Listen and Call in as Glenn Discusses Lifetime's 'Deadbeat Dads' on the Radio 7 PM PST/10 PM EST
May 13th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesI will be appearing on the nationally-syndicated The Rollye James Show Wednesday (5/13) at 7 PM PST/10 PM EST to discuss Lifetime’s Deadbeat Dads and the problems faced by child support-paying fathers in the recession.
To listen to the show live, click here. To call-in, dial 1 88 88 ROLLYE (1 888 876-5593).
James has been a radio host for 40 years and formerly hosted Coast to Coast AM. To learn more about James, click here.
"));
19 queries. 0.507 seconds.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Damn,
I am at work until midnight. Break a leg Glenn.
b
May 13th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Count me in.
Attila
May 13th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
What if they went after guys (and women) who make lots and lots of money and totally don't give a cent. Would that be ok?
May 13th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
jeana,
As long as they do not force them to pay for lots and lots more than they make.
b
May 13th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I don't mean to give a ridiculous amount of child support, because no kid really needs thousands a month, but how about men who don't pay anything? But who make a ton. That must be wrong.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Top Notch Job Glenn. I learned some things from both of you.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:18 am
What would be OK is that we had 50/50 custody of children as a datum. Therefore no CS would need be paid as child rearing expenses would be equal. Nothing to litigate! The savings would be huge! I would also like to see an accounting of ALL the CS funds that are paid usually to the mother who can spend it on what ever she wants and often times the child is neglected! There should also be a cap on how much CS should be paid. Why do some people need to pay CS that is more per month than some earn in a year? Why is that?
NO it would not be OK to humiliate any parent on national TV which would implicate the children as well and that is VERY wrong. Can you imagine a child going to school and being embarrassed by his friends that saw his dad humiliated on a TV show??? Very wrong.
Attila
May 14th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Atilla, I appreciate that that makes sense from a parental perspective, however, I think it's beneficial to children to have one steady home, rather than shifting back and forth. The constant state of transition is not ideal.
I agree with most of the rest of your post. It's not OK to require parents to pay more in a month than they make in a year (duh!) and it should be that parents (not necessarily only mothers) make some kind of accounting of the money they receive.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:00 am
3
jeana Says:
May 13th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
What if they went after guys (and women) who make lots and lots of money and totally don't give a cent. Would that be ok?
***
I',m not sure if EVEN that is ok. IF they were to show a pile of these folks, people would get the impression that this is the norm. It would be playing into that whole steriotype of the divorced dad off running around having a great ole time while his children suffer. Does it happen, Sure does. But I think even showing this weekly would just make things worse.
There are also lots of women who receive support that have money to burn and spoil the kids rotten while the father lives in his mother basement or in a trailer park. U don't hear much about those folks, but I know some personally and was one for a while. I'v gotten into arguments with women who take money from these poor guys and wonder why the kids don't want to go over to visit. #1 the father is half starving. #2 your sending them to disney every year and buying 20000 dollar pools and so on and 200$ jeans. # probably bad mouthing (this i just assume because she did it in front of me, but i assume.).
There are lots of both situations. I don't think the one that is already a steriotype needs to be encouraged unless they want to do shows about the above women for a few years until the point that becomes a steriotype hehe.
****
My personal vote is go after them get the money, but keep that crud off camera.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:03 am
"Atilla, I appreciate that that makes sense from a parental perspective, however, I think it's beneficial to children to have one steady home, rather than shifting back and forth. The constant state of transition is not ideal."
I had thought that at once time, and my step daughter may be the accpetion to the rule, but her schedule is crazy. She gets to see each parent half the time, but instead of week on and week off, she goes 2 days then 3, then weekends and so on. She is the most well adjusted kid I have seen. She likes knowing she doesn't have to wait long to see her mom or her dad. My kids however went through all the issues divorce kids could possibly go through right out of the books.
I think as long as the school is close enough and it can work for u, then it's great.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:11 am
****.
5
jeana Says:
May 13th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I don't mean to give a ridiculous amount of child support, because no kid really needs thousands a month, but how about men who don't pay anything? But who make a ton. That must be wrong.
***
Yep. I think both parents should obviously pay. I do get into some gray area when it comes to say a custodial parent having millions while the other is middle to lower middle class. I think in those situations they can just spend it when they spend time. I do think in allot of cases it's way too much as you sort of suggested. Children don't ened to have 1000's of dollars spent on them. There should be a limit on the amount no matter what that is manditory. Everything after that should be a choice. If a non custodial father wants to spoil his kids rotten, so be it, but it should be his choice, not the government or anyone else (IMOH)
This coming from a child of the system and a father. My father went a few years without paying (when my mother wouldn't let him see me, he stopped paying). Then they laws changed and they garnished him. When i was really young my mom didn't have a whole lot. When she re-married we had a nice ole house, and had no money issues. My father had very little. He had a trailer then upgraded to mobile home where I believe he still lives today. We didn't really need the mony, and when I hit 18, even though he should owed back pay and so on and i was going away to school(for those years he refused to paywhile not seeing me) I convinced my mother to let it go.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:12 am
I should have mentioned that all along my mother always made as much as my father or very close. She had a great job at a great company.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:15 am
jeana:
I don't mean to give a ridiculous amount of child support, because no kid really needs thousands a month, but how about men who don't pay anything? But who make a ton. That must be wrong.
Yes such a circumstance is wrong and that is why no one here defends noncustodial dads who actually do fit the stereotypical image of the dad who makes 6 figures and refuses to take on his responsibility. The problem the folks here have is that this show, in the same manner that women's advocates and family courts do, will try to make convince the masses that ALL noncustodial dad's act like that when it is most certainly not true.
I like Burke's idea of, "My personal vote is go after them get the money, but keep that crud off camera." but I would rather see a balanced approach. Go ahead and show footage of people going after those stereotypical ones but also show (and hopefully help) the ones that are trying to be there for the children but are blocked and ones that actually cannot afford because they cannot find work and the ones are getting cheated by the system (because we all know how folks like to pretend they don't exist). Either tell the whole damn story or don't tell any of it.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:04 am
One of the best books on divorced dads by Sanford Braver
http://www.dadi.org/braver.htm
May 14th, 2009 at 8:40 am
As Glenn correctly stated, you'd NEVER see a show about deadbeat moms...Even though the facts prove that when a woman IS ACTUALLY ORDERED to pay, they are less likely to do so than men! But deadbeat dads all the rage!
