"Fathers Count"

Mens News Daily ^ | June 7, 2003 | Isaiah Flair

[Z in Oregon]

Fathers Count

June 4, 2003

---

by Isaiah Flair

---

I just read Stephen Baskerville's insightful and timely commentary on government marriage programs. It occurred to me that if the government or anyone else wants to save marriage, it has to be done in significant part...perhaps in most significant part...by addressing divorce.

You know, if presumptive joint physical custody were legislated into being and enforced as binding upon the family courts (with allowable exceptions being specifically delineated and, where objected to by one divorcing spouse, subject to a strict scrutiny standard), divorce rates would plummet like a vulture shot out of the sky.

That comparision holds in more ways than one.

Sociologically, one major unspoken presumption in the public's acceptance of draconian treatment of noncustodial parents (and the financial assets thereof) is that he (the divorced husband) must have abandoned her (the divorced wife). Of course, statistically, that is untrue by a very big ratio. Husbands only initiate divorce in 25% of cases, and that may be even less when the marital union has produced children.

Simply put, most parents don't want to lose their children, to become mere visitors in their children's lives.

Thus, the group of parents that is most likely to lose their children in the event of a divorce (fathers) are the ones most unlikely to intiate the divorce in the first place.

Correspondingly, the group of parents that is least likely to lose their children in the event of a divorce (mothers) are the ones most likely to intiate the divorce in the first place.

Basic math, a very simple inverse relationship between probable effect and source of cause.

Another major unspoken presumption in the public's acceptance of draconian treatment of noncustodial parents (and the emotional health thereof) is that he (the children's father) must not have wanted custody of the couple's children, or probably just wants visitation anyway, or probably wouldn't be much good raising children because he has a Y chromosome.

The first two parts of that, the idea that men don't want custody and just barely want visitation, is a myth belied by the fact that virtually every mainstream men's group is a father's rights group: an association of guys who love their own children and want to raise them.

The third part, that a divorced/single father wouldn't be much good raising children (compared to his children's equally divorced/single mother) because he has a Y chromosome, is an interesting one.

Interesting, in part, because it is a view put out into society and the media by both traditionalists and gender-feminists. A number of people would presume that traditionalists and gender-feminists have opposite points of view.

A number of people presume incorrectly.

Both traditionalists and gender-feminists scoff at the idea of fathers changing diapers, giving bottles, singing lullabies, drying tears, soothing fears, and happily, capably providing all the care and devotion that their little son or daughter may need.

It is this scoffing which feeds the systemic presumption of maternal custody in divorce. That presumption, in turn, is the one thing above all else which brought the divorce rates to the high level they are at today, and is likely to take them even higher as time goes by.

But let's be real: the physical tasks of taking care of one's children are not difficult to master.

And, moreover and fundamentally, the deepness of love that a good father feels for his children is in no way less than that of a good mother for her children.

Love is a human trait, not one restricted to, or found disproportionately within, only one half of the human race.

Isaiah Flair

[SauronOfMordor]

The experiences of your two friends do not change the fact that 'women trading up' is a generalization.

The original statement to which you objected was "Women tend to want to trade up sometimes". He did not say "Women always divorce in order to trade up" nor "Women usually divorce to trade up". He said "sometimes". For his statement to be true, all that is needed is to show that it is true in some non-zero number of cases, which is what I did.

As far as being a generalization, in what way does that make it invalid or bad? One can say "birds fly" without being jumped on (even though penguins and ostriches don't fly).

[visualops]

You're splitting hairs.
The original statement was a series of comments about the problems of easy divorce. One of those comments was:
"The other factor is the almighty dollar. Women tend to want to trade up sometimes."

Taken together, there is no doubt in my mind the intended effect of, and the emotion behind, that comment.

Like I said, the experiences of your two friends do not change the fact that the original comment was an unfair generalization.

