Getting married: what’s in it for me? (Part I)
I like to think I have a lot of experience on the subject of marriage, including divorce and child custody.
I’ve studied it academically, both the legal issues and the psychological ones. I’ve worked in the field, approaching it from many angles: law, public policy, mediation, couples therapy. I’ve lived it: a long marriage, parenthood, and a divorce. I’ve seen clients, both couples and individuals, married and never married, divorced and separated. I have many friends—both male and female—who confide in me about their marriages and their divorces, their joys and their tribulations. I’m a fairly keen observer, as well, and I’m old enough to have seen a lot and to have observed many changes in society regarding marriage and divorce.
But I have to say that the level of vitriol expressed in the comments section in response to this article by Dr. Helen at Pajamas Media surprised me and disheartened me, even though I’ve read similar discussions before online. The general flavor of comment after comment there—mostly from men—can be summarized as follows: “The bitch screwed me” with the corollary, “Women are all like that.” The formerly married say, “Never again,” and the never-married merely say, “Never.”
I’m not naive enough to think all women are angels, or that said metaphorical screwing doesn’t occur, often at the man’s expense. But my observation, based on years of experience—beginning in the late 60s, when I became somewhat expert on the twin subjects of expanding father’s rights to child custody, and mothers who lost custody of their children—I noticed that divorce is usually a bitch for all parties concerned (except the lawyers, of course—although I’ve even known a number of lawyers who won’t touch divorce cases with a ten-foot pole because dealing with them is tediously acrimonious).
Yes, it may seem to one spouse that he/she has ended up with the short end of the stick while the other is sitting pretty. And such gross inequities do indeed occur. But my observation is that that, more commonly in divorce proceedings, each person endures some degree of pain, emotional loss, and financial setback, although it’s rare that these are doled out to both sides in exactly equal measure in any particular divorce—how could they be?
Also, it is paradoxical that divorce—and, most especially shared child custody, far more common nowadays than it used to be—can in some cases require almost as much (and sometimes more) emotional maturity and cooperation as marriage does, whereas it’s entered into by people who have already failed to sustain a marriage and who tend to hate each other’s guts. Not a prescription for happy resolution.
To ask the courts to rule on divorce in such a way as to make each spouse feel they’ve been fairly treated is to ask the impossible. The law, unfortunately, may be an ass, and we wish it were better. But it’s totally unrealistic to expect it to be a miracle worker.
As I’ve said, I’ve worked in the field of public policy concerning divorce, trying to offer recommendations at the state level to make divorce and custody settlements more equitable. In that capacity, I had to study the ways in which a variety of states around the country did such things, in hopes of finding a better approach. And I can say categorically that I came to the conclusion that the situation is so inherently impossible that all “solutions” are going to be inequitable—and unpopular—in a large percentage of cases. The law cannot fix one of the tragedies of human interaction: the gap between what we desire and hope for, and bitter reality.
I wrote in some detail here about some of the archaic marriage and divorce laws that were still in effect when I was young. The overriding one was the concept of marital fault. This led to terrible recriminations and allegations, divorces in which the warring spouses were engaged in proving to the court which of them was the greater sinner against the other.
Not a good situation for children, and one that tended to lead to even more bitterness between spouses, if such a thing be possible. In those days of fault divorce, when one person was deemed the innocent party and one the guilty one based on a marital offense or offenses (for example, adultery), the resources of the marriage were almost always parceled out as rewards or penalties in accordance with this ruling.
For example, if a woman was found to be guilty of adultery, she stood an excellent chance of losing her children and almost everything else. The situation was just short of branding her with a scarlet A. Never mind whether she was a good mother otherwise, whether the children even knew or liked their father, whether he was simply going to hand them off to a new wife (who might end up like the wicked stepmother in the fairy tales), whether he’d been a poor husband in other respects.
It worked the other way, too, believe me. If a man was the offender, he was made to pay the price, often a heavy one, regardless of other factors. And on rare occasions, if both parties were ruled guilty of marital offenses worthy of divorce, their actions were considered to cancel each other out and the ludicrous effect was that no divorce was granted.
If neither party was guilty of an offense, they sometimes created one. There was a flourishing market for entrepreneurs who would stage fake adulterous liasons and document them in order to obtain divorces when both spouses wanted one but couldn’t get one.
All this did make divorces more difficult to obtain. They certainly were less common, but was this primarily because of these laws, or were other factors involved? I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone knows, for the simple reason that these laws did not exist in a vacuum. They were part and parcel of a society that, even though it was in place only a half-century ago, was so different from today’s in so many ways that it we might as well be talking ancient history. And when the laws changed, they did not do so in a vacuum, either—they reflected changes that were probably already occurring in society, ones that had made divorce more desirable and marriage less of a necessity.
[Part II, coming tomorrow, will explore these changes in the function of marriage, and how they factor into the attitudes reflected in the comments to the Dr. Helen article cited at the beginning of this post.]