WHOOPS!
Lifetime seems to ignore that fact...
May 14th, 2009 at 8:57 am
I wish we lived in a society which did not show so much hate and disdain towards men and especially fathers.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:22 am
but how about men who don't pay anything? But who make a ton. That must be wrong.
Yep. And right after that show, they can have a show about custodial mothers who do everything they can to alienate their children from their fathers, who do everything they can - within the anti-male system, of course - to inflict revenge on their ex-husbands/boyfriends, and who sit at home and eat bon-bons all day watching Oprah when they're not doing the above.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Jeana - so, why is it offensive when *MEN* don't pay child support, but not equally offensive when women interefere with custody and visitation, or make false allegations of abuse? Certainly that deserves a show that delves into the issues and pathology, rather than another "Men suck, womyn martyr" show on Lifetime.
Really, I think Lifetime is porn for women and horror shows for women, and that's about it.
My ex, when she had custody, decided that 25% of my pre-tax income, plus the kids' insurance, wasn't enough, a total approaching $1000 a month. (She got to walk with all of the 'joint' assets, and got to leave all of the 'joint' debts and liabilities with me.) She complained about the cost of day care, renting a house, paying for a car, school lunches, clothes, etc.
She lost custody, but not for the issues that she brought up in court. I counter sued to show she was an alcoholic that couldn't take care of herself, to put it midly. She spent some $50,000 of someone else's money on that particular suit.
Suprise, the judge assigned custody to me, and had her pay a whopping $140 a month in child support. Eighteen months later, it was raised to an amount "based on minimum wage", but otherwise unspecified, but only 10 months after she sued me *again*.
- and she's still never paid it. In the three years that I've had custody, none, zip, nada, save for $300 that she paid 2 years ago on the day of our first hearing. I've been after those losers at the Texas OAG for 2 years, and they've accomplished absolutely nothing.
My premise is that if you, on your own, can't provide for the kids, then you don't need to have them, and you're doing them a disservice by demanding custody. Take the time away from being a full time parent to get a marketable skill, and then come and reassess the issue, but no one, NO ONE should be "entitled" to be a stay at home mom just because her ex makes decent money. Just because you're a rock-star's ex, or a football player's ex, or the ex-wife of a hollywood exec, you're their *EX*. If whatever you were adding to the equation was *that* valuable, you should be able to duplicate it again.
My ex could have spent the $50,000 and 3 years, and have had a college degree by this point. Instead, she's still an "adult entertainer", with nothing, and rapidly fading looks due to her lifestyle.
Funny how no one seems to care that day care costs as much for me as it did for her, that clothes cost the same, that the insurance costs (relatively) the same, as does groceries, a mortgage, and all of the daily random expenses. But, I'm a guy. OF COURSE I can handle it. Duh.
Try playing from the men's tees for a while. BE equal, don't just whine about how unfair it is.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Offended Dad i wouldn't waste too much time working on jeana with reasoning, facts and logic. Many of the MRA's here have beeen down that road before. Jeana is married to her agenda ,and if she can't argue against your point she will just change talking points.
The most honest thing she ever said here is that she is prejudiced against MRA's.
I actually commended her for her honesty on that point.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:51 am
The bottom line on this is feminism makes this show acceptable to the mainstream , there is not enough knowledge about the truth and it is why we do this, Dads are marginalised and the cries from gender feminists ( wont include liberatrian or true equality feminists in this statement ) and it has become acceptable to villify and destroy them on so many levels.
We will never see the miscreant moms show simply because people are to afraid of the womens movement to show it and there are bad moms, data shows that there are.
A show like this is going to polarise the genders more and more, the longer this is tolerated the longer the sexes will be divided end of story ....
May 14th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Offended Dad,
The only thing I disagree with you is when you assert that the person with the most money should get the kids. That’s not fair in most cases. Especially if the man and woman together decided that she stay home to be a full time mother. Then obviously her income will be $0. So it will always be a losing proposition for the female. I personally think that all women should always work so as to never have to count on any man to support them.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Burke,
My nephew has the same kind of schedule—a couple days here, a few there. Back and forth. I don’t think it’s a good way to do it. I sure wouldn’t want to go back and forth between houses. My brother’s kid spends a week at a time with each. I think that’s better, although then you go a week without seeing your other parent. I think the best option is for the kid to have one home and see the other parent a lot—whenever they want—and decide weekly when they’re sleeping with the other parent. More casual and relaxed. But I guess that’s not realistic.
But what happens when the kid is a teen? I would think they really would get aggravated going back and forth and wanting something at one house when it’s at the other.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Well, what's fair about taking money from one parent and giving it to the other, just because they *used to* be a stay at home mom? What makes what one woman does for Bill Gates any different that what a woman in a trailer park does, and thus far deserving of someone else's hard work for years after *THEY* stop contributing whatever-it-was to the relationship?
The tax angle on it is screwed up, the moral hazard that results from it is screwed up - there is no aspect of family law that is NOT tainted by the windfall that women receive via child support and alimony.
I agree with you, Jeana - women should be self sufficient. That's pretty much the whole point. Too many of them feel entitled to be otherwise, directly or via the government. Turn your statement around - men should get a job so they're never dependent on a woman. Sounds like it's saying "get out of your mom's house" when you apply it to men.
I'm not saying the person with "the most" money should get the kids, what I'm saying is that if you're incapable of supporting them on what you make (or can make), then demanding custody is not in the children's best interest. Because the other parent makes an obscene amount of money shouldn't entitle you to continue to enjoy their largesse as fallout from having kids with them.
The relationship is OVER. It should BE over.
