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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 751-798 next last
I couldn't agree more with this piece. One has to live through this mess to comprehend the devastation that ensues thanks to our feminized court system and the legislators who continue to tear up the constitution when it comes to matters of child custody and child support.
1 posted on 07/06/2002 5:00:20 AM PDT by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lil'freeper
Big'ol_bump
2 posted on 07/06/2002 5:08:56 AM PDT by big'ol_freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
The courts have no business getting into ordering child support. Whoever the kids live with can support them.
3 posted on 07/06/2002 5:19:22 AM PDT by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Glad I got married before I read this.

The article is, of course, undeniably true. The divorce laws in this nation are insane. A wife's lawyer will almost always try to get a restraining order on the husband--regardless of whether or not the husband is any risk--because a restraining order is powerful leverage with the court. "Hhmmm....he's so terrible and threatening she had to get a restraining order to protect herself and her children from this monster." The family court system requires a complete overhaul.

4 posted on 07/06/2002 5:20:50 AM PDT by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81; Prodigal Daughter; Thinkin' Gal; Jeremiah Jr; Crazymonarch; babylonian; mancini
What a sad state for the nation! The satanic agenda through the Marxists and globalists has pushed for this day. They want to destroy family and set up baby farms. This will be the result.
5 posted on 07/06/2002 5:21:41 AM PDT by 2sheep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Can't Pre-nup's take care of this? Men could hand the women a nice expensive ring on the condition she sign the pre-nup :) Outlining financial and other conditions should a divorce occurr for ANY reason...
6 posted on 07/06/2002 5:22:03 AM PDT by College Repub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Skooz
The family court system requires a complete overhaul.

It does but that is unlikely to happen.  Just as abortion and homosexuality are judgments of God on a nation, so is this situation of gov't "forbidding to marry" by making it too difficult.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

7 posted on 07/06/2002 5:26:44 AM PDT by 2sheep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
This is right on!! I've seen it so many times that I absolutely refuse to even get close to marriage. At least I'll be able to retire some day.

The article forgot to mention alimony which is still popular in some jurisdictions. My friend got the son in his divorce (the boy was 16, chose to live with dad), but still had to pay some crazy amount on the order of $2000 per month for 4 or 5 years so that she could "get back on her feet". Heck, in my court, she would have paid back rent to him for the time she spent living under his paycheck. :^)

This ought to get a rise out of someone...

8 posted on 07/06/2002 5:30:16 AM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Truly gives more meaning to the old adage:

Marry in haste, repent at leisure!

9 posted on 07/06/2002 5:30:22 AM PDT by CatoRenasci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
&#!*)%@ feminists have ruined the institution of marriage in the U.S. for both men and women.
10 posted on 07/06/2002 5:32:09 AM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
Yep... marriage is just too risky for a man today. If his woman and kids stuck around that would be one thing. But if there's a divorce a couple of years down the road, he's right back where he started. No wonder so many men opt to stay single. Unless our national policies make marriage rewarding for men its better to avoid the grief and disillusion that comes with falling out of love and getting stuck with the bills.
11 posted on 07/06/2002 5:33:59 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: meyer
in my court, she would have paid back rent to him for the time she spent living under his paycheck.

Run in my jurisdiction and you have my vote, Judge Meyer. : O )

12 posted on 07/06/2002 5:34:27 AM PDT by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: College Repub
Pre-nuptial agreements can help, providing they are VERY well drafted so as to be enforceable not only in the state where they were drawn (and you married), but in the jurisdiction you're living at the time of the divorce and (if there are significant assets involved) in each jurisdiciton where you have assets.

The problem is that some courts will reform the agreements or declare them void against public policy depending on the fact situations.

Pre-Nups are an area where only the best will do -- hire a real matrimonial expert as your attorney to draw it, not your regular trusts and estates lawyer or general practitioner who would draw your will. If you move to a new state, consult an expert in the new state as to the enforceablity of your Pre-Nup. And you will need to take special precautions if you are moving to (or living in) California, Texas, Louisiana or the other 'community property' states in which all earnings and assets aquired by a couple during the marraige are considered jointly owned 50/50.