There is a brilliant study of these issues – a book by Francis Fukuyama “The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order.” I am re-reading it now and can recommend it to anybody as the best piece of scholarship on the subject.
Having read the article by Dr. Helen, I can say only one thing: under such laws and judical policy in the field, never marry feminist or any other women which can use this institutional anti-man discrimination to her advantage. In such cultural climate the very institute of marriage and family is doomed, and only reversal to Victorian era morality can save it. In the next decade the only properly functioning families would be religion-based: Evangelical, Catholic, Mormon or Orthodox Jewish. These are the only segments of society that feel necessary to reproduce themselves – and do it. Others will get extinct in two generations.
I’m glad to see you’re writing on this subject, neoneo. I read Dr. Helen’s post and the comments that followed it and I too was taken aback at the level of venom verging on outright misogyny being expressed there. The posters there were creating an appalling picture of marriage that didn’t reflect anything I’ve ever seen, even during my parents’ divorce.
I look forward to seeing what you’ll have to say tomorrow.
I got to this blog somehow when researching the meaning (and correct words) of the phrase that has to do with the mills grinding exceedingly fine. Fun to get HERE from THERE.
I read a parenting/marriage article that said that in a balanced marriage, each partner will feel as if he/she is doing 75% of the work. If you feel like you’re doing half, you’re not doing your share. I’ll bet there’s something similar with divorces: in a balanced divorce, each partner will feel as if the other partner got 75% of the goods. Anyone who feels he or she got his or her fair share probably got way more than that.
It does seem that men often get the short end of the stick in divorce court. But I had a hard time reading those comments, too. I had to stop. Those people don’t speak for me at all.
As a hideous freak of nature that couldn’t even get laid if I was a chocolate shoe full of money, I think these people should be glad they can even attract people of the opposite gender, let alone get hitched. People have such unrealistic expectations these days; everything has to be perfect forever, or else it’s time to call the lawyers.
The anger in those comments is palpable, and I think it comes from the frustration of men being otherwise silenced. Right now there is simply no voice advocating on behalf of men in our society. Oh, sure, there are some father’s rights and men’s rights groups, but they are marginal and powerless. No politician has run on a platform of men’s rights.
I had a conversation about this with my wife a few years ago. We love each other and have a strong marriage, but I pointed out that I’m always aware she can deprive me of my children and destroy me financially — in a way that I can’t do to her. That does color our relationship. I still love her and she loves me. But it’s kind of like knowing that she has a gun in the nightstand.
A couple of quotes:
1The general flavor of comment after comment there–mostly from men–can be summarized as follows: “The bitch screwed me” with the corollary, “Women are all like that.” The formerly married say, “Never again,” and the never-married merely say, “Never.”
2 Yes, it may seem to one spouse that he/she has ended up with the short end of the stick while the other is sitting pretty…But my observation is that that, more commonly in divorce proceedings, each person endures some degree of pain, emotional loss, and financial setback,
Given 2) would you not expect 1)?
I do not have any personal experience to judge by. All I can say is that I have only come across three articles/ posts claiming that the system benefits men, and all based that claim on the basis that women were discriminated against by being usually given child custody.
If that really is the best argument to show discrimination against women in divorces, I have to conclude that the system really does discriminate against men.
In spite of the comment threads that usually follow posts on the subject.
When I was going through my divorce hearing, much of the time was spent out in the hallway waiting while the lawyers hashed things out. As such, I could overhear other divorcing couples sharing the hallway. One woman was really vehement with her lawyer that she wanted to take her soon to be ex-husband for everything. Her lawyer kept trying to remind her to go for a “fair” settlement, saying if the terms were too harsh the husband would just pick up and move somewhere where she wouldn’t have access to his money any more.
I would also add, that if the law screws one party too much, that it could perhaps entice the screwed party to “take matters into their own hands” and resort to violence to “make things right.” I’ve had several arguments with social worker types about this concept, and they always try to come back with “there’s never any excuse for violence against women.” I do remind them that while that may be true, there’s also never any excuse for trying to emasculate men in a divorce by trying to deny the men ever to see their kids again, to make the man pay through the nose, etc.
I got divorced in a “no fault” divorce state. I thought that meant we would just divide our assets 50-50. Boy, was I wrong! She tried to get 75% of everything, and the judge awarded her 60% of all our joint assets. I was supposed to cash in one of my retirement accounts and give her 60% of the money, while she had a similar account that she didn’t have to touch. So what did I do? I cashed in the account, but told her she’d never see any of the money, and that it was my way of “evening” things. And that’s what it was.
I know know first hand of the pain and injustice of divorce (I was focus of a prolonged child custody battle from age 7-14), but I am also amazed at how delusional some men can be when it comes to the causes of divorce and fairness of divorce settlements. I know I am biased, but as a child, I watched in silence more than once as my Father (who I still love more than words) complain about child support payments as he drove me back to my mom’s $700 month apartment in his $60,000 car.
