There's room to improve with all those things, but that's a pretty scattered list... When I see a shitty lawn, I don't try to decide which gender is responsible.

> We should be allowed to do
> whatever we want in this life

Seriously? Really? I gave up reading Salon in about 1999 when it became obvious that the editorial team (Paglia excepted) was composed of people who never embraced an irony they couldn't comprehend in 7th grade.

The world has complications which can't be diminished. The need to find a simpleton's equivalence in all things can be pushed too far. Why would someone do that?

I mean, golly, that's the same mentality that gets people all upset about gay marriage....

One should not forget that there are differences between the genders. Most likely the guy does the yardwork, because more guys than gals are fond of machines and physical work. These are stereotypes precisely because they reflect the usual state of things.

On an individual basis, you should have the right to do as you choose. A good friend of mine (male) married a woman doctor and they chose for him to be the homemaker and her to be the breadwinner. That's fine, but the fact remains that he was the only father picking kids up from the play group.

The custody problem is real, but essentially insoluble. Children need both "mothering" and "fathering", male and female role models. A single parent cannot be both mother and father.

One sees far too many people getting divorced apparently only because they want to go on to a new chapter in their lives. Divorce should be very difficult for parents of minor children; parents have the responsibility to provide their children with an intact home throughout their childhood. If you cannot commit to that, you should not have children.

There will still be "situations": physical abuse, rampant unfaithfulness, drug addition, whatever. If one person single-handedly destroys the marriage, that person should lose custody and pay support, regardless of gender.

If I drove by a house with a dying lawn, I'd think the people inside probably were too busy to take care of it. And no one at my job is allowed to discuss the hotness of fellow co-workers. HR is pretty serious about that sort of thing.

But you do have a point in the custody arena. Men seem so resigned to just bending over and taking it, legally speaking. This is getting a little better, at least where I live. I'm hearing about more people getting joint custody.

Let's look at these on a case-by-case basis. My neighbor got completely taken in his divorce. His wife got the house, the kids and a lifetime of money from him. On the flip side, he cheated. Admittedly, by all accounts, she was horrible to live with, but he wanted out so badly, and knew he was going to get hit for the cheating, so he gave her everything she wanted. Hardly the court's bad.

Kasten has a point on the child custody issue, but would have been better off leaving out the bit about the lawn. This is nitpicky, but I don't think about gender when I drive by an unkepmt landscape. However... when I walk into a house, and it's filthy, I do wonder what kind of slob the LADY of the house is (unless there are men's clothing and shoes strewn all over the living room.)

Compared to women, many of whom indeed believe that they are entitled to do whatever they want in this life witout judgment or consequence, men still live within a narrowly defined male role model that leaves us with very few actual choices.

Consider reproductive choice. Women, who hold all the cards, seem to be contsantly clamoring for more "choices" in addition to the existing ones of adodption abortion, single motherhood, socially accepatable abandonment, forced child support, paterinity fraud, force the guy to marry her, etc.). Men have the right to keep it in their pants or suffer the consequences.

What if a man chose not to be the primary breadwinner? What woman would respect a man who decided he was going to work part time so that he could take more time "for himself" and get into something really interesting like working with wool or volunteering at the Humane Society.

Feminists seem to think that when ever a woman doesn't get to "choose her own path" (i.e., get her way) then it is oppression and the woman has a right to be outraged and demand justice! Too many normal women passiveley let the feminists run amok to the detriment of us all. Men are taught (or soon learn) that women get bitchy every now and then and that you just have to put up with it. So it goes...

Hmmmm. Interesting. The people next door to me are a different kind of example. He has custody of his sons from his first marriage, and a boy and girl, with another on the way, with his second wife. His first wife is a Class A Asshole Extrordinaire. She is a goddamn lunachick from Hell. It is no wonder to me why he has custody. They have been going to joint counseling ever since she took off with the boys 4 years ago to Florida. She was supposed to have them for 2 weeks, and then refused to return them. She totally disrupts their lives, and acts like she can do anything she wants with absolutely no consquences! She is supposed to have them one night a week, usually Wednesdays, for dinner, and every other weekend. He still pays her child support, even though the boys live with the father. She shows up any damn time she wants with maybe 5 minutes notice. She calls on her cell phone to announce that she's coming to get them while she's driving down our street. One day last week, I was keeping an eye on the boys until the stepmother got back from wherever with the younger ones. because the dad was working ovetime, out of state. The dad calls me and says, you don't have to stay there with them, but just keep an eye open, okay? My wife will be there in about an hour. So I was all, okay, fine. I heard the twins start getting rowdy with each other, so I went over to have a look, and here comes their mother, an hour earlier than she's supposed to be, stops her car in front of BOTH driveways, blocking them, and gets out and starts walking up to the house. "I don't think you should go in there," I say. She says "OH ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO BE WATCHING THEM?" I say, "yeah, and C will be here in about 20 minutes" Meantime, she's on her cell phone, yelling at the boys' father, and his wife is on the phone with my daughter, telling her she'll be here in a few minutes! So the boys' mother screams at me "I'LL BE BACK IN AN HOUR!" Yells into the phone "I'M NOT PLAYING ANY OF YOUR GAMES!" then looks at me and yells "OR YOURS EITHER!" Meantime, I had given the boys popsicles and told them to go over to my house with the girls. She proceeds to get in her car, turn into our driveway, peel out, and go zooming up the street. Now all this time, the boys are silent. The older one is trembling just a little. I say to the twins, "Well C is on her way here. Let's get your baseball gear out of the garage, so you're all ready to go to practice." So we did that, their stepmom pulls up, apologizes profusely, and takes them to their baseball game. And that's just a typical day. You should be here when she REALLY gets going! o.O

Flynne, I wonder: is it maybe time to document her behavior and get a restraining order. I mean, that kind of scene cannot be good for the kids...

Holy crap Flynne, that is one hell of a story. When I was in my early teens, we lived for a while in a divorce-court apartment complex that had some really psycho moms. One, the mother of a friend of mine, didn't work and she drank all of the child support money. Her son was my age, and my mom often gave him a ride to school with me because his mom was too drunk to get out of bed. Another lady, who was also living off of child support and didn't work, was sort of prostituting her teenage daughter, offering the daughter out as bait to get dates for herself.

This is the most revelating thing I've read since I shampooed this morning.

But you do have a point in the custody arena. Men seem so resigned to just bending over and taking it, legally speaking.

Um, they have a choice? The judge would maybe change his or her mind if they just stick up a hand and say, "'Scuse me, Your Honor..."

I was thinking particularly of my neighbor's example, where he just gave up and died, but I'm also thinking of ordinary men who don't seem to care much about this issue until they're the ones in divorce court.

Why aren't men supporting each other in this -- challenging legislators to make laws more fair, forming and donating money to men's legal groups?

challenging legislators to make laws more fair,

Being a white male (or male in general) means that you already have all the privileges you'll ever need, because the legislature is browbeaten and beholden by the feminist and other special interest groups.

forming and donating money to men's legal groups?

Which would be beaten into the ground because they are trying to suppress, oppress, and impede women's progress.

Such groups exist, but are always portrayed in the media as "crybaby" organizations.

The "Common Wisdom" is that men deserve what they get, it's payback for centuries of oppression, and they ought to just man up and deal with it.

Or they can do like me (and many others) and opt the fuck out.

Flynne, that story reflects to things. First, she sounds like a bordeline personality, and a lot of these psychobitch from hell stories involve borderlines, just like the hopleess asshole husbands involve narcissists. And you are just going to have these people around unless you identify and euthanize them in childhood - so ywe're just always going to have them. The real problem is society's refusal to set up ways to deal with them. Instead sociey enables them. In the case of borderline women though, society overwhelmingly priveleges them in the legal system.

"Why aren't men supporting each other in this -- challenging legislators to make laws more fair, forming and donating money to men's legal groups?"

The simple answer, Monica, is that men are too busy supporting these women to care about fellow men, because that's the gender role we are socialized into. Protecting a poor, frail women makes you a big strong man; protecting a fellow man - not so much. And there are plenty of women who will call a man out for being less of a man for not pandering to women - protecting women, supporting women, feeding housing and clothing women, etc. And the men are even worse.

"The custody problem is real, but essentially insoluble."

Uh, no.

"Children need both "mothering" nd "fathering", male and female role models."

Yes, and that's why the problem cannot be insoluble.

"A single parent cannot be both mother and father."

So you don't get to be a single parent, simple as that. You get to divorce him, but you will have to continue raising his kids with him. The kids rights take priority over your wants. Work it out. Don't like it? Tough shit. Cry to someone who cares; you're an adult after all. You are, aren't you?

"Why aren't men supporting each other in this -- challenging legislators to make laws more fair, forming and donating money to men's legal groups?"

Yeah, in between working full time to support their families and trying to keep a family life intact while they have one, they should be all over that one.

A classic collective action problem.

I see more evidence that men have decided that they can never win, so they give up. And you're right: If that's your approach to the problem, you will never win. You've already plotted out all the ways you're going to get your ass kicked, so why bother?

I don't often agree with Brian, but I do here. If you can't fight this, then it may be best to not get involved with women. That way, you can pursue your life goals without worrying about this stuff. Stop supporting crazy-ass women, stop having children with them, and go paint landscape portraits, if that's what makes you happy. If people don't respect your choice, so what? No matter what you do, there's someone out there who will give you shit for it.

Despite how this sounds, I'm actually not being snarky here. I want to see men make life decisions that don't result in them being as beaten down as some of the men I know.

>>Or they can do like me (and many others) and opt the fuck out.

Which gives you something in common with the lesbian separatist movement, brian.

"What if a man chose not to be the primary breadwinner? What woman would respect a man who decided he was going to work part time so that he could take more time "for himself" and get into something really interesting like working with wool or volunteering at the Humane Society."
-oldguy

My mother, my sister and I do. My mom has always been the primary breadwinner, even though she's a teacher and her salary maxes out at about $65,000. My dad is the most awesome man I know even if he didn't make most of our money. These gender roles aren't set in stone, and it really helps if you pick a good partner who respects you and who you respect instead of just whining about how SOCIETY made you this way.

Not exacty, Jody. Such men will still often date and interact with women as friends and sex partners. I know some guys like that. They really dig gals and have no axe to grind.

They just don't ever marry women or support a child. They use vasectomies or condoms to avoid finding themselves in a position where a woman is carrying their child to term. And they avoid women who seek to marry them.

If men avoid marriage and children, they are unlikely to fall into the "direct-indentured income source" trap that contemporary American law creates for men to support females and their reproductive choices. (We are all in the indirect-indentured income source category via tax-funding of welfare payments.)

It is not about hating on women, or trying to rebel against some imagined matriarchal oppression like those lesbian separatists, it is about not putting yourself at risk of jail for not paying court-ordereds amounts to support other people's lifestyles.

Too often those lifestyles men must support under pain of jail are their ex's new boyfriend, not simply the man's kids living with the ex.

I know guys who spent about fifteen years sending "child support" money to ex-wives and girlfriends. Far too many of them watched their kids go about in raggedy clothes and with poor dental work, while the moms and her string of boyfriends wore designer clothes and lived in too-large houses. The dads would essentially pay twice--once to the e-wife, who blew the money, and a second time to the store, dentist, etc. to actually get what the kids needed.

