Why Do Divorce Laws Marginalize Men?

*Politically, I think this is [divorce law] one of the most destructive things in America. It's prodominately anti-man, and forments a very anti-marriage attitude. This one of the reasons I'm anti-state marriage...I think marriage should be contractual and religious (if that applies).

**What's funny is, I would die for any woman I've ever loved...I do anything for them when I was with them or even to some point afterwards...but I'll be damned if I'm made their slave. That's one thing I won't do for love....

***I wonder why these laws exists...other than reasonable child support, I think all the rest of the laws are BS.

http://www.askmen.com/fashion/austin_60/92_fashion_style.html

Why Do Divorce Laws Marginalize Men?
By Douglas Cooney
Lifestyle Commentator - Every 2nd Tuesday

PAGES: | 1 | 2 |

Credit: Getty Images
Ask a buddy at work. Ask your neighbor. Even a relative will probably have heard of one. And the stories are always the same: she took his house, his car, and his kids. She made more money than him and he still had to pay alimony. She accused him of physical abuse and the courts didn't even ask for evidence.

It seems that no matter who you talk to these days, someone knows of a man who came out of a divorce robbed and humiliated. And there is no end to how harrowing such stories get.

In America, men are forced to pay around 40% of their income to ex-wives, regardless of wrongdoing on the woman's parts (often called "no-fault" alimony). She could commit adultery and beat her husband or kids, and none of it will influence the court's decision.

More shockingly still, a woman can simply accuse her husband of sexual or physical abuse (or simply express a fear of it) and instantly win a restraining order forcing him away from his home and children, without so much as a hearing. In fact, most divorce lawyers will advise a woman to do this, and those who do not can be sued for legal malpractice.

And once she has the kids, the family court will be loath to enforce visitation rights for the father. All the mother has to do is ask.

the war on men

With divorce on the rise -- today, more than 50% of all marriages in the U.S. result in divorce -- men's rights are being increasingly overlooked to the benefit of women. Consider this: statistically, the first person to file for divorce usually wins. While 70% of all divorces are initiated by women, 85 to 90% of custody awards go to the women. The numbers alone reveal the ugly truth when it comes to men: marriage has become a gamble in which the odds are heavily against us.

Family courts have become synonymous with tragedy and injustice. Once made to protect women from deadbeat dads, these courts are making a mockery of fairness by being instruments of disgrace for men and families.

But this waking nightmare is simply part of a much larger current. Even the most inattentive of men will notice that the media is saturated with negative images of themselves.

Pervasive in television and movies, the only acceptable representation of man is that of the irresponsible, beer-drinking dimwit. We are living in the anti-male age, where men are the new scapegoats for all of society's evils. It was only a matter of time before this trend reached the courtrooms.

It's all because of those radical feminists... Next >>

the tables have turned

There is little doubt over who is responsible for this. Radical feminists, the same ones who dominate the media and schools with the message that men are by nature violent and abusive, have gained control of key parts of the law and legislature. They have managed to convince lawmakers that men are dangerous and have no place in a child's life, and therefore should be controlled accordingly. And the result can be seen in the following rulings:

# Courts consistently refuse to lower child support fees when the father's income drops. Known as the "Bradley Amendment," this law forbids any reduction in child support arrears, even if the father is disabled.

# If a man remarries, his new wife's income can be used as proof that the man can pay alimony. If the ex-wife (and mother) remarries, however, not a cent of her new husband's earnings goes to child support. The court's rationale? They are not his children, thus not his responsibility.

# Current data indicates that women are becoming the biggest perpetrators of domestic abuse. Furthermore, many women brainwash children into saying their fathers were abusers. Courts will nonetheless believe a woman over a man, just because she is the mother.

# In California, if the higher-earning spouse, who is typically the man, is hurt during marriage and gets a monetary settlement, the court can award some of it to the wife even if he suffered all the pain and permanent loss of earning capacity.

# The earning spouse will be ordered to pay the attorney's fees of the dependent spouse, which is usually between $5,000 and $20,000 US, even if the latter initiated it.

the delicate sex?

Conventional wisdom tells us that women are, by nature, nurturers. For that reason they should naturally have custody of a child. Far be it for anyone to question a mother's love, but turning a blind eye to the role that a father plays in a child's life is downright insensitive. A good father keeps a family together, provides strength, and shows unconditional support.

These are not the musings of romantics. U.S. data shows that fatherless children are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of school, 10 times more likely to abuse drugs, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. Also, 71% of teenage pregnancies happen to girls who reside in fatherless homes.

Now get this: 60% of all child abuse is committed by women with sole custody.

with liberty & justice for some

So why are fathers increasingly discouraged -- nay, maligned -- from being fathers? When a pendulum stops swinging one way, it must necessarily come to the other extreme. This is a fact too oft forgotten by the frontline fighters of feminism. So influential are pressure groups run by seriously vindictive women, that preference in courts are given to women -- no matter what.

Family judges today automatically believe the woman over the man out of fear for being politically incorrect. They know that if they examine the facts and find that the man is more capable of raising a child, the shrill alarms of sexism will ring loud and clear.

keep it in the middle

It is time to admit that the pendulum of political correctness has swung too far. In an effort to force equality into society, all the power fell into the hands of feminists who seem too happy to ape the worst traits of their former oppressors. But pointing fingers is what got us into this mess in the first place. It won't help anyone, and it will only prod us to the other extreme. Of greater consequence is that marriage vows are now seven-year contracts that end in tears and anger. It might be wise to examine where we went wrong.

And should we try to change the pendulum's course, let's hope we learn to keep it happily in the middle.

