According to a Glenn Sacks’s article recently published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, marriage is at a low point in America because men drag their feet. Is it the Peter Pan syndrome that strikes immature men reluctant to commit? Wrong answer. Men tend to stay out of marriage because biased family laws lead them to. Indeed, marriage better be good; if not, divorced fathers stand little chance to be granted joint custody of the children. They are rather likely to be stripped off their rights to see their children without any protection from the justice system, be treated like criminals, be forced into poverty and debt by unreasonable child support payments and even end up in jail for falling behind, like this poor fellow in California who was not not even in court when the judge sentenced him to one year in debtor’s prison.
I may like feminist economics, but I don’t make much of feminist-inspired politics that secured this great victory – the criminalization of divorced fathers. While this happened, no gains were made in any issues that count for women, children and family, as if these issues had been put under the rack. Universal health insurance? Zip. Instead, Clinton got rid of welfare as we knew it. Subsidized child care? Sorry. But single mothers previously on welfare have the opportunity to put their children in the Mac Donald’s play area, if they now work for this company. Public school for children under five? Where? in Cuba? The rising costs of education? We will take care of it when Sallie Mae will be bailed out. Abortion rights (you mean, “reproductive” rights)? Thirty five years after Roe versus Wade, they are still threatened by the decisive change in the composition of the Supreme court. Who pays the bill for this complete desert in family policy? Divorced fathers.
Feminist-inspired politics have sold that men are pigs and when divorced, deadbeat. No wonder women cannot find any.