I used to ask why they didn't go to court about this shocking ex-wife behavior. All of them just laughed bitterly and told me obviously I never had been to a divorce court. All of them. The stories they related about being there and what the judges did were jaw-dropping. I simply could not believe it, at first. But when I heard that same story for the umpteenth time, I started to think there may be something to it.

Now I tell young men to consider those stories very, very carefully when thinking about marrying someone or having kids. Very carefully.

The divorced parents I personally know all have worked out some kind of joint custody arrangements. One family member lives a few hundred miles from his ex, so he sees them every other weekend and every other holiday during the school year, then they live with him the whole summer, so they aren't disrupted with their school attendance. He doesn't want full or school-year custody, as he works full time.

But I've also known friends-of-friends where the husband was one of those who never changed a diaper, wiped a runny nose or made a peanut butter sandwich prior to the split, and was suddenly asking for full custody (because he didn't want to pay child support). He got joint custody, which seems fair in the absence of any abuse on the part of the mom.

I'll agree that the system isn't always fair, but the few arrangements I'm familiar with seemed to have the welfare of the kids paramount, and made the best of a bad situation.

Jody:

Which gives you something in common with the lesbian separatist movement, brian.

Huh? I'm merely advocating not becoming grist for the mill. I've been called a freeloader, a nihilist, and a hedonist for it. But why bother when there's a better than 50% chance of losing everything and then some? I can do math.

Sam:

it really helps if you pick a good partner

Ah, there's the rub.

Has anyone come up with a comprehensive manual on how to do this? Crid?

I've seen too many cases where the woman was perfectly normal until after the children came, and then went completely off the rails.

Perhaps it's just my teen angst peeking through, but I'm thinking about all the dates I didn't have as a teenager and in college because men preferred the "exciting, unpredictable" women who would break up in the morning and then show up in the evening for crazy make-up sex. Not surprisingly, many of those men married their "spontaneous, complicated" girlfriends. Also not surprisingly, those who are still married look like they wish someone would put a bullet in their heads.

I had better luck with the older men who had been burned a couple of times. They had the sense to know that drama sucks.

I wish men would teach their sons that bitchery does not come prepackaged with the vagina. My BF still makes excuses for his ex-wife, and I still have to tell him that no one has the right the treat him like that.

I know guys who spent about fifteen years sending "child support" money to ex-wives and girlfriends. Far too many of them watched their kids go about in raggedy clothes and with poor dental work, while the moms and her string of boyfriends wore designer clothes and lived in too-large houses. The dads would essentially pay twice--once to the e-wife, who blew the money, and a second time to the store, dentist, etc. to actually get what the kids needed.

And then there are women like me, who have been the major support for the kids, because the ex is a self-righteous prig who only has to pay $69 a week for 2 kids, because at the time of the divorce I was making more money than he was, has NEVER bought either of them so much as a pencil to go back to school with, and gripes about me spending the "child support money" to get a manicure!
The mere pittance he gives me doesn't even cover half of the grocery bill. My boyfriend of (almost) 6 years pays the rent here, and it ain't cheap. I cover the groceries and utilities, but BF also buys groceries and has bought my girls shoes, boots, coats, and other things when they've asked for them. He wants to know why their FATHER can't do this, and the girls say, but you know dad isn't working! At least he isn't like other deadbeat dads who give their kids NOTHING.

As far as the neighbors go, bradley13, they can't put a restraining order on the mother because they have joint custody and she is participating in the court-ordered counseling. I probably could do something, but I really don't want to get involved. It was bad enough that I had to call the postmaster here in town, when she actually had the nerve to ask to be transfered to this postal route, to ask why she was allowed to have her kids with her on her route, delivering the mail! She deliberately tried to change her route so that she could see the boys everyday, trying to circumvent the court-ordered visitation. I told the postmaster that I thought it was inappropriate for the boys to be delivering the mail with her, and he said, well, it's also against the law. She only delivered the mail on this route that one day. I have seen her on other routes, though. I don't want her anywhere near my kids, but I didn't tell the postmaster that!

Feminism only recently got around to allowing women to make their own choices- in my generation women with talent were told to put off any relationships, and any thought of family until they had MADE IT to the top -of course this did not work out so well for other goals in life since biology is a bit like time- it waits for no one to be CEO or hit some career goal first. (3rd wave of Feminism)
As for the rest of the comments- yes, money, love, and children- as well as support payments are messy- completely messy- we should consider going back to cave societies and just raise the children as a village- oh, wait Hillary said something like that back in the 1990's- did she get it from Waldon 2, by BF Skinner? I don't think that would work much if any better.

>>I've seen too many cases where the woman was perfectly normal until after the children came, and then went completely off the rails.

With friendly respect, brian, that's absolute bullshit.

You've got bat radar for the "yikes-my-superhot-lady-went-ballistic-for-no-reason-once-she-became-Mrs-Mom" sad sack sagas. And no desire to hear otherwise.

Just about the only times you ever praise women for any sterling qualities is when this is in ghastly contrast to the nightmare they later became.

>>Now I tell young men to consider those stories very, very carefully when thinking about marrying someone or having kids. Very carefully.

Spartee,
We tell our (near adult) sons the same.

I don't want my sons pre-programmed to be bitter (and act like assholes in anticipation of Being Screwed By The System).

But - and I agree - I sure as hell don't want them mortgaging their future happiness for some wretchedly won pleasure today.

You've got bat radar for the "yikes-my-superhot-lady-went-ballistic-for-no-reason-once-she-became-Mrs-Mom" sad sack sagas. And no desire to hear otherwise.

Not true. I know of many happily married families as well. I'm just saying that there are a statistically significant number where the woman either was or appeared sane when the ring went on, but at some point after lost her shit and everything went sideways.

Of course, there's also the ones where the woman was bat-shit fucking loco to begin with and the guy married her anyway. Those kind really have nobody to blame but themselves.

My position on it is until some way is found to verify that any given woman isn't going to turn out to be nuts, it's safer for men to avoid deep legal entanglements, if you know what I mean.

First off Ms. Alkon, I'm so happy to see that you have a blog. I've been reading your column religiously in a local paper for years now. I may not always agree with your points, but I usually think they are right on target and I always think they are well-researched and thought-provoking.
I can see your point about child custody in those cases in which a father tries to get custody in the best interest of his children and not to spite the mother. However, as a family law attorney (non-profit) who represents victims of domestic violence (as yes, sometimes they are men too, when men take the initiative to report violence), I've seen many cases in which fathers still don't pay child support or visit with the children. In fact, this state is attempting to collect millions of dollars in unpaid child support. In the mean time, my clients, most of whom are employed and raising 1-4 children alone, must use Medicaid for insurance costs that the father should be paying. Who pays for that? Taxpayers of course, and many times I have met fathers who get paid under the table to avoid paying support but driving nicer cars than I own.
The law requires non-custodial parents to pay child support, not fathers. There are many more arguments a father could assert to gain custody than just drug usage if his main goal is avoiding child support. I've seen split custody in many cases as well. However, each state is different and courts vary. There may be a bias in favor of mothers, but the actual enforcement of orders can be difficult, costly and lengthy--which in my opinion heavily counteracts that bias. In my state, support is set by pre-established guidelines and calculated as a percentage of the non-custodial parent's net income. The custodial parent's entire income is meanwhile expected to cover the care of the children.

Oh, and in fairness (not that I normally give a fuck about such things) I also know of more than a few where the woman didn't go crazy, but the guy decided he didn't need to live up to his end of the bargain after the child/children he agreed to create came along.

Bad relationships perpetuate because at least one partner thinks it better to slog it out for the children. Bad women have been given an out that allows them to continue to be bad, while getting a support mechanism enforced by law.

Maybe if there was less enabling there would be fewer crazy chicks.

There may be a bias in favor of mothers, but the actual enforcement of orders can be difficult, costly and lengthy--which in my opinion heavily counteracts that bias.

Do you mean in some cosmic sense?

Or are you proposing that the bias in favor of mothers exists because enforcement is difficult, costly and lengthy?

And not to nitpick, but counteraction of the bias would entail a change in the status of custody - is that what occurs?

">>Or they can do like me (and many others) and opt the fuck out.
Which gives you something in common with the lesbian separatist movement, brian." Jody Tresidder

So my question is, what's wrong with that? Not the negative, reactionary opt out, but the simple "what's a good reason?" opt out. If you look at all you know about how divorces play out, beginning with the 75%+ female initiation rate, would you recommend to a guy that he should get married? Is the upside bigger than the donwside? If you think about it in terms of risk, you are allowing another person to hold all the cards, and you are basing a vast chunk of your life on that trust. everyting can be fine until one day that person may just change their mind...

everyting can be fine until one day that person may just change their mind...

Life is risky. My landlord could decide to jack up the rent by a thousand dollars a month. The perfectly normal-looking guy on the train next to me could go mental and stab me in the eye with his pencil. We all play the risk-benefit game. There's nothing wrong with deciding the risk is not worth it, and everyone's free to make that choice.

So my question is, what's wrong with [opting the fuck out]? Not the negative, reactionary opt out, but the simple "what's a good reason?" opt out.

SwissArmyD,
I was going for the "negative, reactionary opt out" - which was in line with the familiar arc of brian's usual thrust.

And I'm sure it's best if brian remains ecstatically unwed.

But obviously I don't subscribe to the theory that enduring relationships only offer men a blind choice of unexploded female bombs.

> If you look at all you know
> about how divorces play out,
> beginning with the 75%+ female
> initiation rate

There's more to look at than that. Let's not play stupid: You ought to have a realistic view on your own character, and the character of the woman you're marrying. These are human failures... Let's not pretend that bolts of lightning are striking from the Heavens to end these unions.

> everyting can be fine until one
> day that person may just change
> their mind.

Your own math is working against you. If all those divorces are landing on the docket so reliably, we can't pretend we couldn't have seen it coming.

> I don't subscribe to the theory that enduring
> relationships only offer men a blind choice
> of unexploded female bombs.

Word. Word. Word.

We're about 2,000 generations to far into this species to feign naivete.

My landlord could decide to jack up the rent by a thousand dollars a month.

Only if you were silly enough to not have a lease with specific terms.

The perfectly normal-looking guy on the train next to me could go mental and stab me in the eye with his pencil.

Possible, but the likelihood is lower than pulling in to your driveway and finding all your shit on the lawn.

But obviously I don't subscribe to the theory that enduring relationships only offer men a blind choice of unexploded female bombs.

Nor do I. I just don't believe that there's a reliable way to tell the bombs from the gems. If the only price to pay was a broken heart, it would be a different story. There are men who pay with their freedom when a woman goes nuts.

"Let's not play stupid: You ought to have a realistic view on your own character, and the character of the woman you're marrying."

In Klingon, this translates into, "Don't get married until you are past thirty years of age."

Seriously, wouldn't that nip 95% of this nonsense in the bud?

"I just don't believe that there's a reliable way to tell the bombs from the gems."

But there is! It's called "time."

Amy- Good column and totally true.

I tried to get custody of my daughter when she was younger-Mom has Borderline personality disorder.