FWIW - I hold my ex to the same standard that I proved I could meet - the defacto "ex as wallet". I paid child support at a level that had a dramatic impact on my standard of living and ability to meet my obligations, and even though it meant eating ramen noodles for months at a time, I made it work. Since she and the court held me to that standard, I DEMAND that she be held to the same standard. Equal treatment under the law, regardless of race, color or gender, and all that crap. If it was good enough and 'just' enough for me, than as an adult, it's good enough for her. Suck it up and get a job.
As far as the other standard - I DO provide for my children without assistance of any kind. It's tough. It actually costs me more than I was paying in child support just to cover day care and after school care. I receive no subsidies, public assistance, child support, whatever. I've made that one work, too, so I've been on both sides of this equation. I'm more than vetted and qualified to call "bullcrap" on women.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
jeana - " personally think that all women should always work so as to never have to count on any man to support them"
amen to that !
why any guy, if he's crazy enough to marry in the 1st place, would want to spend the rest of his life supporting a parasite is beyond me
but some guys do it just the same
May 14th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Funny, that's exactly the perspective of feminists where pregnancy and reproductive rights (for women) are concerned.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
The Other Jim,
I’m not sure I’d characterize a non-working spouse as a “parasite” unless ALL they did was take take take and gave nothing in return. I used to work (at a part time job) with a woman who did nothing at home—didn’t clean, didn’t cook (ordered out), and rarely had sex with her husband (who had only one eye and worked hard in a warehouse). She was a parasite. Lazy as the day was long. I doubt most are like her.
Offended Dad,
No, pro-choice feminists do not consider a fetus to be a parasite. You are being ridiculous.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Okay, so a couple marries when they are in their early 20s. She's a SAHM with 3 kids she adores. After say around 17 years, the husband leaves his wife for a bimbo half his age. The wife cannot possibly take care of her children financially. The husband, however, has etched out a successful career.
You're advocating to take the kids from the mother because she can't afford them? and you are labeling her a parasite?
May 14th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Okay, so a couple marries when they are in their early 20s. She's a SAHM with 3 kids she adores. After say around 17 years
Why is she doing staying at home when the kids are in school - especially when they are in high school?
May 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
she plays tennis and bridge and volunteers her time to charitable causes
May 14th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
she plays tennis and bridge and volunteers her time to charitable causes
IOW, because she wants to. I know you probably being facetious, but unless her husband imprisons her than her destiny in life is of her own free will. As others here have said, women today want the choices, but not always the responsibility for them.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
re: After say around 17 years, the husband leaves his wife for a bimbo half his age.
....this is the false stereotype of a the so-called deadbeat dad that we're not supposed to question. This is the 1 in 1 million case that's falsely presented as the rule, We're not told by the mainstream media and politicians that:
* Women file for 70% of divorces, usually because of no great transgression on the part of the husband.
* Most so-called deadbeats are actually dead-broke.
* Women are more likely to default on child support payments than men.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Yes, it was half way facetious .... but if this arrangement was made jointly, why would the woman have to pay any consequences? He was perfectly happy until he found the bimbo of his dreams. Besides, if he wife had gone back to work, it would put him in a higher income tax bracket. Not only that, the wife was the cook, maid, chauffeur, and the perfect hostess for his business acquaintances .... not to mention a super organizer.
A true story, and i'm blood-related to the "rat".
May 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Truth is, I haven't seen the show (Deadbeat Dads).
I should watch it before mouthing off.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
PJK there was an issue after the terrorist attacks where a memo was sent out by the uk gvt saying it was a good day to put out bad news ........ I kinda think in a sense its the same mentality used by gender feminists on this type of thing as well,,,,, by pushing the worst case scenario and making it so well known and hammering it into the public mind it becomes the only focus for people so when something else is done under the "guise" of dealing with the original issue it can be a total polar opposite to the original but in the public mind the original image is so negative and bad the rest isnt seen.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
pjk, I don't think statistics are all that reliable .... it really depends on the source, and even then, it's suspect.
For the points you brought up, are there any statistics you can refer me to?
For starters, I don't think the scenario I described is a 1 in a million cases -- certainly not in my circles. It may be more common that you think.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
My mother didn’t work till some of the 5 of us were in high school, and then only on weekends. She was hardly lazy. She actually did spend most of her time cleaning, cooking and doing laundry. It was a very different time too. These days it seems to me (although I could be mistaken) that if women don’t work (and don’t have rich husbands), they do without a lot of extras that someone like me is accustomed to. They don’t have great vacations, they can’t buy whatever they want, they have to watch every penny. But it’s usually what they and their husbands want because they feel it’s best for their family. It’s important to some people to have a SAH mom. So when these marriages break up, you can’t just take the kids from the non-working mom because she has no money. There’s sort of an unwritten rule that you are obligated to help get the nonworking spouse on her (or his) feet. Doesn’t mean a lifetime of support, but you can’t leave them high and dry. Which is why I’m so for employed women. To protect them.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
jeana says, "There’s sort of an unwritten rule that you are obligated to help get the nonworking spouse on her (or his) feet. Doesn’t mean a lifetime of support, but you can’t leave them high and dry ..."
Jeana, when you say it doesn't mean a lifetime of support, do you think that the husband should pay alimony for 17 years thereafter? Just wondering. Or, maybe an alternative is that he pay alimony and child support until his wife can manage on her own. Managing on her own means that he pays for whatever skills are necessary for her to get a financial grip on life. Too complicated for my brain!
May 14th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
pjk, I don't think statistics are all that reliable .... it really depends on the source, and even then, it's suspect.
For the points you brought up, are there any statistics you can refer me to?
...all these stats have been mentioned on this site many, many times, referencing sources such as the US Department of Labor, etc. Do you really believe that rich men casting aside their wives for 20-year-olds is the rule and not the dramatic exception?
Women cheat on their spouse as much as men but file for 70% of divorces. So who is breaking up families? Women do the dirty work, which is then blamed on men.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
oh wait, jeana, when i mentioned "17" years, i should have cited my original scenario.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
from an online news article: Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of those behind on child support nationwide earn poverty level wages; less than 4% of the national child support debt is owned by those earning $40,000 or more a year. According to the largest federally-funded study of divorced dads ever conducted, unemployment, not willful neglect, is the largest cause of failure to pay child support.
