Did someone order a marriage strike? Part II


22 February 2007

There are plenty of comments regarding the story about the plummeting marriage rate here (PDF) and here (PDF). These are some of the best:

Why should any man marry? Nowadays men have to behave in a marriage whereas women can do much as they please! This government has made it far too easy for the woman to have the man ejected from the family home along with the compulsion to pay maintenance after a break up that he didn’t want and which may not have been his fault.

Is it any wonder marriage is on the decline after 10 years of ‘the most feminist government in history’. (Tessa Jowell’s words, not mine).

As a 33 year-old professional, heterosexual male who has never been married, I would not contemplate doing so under circumstances, given the current legal framework and political atmosphere.

Three decades of feminism and misandrous family law has turned marriage into what is in effect a vehicle for subordinating and victimising men. Biased family court judges, the CSA and ‘no fault’ divorces have created a situation whereby if a woman wants to divorce her husband for any reason, has has an almost guaranteed right to do so, taking with her any children, the family home, a large proportion of her husband’s assets and his pension. She then has the effective right to deny her husband access to his children, while at the same time forcing him to pay for their upkeep (in theory access orders against mothers can be made, but this happens very rarely and even then they are virtually never meaningfully enforced).

The wife will almost certainly get legal aid to persecute her ex-husband, but the husband will almost certainly not. Even if the husband behaves honourably and responsibly throughout the marriage while the wife has several affairs, neglects the children etc. etc., the husband will almost always be financially and emotionally punished by any divorce settlement.

If you think the above is an exaggeration, consider the Melissa Miller case, in which a woman who had only been married for a couple of years and did not have any children was still awarded a large proportion of her husband’s assets by the court.

One thing this morning’s coverage of the marriage statistics didn’t mention was that not only is the number of new marriages going down, but the number of existing marriages ending in divorce is going up. Simply looking at the current law and the statistics about family relationships, the only rational conclusion is that for a professional male, marriage is simply too dangerous. All my wife would have to do is decide that she was bored with me, or wanted to trade me in for a new model, or couldn’t be bothered to support me if I ran into problems (came down with a serious, chronic illness, for example), and she could walk out with at least half my assets, and probably more. I simply can’t risk that if I want to keep a roof over my head for the rest of my life.

I would consider cohabiting if I met the right person and it was on the basis of a cast iron, legally enforceable agreement which enshrined the principle that assets brought to the relationship were returned to their original partner in the event of separation, and that the circumstances which led to the breakdown played a major role in determining custody of any children (for example, if my partner was to leave me after having an affair with someone else, I wouldn’t want someone who feels that acceptable to play the principal role in bringing up my kids).

I was very disappointed with David Cameron’s piece in today’s Telegraph in which, like Blair, the only solution he can think of for the collapse of marriage and the nuclear family is to bash absent fathers even more. The Government, the BBC and The Guardian has been doing that for the last 10 years; and they still haven’t learnt that extracting money from absent parents won’t result in children being raised in stable family units. Just as important as getting tough on parents who refuse to discharge their responsibilities is to reject the Polly Toynbee dogma and create a legal and political framework in which men are encouraged to and supported in playing an equal role in the formation and development of nuclear families (as Iain Duncan-Smith has thankfully been trying to do). Until such a framework exists, I will regard remaining single as the lesser of two evils.

I am a British male and want to get married, however there is no fairness should divorce ensue. The children almost always stay with the mother, the house, etc. Child maintenance is fine, but maintenance to the ex-partner?

Scenario: man and woman get married. After 2 years he finds that she’s repeatedly cheated on him and files for divorce. She keeps the kids, the house, gets maintenance payments. He loses half his health, loses his home and his children. That’s fair isn’t it?

How can a man want to rush into marriage, when if a marriage breaks down, the man is often booted out of the house, the kids are left with the mother–even if she is delinquent, abusive, alcoholic, or promiscuous, and the woman is further entitled to gouge the ex for most of his money?

Anyone watching the news will see how women can turn the situation to their advantage with some hefty emotional clobbering–coming out of a two year marriage with millions of completely unearned income! Without access to superb lawyers, the average guy would be totally crushed by this sort of public trampling.

There are so many unbalanced people now, thanks to absentee parents, second generation wealth, etc, that anyone, especially a man, who rushes into this sort of one-sided trap needs their head examined.

The government has tried its version of a shotgun marriage by making the man pay and pay.

Married or not the man suffers on the womans whim and the government muscle.

What is the point of marriage in the UK?

It’s fair to say a hell of a lot of men have woken up in the UK, and clearly elsewhere in the West, given the decline in marriage all over places like the US, Australia, Canada, etc.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:14 PM


At 1:31 AM, Stick said…

The only divorce I know of that ended on a high was my brothers.

The magistrate gave the two kids (both girls), house, car, etc, to him, and nothing to her. He even banned her from having any contact with the kids. She was/is a drunken, drug fuck slapper, so it was a (rare) good decision by the beak.
He owns two houses now and business has been going great since he got rid of the slag.

She, however, has shown her true colours to the world and is just a local bike/drunkard that has since had another child to some other drunk. I was going to say she continues down the slippery slope to life in the gutter, but she’s already there.


%d bloggers like this: