While the results of divorce for men may not be pleasant, I believe they pale in comparison to the results for women. The divorce laws are not stacked against men or women; they are stacked against people, especially children. If the divorce laws reduced the frequency of divorce, they would favor people, me, women and children. Forty years of no fault divorce is enough. It is time to return to divorce by trial; infrequent but brutal, with real pain for the loser and real shame for the "winner" and longer lasting marriages for the rest.

You say current divorce laws are stacked against people, but then you advocate for the most harmful kind of divorce: the kind where you have to make the other person out to be evil in order to get out. How do children feel when their parents go to court to prove that one or the other of them has committed awful acts of betrayal and immorality, rather than just agreeing to separate? Those kids see that parent in themselves--especially if they are the same sex as the parent proved evil.

I speak as a child of divorce myself--my parents split when I was 6. Luckily my parents didn't make a big deal out of who wronged who, and I kept my relationship with both of them, and grew to know their value (as well as their faults) using my own judgment, rather than having a judgment imposed in an adversarial court procedure. Do I wish they'd stayed together? No. We would all have been miserable. Apart there was more happiness available for all of us.

Divorce IS an enormous problem, but by this time in my life, I place a good share of the blame on the family and friends of the troubled couple. Does anyone remember the section of the marriage service in which the members of the congregation promise to honor and support the marriage bond? Yet, when a friend confides that she (or he) is filing for divorce, how many of us have the courage to speak up for marriage? How many people fail to point out the very negative consequences of divorce, above all for the children?

I don't advocate a return to the old style of divorce, but I feel that the current practice makes marriages too easy to end. Before no-fault divorce, a sane person would hesitate to end a marriage, because securing a divorce was difficult, and degrading. The divorced man and woman would struggle with negative judgements from family, friends, and strangers.

A better approach may be to make marriage licenses harder to obtain, requiring couples to show proof they have attended some sort of prenuptial counseling. I have observed a number of marriages dissolve, over issues which any competent counselor or priest would cover in a basic session.

I don't think that American men are avoiding marriage because of a fear of family courts. I do think, however, that men and women can obtain many of the benefits of marriage--a partner and children--without marriage itself. As long as adults will agree to this bargain, and children are not condemned as bastards (and they shouldn't be), it is easy to overlook marriage's benefits.

Off topic comment.

Your analogy "DDT-filled birds' eggshells that cracked under their own weight" is a myth begun by Rachel Carson and propogated by environmentalists. The truth of the matter is that there is no scientific evidence that DDT had that effect. Noone has published a peer-reviewed scientific paper demonstrating that DDT
weakened raptor egg shells. Millions of Africans and Asians have died from Malaria since DDT was banned.

On topic.

I blogged on this issue in discussing Incentive as it related to Bill Whittle's essay on Responsibility. I wrote "When married people get divorced, the parent getting the kids also gets support from the other parent. States have draconian laws to enforce that support. They have agencies dedicated to tracking down dead-beat fathers and making them pay, even to the point of bankruptcy. By providing strong incentives for fathers to pay child support, the state ensures you don't. But if the parents never married, the father usually gets off scot-free. He has no incentive to marry the mother and/or help raise the child. That strikes me as grossly unfair because of the disparity in incentives."

On the other hand, in some states (including my own), if the parents don't marry, the father has zero rights to the child (and, more importantly, the child has zero rights to a relationship with the father). Sometimes I wonder how men dare have children at all.

Regarding divorce, I don't think divorce-by-trial is any sort of answer. But I would make divorce more difficult, require more work to save the marriage, if there are children. (If no children, I have no problem with divorce being easy and quick.) I'm not sure just how you do that if one or both partners isn't sincerely willing to work on the marriage, but if they are - and I suspect in most cases there is at least some willingness - maybe mandatory counseling, longer delay periods, etc. would help. I'm not really sure.

Julia, is it worth getting rid of the stigma of bastardy to have one-third of the children not sure what legal relationship they have to both parents? This is not a trivial point, as the incidence of poverty among children with divorced, never-married, or never-named parents (the last is distressingly common, the records know the mom's name but not the dad's) is much greater than that among children living with their married parents.

I agree with your point about ease of marriage, there is something in the Christian tradition about "not entered into lightly" that has vanished from the liturgies I've observed more recently.

