Marriage and Divorce: A Rigged Game for Men, But A
If you’re a man considering marriage, there are some statistics you should know before you go ring shopping.Today, more than 50% of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce.
What many people don’t know is that women initiate approximately 70% of all divorces. Interesting, since men as a gender are the ones who are typically shamed for being commitment phobic and not willing to settle down.
An article on a marriage support website states that women primarily file for divorce because they feel “neglected.”
Author and researcher Deirdre Bair finds that women are generally the initiators of divorce worldwide, not just in the U.S.
In my opinion, the primary reason women initiate divorces in 70% of divorces cases is because most women stand to gain far more than they have to lose if they choose to divorce.
Even though women initiate approximately 70% of divorces, men are frequently ordered to pay their ex-wives legal costs. So, in addition to potentially losing their assets, their homes and their children, men are also expected to pay for the privilege of being emotionally and financially eviscerated by their ex-wives.
Not only do women initiate 70% of divorces, women are awarded primary custody in 82.6% of custody cases and this figure has remained largely unchanged since the 1994 U.S. Census.
Courts typically refuse to lower child support payments when a father’s income drops. The Bradley Amendment, which was passed in 1986, forbids any reduction in child support arrears, even if the father is disabled.
The amendment ensures that even if a man can prove he is the victim of paternity fraud, that he cannot be absolved from paying child support to a child that is not his biological offspring, which brings us to another disturbing statistic.
Approximately 30% of paternity tests submitted come back negative. That’s nearly one-third of challenged paternity cases proving the woman lied.
What about brave men who marry a second time? Men can have their new spouses’ income held against them and used to extort more child and spousal support to their ex-wives.
This is nothing more than a “backhanded way of tapping into a second spouse’s income” to pay for the ex who believes she shouldn’t have to work because she was once married to her ex once upon a time or wants to maintain that magical and totally unrealistic “marital standard of living.”
However, if the ex-wife remarries, her new spouse is under no legal obligation to financially support his stepchildren. The court’s rationale? Hey, they’re not his children and, therefore, not his responsibility. Yet, it is the new wife’s responsibility to give a portion of her salary to her husband’s ex-wife and children. Can someone please explain to the logic of this to me?
In many states, long after a divorce has been settled, ex-wives can come after their ex-husbands to shake down their retirement plans — even after they received a portion of the man’s retirement during the divorce settlement! This essentially allows some ex-wives to “double dip” into their exes’ retirement savings.
Here’s another statistic: Divorced and separated men are two and a half times more likely to commit suicide than married men. Divorce, however, doesn’t seem to lead more women to commit suicide. Separated and divorced male suicides outnumber their female counterparts by 4 to 1.
Marriage rates are on the decline in the U.S. and worldwide as many men are deciding to opt out of marriage due to the extremely unfair nature of divorce and custody “awards” and the extremely entitled attitudes of many women (MGTOW and the Herbivores) and I can’t say as I blame them.
The above is an abridged version, (due to space constraints), of an article by female consultant, Dr Tara J. Palmatier.
The full article can be viewed at:
Comments (12)
But in all seriousness, I wonder if there'll ever be a time when those statistics start plummeting and the positive aspects of marriage rises. Or is marriage slowly becoming a thing of the past?
As long as we have crooked court systems in place, I don't think marriage has a chance for survival overall. It's all a big money game to them and they don't care who gets hurt in the process. They (the court system) just want your money.
Anyway, Pre-nups is the way to go if you really really have to get married for some strange reason.
A very interesting and informative blog. Thank you for posting it.
I heard that if women want to break up with a man it is because they have another man lined up or they are already involved with another man. Let's face it, it is much more easier for a woman to find a partner than it is for a man. You know Soc, the grass is always greener on the other side, at least that is what many women think. :)
Love your blog... very interesting. one thing that attract my attention is your question at the end of this paragraph :
However, if the ex-wife remarries, her new spouse is under no legal obligation to financially support his stepchildren. The court’s rationale? Hey, they’re not his children and, therefore, not his responsibility. Yet, it is the new wife’s responsibility to give a portion of her salary to her husband’s ex-wife and children. Can someone please explain to the logic of this to me?
in my logic, I see it that financial support to children has strong connection with his right to also involve in the children's life. I guess, most of the men have good sense and proud of being father. If he wants his children admit him as their father, he should responsible on their life even they live with their mom and her new spouse.
Regular meeting father-children need to be maintained if he wants to keep his father figure and to have all this access, he should show his responsible such as guarantee financial support to the children. What would his children think if he gives up his responsible financially? Sparing his time ONLY to meet the children would not be enough to guard his right, even only in front of the children. To live, to grow up, to be in well-being for his children, only his financial support could do.