I pointed out that I’m always aware she can deprive me of my children and destroy me financially – in a way that I can’t do to her. That does color our relationship. I still love her and she loves me. But it’s kind of like knowing that she has a gun in the nightstand.
I’m always aware that my husband is six inches taller me and much stronger. If he ever took it into his head to do so, he could destroy me physically in a way that I can’t do to him. It does not color our relationship.
I’m in full agreement that court systems whose awards are biased toward women are unjust and should be changed, and I agree that there aren’t enough voices in society to speak for men’s rights in this respect.
However, treating all women with suspicion and anger because of this state of affairs is no more rational or justified than women treating all men as potential batterers or rapists is. Women don’t automatically ruin the lives of men when they’re angry any more than men automatically resort to violence against women when they’re angry. It may be understandable– just as feminists adopting that worldview in a time and place when many justice systems went light on rape and outright condoned battery as the man’s prerogative was understandable. Understandable doesn’t equate to right.
Ugh. Judging by the nature of many of those comments, women should thank their lucky stars that those men have taken themselves out of the running.
Oh, and to bring this back to the usual subject matter around here, that repugnance is what we liberals usually feel when we listen to conservatives, notwithstanding Dennis Prager’s supposed gentility. And I suppose the same is true contrariwise.
I’m always aware that my husband is six inches taller me and much stronger. If he ever took it into his head to do so, he could destroy me physically in a way that I can’t do to him. It does not color our relationship.
If you knew that 70% of violence was initiated by men and that after the husband beat his wife and didn’t get charged with any crime, the cops told you, “Sorry, but that’s the law.” I bet it would color your relationship.
However, treating all women with suspicion and anger because of this state of affairs is no more rational or justified than women treating all men as potential batterers or rapists is.
The issue again isn’t how women treat men, it’s how the law treats men. All men are considered rapists and wife beaters if a woman asks for a restraining order. Do you see the difference between “treating all women with suspicion and anger” as a personal belief and treating all men as rapists and wife beaters under the law? Although not as bad, it’s the same difference as being a racist and convincting black people because they are black. Both are wrong, but one is far worse.
I’m glad you’ve posted this, Neo, and frankly come down more on the side of your response.
I admire and respect Helen; however I think she is making a rather stunning reputation on championing the cause of men as victims….victims of abuse, victims of the courts, victims of career promotions and on and on.
She and I differ on the Mary Winkler case considerably.
We live in a world of increasing victim consciousness where no one—male or female— wants to take responsibility for anything any more.
Two people should never even think about getting married until they know how to find their own part in any disagreement (even if they think they’re only 5% in the wrong).
Lot of these man, if we really knew the whole situation, probably contributed greatly to their own pain and anger. so much of these painful relationships are greatly about projection onto one another.
But of course, trying to get people to see that is like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip.
In the end there are no victims., no victims…only the need to grow up more and then some more and then more……
I have long held that divorce should be easy and that marriage should be hard. Couples should be required to take classes on compromise, arbitration, conflict resolution, etc., in addition to financial management courses. It should be really difficult to get a marriage license. Likewise for becoming parents. Parenthood and marriage are two of the most difficult–and important–jobs people can have; if they’re not prepared, the consequences can be dire, both for the individuals concerned and society.
Oh, and Hyman, thanks for the snarky non sequitur.
“Lot of these man, if we really knew the whole situation, probably contributed greatly to their own pain and anger. so much of these painful relationships are greatly about projection onto one another.”
This isn’t the issue. The issue is that, due to radical feminist influence in social work and the very real lopsidedness of family courts is what causes the bitterness. It supposed to be “no fault” if so, then why are men getting shafted? Why do women expect a paycheck out of a man they don’t want to live with anymore? This ain’t the 1800’s. Hell it isn’t even 1950. But the court system still views women as frail and fragile flowers when it come to expectations of accountability and supporting them selves as adults..
I’m sure that’s true Ted. Let me say feminism has indeed become the greatest promoter of victimhood of any group I know, except maybe JessieJacksonism.
Standing up to this lopsidedness needs to happen and fast. By men and women alike.
Let me say, from my experience though, there are many marriages that from the outset are traditional in the sense that the woman agrees to stay in the stay-at-home mom/mother supporting role and therefore the courts take this into account.
I don’t happen to know any people who have had the kinds of experiences those commenters have. Or any man who doesn’t work it out, even if it takes a while, to his satisfaction eventually.
I was shocked by the comments on Dr. Helen also. I had no idea young people had become so cynical and materially oriented.
As background I have been married 51 years. I look back over those years and see………a whole lot of peaks and valleys. And a whole lot of work by both of us to make the marriage work.
I was not a good candidate for marriage. Came from a family where an unfriendly divorce occurred. I was uncertain if marriage was something that could last. Nevertheless, I was fortunate enough to fall in love with and marry a woman who was light years ahead of me in maturity.
After many ups and downs, many of which would probably have ended a marriage today, I finally matured into a “good enough” husband and father. I became committed to making the marriage last.
