Skip to comments.A 'Marriage Strike' Emerges As Men Decide Not To Risk Loss
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.
If the urge to lock on a ball 'n chain ever fells me, there will be a titanium prenup.
But then I'd have to change my screen name. : (
This is far too often part of the untold story. Lawyers quite frequently make the situation infinitely worse and they do it for someone else's money.
I dunno. I think those are the choices of the people. God's judgements come because of them.
1 - Quotations
2 - God Struck America
3 - *Basic Issues - God's Sovereignty, The Judgements of God, The National Pantheon
4 - *The Word is a Hammer
5 - Mr. President
6 - Responsibilities of Faithful Servants
Sweeter. . .a thread for male bondage.
Everything you say here is true. But it doesn't disprove my point, which is simply that one has to be a brain-dead moron to not realize that one's marriage is heading towards the breaking point befoer it happens.
There are always plenty of warning signs that a relationship is in trouble, and the fact that man could be taken by surprise when the woman kicks him out is prima facie evidence that he was a distant, detached, uncommunicative and emotionally unavailable husband in the first place.
I'm not saying that women aren't ever at fault in the break-up of a marriage, or that good guys don't get dumped unfairly. And I'm not suggesting that every marriage can be saved in any case. But women need communication and presence above all else in a relationship, and if a guy is so out of touch with his wife that he is surprised when she woman wants out, then he likely deserves to be dumped.
You're one of the smart ones who knew what qualities to look for in a woman. It sounds like you didn't try to meet a trophy type in some bar, you didn't pick the one who was the best in bed or just had the hottest looking body. It's all about choices and choosing carefully.
If you get a restraining order slapped on you, then obey it no matter how much she begs to see you. A friend of mine got set up this way and spent a year in jail for it. And, I won't go into what else it cost him.
There is also some poetic justice in seeing those unmarried women bitch about not being able to find a husband as those are usually the most likely women to latch on to a man eking out a decent living and pull such a scam. Fortunately men are finally wising up to them. I hope they stay freakin' miserable for the rest of their pathetic, unmarried lives.
Gives me an opprtunity to toss out a morsel for everyone's contemplation....
Has anyone else noticed how, in the bigger piture of the last 150-ish years of social and political evolution, white men constitute the only social group that consistently votes egalitarian? Every other group votes precisely in their pettiest self-interest. Whatever steers the most money and/or social power their way is how that block votes.
A canonical study in this phenomenon was NOW's withdrawal of support for the Equal Rights Ammendment, after it became clear that women would lose many social and economic priviledges had the law been passed. Because it was not in their immediate petty self interest, women voted against a law which would have codified the fundamental moral principle by which they justify their existence as a cohesive political entity.
Certainly the Marxists and globalists have promoted the disintegration of family for decades and encouraged feminism. See The Decline of a Nation for the five intellectuals who destroyed Western civilization and how they did it and the keys to a nation's demise.
Too often these threads end up being male v. female which go no where. If one does not understand the spiritual nature of one's enemy (and it is not a spouse) and what to do about it, then he or she will lose the battle. The Bible says For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Eph 6:12
Those demonic levels of enemy want to destroy marriage and family. They can operate in one or both individuals or in the middle between the two. They certainly operate in government. The whole culture has become mammon crazed, materialistic and hedonistic, requiring two incomes, sending the kids to gov't schools where they are trained in atheistic secular humanism and opposition to anything Judeo-Christian. As gov't rips off taxes to strengthen its control over families, stresses mount, the husband must work longer hours, has less time with the wife and children. The children have more time for TV and cultural icons in music which has been engineered to oppose godly values like family.
America has been subjected to 70 years of Mind Kontrol through a deliberate plan to destroy the nation by destroying the family. Through education, movies, magazines and music, people have been taught the wrong things about marriage. At the same time the Christian Church has majored in Easy Believism and has fallen away. In the Garden, Adam rebelled and blamed Eve and God. Eve was deceived. That blame-shifting and deception continues today.
Certainly as many divorces are caused by kick butt machoism as are caused by women becoming feminists. Machoism provides fertile ground for feminism because a macho male has become a god in his own eyes instead of submitting himself to God and administering a family properly, laying down his life for and loving his wife and keeping his family in order. Also a feminist wife has become a goddess in her own eyes like Jezebel and tears down her house with her own hands. God killed Eli (1 Sam 1-4) for abdicating his responsibility and for not restraining his sons. He will surely hold the man accountable who has abdicated his responsibilities just as he will jthe Jezebelic wife who usurps the man's authority.
Finally, the gov't frequently takes the wrong side! Truth has fallen in the street!
Isa 59:14 And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. 15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.
Been there, done that. But only for two days. She did it by false accusations of stalking backed up by her "co-worker" aka the boyfriend.
. . .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.
What if he treats you and your children (his also, presumably) merely like silver?
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. . .
Who gets to make that judgement call, and does it override the lifetime commitment vowed during marriage?
Because you left out obedient.
Oh, and you lose your right to own guns as an added bonus.
If the court system doesn't care about the Constitution, what makes you think they will be interested in a pre-nup?
Not just the guys, though. I overheard a conversation between two young women in which one was outlining her plan to have three out-of-wedlock children by three different fathers. Each would be able to afford child support for one child, the aggreagte would support her and she wouldn't have to work!!
It IS a wasteland out there, but it takes two to tangle..
You'd think so. But family courts can declare null and void any pre-nup with impunity. Bottom line: if mamma wants it, mamma gets it.
Hope the soccer moms are happy. Now they can dream of being "taken" by Bill Clinton.
I think you are correct to a great extent. The more the couple have in common from the start, the better the chances the marriage will last. Also late marriages, which is becoming more and more common, are bad. The two are already set in their ways and this will lead to more conflicts. Our society has almost made it a sin to marry young but growing older together insures a lasting relationship.
Oh please, I'm an old fashioned girl at heart.....I married a Christian man.....had my babies after marriage and my eyes opened after divorce.
In a nutshell men don't want to pay if they aren't milking the cow........If they have to shell out money they want something in return by way of the bedroom. It p*sses them off to no end to pay a womam child support when they no longer get to do the nasty with her. I think it's the height of selfishness to not want your children to be fed,clothed, and housed because your no longer benefiting from their mother.
and I'd really like to know where all the fathers who are being denied their children are cause the women I know can't pay the fathers to spend time with their chidren.....they have new girlfriend and new families and no time or interest in previous children
I said what I said because men on here were'nt being honest, men also cheat and destoy the family causing divorce....they are just as selfish, petty,and ungodly as any woman you refer to. Men are not innocent victims an this thread is nothing but fluff because you refuse to share responsibility for your roles in the family break-down.
While she was buying em a third one on her back would have made slow dancin more popular.......
I'm suprised I haven't seen the old Why buy the cow when the milk is free analogy..........
Stay Safe !
And, the same goes for the "women." If I were a guy, I wouldn't commit to these bozos either.
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.
No fault divorce has seduced some women to overlook this quality when things get a little tough in a marriage as they always do.
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."
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....
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.
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...
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.
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.
It's a daily thread. Jim Rob should give it it's own forum.
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.