I offered through my attorney to pay for psychological testing for both of us, hoping the Borderline personality would be revealed in the testing and present it in court.

All at my expense, it wasn't going to cost her anything. The judge read me the riot act for even suggesting she might have a mental problem.

I now get every other weekend and 4-weeks in the summer.

Another problem is all us guys that fight for our kids get lumped into the dead beat Dad category because we only see our kids 2 weekends a month.

People assume that's all you want to see them, and that's completely untrue.

I wish the Judge had to live with her, he would soon discover she has Borderline Personality Disorder.

I just don't believe that there's a reliable way to tell the bombs from the gems.

Pre-nups can ease some of this fear. All bets are off if you have children, but there are plenty of women out there who don't want them.

Or you could have a long-term relationship that doesn't involve marriage and save yourself even more trouble.

"Or you could have a long-term relationship that doesn't involve marriage and save yourself even more trouble."

That 'til death do us part' vow has a lot better chance of working out if you wait until you're 70 to get married. That'd be freaking hilarious, actually. I'd probably start giggling during that part of the vows.

Pirate Jo:

But there is! It's called "time."

How much time does it take? How many men do you know who got blindsided after 10, 20, 30 years?

MonicaP:

Pre-nups can ease some of this fear.

Pre-nups can be vacated.

"What if a man chose not to be the primary breadwinner? What woman would respect a man who decided he was going to work part time so that he could take more time "for himself" and get into something really interesting like working with wool or volunteering at the Humane Society."

That is the way that it is in my house. I work and my husband stays home, cleans house, and manages things there. My only concern for him (and every other stay at home spouse) is that he would be able to support himself should something happen to me.

I respect my husband to no end. He takes care of me as much as I take care of him. Real men can do laundry, Real women can use power tools

Also, we had a prenup. When we married we both had nothing, so the prenup says that we split everything 50/50. My husband is working just as hard as I am for our success, he shouldn't be left with nothing should our relationship not work.

Are my husband and I really that unusual?

"There may be a bias in favor of mothers, but the actual enforcement of orders can be difficult, costly and lengthy--which in my opinion heavily counteracts that bias"

"Counteracts" that bias? Are you kidding? What you've just effectively stated is that the system punishes honest, hardworking men (i.e. the guys who quietly pay) while it 'rewards' the scummy guys who don't pay ... and then even further than that, expects honest hardworking taxpayers to pick up some of what's left of the slack. That makes all of this even worse and more unjust than ever, not better.

My beloved radio performer Carolla used to talk about how many men take *pride* in kinds of incompetence that used to bring deep shame. We're talking about guys in their 20's and 30's and 40's. They can't change their oil or tweak their brakes, but they'll spend all afternoon playing fantasy league sports, while texting the guy five cubicles over about how they're looking forward to this weekend's comic book movie. That's how I feel about these protestations that "you never know."

To be a little more pointed, it's like a guy over the age of about 17 who says "How do I really know that she's had an orgasm?" Well, you're a big boy. Figure it out.

> Pre-nups can ease some of
> this fear.

Nothing good comes to marriage from pre-nups.

There's no limit to how far people will twist their perceptions of the world in order to make it seemt pleasant. Listen, some tasks are a lot of work, and you get your hands dirty, and there will always be people nearby who do it better, as if effortlessly. If you want to skip the chore, no problem, but don't pretend the problem is with the assignment.

>Feminism is all about each woman having the >right to choose her own path. We should be >allowed to do whatever we want in this life >and not be judged by society's arbitrary sex >roles, right? Absolutely.

Wrong! Feminism is about preferential treatment for women and anyone of the female gender.

"But obviously I don't subscribe to the theory that enduring relationships only offer men a blind choice of unexploded female bombs."

Strawman.

" ...In Klingon, this translates into, "Don't get married until you are past thirty years of age." ... Seriously, wouldn't that nip 95% of this nonsense in the bud?..."

I might be mistaken, but I thought that I saw a statistic recently to the effect that the more traditional marriages where both parties are in their late teens or early twenties are actually *more* stable than the ones where the parties are in their mid-thirties.

Unfortunately, I didn't save the article, so I don't have a citation.

"But obviously I don't subscribe to the theory that enduring relationships only offer men a blind choice of unexploded female bombs."

Mouse: "Strawman."

Not really, Mouse. Sure, I pressed the point hard - but Brian did write:

"I've seen too many cases where the woman was perfectly normal until after the children came, and then went completely off the rails."

From "perfectly normal" to "went completely off the rails"?

Sounds like something silently ticking - then going BOOOOM!!! to me!

"Let's not play stupid: You ought to have a realistic view on your own character, and the character of the woman you're marrying." Crid.

Really? And what do you know about someone's character in the year in general you have been dating? Are you telling me that you knew your ex that way before you married her?

Yes, you DO know things, but they aren't always indicative. In some ways, some of the old standby sayings mean a lot more when you see them in hindsight... Like however your spouse treats the waitstaff at a resturaunt, is how they will treat you. Deep meaningful conversations about philosophy and art, and career and work, etc... Can also be strategies, just like working out a lot and then after marriage letting yourself go.

But that isn't really the question, is it? Lets take for granted that not every decision is a good one. Why the punishments after dissolution? If you breach a business contract between two partners, is one partner automatically assumed to be in the right? Does the partner initating the dissolution often get everyting regardlesss of who is in the wrong?

Arguing the ideas is one thing, but the pragmatics don't follow them. Why is all this so heavily tilted to one gender? You would think it would be roughly equal, as the split of the genders is roughly equal. Is there a basic explanation why it is not?

> Are you telling me that you knew
> your ex that way before you
> married her?

No, I'm telling you that I should have, and that if I'd had the proper trust in proper friends and family (for which I'd already been richly blessed in a short lifetime), I would have.

Meanwhile, we've got all these tough guys floating around. They're solitary souls in a world that doesn't care... A world of treachery and incompetence... They cuss manfully, dare accusatorily, hoarding their wealth in their pants and choking their affection with a fist. Because... —sniff/pout— "People are meanies! And girls are sneaky! And so I have no choice but to live in terror like a cowering infant.... Don't you understand?!!?!

We're not compelled to regard these voices as thoughtful.

I might be mistaken, but I thought that I saw a statistic recently to the effect that the more traditional marriages where both parties are in their late teens or early twenties are actually *more* stable than the ones where the parties are in their mid-thirties.

Go over to http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=363986 and scroll a little down for the link to the CDC PDF.

Divorcepeers.com also has some numbers.

"They cuss manfully, dare accusatorily, hoarding their wealth in their pants and choking their affection with a fist." Crid

*falls over laughing* Dude, you have quite the turn of the phrase.

fwiw I don't think you should have known, you're not omniscient. The question is how do we react to failure? Both as individuals and the community. Thar's the rub, IMHO.

The perfectly normal-looking guy on the train next to me could go mental and stab me in the eye with his pencil. -MonicaP

You know, I dont remember riding any trains lately

Crid -

In any other human endeavor, avoiding those where there's a 50% chance of catastrophic failure is taken as a sign of good judgment.

But in affairs of the heart, you classify such as infantile fears. Are they unjustified? Or are we supposed to just "man up" and run headlong into decisions that will leave great heaps of ruined lives in our wakes?

But in affairs of the heart, you classify such as infantile fears. Are they unjustified? Or are we supposed to just "man up" and run headlong into decisions that will leave great heaps of ruined lives in our wakes?

Brian, I am going to take a stand and agree with you. I agree that you have the right to look at something and say 'the risk is too great, I would be an idiot to do that!'.

I made a different decision than you and have lived a pretty good married life so far. However, your lack of optimism about affairs of the heart would likely cause failures and blind your view, which would add to the possibility of negative outcome.

When engaging in any activity, the perceived benefit needs to be greater than the risk. For you, romance doesn't have that benefit.

-Julie

Seriously? I realize it still happens but I don't know of any divorced couple up here in Quebec that don't have "joint custody". I do know of one guy that has been told "pick them up any time" and he never does. I know of a women who ditched the kid and moved 600km away. Other than that, all the divorced coupled I know share 50-50. I know a couple that actually keeps the house for the kids and share it. Instead of the children going from house to house, the parent do (or did, it got too expensive to keep 3 places and the kids were older so they sold the house). I couldn't name a divorced couple up here where dad only has every second weekend. Most of them are "one week on, one week off" or some other variations.

The USA is waaaaay behind on child custody!!!

Manning up is a pattern. It's not an flashing instant of courage in single warrior combat after which everything goes great for the rest of the enterprise.

Y'know, people are lazy. In almost every realm of personal and public policy, especially from Dems, they want solutions to be fast and cheap and permanent. (Nowadays, the tell word is often "sustainable".) They want perpetual motion machines by which after some (trivial) fee is paid, the mill grinds evermore without lubrication, changes in wind direction, or even fresh grain. They just want to show up and walk away with a sack of flour... Otherwise, why bother building a mill?

---

You could, for example, resolve not to leave 'great heaps of ruined lives in your wake'.

> The USA is waaaaay behind
> on child custody!!!

And yet I am unashamed. If I ever go to prison, I'll not feel too feel bad about being unable to sharpen a sweet potato into a deadly shiv, either.

You could, for example, resolve not to leave 'great heaps of ruined lives in your wake'.

And lacking the proper tools to determine the suitability of potential mates, that means staying unattached.

Which gets me called all sorts of names by those who think that a man's single greatest responsibility is to make lots of people to take his place when he croaks.

On balance, I would rather be called silly names than have the entirety of my life sucked away by a disillusioned ex-wife.

>>On balance, I would rather be called silly names than have the entirety of my life sucked away by a disillusioned ex-wife.

Fair enough, brian.

But since you don't seem too worried about illusioning a woman about your fine qualities in the first place, no probs eh?

> lacking the proper tools to
> determine

First thing men do as they master a craft is pull their toolkit together (see 'family & friends', above).

> Which gets me called all sorts of
> names

Like what? By whom? In what setting?

> On balance,

Again, that's ducky, but don't pretend the problem is policy or anything going on with the rest of the world.

Here: Let's pester Jody with a personal question! Hey Jody: did you resolve not to leave 'great heaps of ruined lives in your wake'?

Eric too! And Deirdre. And all the other well-marrieds.

"But since you don't seem too worried about illusioning a woman about your fine qualities in the first place, no probs eh?"

Well good for him, I say.

Brian made the point that if a broken heart was the only thing to be risked, that would be one thing. Losing half your paycheck for the next 18 years and being forever tied to a complete psycho is another. That's pragmatism, not immaturity or cowardice.

No – People don't have the right to be naive.

"all sorts of names" refers to the quantity of names, not the vastness of their locations.

However, if we consider the comment section of this and other blogs to be valid "places" and "conversations", we can tally up a few.

Here, I and other childless folk have been called "freeloaders", "parasites", and a few other names which I'm sure all occupy the same page in Roget's.

Other sites, similar things have been called. In addition, "coward" (for not finding this world terribly well suited to bring a new person into). Also got invited (in a back-handed way through an ancient quote from a founder) to depart these shores never to darken them again.

Apparently not having children makes me selfish, and I'm somehow contributing to the downfall of society. I guess there's some belief somewhere that one's children will necessarily share one's beliefs and propagate them throughout the land. This view seems most popular amongst those of a religious bent.

>>Hey Jody: did you resolve not to leave 'great heaps of ruined lives in your wake'?

Probably not, Crid. (But I was a hothead who got very, very lucky...)

Here: Let's pester Jody with a personal question! Hey Jody: did you resolve not to leave 'great heaps of ruined lives in your wake'?

Eric too! And Deirdre. And all the other well-marrieds.

I don't know that I would have put it that way, but kinda. I agreed to think of what was best for 'us' not just what was best for 'me'. I agreed to love my husband even when I think he is being a horses ass (and vise versa :-) ) And I agreed that our assets are our assets and we would split what we had down the middle when (or if) the relationship ever ended before death. We don't have any kids, so that is a non-issue.

If we split do I expect to pay alimony? Yup. However we are talking about the creation of one legal entity from two. You are committing to taking on that person's financial well being until he/she finds someone else to do it. I entered eyes wide open and it has turned out well so far.

-Julie

"No – People don't have the right to be naive."

Heh, naive = uninformed, and you don't know what you don't know. You could take every single marriage in the country, the half that didn't end in divorce anyway, and split them between the happy ones and the unhappy ones. Then figure out why the happy ones are happy and the unhappy ones aren't, and then if you weren't distracted enough at that point to go into the wedding business or the divorce business and make a lot of money, you'd be pretty informed. However, if you simply didn't see any reason to get married in the first place, what difference would it make?

For me, even if the marriage worked out and was happy and lasted, I'm seeing two issues here:

1) consolidation of finances - why would I want to do that?
2) paying more taxes - why would I want to do that either?

I don't want kids and have a happy, committed relationship without marriage (or cohabitation for that matter). I just don't see any reason to do it, and then when I look at all the trainwrecks that happen because of it, I think 'These people must be crazy!' As for the ones who are happy, they'd still be happy even if they weren't married to each other.

As for the ones who are happy, they'd still be happy even if they weren't married to each other.

My husband and I were very happy together before we got legally married. We married explicitly to allow him greater legal rights. This allowed him medical benefits through my employer, access to my social security earnings should I die before him, etc. Marriage is not the be all end all, but it does provide some legal protection for both parties.

-Julie

Look, it's easy:

You know who you're with.

This is the philosophy I have generally used (except for the first guy I was with).

I have never been suprised by the outcome of any relationship. I'm not bitter, or angry or hurt.

For example: I've dated alot of trashy guys and I've known from the beginning they are trashy. Do I expect marriage with them? Never. I never even considered them boyfriend material. Did I enjoy them? Of course but after it was over I never cried for any of them because I already knew from the beginning what type of person they were. Terrible character. I see too many women holding on to these men in desperation.

> Other sites, similar things

You're being unspecific. It takes more than quotation marks to make a cite, and more than a blindly-broadcast moan against childlessness to make a personal insult. Don't pretend you're being painfully mocked for living quietly. The mockery comes from dressing cowardice as a virtue.

Sometimes it feels like 70% of my blog comments are saying the same thing in new circumstances. Any F1 fans out there? Auto racing is a weird sport, more often described more as "spectacle", which is appropriate... Drivers are some of the fittest guys on the planet, but it ain't a simple footrace. Auto racing is a complicated enterprise involving dozens of companies with hundreds of contracts.

Recently the UK Herald had a column decrying the sport as "corrupt" because it turns out that one racing team had been getting better money from the league (in one circumstance) than another. But it wasn't the other teams who were complaining; they have their own deals by which their needs are met. The charge of corruption was from someone who had no skin in the game.

That's how I feel about this. All the happily married people on this blog and across the world knew that the odds of divorce said nothing about their own interpersonal skills, or those of their mates.

> I was a hothead who got very,
> very lucky...)

GODDAMMIT! I knew you were going to say that! I knew it! I almost put it in the comment from this very chair just a few moments ago when the sun was a few degrees south... She'll probably say something about luck... Well-married people almost always do.

But it's not luck.

No shit, I sincerely believe this is the worst problem in America (the western world) and in liberal life today: People roboticly discount their own strength and training and discipline*. Jody, we're not friends and I have no real clarity about the forces that forged your personality. But I know that they weren't always pleasant, they weren't always obvious, and they honed your judgment anyway. And I'd guess not every moment of your marriage is berries and cream, but you nailed it anyway. All the bumps and bruises you experienced growing up weren't you're bad luck or personal clumsiness: You've been well-molded. And there are sacrifices.

False modesty is inappropriate.

------

*This applies to Macintosh people as well. "Of course you press the enter key to rename a file... It makes perfect sense! It's intuitive! Of course it takes two hands on opposite sides of the keyboard to delete a file...."

"The law requires non-custodial parents to pay child support, not fathers. "

Yes, but sadly the courts do not, so in effect, neither does the law. The courts often do not hold mothers to any of the same standards - amount of payment, punishment for non-payment..... Look at the stats for who is more genrally the non-paying parent , mothers or fathers. The look to see how many deadbeat moms get called deadbeats, and how many get thrown into jail for it.

"There may be a bias in favor of mothers, but the actual enforcement of orders can be difficult, costly and lengthy--which in my opinion heavily counteracts that bias."

Tell you what Melissa - when they start throwing custodial parents into jail for interfering with visitation and for Parental Alienation, we'll start talking about how this bias balances out.

"Meanwhile, we've got all these tough guys floating around. "

Speaking of which Tough Guy, just curious, Crid - could you tell us all what your actual personal experience with any of this is? Been married and divorced? Have kids? Anything that would give you any insight and give you any standing to prach to the rest of us?

"unexploded female bombs"... That could be a very useful phrase. Gonna hafta remember that one.

Further, as one of the well-marrieds, I hereby resolve not to leave great heaps of ruined lives in my wake. Only a few.

Being naive, or without infomation is bad. I have custody of my son, but it cost me dearly. Courts were giving my ex wife every benefit of the doubt. She's never paid me child support, $150 month, which would not help much. But they don't go after her. Hell they have her, she is in prison. But when she gets out in about five years, the family courts in Texas will let her have access. By then I think my son will be able to handle it. Or she'll grab him and run off to Mexico.

I admit that I made a mistake, I do it many times in the book. And an Amazon review recently brought this to my attention: That I'm a whiner (well my interpretation of that review). But, the family court system is unfair to men. And that should change.

I should have known better, but sometimes experience is the best teacher. I make decisions differently now.

As someone who volunteers in the family court system, I am disturbed by the view that what occurs is purely the result of gender bias. You can sometimes take the results that way, but it's largely not true if you understand how family court operates.

Most judges are male, and none are card-carrying feminists, that I know. They make their decisions more from a space of child advocacy that gender bias.

When parents divorce, the major consideration is not disrupting the child's life. The children didn't ask to be born, or brought into this messy divorce, so they are the only innocent parties involved.

When a child lives in a family home, that place is a source of stabilty and comfort - it's likley where the child's friends live next door, where his/her favorite memories and possessions are, and where his/her pet rabbit is buried in the back yard.

That may seem arbitrary to divorcing parents, particularly the one who is no longer living there (usually the male), as if the child should just be asked to uproot half the time. But from a judge's point of view, the thought has essentially been,"First, do no harm." If a child has a stay-at-home mother and a certain lifestyle, that will be maintained if at all possible. Not because of gender bias but because of child advocacy, which plays a much more powerful role in family court than feminism does.

However, split custody arrangements are becoming increasingly more popular. But the reason for this is because men, in the past few decades, have taken on a much greater role in childrearing. Judges feel more comfortable splitting custody in cases where they see both parents being equally involved, when it seems truly in the best interest of the child, and particularly when the parents get along.

But, too often, divorce is really about money for men, and the children are merely used as pawns. Fathers often fight for custody just because they don't want to pay child support to their exs. And that's not going to fly at all if a judge senses that is the main reason.

Guys, you must understand that when you marry, you become a team. If you work outside the home, and your wife does not, you may think it's "your" money, and "your" house, but especially when children are involved, family court views it differently, and rightfully so, in my opinion.

No matter what horrible allegations spouses make against each other, it is presumed that you and your ex made the mutual decision to have children and provide them with a stable life, complete with a certain level of financial support and comfort, and you don't get to pull that foundation out from under them for the sake of "winning" in court.

Judges don't want to hear, after the fact, "I didn't want these children...I didn't want that house...I didn't want her to stay home..." etc. Even if it's all true, judges don't want to hear excuses. You're supposed to be mature enough to be responsible for the decisions you made, even by default - especially those that effect your children.

So, keep that in mind as you build your life. Realize whatever lifestyle you give your children - whether it's traditional, stay at home, father-as-breadwinner/mama as caregiver, or two independent working parents contributing equally to caregiving - that is likely to remain the case after a divorce unless there's a compelling reason to change it.

Sterling, I'm looking through your blog right now. A post that's relevant to this conversation is the one where you discuss being taken totally by surprise by your wife's meth addiction and helpfully provide a list of signs, ones that you didn't notice "until too late." But, I'm sorry, some of the signs are pretty distinctive. Did you personally observe all of them without realizing something was wrong, or is this just a general list?

Extreme anorexia and an inability to sleep would indicate that someone is seriously unhappy, even if it doesn't neccessarily scream meth. (Whereas presence of injecting paraphernalia seems like it would be more straight-foward . . .) If your partner isn't eating or sleeping, ya think you oughta see what's wrong?

Willfully ignoring something because you don't want it to be true doesn't count as being taken by surprise. This isn't just you, but all the rest of the posters who are screeching about their spouses suddenly turing into banshees and taking all their earthly belongings . . .

>>False modesty is inappropriate.

'Snot that exactly, Crid.

Your question - whether one had resolved not to leave scorched remains in one's wake - plucked that lazy bromide about "luck" from my lips, mainly because I didn't entirely get your drift!

Sure, few of us get through life and love without a ton of shit, and we can decide - to some extent - how much we'll let it stink up our future, depending on what we've decided to learn.

But - even after 23 years, I still genuinely marvel at the timing that brought us together at that particular time. I feel that little bit of it all was spectacularly lucky.

Sam, you are 100% right. It is a kind of denial on my part. I was sort of in the middle between 'she's a doctor, she knows what's right for her' vs addiction. I'd seen lots of drugs, done some recreationally in college. But the addiction took me by surprise. Like you said though, only because I denied it.

The surprise for me was that she turned against me so violently, and the courts just let it happen, over and over. I'm a computer guy/nerd, don't write for a living, but shared the story as best as I could. And it has helped a few people avoid tragic consequences, so it was a worthwile thing to write a book. And the people on Amy's blog, at least the ones who comment, are all on the right track of how to prevent tragic occurences, especially affecting the children (had to say that, and with a smile quoting so many people around this blog). And thanks for the thoughts.

Lovelysoul, after reading your post, it made my day a little bit better to know that you are volunteering in family court. I'm glad you're out there.

> tell us all what your actual
> personal experience with any
> of this is?

You came in late: I already have. Besides— what would it have to be?

So lovelysoul, one small point. For what reason is he no longer in the house? Did he come home to find his clothes on the lawn one day? I agree that the judges wouldn't be termed feminists, quite the opposite in my experience. That's a problem. The one time I had a female judge she keel hauled my ex though...

I think the main difference in Crid's approach and mine is this:

Put a stout lock on the Barn Door and close it every time.
Versus.
The horses got out somehow and we have to go find them and bring them back.

They aren't mutually exclusive, and may in fact both happen at some point.

Eh? I don't follow.

Anyone else notice in lovelysoul's piece how it was the guys decision and therefore responibility if the wife didnt work?

Lujlp, I'm just saying that judges can't get into that. They don't want to get into every he/said-she/said divorce argument, which is understandable. People lie during divorces, so judges tend to stick with the status quo. That is the one thing they know (or presume) that couples agreed on before divorce.

So, men should realize that if your wife doesn't work at the time of the divorce, it's unlikely that the judge will make her leave the kids and go back to work during the most traumatic time of their young lives. The judge is merely trying to maintain the life the kids know at that moment, so if you really didn't want your wife to work, then you should've said something or prevented it at the time. Judges are not in the business of redefining a guy's manhood. It is presumed that the husband had some sort of say in the child care arrangement. If he's a totally cuckholded wuss, that is not the court's fault...nor should it result in the children suffering a change in life circumstances.

"So lovelysoul, one small point. For what reason is he no longer in the house? Did he come home to find his clothes on the lawn one day?"

Swiss, it doesn't matter. And I know that gets the guys' ire up, but, you know, there are tons of reasons a marriage doesn't work. Infidelity and incompatibility. A judge's first reponsibility is to the children. And I do believe, with a few rare exceptions that you'd find in any profession, judges try to honor the goal of doing what is best for the child....and, often, as much as men's group's hate it...that means keeping the child or children in the home with the mother.

The legal advice that's been related to me by friends of mine who've divorced tends to confirm what lovelysoul is describing w/ regards to the process and priorities of the family courts.

It seems like a lot of guys fall into a trap when they expect that the court is going to apportion blame a/o litigate the couple's grievances. But what this seems to result in is an even more stringent set of requirements for the husband and more money paid to the wife.

I suspect that when it's evident that the couple isn't going to be able to negotiate their care of the children amicably, on an ongoing basis, the judge is prone to amplifying their requirements. But if so, this may provide a perverse incentive for wives - by making the process acrimonious they end-up with more money and fewer obligations to their ex.

You're right, Jack. If I could give one piece of advice to anyone going through a divorce, it's that courts generally (especially in no-fault states) don't apportion blame...but every divorce lawyer will have you believe they do. That's how they run the clock up and make more money - by pitting the spouses against each other trying to look like the "better" spouse.

"Oh, did he call up and yell at you? Was it in front of the kids? Let's draft a letter to his attorney about that!"

"My, did she forget to pack the kid's lunch for the field trip last week? What a neglectful mother! Let's draft a letter to her attorney about that!"

It mostly all BS. And both parties get caught up in it because they're feeling guilty, hurt, and vulnerable. It's great having that lawyer tell you how much nicer you are than the other person....and easy to forget that he/she is getting paid extremely well (by the minute) to do so.

Truth is, financial settlements and custody arrangements are pretty much determined by formula, and a good attorney can usually tell you how it will all come out in the end before the first paper is even filed.

If you have a chance, with a reasonably willing spouse, settle the thing as quickly as possible. A swift arbitration will save heaps of money.

>>You're right, Jack. If I could give one piece of advice to anyone going through a divorce, it's that courts generally (especially in no-fault states) don't apportion blame...but every divorce lawyer will have you believe they do...

Lovelysoul,
For that comment alone (all of it) your work on this planet is done:)

Lovelysoul, I feel like you're talking directly to me.

My parents are splitting up, and in this case I have to say my father is the main reason (emotional and verbal abuse; he is crazed). My mom took out a restraining order 3 weeks ago when he appeared in her bedroom yelling and screaming b/c she had two carpenters doing finishing work around the house so she can sell it (he hasn't worked or paid any bills in a few years and she can't support the mortgage anymore). She paid them in cash and told my dad she didn't expect him to pay. He was still angry.

Well, when they went to court for the restraining order a week ago he brought his divorce attorney who turned it into a family court circus, trying to make my mother out to be this negligent, manipulative monster. I've been there and seen both sides and know this to be untrue. The lawyer also said that I "made up" the abuse (I must have psychosomatically caused bruises to appear on my neck, as well - I'm very talented.). It's such rubbish! The lies are insane! People are assholes!

I'm so jaded with life right now and wish my dad would just take off for Florida and stop trying to hurt my mom, sister and brother with more of his unmedicated bi polar madness. B/c the courts tend to favor women in child custody it is forcing my dad to react that much more insanely with making up lies.

He actually set-up my 16 year old brother to get caught drinking by the police so he could flip it around and point the finger at my mom "See! She is a shit mother who let's her son DRINK!".

If only the courts knew that my dad probably bought it for him.

P.S: she got the restraining order b/c he doesn't just yell, he raises fists and threatens to bury you in the yard and then take all your money...or burn the house down so you can't sell it...or kidnap my brother.

Given the fact he's thrown us around in the past it didn't seem unreasonable he might go there again. He sucks so bad.

Gretchen,
I am so sorry. (That's such exhausting shit to be in the middle of, even if you're strong.)

Gretchen,

I can't speak to the idea horrors of divorce, but I do know what it is like to have a psycho for a father. I wish that you didn't have to go through this (I wish that no one would have to go through this), but please understand that this misery will eventually end. The restraining order helps, if only to ensure that the cops can be called at a moments notice when he shows up. Once all of you have grown to adulthood, you can certainly choose to separate from your father and never see him again. You will own the cards.

Please also advise your mom (and your siblings as well) to be very careful. Abusers get especially violent when their victims attempt to separate from them. That ups the ante. This is when my father attempted to kill my husband. He saw him as the source of the 'problem' and wanted to eliminate it.

Just please remember that there is light at the end of this tunnel. I have not only seen it, I am basking in it. Just try to keep your head down and keep yourself safe until you and your family can join me.

-Julie

Gretchen, I really do understand what you're going through because my ex is also bi-polar, which is why our divorce took much longer than necessary and involved similar drama.

At 16, your brother is old enough to decide where to live, so unless he sides with your dad, I doubt he can get custody of him. Don't worry about what his divorce attorney says - it's all "posturing" and makes little difference. A judge should be able to see what is really happening.

My concern is for your mom and the safety of you and your siblings. Especially when it involves a person with mental illness, such as bi-polar disorder, this is a critical time. If things escalate to where he feels persecuted, alienated, or that he has nothing left to lose, the situation could potentially become very dangerous.

Make sure that your mom doesn't waiver and have direct contact with him for any reason. Specify that all communication must be through a third party (the attorneys, if necessary, but that gets expensive - a calm, respected friend or family member is better if they're willing) or have it be in writing (which forces him to be more civil and documents all communication. Give him an e-mail address. Bi-polar people need an outlet for communication or they'll feel cut-off and often get angrier).

If she hasn't done so already, have your mom change the locks, her house and cell numbers, and any other way he normally contacts her directly. That will cut down on the verbal abuse. If she has a normal routine, of places and routes that she normally goes, try to change them as much as possible.

Those are just precautions. He's probably only making idle threats, but it's best to be careful.

See if they can set up an arbitration, but if he's anything like my ex, he probably won't settle intially and will keep things going for awhile, but with limited contact, he won't get that much out of it. Eventually he'll want things over with too.

I really feel for you. It's especially hard that this is your dad, but please know that things will eventually calm down.

Egads, Gretchen. My heart, thoughts and prayers are with you and your famiy.

Sorry to hear that Gretchen. When you trhow the crazy into this whole mess, all bets are off. It gives you an important leg up though. Without the illusion that this might go easy you can plan. Changing all the locks and treating him like a threat is really important, because he is one. Another is to help your sibs understand that this behavior is way beyond just bad. The point Julie makes about it not being forever is something to hold onto, but you have to keep your guard up. If pops is a control freak, he will make good on the threats and a restraining order is just a piece of paper. Be safe.

Chin up over there, Gretchen

Aw you guys are all sweet :-)

It's just how life has been - nutty - for the past 7 years or so when he began his downward descent into increasingly hellish behavior. And no, he would never get counseling. We knew he was ill and even tried to have him committed for a few days when he got violent last year. If someone genuinely doesn't see a problem with his/her behavior and won't get help you're S.O.L. You can't fix someone esp. when the person thinks it's YOU, not them, causing the probs.

Thanks for all the words of wisdom; this site is a really great place to hang out and exchange ideas, esp. when work is slow.

I'll be fine. It's shockingly easier to deal with than it sounds. I'm 24 so I can kinda remove myself and look at him and say "you're a lunatic, see ya!". Plus I have the best friends, family and fiance anyone could ask for (Crid - my peeps totally approve, btw).

And I do believe, with a few rare exceptions that you'd find in any profession, judges try to honor the goal of doing what is best for the child....and, often, as much as men's group's hate it...that means keeping the child or children in the home with the mother.

Posted by: lovelysoul at May 28, 2009 7:21 PM
-----------
Do you see what happens after the woman has put her best foot forward, for her show in court?
-After court when the woman denies the father access to his children.
- The woman deliberately making the guys life hell.
-The kids not growing up with a father who have higher incidence of drug use, alcoholism, highschool drop out rates, teen pregnancy, running away from home, committing crimes.
- You should go to glennsacks.com. if you think there is fairness in the family courts. Also on glennsacks.com look for a green box and click on Lisa Scott's real family law. -Lisa Scott is a female attorney in Washington state who tells it like it is and tells of the descrimination men face and the privileges women enjoy in the "family courts."
Not sure if you volunteer in an unusual place or you just don't have your eyes open to what goes on after the theatrics of court are over.

David, I do see the after-effects. Most of my cases as a GAL are abused and neglected children, many of whom have already been removed from the custody of their parents. The custodial arrangements usually predate my involvement, though not always.

I'm not disputing that many fathers are aggrieved and upset, and I love to see cases where both mom and dad get along, and they can share custody civilly, and work together in the best interests of their children. I love to see cases where dad is an equally involved caregiver, and WAS prior to the divorce.

However, I don't see enough of those cases, and I don't think judges do either. And I genuinely find that the judges that I work with are caring men, who want to see the child have a good relationship with both parents, if at all possible.

But that doesn't necessarily mean equal time and shared custody in every case. Children are often more bonded with one parent or another, and it can be incredibly disruptive to demand that they uproot half the time. We must ask ourselves, "Is this more for the child's sake or the parent's sake?"

To me, kids truly benefit from having a primary home and a primary caregiver. I personally don't care which parent that is, and I have had cases where kids lived primarily with dad. The important thing is that they have a home, where their favorite stuff is kept, and they have all their study materials, books, clothes, stuffed animals, pets, and feel comfortable and safe because it's where they call "home".

Theoretically, split custody sounds great, but it's like having two homes. We adults rarely do that ourselves. We may have a "vacation home", but not a place we split totally equal time. We have ONE place we generally associate with the word "home".

I've seen cases where parents try to replicate the room - down to the color scheme and furniture - so their kids will always "feel like it's the same place" whether it's mom's or dad's house. But most kids aren't fooled by that, and besides, parents don't usually go to that length to make the transition easier.

