|
Philadelphia Inquirer
Jul. 05, 2002
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:53:09 GMT, yeah@fvckit.com (joe) wrote:
Philadelphia Inquirer
Jul. 05, 2002
A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss
Looks like the Leykis 101 lessons are being taken to heart...
---
I need a new .sig
<html><form><input type crash></form></html>
And if you can't see this, you need a new newsreader. :)
|
| |
| |
Ironic that the very same type of politicians who like to abuse "family values"
rhetoric are actually the main culprits in setting up the system that produces
a weak marriage rate.
In article <3f39b5a1.10804774@news.io.com>, joe wrote: > Philadelphia Inquirer
Jul. 05, 2002
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
|
