Re: A feminist defense of men's rights

A couple of points...

On Jun 30, 2:41 pm, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rob wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:09 am, Ken Chaddock <chadd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And what about childless marriages, or marriages where the children are
grown and have left home ? Why would you seek to impose the same
restriction on them ?
If they don't want children they shouldn't get married.

If marriage were solely about having children, I'd likely agree with
you however, marriage, as currently constituted in law, is about far
more than just having children. To say that *only* that group of people
who "breed" should be entitled to the tax and financial
considerations...as just one example...that go with marriage, confers an
excessive benefit upon those who have children, compared to those who do
not have children, yet who fulfill all of the other stipulations of the
marriage contract...and yes, I'm married, will have been for 29 years in
about a week and have two grown children.

The issue here is balancing the competing interests. On the one hand,
individuals have an interest in, essentially, their own interests,
which
can include " How much can I talk society in giving me just for having
shown up ". A non trivial part of much special interest pleading falls
into
this category. Certainly, such groups or individuals have a right to
try
such, but nothing says that they have a right to succeed.

On the other hand, society has an interest in promoting what social
relationships are shown to work best. Its a Fallacy of False
Equivalence
to do things like claim that women get less pay for different work,
when
such " different " work is really lesser work. In the case of family
and
societal interest, it is reasonable that society provides an
imprimatur
to that which works best for the raising of the next generation.

Then, there is a balancing act in regards how intrusive should society
be about checking to see if a potential has been turned into an
operational
use. So, when a state issues a driver's license, it's interests are
satisfied
in seeing that the applicant for the license *qualified* for the
license. It
would be intrusive beyond a reasonable degree if the state insisted
that
it could withdraw said licenses from anyone who did not actually drive
a
car in a given period of time, say, a year.

Likewise it is with marriage. The state has a compelling interest in
providing it's imprimatur by means of the license to those who both
desire it AND qualify for it. It would be just as intrusive, if not
more so,
for a state official to then demand that the parental capability ( Be
it
the creation of a child within the couple, or the joint parenting of
an
adopted child within the marriage. ) be turned into an operationsl
use,
with the penalty for failing to do being the withdrawal of the
license.

If they want children but can't have them then adopt.

And if they cannot ? If there are no adoptable children available ? If
the "state", for some reason, will not allow them to adopt ?

The latter is the state's responsibility, for which any consequences
are also
the state's.

Children so influence the course of people's lives that you can't unwind
the effect afterwards.

Sorry, that's just nonsense...

Not really, no. Just ask any guy who has just found out that he was
made
a father a decade ago, without his knowledge or consent...

If the kids have left home and they don't get on then find some way of
accommodating each other. It really isn't that hard, unless they are
so naive that they let the short term chemistry of looooove rule their
life.

So are you proposing that "adultery" should be dropped as casus belli
for divorce ? That the partners should be free to pursue "love" (or at
least sex) with others when their current spouse refuses to continue on
in a conjugal relationship ?
From my perspective, a defining features of "marriage" is the faithful
conjugal relationship, if either the fidelity, or the conjugal nature of
the relationship is lost (and cannot be recovered), the marriage, in
effect, has ceased to exist and divorce is simply the *legal*
recognition of this fact and the "official" dissolution of a
relationship that no longer exists.

Indeed. If a given couple chooses and agrees to swing, well, thats
their
own business. Them doing so, mutually, or not doing so, again,
mutually,
has zilch to do with the issue of marriage as an institution.

So now you would have the people actually *commit* adultery ? Or
actually abandon the family ? The people want a divorce, they don't
necessarily want to violate their sworn oath.
They've sworn to stay together. Violating that oath is exactly what
they want to do.

Their oath to stay together was not absolute, it was based upon certain
conditions, fidelity for example, loving and honoring their spouse as
two more. If these "conditions" are no longer fulfilled by the
relationship, the vow to stay together is voided and no longer applies.

Indeed. A promise to be faithful comes with the implied condition that
the
fidelity is in consideration of other marital perks and rights.