Paternity suits make children outside of marriage a non-free proposition. Which is fine.

What most divorced fathers will tell you, though, is that support mayments are enforced but custody arrangements are not. One example of extreme unfairness, which compunds the needless and strong presumption against fathers in custody battles, even if the mother is less than fit. I won't even start on the penalty-free incentives to accuse fathers of abuse as part of custody battles.

Result? A system that, top-to-bottom, ignores the father's legitimate interests while training its full enforcement arsenal on them.

The concept of disparity in incentives is a good one to think about here... and incentives (or disincentives) will produce behaviours. Are these the incentives we want? Are these the behviours we want to help create a stronger and more stable society? As long as our incentives remain the same, the practical results will also remain the same.

The system needs to change.

Joe,

I do agree with you as to both the unintended and ineffective way the current system works and the need for change. So what do you suggest beyond generalization of more rights for men in the current system?

I believe these discussions are not of so much value to those of us already married or divorced as to those not yet married and surveying the flotsam of so many crashed marriages, if not the flotsam themselves. They need to find a better way than we have. I am confident that whether I live to see it or not, they shall.

Julia,

In the current environment, everyone is convinced they have tried as hard as they could to keep the marriage together, and they have a lawyer to prove it! If you really press them what you get is the opportunity to loose two friends instead of one, as experience will usually demonstrate. Without absolving specific individuals, I don't believe the ease of the slide to divorce is the responsibility of individual couples so much as it is the way society has structured the incentives for both parties to break up the marriage. It is those incentives that need to change. Then behaviour will follow.

Stephen,

We all enter this life as innocents. Do you think it is a good idea to persecute children who were born to unmarried parents? I also can't think of a method to re-introduce the stigma of bastardy to today's culture.

I am an old-fashioned person. When I hear that a cohabiting couple expects a child, my first question is, "and when's the wedding?" This question elicits shrugs and nervous laughter.

Richard,

Is marriage only a contract between two adults? Or does it determine their relationship to the greater community? Modern life seems to lead to a division between personal life and public life. A man's coworkers may not know if he is married or not; a woman's sister may not be able to find the office where her sister works. What percentage of modern Americans attend church with their immediate neighbors? At one time, married people could reasonably expect to lead their lives in close contact with their families and friends, as well as in contact with people who would gossip about any missteps. In a small town, it is a very good idea to be on one's best behavior, because mistakes are not forgotten. Now, well, I've heard that the average length of a mortgage is 5 years, and even allowing for the recent wave of refinancings, we are moving very frequently. We are living anonymously, in comparison to earlier times.

The negative judgement of one's peers would be a greater disincentive to divorce and bearing children out of wedlock than any law on the books. I don't see any general impulse to pass judgement on others at the present time--rather the reverse.

I would like to point out that this article lists the top three reasons given for the current reticence to marry. I contend there are a whole lot more. For starters, once the decision is made to marry, people cease to be individuals. From that moment on, those involved are referred to as a single homogenous entity by family, friends, and work associates. Person X no longer is person X. This is especially true for women as more often than not they surrender the one chief identifier of their uniqueness: their name. Even for a man, he no longer holds any claim to being a person in his own right. He is now known as "Person Y's husband". He no longer holds any shred of what distinguished him as an individual.

To compound this phenomenon, both immediately find themselves saddled with an increased familial association in the form of in-laws. More often than not, these are people that one would not associate with outside of the marriage. But, now there is this sense of duty to "be a part of the family" once again at the expense of being allowed to choose whom to care about, with any and all forms of emotional blackmail being applied when conformance is not immediately forth-coming. Closely following this, one may find one's passions slowly eradicted in order to fulfill this duty-bound sense of charity towards people they don't like. I saw a modest recording studio liquidated out of my life in order to make room for a no-account brother-in-law who spent most of his day getting high rather than supporting his own family. Oh, I was assured that it would all be worthwhile and that I'd be paid back with interest...fifteen years and still counting.

One needn't fear the outcome of a divorce proceeding to shy away from marriage. One need only look at how they will never be the same person that they are once the certificate is signed. One need only look at the contempt modern society holds one half of a family unit in favor of the other to see that it's a losing propostion. One need only see how failed marriages most often leave one person well cared for and living a lifestyle far in excess of their former partner while this former partner is left without friend, without legal resource, and utterly bereft of the person they once used to be.

