Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A 'Marriage Strike' Emerges As Men Decide Not To Risk Loss
The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | July 5, 2002 | Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

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.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: donutwatch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 781-798 next last
To: 2sheep
Excellent post!
81 posted on 07/06/2002 7:56:48 AM PDT by SouthernFreebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
So that's your photo I saw in the dictionary when I looked up "Bitter Woman". You need to buy a clue. You sound like someone who would benefit mightily from our "family" aka feminist courts.
82 posted on 07/06/2002 7:57:17 AM PDT by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
But if there's a divorce a couple of years down the road, he's right back where he started.

I'm not saying this just to whine...
but I suspect that a fair accounting might show that he's actually worse off given
the total picture.
Lots of "lost opportunity costs" in this picture, as the lawyers like to say.
83 posted on 07/06/2002 7:57:38 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
"They refuse to commit, refuse to settle down, and refuse to "grow up.""

And, the same goes for the "women." If I were a guy, I wouldn't commit to these bozos either.

84 posted on 07/06/2002 7:57:44 AM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
I agree and hope men will pull it together enough to dismantle a lot of this legal crapola.

The feminist movement destroyed the family. Women were convinced that marriage was dumb and they should give it away for free in order to be "free" and men got used to getting it for free. However, when they let go of the responsibility that comes with marriage and children they lost many legal rights. That fathers were so successfully disassociated from their children in the womb and could not assert their right to stop an abortion was a major victory for those who would destroy the family.

85 posted on 07/06/2002 7:58:35 AM PDT by ethical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wondervixen
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

No fault divorce has seduced some women to overlook this quality when things get a little tough in a marriage as they always do.

86 posted on 07/06/2002 7:58:57 AM PDT by Navy Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
"If I were a guy, I wouldn't commit to these bozos either."

I think that I left something out. Let's try again.

"If I were a guy looking for a good woman, I wouldn't commit to these bozos either."

87 posted on 07/06/2002 7:59:30 AM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Balto_Boy
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.

Of course the judicial system has a lot to do with this! Why do you think they are not getting married????? Not wanting to marry does not mean they do not want to have sex. Oh, and last time I heard it takes two....

88 posted on 07/06/2002 7:59:59 AM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Wondervixen
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!

That's exactly how I feel about my wife. She doesn't have a vindictive bone in her body and I am lucky to have found her. So many of my friends and family members were not so lucky and it has costed them enormously. My wife's mother is a different story however. She has been divorced and is always looking for a man with money to latch on to. A truly miserable person and if my wife ever decided to leave me, she would be in her glory and would happily connive with her daughter to take me for evey penny.

89 posted on 07/06/2002 8:00:48 AM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX
Nobody is promised a perfect life.

Best statement of the thread. Reminds me of the parable in the Bible of the fellow that hires some people in the morning to do some work for an agreed 1 buck. Later in the day (say midday) he hires some more and says they will be paid fairly, then in the evening he hires a couple more people. Well at the end of the day, he pays them all equally 1 buck. The ones that worked all day complained they should be paid more. But life ain't always "fair" is it. Get over it and go on. The wise know this and keep moving along...

90 posted on 07/06/2002 8:01:04 AM PDT by LowOiL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 2sheep
Thanks for the link. I think I'll throw in Machiavelli, Kant, Nietzche and Sartre to his list of those pining toward the downfall of western civilization. ;)
91 posted on 07/06/2002 8:01:56 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ethical
and men got used to getting it for free

It's still not free just by not marrying the women if you still have to pay child support for children she might have outside of marriage.

92 posted on 07/06/2002 8:02:03 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
Whoever said that women were whiners must never had read many threads on FR!
93 posted on 07/06/2002 8:02:15 AM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
... fairness to women is a much higher priority for men than fairness to men is a priority of women.

This is going to get me thouroughly flamed, but ... women seem to a have a potential for pettiness unknown in men and a capacity to lie convincingly on almost any subject. The prevalent legal and social structures now encourage these character flaws and the consequences for men, for children and for our future are quite negative. If all little girls had been required to attend Catholic parochial school where the nuns brook no female nonsense, we would all be living in a better adult world, and I am not even Catholic. All young men, likewise, should have been required to do a stint in the army, with the same objective.

94 posted on 07/06/2002 8:02:53 AM PDT by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Don Myers
Do I detect shades of "Why American Men Prefer Asian Women" here? :)
95 posted on 07/06/2002 8:03:35 AM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
This was inevitable. Liberal courts and confiscatory child support laws have virtually destroyed the American family. The socialist plan is coming together nicely. Let's see if biological and social pressure can crush it.
96 posted on 07/06/2002 8:03:52 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Many here blame poor people for having child after child even though the parents cannot even feed themselves without public assistance.

Yet the modern family of all classes has also become nearly as vulnerable--in some ways, more vulnerable.

We are not safe in our neighborhoods or homes.

We are not safe from crime--we are not even allowed to protect our families or have those who harm our families punished.

And we are not safe from economic dislocation.

And our children are not safe from predators and not safe from an evil influence that permeates popular culture and is certain to corrupt even the best of them to some degree.

This is not a society in which it is wise to start a family--that would be building a castle in the sand.


97 posted on 07/06/2002 8:03:53 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer
Your observation about alimony (which some states with cruel humor call "spousal support") is accurate. It is based on the twin principles of:

1. The less she contributed during the marriage, the more money she deserves after it, and,

2. The more generous he was during the marriage, the more he will be punished afterward.

Furthermore, any man contemplating marriage needs to know that under the law, the State considers itself to be a third party in the relationship.
98 posted on 07/06/2002 8:05:11 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
How sweet.......a thread for male bonding.

It's a daily thread. Jim Rob should give it it's own forum.

99 posted on 07/06/2002 8:05:12 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: College Repub
"Can't Pre-nup's take care of this?"

Pre-nups usually take care of assets acquired BEFORE marriage, as I understand it. And, then there is the emotional cost when these "liberated women" decide to leave for greener pastures.

100 posted on 07/06/2002 8:05:21 AM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 781-798 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson