I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Barbara Kay: Sticking it out in marriage is a good thing

This posting discusses York University professor Anne-Marie Ambert's, recently released study, Divorce: Facts, Causes and Consequences .

A feminist quote:"

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

Sheila Cronin, prominent member of NOW

I might only slightly disagree with Ms. Kay’s exhortation about the current role of feminism and its impacts. The 3rd wave types are firmly ensconced in DV shelters, which is the heartbeat of the Duluth Wheel ideological construct of women as victims and benign – men patriarchal oppressors. It is psycho babble but firmly entrenched. These shelters hold the Jihadist equivalent of martyrs for the cause. They hold the very essence of patriarchal oppression in word and flesh - or so they want every one to believe. These are the temples of the religion called Victim Feminism.

This mantra jumps off the pages of feminist journalists daily with their mythological and sometimes lunatic rants about how they are such victims, and Antonia Berzizias at the Trawna "RED" Star personifies these small, fringe but very vocal proponents. It takes the form of entrenched misinformation republished a thousand times a year because few have the family jewels to debunk it. These feminists are in Women’s Studies programs, criminal law at places like the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa, and hundreds of others across the land. They are feminist law professors, Status of Women Canada bureaucrats and their Provincial counterparts, professors in Sociology and many, many teachers. They are organized in sub-groups within Bar Associations some receiving tax dollars to slander and libel men. Barbara Cross a self described feminist lawyer has it as one of her main life goals to practice this kind of misandrous libel. The mythology is entrenched in our judiciary, bar associations and in the newsrooms of the nation. It is, in most cases, too politically correct to touch by most – unless they and their editors are prepared for the hate mail. Barbara Kay no doubt knows about the latter.

There are interconnected links in the above flowing around tax dollars for support and referrals from the DV shelters to lawyers – the Canadian Bar Association stands to lose economically if shared parenting is a presumption for fit parents. They openly lobbied the Federal Justice Minister Nicholson at their annual meeting in Ireland not too many months back and so moved Nicholson that he stated and I paraphrase his answer. Fathers will always take a back seat to children’s best interests. That was code for the current maternal status quo of 90% sole physical custody should remain intact. The lawyers cheered guaranteeing them the lucrative revenue taken from the pockets of children's financial legacies. With them, no matter what they tell you, its all about the money. Nothing more.

I have always found the level of perceived corruption in the legal field as flying right over the heads of MSM scribes. Here we have the Federal Justice Minister, entrusted to ensure the integrity of our court system and the laws of the land, who is a lawyer, a paid up member of the Ontario and Canadian Bar Association being lobbied by his fellow lawyers openly from this same organization to not change a law because they will lose business. Does any one else see how this is wrong on more than one level. His answer also further telegraphed to judges their current maternal only custody regime is just fine. Lawyers have a vested interest in keeping the divorce rate up as the average litigated case nets them $25,000.00 per client. How many other businesses can lay claim to a $25,000 per customer pay back? When I was in the retail trade we thought $15.00 to $20.00 per customer was good. for our specific kind of operation. Greed is good as was famously stated by Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street” way back in 1987. They use the excuse of abuse as a factor that will force mothers to share children with their “oppressors”. What a bunch of bunk as all valid peer reviewed studies and Stats Cans surveys on DV show otherwise. but it sells well in the MSM.

Just recently I am told a small ideologically predisposed radical group of feminist lawyers (perhaps Pamela Cross' Group who have already filed a brief against Bill C-422 in Canada, ) sent off a missive to the Australian Government to roll back their shared parenting law, which is under review, and use the Canada model of pretty much sole maternal physical custody. It so happened a feminist journalist, named Caroline Overington, in Australia just happened to get a copy of said letter and published a column suggesting it was probably in children’s best interest (read mom into that rather than child) to follow this Canada model. This journalist has been an open supporter of repealing shared parenting laws introduced only 3 years ago and is very clever at wording. Read her column and my response to the newspaper here. parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/.../caroline-overington-in-oz-out-does.html

Quebec has one of the few enlightened models for cohabitation and its no wonder it is the highest rate in Canada for that reason. I’d say 50% breakup is probably closer to the mark when both marriage and cohabitation are combined and it could be higher. Married household are now a minority in Canada for the first time in history. That is a rather telling trend but for any man to use this unilateral trip to grief and the poor house not getting married is his best bet. I have found a figure 5% higher than Barbara’s showing 75% of divorces are initiated by the wife. There are too many entitlements incentivizing divorce accruing to females and too many sycophants in the Divorce Industry only too willing to assist her in getting “empowered” out of the relationship. I’ve described earlier who these are.