"For his statement to be true, all that is needed is to show that it is true in some non-zero number of cases, which is what I did."
That's a bunch of horse-hockey. I wouldn't even take credit for an arguement like that lol
I did not say that women never "trade up".
It would be just as unfair for someone to make a generalization about men dumping old wives for new ones.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Related Articles

Let’s Talk About Paternity Fraud: What’s Going On?
Source: Parents Against Paternity Fraud; Author: Dr. Damon Adams

Bills could end child support payments from men who aren't biological dads
Source: MLIVE.com; Author: The Associated Press

Violence prompts closer look at plight of divorced fathers
Source: The Star-Ledger: Published: November 25, 2002; Author:| DAVID CRARY

A ‘Scarlet Letter’ Law Fla. Adoption Statute Pits Fathers’ Rights Against Women’s Privacy
Source: ABC’s 20/20; Published: September 20, 2002; Author: John Stossel

Ca NOW to Sue Fathers Orgs. Under RICO
Source: FOX News; Published:October 29, 2002; Author: Wendy McElroy

California Governor Davis Preserves, Protects Paternity Fraud
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 04, 2002; Author: Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

No Restraint On Restraining Orders
Source: CNSNews..com; Published: September 23, 2002; Author: Stephen Baskerville

The Child Support Agenda
Source: Men's News Daily; Published: July 17, 2002; Author: Roger F. Gay

Fathers Bear the Brunt of Gender Bias in Family Courts
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: July 29, 2002; Author: Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks

'The Children Of Children' A Rockin' Window On Divorce
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: July 29, 2002; Author: Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.

Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths
Source: Men's News Daily; Published: July 22, 2002; Author: Roger F. Gay

Why There Are So Many Women in the Fathers' Movement
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: June 21, 2002; Author: Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

How to end the war against divorced dads
Source:National Post; Published: March 28, 2000; Author: Donna Laframboise

[SauronOfMordor]

I did not say that women never "trade up". It would be just as unfair for someone to make a generalization about men dumping old wives for new ones.

Dumping old wives for new ones IS also a factor in divorce. I never said it wasn't. Just take a look at Hollywood -- people recycle wives (and husbands) there all the time. ANd the new spouse of the main-income-getter generally seems to be a trade-up from the old one.

Both sides experience temptation for "trade up". For men, the time window generally is when they are at their peak earning power. For women, the time window is when they are mature but still youthful-looking.

The underlying factor in divorce is the decision that the divorcing partner can do better without the partner being divorced. Sometimes that means "getting a better replacement spouse", other times being alone is better than being in the same house as the other spouse.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Excellent song... thought provoking.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Like my mother used to say, "You don't leave something, for nothing."

[longtermmemmory]

You should see the women who view divorce as if it is cashing in an insurance policy. A man can't use the "my wife refused to get breast implants" defense in deciding how marital assets are going to be divided. HOWEVER, there is a case which determined withholding sex was marital abuse and did negate a wifes interest in monies spent on a mistress.

No matter how you cut it, divorce is and will always be a screwed up area of law. There is no real marriages for young people to model their marriages. The only message about marriage in the public schools is directed to girls and its always "men are bad and will leave you" or some such varient.

Oh well, at least feminism gave access to sex without commmittment. (sarcasm) Useful idiot feminists are easy.

[visualops]

You do understand what a generalization is, don't you?
It's a sweeping statement that is *true in some cases but not most*.
I was never expressing a belief that any of the statements were false. My original comment was directed at a post that made what I felt was a blanket misrepresentative statement.

There are a myriad reasons for divorce, and you cannot take a few examples, such as your friends, or Hollywood couples (yeah, they're representative of average people!), in an attempt to validate an incorrect generalization.

"The underlying factor in divorce is the decision that the divorcing partner can do better without the partner being divorced"
That is *a* reason for divorce, and simplistic. It would be more accurate, but equally simplistic, to say "people get divorced because they don't want to be married anymore". . There are as many reasons for divorce as there are couples.
Also keep in mind the spouse initiating the divorce may not be the one who necessarily *wants* to be divorced, but they may feel there is no alternative, such as in cases of infidelity or abuse.

And, not to defend anyone in particular, but if a divorcee, man or woman, does "better" the next time around, is that a bad thing? Unless they've actually got someone lined up in the wings, the fact that someone does better financially the next time around is their choice.

[visualops]

Well, I'd be tempted to say there are many men who'd like to "have their cake and eat it too", in the form of a working wife who also does housework and cooking, (or a woman who stays home and takes care of the house), while they go "out with the guys".
It takes all kinds, and just as some stupid feminism male-bashes, many young men today feel no responsibility whatsoever to their girlfriends, wives, or children, especially the in now old-fashioned notions of honor and chivalry. Nowadays you're just as likely to find a guy that not only expects you to pay your own way, but looks for you to "put out" as well. It works both ways.