...so much for the deadbeats selling off the Porsche and the vacation home in the Hamptons, huh?
May 14th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Georgia Girl,
I don’t know how long. But long enough to give her a fair chance. PK says to hand her the paper with job listings and that’s all you owe her. But remember that your child will be staying with her, and if she makes poverty level wages, well, what do you think will happen to your kid? Do you want your child living in unstable housing, being homeless, going from one “friend” to another? You have to think about that.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Pjk,
Women may indeed file for divorce the majority of the time, but that doesn’t mean that women are the ones who break up families. They may be leaving because home life is not bearable. Or there’s abuse. Or the guy cheated on her and she can’t take it. Not everyone tells the truth about why the marriage is breaking up
May 14th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
pjk,
Your study might be right, but I wonder how many of those men were purposefully unemployed. I’m not saying it’s most, but still. I remember someone whose husband didn’t work officially but got paid under the table. He just simply couldn’t pay child support for his boys because he didn’t “officially” work. So he gave his ex-wife nothing. I thought she was a fool for not telling that to the court. He also got a large settlement because he got some kind of infection that almost killed him. But he survived and was fine and also kept that money from his sons. Not every man is a shining star, you know.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
jeana: My mum was much the same. Quit working before my sister was born, went back to part-time work when I was 10. She was there when we left, there when we got home.
She eventually went full-time, and was even able to wrangle a better job with the same department when she and dad divorced.
"But it’s usually what they and their husbands want because they feel it’s best for their family. It’s important to some people to have a SAH mom."
I feel it is important to have a SAH parent for the kids. To me, childcare under the age of 2 feels like dropping your responsibility on someone else. Whether that's what it is in actuality or not is a different matter, but that's how I feel about it. Plus, I believe it can foster a better relationship between the children and the at-home parent.
I want to take after my mum and look after my kids myself full-time. Hopefully the government's new paid Parental leave scheme will help. It's18 weeks leave paid at the minimum wage - currently ~$540 per fortnight.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
re: purposefully unemployed.
These days? Lots of people unemployed through no choice. Sounds like you simply want to believe the stereotypes and won't dare let truth get in the way.
re: Women may indeed file for divorce the majority of the time, but that doesn’t mean that women are the ones who break up families. They may be leaving because home life is not bearable. Or there’s abuse. Or the guy cheated on her and she can’t take it. Not everyone tells the truth about why the marriage is breaking up
...If she's the one legally breaking up the family, well, then she's the one breaking up the family. How many women simply believe because they are bored, and "no longer feel fulfilled in the relationship?" Plenty. She might as well leave when bored because he'll be the one left paying the bill and blamed, anyway. She gets the house, the kids, the car, he gets the bill and the blame.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Not every man is a shining star, you know.
Same can be said of women, so it's more accurate to say "Not everyone's a shining star".
May 14th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Pjk says, "Do you really believe that rich men casting aside their wives for 20-year-olds is the ruleand not the dramatic exception? "
I'm just saying that i think it's much more common than you would like to admit. Just take a look at the males in political office in our lifetime who have jilted or humiliated their wives ........ by fathering babies outside of wedlock, by engaging in prostitution rings, or by "cigars".
If a "woman" in that position "cheated" on her husband, that would end her career. Why are certain men in the political arena immune to the consequences of cheating? Is it because most women have the attitude of "stand by my man"?
May 14th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
"I want to take after my mum and look after my kids myself full-time. Hopefully the government's new paid Parental leave scheme will help. It's18 weeks leave paid at the minimum wage - currently ~$540 per fortnight."
The above statement came from an mra supporter?
May 14th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Just take a look at the males in political office in our lifetime who have jilted or humiliated their wives ........ by fathering babies outside of wedlock, by engaging in prostitution rings, or by "cigars".
If a "woman" in that position "cheated" on her husband, that would end her career. Why are certain men in the political arena immune to the consequences of cheating? Is it because most women have the attitude of "stand by my man"?
...I can't relate to high-level men in the political arena. Lots of women cheat and have kids who are not their husband's. There's also lots of men who raise kids who they know are not theirs.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
.... it's all relative, no matter what the social status.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
What, I can't be an at-home parent and a supporter of men's rights?
May 15th, 2009 at 7:17 am
"I want to take after my mum and look after my kids myself full-time. Hopefully the government's new paid Parental leave scheme will help. It's18 weeks leave paid at the minimum wage - currently ~$540 per fortnight." Typical BAM tactic. (Bad Ass Mom) the pattern is easy to see.
That statement comes from a real mother, a decent unselfish woman who doesn't feel the need to trample on men to advance in life and a need to be a mother to her children! A female who recognizes that men are being ill treated and has the nerve to boldly say it so unconcerned of the attack women will and do make against her because she choses to not go with the general flow. She is unlike other woman who ignore the suffering of men, being half of what made them in the first place without any gratitude because they are ultra selfish no matter what! She has my respect, not just because she recognizes the validity of men, but because she is truly a lady worthy of courtesy.
Attila
May 15th, 2009 at 7:58 am
42 jeana Says:
May 14th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Pjk,
Women may indeed file for divorce the majority of the time, but that doesn’t mean that women are the ones who break up families. They may be leaving because home life is not bearable. Or there’s abuse. Or the guy cheated on her and she can’t take it. Not everyone tells the truth about why the marriage is breaking up
================================================================
73% of women admit they file for divorce for the following reasons:
1. Money
2. Freedom
3. Control
the other 27% were lying.
================================================================
I a male, filed for divorce because my wife was severely hurting my children and I was not going to tolerate it. So I took the unusual BOLD steps to protect my children with prior knowledge that the cards were stacked against me in divorce proceedings! (the courts would regularly err and call me the respondent when I was the applicant) My children already appreciate it and they haven't even reached the age of 9!