Denis’ quotes from Stephen Baskerville (see comments after the article) sums it up succinctly. Some of you may recall the recent story in this paper of the man in BC whose income of $200,000 before taxes required him to pay far more in child support than he had left for himself. www.nationalpost.com/.../story.html . In BC the marginal tax rate on that income is 43.7%. His tax bill before taking personal exemptions is $81,400.00. He is left with $118,600.00. Out of this he is obliged to give his ex who unilaterally walked out because she got "wet" over another man $91,200.00 in tax free money. The marginal rate on that is 38.29%. That is an equivalent before tax income of $125,856.00. This man may end up with somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 depending on his exemptions. You can thank Nicholson, the Federal Justice Minister, for this kind of treatment of men and the entrenched self-loathing male judges who practice chivalry, misandry and obviously give far greater value to maternalism than to the ability of men to share parenting. Many female judges follow the same pattern, some of whom are feminists but there are a small group of both genders who actually practice interpreting the law as written (did I say the Divorce Act is gender neutral and stresses maximum contact of both parents) rather than the current practice.

I would also take issue with the religious conclusions by the studies author. For those criticizing Barbara here is the germane statement “Prof. Ambert cites, amongst other reasons: the de-sacralization of marriage, a consequence of religion’s demise, and the rise of secularism;” It wasn’t Ms. Kay’s conclusion about religion. Quebec, a largely Roman Catholic Province, has the highest divorce and abortion rates in the country and the highest rate of co-habitation. Many people ascribe religions as the place we obtain values as well but that is not entirely true. Ancient Greeks had pretty good value systems even before the birth of current major religions. These values were derived from clear thinking and logic, a sometimes elusive human characteristic. Secularism is just as good as any religion as long as these values are clearly enunciated by our leaders and taught by parents and schools to our children. In these cases action speak far louder than words.

Religions could take up an important role in the saving of salvageable marriages. Modern marriage is, by and large, a religiously inspired institution despite its earlier roots as a less formal arrangement of two parties by mutual consent. My own research shows some missing ingredients that might help to save some marriages but which require legislative change. Shared/equal parenting is the first step. This does show a reduction in divorce as the mom is not guaranteed sole custody and without the financial incentives sober second thought may occur. My reading of this show couples may try harder to get counselling and resolve differences.

This leads to a next compulsory step for couples who wish to divorce and that is a course or counselling session of at least 3 weeks duration designed to look at the problems, see if there are any solutions that professionals can assist with, a step by step walk through all the phases of the divorce process and its consequences for the parties and children. If the couple decides to divorce then compulsory tax supplied mediation, which may save money by not using lawyers and judicial resources in court. Expect lawyers to lobby like hell against this.

A turn away from no-fault divorce!!!! If one of the partners’ behaviour has resulted, on a balance of probabilities, in the failure of the marriage there needs to be accountability. Without accountability we have the current unilateral walking away from marriage as was the case in a previous post I cited. The woman got “wet” for another man and destroyed the family yet she still got full physical custody and over $90,000.00 a year in tax free income. She never has to work again and gets her boyfriends companionship and income as well. That is not natural justice.

The final step is taking the paperwork to the court house for finalization which might be done in a 15 minute session of motions court or through a simpler administrative process. Lawyers only need be involved in complex cases unresolved by the above or those requiring litigation.MJM

Posted: November 20, 2009, 12:20 AM by Ron Nurwisah

A just-released study from the Vanier Institute of the Family (read it here on PDF) by York University professor Anne-Marie Ambert, Divorce: Facts, Causes and Consequences, vindicates assumptions many conservatives hold instinctively, and may provoke some discomfort in “progressives.”

To begin with some good news: Divorce rates are not as high as we thought. Divorce rates have been coming down since the 1990s and since 1997 have plateaued. In fact, first marriages in Canada have a 67% chance of lasting a lifetime.

