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.
What are you doing except promoting conflict between men and women? How does using condoms promote the welfare of families? Contraception and fornication are intrinsically evil and these things are always harmful to the individual and to society.
There is no question that many men have been victimized by no-fault divorce laws and a biased judicial system that favors women in divorce cases. However, the solution is not to further weaken marriage with the sort of ridiculous advice that you are giving to men. The solution is to work to change the laws and to urge men to marry women of good moral character, who share the same values that they have.
A potential spouse that proposes a prenup shouldn't be getting married in the first place.
You made the right choice. I, too, forwent opportunities to earn more money in order to be an involved parent. No man looks back on his life and says, "I wish I had spent more time working."
My point was that it's generally better for a man to acquire the skills to support a family before he takes on the responsibility.
Good job! (understatement) I think so many people underestimate the challenges of real life. People are in fact, kind-of screwy. They’re not machines. They make mistakes - truly big ones. You found a way not to and dealt with it. Nice save (that sounds like an understatement, but sports fans everywhere think of “nice save” as being something really, really cool that took a lot of skill and no small effort).
Men need to get no-fault divorce off the books.
You’re blame shifting. The men who are opting out of marriage and family are men who understand the risks. It is entirely unnecessary for those risks to be as high as they are. They are so high entirely as the result of government corruption. Asking other men to simply accept that is a bizarre response. They aren’t the ones who are weakening marriage. Marriage and family as legal institutions are dead in America - literally killed off by government corruption. The only way you can support the restoration of the institutions is to oppose, as strongly as possible, the corruption that lead to its demise.
I only meant that there’s this one part that started in the 1960s; although I can understand your point - and my point is a bit fuzzy. Starting in the 1960s, laws and constitutional interpretation began changing AT A VERY RAPID PACE. It’s this dramatic increase in the pace of change - a great tidal wave wiping out the private life and absorbing everything into the political sphere. I did not mean that the first such even happened in the 60s - just that it’s a point at which the pace of change increased dramatically.
I’d say reversing Roe v. Wade is a great place to start.
That said, you know most of the SCOTUS will cry ‘stare decisis!’
I’m not jaded. Too busy for it.
Just gets lonely sometimes.
That is where I met mine. Twenty-three years coming up.
Food stamps started in the 60’s and rode the wave of the ‘if it feels good do it’ crowd. The big problem with the entitlement system is that there were no stoppers put in place. Welfare now has limits because we have four generations making it a way of life.
But it won’t go away because it’s the Democrats voting base.
Are you Jeff my son? lol I cannot believe how much you sound like my son. He is a sports broadcaster and absorbed in sports at all times. Just this past thanksgiving Jeff asked me if I thought he was obsessed with sports and considering that’s his job I remarked that was good but that I always wanted my kids to be well rounded. Jeff just told me recently that he gave me credit for him being a sports broadcaster! And he is the child as a result of my husband and I staying together. And ya know he is a joy to have as a son! Marriage is hard these days but God has got to be part of it.
I fixed it, waiting ten extra years to get married while I underwent serious self-reexamination so that I was ready not to inflict that history on my prospective wife. I married a woman, pleasant but not the prettiest, very bright but not the smartest, diligent, warm, and committed with a demonstrated passionate love for babies. I now have two teen age girls: both are intelligent, hard working, caring, and compassionate with both a deep and abiding faith in the L-rd and a clear understanding of the history behind why our society was deliberately immersed in this mess. They're tolerant, but don't take any crap either. They shoot tight groups. They've lived happily in one house all their lives and gone to school here too, so they won't go stir crazy raising children. They know what builds liberty, and recognize the path to tyranny.
So, here I witness "advice" to young men that it's better to use women for causal sex than to raise a family, as if such "use" wasn't inherently destructive to both "users" on its own. He is ignoring the innumerable blessings and satisfactions that come with raising a good family. This isn't about "shooting the messenger," it's telling an immature and incompetent idiot who hasn't worked out his baggage to sit down and shut up before he does any more damage. He isn't as powerless as he believes.
Men make up half the population. There are enough who understand the value of family or are sick of its lack, whom together with women of similar bent, are sufficient in number to make a serious dent in this mess as long as they are educated as to the causes and cures and focused on how to make that happen. So why doesn't this crowd dedicate their precious column inches to that problem instead?
“Homeschooled Christian women would be a good pool to start from.
The more generations of “homeschooled Christian” they have behind them the better.”
Good advice. Today, looking elsewhere is effectively like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Unfortunately, some of these extraordinary young ladies have trouble finding husbands because so many of the young “men” aren’t men - they’re just 25 year-old adolescents.
If someone with true character is looking for a wife who will be a life-long blessing, Christian homeschooled girls are your best prospects.
SCOTUS = The Supremes. But I think you knew that. ;o)
Yeh. Just kidding because my latin isn’t that good.
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.