My wife was free to leave, I remember telling her boyfriend who would drink a bottle of wine and my wife the other bottler within an hour and then be fine knowing she was going to pick up children DUI to bring them home. I told him I would have her packed in 10 minutes and he could get her at the door. I also told him the fundamental error he and others involved made was to screw with my children. That I said was a fundamental error that I would not excuse! The spineless twit never came to claim his prize although he planned to be with her for the rest of his life! When his 22 year old son found out his dad was cheating on his mother, he confronted him, crushing a glass of wine in his hand and beat his father to a pulp, who let him and didn’t even defend himself! His mother showed me the blood drenched torn shirt! (Not everyone tells the truth about why the marriage is breaking up)
So my wife thought she would leave me with the children, take the house my father and I built for OUR family not exclusively for her or her new boyfriend! Somehow she and her cleaver boyfriend (an accountant) thought they were going to milk the Vinczer family business for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I was fine with her leaving me, but contested and fought vigorously against the rest of her demented desires!
My sympathy to those women who leave because they truly have a real concern for their safety and that of their children. That scenario is NOT the primary reason women file for divorce nor is it the norm in every other home where primarily women file for divorce!!!
Women do it for the money, the freedom and for control as they are encouraged by other divorced moms enjoying the monetary spoils of destroying a family! Simply outrageous!!!
Attila
May 15th, 2009 at 10:53 am
re: (the courts would regularly err and call me the respondent when I was the applicant)
...that tells us something about who's breaking up families when the court assumes it's the mother filing. Yet all we ever hear is about mean, selfish men selfishly abandoning their families and their poor, downtrodden wives.
But the truth - that it's women sending in the legal wrecking crew to finish off families, just doesn't fit the man-bad/woman-good template. So it doesn't get reported. Wouldn't want to upset the feminists, now...
May 15th, 2009 at 11:43 am
pjk,
If it’s a stereotype that every guy who doesn’t pay CS has a young blonde he’s paying for instead, can you not see that it is also a stereotype that all women get the house, car, and all his money? Sometimes that happens, but not always. I’ve also never heard of a woman who got divorced just because she wanted to hurt the guy and take everything he had. I didn’t realize that the breakup of marriages was solely the fault of women. Yes women may file for divorce most often, but they do so because they are unhappy. And the guy has nothing to do with a happy or unhappy marriage, right? It’s all the woman’s fault.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Sonja,
“What, I can't be an at-home parent and a supporter of men's rights?”
You can, but just be aware that these same men who might like that you want to stay at home (and not compete with them for jobs) would throw you under a bus in a second should you get divorced. You would be expected to receive $0 in child support and $0 in alimony. Which would be ok if you had money, skills, and a good-paying job. If you don’t, you’d be expected to suck it up and not complain, while they took all “their” money (they earned it, you know) and you could move back in with your parents and struggle.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Hey Attila,
Regarding your #52, am I not a “real mother” or “decent” or “unselfish” because I work fulltime and always have? Do I “feel the need to trample on men to advance in life” because I have a career? And because I work, does this mean I have no “need to be a mother” to my son? So I can’t work and be a mom?
So either females have to agree with whatever lines the male MRAs throw out there or we’re not decent or worthy of respect or courtesy. But let me guess—you probably think that I should respect you and your brethren just because you’re men.
How exactly does that make sense?
May 15th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
re: If it’s a stereotype that every guy who doesn’t pay CS has a young blonde he’s paying for instead, can you not see that it is also a stereotype that all women get the house, car, and all his money?
...Women get custody 85% of the time. Men get tossed out onto the street, have to live with their mothers, etc, because they don't have enough money for their own place.
re: Yes women may file for divorce most often, but they do so because they are unhappy. And the guy has nothing to do with a happy or unhappy marriage, right? It’s all the woman’s fault.
...What happened to "til death do us part?" Are you saying that "no longer feeling fulfilled in the relationship" is reason to blow it up? Perhaps women's expectations from marriage are just not in line with reality?
Women file for 70% of divorces and the guy usually hasn't had any major transgressions. Sounds to me like somebody's expectations are not in line with reality.
May 15th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
PJK:
The courts one time had to issue a formal document to correct a Court Order where they mixed me up with my ex wife because that is how ingrained Family Court is with which gender fits where in the process of divorce.
I also saw two young women walk into Duty Counsel services where the one girl coached the other girl on how to initiate serving her boyfriend or husband with custody proceedings of their child including CS. While I waited to see Counsel she was assisted to filling out and filing the required form in less than half an hour. That simple, that easy! Cost her NOTHING!
When I went to the Crown Attorney's office and asked to talk about a Restraining Order, I had to correct the clerk throughout the conversation that I did not have a Restraining Order against me.
When I went to speak with CS payment enforcement lawyer, there were 40 women on the docket seeking to have men jailed or otherwise squeezed for money. I have NEVER seen a single application against a woman in the three years I have been to court! In fact I know of no cases in Canada where a woman has been jailed for failure to pay CS and there are many, many women who do not pay!
Dont worry PJK, I and my colleagues will continuously and tirelessly expose the truth. I solemnly promise that!!! I have voluminous audio and video evidence that I will make public very soon. The material is shocking!
Attila
May 15th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
This is unacceptable:
You can, but just be aware that these same men who might like that you want to stay at home (and not compete with them for jobs) would throw you under a bus in a second should you get divorced. You would be expected to receive $0 in child support and $0 in alimony. Which would be ok if you had money, skills, and a good-paying job. If you don’t, you’d be expected to suck it up and not complain, while they took all “their” money (they earned it, you know) and you could move back in with your parents and struggle.
This is acceptable:
You can, but just be aware that these same women who might like that their husbands enable you to stay at home (and not compete with you for time with the children) would throw you under a bus in a second should you get divorced. You would be expected to receive $0 in child support and $0 in alimony and be severely restricted to see your children. Which would be ok if you had money, skills, and a good-paying job in high six digit figures. after all they are JUST kids. If you don’t, you’d be expected to suck it up and not complain, while they took all “your” money (you earned it, you know) and you could move back in with your parents and struggle after you were released from jail on a false assault or sexual allegation charge which will severely impede on your ability to earn a living.
Attila
May 15th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Pjk
“Women file for 70% of divorces and the guy usually hasn't had any major transgressions. Sounds to me like somebody's expectations are not in line with reality.”