According to Prof. Ambert, divorce rates peaked in 1987, which she says is the result of the progressive tendency toward no-fault divorce which began in 1968. Divorce slowly lost its stigma and the numbers rose as the reasons for divorce became more and more trivial.

Why did the numbers start going down? One reason, which the study notes, is the tendency for people to marry later. But I would also tie both the divorce peak and its diminution to the rise and decline of militant feminism’s influence. Seventy percent of divorces are initiated by women. Feminism of the man-dismissive type was a strong influence in the ‘70s and ‘80s. In the 90s, however, third-wave feminism relegated the man-haters to the fringes of the movement, and marriage regained respectability as an institution. I predict the numbers will go further down when Canada finally institutes equal parenting as the default custodial policy, as it has in jurisdictions where that is presently the case.

Prof. Ambert finds that there are two kinds of divorce: those resulting from an unhappy marriage, and those resulting from “a weak commitment to marriage.” She found that “some divorces are avoidable and unnecessary” and that “a sizable proportion of marriages that end in divorce were actually quite ‘salvageable,’ even happy, and that many of these ex-spouses are no better off after.”

Why do salvageable marriages end in divorce? Prof. Ambert cites, amongst other reasons: the de-sacralization of marriage, a consequence of religion’s demise, and the rise of secularism; the lack of stigma to divorce and the blame-free ease with which it can be accomplished; and the rise of the ideology of gratification of individual desires. These and other factors have lowered people’s humility and tolerance for compromise.

Cohabitation does not confer the sense of commitment that marriage does -- no surprise here for traditionalists. And serial cohabitation is a greater risk factor for divorce later. Moreover, children of cohabitational relationships are at vastly greater risk of experiencing parental breakup than children of married parents.

This report will prove a tremendous boon for the equal-parenting movement. At present, joint custody -- with each parent having 40% time with the children -- occurs in fewer than 10% of divorce custody orders (although that figure is rising). As sociology professor and custody expert Edwark Kruk has noted, 40% time with a parent is the minimum time necessary for mutual bonding. But only 10% of children live with their fathers, a percentage which has not changed much over the years in spite of the changed nomenclature to “joint legal custody,” which sounds equal but isn’t.

The consequences, Prof. Ambert notes, are rather dire, for “research is unanimous to the effect that children do far better cognitively and behaviourally when their father remains an active parent.”

Divorce and remarriage don’t always produce happiness, except for those who had been in high-stress, bad marriages before. And there are “successful” divorces.

But, Prof. Ambert concludes, “For society as a whole, the dissolution of average to good marriages ... is a costly proposition in terms of consequent problems for children.”

Those problems, as I have often noted in my harangues on the need for fathers in children’s lives, include an increased risk of behavioural difficulties, school dropout, criminal activity, future intimacy issues, unemployment, lost contact with families – and of course poverty.

This report will go far in dispelling the ideology-driven myth that children of divorce or growing up in single-parent households are no worse off than if they were living with married, biological parents.

So the bottom line is that for children, married is better. If not married, then equal parenting is best. Divorce does not always bring happiness. Marriage is a sign of commitment in a way that cohabitation is not. If you stick with a marriage long enough, you find that it’s really not as bad as you thought.

Not a single one of these findings will come as news to conservatives.

Sometimes you just have to say “I told you so.” I told you so.

National Post

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/19/barbara-kay-sticking-it-out-in-marriage-is-a-good-thing.aspx#ixzz0XW5il59Q
Nov 20 2009 2:59 AM

Don't you find it strange that the manufacturer's manual happens to be correct. The word of God (our creator) tells us that fidelity in marriage is best for us just like the car manufacturer's manual tells us how to best maintain our car. It tells women to honour their husbands and for the husbands to love their wives as themselves. They are to show each other mutual respect and for both to love and care for their children. Children are taught to honour their parents with a promise of God's favour for doing so. It is good to see secularists being honest about their findings even when they confirm conservative Christian values.

by Denis Pakkala
Nov 20 2009 3:32 AM

Great article, you're a gem!

Notice how such issues are conveniently avoided by the male mainstream media and politicians.

Not a peep about men's issues, not even on International Men's Day.

by Denis Pakkala
Nov 20 2009 3:58 AM

It still doesn't sound like very good odds.