Marriage is an out-moded institution that needs to go the way of the dinosaur. If it truly does enslave women like the gender feminists claim, than it needs to be done away with. As a consequence, divorce would no longer enslave men as there would be no need for it to exist.

I am on a marriage strike to avoid the bias in divorce court.

Marriage ought to have a warning label: There exists about 50% chance that for little or reason fathers will lose the right to parent their child, property, and income, with a risk of imprisonment. I want courts to practice the laws of equal rights for both parents.

In Kane County, Illinois, a family judge, after a short discussion with my wife and our attorneys, without due process, but as a matter of routine, removed my rights: fathering replaced by an "award” to visit two of fourteen days (every other weekend); $65k property seized; 45% monthly income garnished for support; and my freedom threatened with imprisonment, just in case I acted up.

Judges hand out Order of Protections like candy on Halloween. My wife said, it looked like I was going to hit her. It is like saying "bomb"
on an airplane - if there is no bomb, stay quiet please.

I saw courts reward mothers to divorce with control of children, unearned property, protection, monthly income, freedom from accountability, tax benefits, and emotional satisfaction. Because rules of evidence are not practiced in family court, as it is a civil, not criminal matter, my wife gave false witness against me for greater rewards.

The drama is available to watch at any county family courthouse M-F between 10AM – 12PM - it is free and better than TV!

I relied on my attorneys for counsel. Unfortunately, they are small business owners, first beholden to profit, the legal community, then me, in that order. After the initial court appearance, my attorney told me, I would have my day in court, after we sort it out. After twenty-seven months, this day never comes that is testimony to the 2% of divorce cases going to trial (mostly trust fund money).

Without explanation, few people outside of the divorce industry know about divorce litigation. The media does not inform men of the anti-male behavior in courts and enforcement agencies that are committed by mostly white educated men.

I decided to fight for my rights, but it proved vain, as the negative bias is pervasive and costly, especially because my son is under the age of 13. The lengthy litigation produced feelings of separation from my family and friends, three job losses due to 60+ court appearances (oddly my wife was not fired from her job?), anger, and bankruptcy. I saw $125k of my non-marital money disappear in the pockets of lawyers and my wife as ordered by our judge.

As a marriage striker I want marriage to work, but if my wife cannot keep her commitment, the courts ought to be fair and equal, as the US
Constitution and statutory law guarantees.

Mark

I am on a marriage strike to avoid the bias in divorce court.

Marriage ought to have a warning label: There exists about 50% chance that for little or reason fathers will lose the right to parent their child, property, and income, with a risk of imprisonment. I want courts to practice the laws of equal rights for both parents.

In Kane County, Illinois, a family judge, after a short discussion with my wife and our attorneys, without due process, but as a matter of routine, removed my rights: fathering replaced by an "award” to visit two of fourteen days (every other weekend); $65k property seized; 45% monthly income garnished for support; and my freedom threatened with imprisonment, just in case I acted up.

Judges hand out Order of Protections like candy on Halloween. My wife said, it looked like I was going to hit her. It is like saying "bomb"
on an airplane - if there is no bomb, stay quiet please.

I saw courts reward mothers to divorce with control of children, unearned property, protection, monthly income, freedom from accountability, tax benefits, and emotional satisfaction. Because rules of evidence are not practiced in family court, as it is a civil, not criminal matter, my wife gave false witness against me for greater rewards.

The drama is available to watch at any county family courthouse M-F between 10AM – 12PM - it is free and better than TV!

I relied on my attorneys for counsel. Unfortunately, they are small business owners, first beholden to profit, the legal community, then me, in that order. After the initial court appearance, my attorney told me, I would have my day in court, after we sort it out. After twenty-seven months, this day never comes that is testimony to the 2% of divorce cases going to trial (mostly trust fund money).

Without explanation, few people outside of the divorce industry know about divorce litigation. The media does not inform men of the anti-male behavior in courts and enforcement agencies that are committed by mostly white educated men.

I decided to fight for my rights, but it proved vain, as the negative bias is pervasive and costly, especially because my son is under the age of 13. The lengthy litigation produced feelings of separation from my family and friends, three job losses due to 60+ court appearances (oddly my wife was not fired from her job?), anger, and bankruptcy. I saw $125k of my non-marital money disappear in the pockets of lawyers and my wife as ordered by our judge.