Wow, you know millions of people? Because how else would you know that “the guy usually hasn’t had any major transgressions”? Please excuse me for not believing you, since you MRAs also believe that DV rarely occurs (except when men are the victims), rape is practically non-existent, men never abuse their children (women do), etc.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Jeana:
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetus-focus-fallacy.shtml
Canadian pro-choice action network, an excerpt.
Amazing how pro-choicers are all about unfair obligations when it comes to women, about sexism, saying consent to sex is NOT the same as consenting to the risks of pregnancy and the long term, LIFETIME consequences, but only if they affect women.
Personally, I'm 'pro-choice', I just point out the hipocracy and double standards that feminists use when it benefits them.
May 15th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
...Jenna, since you clearly have your mind made up and aren't much interested in facts, what are you doing here other than to get upset?
May 15th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
...What was I reading the other day - not sure where , maybe even here - about how some feminist group took a survey to find out the percentage of women who had been victims of domestic violence. When the numbers came out too low for the feminists' liking, they then went back added the question, "has your husband ever shouted at you?" and added shouting to the category of domestic violence. DIdnt matter if the woman had shouted first. That, of course, boosted the "domestic violence" figures.
If truth stands in the way of a set-in-stone core set of beliefs, just fudge on everything to make it all fit.
2+1=4. Because we say so.
May 15th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Pjk,
I’m not upset. If I was, I wouldn’t be here.
And what “facts” are you talking about? The ones you use to embellish your points? Like how it’s all bad women’s fault for pretty much everything and virtually all men are angels? Those facts? You take one fact, like the percentage of women who file for divorce, and you add in your own ideas, like those women are divorcing their husbands not because of ANYTHING the husband did or didn’t do, but because the women are all selfish.
You all do exactly what you accuse feminists of doing. As you yourself said, “If truth stands in the way of a set-in-stone core set of beliefs, just fudge on everything to make it all fit.”
May 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
...Jenna, if you are not an MRA or an MRA sympathizer but come here to disagree, I have to ask, what are you doing here? Like a Red Sox fan hanging out in a New York Yankees chat room. A Reagan devotee on an Obama fan site.
I mean, what's the point other than to argue and disagree?
The percentages of who is filing for divorce and why (women 70% of the time, usually not for any major transgression) speak for themselves. Not really much room for arguing there.
May 15th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Top reasons why American women said they'd gotten divorced –
communication problems (69.7 percent);
unhappiness (59.9 percent);
incompatible with spouse (56.4 percent);
emotional abuse (55.5 percent);
financial problems (32.9 percent);
sexual problems (32.1 percent);
spouse's alcohol abuse (30.0 percent);
spousal infidelity (25.2 percent); and
physical abuse (21.7 percent). 21.
May 15th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
re: communication problems (69.7 percent);
unhappiness (59.9 percent);
incompatible with spouse (56.4 percent);
emotional abuse (55.5 percent);
financial problems (32.9 percent);
...all of the top reasons would fall under "no longer feel fulfilled in the relationship."
re: spousal infidelity (25.2 percent); and
physical abuse (21.7 percent). 21.
...and rounding out the bottom would be what the common, man-bad/women-good media template would have us believe to be the top, or even the only, two reasons women divorce.
May 15th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Pjk,
Why do you and the others go to feminist sites when you’re not a feminist supporter?
May 15th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Pjk,
Really? You think that emotional abuse is really the woman no longer feeling fulfilled????? Actually, to me, all those reasons Offended Dad gave tell me that the man is a large part of the problem. The woman too, because “unhappiness” and “communication problems” are a two-way street. But come on. This is what I mean by you skewing your “facts” and then wanting me and others to believe it. These problems are way more complicated than one gender is good and the other is bad.
May 15th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
???... Never been on a feminist site. Couldn't even name one...
Emotional abuse could be defined as pretty much anything. Can evoke pity for actual abuse since there wasn't any? Then just throw emotional abuse at the wall and hope it sticks....
May 15th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
CAN"T evoke pity...
May 15th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
PJK - Yes, emotional abuse covers a wide range of issues, but as a wife to an emotionally abused man, I wouldn't write it off so quickly. It can have far-reaching consequences.
May 15th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
5
jeana Says:
May 13th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I don't mean to give a ridiculous amount of child support, because no kid really needs thousands a month, but how about men who don't pay anything? But who make a ton. That must be wrong.
=======
jenna,
Why is it that you think and are always trying to bait us into being hypocritical? If it has been said once here it has been said one thousand times that if a man were to do what the women do that we discuss here it would be just as wrong. Now that makes it 1,001 times. Also I know that men here have had the same argument with you here and have stated this many many times to you.
I will now use what has been use on me when I am on feminist sites, only I will be infinitely more polite. This is a mans rights site and of course we discuss cases of what women have done wrong. We are looking for equality by pointing out that some women are just as bad as some of the men that display bad behavior. Now if this were a feminist site my statement would have been filled with expletives of physical tasks that are physically impossible. I would also have said "Why can you women not control yourselves and stop your bad behaviors. Furthermore, you as a woman have to stand up to your female friends and it is your responsibility to tell them how wrong their thinking, attitude, and actions toward men are, you have to stop them we men do not and we should not have to take precautions against these actions by women because they should just not do them."
Goose meet gander.
b
May 15th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
jeana,
BTW, it is fact that there is a disproportionate amount of women who give nothing compared to men. I know several and nothing is ever done. Like it or not there is a double standard.
b
May 16th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Bernie,
I was merely asking if a show about well-off men who can but won’t pay child support would be more acceptable. Not that all men are well-off and won’t pay it.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:22 am
jeana: I think we would be more likely to accept it, but would still ultimately want a show which showcases both men and women who refuse to pay (not who can't pay).
May 16th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Thats the point I think that is overlooked by many , the show concept is unfair and wrong because the laws are wrong , its also wrong because it ignores one gender to attack only the one gender is deamonised and thats a biggie.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
What if every other show featured a woman who refused (but was able) to pay child support? I remember reading about a doctor who didn't pay child support to her husband, who had custody of their 4 kids. I think she finally got fined or had to pay $100,000 (maybe it was in back support). At the time I thought, why should she pay him? But I get it now.