Don't Marry - Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men

dontmarry.wordpress.com

The intent of this website is to help educate men about the realities of today’s modern marriage. Please pass the word.

by paranj
Nov 20 2009 4:04 AM

Some times you just can't be practical about these things. How do you put a value on happiness and love?

by Rectificatif
Nov 20 2009 4:17 AM

Denis, you're telling us there's actually an "International Men's Day"? Oh I don't believe you.

Oh yeah, I just googled it and got some sort of reference. It even said it was declared by, gasp, the United Nations.

I don't know whether to yippee or to take cyanide. Men: the Femintern is relegating us to our Special Day.

A new era of International Condescension. Special Enclaves. Long Live the Republic of Testost-istan.

The UN will run it from an abandoned Women's Club in the basement of the Algonquin Hotel.

One minute's silence for the Extinct Male Race. Since real males don't exist any more, faux-males will be interested in this.

by Denis Pakkala
Nov 20 2009 4:29 AM

Happiness and love is freely available at anytime, without the consequences of marriage.

by Denis Pakkala
Nov 20 2009 4:45 AM

It's also interesting that so many Christians also avoid men's issues. They're so beholden to classic traditional values of chivalry and not gender equality.

Yet, there is Dr. Stephen Baskerville.

Advice to young men: Do not marry, do not have children

By Stephen Baskerville

Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.

And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell,” mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.

Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution. For until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” The central problem is the divorce laws.

It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce. But widespread misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot happen to them. Many conscientious people think they will never be divorced because they do not believe in it. In fact, it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it or not.

First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit any legal transgression. Under “no-fault” divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons. The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any questions.

But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously. Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons. First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.

There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children.

The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for your spouse to divorce you and take your children. (All this earns money for lawyers whose bar associations control the careers of judges.) While property divisions and spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall comes through the children. With custody, she can then demand “child support” that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income. (The amount is set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement agents – all of whom have a vested interest in setting the payments as high as possible.) She may spend it however she wishes. You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.

You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundreds dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or sleep in your car. Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in handcuffs. You are told you have “abandoned” your children and incarcerated without trial.

Evidence indicates that, as men discover all this, they have already begun an impromptu marriage “strike”: refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife files for divorce. “Have anti-father family court policies led to a men’s marriage strike?” ask Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson in the Philadelphia Enquirer. In Britain, fathers tour university campuses warning young men not to start families. In his book, From Courtship to Courtroom, Attorney Jed Abraham concludes that the only protection for men to avoid losing their children and everything else is not to start families in the first place.

Is it wise to disseminate such advice? If people stop marrying, what will become of the family and our civilization?

Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason. The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law.

It is also likely that same-sex marriage is being demanded only because of how heterosexuals have already debased marriage through divorce law. “The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50% divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” advocate Andrew Sullivan points out. “All homosexuals are saying…is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly – and a denial of basic civil equality.”

We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in the sand; nor simply by preaching to young people to marry, as the Bush administration’s government therapy programs now do. The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract. We urgently need a national debate about divorce, child custody, and the terms under which the government can forcibly sunder the bonds between parents and their children. We owe it to future generations, if there are to be any. ESR

Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D., is assistant professor of government at Patrick Henry College and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

by Rectificatif
Nov 20 2009 5:13 AM

Interesting article, Denis, and good on Dr. Baskerville.

My view of the solution is not to make marriage an enforceable contract; but to change the whole nature of the contract, by abolishing the anti-father / anti-husband property laws the currently exist.

The law idiotically thought, way back in the 1960s, that wives were disadvantaged in both marriage and divorce. Only to a small extent was that true. So this was part of a vast feminist lie.

Based on this urban myth, judicial policy was forged to egregiously favor wives & mothers over their male partners. This became systematic.

Therefore, the solution is not to avoid marriage and children. It's to mobilize that pathetic lot called Married Men, in order build a social force that will destroy current laws and divorce courts; fire feminist judges; and tilt the old balance to where it belongs.

by RogersJi
Nov 20 2009 5:21 AM

More people co-habitat and so would not be, necessarily, considered as married in the statistics except in the eyes of the Income Tax department.

What does a spouse do when the other spouse tells them to leave, then threatens to phone the police if they don't? The police don't care about facts, one spouse, usually the male, has to leave, immediately.

by Rectificatif
Nov 20 2009 5:52 AM

Rogers, all men living with a female spouse are in dange of losing everything. No matter what the formalities of the couple, married or otherwise. In that sense, Dr. Baskerville is right: marriage is a trap for losers.

