Real reasons behind the "Fatherhood Crises"...

Did I say that?

What's the point in finding apparent injustices if you aren't going to try and resolve them, find a way to alleviate the problem even if it's only a little bit? Because if this forum is gonna turn into one primarily filled with whining (not unlike the women's forum was for quite a while) then why bother having it?



sorry if I come off as a superbitch here I'm just trying to find some form of action, something that fixes shit instead of just complaining about it. I complain enough on my own, I might as well try to fix somethign for someone, or work on the problem, n'est pas?

 

RE: Did I say that?

Nope. Don't read more into my statement than what I said, please.

RE: What's the point in finding apparent injustices if you aren't going to try and resolve them,

Noone cares.

In fact, you get resistance from everyone on this issue.

Nobody can discuss this rationally - if you complain about injustices to men people ask what about FGM in the Sudan or the triangle shirtwaist tragedy of the 1800s.

I appreciate that there's something you wanna do, but you're swimming hard against too hard a current.

I'm done with arguing with people on this.

 

Please don't hijack my thread with mudslinging either of you.

again:


Get rid of no-fault divorces, marriage is a legally binding contract brokered by the state and should be treated as such when broken.

Mandatory councling(sp) before a marriage license is issued. Some states have already adopted this.

Revamp of Family court, child support in particular. This is a state by state issue of course.

Promote and congatulate responsible mothers and fathers.

Finally, lets step up and campaign for strong families. Divorce should be a last resort and more often than not i don't believe it currently is.

 

I'm not mudslinging. I'm just answering the question what to do?

Answer appears to be: talk yourself blue in the face and get nowhere.

 

I like it when you're funny

people rush into marriage too much I think. My mom was divorced twice by age 25. I mean, she's a great women but damn, that's fast. I don't agree with no-fault divorces though... yeah, let's put this person through even more shit, charge them even more after they've gone through emotional hell. I don't know if you've seen people in the middle of a divorce but it is not pretty, making them pay because it's "their fault" the marriage broke apart will only make them worse

counselling before marriage, though, that sounds like a good idea. Or at least having to live together for x time before tying the knot (like my cousin and her fioncee, they're living together for a year and a half before they're getting married, that's a good idea) I know marriage does change things, but it won't be as drastic as if they had never lived together before.

 

Not being funny:

Here's a quote from the Women's Forum

"We're not scared. At this point, I think half of us are almost willing to commit murder ourselves if he starts with this "poor, pitiful man" shit again"

By a female. Natch.

So why bother?

 

That's kinda the point.
If it's hard to get out of more people will think twice before getting into it.
Why should a marital contract be treated any different than any other contract, if you want out there should be penalties.

If you don't want that then don't get divorced or simply don't get married.

One of the reasons people "rush" into marriages is lack of foreseable negative consequences. Divorce is supposed to hurt, not be a drive through.

 

BTW:

My mother married 5 times, none were to my biological father.

It's too easy to just throw people away.

Marriage means something.
Divorce means something.
Both parents mean something.

A Father is not just an expendable handyman, a sperm donor, or someone your kids can learn from if they decide to take a 2hour bus ride...

You can not pretend these things can be waived off.

 

Sounds like you should get a prenup if you ever get married

 

Unfortunately imhurria, prenups are often declared null and void in divorce court.

 

When I get married my goal is to make it "in sickness and in health for richer or poorer till death do us part".

 

yeah, that's ridiculous though. I mean, taht one really is a contract that both peopel signed into. Terms of a marriage, well, those are debatable depending on what church married you, or civil union, what precisely the vows said. Doesn't really have much precedent to be taken as a contract that cannot be voided easily

prenups should stand though, I wish they would. freakin ridiculous court systems

 

Marriage license is also a legally binding contract.

 

Point of the thread is that the husband and wife are not the only two invested in the marriage...

 

but most courts act on precedence. Precedent says that marriages are relatively easy to dissolve, just divvie up the money and possessions and send them off. It's been that way for decades. You cant' convince courts to suddenly change how the operate because you want to. Introducing new legislation or a new form of contract (or an additional contract ie prenups) is probably the only way to go about it. You aren't going to change how easily marriages are divorced. You simply will not, it's not possible this year. So quit ranting about marriage being a legal contract and find another way around it. It's like ranting about a wall being a wall instead of finding a door.

 

How about because it doesn't work the way it is now?

Who said anything about this year?
Did you not read any of the topic article before replying?
You asked for ways to change the current trend. Getting rid of the No-Fault divorce option is one of those ways.

Didn't realize I was ranting, thought i was presenting a partial solution.

"Partly responsible is “no-fault” divorce, or what marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher terms “unilateral” divorce, which allows one spouse to abrogate the marriage contract without incurring any liability for the consequences (1996, 143–52). “In all other areas of contract law those who break a contract are expected to compensate their partner or partners,” writes researcher Robert Whelan, “but under a system of ‘no fault’ divorce, this essential element of contract law is abrogated” (1995, 3). When children are involved, their separation from one parent is then enforced by the state, with criminal penalties against that parent for literally “no fault” of his own."

 

nope.... it's really long, I'd rather argue with people. Er, well, it's more interesting to respond to people than to a really long article that not everyone has read. Most people have read the posts though

sorry, I get a little.... vehement sometimes. Hearing the same thing over and over though is probably a little irritating on both ends

 

More than 70% of CONTESTED custody cases go to the father. This is a FACT. Why do more mothers get the kids? Because most men don't really WANT them, many will use the threat of "taking the kids" to get out of paying child support or maintanence, and to use as a bargaining chip, but once it looks like he might get them, the majority bail. (Not ALL, but many.) Mom gets the kids ONLY if dad doesn't really pursure custody.

Unless dad is a convicted criminal, if he WANTS the kids, he'll most likely get them.

 

From a Mothers Without Custody webpage.

 

Shane said:

I agree with him. Exceptions: when there is abuse, counseling should't be neccesary, the government cannot pay for the extreme amount of counseling which is required to "cure" an abuser, when there are no kids, and both spouses make a decent living, then, and only then should "no fault" divorce be granted.
__________________