You're first sentence is laughably ironic, considering there is no-fault divorce that can be initiated on a whim and in this country women gain custody of children a vast majority of the time (in situations where both parents file for full custody, women win an estimated 70-80% of the time due to provisions of state laws such as the definition of "primary care giver"). In some states, a man would literally need a 1080p HD video of his ex-wife snorting cocaine off a tatted biker's chest before a judge would grant him child custody.
Please back this stat, b/c it's not at all consistent with what I've read. Although, regardless, there are so few cases where both parents actually "file for full custody" that even if it were true, it would still represent such a minuscule percentage of divorce outcomes (see below) that it strikes me as quite the red herring.
"According to DivorcePeers.com, the majority of child custody cases are not decided by the courts.
In 51 percent of custody cases, both parents agreed -- on their own -- that mom become the custodial parent.
In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement.
In 11 percent of custody cases, the decision for mom to have custody was made during mediation.
In 5 percent of custody cases, the issue was resolved after a custody evaluation.
Only 4 percent of custody cases went to trial and of that 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation.
In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html
Let's actually look deeper at that 51% (without even delving into the other numbers). Most cases are not disputed because it has been general practice for men not to dispute custody because it is futile (this is changing a bit, but still a heavy handed practice). Why waste time/money when your lawyer advises you that, as a man, because you most likely can't be deemed as the "primary caretaker", you have basically no chance to win custody? There is a huge bias there, and you're not going to tell me that all of those men simply were like "nope, don't want my kids, you take 'em", especially considering women initiate 2/3 to 4/5 of all divorces (depending on source).
I really don't get this. The statistics say that men are happier in marriage and women are just about as happy single as in marriage. The statistics say that men are financially much much better off a few years after divorce than women.
So why do all men seem to think that women get the better deal during divorce settlements?
The stats were also posted in this thread, and that's not really what they said. They basically said that men in happy marriages are happier than singles and divorced men. All I can basically say to that is "duh". I then posited that the chance of being in a "happy" marriage for a man is around 30% overall, factoring in the divorce rate and the rate of unhappy marriages that stay together for various reasons.
The stats also stated that in the case of divorce, men are hit MUCH MUCH harder, not only financially, but emotionally and mentally. One of highest suicide rate demographics in the country is from middle age divorced men. Think that is a coincidence?
So why do all men seem to think that women get the better deal during divorce settlements?
Well, I wouldn't say "all" men think women get the better deal. But some of them seem to think so.
It seems to me that it's b/c they may have to give up half of the "their" stache upon divorce. Women may do more childcare and housework, but then they generally make less money during the marriage. Clearly, they thus don't really contribute proportionally to the savings and are ripping men off by "taking" half. I also think that there is a greedy ex-wife stereotype that is propagated through the media/in society.
So very complainy-pants, IMHO.
I sense a lot of this idealism is coming from an older female demographic not in touch with younger generations. I am a millennial, and in my generation women are more educated than men and are earning HIGHER salaries, on average, than men. You would think that this would give men incentive to marry by your logic, but nope, not happening. There are many, many other reasons besides losing their "stache" (though it's in there) that young men don't want to marry.
A female opinion regarding this? Ok, here it is:
Who cares?
No woman gives a hoot what "young men are asking themselves," she concentrates on the thoughts and values of one particular young man at a time.
We're responsible for our own lives and wellbeing, not for maintaining the course of western civilization. Fix marriage yourself if it's such a concern to you!
I can't even believe how short sighted this mindset is. For your sake I hope you don't have children, especially boys. If you somehow don't think that social trends not only impact culture, but your own life as well, then you are sadly mistaken. Should others not have cared about the opinions of blacks during the Civil War? How about the Jim Crow south? How about female opinions regarding equality and voting? And don't straw-man by trying to disengage these issues with this one, because my point stands. This discussion is having a major social/economic impact on THIS young generation, and it's only going to get more prevalent in future generations.
But I get it, it doesn't affect YOU, in this particular moment, so you don't care. This is EXACTLY why young men are saying "marriage, nah, not for me", because there are so many women, according to your own words, who don't give two cents about male thoughts, fears, concerns, etc. Without caring about a broad trend then your thoughts about "one particular man" are ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.
I have no interest in broad sweeping generalizations, but I do take interest in broad social trends that are supported by data. Considering you seem to think that commitment and marriage are synonymous, you must be in a favor of abolishing no-fault divorce correct? If not, then you may want to rethink just how much commitment a marriage truly gives a couple.
They are not synonymous, but their are very related. If you really want to understand this, think about marriage as a signal of commitment. It also sends many other signals to the society but I restrict my discussion to the commitment only, since that's what you've asked.
It works the same way as college education: it signals to the prospective employers that an educated person will be (on average) more productive, then uneducated person. By "educated" I mean here someone who completed a college degree.
Same with the marriage: people who marry, voluntarily incur expensive costs. The costs are financial but also may be viewed as the social restrictions on their future behaviour. As such, they send signals to the society. And yes, marriage is a strong signal of commitment to a future partner.
So from a female perspective, it is a powerful signal that a man is serious about the relationship and will stick around raising the family. In the absence of such signals, a guy must find another way to persuade a prospective partner of his commitment, and it is very hard to do practically. Not impossible, sure, but I am scratching my head, really, to think about anything.
Trust me, I get it and I fully understand marriage as a signal. My point is that many are realizing that due to no-fault divorce, marriage is easily seen as false proxy for commitment, and it has lost a vast majority of it's value beyond social validation in certain groups. Once again, I point to the fact that divorce is initiated that by women 2/3 to 4/5 of the time, depending on the source. Are men blameless? No, but it is well documented that men are much more willing to stick out a marriage than a woman, and no one is going to tell me that that high a percentage of married men are all somehow abusive or adulterous (in fact, many studies have shown that domestic abuse and infidelity are nearly equal between the sexes. Men simply don't report domestic abuse nearly as much as women, and women are much much better at keeping quiet their extramarital affairs).
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201311/do-men-or-women-file-divorce-more-oftenhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10357829/Why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men.htmlAnd yes, you are completely correct in that social and financial costs are incurred by marriage, but due to the circumstances of today many young men are not seeing these costs as worth the reward. Many young men are starting to realize that sex, commitment, family, etc. can all be had without taking on the risks of marriage, and the funny thing is that the past couple generations of women are what brought upon this change, unknowingly.
I sincerely believe that this discussion has a strong generational gap between me (mid 20s millennial man) and older women. I see these trends every single day, in both men and women, and because of it, it's estimated that 20+% of millennial women will never marry, with that number increasing in future generations.
...Yes, and I stand by it.
50% of these women had an unintended pregnancy. Quoting the recent research:
"About 37 percent of births in the United States are the result of unintended pregnancies, a proportion that has remained fairly steady since 1982, according to new research from the National Center for Health Statistics, a branch of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
" About 23 percent of married women had an unintended pregnancy, compared with 50 percent of unmarried women who were living with their baby's father and 67 percent of unmarried women not living with the baby's father."
Then how many of unmarried women who had children intentionally, did it due to economic benefits, such as not to lose the welfare? My guess is 49%.
Only 1% of all the women had children intentionally while not being married that is due to genuine unwillingness to get married (my guess, have no data on this). So good luck finding those type of women.
This is very interesting. I didn't know how to address jka468's challenge, but I know with absolute certainty at my advanced age with much life experience :) that a huge percentage of women who wish to reproduce expect to be married when they do so. So I'm glad you came up with a measure.
I heard a radio interview last year that stuck with me, an interview on NPR with several unmarried couples with children. None of their reasons for remaining unmarried were compelling to me, including this gem "we don't want to get married because we don't want to put our children through a divorce, if it ever came to that." I don't grok it, if the couple breaks up how's an unmarried "daddy is gone from your life now" breakup different from a marriage breakup?
I DO believe that there are compelling, non-financial reasons for remaining unmarried. One rationale I heard that resonated with me: a couple said they work every day on their commitment to one another to maintain a strong bond rather than relying on society's piece of paper. They were afraid that a marriage license would lull them into complacency. I was touched by this and can understand that reasoning.
I think that a majority of people won't be this introspective and thoughtful about commitment, though. Most women who reproduce wish to be married. It's pretty simple.
And now just to make jka468's head explode I'll relate this: an old boyfriend of mine was with his "wife" for ten years before they split. They were never legally married. He paid her alimony for ten years even though he wasn't legally required to do that. He felt it was his duty since she had worked during much of his schooling. He and I were dating during that period of alimony and he didn't have a lot of money, but we had fun and he was fine with it all, and decades later he DID did retire early. So there! :)
Even if your second sentence is true, an idea that I personally think is changing, then there are going to be a lot of millennial women who either...
1) do not reproduce, against their own desires, because they can't find a marriage partner
2) or reproduce out of wedlock, against their own desires
Those are just the facts. This wasn't a problem for past generations, but it is becoming a problem for the current one and younger ones. According to one female poster, as a man I shouldn't care about all females, but hey, I care about society as a whole and it's direction.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/?intcmp=features#ixzz2DEp3qJScThis is a pretty solid opinion piece summarizing the thoughts of a lot of young men. I don't agree with everything, but it's close. Basically, I have a degree in engineering and a minor in economics, and I think of this situation in a very logical/economical manner. Everyone, no matter what they do, is doing something based on incentives. It's clear to me that marriage has lost much of it's incentive for men.
And I also don't see why my head would explode. One man's actions do not equate to all men and a vast majority of men would never do this.
