The Politics of Fatherhood

American Political Science Association ^ | Dec. 2002 | Stephen Baskerville

[RogerFGay]

I don't have access to my normal ping list from where I am now.

[martin_fierro]

President Bill Clinton stated in 1995 that "the single biggest social problem in our society may be the growing absence of fathers from their children's homes, because it contributes to so many other social problems."

Uh huh.

And he said it just as he was boinking Monica Lewinsky.

[ClearCase_guy]

An idea just popped into my head. I haven't really thought about it for more than a minute, so perhaps it's foolish. But, I'm wondering what would happen if it was established by statute that the party who files for divorce cannot receive custody of the child. Flat-out, written in stone you get a divorce if you are willing to give up your children.

Child custody battles would disappear because there would be nothing in dispute. Divorce rates would plummet. 2-parent families would sky-rocket. Oh, yeah, unhappy marriages would increase. But my understanding is that couples who have problems, yet stay together, almost always work through their problems and end up fairly happy together.

I'm thinking this would lead to greater happiness for most people in our society, and less happiness for only a very small number of people.

[buccaneer81]

Please add me to your ping list.

[Joe Brower]

Urrp! Thanks. There goes breakfast. $;-)

[dpa5923]

although on the surface a good idea, what happens when one party is abusive to the other to the point of threaten a spouses or childs life?

I wish I had an answer, but I don't. I do think your idea is a start in the right direction though.

[ikka]

As one father reports being told by the chief investigator for the administrator of the courts in New Jersey, investigating a complaint in 1998: "The provisions of the U.S. Constitution do not apply in domestic relations cases since they are determined in a court of equity rather than court of law." A connected rule, known as the "domestic relations exception," prevents federal courts exercising constitutional review over family law cases.

Interesting. If the court is not bound by the US Constitution, why do you have to follow what the court says?

[drjoe]

But, I'm wondering what would happen if it was established by statute that the party who files for divorce cannot receive custody of the child


Dream on. My wife filed for divorce and promptly enrolled my two kids in a cult [Forum]. She, of course, got full custody and now, twelve years later the kids are on their own but I have no doubt that they have been negatively affected by this. For those who truly love their children there is always lurking in the back of our minds the thought that it would be better for us to simply pack up, write the extortionist checks and vanish so as to spare the children any more pain. The man who marries and who has children in todays American Society is a fool.

[KantianBurke]

bump!!

[Orangedog]

R2P-This is what I have been trying to explain last night:

As one father reports being told by the chief investigator for the administrator of the courts in New Jersey, investigating a complaint in 1998: "The provisions of the U.S. Constitution do not apply in domestic relations cases since they are determined in a court of equity rather than court of law." A connected rule, known as the "domestic relations exception," prevents federal courts exercising constitutional review over family law cases.

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the whole system of protections does not apply to us. Federal Courts are NOT ALLOWED to step in for judicial review, even if they wanted to. That piece of parchment in the national archives in Washington DC has no legal standing for protecting anyone who meets the two standards of (1) being a parent and (2) having been born with a dominant "Y" chromosome. How do you fight to change a system when we have no rights, no means of legal redress and no Constitutional protections? The Al Qaeda detaininees at Gitmo have more rights than the American father.

[BuddhaBoy]

Please add me to your ping list

[ClearCase_guy]

I'm sorry that happened to you and to your children. I think that it's pretty frequent in these days, and very sad. Just to make it clear: in my shoot-from-the-hip idea, if your wife filed for divorce, she could not have received custody of the children. She might have put herself in a cult, but the children would be with you. I bet that would have been a better solution. But, that's a solution that exists only in my own imagination -- in the real world, the outcome you experienced is what many people get stuck with. It's tragic.

[BuddhaBoy]

The man who marries and who has children in todays American Society is a fool.

Correct.

Wives and Children are the government's primary method of controlling men. With one phone call, a man can be removed from his home, and possibly never see his children again, regardless of the truth of any accusation made against him.

It is politically incorrect to state the obvious, but the fact is that nothing is going to change, until men start refusing to marry women and father children. When the pool of eligible bachelors starts to shrink, and women understand exactly why, then things will change.

