The Men's Rights Movement

[Gurn Blanston]

I actually laughed out loud....

As did I, figuratively....

[North Star]

I actually laughed out loud....

Reading this, I literally pound my table into pieces.

[Karl Henning]

YOLO

[kishnevi]

I think the biggest catalyst is an unjust and biased family court system and the debasement of marriage as a contract in which the man has something more to lose, a point which the piece touches more on further down.

Having been involved in the family court system for a period of several years--it isn't biased or unjust towards men.  It's still despicably easy for a man to get out of his obligations--moral, financial, and emotional--towards any children.  There are of course women who try to use the system to vindicatively ruin their ex-husband's lives--but there are also men who do that to. The emotional wars that are sometimes disguised as divorce cases can go on for a lifetime.

If anything in the system is "not fair", it's that it allows the major burden of raising children  on the woman, in all aspects, financial and otherwise,  if the father doesn't want to fulfill his obligations as a father.  It's the woman who is forced to chase the deadbeat dad, and almost all cases that return to court after the initial proceedings and settlement fall into that category.  If the father/exhusband is willing to do his part,  then the court system reduces to clerical help making sure the forms are filled out properly, and leaving matters to be decided between the exspouses.

[ibanezmonster]

If anything in the system is "not fair", it's that it allows the major burden of raising children  on the woman, in all aspects, financial and otherwise,  if the father doesn't want to fulfill his obligations as a father.

Are you saying that it's possible for men to not have to pay child support and get away with it? 

All the guys I've known that pay child support work constantly to do so... and why is it that the woman almost always gets custody of the kid? Every single scenarios of split-ups I've ever known (I can't think of about 7 or so right now), the woman keeps the kid and the man pays child support. 

I don't know about whether most of them would be the most suitable person to live with their kid or not, but I know my friend well, and there would be no reason why his son couldn't live with him.

[kishnevi]

Are you saying that it's possible for men to not have to pay child support and get away with it? 

In the short term,  at least, it's possible, by the simple device of ignoring court orders.  I know of at least one case in which the man worked for cash under the table to avoid paying support.  At the very least, the system is sometimes over run with women who have to sue for support that remains unpaid although ordered to do so by the court,  or with women bringing their ex back into court once he has a better paying job and can afford to pay more support.  (And I've known a couple of cases in which the man stuck to a low paying job to avoid paying more support.)

Bear in mind that, at least in Florida,  alimony is either not awarded nowadays, or ordered only as a temporary measure while the wife looks for a job.  A couple with no kids is usually treated as a case of split up the property and get on with their lives.

All the guys I've known that pay child support work constantly to do so... and why is it that the woman almost always gets custody of the kid? Every single scenarios of split-ups I've ever known (I can't think of about 7 or so right now), the woman keeps the kid and the man pays child support. 

I don't know about whether most of them would be the most suitable person to live with their kid or not, but I know my friend well, and there would be no reason why his son couldn't live with him.

Most of the time,  custody is worked out by the parents, often with the help of a court appointed mediator of some sort.  Usually the woman has primary custody for one of three reasons:  the kids are old enough to have a preference, and opt for the mother; the couple agree between themselves that having the children live with the mother is the most logical choice; the mother wants custody more than the father, and the father does not wish to fight over it.  Sometimes it's two of those reasons, or even all three.  In a truly contested custody battle,  the judge decides based on, in essence, reports from social workers who visit the family at their different homes.  I no longer work with family law cases, but in those cases in which I was involved,  every father/husband more or less assumed physical care would be assigned to the mother, and the only arguments were over the amount of support and visitation rights.  And support amounts are decided by tables based on expenses and relative income of the divorcing couple--the greater the disparity of the husband's income over the wife's, the higher percentage of child support he will pay.  (Officially,  both parents are obligated to split the support based on the ratio of their incomes to each other--but of course, the parent with physical custody makes only notional payments to herself.)

It's also worth noting that most cases now are settled on the basis of joint custody, meaning that while the children mostly live with the mother (other than those times when the father is exercising his visitation rights), both parents remain equally obligated and equally empowered to make legal decisions for their children, so the father can step in when the mother is not available and vice versa,  and the children stay with each parent in about equal intervals according to schedules that can in some cases be extremely finely tuned.  ("Mother will drop the child off at Burger King at 5PM every Friday where Father will be waiting, and Father will return the child to Mother at the same location at 9AM Tuesday,  except when a weekend includes a legal holiday.  ON such occasions......")