And you ignore, or are willfully blind to, the consequences to these
very children of being raised in a "home" where the parents no longer
love each other and do not want to be together but are being forced to
by the coercive power of the state...such a *good* receipt for a happy
family life for the kids...
No, far better to let the parents go their own ways and use the power
of the state to ensure, as much as humanly possible, strong, loving and
ongoing relationships between the children and both parents...just not
together...
I don't agree that, in the main, children would prefer their parents
to split up rather than argue. Unfortunately it is not one of those
things easily proved one way or the other, as we can't do controlled
experiments. However there are plenty of examples of kids expressing a
desire for their parents to stay together and very few examples (any
at all?) of them encouraging a split.

There's actually quite a strong consensus that in "high conflict
marriages" the best solution is divorce.

Sure, however, going by research such as Sanford Braver's, we see that
such marriages are a distinct minority.

OTOH, there's little consensus
on this issue in the case of "low conflict marriage". Here are a few
comments by professionals who feel that, if properly done to reduce
conflict, divorce has few, if any, long term effects on the children:

Robert Emery, director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law
at the University of Virginia: "While a some young people from divorced
families report painful memories and ongoing troubles regarding family
relationships, the great majority are psychologically normal."
Source: NY Times

Judith Wallerstein's far more in depth and larger study, published in
book form under the title The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, belies
this false claim.

Stephanie Coontz, historian and author: "There will always be couples
who need divorces."
Source: NY Times

Thats meaningless, as its a useful as saying, at a gathering of
forensic
professionals, " there will always be crimes. ".

Ms. Coontz needs to learn that failing to show how many, why, and what
the effects on others, from their kids, to society at large, will be,
renders
such a statement void.

There appears to be quite a few studies that show that having unhappy
parents creates unhappy kids.

Yet, how many are there that show that parents who insist on being
unhappy should lose their kids ? Smart people can learn that, often
enough, the real source of their unhappiness is themselves.

Constance Ahrons, sociologist: "There is an accumulating body of
knowledge based on many studies that show only minor differences between
children of divorce and those from intact families, and that the great
majority of children with divorced parents reach adulthood to lead
normal, fulfilling lives."
Source: USA Today

Again, belied by Wallerstein & Braver.

Carolyn Usher, publications director at British Columbia Council for
Families in Vancouver: "It's not divorce per se that causes all the
damage. Children can normally cope with separation and adapt to new
living arrangements. It's the ongoing high level of conflict that hurts
them."
Source: Todays Parent

Ditto.

We are dealing with a species that has posed an apparently intractable
problem: few otherwise unrelated people 'love each other' after a few
years living together but their offspring benefit most from 16+ years
of hands-on two-parent support.

You can address this problem, as you suggest, by contending that good
hands-on support can be provided from separated parents. This hasn't
worked well enough in the past to be widely adopted and,
unfortunately, we don't get to find out about the effect on the
children for a generation or more, by which time the practice is
embedded and difficult to change.

We're pretty much there now, no-fault divorce was first introduced in
the US in California in 1966. We have several generations of adults who
were children of divorce and, as Constance Ahrons noted (above) "the
great majority of children with divorced parents reach adulthood to lead
normal, fulfilling lives."

Once again, belied by Wallerstein & Braver.

Or you can address the problem, as history suggests actually works
long term, by offering people the freedom to take an oath which, if
they choose to take it, then becomes binding.

If the marriage vow were absolutely binding and unchangeable, I doubt
that there would BE any marriages unless it were made mandatory...

Certainly. No one reasonable suggests that marriage should be
effectively
impossible to ever get out of. Certainly, in the event of there being
any of
the Four A's Of Divorce, its a perfectly reasonable thing to end such
a
marriage. Its the majority of cases that aren't like that, where the
usual
reason for the wife ending the marriage is to loot her husband, that
suggests strongly that there needs to be a balancing of costs and
effects
on each of the soon to be former spouses in granting such a
dissolution.

The fact that society treats that oath as binding is, of course, vital.

and how do you propose that society deal with the adulterous spouse ?
or the abusive spouse ? In the old days, when divorce actually required
a writ from the Pope, the local priest often gave the adulterous or
abusive partner a couple of hundred "Hail Mary's" to say then absolved
him or her of their guilt...until the next time...do you truly want to
go back to that sort of marital abomination ?

Well, as long as 500 year old "product of the marriage" laws hold men
responsible for the children of their adulterous wives and their
studbois,
then yes, I cannot work up a lot of concern about how similarly
vintage
rules would affect women.

Thats Equality, baybee ! <g>

Tinkering with the system, as you suggest, is the worst possible
approach. For millions over the last 40 years it has meant taking a
life-time's oath based on a partner doing the same and then finding
that her oath didn't count like his did.

Which is EXACTLY why I would put significant disincentives in the way
of "no-fault" divorce, to make it far less attractive. I personally
think that the reason for the high numbers of divorces, the vast
majority of which are initiated by women, has less to do with "no-fault"
divorce than with the current family/divorce court biases that allow
women gain a very significant financial and familial advantage by
initiating an un-faulted divorce. If she had to take a big financial hit
and have little or no chance of custody when initiating a no-fault
divorce, she's be far less likely to do so. If, OTOH she actually HAS
reason that she can prove, then she should be entitled to the
divorce...but she should have to PROVE IT.

Bingo !

Many would have made a different decision up-front and/or lived a
different life style if they'd known what that might happen.

Which is why we're experiencing a "marriage strike" by young
men...they're waiting until women have accumulated significant financial
resources and have as much to lose as they do...and are therefore less
likely to file for a divorce...before getting married...

Again, bingo.

http://www.glennsacks.com/have_antifather_family.htm

Tricky beggars, oaths. They affect future behaviour and they don't
succumb well to being improved with untested 'bright' ideas and
sophisticated nuances.

The problem with oaths is that they do not allow for changes in the
future. You take an oath to "keep yourself only for your spouse"...then
your spouse decides that she doesn't want to have sex anymore, or you
get married because you want to have children...but then your husband
decides that he doesn't want kids and goes and has a vasectomy on
you...you would see these people locked, absolutely, into a relationship
with a uncompromising spouse with no recourse but to suffer...

Yes, that would be improper. Any oaths freely given are given in
consideration
that the other spouse will keep their oaths, too. Once the other
changes their
end of the deal, they cannot reasonably demand that the other party be
prohibited or penalised for taking recourse in return.

If no fault/no cause divorces meant that the leaver owed the dumpee a
significant penalty clause payment, then there would be fewer
divorces.
Said "payment" would not necessarily be cash, we're also talking such
as the dumpee getting most of the marital property/assets, etc. Along
with no alimony for such a leaver, of course. No profit for no cause
divorces.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Man Rules
    ... are far more likely to divorce after having gotten married. ... Divorce declining, but so is marriage ... who grow up with both biological parents, 63%, the report says. ... a premarital cohabitation breaking up within 5 years is 49 percent. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A feminist defense of mens rights
    ... which your proposal would leave many parents. ... the end of no-fault divorce. ... extracted to invoke a no-fault divorce... ... necessarily want to violate their sworn oath. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Islands By Angry Harry
    ... society, especially in Hollywood, isn't going to have ... mores if his parents are unmarried. ... >> If you can show what negative effect a lack of a marriage ... > See Judith Wallerstein's " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce ". ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Marriage is for keeps - if you cant make this committment, dont get married
    ... legal defintion) marriage between consenting adults is whatever said ... this is a kind of marriage seldom practised ... As part of the rules of divorce, as well as the one year seperation the ... paramount to both parents, but I know that is not always the case. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: A feminist defense of mens rights
    ... you however, marriage, as currently constituted in law, is about far ... has ceased to exist and divorce is simply the *legal* ... necessarily want to violate their sworn oath. ... far better to let the parents go their own ways and use the power ...
    (soc.men)
Loading