13 posted on 07/06/2002 5:38:16 AM PDT by CatoRenasci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: meyer
You're so right about alimony. Check this out...

Child Support As Theft (Disguised Alimony)

14 posted on 07/06/2002 5:39:36 AM PDT by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
I think the biggest problem is that too many people rush into marriage with no counseling, and don't even consider finding someone of the same religion, abstaining till marriage, etc. Yes, the feminist movement is probably responsible for much of this. I married someone I met at a teen rally at my church, we both abstained till marriage, and I'm approaching a tenth anniversary now, with two wonderful kids, no problems in the relationship, and loving life.
15 posted on 07/06/2002 5:40:50 AM PDT by warped
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
I have never lived through anything like this, and I'm sure that I don't understand it fully, but I don't have any difficulty seeing the injustice--nobody does, who wants to see it.
16 posted on 07/06/2002 5:41:27 AM PDT by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
who wants to see it.

Oh believe me, there are millions who want to see it. Vengeful ex-wives, lawyers employed in the divorce industry and feminist (and feminized male) judges and activists.

17 posted on 07/06/2002 5:45:25 AM PDT by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
"The odds are 2 to 1 Katherine will initiate the divorce".

Down at the track, they call those odds a sure shot or "favorite".

18 posted on 07/06/2002 5:47:32 AM PDT by gitmogrunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
This is so sad..........and SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO true.
19 posted on 07/06/2002 5:53:17 AM PDT by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
I know guys who came home one day to an empty house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming.

Any guy who never even sees it coming is too clueless to live.

20 posted on 07/06/2002 5:56:26 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: warped
I'm happy for you and your family. Hope you make it "til death do you part."
21 posted on 07/06/2002 5:59:01 AM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
How sweet.......a thread for male bonding.
22 posted on 07/06/2002 6:01:31 AM PDT by SouthernFreebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
It's the Fem-a-nazi BS thrown at men during a divorce that hurts more than the money and probaly the leading cause of many.
23 posted on 07/06/2002 6:05:00 AM PDT by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
Which creates a self-fulfilling prophesy at the outset of a marriage...
24 posted on 07/06/2002 6:12:12 AM PDT by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: College Repub
Prenuptual agreements cannot cover matters involving children, only financial assets.

The "best interest of the child" at the time (at any time) is always the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
This will take a change in the law.
25 posted on 07/06/2002 6:14:39 AM PDT by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: warped
I am completely embarassed at today's wives and the complete lack of scruples they possess. Sure, it's one thing to be brainless and fall for a brute with muscles BECAUSE he's a "Bad Boy" and therefore, a project to be changed, but when you luck out and land one (like mine) who is "broken-in" and treats you and the children like gold, you don't go tossing him back, sticking a knife in him, and twisting it every chance you get just to be a bitch.

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, it is YOUR DUTY as a woman and mother to stand by him through the poor times and weather them till the good ones return, not play horse changer in mid-stream.

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!

26 posted on 07/06/2002 6:15:45 AM PDT by Wondervixen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Oh I believe you. I have no doubt whatsoever that what you say is true. But I do say that these people either see the injustice in what they do and choose to disregard it or that they do not see it because they don't want to. In either case, it's the same thing: injustice perpetrated by those fully capable of understanding what they are doing--and doing it anyway.
27 posted on 07/06/2002 6:16:07 AM PDT by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
The answer? Marry for love, not money. Include, if you want permanence, God in the contract. Make the vows meaning them. Take the time before the wedding (we took years) to really get to know each other, especially under pressure and in crisis. If money is your lodestone, study the wealthy. You'll discover that most of the wealthy (not including inheirited or 'found' wealth) marry into their own peer group and do so with the intent of permanence and with love as a prerequisite. (If you want love defined, imho it is the willingness to sacrifice for another.) In other words, imho, if you want money you first need love.
28 posted on 07/06/2002 6:18:58 AM PDT by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: College Repub
Watch it, bud. I mentioned on a thread a couple of months ago that I'd want a pre-nup before getting married, and man oh man did I get flamed! I wish I had a dollar for every time some sister Freeper told me something to the effect that "marriage is all about trust, and you should be willing to take that risk for love". When I mentioned that I wouldn't trust the women I meet with money for the next pitcher, I heard "well, it must be your fault for attracting the wrong type of woman".