A common law partner who never worked in 20 years, never raised a child, but cohabited, will take 50% of the man's property with her when she kicks him out and gets her lawyer. It would not matter that the man paid 100% of the price of the home and paid domestic upkeep for 20 years. In the eyes of the courts, a man is a meal ticket.

by Smokey4531
Nov 20 2009 12:40 PM

What about the mortality rate when one spouse dies that’s not a divorce and doesn’t show up in the stats. If the spouse remarries then it looks like you have two marriages. Then there is the married couples not living together any longer but not getting a divorce because they just don’t have the green backs to fork out to the courts and their lawyers.

My personal guess is if all the facts are taken into account the divorce rate is at about 60%. Just take a look at how many offspring these couples are producing; News Flash – For the first time in Canadian history there were more families without children [42.7 per cent] - than with children – [41.4 per cent]. (Statistics from Statistics Canada.)

So when we compile all the facts we can understand that Canadian Society is in a heap of trouble.

To quote Mrs. Kay, “So the bottom line is that for children, married is better. If not married, then equal parenting is best.” End quote.

Don’t you have to have children first before you worry about equal parenting?

by cloudlift
Nov 20 2009 2:11 PM

Ms Kay nice try with this little bit of right wing crap

"Not a single one of these findings will come as news to conservatives."

This is typical of child like right wing thinkers not able to tell the difference between how they want things to be and how they actually are. Divorce rates are indeed highest among conservatives and faith groups in general.

In a recent study by the Barna Research Group Barna released the results of their poll about divorce on

1999-DEC-21. 1 They had interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The margin of error is ±2 percentage points. The survey found:

bullet 11% of the adult population is currently divorced.

...Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.

George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented:

"While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."

The reason for marital breakup is not divorce that is the consiquence. If you wish to remain married then remain true to th person you were when you married. Personal accountability as always is the key, it is not reasonable to turn yourself into a different person than the one you were when you were married and then expect the same level of attraction from your mate by say gaining 60lbs or nurturing a huge gut into existence.

by mhogan1024
Nov 20 2009 2:19 PM

Interestingly a Barna Research Group poll in 1999 of over 3000 Americans showed "Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience". Perhaps with the growing secularisation of society we'll see divorce rates drop.

by hunter902
Nov 20 2009 2:31 PM

The way the laws are set, the perception the law has of men/women, makes the consequences of entering into a marriage that may fail too great.

The courts had made efforts to equal the playing field for stay at home moms, so that in case of divorce, their contribution to the marriage and family was recognized with a financial value. But in doing so, they went so far as to almost guarantee an acrimonious parting, and all but ensured fathers' being an appendage in the lives of their children, rather than holding both parties n their rightful place as equal and important figures for these kids.

Until this changes, the only way to ensure a modicum of equality and respect for couples with kids is to not marry, not co-habitate. Without an "ultimate payoff" guaranteed for one party if a relationship goes south, kids have a better shot at having both parents remain fully in their lives.

by Smokey4531
Nov 20 2009 2:40 PM

Denis Pakkala

A truthful statement by Stephen Baskerville, good information to accompany Mrs. Kay’s socially thoughtful article, both are very informative.

One of the results of this horrific attack on traditional families is that men choose to get a vasectomy so as not to produce off spring and be dragged through the gutter of the dead beat dad syndrome. Once again the choice is taken away from the female gender because of the Divorce Industry being so female orientated; cause and effect that every child who grew up in a single parent family, usually the mother, has experienced in a negative way.

Some people believe that married couples choose not to have offspring because of lifestyle, whereas the female worked longer and was empowered to work like the male of the species, the strong female feminist elite concept. Then there is the other side of the coin, whereas men weren’t getting married because they didn’t have the possessions to do so, a house or apartment, a decent job, independence etc. To further offset this barrier between the sexes the males that do get decent paying jobs may have to travel long distances to acquire a pay check to accommodate their spouse, Fort McMurray as an example, the behaviourist concept. Hence up to thirty percent of children born aren’t related to who they think is their biological father.

www.nomarriage.com/paternity_test.shtml

Would fair and balanced courts solve this problem? Would swinging the pendulum back to the position of equality to both sexes make this problem of gender inequality go away? If the Churches and Synagogues quit hiding their heads in the sand and stood up for what they profess to be, would the situation change. If the divorce industry was dismantled and their books burned like witches in the inquisition, would this make everything right?