 

No brainer subject, I agree with you 100% but we men have no say when it comes to this subject

We are odds on in every divorce to lose all our money, the house, the kids and then we are left with f--k all, then on top of that we have to then pay maintenance

Very fair system!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Which leads to wonder, 'why isn't there any reputable movement that I know of to change this shit?'

It's not a foreign topic to men...all of us have spoken about this at one point in our life. Yet nothing seems to be going on to protect our basic individual rights. Marriage should be thought of as a positive agreement/commitment, that if necessary, can be ended on peaceful and reasonable terms.

This issue actually pisses me off more than anything, because it's degrades so many men I've known in my life...that it's hard at times not feel a sort-of bad stigma towards marriage in general.

I assume it's all caught up this way due to (destroy men versions of) feminism and lawyers whom like their huge fees.

 

Divorcing ones husband is incentivized by the States because the Federal gov't gives a matching 70% for every dollar collected by the States in child support. This money is discretionary. More child support means more money for the beaurocracy and their cottage industry blood-suckers - the lawyers. They urge such divorces. The courts make them permanent.

Lesbians from California created this VAWA atmosphere, and politicians, the greatest worms in the history of the earth, cow-tow to it all for votes.

 

Ask around, you all have heard of a woman who was left in poverty after divorce, was abused and the police and the courts did nothing, etc.

 

I never heard of this. Can you provide a source?

 

Kaethy... read Phylis Schaffly. This woman is dynamite. Look her up on the internet. She is a woman of incredible strength and honesty. IN politics for many years too (held a post in the Nixon Administration) which makes her all the more astonishiong for her truth.

 

You must be kidding! I asked for a reference to your claim that the gov matches child support by 70%, and you tell me to look up Schaffly

I'll have to conclude that 70% is not accurate unless you can give me a serious reference to back that up.

 

sorry, but your writing style reminds me on anthony cea.
Are you?

Anyway good posts in general

 

that's not anthony. anthony would have made a google search "nixon causes divorces" or something; then go on a rant about falwell or pat robertson. mentioning nixon != anthony

 

You maybe right

dead corn makes great points though with only 16 posts.

 

that's the other thing. anthony never made good points

 

No, LOL. I'm really a Kathy.

 

Divorce laws aren't even the worst of it. You want to get me pissed off - lets talk about child support laws.

There are courts ordering men to pay $50,000+/month for child support. No child on earth needs that kind of "support"... it's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever seen.

 

Arnie, I have no idea who anthony cea is, sorry.

About child support. The Bible demands we pay it, as well we should. ( Timothy 5:8, 2 Cor 12:14, Isaiah 58:7)

The issue is not child support, but FAIR child support.

We are to obey authority as Christians, that means we are to VOTE for change. Last year I testified before a State Senate Judiciary committee against the unfair practices of Family Courts against the non custodial parent (typically the father).

I vote Libertarian as they are the only party who is for Joint Physical Custody.

We must unite to fight this evil. Try the ACFC for example, and get motivated.

IN Christ

 

I'd say that's a part of it, ...Yes, I agree, I think child support should be reasonable.

 

The abuse thing is one thing, which should be held to a specific level of prosecution. I can't really speak for that articles view on that.

But if a women desire to be called an equals, then she can't make a slave out of her ex-husband and call that moral. She isn't his (vunerable) child, and is fully responsible for her life.

I can't believe we have even one vote that saying 'no'. Although at the end of this polls, I bet you that it will make people wonder why it exists.

 

I agree with you. Personally, the Libertarian party is the closest thing to being moral (even though I think some of their policies are horrendous).

 

Non custodial parents should pay a reasonable amount of child support freely, without court intervention, out of love for their child, and out of a feeling of moral responsibility.
If they did so consistently in the past, child support laws would never have been passed.

For every case where the father was ordered to pay $50 thousand a month in child support, there are thousands more cases where the father was ordered to pay a pittance. Then there are hundreds of thousands more who don't pay anything at all, regardless of what the court ordered.

How exactly do you define the difference between paying the child support a non custodial parent should pay, and making a slave out of an ex-husband?

Are you saying a non custodial parent shouldn't have to pay child support at all? If you're not saying that, what are you saying?

If there had been no divorce, the parent in question would still have spent a certian percentage of their income on that child, why object after the divorce?

I suspect the objection comes from the fact that child support is paid to the other parent, who you now hate. That's a small minded way to look at it, and it's the child who suffers.

I once dated a divorced man who felt that his exwife was irresponsible with money, so he reduced his child support payments thru the court by buying his kids ALL of their clothing. The court took it into consideration because he had receipts to show.

 

yes.

Pardon me, but did you read a fuckin word I wrote in here? This isn't an issue to me, and is a non-sequitar topic to refer to. Obviously I agree (to some level) with these child-support laws (if you read what I wrote), and they should be enforced very harshly.

And they should get in trouble. But what the law does each time is all that counts. REASONABLE being the keyword.

Again, did you read fuckin word I wrote? It would be so easy if you made that effort. Here's a part of it...

Me:'other than reasonable child support, I think all the rest of the laws are BS.'

Why are you making a red herring out of what I wrote or are you just lacking throughness that you have to waste my time with you unnessary questions....

Here's a clue...read my past posts in this thread. Everything with a '*'.

A man that doesn't help his children is scum to me, it's alimony and the whole 1/2 deal that pisses me off. If a woman demands more than what's necessary for a child, I do think she should be burnt on a stake. j/k > ; )

More useless question, for a person lacking the effort to read.

And only a small mind doesn't read what a person posts before-hand.

It's as clear as day, IF you actual use that effort correctly. You're fired!