I advise every single man I meet, to NEVER consider marriage, and if a man is already married, the single worst thing he can do for his future, his credit, his ability to work, and his SANITY, is to not have children that can be turned into weapons against him in a whim.

Once a man has a wife and children, he is at the mercy of the state for anything and everything he does that his wife does not approve of. If he goes fishing or hunting, with other men, it will be described in Divorce Court as neglecting his children. If he works hard to provide a nice home and life, he will be called a workaholic, again neglecting his family.

If he spends too much time at home, he is a hovering, control freak. He cannot win, and will be shunted to the side, a government slave assigned to pay for his former wife and children forever, while she moves the pool boy into the house he is paying for, who will now be called 'daddy' by his former children.

All this comes from the personal experience of friends of mine, who tell me that they would rather see me dead than married. I for one, will never, ever consider marriage or children under any circumstances. I have a wonderful girlfriend, but she knows that if she starts getting the urge to merge, I will kick her to the curb without a second thought.

[Centurion2000]

bump ....

[RogerFGay]

Your idea would not have seemed strange before Ronald Reagan introduced so-called "no-fault" divorce. The people who file for divorce these days typically lack reasonable grounds for breaking the marriage contract and breaking the family. It's only been within the past quarter century that marriage as a legal institution has been abolished (elimination of the marriage contract through introduction of "no-fault") and transformed into an institution of pure political corruption and pork barreling. Once no-fault was introduced, it opened the door to -- among the other things -- group politics. Individual rights and due process were eliminated and everything became the man's fault. People who get rich and famous from corruption were given the perfect medium.

[Orangedog]

I advise every single man I meet, to NEVER consider marriage, and if a man is already married, the single worst thing he can do for his future, his credit, his ability to work, and his SANITY, is to not have children that can be turned into weapons against him in a whim.

Tagically, you speak the truth. I got the up-close and personal treatment by the industry many years ago and consider myself lucky to have a relationship with my one and only child. It burns me up to no end that the one person on this planet that I cheerish the most is nothing but cannon-fodder to a manipulative ex-wife and a power hungry joint venture of government and the private sector.

After the most recent sausage aenima by the industry two years ago, I went and had a vasectomy, even though the last time I dated anyone, the democrats controlled the House, Senate, and the White House. A little unconfortable for a week or so, but worth the peace of mind, knowing that once I finish raising my child, the industry will never have a hold on me again.

[RogerFGay]

Interesting. If the court is not bound by the US Constitution, why do you have to follow what the court says?

Because the power of the courts extends beyond writing down ideas on paper. People who do not do what they're told, no matter how illegal the process or the order, go to jail -- i.e. if they can figure out how to avoid the illegal order in the first place. These days courts routinely order cooperation from uninvolved parties to enforce orders. For example, a child support order is carried out by taking money directly from the paycheck via the employer. The person whose pay is being stolen never gets his hands on it.

[RogerFGay]

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the whole system of protections does not apply to us. Federal Courts are NOT ALLOWED to step in for judicial review, even if they wanted to. That piece of parchment in the national archives in Washington DC has no legal standing for protecting anyone who meets the two standards of (1) being a parent and (2) having been born with a dominant "Y" chromosome. How do you fight to change a system when we have no rights, no means of legal redress and no Constitutional protections? The Al Qaeda detaininees at Gitmo have more rights than the American father.

Criminals have a lot more rights than fathers. You hit the nail on the head. It started when the federal government became involved, illegally. Since they couldn't be involved legallly, everything had to be done using the organized crime model instead of the constitutional model.

[BuddhaBoy]

Welcome to the Vasectomy club. Hurts like a bitch for awhile, dont it? However, it was the best idea I ever had. I've got a few billion swimmers frozen should I ever get crazy enough about someone to change my mind, on my doctor's request.

I feel great about the fact that no woman is ever going to stick me for child support, as long as I dont do something as foolish as to marry a single mother. I understand that in some states, you can be stuck paying child support for STEP-CHILDREN if they become accustomed to your standard of living.

Two things: No marriage and no children, mean no government control over your money or your life, and you dont end up having to buy a house for someone you hate.