Vox has been for years that the upside of marriage for men these days is pretty small. I too am a happily married man, but I waited a long time to get married(age 37), due in large part to the scenario you outlined above. It took a lot of time and effort for me to find someone that I KNEW that I could trust.
I don't know where I read it, but I saw somewhere that many divorce lawyers are telling the women to always allege abuse as it automatically limits the credibility of the man so charged, as well as reducing his perceived fitness as a parent. Of course, the credibility of the allegation is almost never challenged. It's simply accepted as a matter of course.
One final thought that gets me into lots of hot water: I've long maintained that fathers should not be forced to give alimony and/or child support if the courts do not enforce their visitation rights. There was a good article some years back that discussed men who were being screwed in this regard by their ex-wives. One man got a court order which would force his former spouse to let him see his children. Instead, she refused to answer the door and called the police to arrest the father for trespassing. The man showed the court order to the cops, but they said that they were there to make him leave the premises. The police would not enforce the court order.
I know that many people complain about my position in this regard. "It hurts the children!" they will claim. Yeah, and so will not being allowed to see their father.
Paying child support doesn't mean you automatically get visitation, because then the corollary would apply: if you DON'T pay or can't pay, then visitation would cease. That's why child support and visitation are two completely separate issues in the eyes of the law. That, and the fact that child support is the right of the child, not the right of the custodial parent.
They should be linked, and in reality frequently are, with mothers frequently denying fathers visitation purely out of spite, with the father often having no recourse. That's wrong.
That, and the fact that child support is the right of the child, not the right of the custodial parent.
That's not entirely true since the father doesn't have to provide child support if the mother doesn't request it. If it were strictly the right of the child, the noncustodial parent would be forced to pay regardless of the wishes of the custodial parent, as the money would belong to the child.
Anyway, while I'm in a good relationship now, I can certainly understand why many men don't want to get married. I have three male cousins, all in their 20's, who have no interest in it. When I was in my 20's, I felt pretty much the same way.
Child custody is unfair; feminism has the seeds of its own destruction. Here's a Fin Times review of an honest book about men:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2168324,00.html
Pretty interesting.
Men's desire for multiple little responsibility sex affairs is still a big problem, made worse by sexual liberation.
There are two kinds of men who get married in America today:
1. Ignorant
2. Stupid
Men who don't know just how high the law, the courts and police are stacked against them are ignorant (but about half of them will get a wrenching, expensive education).
Men who know how the deck is stacked and do it anyway are just stupid.
I think we'd be a lot better off going back to the divorce laws of the 50's.
Marriage is a promise and a contract, the most important of a lifetime. If a person can't keep that, short of truly extraordinary circumstances, so far as I'm concerned they have no moral character at all, and should be treated as such.
Today, as a group, men are 1) Chronically lagging girls in reading skills and grades in school, from primary grades all the way through college 2) Far more likely to flunk out or drop out of high school 3) Far more likely never to go to college at all, and more likely to drop out if they do go to college 4) Far more likely to wind up in jail 5) Far more likely to wind up substance addicted 6) Far more likely to be unemployed 7) Far more likely to commit suicide, and 8) Far more likely to suffer work-related fatality than women.
With the possible exception of numbers 1 and 3, has there ever been a time when those were *not* more true of men than women?
As well, in considering getting married and having kids, there are assinine attitudes like that of Mariner to contend with, and the growing group of "me-first" non-child-bearing shrews and malcontents who deride people who have children. If I didn't have three already, I don't know that I'd start.
Actually, a susprising number of my 20-something coworkers have recently gotten married. And another is seriously considering it. Most of them are the children of divorced parents, too. The cliche has been that a divorce will forever sour the children on marriage. I actually think that it might be just the opposite. They realize what they missed and want do better by their own kids.
Here's what I wonder: what, exactly, is the difference between marriage and cohabitation, besides all the dead chickens that get waved over marriage?
Pre-marriage, pre-child breakups are easy. Pre-child divorces aren't usually too bad, either, with the possible exception of alimony expectations in the case of long, childless marriages. But at least, in both cases, neither side has to deal with the other once the breakup is final.
Now throw children into the mix. Are the experiences the same for divorce and breakup? Child support issues? Yup. Custody issues? Yup. Visitation? Yup. Guilt for depriving the child? Maybe, maybe not, but marital status doesn't seem to be much of an issue. Constant interaction of the parents through the child's life, from daycare to independence, and even after? Yup, that too, unless one of the parents is neglecting the child.
I wonder if, having smashed the traditional family in the sexual revolution, we aren't recreating it, poorly, in the mishmash of family laws arising around the management of children.
That's not entirely true since the father doesn't have to provide child support if the mother doesn't request it.