Money seems to be a bone of contention among young couples today. It has been an issue in our marriage as well. We have worked together and discussed financial issues in detail. We have seldom been in total agreement but managed to make compromises that worked for us.
Our son was killed in an accident when he was 20. That experience required a great deal of work on both our parts to keep things together. We actually separated for a time but did a lot of counseling and soul searching that lead us back together.
Looking back over those years I realize there were times when it would have been easy to go our separate ways. But here we are today. It still takes work, but it’s a lot easier and we are proud of what we have accomplished together.
I admired Susan Powter (celebrity fitness guru) when she got divorced. She told her ex that they were going to be connected through their children for the rest of their lives. So she bought a house where he lived upstairs and she lived downstairs. The children saw them both whenever they wanted to. I’m sure it was not easy but it reflected an attitude of putting their children first. If more people would just try to put aside their anger and think about making things work for the children it would be a big step forward.
I don’t know why the legal system seems to be so punishing toward men. I do know that I knew several co-workers who went through divorces that were amicable until the lawyers got involved.
Some lawyers seem to have an interest in stirring things up because it increases their fees. IMO all divorcing couples should be required to try mediation before getting lawyers involved.
Yes, marriage is too easy and it seems the only ones truly prepared today are kids from religious backgrounds. They seem to understand how important it is to develop a relationship that can provide a secure place to raise children. They also seem less material in their attitudes. I know a few such young couples and that is one reason I was shocked by the comments on Dr Helen’s site.
Man– I wrote a long retort to this comic Comment — where is it ?
Jim: You missed my point. I was responding to a statement that because the law is the way it is, a man regards his wife with automatic suspicion, even though any negative consequences for him would depend totally on her decision to act. That may not be “the real issue”, but it’s AN issue.
The issue again isn’t how women treat men, it’s how the law treats men.
And I said specifically that how the law treats men is wrong and that I disagreed with it, and then went on to make a specific comment on a specific aspect of the ensuing discussion, namely the notion that a woman in a relationship is automatically suspect no matter how much you trust her otherwise because she could theoretically ruin your life. Yes, it’s wrong that she theoretically could, just as it’s unfair that men can theoretically kill their wives with their major physical advantage (legal recourse ceasing to matter to her at that point), but that doesn’t mean that all discussion of the (understandable, but wrong) attitude that some men are taking in response is right. That is, in fact, part of what inspired Neo to write this post in the first place.
A fitting topic on the start of the 32nd remaining month of child support for me! Can’t wait to cut off the ex at that time.
I don’t know why any young man would put himself at risk through marraige.
wELL– pART 1 INDIRECTLY TELLS US– mEN HAVE NO REASON TO BNE ANGRY, BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS AS GOOD AS IT CAN BE AND THERE IS NO DISCRIMINTAION AGAINST MEN.
So Part 2 will be her feminist psychotherapy where this woman dignoses the problme in male inferiority or patriarchial conditioning.
I have never read a more disengenoius pile of utter nonsense that this inane commnet. This woma is part of the SISTERHOOD– she helped design the system to benefir women and screw men– so you can hardly expe3ct her to be critical of it.. or to acknowledge the rampant , severe, instititonlized discrimnation against men in the system– heck– she has wirked tio make it that way,
She doesn’t even think there is a problem !
No one is that stupid– she is just lying — or so immersed in pro-female idiology, she has no interst, much less concern, wityh harm visited on men.
No rational man looks at marriage in the light of his grandfather — or even father. women have a million female-only tools at theri beck and cal in our society…
Divorce is just an income transfer from men to women anyway– thats the bottom line.
This woman IS the problem. Her only interest is ” Is it good for women”… she must defend the system she created to benefirt women,
When you are so big a liar , so stupid– or more likely– hoplessly delusionary from female-first psychosis– theat you cannot see the evil in the system— that s pretty good indication of why men are very wary of marriAGE.
didn’t get to edit that missive
Labrat, murder is against the law. A wife destroying her husband mentally and fiscally is enabled and enouraged by the law.
Murder being against the law is irrelevant to its victim, whose life is just as ruined- as in over- no matter if their killer is brought to justice or not.
As I keep repeating, I agree the law is completely screwed up, unfair to men, and should be changed.
My actual POINT is that relationships often involve de facto power imbalances, including risk of total ruin, and the fact that the power is there and inherent does not justify automatic suspicion of the other party. In mine as in many households, there IS a literal gun on the nightstand- and it threatens neither of us, because it requires the will to pull the trigger to do its work. That is an individual matter.
Labrat,
Murder requires planning, effort, and dealing with the substantial negative social and legal consequences. Assassins are not easily obtained.
This tends to discourage murder by the reasonable.
A wife destroying her husband emotionally and fiscally is enabled, encouraged and rewarded legally, financially, and socially. Divorce lawyers are available in the phone book and will be paid for by the husband.
It’s the difference between climbing a mountain and falling off of a log.