As a marriage striker I want marriage to work, but if my wife cannot keep her commitment, the courts ought to be fair and equal, as the US
Constitution and statutory law guarantees.

Mark

Even if divorce wasn't virtually a guaranteed result of marriage, and even if divorce didn't equal men getting screwed over, there would still be no logical reason whatsoever to get married.

If divorce was made more equitable, I wager that women would join men on the marriage strike and reveal that their primary reason for wanting to get married ITFP is to set up a profitable divorce.

Love is the thread that holds together the fabric of a marriage.

_Even if divorce wasn't virtually a guaranteed result of marriage, and even if divorce didn't equal men getting screwed over, there would still be no logical reason whatsoever to get married.

If divorce was made more equitable, I wager that women would join men on the marriage strike and reveal that their primary reason for wanting to get married ITFP is to set up a profitable divorce._

Spoken like the Book of Psalms,
amen brother.

as far as unearned income, I was married to a total slacker stoner and while I raised 3 kids and cleaned the house and worked like a dog he sat around and smoked dope and went to the beach, the retard. He kept promising to improve. He never did. At least if you marry a woman you will probably get housekeeping into the bargain (and this is earned income, sorry, if she gets some of your money it's because she provided maid service - no free lunch, ace!). With non-earning men you get nothing because they will not keep house while you work. Men are happier than women when married. This alone proves that marriage benefits men over women.
Men don't get married because they don't want the disadvantage of divorce. Women don't get married because they don't want the disadvantages of marriage.
Bummer. (NOT) DOwn with marriage. It's slavery.

I have never even considered marriage as a possible life choice. I don't need the companionship of someone who will constantly criticize and attempt to change me, I don't need help with household chores (as I am quite competent in all areas of home care), I can't have children (medical reasons) and I really have no interest in losing everything I worked so hard for to someone who is in it to get what they can. I have my three cats, my very fulfilling job, a few very good friends and a lot of hobbies. I have been told that I would make a great husband and father, but I am not going to expose myself to the likely pillaging of my life.

I just went to a friend's third wedding this weekend. Luckily, he had no children by his first two wives. All but two of my friends have been divorced, most either remarrying or about to. Many of them look wistfully at me and said that they envy me for my ability to not be fazed by the charms of women. I'm not gay, I just don't care. It's a lot easier that way!

Men aren't thinking this one out very well, but I'm not complaining. I love it. Please do go on a marriage strike! Save us women from having to hand over half our paychecks and cater to your every whim, putting aside our lives and careers so you can have whatever you want in life (including OUR children), and then getting sick and dying in our arms. The sad fact is that men die younger than women and they can't even tell if they've had a baby with anyone unless they get DNA testing. Whereas, we women know the child is ours and don't need a guy to get in the way of motherhood or a career. And, I for one, DO NOT want to take care of you when you are sick and dying simply because I'm female and younger than you or live longer. I don't want to pay your medical bills or spoonfeed you applesauce because no one else is there to do it for you. About 75% of all caregivers are women and we'd love the chance to devote more time to our children and less time to you, the men who won't marry, and not have to put up with some pathetic chest-thumping ritual that doesn't even make sense these days since we also work and make a paycheck. Until you pick up your share of the load, we will be absolutely delighted if you stop pressuring us to take care of you, just because you put some stupid rock on our finger. While you're dying in an old age home abandoned, we'll have full lives with our children and half the debt and medical bills. Thank you.

When our civilization (built by men) finally falls to this feminist nightmare, I'm sure men will be blamed for it.

Hi Funny, I have to disagree, we men have thought this out very well. But if you'll support our marriage strike for your own reasons, that's excellent and we welcome your support!

Funny at 11:45 pm on Apr 22, 2008

Gezzzzz she just does not get it....

Funny at 11:45 pm on Apr 22, 2008

Hmm, she how smart she is when oil hits $200 per barrel.

What about the issues BEFORE marriage?

The entitlement, the sassy attitude, the incredible amount of games played before sex is offered, the disrespect towards men in social settings?

If this is how it is before marriage, how are we to expect it gets any better?

Keep on reading Cosmo and listening to Oprah ladies, it's driving us away in droves.