May 16th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
It would NEVER be OK to humiliate either parent of a child on national TV!!! It would not be in the child's better interest or the custodial parent or in the public's interest. How does it help to air this kind of deplorable material? A show like this is only in the interest of the millions of dollars it would make for a hand full of people. Period!!!
Are we not concerned about the social effect on the child/children who's friends will see this on television??? Please! It's like trying to determine how it would be ok to do something that is wrong to begin with.
Attila
May 16th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
First of all, it's not a show that attracts kids, so they'd be unlikely to watch it, period.
Secondly, lighting a fire under a deadbean (man or woman) "might" shame them into paying child support. Attila, are you worried about your own humiliation?
May 16th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Humiliation??? Never! My ex wife would try to humiliate me and the best she could come up with was to fabricate evidence and make up lies. When I learned her sister and/or brother in law was willing to spend some $70,000.00 to gain information and leverage against me, made me laugh as I knew they were desperate.
I am NOT ashamed of anything I have ever done!!! I could chase my ex wife to pay me child support and will not at this time!!! Since we separated she has not offered a single cent towards any of the children's expenses even when we lived together she did not spend responsibly the money I provided for our family. The liquor store was top priority! ZERO is what she has offered since we separated. Has never even asked if the children need anything, EVER!
She does find money to travel to West Palm Beach though and spend loads of cash on extravagant dress, top to bottom! Looks are all important with the modern woman. Kids, hey they come next to that. No I am definitely NOT worried about being humiliated, not even at your miserable devices by a fraud! I know my Achilles heel better than anyone, and I am still not worried, not a bit!!! So go spin your wheels in your feeble attempt to hurt people to avenge your past! Just what good comes from humiliating someone?
No matter how you spin or frame this, it is wrong to implicate and expose children to adult business and to suggest that they or others will not see it, is being naive and stupid. If my kids were perusing the tv schedules and they saw the word dad, I guarantee you they would want to watch it not knowing how deplorable it is!
Please try and find something constructive for the good of everyone if you can or simple recuse yourself!
Attila
May 16th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Attila,
“Looks are all important with the modern woman. Kids, hey they come next to that.”
That’s a gross generalization.
May 16th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
That men are bad, lazy, stupid, violent people who are irresponsible, don't care about their families and children are disposable without feelings that they hurt and rape women and need to be humiliated on television IS a gross generalization and misrepresentation!
That women put themselves ahead of their children is a matter of fact and my apologies to those ladies who do not fit this category and are decent caring mothers and wives.
Child support is nothing other than primarily disguised alimony at best which got taken out of the picture after no fault divorce. I would eat my hat on national television if anyone could show that every CS dollar received by custodial mothers has been used for food, shelter, clothing and any other ancillary child expense. If anyone believes that I have great ocean front properties I want to sell you in Montana!
I recall a woman who came to me to buy jewellery for her fiancé in and around 1988. I knew she was on welfare and a single mom. Lived in Ontario housing and I thought she was generally poor. I was going to try and help her and when she said she had $3.500.00 to spend my jaw dropped to the floor. I even asked her if she realized how much money that was. She had that kind of money to spend??? That money should have gone to her daughter not on her boyfriends finger!
If I ever did receive CS from my ex I would spend or bank every penny of it for the children! I would also put it in an exclusive account and reconcile every penny going to the children! To spend it on anything else would make me feel like I was robbing my kids! It’s supposed to be and meant to be their money for the parent to manage responsibly!
Attila
May 17th, 2009 at 1:00 am
No, Attila, it is NO “matter of fact” that women put themselves ahead of their children. Some may, but most do not. You are very prejudiced because of your experiences with your ex-wife. But trying to reason with you is obviously a hopeless cause. I could say that it is a matter of fact that most men put themselves ahead of their families and my apologies to those men who are decent and caring, but someone like gwallan would read that and call me names.
And about that woman with the $3500 to spend: maybe she sold something she had to get the money. Or got some kind of inheritance. Or worked for it. Or the guy gave it to her. Is a person allowed to spend any money on anything besides their kids? I wouldn’t be so quick to judge unless you know the whole story.
May 17th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Abut the woman who spent $3,500.00. She married one of my childhood best friends and I knew him and her very well. She was collecting welfare and baby bonus money and lived in a government paid for apartment. She had nothing to sell and ALL the money came from the proceeds of government funding for a single mother! If she had reported that the guy also lived with her they would have kicked her out of the apartment and taken away the welfare funds even retroactively thereby becoming a liability.
I actually thought the guy, (who had this kind of money) gave it to her or a part of it, but I recall very clearly her telling me how she needed to wait until the government funds arrived to pay me! I did the job for her at cost which would have cost her easily $7,000.00 in the store. It bothered me then and it bothers me now even more that she defrauded the government of money. It also bothered me that someone on welfare should wear jewellery that expensive! Moreover, she spent money that should have been banked for her daughter. I had another friend that spent less than $1,000.00 on both their wedding bands and the engagement ring which I always did at cost to help my friends. The couple that spent $1,000.00 ended up financially well off the other couple went bankrupt!
No money that belongs to children should be spent on anything but them, save pressing emergencies! Child Support fits into that category of money! If not then it should be called something else.
One thing the Canadian Government has right is that baby bonus money is NEVER withheld even if you owe money on your personal income tax! The part they have wrong is you could use that money to buy anything including illegal drugs or jewellery!
Attila
May 17th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
If most women do not put themselves ahead of their children then why do most women maintain authority and dominance over children and their fathers and men’s money? Why? Women complained about being considered chattels yet they now utilise children not only as chattels but as pawns in the business of divorce without much consideration to the vast carnage they leave in their wake.
"No, Attila, it is NO “matter of fact” that women put themselves ahead of their children. Some may, but most do not."
Allow me to rephrase. [ clearing throat ] “Most do, but some may not.” What you could do to change my view and that of other men is to tell your sisters that men have had enough and have wised up. Tell them they need to consider, truly consider (not just say) the best or at least the better interest of the child/children when they file for divorce and the ensuing tactics of various false allegations that start the thin edge of the wedge between men and their children and their money!