How can you possibly regard the two situations as equivalent?
It’s simple economic behavior. Women have more rights than men in marriage.
For example, a woman can have an affair, get pregnant by another man, and force her HUSBAND to pay child support for twenty years. Women who do that kind of thing are scum. Roughly 1/4-1/3 of children born in marriages do not belong to the husband. As an objective fact, that means lots of women are scum.
When entering into any relationship, rational people evaluate the effects of relative legal and social standing.
A rational man will not marry because he will have no reproductive rights, no asset protection, no physical protection against female violence, and no social standing to mitigate against those risks.
The vitriol you read on Dr. Helen’s site is a consequence of the superior legal status of women — and the demonstrable fact that women often use that superior status against men.
The problem is with scummy women, not angry men.
Speaking of snarky comments, I see that the responses here are skewing pretty much like the ones over at Pajamas Media. Both of these sites are conservative, and so I guess we can see fully exposed the ugliness of the Angry White Male.
I often say that I got the kids and a blender in my divorce. It’s a bit of an overstatement as I eventually got most of the kids’ things and a few of my own. She rarely bothered to pay her child support which was set far below what a man with the same income would pay.
I remarried. I’m now disabled (receive two pensions) and I do all the housework leaving her free to run her business. I know as well as anyone that if we divorced she would have no obligation to support me while, if the genders were reversed, I would have an obligation to support her.
Add in that I am a sex assault survivor (Canada: Help is FEMALE ONLY and rather violently female only) and I once needed access to a eating disorders clinic (female ONLY of course).
Now, try to look at it through MY eyes. If you are a first world born and raised woman you just plain can’t do it! The sense of powerlessness and rage at a system that sees a female rapist as a more moral and important human being than I is beyond your ken.
The men’s comments make ABSOLUTE sense! Not only is the system unfair and unreasonable, most women do not care about the damage being done to innocent males! THAT, that is important.
Add in that any attempt to discuss this will be met with sexism dumped violently onto male shoulders and we have an angry mess that will eventually explode.
Dear Rosen,
If you for a moment think that the attitude you cite skews in terms of politics, you have another and another and another and about fifteen million more thinks coming.
Wake up and don’t embaress yourself like that.
These frustrations and hostile attitudes to ex-partners are products of dysfunctional culture that made idols from individual rights and comletely severed these rights from obligations. It produces egotists who expect everything from others but do not want give them anything above absolute minimum. Marriage is a litmus test of maturity and socialization, and majority of modern men and women fail this exam. This always is the case in hedonistic culture, completely unaware of value of self-constraint and self-sacrifice, or of any obligation before God or other transpersonal entity (nation, society, group, civilization, etc.)
Hyman Rosen wrote, “I guess we can see fully exposed the ugliness of the Angry White Male.”
Typically sophomoric transposition of cause and effect. Righteous anger isn’t ugly. Men are angry for good reason.
Yeah, this is about how the law treats men, now how women treat men.
Anyone who is disheartened by the pain in the current comments has not been following what has been happening while the major media were looking elsewhere.
If you wanted to bring back slavery in the US, it would be very useful as part of your plan to define it as a public good, rename it, and get the major media not to cover the transformation. That’s what has happened in family law.
While few have been looking, the pattern of state and federal laws has been gradually altered. Take a look at Steven Baskerville’s scary new book Taken Into Custody: The War AGainst Men, the Family and Marriuage.
In family courts men are now routinely deprived of constitutional rights–they lose their children without trials–they can be made into indentured servents at the whim of a woman with a lawyer.
If you say, “Surely, this can’t be true!” you have not been watching. All these changes have actually happened under the radar. The newspapers have ignored the story–because it is so complicated. Instead, they run official deadbeat dad propaganda from government agencies.
These changes are going on–that’s why the surprising bitterness. I know two men–through their survivors–who killed themselves in Massachusetts from frustration with child-support issues and the courts. They were both poor men. One stabbed himself in the heart in New Bedford; one gassed himself in his car in Newton. They had been driven to suicide by our system. Now their children are orphans. Your tax-payer supported system helped bring these deaths about.
Were these deaths covered by the media? The Boston Phoenix turned down a vivid and well-written account of the two deaths, probably because the story doesn’t jibe with the current dominant narrative of “women good, men bad.”
Consider joining the American Coalition for Fathers and Children; or Fathers and Families; or following the news on this topic the website Mens News Daily.
If I may be permitted to belabor the obvious, this is all a product of trying to create a Perfect Law. The more the Law is designed to fit a category of cases, the less able it is to deal with the exception. The more rigorous it is (mandatory sentences) the less it can accomodate the unexpected (by, say, review of sentences outside the guidelines).
Neoneocon said:
To ask the courts to rule on divorce in such a way as to make each spouse feel they’ve been fairly treated is to ask the impossible.