The answer is a resounding NO, it has been too late for some time. As the King goes, so goes England, enjoy your boat ride to the sea.

A superb article by Mrs. Kay!

Where did you get the moxie to take on such a non politically correct topic?

by Tossed Salad
Nov 20 2009 2:50 PM

marriage is a tool for blackmail and we know who blackmails who.

by Rectificatif
Nov 20 2009 3:43 PM

"not able to tell the difference between how they want things to be and how they actually are..."

Nice try, Cloudlift, but you are misquoting and misinterpreting Ms Kay's article. Nowhere did she say that conservatives "get fewer divorces." Everywhere does she say that conservatives _view_ divorce as a detriment to child-rearing. Small difference, eh?

As a reactive anti-conservative, I'm sure you _view_ your 2 large, suburban cars with occasional conscience and skepticism. But you keep on _getting into_ them, because you want to, or have to.

by Joseph Kerr
Nov 20 2009 4:18 PM

Rectificatif : "Nice try, Cloudlift, but you are misquoting and misinterpreting Ms Kay's article."

Kay does it all the time, so I'd say it's fair game.

Another pathetic article by Barb. good comment, Cloudlift.

by Denis Pakkala
Nov 20 2009 4:51 PM

Where did you get the moxie to take on such a non politically correct topic?

-

The truth is that if more of our "supposed" leaders stood up for truth, justice, equality, morality, ethics, honour, etc. then we wouldn't be living in a society that boldly and blatantly discriminates against men.

However, these "supposed" leaders are busy showing their manliness by pandering to women.

I'm proud of being a man. I'm proud of the history of accomplishments by men, including the creation of civilization. I care about men! Our ancestors would be extremely disappointed in our "supposed" leaders that have stood idly by and watched the steady erosion of our civilization.

Talk to your MP, tell him to be proud and start acting like a man, instead of a eunich!

by almasy
Nov 20 2009 5:11 PM

Wow Denis, can I get the number of your ex-wife's lawyer?

My wife and I are engaged in a custody battle with her deadbeat dad ex-husband and we need a good one.

And judging from the consistent vitriol of your posts in and around this issue that lawyer must have done a number on you!

by almasy
Nov 20 2009 5:21 PM

Oh and for Cloudlift;

The only thing "child-like" here is you taking a point of view on an contentious issue and assuming that anyone on the other side of the argument must be stupid, naive and bereft of reason or good judgment.

Setting up straw men to knock down is one of the hyper-partisan's bluntest weapons.

Unfortunately, it is also the least effective.

Talk of "right-wingers" and " lefties"

is the lazy approach to political discourse. Making the "other' a homogeneous entity with cohesive aims and actions is easy - but it is not reality.

So the next time you want to go chauvinist and partisan, take a breath and realize the world isnt that simple.

( This is what i am trying to do :)

by MikeMurphy
Nov 20 2009 5:35 PM

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."

Sheila Cronin, prominent member of NOW

I might only slightly disagree with Ms. Kay’s exhortation about the current role of feminism and its impacts. The 3rd wave types are firmly ensconced in DV shelters, which is the heartbeat of the Duluth Wheel ideological construct of women as victims and benign – men patriarchal oppressors. It is psycho babble but firmly entrenched. This mantra jumps off the pages of feminist journalists daily with their mythological and sometimes lunatic rants about how they are such victims, and Antonia Berzizias at the Trawna Star personifies these small, fringe but very vocal proponents. It takes the form of entrenched misinformation republished a thousand times a year because few have the family jewels to debunk it. These feminists are in Women’s studies, criminal law at places like the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa, and hundreds of others across the land. They are feminist law professors, Status of Women Canada bureaucrats and their Provincial counterparts, professors in Sociology and many, many teachers. They are organized in sub-groups within Bar Associations some receiving tax dollars to slander men. The mythology is entrenched in our judiciary, bar associations and in the newsrooms of the nation. It is, in most cases, too politically correct to touch by most – unless they and their editors are prepared for the hate mail. Barbara Kay no doubt knows about the latter.