That's not true. If the custodial parent goes on state aid, the state will get the non-custodial parent to pay child support.
Even if both parents agree that child support won't be paid, it doesn't matter. Child support cannot legally be waived. The child can come back -- even as an adult -- and get back support from the non-custodial parent. Or the custodial parent can change their mind and request it, and it will be retroactive to the time of the divorce. I work for a judge. I've seen it happen.
The law requires that children be supported financially. That issue is separate from visitation, because visitation is based on the "best interest of the child." That's totally different from financial support. It may be wrong (and in many cases it is) but that's the law.
And non-custodial parents always have recourse. It's called a motion for contempt. If you're being denied visitation, file it.
I don't know where I read it, but I saw somewhere that many divorce lawyers are telling the women to always allege abuse as it automatically limits the credibility of the man so charged, as well as reducing his perceived fitness as a parent. Of course, the credibility of the allegation is almost never challenged. It's simply accepted as a matter of course.
One final thought that gets me into lots of hot water: I've long maintained that fathers should not be forced to give alimony and/or child support if the courts do not enforce their visitation rights. There was a good article some years back that discussed men who were being screwed in this regard by their ex-wives. One man got a court order which would force his former spouse to let him see his children. Instead, she refused to answer the door and called the police to arrest the father for trespassing. The man showed the court order to the cops, but they said that they were there to make him leave the premises. The police would not enforce the court order.
I know that many people complain about my position in this regard. "It hurts the children!" they will claim. Yeah, and so will not being allowed to see their father.
That's not entirely true since the father doesn't have to provide child support if the mother doesn't request it. If it were strictly the right of the child, the noncustodial parent would be forced to pay regardless of the wishes of the custodial parent, as the money would belong to the child.
Anyway, while I'm in a good relationship now, I can certainly understand why many men don't want to get married. I have three male cousins, all in their 20's, who have no interest in it. When I was in my 20's, I felt pretty much the same way.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2168324,00.html
Pretty interesting.
Men's desire for multiple little responsibility sex affairs is still a big problem, made worse by sexual liberation.
1. Ignorant
2. Stupid
Men who don't know just how high the law, the courts and police are stacked against them are ignorant (but about half of them will get a wrenching, expensive education).
Men who know how the deck is stacked and do it anyway are just stupid.
Marriage is a promise and a contract, the most important of a lifetime. If a person can't keep that, short of truly extraordinary circumstances, so far as I'm concerned they have no moral character at all, and should be treated as such.
I know, I'm an old reactionary.
Today, as a group, men are 1) Chronically lagging girls in reading skills and grades in school, from primary grades all the way through college 2) Far more likely to flunk out or drop out of high school 3) Far more likely never to go to college at all, and more likely to drop out if they do go to college 4) Far more likely to wind up in jail 5) Far more likely to wind up substance addicted 6) Far more likely to be unemployed 7) Far more likely to commit suicide, and 8) Far more likely to suffer work-related fatality than women.
With the possible exception of numbers 1 and 3, has there ever been a time when those were *not* more true of men than women?
As well, in considering getting married and having kids, there are assinine attitudes like that of Mariner to contend with, and the growing group of "me-first" non-child-bearing shrews and malcontents who deride people who have children. If I didn't have three already, I don't know that I'd start.
Pre-marriage, pre-child breakups are easy. Pre-child divorces aren't usually too bad, either, with the possible exception of alimony expectations in the case of long, childless marriages. But at least, in both cases, neither side has to deal with the other once the breakup is final.
Now throw children into the mix. Are the experiences the same for divorce and breakup? Child support issues? Yup. Custody issues? Yup. Visitation? Yup. Guilt for depriving the child? Maybe, maybe not, but marital status doesn't seem to be much of an issue. Constant interaction of the parents through the child's life, from daycare to independence, and even after? Yup, that too, unless one of the parents is neglecting the child.
I wonder if, having smashed the traditional family in the sexual revolution, we aren't recreating it, poorly, in the mishmash of family laws arising around the management of children.
That's not true. If the custodial parent goes on state aid, the state will get the non-custodial parent to pay child support.
Even if both parents agree that child support won't be paid, it doesn't matter. Child support cannot legally be waived. The child can come back -- even as an adult -- and get back support from the non-custodial parent. Or the custodial parent can change their mind and request it, and it will be retroactive to the time of the divorce. I work for a judge. I've seen it happen.
The law requires that children be supported financially. That issue is separate from visitation, because visitation is based on the "best interest of the child." That's totally different from financial support. It may be wrong (and in many cases it is) but that's the law.
And non-custodial parents always have recourse. It's called a motion for contempt. If you're being denied visitation, file it.
I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that the laws vary somewhat by state.
IN ARKANSAS, child support cannot be legally waived by either party.