Do you honestly think I sound like a man that would base my complete frame of mind strictly on my own experiences with my ex wife? It just happens to be one I know extremely well! We have received thousands of calls, mostly from fathers and some mothers at www.CanadaCourtWatch.com who are at their wits end as the State and it’s ancillary bodies go to task and cause harm and often destroy honest hard working parents and deeply harm their children!
*When I start seeing the media reporting regularly and honestly of how badly men/fathers are treated in family matters.
*When Family Courts take care, excellent care, in dealing with the extremely sensitive nature of children in divorce.
*When CAS/CPS do their jobs properly and impartially to provide true child protection care.
*When desperate men stop calling begging for help as they are being jailed unjustly, have nowhere to live, while others we need to talk out of taking their own lives as their predicament is that dismal driven at the hands of the woman they once loved.
*When women come to their senses and admit that men are an integral part of society and families and that they have been utterly ill treated.
*When men are actually treated equally in every way.
*When dads are allowed to spend equal time with their children.
*When dads are no longer jailed on here say and other false allegations.
*When these and other things come together then I will change my view and my open contemptuous rhetoric against women who are the primary root cause of our current demise!
Until then do not talk to me about reason as that and everything else that is going on is completely without just reason! If indifference and retraction is your answer with someone who will not easily concede to your liking and point of view (which view I do not agree with) then you are doing a poor job at communicating effectively and consider that perhaps your point of view may not be sound.
Instead of criticizing me and others here, why don’t you criticise those women who are causing utter turmoil and making a bad name for those ladies, and men recognize them, who do not fit this stereotype! Do you think all these men are wrong each with their own stories of tyranny and injustice? Put your time to better use. Help us bring justice and that will bring calm for everyone!
I don’t spend my time here to vent. I spend my time here to bring awareness, share experiences, partake in action alerts etc. I spend my time to ensure my children do not need to endure the same waste and hurt that I and many other men and their children endure needlessly!
People call you names for good reason and not just because they hate you. Earn their respect and I would be willing to say they will stop calling you names and will reciprocate with equal respect.
Lastly, “Deadbeat Dads” show or anything like it has no place anywhere and should never, ever be aired!!!
Attila
May 17th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Attila,
Even saying “most” women put themselves before their kids is WRONG. You would only be correct if you clarified that you meant that most women who use their kids as pawns and who vindictively punish their husbands by not letting them have access for no good reason and who demand exorbitant amounts of child support and then only spend it on themselves—those women put themselves before their kids. Leave the rest of us out of your characterization.
May 17th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Jeana and Atilla - the words you're looking for are "too many women...".
It's true that it's a subset of women, and also that even a dozen would be too many.
May 18th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Thank you Sonja.
That is a fair and less inflammatory way to put it.
Attila
May 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Jeana previously said:
“Even saying “most” women put themselves before their kids is WRONG. You would only be correct if you clarified that you meant that most women who use their kids as pawns and who vindictively punish their husbands by not letting them have access for no good reason and who demand exorbitant amounts of child support and then only spend it on themselves—those women put themselves before their kids. Leave the rest of us out of your characterization.”
==================================================================
I will rephrase that if that is what I wanted to say:
Every woman who uses their kids as pawns and who vindictively punish their husbands, consequently their children, by not letting them have access for no good reason and who demand exorbitant amounts of child support and then only spend it on themselves—all those women put themselves before their kids.
==================================================================
Is it wrong or inaccurate to say most women? We could debate that forever. My point is, what I meant is, the message I am trying to get across is, that women do put themselves ahead of their children and those children’s fathers in significant numbers as a result of the current rule book which provides no fair system or control or accountability to avert this travesty which affects every other family or millions of people. If that condition no matter how I intimate it bothers you then tell your sisters about it, not me.
What is more important? How many, or that it is occurring? Would it be fare to say that a couple who were married and had children and fell on hard times should both be jailed for failure to being able to provide the same luxury they once enjoyed to their children or would it be acceptable to sell the home, and rent, and cut back on expenses etc.? It seems it’s only fair to put fire to one’s feet if it is a male such as the ill conceived show Deadbeat Dads which is what a strongly oppose!
“Leave the rest of us out of your characterization.”
Men know exactly how that feels as we are characterised to be wife beaters, child molesters, rapists, killers, sex offenders, bigots, stupid, weak, lazy, good for nothing anti social bums, and you take umbrage as to how I go about articulating my thoughts and views. You are telling me how I would be correct if...? Who are you to tell me how I should put forth my views. You make me feel like I am being cross examined or you are the editor reviewing my material before press release? And you are neither!
Even ONE child that is subject to being used as a pawn is unacceptable!!! And yes any parent who pays money towards their children by way of CS or otherwise should have an accounting of what that money was used for! Is that too much for the recipient to do, to reconcile and show accountability?
The way it works now is just hand over the money and the kids! See ya. Wouldn’t wanna be ya!
Attila
May 18th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Jeana - Like it or not, and weather or not it applies to you or your situation:
Child support and no fault divorce mean a big windfall for women, with zero accountability. It gets abused by anyone who benefits - both women and the government.
Child support is deliberately set at onerous levels, and it's primarily men who are ejected from their families and compelled to pay, regardless of who's actually the bad actor. The worst cases are where men are separated from their families and compelled to pay onerous amounts of support to someone who cheated and or was abusive.
Child support is a massive federal subsidy of middle class divorce. I don't begrudge anyone getting a divorce, for reasons that apply to them. I have a problem with ejecting fathers from their families for retaliation and for profit. If you want to end the relationship, it also means you're ending the good stuff, not just the bad stuff.
Unfortunately, the means to claim ongoing benefits from their former spouse usually means villifying them, and our Domestic Violence scam dovetails into that process quite nicely, and portraying every man as a violent sexual deviant is just the culmination of that culture war on men.
The ugly truth is that women lie, abuse, and cheat as much or more as men, only men get stuck with the bill and the blame in both cases.