But she is completely wrong–really silly. Fairness for both sides is the goal to aim for. The major unfairness in divorce for men is this huge biological hit–like having two arms cut off with hacksaws–of losing the ability to bring up your children. It’s not the “company” of your kids that matters so much as your ability to be a parent to them. To get so see your kids only 15 per cent of the time, while the woman gets them 85 per cent of the time…is so grossly unfair that I am astounded its not a national issue. It will be, pretty soon. Imagine you have 100 couples, and the judge splits the pie between them 85/15 ninety per cent of the time.
If women knew they had to share the upbringing of the children with the children’s father–in almost all circumstances–we were would achieve
(1) fewer divorces, and
(2) much happier children of divorce.
Fifty-fifty shared parenting after divorce should be the starting point. The time allocation must be 50-50 because children grown and are formed through experiences that happen in time. To insist that a child get only a small fraction of the father-care and instruction that he or she deserves is gross injustice.
The best objective study of divorce outcomes is Sanford Braver’s The Myth of the Deadbeat Dad; as part of a huge $8-million study, just a small part of it, he asked divorced men and women about their happiness with the treatment the courts gave them. Women were satisfied about 92 per cent of the time; men roughly five percent.
no-gun-in-the-nightstand wrote, “Yeah, this is about how the law treats men, now how women treat men.”
Wrong. Women who support the unjust treatment of men under the law are fair game. It is ALL about how those women treat men and how they want the law to treat men.
njcommuter wrote, “If I may be permitted to belabor the obvious, this is all a product of trying to create a Perfect Law.”
I disagree. The issue is an obviously unjust legal regime. We aren’t seeking perfection, but a reasonable approximation of equality under the law.
Yes, Jeff, I guess you are right. It’s the “rotten women” have seized the controls of the law, and worked their quet mayhem over the last couple of decades. We have to object loudly. Legislators have to be told that a great many women are harmed by these draconian laws: mothers, grandmothers, sisters, second wives.
First off, Neo, I think you might want to start moderating, or deleting, all those comments justifying murder.
The last thing either men, or women, need to do, is start playing the victim card. And, if the law is at fault (and it most certainly is), then it would be more useful to get angry at our overly litigatious society, instead of the “evil” opposite sex, that’s allegedly ruining one’s life.
Many religions claim that marriage, is essentially, indissoluble, that a married couple is “one flesh”. Looking at divorces over the years, I have honestly come to believe that they are right to a great extent. The bond between a man and woman is one that can’t be broken by divorce—in fact, divorce often just exacerbates their fighting to a higher level. They might not be bound by love, but they are still bound to each other, by anger, if nothing else.
So, mayb divorce isn’t the answer. Maybe we do just have to accept tat many married couples are bound to each other, divorced or not, and there’s nothing all the laws, and all the lawyers in the land can do, to separate them, if they want to fight it out (though it would be better if they tried loving each other).
Oh, and Hyman Rosen, you’re displaying the typical uglienss of the whiny, liberal mindset that can’t resist lobbing insults, even when they’re completely off topic. And please, don’t give me the “angry white male” garbage; divorce and animosity between the sexes has been a problem for men and women of all races and backgrounds, ever since the sexual revolution; and all the liberals I’ve met, male or female, seem to be much, much angrier than everybody else.
Law is a poor substitute for common sense, informal moral norms and generations-proofed tradition. Ancient Romans had a wonderful legal system, a golden standard for every civilized law, including English common law; still, it did not save them from moral degradation that eventually killed the Empire. There is an obvious danger when legislation is used to change society instead of reinforcing already created and tested moral norms. Unintended consequences can mean more harm then benefits, and predict this consequencies in such complex system as modern society is virtually impossible.
Divorce, by its very nature, pits men against women, and women against men, making them, instead of partners, opponents, each interested in seeing how much on can get from the over.
Perhaps the real problem is the very concept of divorce itself? Maybe there’s no real way to make it work, because it’s essentially a bad thing to begin with, and because the parties will always remain bound to each other, even if it’s only through hate and anger?
There are other ugly things about our easy-divorce, easy hook-up culture:
One, is the fact that one cannot divorce one’s children (though, alas, some parents do try), and the way stepparents are often allowed—with society’s tacit consent—abuse kids, physically and emotionally.
And, speaking of legal conflicts, there’s the “fun” that ensues when a stepparent, who’se alienated their spouse’s kids, decides that, now that the spouse is old, sick, headed for the nursing home,
they’d really like the banished kids to now chip in, and start helping out with some money. There’s also the machinations that go on when the kids are trying to do the stepparent out of inheritance, insurance or getting them to pay for the funeral expenses. Tons of fun for all.
There’s also the nauseating spectacle of the “serial father”—an older guy who takes up with a younger, often underage girl, has a kid or two with her, then moves on to find another young girl after a few years. With “families” such as these, is it really any wonder men, women, children see each other as enemies these days?
The problem isn’t entirely feminism, the law, male shortcomings, female shortcomings (those all these things contribute, of course).
The problem is our culture. The problem is us.
Bravo, Neo. Keep the conversation going.