Married Freepers just don't understand how slim the pickings are these days...whether at the local pub or the local church, most young, single women in this nation are Oprahtized, confused, money grubbing dingbats (or worse) that any man with a brain wouldn't have anything to do with! I know because I've dodged the bullet twice now. I'd like to think that "she" is out there, but the more I date and the more women I meet these days, the more pessimistic I get. If you're in college, I imagine you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Okay, flame away, you happily married folks who haven't been in the dating game for years.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

29 posted on 07/06/2002 6:24:42 AM PDT by wku man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
Marry in haste, repent at leisure!

We're all so conditioned to viewing men as bad guys that it has blinded us to the observation that government is operating a system that routinely rips fathers out of their childrens' lives. This is a very weird thing to have in a human society. I can't think of any examples from history of a society where government took human young away from their parents on a routine basis. This is inhuman, and that we do it at all tells us that our government and our culture fundamentally view men as sub-human animals. One would not do this to human beings.

As for the reaction of the men in this article, simple algebra tells us that as 'repent' increases, the amount of time which constitutes 'haste' must also increase. For sufficiently high values of repent, haste becomes longer than the typical human lifespan.


30 posted on 07/06/2002 6:25:43 AM PDT by Nick Danger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: meyer
$1000/month in child support and $1500/month in "spousal maintenance" for me X 5 years despite the fact that the ex was college educated (elementary education and immediately employable but she refused to work) and despite the fact that I single parented one of our two kids after the divorce by his choice. She paid nothing of course. Luckily, she was so dependent that she met a guy and married at year 3 out of the 5 and saved me two years of alimony. Because there were some assets involved, the attorneys quite naturally raped the situation for all it was worth and despite my attempts to get it settled, it took two years. I was the only one motivated to settle. Supposed it could have been worse but it was bad enough.
31 posted on 07/06/2002 6:28:02 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee_Bob
ping
32 posted on 07/06/2002 6:28:37 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
I have a friend who could be the poster-boy for this article - deck is clearly stacked against him and his beautiful children.
33 posted on 07/06/2002 6:28:50 AM PDT by AD from SpringBay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Fred Reed, the witty and stinging columnist just wrote a column on this (To Marry or Not) this week...good read!:

http://www.Fredoneverything.ne t/ColMenu.html
34 posted on 07/06/2002 6:30:24 AM PDT by NMFXSTC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
We're all so conditioned to viewing men as bad guys that it has blinded us to the observation that government is operating a system that routinely rips fathers out of their childrens' lives. This is a very weird thing to have in a human society. I can't think of any examples from history of a society where government took human young away from their parents on a routine basis. This is inhuman, and that we do it at all tells us that our government and our culture fundamentally view men as sub-human animals. One would not do this to human beings.

Has the women's vote caused this? Serious question with some nasty implications, but look at how our government has changed since that time.

35 posted on 07/06/2002 6:30:25 AM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Wasn't it Lenin who said, "Destroy the family and you'll destroy society"...?
36 posted on 07/06/2002 6:31:47 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wku man
Yeah. There are barely any girls worthy of relationships, let alone marriage. Whatever. I'm in no rush. My biological clock ain't ticking :)
37 posted on 07/06/2002 6:37:43 AM PDT by College Repub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
I can't think of any examples from history of a society where government took human young away from their parents on a routine basis.

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. In some areas in Europe, children born out of wedlock has reached 75%. Think about that. 25%, 50%, 60%, and men couldn't see what was happening. Now they're demanding rights to their children, but what leverage do they have now that they have taken themselves out of the family.

Unfortunately, I don't see this changing any time soon. I saw another article in which young men said they were putting off marriage because they can get sex without it. What this means is that their female counterparts will be able to have babies without marrying them, but men can't seem to see this.

None of this is to disagree with the points made in the article above, but only to point out that there are other sides to this issue. Men have the power to put a stop to this, but are more interested in proving their manhood instead. Until men change their priorities, things will only get worse.

38 posted on 07/06/2002 6:38:36 AM PDT by Balto_Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
The only real surprise in this is that it's taken people so long to wake up to the results of the insane legal and economic incentives they've loaded onto marriage.

