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.
I'm sorry. I thought you were an adult. My apologies.
I had a son, and he's dead to me. Thanks to idiots like you,
Clearly I've touched a nerve.
I'm sorry to hear about your relationship with your son, and I hope it is not to late to fix things. I hope you hope so too. I'll remember that in my intentions.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. That is all, Merry Christmas.
Not exactly. A lot of them do have children. They just skip the marriage part.
What this guy should be advocating is birth control for young men. Maybe an injection to render them sterile for five years ought to do it.
I’ve been married for 34 years.
Long ago when we were having problems, my Nana gave me the advice that has kept us together all these years.
“Never cheat and never ever go to bed angry!”
Your statement is stupid as soap.
I love my children, but am DAMN glad I don't have 20!
Murder through abortion is a greater sin than "strapping one on"!!!
First part, got it!
Second part, just how long did she think a person could survive without sleep?
I congratulate you on your wonderful marriage, but I have to disagree with you wideawake. I know your religious leanings and reasonings against divorce and I agree in principal but sometimes life just doesn’t work out how you plan it or want it. I think you are being a little smug and conceited. I think you forget that “but for the grace of God, there go I.” God forbid that anything should happen, but you haven’t seen tomorrow yet.
I remember people who used to say they, their spouse, or their kids would never do certain things only to see them eat their words. Life happens and people do sometimes change. So “Never say never” is also an apt adage.
I don’t remember the name of the prophet in the OT whose wife was a harlot. I’m thinking he put up with her but in those days it wasn’t like the wife could easily leave and make her own living either.
A perfect example of someone not being raised to do wrong is the Colorado shooter who grew up in a religious home. Who knows what could cause a person to do anything so reprehensible and obviously, his own family is left wondering why.
I’ve known couples who seemed to have good marriages split up after 30 yrs and yes, seemingly good Catholic couples. Something unforseen happens, someone gives in to temptation, a child dies, or they lose all their money and somehow they can’t seem to work together anymore. It is sad. There is usually one who wouldn’t divorce but has no say in the matter.
There are millions of people out there who put themselves first and as long as the marriage suits their needs then they’re fine but when they have to put some work into it, they leave and there is usually a spouse left wondering what the heck happened and there is nothing they can do about it.
I think you should count your blessings and continue to work on your marriage but realize that it is a gift from God and not really all your doing. You can cooperate with the will of God but you cannot make someone else do so.
That isn’t in all states. In many the new spouse’s income doesn’t count at all and in fact the wife can stay at home and be imputed a minimum wage for child support issues.
I tell you what, I got married when I was 17, I didn’t have the proverbial pot to tinkle in. If I could go back in time those 37 yrs, I wouldn’t change it for the world.
It is the hard times that give you character and compassion for others. The hard times make you resourceful and tough. Money is nice and it is wonderful when you don’t have to worry about where your next meal is coming from but money is nowhere near as important as love, perserverance, compassion, and character.
Just today in a parking lot a family pulled up and tried to sell me a $20 dollar coupon for $10 dollars because they needed gas. There were 2 adorable little kids, I gave them $20 bucks and tried to make them keep the coupon. I ended up getting the money off my purchase so it didn’t cost me a thing. I’m also pleased that they insisted I take it. It shows that hard times or not, they have character.
You aren’t making any sense here. Boycotting marriage will not prompt legislators to repeal no-fault divorce laws nor will it cause judges to re-think their bias against men in divorce cases. Of course, no one is required to get married. But those who choose not to marry are not entitled to have sexual relations.
Moreover, while no-fault divorce laws and a biased judicial system have weakened marriage and family life in this country, society’s tolerance and approval of sex outside of marriage has done more to weaken those institutions than those things have done. Therefore, by urging men to have sex but not to marry, you are contributing to the further weakening of these institutions.
Finally, neither marriage nor the family are dead because there are many sound, intact marriages and families. My husband and I have been married for 26 years and this is the first and only marriage for both of us. As long as both spouses agree that divorce will never be an option, it doesn’t matter how easy the government makes it to divorce. Government policy doesn’t have to dictate the behavior of individuals.
Fair enough.
The point I have been laboring to make is that I treated the decision of whom to marry as the most important decision I would ever have to make and I made my decision very carefully.
I remember people who used to say they, their spouse, or their kids would never do certain things only to see them eat their words.
Well, it's very hard to predict what your children will do before they're grown.
But a person's character is pretty much in place by the time they are 25.
There are millions of people out there who put themselves first and as long as the marriage suits their needs then they’re fine but when they have to put some work into it, they leave and there is usually a spouse left wondering what the heck happened and there is nothing they can do about it.
Absolutely. My wife and I have already been through some very hard times (external circumstances, not internal betrayals) which I will not detail here and we have come through it stronger than before.
I think you should count your blessings and continue to work on your marriage but realize that it is a gift from God and not really all your doing.
Well said.
It is moral to use natural methods of family planning but not artificial birth control. Moreover, natural family planning is perfectly safe while many contraceptives are not.
As someone who has 12 brothers and sisters, and as the mother of 6 children, I don’t see what is wrong with married couples being open and generous to human life. Of course, in our society today, people value possessions above children, which is sad.
Only an arrogant ass would attempt to force their idea of morality on others. As to safety I'll worry about mine and you worry about yours. In other words, mind your own affairs.
Of course, in our society today, people value possessions above children, which is sad.
More arrogance. This statement is usually spouted by folks who have plenty of piss but no pot.
The theory is clear of course. If everything works out for the best, then everything works out for the best. The risk is all about what actually happens in the future however. The best laid plans of mice and men ....
I don’t believe the suggestion is intended as a political demonstration. It’s a direct response to the extremely high risk created by government policy. After years of data gathering, analysis, and careful thought; he’s saying that there is no way around the problems. The best advice he can give - unfortunatly - is that the government has made marriage and children far too risky for men. The only sure way to avoid the total destruction of one’s own life (self preservation) is not to get married and not to have children.
Well, I misspoke in my last post. Even if a guy doesn’t have children and doesn’t get married, it is not 100% certain that the system will not reach out and destroy his life. There are many men out there who have been ordered to pay child support for children that are not theirs - some never even met the mother - let alone had sex with her. Even after they prove the child isn’t theirs with DNA tests, the laws are such that they must continue to pay is if they are. This can be even more tragic when the guy is married, always faithful, but it leads his wife to believe he has been unfaithful.
Most of these problems arise as a result of requiring the “cooperation” of single welfare mothers in identifying fathers of their children. Many of them end up taking names and addresses out of phone books to fill the requirement. Some of those end up with default judgements. In some cases, a guy with the same name as a suspected father is put in the system; and sometimes there is no logical explanation at all. It’s my impression that most often, the problem starts with the mother lying about the possibility that a child might be someone else’s - someone she’s been dating steps up and “does the right thing” - and only finds out too late that it actually wasn’t right - she lied. But the system just tells the guy that it’s too late - gotchya.
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.