In the Company of Men
David Brooks is absolutely correct when he writes “But they never quite marry, or if they do, the marriage falls apart, with horrible consequences for their children. This is the real force behind the rise of women without men.” (”The Elusive Altar,” 1/18/07, NYTimes).
Unlike the NYTimes analyses to which he responded, and which were shredded as ideological trash in less than 48 hours (Michael Medved, “Journalistic Malpractice in ‘Marriage is Dead’ Report,” www.Townhall.com, 1/18/07) Brooks writes from a solid empirical base — approximately 37% of children born today are born to women not currently married, 50% of first marriages end in divorce, 85% of mothers receive physical custody, and between 67% and 93% of divorces are initiated by wives for the simple reason that they get all the marbles in divorce: children, child support, alimony, and a walking ATM machine (a.k.a. ex-husband) who on occasion “visits” — but does not parent — the children.
So, all this brings us to the question: Should children grow up in the company of men?
While the NYTimes thinks not, the children of divorce think so. In now more than a half dozen empirical research studies, young adult children of divorce report that they missed their fathers when they were growing up and in one study 70% wanted equal shared parenting while most of the remaining 30% wanted something close to it.
In short, while the self-absorbed women of the NYTimes may not miss men, their children do, and — on this matter — the voices of the children of divorce and the never married should prevail over the self-absorbed voices of the women David Brooks so articulately derides.
Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.
| More from Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.
Stumble It!
January 20th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
The whole business of awardings in divorce is arbitrary. The one set of current rules need to be changed to another arbitrary set. Children of divorce should automatically be awarded to the Lawyers, and maybe the Judges too. Shared parenting. Mothers should pay the lawyers and judges for a ‘licence’ to produce the children for them and pay an ongoing annual registration fee. Let the Lawyers raise the kids and fight the Judges for visitation!
January 21st, 2007 at 4:10 am
For forty years I was told that my father “abandon” his family.
After what I observe in family court during my wife’s divorce, I understand that he was ordered away.
My mom is a feminist. She has been married three times. My sister is also a feminst. At forty-two she was married for the first time. She was divorced within six months.
Forty years of feminism has created a county that dishonors fathers but worships women.
I have also gained an greater understanding why many cultures desires America to stay away from their country, even to hate us.
America is a hypocrite. She says she loves the family yet aborts it, divorces it, and redefines it.
January 21st, 2007 at 5:14 am
mruffolo, with your background of trench warfare behind enemy lines you are well qualified to be in the MRM Delta Force.
January 21st, 2007 at 8:04 am
(Sorry for double posting but it applies here as well.)
I fail to see any significant difference between a prostitute and an ex-wife. The only real differences are that the prostitute is much less expensive and doesn’t abuse children as part of the deal.
Prostitution may be the oldest profession, but “wife†or especially “ex-wife†is the most overpaid profession. Calling for the elimination of prostitution and pornography are simply underhanded ways of demanding a raise for the already overpaid profession of cashing in on normal male biological functions.
Denise Noe, speaking of “social conservatives” said: They must convince men to control or overcome their sexual urges as well as work on concrete mechanisms to make it easier for men to do so.
Well, I consider myself a “social conservative”, but instead of yet another article demanding greater and greater “control†and vilification of men for being normal, I’d prefer to see one calling for the reverse of our current divorce standards put into place.
Instead of the man continuing to pay his ex-wife for sex or housecleaning services he no longer gets, how about she has to continue to provide sexual and cleaning services that he no longer has to pay for?
We might even be able to get men to lower themsleves to the standards of modern feminists and divorce whores. To do that, we could insist that men get custody of children just for being male. Then, the men could deny the ex-wife permission to see her children if she fails to provide whatever he wants. To back that up, we’ll reverse the justice system into one that rubber stamps false allegations that come from males, and puts any woman in prison for being a “deadbeat†with her vagina.
Finally, to be just as cruel towards women as we are towards men today, we’ll have the media go on a relentless witch hunt in search of misandry, and pretend there is no such thing as misogyny. Hollywood can provide us with one mother-bashing show after another, and Senators can endlessly debate about how they are going to “empower†the poor victimized males who are not being treated as equal to women.
January 21st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Leading up to the American Revolution there was nothing published from the media, government, or academics about independence from England. Yet on the evening of December 16, 1773 a few dozen men led by Samuel Adams had a party to throw chests of tea in a harbor.
Soon similar protests were staged at many other harbors. The actions of a few men helped forge a revolution.
These men had a Popeye moment, saying ” ‘That’s all I can stands; I can’t stands no more!”
I suspect that when woman gain more influence to continue to pass anti-male legislation, moving America to be more feminized, men and fathers will act that will begin a new revolt.
Today’s laws makes a marriage, or specifically a man’s relationship with a woman, like a lottery. I have heard feminist say, “I prefer to marry a rich man.” I suspect that her divorce will benefit her more.
America’s legislation gives her the lottery winnings of the kids, house, car, furniture and 18 years of tax free income. Who can refuse the lure of easy money and property.
Governments will come and go, but the man’s relationship with a woman will endure. For this I suspect the fight is with government not women.
January 21st, 2007 at 5:05 pm
“Governments will come and go, but the man’s relationship with a woman will endure. For this I suspect the fight is with government not women. ”
I wish I could agree with both of these points but with the best will, I can’t. Governments don’t just go. They are pushed. They are overthrown. You make the point. Our fight isn’t against women, only at some women’s wish. Most women have been all too ready to take the benefit of the Governmental oppression of men and while there may be a few turncoats coming to our side, I would demand they show there abiding bona fides.
Until then, the skirt is the uniform of a thief.
January 21st, 2007 at 6:39 pm
A woman or man who makes a commitment and does not keep this commitment is personally responsible, yet western style courts reward women to not keep marriage commitments she made. Woman are culpable.
I keep my guard around every woman, but I am willing to fight for my son and your son’s future success in a marriage.
A father’s cause needs leadership like Samuel Adams. When this time comes I will be ready to fight.
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 am
Feminism is actually an anti-social movement. It’s about killing babies (oops, fetal material) and destroying the family. It treats men as slaves and children as disposable entities meant to bring fulfillment to women. It destroys trust, social ties, and compassion for anyone but women.