Every case is of course different, and without details I don't want to say that the cases of your friends fall into one of the above descriptions, but if they don't, they're definitely an exception that probes the rule.

[ibanezmonster]

So most guys don't even try to fight for custody?

What is strange to me, also, is how my friend pays over $400 a month for child support (he used to have a slightly higher paying job) when, really, I only pay about $550 a month for my bills, which includes stuff like rent, gas, car insurance, etc. What exactly does a kid who goes to elementary school cost a parent other than food and utilities (am I forgetting something)? It seems as if my friend's ex-wife wouldn't have to pay anything for her son, then, and might even be able to keep a little extra money. I don't quite get why it could be so much- is it that if the child support payer makes a lot of money, then the child is obligated to have a ton of money spent on them each month?

[Daverz]

So most guys don't even try to fight for custody?

You're seriously surprised by that?

What is strange to me, also, is how my friend pays over $400 a month for child support (he used to have a slightly higher paying job) when, really, I only pay about $550 a month for my bills,

I'm sorry, but $550/month total living expenses including rent!?  You're saying you can live on about $6600 a year?!  I know I suck down about twice that a month for living expenses (and, no, I'm not including CDs!).  Property taxes for the year would add about $350 more a month (that brings up the issue of fixed costs: it's not just whatever she's paying on top of her own costs of living; the kid needs the roof over his head).   I don't have health insurance, rarely buy clothes, don't drive much, and tend to let things run down when they should be repaired or replaced.  Let's hope the kid doesn't need orthodontic work.

[DavidW]

I thought I had it easy, living in a place that is very low cost... but Greg takes the cake.  Just my rent is $550.

[ibanezmonster]

I live with my parents, so my rent is $180/month. I couldn't afford to live anywhere else, since I only make about $700 a month, and I didn't factor in frequent car repairs for my expenses.

The cheapest rent I know of in my area is $600/month...

[lisa needs braces]

Having been involved in the family court system for a period of several years--it isn't biased or unjust towards men.  It's still despicably easy for a man to get out of his obligations--moral, financial, and emotional--towards any children.  There are of course women who try to use the system to vindicatively ruin their ex-husband's lives--but there are also men who do that to. The emotional wars that are sometimes disguised as divorce cases can go on for a lifetime.

If anything in the system is "not fair", it's that it allows the major burden of raising children  on the woman, in all aspects, financial and otherwise,  if the father doesn't want to fulfill his obligations as a father.  It's the woman who is forced to chase the deadbeat dad, and almost all cases that return to court after the initial proceedings and settlement fall into that category.  If the father/exhusband is willing to do his part,  then the court system reduces to clerical help making sure the forms are filled out properly, and leaving matters to be decided between the exspouses.

Thanks for the perspective! The unfairness stems from how mothers are favored in being awarded custody, and the fact that the fathers are forced to pay for children and ex-wives who's lives they aren't involved in anymore, therefore hurting the man's chances to form other relationships. Yes, deadbeats can avoid child support payments by working for cash, but how many middle class or even working class people are in the position to receive pure cash payments for their labor? The government garnishes wages and tax returns for any "deadbeat" dad whose stream of income is reported to the government. Divorce is so unfavorable to men that its women filing for divorce 2/3rds of the time.

[kishnevi]

So most guys don't even try to fight for custody?

What is strange to me, also, is how my friend pays over $400 a month for child support (he used to have a slightly higher paying job) when, really, I only pay about $550 a month for my bills, which includes stuff like rent, gas, car insurance, etc. What exactly does a kid who goes to elementary school cost a parent other than food and utilities (am I forgetting something)? It seems as if my friend's ex-wife wouldn't have to pay anything for her son, then, and might even be able to keep a little extra money. I don't quite get why it could be so much- is it that if the child support payer makes a lot of money, then the child is obligated to have a ton of money spent on them each month?

Clothing is one thing you're forgetting, and medical/dental, and toys and games and videos....plus scale up the rent.  A two or three bedroom apartment obviously costs more than a one bedroom, and a house more than an apartment.  And food isn't cheap.  I don't exactly starve, but I don't buy fancy stuff at Publix--meat once a week, etc.--I rarely spend less than $50 a week for food, as a single person who truly lives alone.   Assume a similar amount for one child, and food accounts for half of the support money your friend is paying....

