If enough men opt out of marriage so the number of children is insufficient to support social security, will the laws and biased family courts change?

[Kelley1]

Gender bias in family court is a well-documented issue that disproportionately affects men, especially fathers, in custody, visitation, and child support cases. While family law statutes are generally written to be gender-neutral—mandating that decisions be made in the "best interest of the child"—a pervasive perception of bias against men remains.

Courts heavily favor maintaining the "status quo." If the mother acted as the primary caregiver during the marriage, she is often awarded primary physical custody to minimize disruption to the child.

Fathers are frequently awarded standard visitation (e. g., alternating weekends), while mothers are more likely to receive primary physical custody.

Financial outcomes in family court are frequently tied to pre-divorce household roles: Because men statistically hold the role of the primary breadwinner, they are often subjected to higher child support and alimony (spousal support). Fathers may face challenges if their earning capacity is "imputed" at a higher rate than their actual income, or if courts do not adequately account for a reduction in their wages post-separation. Refer to Florida Law Review.

Evidence of Disparity

Custody outcomes: Mothers are awarded primary custody in about 79% of cases, with fathers receiving it in only 7% alienatedparents. org.

Child support: 91% of custodial parents receiving child support are mothers, while only 9% are fathers alienatedparents. org.

Parental alienation: Fathers are more likely to report being victims of alienation, but have fewer legal remedies alienatedparents. org.

Federal incentives: Title IV-D of the Social Security Act funds child support enforcement, which can financially incentivize lopsided custody models, further disadvantaging fathers.

[Chazmatazz269]

The stat indicating that women receive custody in 79% of cases is inaccurate. It accounts for mothers who die and mothers who willingly relinquish custody of their children. In CONTESTED cases, mothers get custody over 90% of the time.


The laws will change, but not in men’s favor. We’re not far from the man tax. Whereupon men will be required by law to pay more in taxes to support women and children we’ve never even met. There has already been a rise in states observing common law marriage again. This way they can tap a man’s resources even if he didn’t actually marry. The US will almost certainly follow UK’s example of awarding palimony to females with male roommates. So even if you were literally never a couple of any kind, you can be forced to support a woman you shared a home with.


There is no escape from men’s responsibilities to produce, provide and protect women and children. We functionally recognize only two political parties in the US, and neither of them gives a sh*t about men’s issues. Pay your share or go to prison. That’s your choice. Get used to it.

[lightbulb27]

Dividing a shaky emotional and financial house in half in an fritz of "legal" activity is generally not going to go well no matter what.

Many I see around cannot afford to live... because they are divorced. Stay married, build strong unit, theyd be better off. So the problem is deeper.

I see some cultures having 2+ kids and building wealth. They will be in charge. The others will not exist or will be impoverished.

The solution is for those cultures which are failing to fail and die out and be replaced by cultures that work and adapt.

[msc545]

It's not about cultures; this is about people.

[lightbulb27]

@msc545 Sure, but in general, those that have tuned out the garbage USA feeds them via media (TV, music, etc..)... the Indians, Chinese immigrants of few generations... stay together and dominate in all domains. Those are 5000 year old cultural traditions that when passed on and tune out the garbage fed, thrive. It's hard to even see it as we swim in it daily. Walk into the grocery store sometime, listen to the music... the words resonating in to the sub conscious mind. Hopefully you see what I mean.

[msc545]

You certainly are not wrong about this.

[msc545]

If your judgment is so bad That you're willing to enter into a extremely risky contract by getting married then go ahead and do so. But keep in mind there's about a 70% chance that within 5 years you're going to wind up. Divorced. If you get divorced. Plan on getting wrecked by the court. They will take your money, your children and your property and throw you in jail if you don't do exactly what they tell you to do. However, even given all that many men still insist that marriage is a great idea and children are a great idea because it can't possibly happen to them. And of course when it does happen to them they scream the loudest and I understand why. They were not expecting that. Anything bad could happen to them and they were narcissistic and naive enough to believe that nothing would ever happen to them until of course it did. Don't do this to yourself.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

Isn't it ironic how "the best interest of the child"=living with the mother, despite the fact the father is actually the caregiver.

It is wealth redistribution at its finest. All under the guise of "care". Similar to how abortion is coined "reproductive healthcare".

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

It's also funny how the judge you picture is the same one my custody attorney said we did not want. Perhaps women in positions of authority is almost a "universal no no".

[NaultD]

One. Just dont get married if you don't want to. it's as simple that. Its not that big of a deal.

If you do get married as a self respecting man you want to be you will provide for your children and the mother of your children that isn't your wife but still the mother of your children.

[msc545]

Just don't get married, even if you DO want to get married. Marriage is financial and, to some extent, social suicide for men.

[abc3643]

You undertand, right?, that when you ask a question with bias built in, it nullifies any objective answers that you are trying to get.

Learn to ask questions more objectively and journalistically.

[abc3643]

B T W, I am happy to see you cite "sources" and that's good.

alienatedparents. org may be an upstanding organization (their site is inaccessible as I type), but where or how do they get THEIR numbers? These things are important to anyone who alienatedparents. org is trying to convince. Since you care about this issue, you should hold them to the high standard of explaining themselves.

[Kelley1]

Assuming there is a bias in favor of women in family courts and obviously men and women are not treated the same in family courts, that is not important. What is important is: 1) are there men who don't marry because of the risk, and is the number increasing? 2) Does or could that result in an insignificant number of children to support social security?

[abc3643]

I won't deny that.

HEY! I noticed you just got your degree (BA) from SMU! Congrats! What was your major (s) and minor (s)?

I can't message you because you don't follow me but feel free to message me privately if you wish. I'm very interested to know how your SMU experience went.

[abc3643]

I assume it was a BA...

[Kelley1]

Yes, a BA in Liberal arts and a math minor.

[Kelley1]

My experiences at SMU was good. When I didn't fall behind, the courses were not that difficult. I parties most every weekend, sometimes crashing a party at another local university. I dated a lot but I was more in demand as a freshmen than my senior year.

[exitseven]

Most guys I know end up continuing to pay all the bills and whatever is left over is what they ret to live on.

[NathanDavis]

so men... will become the children and pout... lol

[Sevenpointfive]

why would it change? it would just not be used by more women.

[eagle1951]

we'll be working till we die

[msc545]

I actually want to do that because I love my work, but I also recognize that most people don't.

[leviopperman]

probably not