I have two kids, and I know how disorganized they are with ONE home, having all their stuff under just one roof. They forget books, homework assignments, etc, all the time, and I'm constantly running things to school. So, although it's becoming a more popular arrangement, I worry that it's confusing and disruptive to expect a child to live equally in two homes.

Yet, having a primary home doesn't mean a child can't have a good relationship with the other parent. In this day and age of instant communication, relating and bonding doesn't have to take place within physical proximity. Ask any teen - they relate almost solely on text messages and twitter updates! And most of the fun stuff takes place on weekends anyway.

I have a girlfriend who specifically chose to have only weekends with her son - and gave the dad weekdays - because she wanted the quality, fun time of having weekend activities with him, not the nightly grind of homework.

In my opinion, that's a great parent. One who realizes it's not the measure of time that matters most.

I have a girlfriend who specifically chose to have only weekends with her son - and gave the dad weekdays - because she wanted the quality, fun time of having weekend activities with him, not the nightly grind of homework.

I'm sure that I don't know the whole story, but the first thing that came to mind was, "She is taking the easy way out." Is it reasonable to leave all of the grunt work and discipline to one parent and allow the other parent all of the fun times? That doesn't scream good parent to me.

The long and short of it is that there are no perfect choices or perfect solutions.

Yeah, I see that perspective too, Julie. I guess it's fair if everyone is happy, most importantly the child, which he seems to be. Parents have different temperaments, and I'd rather see a parent admit that he/she doesn't handle the nightly homework grind as well as the other one does.

She also takes him for long periods in the summer because she's from New Zealand and visits family, so it's also maybe a trade-off with the dad to give him more time.

"Parents have different temperaments, and I'd rather see a parent admit that he/she doesn't handle the nightly homework grind as well as the other one does." lovelysoul

You have NO idea how much I wish my ex- would be interested in that. Whenever there are homework problems/not wanting to do homework/trouble in school I'm the one who takes care of it.

People need to remember that the tendencies vary by where the hearing is. Not just state by state but county by county and even judge to judge.

LovelySoul says somethings are true where she is at and that does not mean that it is true anywhere else.

In the county I live in it is pretty well accpeted that all but a couple of the judges are considered to be heavily biased towards the women. Yet in the county next door the same standard indicates only about 25% are.

I don't see a real problem with the laws here (they could be improved, of course), it is just the judges. The oversite bodies aren't willing to do much unless it is really extreme and public (e.g. the finally fined the judge who was taking the bribes) and that in the elections there is no competion because lawyers (people who passed the bar and are elligible to run) do not want to run against a sitting judge who they will probably have to appear in front of in the future.

I have a girlfriend who specifically chose to have only weekends with her son - and gave the dad weekdays - because she wanted the quality, fun time of having weekend activities with him, not the nightly grind of homework.

In my opinion, that's a great parent. One who realizes it's not the measure of time that matters most.

- lovelysoul

I have seen this arrangment and this sounds to me like the father is willing to put the effort to have an educated kid and so is willing to have less affective time. The mother just wants to have fun. (usually the roles are the opposite). It sounds like the father is being the parent and the mother the friend in this case.

Gretchen: That's quite a lot of stress you've got there. Good luck with that mess, and do whatever you need to do to stay safe.

"And I do believe, with a few rare exceptions that you'd find in any profession, judges try to honor the goal of doing what is best for the child....and, often, as much as men's group's hate it"

Um, of course it's "best" for a child to steal money from somebody else by force to pay for that child's upbringing - that doesn't make it right.

Um,that's not stealing. You made that child, whether you meant to or not, and, to me, there is nothing more abhorent than a parent that resents supporting his/her child.

Again, you may think it's "your" money, and "your" house, but it ceases to be when a child lives there. And it's been my experience that most men have no idea what it takes to support a child. You think the ex is spending it on fancy clothes and social life, when it's really going to pay the mortgage, cable, utilities, clothing, food, and internet for the children you made. When you were together, as a couple, you just never added it up. Now, you resent it, but you shoudn't.

It's expensive to raise kids and most divorced women barely make ends meet, even with your child support payments.

I have a girlfriend who is freaking out because her $1000 per month child support payments are ending. Her daughter graduates high school this year and the son graduated last year. She works her ass off as a masseuse and nurse, and he is a tech guy with a great job, great benefits, new wife, and stepkids, but he refuses to help his own kids at all during college, where, even with scholarships (which they both received) there are a lot of expenses, such as living expenses. He won't pay, because he thinks his responsibilty to them ended, but that's not what a good parent does.

Frankly, I know you guys have the myth of the "great father", and I do believe there are many great dads, like Swiss, who helps his kids with homework and school problems, but I can't shake the fact that I so rarely see those dads. Usually, it is disgusting people like you that view supporting your child as "stealing" that I, and most judges, encounter, and, unfortunately, as much as we try to stay unbiased, that has an impact.

LS it may be that your perspective is affected by the population that you're dealing with.

As a counter-example, I'm familiar with a number of divorces that have occurred between couples that are relatively well off. They're not sweating $1000 here or there.

In these situations, you do see wives who have made their divorce a career move. They may work, but it's usually not a full-time occupation, and their homes and lifestyles are typically pretty comfortable. And these aren't extravagantly wealthy people. Their combined incomes may have been a bit north of 200K annually prior to the divorce, though often it was more.

The guys I'm thinking of really can end-up in a difficult position. They're responsible for maintaining the lifestyle of their ex and the kids, but don't have enough left over to live a stable life.

And I've seen that these men will go to heroic efforts to maintain their relationship with their kids - foregoing better financial opportunities to stay nearby, and avoiding conflicts with their ex to prevent having her obstructing their relationship with them.

So while I do accept that there are plenty of derelict fathers out there, I don't think that these men should be regarded as indicative of married men generally.

The idea of "lifestyle support", really chews at me.

So what would a couple and their children do if they stayed together, but couldn't afford the same house or the same private school? They'd move to a smaller house, or start renting, and go public.

The idea that I owe my children a house is preposterous for that reason. If that is the yardstick, then you would think that the custodianship of the children would go to the person most able to foot the bill.

It is not I who choose that house or the mortgage that goes with it. If I had been the one to get the house and the kids, it would be the first thing to go.

When I was a kid, things I had and did waxed and waned with my parent's fortune, and that taught me how to economize.

What you get when one person has to provide by court order is a kid getting braces when nobody can really afford them. Because hey, we'll just garnishee his wages, because I know he's hiding money somewhere. I DIDN'T ever get braces, because hey, there was no money.

The idea about what is in the kids best interest is a complex one, because it is up to who exactly to decide? You don't take piano lessons if there is no money for them. But using the yardstick of children's best interest, allows the non-custodial parent to be bludgeoned with bills backed with the threat of court action. It can and often does ruin that parent financially. It's not for naught that I live in a palatial 450 square foot studio apartment. The weekends I have the kids, I get the futon, one kid gets the couch, and the other gets my bed. While my ex- uses her engineering degree to answer phones part time for minimum wage. Why should she do more?

Yeah, it IS my money. When you remove the children and the money from one parent and give them to the other? How is that not stealing? If this was a partenrship, why doesn't she have to put up half?

In a normal marriage, the parents decide what needs to be done, and what can be afforded, NOT the children. Once divorced suddenly ONE parent gets to decide what the other parent will have to do, and it isn't the parent with the money, or we wouldn't be having the conversation, would we?

The concept of the child's needs being first is a good one IF you can find a neutral third party to administer that, and have a narrow predetermined set of guidelines. There is no such system now.

Swiss, we do have guidelines, and your support should be based on a percentage of your income. If that changes, you can get it reduced, but half the time, I hear men complain about that, they never actually go back to court to ask for a reduction.

You're doing a great thing by giving your children a nice home, and allowing them an almost full-time mom. I don't understand why anyone resents giving their children the absolute best life they can, even when it's a sacrifice. Why would you want them to have to move to a shack or be put in daycare? To prove a point? To make it "equal"? Your ex IS working - she's providing the primary care for your children, and you should be proud, not resentful, that you're able to give them these benefits.

Braces are viewed more as a medical necessity now than in the past. Straight teeth and a properly aligned jaw prevents all kinds of dental problems, and issues like TMJ.

Some kids in my cases are in foster care, and braces are something that the state doesn't pay for, so years ago, I started a charity to help provide money for the things these kids need that aren't covered - everything from music lessons to prom dresses. But braces is one of the main things we provide because we know it makes such a big difference in their lives, in their self-esteem.

It makes me so happy to know I can help do that for a child - and these aren't even my children. So, I honestly can't comprehend why any parent would resent paying for braces.

LovelySoul, you are missing the point, I don't resent my children. But what about the other half of the partnership? Circumstance dictates if a mom stays home or not, kids get braces or not. Ruining one parent because the other doesn't feel like working? How does that fit in? Parents work when they need to. Unless they have a state mandate not to.

Look, I get that your work experience shows you the other side of the coin, but it seems to me that you aren't looking at both sides. In families where both parents work from the get go, the kids are fine without having a stay at home mom. How do you think that half of the population does it? AND interestingly, in the divorce, such unions are split in half and life continues.

When you are a unit together, sure, decisions can be made about the mom[or dad] staying home. If Circumstance allows. It is hoped that those decisions would be made by both people. Once you are two separate units, with children in common? Why is it wrong that both people should be required to try to do an equal share? Why should the mother be able to say "I'm not going to go back to my engineering career." Or the office Manager, or Nursing.

It isn't a luxury afforded to the father.

So, what's the insideous downside to this kind of entitlement? When the ex is 50, and the youngest is off to college, I won't be paying childsupport to her anymore. I'll be supporting the kid directly. In all the intervening years that she has not needed to work, she won't have that work experience, or career. What is she going to do then? It's not up to me to tell her that. But. You might imagine with a teen, and a 10 year old and a grandmother that lives a block away, that she'd be getting her work skills relevant, and trying to find a career oriented job.

If I laid on the couch couch and worked a part time job when I felt like it, society would think I was a total slacker loser. And they would be right to think that. Why should anyone get a pass on that?

"Swiss, we do have guidelines, and your support should be based on a percentage of your income. If that changes, you can get it reduced, but half the time, I hear men complain about that, they never actually go back to court to ask for a reduction."

The issue is, why the hell should anyone have to go to court to get a reduction?

If I earn less money one financial year, I don't have to go to court to get a reduction in my income tax liability. If a business makes half as much money one year compared to the previous, they don't have to go to court to get a reduction in their sales tax.

There should be procedures in place for automatic adjustments periodically. I know of no other situation where an ongoing impost that is variable based on income cannot be revised downward without a court order.

Imagine if you were an artist who made $100,000 one year, but only a fraction the next. But you still had to pay support assessed at $100,000. A nightmare!

I am not having any children, because even though I don't have the highest self-esteem, I don't deserve to be put through this particular wringer.

Well, Swiss, one would hope she's not just laying on the couch all day. If she's a lazy woman, then that's unfortunate for the kids.
But that isn't typical of what most SAHMs do.
Most are involved in activities that help their children, emotionally and academically, which is why this arrangment is generally perceived as better for children, especially if it is the life the kids already knew prior to the divorce.

