Divorce Courts get even crazier [Long and rough, unfinished Post]

by Limbic on July 7, 2004

It is now widely known that the Family & Divorce Courts are deeply sexist and anti-male. Surprisingly, far from improving thing are getting worse with the courts heaping new injustices on old with strong government collusion.

Witness this latest gross unfairness reported in The Times:

The former wife of the Premiership footballer Ray Parlour has won her claim to more than a third of his future income in a legal landmark that could change the face of divorce law.

…The appeal has set a new precedent in divorce law. Previously, maintenance was awarded on the basis of a spouse’s “reasonable needs”, rather than on the equal share principle that applies to division of matrimonial assets.

The fleecing that men get in these courts is already so bad that I am staggered that they found a way to make it worse.

You are a high earner. You marry some floozy. You divorce a year later. She gets 1/3 of every penny you earn in the future. If you made the mistake of breeding with her, she will probably bet another 1/3 for the children too.

There are those who claim this sort of thing is destroying marriage by putting off men. Some are begging men not to fall into the trap that is modern marriage. By my reckoning most people – men and women – are completely ignorant of how ruinous and downright unfair divorce courts are to men.

Even the way break-ups are conventionally conducted (and supported by the courts) are grossly unfair. Men, often the victims of adultery, are forced out of their homes. Have to struggle to see their own children and in many cases have to endure the adulterous wife’s new lover moving in to their family home with their children. Not only do they have to suffer this painful humiliation, but they are often falsely accused of abuse – sexual and violent – against their children or their former spouses.

A recent tabloid case highlights the absurdity of how we treat men and fathers today in the UK. A woman writes to her husband who is a serving soldier in Afghanistan and tells him “I have met someone else. I don’t want you.”

When the stunned soldier went home on leave in a bid to save his marriage, [she] taunted him by revealing she had also slept with a 15-year-old boy.

He downed at least seven pints of lager on his ninth wedding anniversary then burst in on [she and her] lover..and terrified them with an imitation pistol.

…a sympathetic judge decided not to jail him

…he cracked on his wedding anniversary and went back to the marital home. [She] claimed [he] hit her in the face before pointing the imitation gun at her and her boyfriend.

His lawyer Deborah Charles told Canterbury Crown Court: “He lost his marriage, his children and his home. To make it worse, he lost them to a man who was now living in what had been his home.”

He was given a two-year community rehabilitation order on condition he gets psychiatric help. Judge Adele Williams told him: “People who use any sort of firearm to frighten people normally go to prison.” But she spared him because of his good character and remorse.

Remorse! He was dead right.

That divorced and separated men are in crisis is ignored. Divorced or separated men are more than twice as likely to kill themselves as men who remain married whereas a marital split is not a significant risk factor for suicide among women [Source].

The drum of female victimhood beats louder than any other. Government policy has become so staggeringly lopsided and sexist that in the same month one can read that:

Men can no longer use provocation (like adultery) as a defence in spousal murder. The courts must hand down 15 year sentences.


Women who kill allegedly abusive husbands must be spared jail – you guessed it – because they have been PROVOKED.

How can this be fair? Where is the equality before the law?

In the eyes of the Law, an alleged punch in the face delivered a man to a woman justifies his murder but years of physical or more importantly emotional abuse by a woman of a man counts for nothing if a man murders her.

I suppose the government is not aware that emotional pain is registered in the same part of the brain as physical pain. It is widely accepted that even in cases of domestic violence – it is the emotional pain that is much worse that the physical bruising. Yet, when it comes to men – that emotional pain, inflicted with the tongue rather than the fist – counts for naught.

But words are words; I never yet did hear
That the bruised heart was piercèd through the ear

                                       Othello I, iii

From male suicide to domestic violence, they are missing the crucial element: the mental state of men. They up the punishments. They rile and abuse and discriminate against men more fiercely – and the problems worsen. We need smarter solutions. We certainly do not need this gross anti-male bias in the courts and parts of the elite.

I think we need a much stronger Men’s Movement, especially the Movement as conceived by Steve Biddulph which is basically a network of gentlemen: emotionally healthy, independent, women-loving, committed fathers, principled and most importantly manly. Gone are the days of weeping “New Men” banging drums and hugging in the forest. The emergent and hugely popular men’s protest movement is a positive advance. Groups like Fathers-4-Justice and Mankind are helping with this fight.

Men need to learn alternatives to the violence and depression that engulfs them. They need to be helped with emotional and communication skills. These skills can be taught – easily. Most importantly men must be stop being abused in the courts and fatherhood must be valued as highly as motherhood.

More on this tomorrow.

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment