|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Mr. Amneus has the issues somewhat mixed up. Much as I agree that the "enslavement" of men by modern divorce law/practice is a problem not only for individual men, but also for society as a whole, I donīt agree that the marriage vow means "sexual consent, under any circumstances, at any time, for all times to come". The fact that your wife does not want to have sex does not give you the right to take her by force. Think about it: if you don't want to have sex, should that give your wife the right to enforce sex by, say, holding a knife to your throat?
If the condition "one partner doesn't want sex" becomes a permanent one, maybe itīs time to end the marriage. How exactly that dissolution is done is another matter, and the current situation is most certainly utterly unfair to men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly agree with you there. Yes, when two people are married they become a unit, but they are also still individuals with individual wants and desires. Sexual activity should never be forced upon anyone, even if that person is your spouse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 20, @12:00PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you on this.
I also had problems with how the article put down fathers who pay child support. I can understand a mutiny against alimony, or against absurd amounts of child support. However, withholding money to buy life necessities for your kid, ostensibly to punish the mother, is wrong. The mother is not the one who gets punished; the kid is the one who suffers. A woman whose ex refuses to pay alimony can go out and get a job. A kid does not have that option until the age of 16, at least not without obtaining fake documents or breaking the law in some other way. Short of this, the kid is forced to do without adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc.
I think gov't-mandated, gov't-run child support is a disaster, and joint custody laws are almost never enforced, but punishing kids isn't the way to solve these problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, but what Amneus' piece (at least, as much of it as I could wade through) did for me was set me thinking about this whole sex-within-marriage thing from another angle:
If marriage is a man's way of ensuring that his offspring are his own, that his wife isn't saying "Yes" to the sexual advances of other men, and some (although we agree not absolute) guarantee that she will say "Yes" to him (thus not go on "sex strike" as a control tactic)... if Amneus is on the right track even though he missed the mark... then....
What is it that marriage does for women? Marriage would then be a woman's way of guaranteeing for herself continuous support, so that she can bear children and care for them without having to worry where the next meal is coming from or where she's going to get clothes for herself or her children or a place to live.
Of course, this is all archly traditional, but Amneus' framing of marriage as a pact for strictly practical reasons got me to thinking about what women get out of it, and that's what I came up with.
Now, if you buy this, that these are common practical drivers behind marriage for men and women, then let's apply our modern values to this picture.
Women are allowed to refuse sex whenever they want to. That is, a wife can go on "sex strike" in order to control her husband, and he has no recourse, because nobody can force anyone else to have sex against their will, and as rotten as this tactic may be, it's unthinkable to counter it with force. Fair enough.
Why then can a man not go on "financial strike" against his wife? If in this pact of marriage (if we choose to see it that way) she withdraws that which brought him into the agreement, why can't he withdraw that which he brings to the table? Why can't he say, "OK, so if you won't give me what I wanted at the outset: children that I know are my own and occasional sex, then I won't give you what you wanted at the outset, which was material support."
Men cannot do this today! A man who attempts to cut off material support for his wife (and perhaps children) will find himself in court and will be forced by the state to continue to provide that support. Now, the state argues that this is "for the good of the children", and it may be.
On the other hand, it may be the state's way of guaranteeing to women that they will always receive that which marriage promised them, while telling men that there are no such guarantees for them. Really, isn't that what all of the talk of "unfairness" surrounding family court is about? The fact that in many cases the court ensures that the end of a marriage has minimum effect on women, regardless of the cost to men?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you got it absolutely right. Marriage, getting a kid and then divorcing nowadays can be a way for a woman to get someone to finance her life without her having any connection to him. This is an absolute outrage!
The issue is a complicated one, however. Look at this scenario: a woman marries, has three kids, stops working outside the home to take care of them, and pretty much manages the house and family all day long (and on weekends). For whatever reason, the couple divorces. (There really still are women like that, at least in Europe :-), and I guess in the US too). Now, would it really be fair not to pay this woman some sort of alimony, at least until she can find a decent job? - she'll probably have to get up to speed in her field of work fist, and then look for a job. I think you can't just leave her to fend for herself, since she contributed a lot to the family and thus, at least indirectly, to the family's income. So I think it would be fair to pay her some sort of alimony, on the other hand, there needs to be an incentive for her to ultimately seek an income of her own - how about a time limit: she gets supported for 1/2 of the time she was not working full-time or something like that. And of course, the father must not be barred from seeing his kids in any way.
My main point is that people like this Amneus guy already sound too much like their feminist counterparts. For example, he conveniently forgets that the patriarchical "marriage deal" (which is basically fine IMO) also requires men to be faithful, and some men don't live up to that ideal either :-) Not all divorces are the "evil woman cheats unsuspecting, loving, caring and innocent guy" variety. .
Any sort of radicalism can only be damaging to the "men's movement" and to the good relations between men and women which we (should) seek to restore. After all, we still DO love them, don't we :-) AND we certainly don't want to become "gender masculinists", do we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article seems particularly controversial, and I think it's important to help promote a dialogue on these issues. But I would like to take a moment and mention that Mensactivism.org does NOT aim to promote marital rape or illegal activity such as not paying child support. The article is a bit radical for my tastes and I hope no one will take it as the official position of The Men's Activism News Network.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 20, @01:49PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
The question here is, why don't we go for joint physical custody? can we agree on that?
And yes, I posted the article to get people talking. I'm planning to post a few more articles along these lines (but not quite so radical) but don't dismiss Amneus out of hand for being like that, his points are well worth considering.
Oh and Scott? relax I won't post articles like this too often :P
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 20, @02:26PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely I can agree with you on that, Adam. Joint physical custody should be mandatory except in extreme circumstances, i.e., one parent is in prison, or one or both are in the military and get transferred every two months. I'm guessing that these extreme circumstances would comprise only about 5% of all custody cases.
However, it's not good enough just to make joint custody mandatory. Awhile back, I saw a lawyer on another message board saying that in many states, it already *is* mandatory. It's just not being enforced. A law is only as good as its enforcement.
Also, keep in mind that not all divorcing parents take custody issues into court. When a couple divorces, child custody does not fall into the hands of the court unless the parents sue each other. Some couples keep it outside the system, working out their own arrangements without ever consulting a judge or even a lawyer. These people wouldn't--and shouldn't--fall under these laws.
My only concern about joint custody, and I think this is the concern of many people, is its effect on the kid. It's very hard on a kid to constantly live out of a suitcase, packing up his things every week and shuttling from one domicile to another. Ask someone who works a job that requires frequent travel. Constant shuttling is very wearing, and makes it very difficult to feel any sense of permanancy.
However, it's also very hard on a kid to be estranged from one parent. Primary custody with visitation is a rotten solution too, so what else can we do?
I support joint custody as the lesser of two evils. I do think that, for the sake of the kid, it might be better to have the kid pack up and move once a month instead of every week or every two weeks. It would be less wearing, and the kid would feel more of a sense of permanancy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 20, @02:12PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, if I keep posting here, I'm going to have to get me a user name. ;-)
Kind of funny you brought this up. Just yesterday I read the "Our Philosophy" page, where you talk about this very issue. It actually made me feel far more comfortable about reading and posting here. I'd seen some of the more radical articles, and wondered if this was an extremist site, but after I spent some time poking around I saw this was not the case.
I don't blame you for printing this. As you mentioned, it's important to promote dialogue on controversial issues. Pretending that they don't exist doesn't make them go away. It looks as though this piece, extreme as it was, has brought out some very thoughtful discussion on marriage and child custody/support issues. "No, that would only make things worse. Here's a better way..." That wrests control of the asylum away from the inmates, and into the hands of people who want to talk about real solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 20, @04:09PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent responses anon, care to tell us your real name? I'm hoping to find out more about the man behind the posts, as it were.
Yes, I do believe we should talk about "extreme" articles like this, as time goes on we will have to face issues like this head on, I intend to get you all well read on these issues. This way you'll know what to fight back with, and not be left helpless when you're put on the spot, get what I'm saying here?
From the sound of it, the main radical poster here is me, not the other two :)
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> From the sound of it, the main radical poster
> here is me, not the other two :)
And we're thankful for it, Adam! :)
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ditto for me on Scott's reply, Adam. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 20, @06:16PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Ha, you two are something else....
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