Overwhelmingly, men are the more "at risk" of the two sexes, given the way the State treats marriage and its dissolution. Add to that the prevalent belief among women that their troubles can be largely laid at men's door, and you have a formula for disaster. As if we could possibly make it worse, not even prenuptial contracts can safeguard a divorcing man's possessions, as judges in divorce actions now routinely discard them as the "fruits of emotional coercion."

There is no absolute defense. Even Miss Right can transform into Miss Militant Gender-War Feminist Harridan. That being the case, it's more of an act of bravery to marry in America today than it's ever been before, and I salute any man who's got the guts for it -- but I also commend the good sense of any man whose doubts about how his marital enterprise might end cause him to shy away from the altar.

Marriage is not for the dubious, the grasping, the self-absorbed, or the faint of heart. If you're one of these, spend a couple of years in the Army and get straightened out and toughened up first. You owe it to your children-to-be.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

39 posted on 07/06/2002 6:51:25 AM PDT by fporretto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: buccaneer81
You know, the feminazi's scream about being able to do everything a man does, but then they turn around and demand child support and alimony. Isn't that, in principle, admitting they can't?

Ladies and gents, if ya can't support kids on your own, you probably should not have them ...eh? Maybe that is the view women and men should take into their marriages today given the divorce rate.

41 posted on 07/06/2002 6:55:12 AM PDT by Taxula
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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.

Women play a more major part in this, as I see it. Men are "supposed to" spread their genes around, and are more prone to casual sex. Not that it makes it right, but it happens more often.

Women have always been the more civilizing influence on the family structure. We have the power to say "no" under most circumstances (in the West, at least), the power to attract the most deserving male, the power to keep the spouse at least involved in the family structure...using sex and intimacy, of course.

We have the power to keep our legs closed. Feminazis and nihilists have trained our young women to pleasure themselves first, be "like men" (not meant as an insult) in order to gain power in society, and to throw away the civilizing influence of femininity and womanhood. Instead, we are told to substitute permissiveness for permission on the grounds that "it's not fair" that men can do it and we can't. Then we whine that we aren't taken seriously, that we get the raw end of the stick when a man uses us, and we demand that we be viewed as women, dammit.

Why? Aren't we now just men with boobs?

42 posted on 07/06/2002 7:03:13 AM PDT by Dakotabound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Taxula
You know, the feminazi's scream about being able to do everything a man does, but then they turn around and demand child support and alimony. Isn't that, in principle, admitting they can't?

Ah, but you see, to the feminazi, it's always the man's fault. Wife had an affair? Well you must have driven her into it. Wife left because she was "unhappy"? Your fault, Bub. You didn't support, cuddle, cheerlead, defend, promote or care enough. So what if you worked 60 hour weeks to pay that mortgage and that SUV payment. That's your duty. It's all about punishment and sometimes the avoidance of guilt on their part.

43 posted on 07/06/2002 7:03:25 AM PDT by buccaneer81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
There is another reason, reported recently, why men are not getting married. They can get all the sex they want without marriage. Women are getting hurt in this brave new world, too. I know of men who go from woman to woman, happy to have her services for a while, but when she wants a serious commitment, he is out the door. The problem is not so much a lack of marriage counseling as it is selfishness. No one goes into marriage anymore committed to the "for better or worse" or "til death do us part" vows. If it stops being good for them, they want out, regardless of what it does to other people and society at large.

I notice that nobody is giving up on "finding true love" just because that may not last, so abandoning marriage because of what might happen, is a poor excuse. Sure, a woman, or a man either, could walk out of the marriage later, but all kinds of things could happen. What if your spouse becomes seriously and chronically ill? Do you not marry because that might happen? Nobody is promised a perfect life. People need to grow up, and the laws must be structured to support marriage and family, not work against them.

Finally, the only thing that will really save marriage, is if men and women live in obedience to God. That requires a change of heart, not of circumstances.

44 posted on 07/06/2002 7:04:09 AM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer
Serious question with some nasty implications

There is an ugly truth to face there, that is clear. Never mind what is said, watch what's been done. From school systems that drug boys and push them out of the way so that girls can do better, to divorce courts that treat adult men like animals, there is a disturbing trend that suggests that -- at least in the West -- fairness to women is a much higher priority for men than fairness to men is a priority of women.

