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 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

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.



To: Lil'freeper

Big'ol_bump



To: buccaneer81

The courts have no business getting into ordering child support. Whoever the kids live with can support them.



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.



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.



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...



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.



To: buccaneer81

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



To: buccaneer81

Truly gives more meaning to the old adage: Marry in haste, repent at leisure!



To: buccaneer81

&#!*)%@ feminists have ruined the institution of marriage in the U.S. for both men and women.



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.



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 )



To: College Repub

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. Pre-nuptial agreements can help, providing they arewell 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.



To: meyer

You're so right about alimony. Check this out... Child Support As Theft (Disguised Alimony)



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.



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.



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.



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".



To: buccaneer81

This is so sad..........and SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO true.



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.



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.

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson