3 A's are involved (abuse, addiction, and adultery) because those marriages need to end but it shouldn't be as casual as it apparently is.

[Tazlo]

Ever dated a 'bad boy'? Ever liked a 'bad boy'? Answer "yes," and I am over and out.

Whoa! You're brutal! Why not ask, "If you've ever dated a bad boy, didja learn anything? Would you ever do it again?"

[wanderin]

How many men will admit or remember if they encouraged/silently watched their sister (daughter,or any other married female in distress of their acquaintance) take a hubby to the cleaners. Who said nothing or encouraged it because "this" woman deserved it.

Are they standing up for other men on a regular basis defending and urging what is right? How many male relatives are encouraging the wife to clean hubbys wealth?