Maybe there is a case new spouse would agree to take care of his new wife's children... (imagine you were doing it), what would be your demand in return? I believe, the simple one is that you would be happy if the children would see you as their new father.
To get the title of MOTHER or FATHER is a noble title that you could earn it by paying it so much in life.
It's like going to school... you pay money, energy and time to be a doctor one day and you enjoy so much when society recognize you as a good doctor... that's how I see about being MOTHER or FATHER.
so, I guess the court is rational about this rule.
that's my personal opinion based on my logic (no formal or legal references)
have a good week-end everyone....
In answer to your question, based on the present trends and the increasing divorce rates, it seems that marriage is slowly becoming a thing of the past,
Based on the legal system at present, pre-nuptials really seem to be a good idea, as you have suggested.
A lot of women may view it the other way.
According to the research, more men have extra-marital affairs than women. This would suggest that it may also be easy for a man to find a partner.
You wrote:
A single parent has to support his or her CHILDREN and in most cases not his ex partner.
Doesn't the ex have a legal obligation to assist in the support of the children?
states that, in the uk:
The non resident parent is obligated to pay maintenance towards the cost of their child, until the child reaches the age of 19.
I agree with what you have stated re the hardships faced by single mothers.
But does the woman have any legal right to claim child support from the man to assist with the financial expenses?
states re South Africa:
When it comes to maintenance, the law is fairly straightforward. It is in the application of the law that difficulties lie. One of the basic principles of child maintenance is that the extent of the obligation is based on the standard of living, income and means of the person/s obliged to pay. The obligation does not rest solely on the father; it rests on both parents, according to their respective means. The fact that the father can adequately support the child on his own does not mean that the mother can avoid contributing. In fact, it would be contrary to public policy and invalid to insert a clause into a divorce settlement agreement stating that only one parent need maintain the child.
Neither spouse has a statutory right to maintenance. The language in the Divorce Act is clearly discretionary and the ex-spouse seeking an award for maintenance has no right as such. The discretionary power of the court to make a maintenance award includes the power to make no award at all. As mentioned, our law favours the ‘clean break’ principle, which basically means that after a divorce the parties should become economically independent of each other as soon as possible.
Bobby Sherrill, a Lockheed employee in Kuwait from North Carolina, was captured by Iraqis and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage. Sherrill was arrested the night after his release for not paying $1,425 in child support while he was a hostage.
Clarence Brandley, a Texas high school janitor, was wrongly convicted in 1980 of murder. After spending many years in prison and on death row, he was released in 1990 and he then sued the state of Texas for wrongful imprisonment in 1993. The state then responded with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support that had not been paid while in prison. Dianna Thompson of The American Coalition of Fathers and Children told the Houston Chronicle that federal law makes it illegal for states to forgive child support payments regardless of circumstance. Michael McCormick, of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children said, concerning child support payments, "I'm not aware of any state where it says a wrongly convicted individual is relieved of their obligation." Despite paying child support every month since his release via wage garnishment, Brandley's child support total reached $73,000 in 2003, when a judge reduced his total to $22,000; however, this amount is still more than triple the $7,000 in back child support Brandley owed at the time of his arrest in 1980. Recently, Brandley lost his job in the economic downturn in 2008; he has since lost his car and house as the child support bills and interest keep coming.
Taron James, a U.S. Navy veteran from California, was forced to continue to pay child support until 2006, even after the child was demonstrated by DNA test in 2001 to be not his; James paid $12,000 in such payments. A California District Court of Appeal eventually set aside the paternity judgment against James in 2006, but the same court denied James' request to have his child support payments reimbursed.
Larry Souter was wrongly convicted of murder in 1992 and spent 13 years in prison before being exonerated and released in 2005. Upon release, he was ordered by the court to explain why he shouldn't be held in contempt for failing to pay $38,000 in combined back child support, interest, and penalties. Payments were not suspended for at least 3 years while he was in prison. The interest and penalties accumulated while he was still in prison, and presumably unable to pay.
Geoffrey Fisher was taken to court in 2001 due to being delinquent on child support payments, and had his driver's license suspended. Fisher pushed for custody, and a state-ordered paternity test determined he was not the biological father. In January 2002 a judge determined he no longer had to pay child support, but the attorney general's office claimed that Fisher still owed $11,450, approximately 3 year's worth of back support payments from the time of the child's birth until the time of the paternity test. State officials have stated that this is because Fisher failed to file a court motion to relieve himself of financial responsibility to the child, and that Fisher is thus regarded as the legal father and responsible for child support.
Under no circumstances should a man get married if he's beta and also doesn't want kids. If you want kids or are an alpha male(ideally both)then maybe marriage is still for you. A good reason to marry, a very good hold over women, or you can forget about marriage.