Thank you, TalkinKamel, for bringing some sanity back to an ugly discussion.
Your comment that the marital bond is essentially indissoluble and cannot be broken by divorce, despite what the law says, strikes me as quite insightful and perceptive, maybe even profound. One of the divorce researchers I’ve read (Judith Wallerstein–neoneo, I’d be interested to hear what you think of her) said just about as much–that in many, many cases, even ten years after the divorce, both parties remained as obsessed with each other, as angry at each other, and as caught in the same patterns as they were before the divorce. The divorce didn’t solve anything for these couples, it only added new problems. Marriage is, among other things, a strongly *emotional* tie, and the law is lousy at regulating emotions.
“Let me say, from my experience though, there are many marriages that from the outset are traditional in the sense that the woman agrees to stay in the stay-at-home mom/mother supporting role and therefore the courts take this into account.”
The reverse of it is, the man shouldered the burden of being the billpayer with the expectation that the woman would be the support giver at home. But in the current system, the woman can quit her support job, move out and still expect money for not doing what she contracted to do, while the man is expected to shell out for that which he no longer receives.
This is archaic thinking and it should change.
Chidren are a separate matter.
no-gun-in-the-nightstand wrote, “Yes, Jeff, I guess you are right. It’s the “rotten women” have seized the controls of the law, and worked their quet mayhem over the last couple of decades.”
Ah, the ubiquitous method of bad rhetoric has arrived: the straw man.
Women are the loudest advocates for the current unjust legal regime. They have not seized control, but they have convinced elected officials to grant them a privileged legal status.
It is true. Many women are harmed by the current unjust legal regime. Appealing to harmed females is probably the most persuasive way to argue the case against it.
But this makes my point entirely. Most women are unpersuaded by undeniable, manifest injustice towards men. Women want everything to be about the harm done to them.
Why? Because by and large women don’t care if men are treated equally or not. That is the root of the problem. It’s a problem with women and about women.
Thanks for the kind comments, colagirl.
SGT Ted, with all due respect, I don’t think kids are a separate matter in marriage, financially or otherwise. I think one big mistake our culture makes is treating them as if they can be treated as separate from a failed marriage.
As I said earlier, neither men, nor women, should start playing the all too popular victim card. Both are at fault, in the current situation (and the law, and our culture, as well); both need to forgive each other, and start again.
*sigh* I don’t regard murder and the current legal situation as equivalent. I used the comparison as an example of something else that can totally destroy someone’s life- in this case literally. Any person, male or female, is more likely to be murdered by their spouse than by anyone else: the nature of the relationship makes it so. It is not rational to go through life or marriage afraid of your spouse because of that fact, just as it is not rational for a wife to fear physical violence from her husband just because he is larger and stronger than she is, and it is not rational to fear your wife just because she has the power to stick it to you legally. If she’s also very vindictive when angry with others? If your relationship already has problems that could lead to divorce? Yeah, that’s a reason to be afraid, but not just because she’s female and married to you.
Do men have reason to fear the possibility in general? Yes. That is why, as I keep saying, the law is completely unfair, invites abuse, and should be changed. The difference- and yes, I do see a difference- is that murder as a possibility will always exist no matter what the law says because some people will do it no matter what the cost to themself, and physical differences between men and women will always exist, but we can CHANGE the law.
But that doesn’t mean it’s rational or right to adopt an attitude of global resentment and fear toward women because the law sucks, any more than it would have been rational or right for women to take an attitude of global fear and resentment toward men back when the law really DID justify and encourage men beating their wives.
Yes, Neo, I’d be interested in hearing what you have to say about Wallerstein too!
I must agree that the problem with modern family is not a legal, it is cultural. But this does not justify existence of obviously discriminative laws. When usual expectations based on traditional moral are not anymore valid, the best solution would be sign a marriage contract where all legal consequencies of divorce are specified beforhand. It should include a clause of refusal of further litigation, to save lots of money wasted on lawers.
Just so folks know, my wife divorced me because she was “unhappy” in the marriage. I never beat her, I never cheated on her, I didn’t blow all of our money on junk, I didn’t smoke, drink, or do drugs. What was my problem? I am a bipolar person, and suffered occasionally from depression. That apparently made her unhappy because when I was depressed I didn’t like to go out and do “fun” things.
I tried to get the priest who married us to get her to go to joint counseling with me, and he refused. He had talked with her, and just repeated “she’s very unhappy in the marriage.” I pointed out to him that “unhappiness” was not a Biblical reason for divorce, and that since he had blessed the marriage under God, that it was his religious duty to try to preserve the marriage, doing all in his power to do so. He just refused. Then I looked him in the eye and told him he should resign the ministry, since he was obviously a fraud. But I should have expected that from him–he was a Episcopal priest, and he had been divorced about a year previous to my divorce.
I believe *MANY* folks get divorced for frivolous reasons (looks at the young folks who call their first marriages “starter” marriages) instead of trying to work things out. I, for one, took my traditional marriage vows seriously–for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, for better or worse, forsaking all others, until death shall you part. It seems a lot of folks mouth those words without really meaning it, so they too are frauds.