There are interconnected links in the above flowing around tax dollars for support and referrals from the DV shelters to lawyers – the Canadian Bar Association stands to lose economically if shared parenting is a presumption for fit parents. They openly lobbied the Federal Justice Minister Nicholson at their annual meeting in Ireland not too many months back and so moved Nicholson that he stated and I paraphrase his answer. Fathers will always take a back seat to children’s best interests. That was code for the current maternal status quo of 90% sole physical custody should remain intact.

I have always found the level of perceived corruption in the legal field as flying right over the heads of MSM scribes. Here we have the Federal Justice Minister, entrusted to ensure the integrity of our court system and the laws of the land, who is a lawyer, being lobbied by his fellow lawyers openly to not change a law because they will lose business. Does any one else see how this is wrong on more than one level. His answer also further telegraphed to judges their current maternal only custody regime is just fine. Lawyers have a vested interest in keeping the divorce rate up as the average litigated case nets then $25,000.00 per client. Greed is good as was famously stated by Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street” way back in 1987. They use the excuse of abuse as a factor that will force mothers to share children with their “oppressors”. What a bunch of bunk but it sells well in the MSM.

Just recently I am told a small ideologically predisposed radical group of feminist lawyers sent off a missive to the Australian Government to roll back their shared parenting law, which is under review, and use the Canada model of pretty much sole maternal physical custody. It so happened a feminist journalist in Australia just happened to get a copy of said letter and published a column suggesting it was probably in children’s best interest (read mom into that rather than child) to follow this Canada model. This journalist has been an open supporter of repealing shared parenting laws introduced only 3 years ago and is very clever at wording. Read her column and my response to the newspaper here. parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/.../caroline-overington-in-oz-out-does.html

by Anonymous66
Nov 20 2009 5:35 PM

If Mrs. Kay is going to seriously try to blame 'too little religion' for marital failures, it is incumbent on her to account for the American example that highly religious Red States have higher divorce rates than more secular Blue States.

pewsocialtrends.org/.../states-of-marriage-and-divorce

by MikeMurphy
Nov 20 2009 6:08 PM

I suggest the actual rate of dissolution of heterosexual partnerships is at or over 50% as we do not know the actual frequency of common law breakups other than it is higher than marriages. In many Provinces, where the laws on equalization are made, a man will forfeit similar amounts even though there is absolutely no contract in place. The Nanny state takes control of your life and your financial affairs for a couple of decades or more if the children are young and stay in school through post secondary education. One interesting fact, amongst many others, is the dad will be required to foot the College/University education despite the fact if it was an intact family they may decide he could not afford it. There is no such choice once the man is marginalized by the government to the role of revenue spigot and occasional visitor.

Quebec has one of the few enlightened models for cohabitation and its no wonder it is the highest rate in Canada for that reason. I’d say 50% breakup is probably closer to the mark when both marriage and cohabitation are combined and it could be higher. Married household are now a minority in Canada for the first time in history. That is a rather telling trend but for any man to use this unilateral trip to grief and the poor house not getting married is his best bet. I have found a figure 5% higher than Barbara’s showing 75% of divorces are initiated by the wife. There are too many entitlements incentivizing divorce accruing to females and too many sycophants in the Divorce Industry only too willing to assist her in getting “empowered” out of the relationship. I’ve described earlier who these are.

Denis’ quotes from Stephen Baskerville sums it up succinctly. Some of you may recall the recent story in this paper of the man in BC whose income of $200,000 before taxes required him to pay far more in child support than he had left for himself. www.nationalpost.com/.../story.html . In BC the marginal tax rate on that income is 43.7%. His tax bill before taking personal exemptions is $81,400.00. He is left with $118,600.00. Out of this he is obliged to give his ex who unilaterally walked out because she got "wet" over another man $91,200.00 in tax free money. The marginal rate on that is 38.29%. That is an equivalent before tax income of $125,856.00. This man may end up with somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 depending on his exemptions. You can thank Nicholson, the Federal Justice Minister for this kind of treatment of men and the entrenched self-loathing male judges who practice chivalry, misandry and obviously give far greater value to maternalism than to the ability of men to share parenting. Many female judges follow the same pattern, some of whom are feminists but there are a small group of both genders who actually practice interpreting the law as written (did I say the Divorce Act is gender neutral and stresses maximum contact of both parents) rather than the current practice.