The court is loathe to say, "Guess what, kids? We know you're already traumatized by mom and dad splitting up and your whole world crumbling, but now, you're also going to have to move to a smaller house or an apt because Daddy doesn't think it's fair that he'll have to support you the same way as before, since he's no longer with mom. And, speaking of mom, she's not going to be home after school anymore like she was before because she's going to have to get a full-time job, so forget those afterschool talks and home-baked cookies, you're going have to go to daycare now..."

See what I mean? Judges are very reluctant to do that to the children who are already enduring the most traumatic time in their young lives.

I agree that it's awful the way some women waste their time, and your ex should definitely be doing more to ready herself for the job market. But that's really her responsibilty to worry about, not yours. If she's foolish, she'll pay the price.

The dilemma for the court is that it cannot know which moms are good, involved SAHMs, and which ones may be laying on the couch eating bon/bons and watching soaps all day because almost all husbands, who resent paying child support, make this charge.

So, the court basically has to look at the results. How are the kids doing? Are they thriving under this arrangement? I have seen very few cases where a mom was truly that lazy, and wasn't, in fact, doing multiple things for her children that the father simply didn't credit. But if a mom was indeed that lazy - laying on the couch and doing nothing all day - I suspect it would begin to show in the kids' overall well-being, grades, and general behavior (not to mention their desire to stay with lazy mom at home) and that would be grounds to revisit custody.

"There should be procedures in place for automatic adjustments periodically."

I agree with that, Nick S. It should be made simpler. However, with kids involved, it's much more complex than paying income tax.

The overall goal is not to have children's lives disrupted. It can't be like, "Last year was a good year, but this year wasn't...so now, you must move out of your house...maybe next year will be better..."

The onus is on whoever is the breadwinner (usually the father) to try to keep that consistent and stable, as much as possible. Otherwise, you'd have dads (and do) who just quit their jobs to avoid supporting their kids.

Fathers have supported their children for centuries. It is, in almost every culture, the father's role, whereas mothers have been the nurturers and direct caregivers. You rarely see fathers in that role almost anywhere but the western world.

I kind of agree with what Crid said earlier...something to the effect of we're trying to equalize things between the genders too much. Everything doesn't have to be EXACTLY the same.

The "bias" of family court is basically that parental roles are different. There is tremendous pressure now for the court to consider these roles as exactly the same - as basically interchangeable - but I'm doubtful this is going to work out being best for children in the long run.

lovelysoul, if a married couple had a bad year and had to move the courts would do nothing.

The point you seem to be missing is there is little room for change.

If a man were married and wanted to change jobs, one which would pay less in the first few years and then take of he would discuss it with his partner and they would make a choice.

Not so when divorced, if a man were to take a lower paying job he be told you can earn more but choose not to so well charge you anyway.

You say judges are loath to tell a mother to work 'for the children'(its great how everything is for the children) in this trumatic time.

Odd how they arent loath to burden a man with more than his fare share of debt forcing him to work more or go to jail.

Serioulsy what kind of moron thinks two households can survive on an income that was supporting only one?

Is it really any wonder men are avoiding marrige in greater and greater numbers?

Lujlp, it is great how "everything is for the children". The alternative - having everything be about the parents would be a total mess.

If you step back from it, you can see that being child focused is the only way family court can reasonably and justly function. Otherwise, it would be forever bogged down in a quagmire of trying to determine the parents individual needs, abilities, and who is telling the truth.

You're right, a court won't step in and do this with a married family, so don't get divorced. There some things that just aren't fair, and divorce is a terrible process for all involved, but it's not the children's fault. They are innocent parties. So, you cannot blame the court for doing everything possible to preserve the children's stability and way of life.

Child support is based on reasonable formulas, and men can get it reduced if circumstances legitimately change. However, I think many men don't do this because they know it will be a hardship on their kids....and I say that's being a good father.

If I were a man, and I had to pay a certain percentage of my income each month to keep my kids in their family home, with their familar rooms, toys, friends, and their mom nurturing and loving them the way she always has, I would somehow find a way to do that for them, even if I had to sacrifice myself. I cannot see why I would resent that. I made those kids, and the divorce isn't their fault. They shouldn't suffer for it.

This seems more about bitterness towards mothers than doing what is truly best for kids.

I cannot see why I would resent that

Thats becuase you cant see what it is like to be a man.

So you would see nothing wrong with losing you home, being cut off from the kids you see everyday, having to work harder under threat of prison or homlessness becuase your original salary barely covers you house payment on a house that is no longer yours and you have to earn more money to get a new home, but that new money you earn means you have to pay even more support.

You see nothing wrong in that durring the most tramatic event in your kids life you are allowed nowhere near them ordered out of their presence, only to fing the the judge doesnt want to upset them by having their mother work to provide for them either.

Tell me if a man is responsible to provide for his stay at home ex wife and kids after a divorce, statisically initiated by her, why is she not responsible to still cook and clean for him?

Why is a man bound by law to a marrige conrtact after it is broken but the woman is not?

It's not a marriage contract. It's a parental contract. And I doubt that any judge orders a father to "not be anywhere near his children" unless there is abuse involved.

The point is that if you don't want your wife to stay home with the kids, then it's best if you change that BEFORE a divorce. Family court is not interested in apportioning blame or being punitive to the mother by making her return to work at a time when that effects the consistency and comfort of the children's lives. It is presumed that you, as a man, were not just a victim in all these arrangements - that you must've wanted your children to have a stay-at-home mom and viewed this as valuable to them.

The fact that you wish to change things and send her back to work after a divorce seems punitive to her as well as to the children. If you were living way beyond your means as a married couple, then this will be factored in, but, generally, it is perceived that your income alone must've been sufficient to support this sort of arrangement, and likley still can - and since these are the circumstances that the child has been living under, changing them is disruptive, and would, in effect, be punishing the child for the parent's actions.

I honestly know that, as a woman, if the roles were reversed and I had a stay-at-home ex who was the primary caregiver, then I would want things to remain just as stable and normal for my kids. They need stability. A home and a regular routine may seem arbitrary, but it holds a tremendous level of comfort for most children. I can't imagine wanting to change the life they know if I could possibly avoid it, even if that meant working more.

If I couldn't possibly make the situation work financially, then, and ONLY then, would I attempt to change it. But getting back at my ex spouse by demanding he return to work and disrupt the lives of our children would not be my first consideration.

LovelySoul, I have no doubt that some fathers may indeed opt to quit their jobs, or even work in the cash economy or whatever, in order to avoid child support payments.

But it is excessively harsh and punitive to use this as a justification for targetting all fathers who suffer a fall in income.

If a family has to adjust their living standards due to a fall in income from one parent, this is no different to what happens in most intact families anyway. It is a learning experience, and no-one expects the courts to force a parent to earn more.

If the goal is to achieve stable living standards, then perhaps child support should not be increased too much when incomes increase, lest the family become used to that standard-of-living which cannot be sustained.

Its like talking to a wall

First child support is one thing, spousal support is something else. Any man who has to pay alimony is indeed being held to a marrige contract.

When a marrige ends a mans responsibilty to his wife should end with it - if that means she has to get a job to make ends meet so be it.

You say a man should make his wife go back to work? How is that supposed to happen? And yes men are ordered out of their kids lives, if fact one man was jailed for waving to his kids as their mother them drove past HIS house.

Also if you cant afford child support how are you supposed to afford an attorny to file for a modification?

It is presumed that you, as a man, were not just a victim in all these arrangements - that you must've wanted your children to have a stay-at-home mom and viewed this as valuable to them.

And while that may have been true when one paycheck supported one household, but the economic reality is it can not support two.

And I notice you still havent answered my question - if a man is still held to the terms of a marrige contract after a divorce why isnt a woman?

Family court prefers the status quo, that's all I'm saying. I didn't make the rules, I'm just the messenger. My point was that this is more about child advocacy than gender bias.

You worked, she didn't, it'll probably stay that way. She worked, you didn't, it will probably stay that way. You gave your kids a nice house, with a backyard and a swing set, it will probably stay that way.

And, if you really think about it, this is the only way the courts can reasonably function because they are overwhelmed as it is. If the court starts getting into forcing spouses back to work, they open up a whole new can of worms to deal with...and another one for parents to fight about.

What are the spouse's real qualifications? What if he/she can't find a job in the area, can they move? How much will job training cost, who will pay, and who cares for the kids while this happens? What if daycare costs almost exceed the income the spouse can realistically make? On and on.

The court must already deal somewhat with these isssues with the established breadwinner, so adding the other spouse into the mix complicates matters doubly.

Add to that forcing the non-working spouse AND kids to move to smaller accommodations...well, besides being a really gutwrenching order for any judge, this completely blows the lid off an already expensive divorce process, as parents can then fight over where the new accommodations must be, the purchase price, and what new school the kids must be enrolled in....

Divorce attorneys would love this, but courts look for the most expedient, child-friendly way to end the antagonism, and that is usually by maintaining the status quo.

I empathize with men who end up with a life they didn't want, but the court doesn't have time to indulge a lot of self-pity and past regrets..."I didn't want her not to work...I didn't want that house"...etc. They hear it all, but the courts can't redo what's already been done. Nor are they into wrist-slapping or silly, punitive measures, like, "Go cook dinner for your ex husband."

The marriage contract is broken, but the parental contract remains, and family court likes to try to keep things the same as they can for children. What I hear from you guys is, "My life has changed...so everybody else's should do!" And I get that feeling - I totally understand it - but often, this is not the right impulse to have for your children's sake. You really must view this from a child-advocacy position.

"Usually, it is disgusting people like you that view supporting your child as "stealing""

Rubbish. There is nothing wrong with a man financially supporting his children - if they're his children. But if somebody all but *takes his children away by force*, then I don't see why he should have to pay huge amounts for them. Paying some small amount, sure, but in case you aren't paying attention, that isn't what the law says - it says the women gets half of everything, which is insane.

It really *doesn't* cost all that much to raise kids, unless you feel they "need" a fancy lifestyle - bullsh-t, I was raised quite poor, and kids don't "need" much at all - food on the table and a warm, loving home. If some psycho woman wants to break a family and get a divorce, she's the one doing the wrecking, not the man.

"Usually, it is disgusting people like you that view supporting your child as "stealing""

That's a pure straw-man. If you want to attack my argument, then attack my argument, not some absurdly nonsensical mythical straw-man version of it that I never made.

"It's expensive to raise kids and most divorced women barely make ends meet"

So they should bloody well stay married, and stop this selfish nonsense of wrecking homes for their own petty desires, and rather think about "what's best for the children".

Mouse, you sound like a joy to be married to. It's a total mystery why you'd be divorced.

Nobody "takes away your children by force" unless you are abusive. Fathers have increasingly more liberal visitation rights these days. In 25 yrs as a GAL, I've never seen a dad denied access to his kids unless there was abuse alleged, and, even then, there's usually supervised visitation.

Logistically, if we are to keep children in their homes - which I still say is the most reasonable way to handle it - then obviously the primary caregiver is going to stay and the other spouse must leave. It's just one of those situations where things can't be split straight down the middle! Houses can't be split in half. Kids can't, and shouldn't, be torn apart in some King Solomon act of "fairness". Men should be grown ups and accept that reality.