The problem with marriage and divorce is not simply what's taught in school, it's the general victim/I'm not responsible/make my life easy attitude that's so prevalent. people are quick to give up and move on when life isn't all rosey right off the bat.

[HitmanLV]

Well, I'd be tempted to say there are many men who'd like to "have their cake and eat it too", in the form of a working wife who also does housework and cooking, (or a woman who stays home and takes care of the house), while they go "out with the guys".

Well, Heaven knows I do!!! :-)

[visualops]

lol!

[longtermmemmory]

I see people comming into the office who should never have been married in the first place. It seems they thought marriage was just some extended date.

common mistakes; -planning the wedding as if it is the end all instead of just the begining.

-listening to what the girlfriends tell you he should be doing and not telling each other. (same for him)

-girls night out/guys night out. (to the extent marriage is an inconvenience)

-no effort to take interest in other persons interests. (golf, fishing, antiquing)

-sex frequency increasing/decreasing.

-not agreeing how to handle familiy and personal finances. (ie all joint, all seperate, or combination)

-being married but living/planning to be single. (secret accounts, etc.)

-not understanding that looking compromised disrepects her as much as yourself. (reverse for her too) Being married means you do not act unattached even if no one will find out. (they always do at some point)

-refusal to get some form of marriage counseling by one or both.


There is nothing wrong with a man wanting a wife who will be the homemaker BUT (there is always a but) there has to be a clear understanding in advance. A career first oriented woman would be a bad match for the traditional marriage. Most of these consideration can be delt with in pre-marriage classes. I am a firm believer in these classes. In some states there is a waiting period for a marriage lic. unless you have taken a class.

[longtermmemmory]

in nature they call this the "bruce effect". A female bird will expell the sperm of a male bird who inseminated her if a more virile male bird appears and is ready to mate with her.

Its not about women being a slut, its about a complete absense of character.

[visualops]

Yep...

People will point to deception & deceit as a factor in the failure of a marriage. Indeed, it's a personal failure. Being dishonest with oneself (and therefore the future spouse) makes for trying to build a future on false pretenses. A house of cards doesn't stay standing for long.

[RogerFGay]

You know, if presumptive joint physical custody were legislated into being and enforced as binding upon the family courts (with allowable exceptions being specifically delineated and, where objected to by one divorcing spouse, subject to a strict scrutiny standard), divorce rates would plummet like a vulture shot out of the sky.

You mean abolish so-called "no-fault" divorce?

[longtermmemmory]

The only flaw, (I agree with no-fault being a problem not a solution btw) is that the implication is that a divorce could be denied. How can you force people to stay married when the do not want to? If its an issue of property ditribution then all cards are still on the table, especially if the HUSBAND has spent money on a mistress. Divorce courts are still very very very sexist when it comes to men vs women. Tender years doctrine may be outlawed but it is still followed by judges. Visitation violations are glossed over but child support is enforced with an iron fist.

So I am open to suggestions. What to do in place of no fault?

[RogerFGay]

Apply individual human rights like the Constitution intends. Presumptive joint custody and equal responsibility; as well as deviations accepting appropriate arrangements that avoid vesting control in a parent that denies children the right to the other parent, all stem from the Constitutions meaning that the government should be forced to do the least harm.

[longtermmemmory]

The main problem is that judeges will use such legal babble to achieve the result they want regardless of what the law writes (ala the french). One really easy step would be mandate a verbatim record of all civil custody and divorce hearings with a court reporter. (no tape, tape can be fuzzy with emotional people raising voices)

[honeygrl]

I don't understand how the article means for the couple to share the kids in those ways though.. does it mean require them to live together regardless of being divorced to share the children? I didn't really comprehend a lot of what the article was saying. It looked like he was also trying to put the fault of divorce mostly on females as well which I can't agree with considering that even though females may usually initiate the divorce, they may have had good reason for doing so. I guess I just didn't understand much of the article altogether.

[honeygrl]

"The other factor is the almighty dollar. Women tend to want to trade up sometimes."

While women may tend to want to trade up for more money, there are also too many men who want to trade up for other females. (greener pastures) Though I do agree that any father who isn't abusive or into substance abuse should get as much time with their kids as the mom does. I know if my hubby and I ever split, no matter how upset with him I might be, I could never keep my kids from their daddy. They love him too much and I know he would put them before me any day (as would I.)