by MikeMurphy
Nov 20 2009 7:06 PM

I would also take issue with the religious conclusions by the studies author. For those criticizing Barbara here is the germane statement “Prof. Ambert cites, amongst other reasons: the de-sacralization of marriage, a consequence of religion’s demise, and the rise of secularism;” It wasn’t Ms. Kay’s conclusion about religion. Quebec, a largely Roman Catholic Province, has the highest divorce and abortion rates in the country and the highest rate of co-habitation. Many people ascribe religions as the place we obtain values as well but that is not entirely true. Ancient Greeks had pretty good value systems even before the birth of current major religions. These values were derived from clear thinking and logic, a sometimes elusive human characteristic. Secularism is just as good as any religion as long as these values are clearly enunciated by our leaders and taught by parents and schools to our children. In these cases action speak far louder than words.

Religions could take up an important role in the saving of salvageable marriages. Modern marriage is, by and large, a religiously inspired institution despite its earlier roots as a less formal arrangement of two parties by mutual consent. My own research shows some missing ingredients that might help to save some marriages but which require legislative change. Shared/equal parenting is the first step. This does show a reduction in divorce as the mom is not guaranteed sole custody and without the financial incentives sober second thought may occur. My reading of this show couples may try harder to get counselling and resolve differences.

This leads to a next compulsory step for couples who wish to divorce and that is a course or counselling session of at least 3 weeks duration designed to look at the problems, see if there are any solutions that professionals can assist with, a step by step walk through all the phases of the divorce process and its consequences for the parties and children. If the couple decides to divorce then compulsory tax supplied mediation, which may save money by not using lawyers and judicial resources in court. Expect lawyers to lobby like hell against this.

A turn away from no-fault divorce!!!! If one of the partners’ behaviour has resulted, on a balance of probabilities, in the failure of the marriage there needs to be accountability. Without accountability we have the current unilateral walking away from marriage as was the case in a previous post I cited. The woman got “wet” for another man and destroyed the family yet she still got full physical custody and over $90,000.00 a year in tax free income. She never has to work again and gets her boyfriends companionship and income as well. That is not natural justice.

The final step is taking the paperwork to the court house for finalization which might be done in a 15 minute session of motions court or through a simpler administrative process. Lawyers only need be involved in complex cases unresolved by the above or those requiring litigation.

by Rectificatif
Nov 21 2009 12:03 AM

Here's a tangent we can profitably take in this discussion.

The Globe and Mail, bless its little Fembo heart (but pace, ms Wente), has published this article today, entitled "For Lessons in Manliness, Turn to Women."

Link: www.theglobeandmail.com/.../article1370259

The article was concocted by a metrosexual, a feminized post-adolescent who has been allowed to publish among the girls of the Globe. The writer, a PR boy with a journalism degreee, gushes about how his female bosses all "made a man out of him."

The background agenda, and not-so-subtle message, seems to be that a divorced mother, in excluding the father from her son's upbringing, is a better male role model than her Ex.

An entire civilization, doomed.

2 comments:

Christopher R. Jones said...

Mike, Well you have outdone yourself in this preamble (seriously) - your prose is most eloquent.
I wish to clarify one thing - I have reviewed the Vanier Institute Study authored by Dr. Anne-Marie AMBERT and referenced by Barbara KAY in her article. Dr. AMBERT seems fairly level-headed and despite not conducting an exhaustive analysis (see her online publications here - http://www.arts.yorku.ca/soci/ambert/writings/index.html) I was especially impressed with her sensible analysis and conclusions found in "The rise in the number of children and adolescents who exhibit problematic behaviors: multiple causes, 2007". It occurs to me that retirement may have given her true freedom to publish her opinions without paying obeisance to the "clitorati". So, I just wanted you to know that she appears to practice good "gender hygiene" and may not be a died-in-the-wool feminist. (As an example she only mentions Peter Jaffe once in her bibliography, and even that seems balanced by other acceptable psychologists/sociologist authors.) In other words - she gets an A OK!

Michael J. Murphy said...

Chris:

I agree with you. She has tackled it in a manner much different than some of her peers. I only take issue with her on a few points. I love your new description of our Feministing folk.

It even rhythms with "Literati".

That goes into my lexicon tout suite.