Indeed, 'fairness' may be too strong a term. There is a lack of basic human decency there that is alarming. One wonders how far it would be pushed if allowed to continue for a long time.

I have often wondered where the seemingly oppressive customs regarding women that we see in Muslim countries, India, and most of Asia come from. Things like that don't just happen, they arise in response to circumstance. It may be that we are witnessing a bout of The Circumstance. Perhaps this is just what happens when women get close to political power, and why so many human societies have evolved mechanisms to prevent it from happening.

45 posted on 07/06/2002 7:06:43 AM PDT by Nick Danger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
Any guy who never even sees it coming is too clueless to live.

I disagree. Women are very adept at long term planning, secrecy and manipulation. Have you ever noticed that it is usually the man who immediately moves out of the family home even though it is the woman who usually initiates the eventual family breakup? The women know they have the power of the law and the courts behind them. Even if they don't know how powerful the State's backing can be, the first lawyer they see will gleefully explain it to them.

Women hold all the cards in this type of situation. They know that eventually they will gain control of the children and will have access to whatever family assets and/or income they will need to maintain their customary lifestyle.

46 posted on 07/06/2002 7:12:55 AM PDT by nygoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: meyer
Has the women's vote caused this? Serious question with some nasty implications, but look at how our government has changed since that time

Our government is, indeed, a government by the women as are all the western democracies. Switzerland was the last to succumb but the rot is setting in even there. Our governments, whether socialist or conservative, depending on majority votes, continually move toward the feminist positions and the nanny state develops apace.
While on the other side of the world, due to forced abortions and the "one child per family" policy, China is developing a very masculine culture that grows more warlike as the sexual balance grows heavier at the masculine side. A nation of Men is more warlike, more aggressive, and will probably dominate at some time in the future. A feminine culture such as in the USA and in the European nations, will not even defend itself because it psychologically must rely on an outside force for that defence, on a larger entity- the UN which is, of course composed effectively of the US and the feminized Europeans.

The masculine Islamic cultures are not really a long term threat because they cannot develop the economic ability to do anything about conquest. They must rely on infiltration which will fail as a policy in the end because the women do understand about the dangerous outsiders and will likely close off the borders eventually.

Giving women the vote would seem to be the deathblow to Western Civilization, but it is not so easy as a single act, even that act. As economies advance and societies get rich the women have greater and greater influence because survival no longer requires that they remain at home and in the fields having babies annually. They become active players in the econmomy and itellectual equals with the men because the society is rich enough. Even without the formal vote, wealthy societies that have conquered most disease and infant moprtality will be feminized.

And then there is China. Chinese expansion and competition will become more robust as the masculinized culture itself gets richer. Ending "One Child" tomorrow will leave the world with 20-40 years of Chinese masculinity.

47 posted on 07/06/2002 7:13:51 AM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dakotabound
We have the power to keep our legs closed.

Yes, but the fact is that some women want babies without husbands. Men have got to realize this and see that their concepts of manhood are being used against them. That they choose not to see this does not make them victims of forced-fatherhood when baby results.

48 posted on 07/06/2002 7:14:25 AM PDT by Balto_Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wku man; College Repub
No flames here, gentlemen. I'm in complete agreement with you.

I'm 38, divorced, employed, have custody of my nine year old daughter, and I'm going to school to finish my degree. The women that I have have met that are my age in my local area either don't want to get involved with a man with a daughter as young as mine (tough luck - we're a package deal), or they've got a chip on their shoulder as big as Texas - that, or they're seriously unstable.

What I always found laughable was the young women at school that were dating some absolute a##holes - guys that were verbally and physically abusive, guys that were dating more than one woman - and making a point of letting everyone know - and the women complaining about it. If he's so bad, why stick with him? And the answer, almost every time, would be "Oh, I know he'll change," or "well, there's no one else."
49 posted on 07/06/2002 7:16:53 AM PDT by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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

Spoken like a true FemiNazi ...

50 posted on 07/06/2002 7:17:56 AM PDT by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 751-798 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