Thanks for the perspective! The unfairness stems from how mothers are favored in being awarded custody, and the fact that the fathers are forced to pay for children and ex-wives who's lives they aren't involved in anymore, therefore hurting the man's chances to form other relationships. Yes, deadbeats can avoid child support payments by working for cash, but how many middle class or even working class people are in the position to receive pure cash payments for their labor? The government garnishes wages and tax returns for any "deadbeat" dad whose stream of income is reported to the government. Divorce is so unfavorable to men that its women filing for divorce 2/3rds of the time.

There are a few things wrong there--for instance, you seem to assume that allowing fathers to opt out of their children's lives is a good thing, that fathers should have the freedom not to support their offspring.  Most of the rest of the world does not share that view.  And how does being involved in the life of his children impact badly on the chance to form a new relationship?  Only if the prospective new mate doesn't like children--do you want a women like that in your life--or views the relationship only from the perspective of financial resouces she can tap into, and for whom therefore child support is a negative thing--and again, do you want a women like that in your life?

The reason that women file for divorce more often than men is simply that since women are more often the ones who are left to care for the kids after a break up, they are the ones who need the custody and financial arrangements made definite and enforced.

[lisa needs braces]

There are a few things wrong there--for instance, you seem to assume that allowing fathers to opt out of their children's lives is a good thing, that fathers should have the freedom not to support their offspring.  Most of the rest of the world does not share that view.  And how does being involved in the life of his children impact badly on the chance to form a new relationship? 

It's a matter of incentives. If a wife knows that her children (and, likely, herself) are guaranteed financial support from the man she divorces, then that makes frivolous divorces more likely. At the very least bring back fault based divorce.

The reason that women file for divorce more often than men is simply that since women are more often the ones who are left to care for the kids after a break up, they are the ones who need the custody and financial arrangements made definite and enforced.

So the men aren't fighting for custody. They just up and leave their families which gives the woman no choice but to resort to the court system.

Or maybe the fact that the husband will still be legally forced to be a husband in some ways (financial support) while the wife will have no obligations to him influences her to divorce frivolously...

[North Star]

So the men aren't fighting for custody. They just up and leave their families which gives the woman no choice but to resort to the court system.

Or maybe the fact that the husband will still be legally forced to be a husband in some ways (financial support) while the wife will have no obligations to him influences her to divorce frivolously...

You mean apart from raising his children. 

[Karl Henning]

Look, I provided the spermatozoön, and you thank me for it!

[Sammy]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet on this thread is how wonderful it is to have women in our lives, and there are millions of great women out there ready for serious and loving relationships.

Instead of complaining about perceived inequalities and the lack of viability of marriages, guys who are single/divorced/unhappy in their relationships just need to find wonderful women and hook-up with them for the long term.

I know, divorce rates are high, but that's because of poor decision making.

[Ten thumbs]

It seems to me that these men believe they have a right to be in charge and lament any signs of erosion of their dominance. They shouldn't worry - I can't see any likelihood of there being another female pope. Incidentally, there was once a matriarchal society and the spring rites involved the sacrifice of a young man. I think we ought to have had enough of revenge by now!

[Cato]

For Your Consideration: 

http://www.youtube.com/v/wse_hgca220

[ibanezmonster]

Clothing is one thing you're forgetting, and medical/dental, and toys and games and videos....plus scale up the rent.  A two or three bedroom apartment obviously costs more than a one bedroom, and a house more than an apartment.  And food isn't cheap.  I don't exactly starve, but I don't buy fancy stuff at Publix--meat once a week, etc.--I rarely spend less than $50 a week for food, as a single person who truly lives alone.   Assume a similar amount for one child, and food accounts for half of the support money your friend is paying....

I think rent would be the main argument here. Clothing, too, somewhat, since kids are growing and I'm not.

I mean, technically, you could force the woman to move to a one-bedroom with her kid, but that would be a bit messed up... if two people were paying the rent, and you now only have one rent payer who doesn't make enough to cover it, there would be some trouble; I see.

I'm not sure about some of these NBA players who pay so many thousands a month in child support, though...  not like I care about them, but why?...

Bottom line- don't have kids, and you'll be safe.  0:)

[lisa needs braces]

The mainstream media is starting to explore these issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGVuWDbu_ng