In any event, it does my heart good to know my ex-wife has never remarried. Apparently she couldn’t find a replacement for me!
LabRat wrote, “that’s a reason to be afraid, but not just because she’s female and married to you.”
That turns out not to be the case. “She’s female and married to you” is exactly the reason to be afraid.
“In the next decade the only properly functioning families would be religion-based: Evangelical, Catholic, Mormon or Orthodox Jewish. These are the only segments of society that feel necessary to reproduce themselves – and do it. Others will get extinct in two generations.” (Sergey, 11/1/2007, 11:20 am)
I have read somewhere that religious belief is an evolutionary survival skill. Sergey is onto something.
LabRat, may I ask a question? Your position makes a lot of sense and I can appreciate the logic. You have stated the present legal system is unfair. So, would you vote for a candidate that made an issue of this or would you be drawn to on who promised to empower women, all other things being equal?
I realize the question isn’t fair and all other things are never equal but the injustice in this issue is usually not much of a consideration.
“Empower women”? Usually that language makes me want to run screaming. While I think there is still plenty of sexism around, most of that directed toward women isn’t the sort that can be fixed or even remotely helped with a law.
So yeah, I’d vote for that candidate, assuming they didn’t also hold some other position I was violently opposed to.
Make marriage harder? Most people aren’t bothering now. Making marriage harder to get isn’t going to even begin to deal with the pain kids are going through when their families break up. And I also agree that too many people break up for frivolous reasons. It used to be understood that the family was an economic unit. Even today, the surest road to poverty is divorce. And we have nonsense like my co-worker who just had a baby with his girlfriend. He doesn’t want to get married because it’s too big of a step. The big step was having the child, which he will be liable to support for 18 years!
We need to stop bashing marriage. We need to stop saying that everyone gets divorced. We need to encourage folks to try and work things out, to take time before they take the step to divorce. Most marriages are not ending because of physical violence. Mostly, it’s just indifference.
Hyman (thankfully no relation!) – I hope you’re happy reading leftwing blogs like Kos and HuffPo which are rife with antisemitism whenever the Middle East comes up. Oops, I mean antizionist, leftists can’t possibly be bigots unlike those nasty old rightwingers.
I got the shaft, but at least I got the kids. My ex, if of sound mind, would never have done what she did. In the past 10 years I have received numerous crying -jag phone calls on my answering machine, that have, and forever, will go unanswered. My biggest problem is with “the system”. Lawyers, judges, medical. The system requires that someone must pay. Someone clearly not of sound mind can make all kinds of accusations, without proof, and they stick in a court of law, if made against a male.
As Pogo in the comics said, “We have met the enemy, and they is us.”
I truly wish my wife did not explode into her illness, that all with a particle of sense could see was the problem. As I stated above, so does she, when she has short periods of lucidity. It took all I had, and then some, to have my children with me. Not because of anger, revenge, or any of that. But to ensure the best chance for my kids to have a normal life. The system was all too willing to give them to her. Frightening, to me. I could not let that happen.
We were together well over 20 years. After the “snap”, she was someone else altogether. I no longer knew her, at all. I loved her, deeply, completely at one time, and for many years. I would be with her now, if it were at all possible.
The reasons marriages fall apart are many. No one gets married in the hopes it is over some day, and everyone’s life gets screwed over. I don’t believe anyone decides they want to be a heroin addict, either. But many marriages end, and two people can end up hating each other forever. The kids stand in the middle, loving both parents, wishing this was not happening. Forever scarred to one degree or another. Me, too. Nobody “won” in my families case. What happened in my family, no one IN my family wanted.
But my observation is that that, more commonly in divorce proceedings, each person endures some degree of pain, emotional loss, and financial setback, although it’s rare that these are doled out to both sides in exactly equal measure in any particular divorce–how could they be?
The question is what motivates initial behaviors. It is not the loss in divorces that caused it, although such things in divorce would make the divorce more acrimonious. There are certain social institutions, society inclinations, laws, and economic incentives for adopting one behavior over another. The government plays a very large part in the calculations that men and women have before and during marriage.
If it wasn’t for the fear of losing out again on a risky and bad deal, men wouldn’t care so much about the past thing. However, such things are repeated and have a very good chance of being repeated, if only because people who start with bad partners usually continue to find bad partners.
Pingback:Gender Wars « Captain Kj
Pingback:advice to young men: don’t get married! « What is Your Own Opinion?
It is patently obvious that the future belongs only to women.The only time they suffer discrimination
is through positive discrimination which allows them to steal hitherto male jobs by lowering standards
and as for family courts,you must be joking.
Most bloggers here agree that men are badly treated by law and,because they know that they can get away with it,by women who take advantage of same laws.
I bet you no woman here would be prepared to give up one iota of the rights that have been handed out to them,irrespective of all the fine words