Posted on 12/10/2007 7:07:25 AM PST by RogerFGay
No other topics I write about so consistently provoke passionate personal response as those dealing with systemic discrimination against men. When, for example, I point out double standards for boys and girls in the health care system, or expose the use of bogus statistics around domestic violence, my inbox fills with male gratitude simply for acknowledging an obvious fact: Our culture is profoundly misandric.
Of the myriad forms of discrimination men cite, one looms over the rest: The egregious treatment meted out to fathers in the throes of contested child custody following the "no-fault" divorces most of them did not initiate or desire. My files bulge with stories of disenfranchised fathers ripped from their children's arms and lives. They have lost their homes, their careers, fortunes, friends and reputations, often on the basis of false allegations of abuse (for which their female accusers are virtually never punished). I wouldn't mention such anecdotal evidence, if the anguish in these testimonials didn't jibe with objective data confirming the shameful gender bias that dominates the family law system.
About half of all marriages end in divorce. Women are twice as likely to initiate a divorce as men, largely because they can be fairly sure they'll end up with control of the children. Where shared parenting is the default template, divorce rates plummet. Men are six times as likely as women to commit suicide within the first two years after a separation: That they kill themselves from despair rather than their ex-wives for revenge is, ironically, a tragically eloquent rebuttal to the feminist credo that men are inherently dangerous to women. Although 25% of women make more money than their spouses, 97% of support payers are men (even in cases of shared parenting). Mobility decisions favour women: The psychological comfort to a Vancouver mother of moving near her Toronto-based family will be privileged over the psychological devastation the virtual loss of his children causes the Vancouver-bound father.
Misandry in family law begins with an ideology that views children as the property of women, even though many peer-reviewed studies show children want and need both parents, and no studies show sole parenting by a mother serves children's best interests. This ideology is instilled in judges during training sessions featuring feminism-driven materials, and subsequently often plays out as unaccountable kangaroo courts. The result is that an adversarial mother who initiates a divorce against the will of the father --however indifferent her parenting skills, however superb his and even if the children spend their days with nannies or day care workers --pretty well has a lock on sole custody of the children. If she denies rightful access to the father, she will never be punished at all. Conversely, if he withholds money, he will be criminalized: His picture as a "deadbeat dad" may appear on government-sanctioned Internet sites, and if he goes to jail, as is likely, he will serve a longer sentence than cocaine dealers.
Most men think such kafkaesque scenarios can't happen to them. Happily married men parenting with equal diligence believe in their hearts that men who find themselves savaged by the family law system are congenital losers, or were demonstrably lousy husbands and fathers. Many such "winners" are in for an unpleasant surprise.
"We want to pull away from the idea that parents have rights in relation to their children," said Jennifer Cooper, chair of the Canadian Bar Association's family law section, representing 2,200 divorce lawyers. "Parents" in this statement is the hypocritical lip service feminism pays to humanism: She meant "fathers," for women's rights today are never "pulled away from," only supported or furthered. In the days when children belonged to both their parents, it used to be said that children were "hostages to fortune." Today they are hostages to feminism and the state.
In his new, cleverly titled book, Taken into Custody, Stephen Baskerville, president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, paints a bleak picture of the routine injustice a divorcing father can expect when a woman initiates a divorce. Baskerville baldly warns: "If I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today, it is this: Do not marry and do not have children." His book, like many others of the genre, makes a persuasive case. Men should read them. If the system does not become equitable, don't be surprised if men choose increasingly, and with reason, to play their trump card: Voting for equality with their condoms.
Congratulations on finding the love of a good woman. I’m sure nothing would make you want to part with her - I think however, that the message, even for you is one about how bad the government intrusion has become. Statistically, it’s a hit or miss proposition, with at least as many men who will face ruin as a result of taking a chance as not. And there is no logical reason for making it so - it’s just the result of corruption.
I'm sure she isn't.
But a man who is married to an intentionally sterile woman who also believes that no-fault divorce is an important and valuable thing might as well be hanging out with Larry Craig.
Funny thing that. I knew my ex had spent a lot of time in mental institutions, but she neglected to tell me that not all of it was as staff...
Dissomaster allows a recalculation based on the new combined family incomes.
That's how I warned off the guy that wanted to marry my ex...
--- snip ---
But that doesn't mean 50-50 physical custody. Most people don't have that because it isn't practical.
You, sir are an imposter. Someone has hijacked the computer of Roger F. Gay!But as for me... I like what you are saying. Seriously. Good thoughts!You are a traitor to all the Fathers Rightsers I know!
All the Fathers for Justice guys I know would throw you out of the "Bitter Batchelors" clubs for sentiments like that.
As well you should be. A bad marrage is hell on earth. A good one is pure heaven.
What is crazy is that the man has to work or go to jail but if the woman doesn’t work or works in an industry that pays less than what they are capable of making, they make the father pay more! Even if a father is layed off and can’t get a job that pays as well as his former job the courts say that he is “capable” of making the same amount as before.
Oh yeah, and then they say that the father works too much and gives the mother more time.
I married once at age 21. Had two sons, She turned into a nutcase. My kids are now 16, and 21 next month. 21 year old lives away from home and deals with her by distance, 16 year old has moved in with me full time twice in the past 3 years, the last time was a couple of months ago when she smacked him in the face after he called her out for trash talking me in front of him. I don’t communicate with her meddling family, my life works better with them out of it.
Been single for 12 years. Don’t know if I’ll ever marry again.
OK, that was a little hyperbole on my part to say I use the full quote. I do advise him to not get married. I don't give any advice with respect to not having children.
Where’s the article about the umpteen thousand deadbeat dads who wander away from their wives and children?
There is crap both sides have to deal with when you marry poorly.
Said from a poor decision making abandoned mother of two, now proudly married again to a person who the abandoned childred proudly call Daddy. With two more kiddies to boot.
I know I’ll marry again. Someday. Just gotta find the right one who’ll put up with my schedule.
She doesn’t help at all with our Sons. Here’s how my life is right now:
1. Work.
2. Sleep.
3. Eat.
4. Cuddle with Sons.
5. Repeat at #1.
This could take years.
“Where’s the article about the umpteen thousand deadbeat dads who wander away from their wives and children?”
Where have you been? Those are standard issue in the MSM.
Parents...make sure your boys understand the importance of dating and marrying only women of character.
It isn't easy. There have never been more sluts in America.
Bump for later
Just to clarify something about the Swedish system. When I say that everyone is entitled to some things, those things generally translate to tax breaks in the US system. In Sweden (and much of Europe really) they simply maintain a socialist flavor whenever possible. Instead of simply giving tax breaks, you pay taxes without breaks, then they give you money based on social entitlements. But really, the difference is in the process. The economic outcome is about the same.
That reminds me of the German-American family who named their daughter "Alice". (When he got his first glimpse of her, the father exclaimed, "Das is Alles!")
Hey! Don't blame me!!!
I agree, poor people should never have wives, children or dogs. >S<
You don't have a clue about marriage, do you?
People don’t have to stay poor. Most people don’t.
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.