If you want your kids to suffer because YOU are suffering, then that's all about YOU....not what's best for them. That's the way we child advocates look at it. If the judge reviews your finances and determines that it is still reasonable for the children to stay in their home, with the same routine and basic caregiving arrangement that they already know, then that is what the court will do...for the children's best interests.

Fathers who, up until the divorce, were providing for their children in a certain manner, but suddenly start saying how poor they are - and that their kids should move into a trailer because "they" had a hardscrabble childhood, and really, that was the intention of how the kid's should've been raised all along, but somehow, that's NOT the existence the kids have now...do not win the respect of the court. Nor should they.

If you wanted and felt you could only afford to raise your kids in a trailer, then you should've done that. That kind of life would be what the kids know, what's familar to them, and that would be their status quo. A judge would likely keep them in their trailer home too.

But don't say to your kids, during the most traumatic time of their lives, that they must change their entire existence because you've rethought it, and now that you hate their mom, you think they should all move into a trailer.

That's selfish...which is probably the attitude that got you divorced in the first place.

It is THEIR home, and if it was bought during your marriage, it is legitimately half your ex's home too. A married couple is a TEAM. That's the way family court views it. The stay at home spouse is considered just as valuable as the working spouse. I know you men despise that logic, and think your breadwinning status should give you more power - both in the relationship and out of it - but, especially where kids are concerned, that's not the family court's perspective.

Ok lets see if simple math works on you

Before divorce
1 income = 1 household

After
1 income = 2 households

in most divorce senarios with spousal support a guy wind up aying 2/3 of his paycheck to support the 'lifestyle to which they are uused to'(why the guy isnt entitled to this as well no one has ever explained)

So you have the say at home mome supporting 1/3 of her household and the dad supporting 2/3rds of his former life, plus his new one

1/3rd vs 1 & 2/3rds hardley seems fair.

Children are traumatized enough with out their father winding up homeless or jailed because they cant affored their crappy apartment and raman noodles on top of paying for a house they no longer live in.

And this goes both ways, my mother lost custody to my father - courts in Utah have a relgious bias as oppsed to a sexual bias - since she wasnt a good little mormon she lost custody.

This was a woman who got a job cleaning offices within days of leaving my father, she got a job as a flight attendant doing day trips in the 80's and was told it wsa an inappropriate job(because of the possibility of a plane getting delayed and her not getting home in time for dinner)
She was told in the same hearing in which she lost us that even if she got a more 'stable' job that she wouldn get custody back and if it paid less she would still have to pay child support at the set rate.

The point is the system is broken, and since men by far get screwed over by it you hear about it from men more.

And the problem is feminists in charge are willing to sacrifce the occasional sister on the alter to get back at men for all the horrible oppression that 90% of them have never even experinced

Lovelysoul: "but I can't shake the fact that I so rarely see those dads."

I believe you when you say you do not see them, even when they are right in front of you, I wager.

Spartee, you can believe what you want, but I wish there were more involved fathers in the cases I have. A high percentage of dads have never been in the picture at all, and those who have are often substance-abusers or criminals. The moms aren't much better, but generally speaking, they're still around.

Lujlp, I understand that it takes more to support two households than one, but that's why a judge is supposed to review the financial picture and determine the feasibility. I've have dads in my cases who only paid $100 in child support because their income was so low. It's still just a formulaic proportion of their income, at least the income they report.

And your mom's tragic case is a perfect example of why most states have gone to "no fault", and why the court generally doesn't want to apportion blame, take sides, or get into who is more productive, moral, etc.

Not only would this overburden the system, but it becomes very subjective then - varying from judge to judge, based purely on opinion and potential bias. Sticking with the status quo is a safer way to deal with very conflicting accounts from both sides, and it has the added benefit of keepings things consistent for the kids, which the court likes.

It's not a perfect system, but I think if you really step back and consider it from a neutral space, you can see why family court chooses this method.

I mean, all of us who are divorced would prefer it if judges were psychic and could automaticaly determine who was wrong and who was right, who was lazy and who worked hardest, who was closer to the kids and who wasn't, etc. We'd all like MORE from famiy court.

But it can only do so much, and, given these limitations, I think it has wisely chosen to take the side of the children over either parent. You may view it as taking the side of the stay-at-home caregiver (ie: your ex wife), but that's purely incidental to doing what's best for the children.

And, bottom line, is that, at most, your child support commitment lasts only for 18 years, usually less, since most divorces occur after kids are older. Even if you've been treated unfairly, the burden will end, and I think you should take some comfort in knowing that your children may have gotten *more* than they were entitled to, rather than less (if less was indeed fair).

Focus on what you're doing for your kids, not your ex. Keeping their lives stable amid all this turmoil is something to be proud of. I would hope that even if courts didn't "make" you do that, most dads would still try to do it.

lovelysoul,

Just take a moment to read over what you wrote in your prior posts. We all approach life with at least a few inescapable biases. Yours seem to be coming out in this thread.

Is my suspicion that you are not an unbiased witness to the courtroom conflicts entirely unwarranted, based on some of the things you said above? Your vehemence strikes me as that of an advocate, not an observer.

I'm definitely biased towards children. That's what I'm trained to be.

"I'm definitely biased towards children."

And, LS, what's good for women is good for their children, right?

(And what's good for GM is good for America, or so it's been said ... .)

I have a case where a young man stepped up to the plate, at age 24, and took custody of a child he had during a brief relationship with a girl who was on drugs. It's been 7 years now, and he's a great dad. They live in a tiny rented apt, but it's filled with photos of him and his little boy...his drawings lovingly taped to the refrigerator. I admire him because so many young dads in his situation do not take responsibility. The child usually goes into foster care.

The mom is cleaned now, and she can fight for custody, but she won't get it, only visitation. The principle is the same. No one is going to rip that child away from his primary caregiver or place him in another home.

I have every faith that family court treats male primary caregivers the same. We just don't see those cases very often.

You guys can be the primary caregivers too. And, as such, you will likely be allowed to stay in your home after a divorce - not because of your gender but because it's where your kids live.

However, the majority of men don't seem to want to be primary caregivers, whereas most women do.

Family court functions the way it does because parental roles are different. Parental roles are different because they always have been, still are in most cultures, and men and women both seem to like it that way.

We can pretend it's not true, and ignore the practical considerations inherent with this truth, but we all know the roles are different.

"Family court functions the way it does because parental roles are different. Parental roles are different because they always have been, still are in most cultures, and men and women both seem to like it that way.

We can pretend it's not true, and ignore the practical considerations inherent with this truth, but we all know the roles are different. "

So when men are disproportionately on the receiving end of injustice, that's just the way everyone wants it, really.

Ok, LS. But, in the past, when you say that women were disproportionately on the receiving end, things HAD to change (and the welfare of kids be damned)!

Gander = Goose? Not in your stilted, fem-centric world, it seems.

I do appreciate the thought you put into your posts, however. ;)

The difference being, Jay R, just what I pointed out. Men are free to switch roles here, just as women are. Women like Julie have stay-at-home husbands, while they work outside the home. It's what they both choose, and all women ever wanted was free choice - to work or not. Men now have the option to stay home or not. Both genders have broader options.

But whichever one stays home with the kids will likely remain in the home with them after a divorce. That is just the most logical and least disruptive solution.

Why is a man bound by law to a marrige conrtact after it is broken but the woman is not?

This isnt' a man or woman thing, it is a 'who is more able to earn a living' thing. If my husband and I divorce, he will likely get alimony and the house. Why? Because he is less able to get a job supporting himself out of the shoot. The marriage contract looks to distributed the wealth from the marriage once it has ended. In community property states, that means half unless the monies were not intermingled. Men tend to earn more, so they get the short end of this stick. If you want the longer end of this stick, marry up financially!

Paying some small amount, sure, but in case you aren't paying attention, that isn't what the law says - it says the women gets half of everything, which is insane.

Each party gets half of the wealth in the marriage if you divorce in a community property state. It is assumed that half of the earnings belong to each spouse, no matter whose name is on the paycheck. Again, if men want to get the long end of the stick, marry someone who earns as much if not more than he does. I know that if my husband and I divorce I will be paying for it financially, but that is the right thing to do as payment for his years of work around the house.

Incidentally, I have seen the results of this type of bickering. My husband's parents divorced when he was very young and his father insisted that my MIL 'pay half'. To this day, if asked about the divorce, my MIL will bitch and moan about money this and money that. My FIL insisted that my MIL pay for half of everything even though she was completely incapable of doing so in many circumstances.(He is a doctor, she is a social worker).

When my FIL had kids with his second wife, they were spared no luxury. You see, my FIL was responsible 100% for their care, but viewed his responsibility as only 50% for my husband and his sister. To this day my husband sees this favoritism and views his younger siblings as 'more loved' than him. Their relationships will likely always be strained because of this.

My only point is that kids will often view money as love and favor. If you spend your time bitching about 'it has to be split down the middle' then the kids are the ones that suffer and they will feel more unloved and hurt than they already do. I"m not saying that things as they currently are are fair, but what LS defined here should serve as warning. Everyone should live well below their abilities and not support a lifestyle in marriage and parenthood that you would be unwilling to support in divorce.

"Everyone should live well below their abilities and not support a lifestyle in marriage and parenthood that you would be unwilling to support in divorce."

You are correct, Julie, but what a sad, cynical state of affairs this is. How can romance, marriage and parenthood possibly survive if the fear of divorce, and the consequent need to cover your own ass, is the guiding principle in family relations?

Women wanted the choice to work. Increasingly they will miss the choice not to work. Welcome to equality. Pathetic.

You are correct, Julie, but what a sad, cynical state of affairs this is. How can romance, marriage and parenthood possibly survive if the fear of divorce, and the consequent need to cover your own ass, is the guiding principle in family relations?

I don't see this as 'cover your ass', I see this as intelligent financial planning. When planning for our financial future, my husband and I look at all of the most likely devastating losses. Considering that half of all marriages don't 'finish the race', and in the majority of the others, one spouse dies before the others, financially planning for the separation of the marriage is the adult thing to do.

Women wanted the choice to work. Increasingly they will miss the choice not to work. Welcome to equality. Pathetic.

But many of the men here are upset because they never had the option not to work. I think both sexes want that option at times.

LS says "Men are free to switch roles here, just as women are. Women like Julie have stay-at-home husbands, while they work outside the home. It's what they both choose, and all women ever wanted was free choice - to work or not. Men now have the option to stay home or not. Both genders have broader options."

LS, you can't be serious in suggesting that men have just as much choice today to stay home or marry-up as women traditionally have.

Given the advantages women have over men today in the workforce (better education, affirmative action, one-sided sexual harassment policies etc.etc.), do you really expect men to be grateful for the fact that a minority of women are willing to step up to the plate and do what men have always been expected to do as a matter of course?

From the couples I know where the woman is the main breadwinner, it is often the case that the woman simply wasn't attractive enough to get a more successful man so she is really making a virtue of necessity. I know that's unkind, especially considering some of these women seem like nice kind people. But hey, I call it as I see it.

I was hoping to run into other people who have used mike ramseys stop sweating and start living as i ail from excessive sweating and itd be nice to know there is a cure. thanks, cool blog.