Tag Archives: Divorce

Commentary

Ex-member of Parliament calls for shared-parenting legislation in Canada

1 Comment

Good news for men who want to marry in Ontario.

Excerpt:

One man I spoke to, for instance, says his ex-wife falsely accused him of slamming a van door on her leg. And even though that assault charge was later withdrawn by the Crown attorney, the man says the allegations damaged his reputation during proceedings with a family court judge who restricted his access to his kids.

It’s those kinds of situations that the fledgling London Equal Parenting Committee will explore during “an evening of awareness in relation to domestic violence” Thursday at Crouch Library.

The evening’s main speaker is Roger Gallaway, the former Sarnia-Lambton MP who co-chaired a 1998 federal report called For The Sake Of The Children, which examined issues surrounding child custody.

“What I find distressing is the lack of objectivity around this whole subject,” says Gallaway, who represented his riding for the Liberal party from 1993 to 2006. “There has to be some type of balance put into the discussion. And it’s sadly lacking.”

Gallaway regrets that none of the 1998 report’s recommendations — including a call for stricter rules regarding the reporting of abuse — were ever adopted.

“An allegation of violence is a weapon,” he says. “And in Ontario we have a zero-tolerance policy, which generally speaking says that when allegations are made, it’s the male who’s removed (from the residence). And that then casts the die for what will occur in terms of child custody or access.”

Gallaway adds that more and more people are starting to realize that more and more deserving fathers are being shortchanged when it comes to contentious custody battles.

“There’s a growing constituency . . . that sees what’s occurring and knows these men aren’t bad people,” he says. “So the doubt about what is being said about (so-called) violent men is growing.”

What I’ve heard is that Ontario has the most unfair family court system in Canada, so this is welcome news. The more that courts discriminate against men and paint a portrait of men as unreliable and abusive, the less men will marry and stick around to be fathers. Men rise to the occasion in order to gain respect. No man wants to get involved with marriage and parenting when he is not going to be respected and valued by his wife and by society as a whole.

Men’s Rights activist Glenn Sacks comments on the article’s counterpoint against shared-parenting:

As a counterpoint, the article quotes DV advocate Peter Jaffe as saying that false accusations of DV are “rare.”  Actually, in the U.S. studies have shown that as much as 71% of DV restraining orders were either unnecessary or received under false pretenses.  Other studies show that over half involve not even the allegation of physical violence.  In Canada, reports of child maltreatment are deemed to be unsubstantiated or without evidence in 55% of cases according to the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect.  So what Jaffe said looks to be far from the truth.

Shared-parenting is one of the measures that Dr. J said would encourage people to get married and stay married, which benefits the children. Biological fathers are not really a threat to children – it’s the stepfathers and live-in boyfriends who pose a threat to children.

Related posts

Podcasts

Oklahoma considers legislation to reduce divorce rate

Leave a comment
She makes marriage sensible
She makes marriage sensible

A podcast with Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse.

The MP3 file is here.

Topics:

  • do governments have an interest in preserving marriage? Why?
  • when a divorce occurs, what does the government decide for you?
  • why preserving marriage helps to preserve your liberty
  • how every child has an interest in the stability of their parents’ union
  • how every child has a right to care from each biological parent
  • how justice requires us to care about the needs of vulnerable children
  • the government should legislate to protect the rights of children
  • how much does a divorce cost the couple?
  • how much does a divorce cost taxpayers (i.e. – government services)
  • how can government protect marriages
  • is mandatory counseling before a divorce a good idea?
  • is a mandatory waiting period before a divorce a good idea?
  • how can changes to custody rules discourage divorce?
  • is fault-based divorce a good idea?
  • should fault be considered when splitting up property after a divorce?

For such a short podcast, this really rocks. Every sentence is brilliant.

I have tons of ideas of how the government could prevent divorce and encourage marriage. I would cut off all subsidies for failure, and replace them with vouchers for counseling, tax credits for getting married, and tax credits for staying married. I also like covenant marriages. I think I would be way more likely to marry if I could get a covenant marriage. It’s a really fun thing to think about, because you want to preserve liberty while still encouraging people to be careful who they marry and how they related to their children. What’s your idea to preserve marriage?

Mentoring

How to communicate requirements to a Christian woman during courtship

44 Comments

Most of you know that what I do for a living is software engineering. I have dual degrees in computer science, and my Masters was focused on software design. So I always approach these relationship problems from an engineering perspective.

I think that at the beginning of any software development project, the most important thing to do is to talk to the customer and to decide what the software is supposed to do. The customer for the relationship is God. He is the one who will be deciding if the relationship is any good or not. My impression of God is that he has lots of requirements for marriage. First, each person in the marriage should have a relationship with Jesus. Second, each person in the relationship should treat one another in a special way. Third, the marriage itself should accomplish certain things in the world.

The requirement that each person have a relationship with Jesus prior to and during the marriage is important, because it is out of this relationship that the people first relate to each other, then to the children, then to their extended families, and then to the world.

I think that it’s the man’s job to take these goals from the customer (God) and to derive a set of requirements for the woman, so that he can communicate his understanding of these goals to her and the relationship can move along more efficiently and effectively. (Obviously these things apply in the reverse as well, but I am writing from the man’s point of view for this entire post, to emphasize the man’s role in leading the relationship)

Here are a few of my requirements just for illustration. Other men will have different requirements, depending on their plan.

  • understands how capitalism relates to marriage/parenting, e.g. – school choice
  • understands how men function as husbands and fathers
  • understands how marriages work and why they succeed or fail
  • can defend belief in Christian theism with arguments and evidence
  • can defend socially conservative positions on abortion and marriage, etc.
  • can answer objections to Christian theism like evil and religious pluralism
  • can stand her ground in the face of incoming criticism and disagreement
  • can shepherd the children through schools and on to graduate degrees

I think that in general, relationships are about the man measuring a woman for marriage/parenting requirements based on current performance and future potential. I think the worst thing for women is to not know where the relationship is going. It would help her if the man can communicate his requirements to her. If she is interested in the man, then she can show him what she can do now, and what she is interested in learning about so that she can build up her capabilities for later. The requirements are tailored to the man’s specific plan for the marriage.

For example, take the requirement to understand how fiscal conservatism enables liberty. Suppose you meet a woman who is a Christian, but has socialist views. You are concerned that she will vote to tax away the family’s money for wasteful government programs. Instead of just glossing over these problems and leading her on because she is pretty, you need to tell her right away where you think she is wrong. I like to give women something to read so that they can learn on their own, then come back and discuss it. That’s how you make progress.

And I think this helps to develop a way to resolve conflicts, too. If I disagree with her, then I give her something to read, and then I try to be extra nice and help her with other things to give her time to read. If she is feeling hurt from a previous bad experience, then I will have to address that, too. The goal is to build her up to be a solid wife and mother. If she is not willing to read anything to grow, then that is important for me to know right away. I think that a man needs to prefer a woman who is open-minded and interested in learning on her own and forming true beliefs about the world.

Now what does this buy the woman? Well, if you gloss over requirements, and only talk about surface things, (e.g. – her appearance), during the courtship, then she knows that there will come a time when you won’t like her any more, because beauty fades! What you are really saying to her when you talk about her appearance is that this is what is most important to you. But how can any woman be as pretty as she was in her youth as time passes? She can never feel safe if the standard is beauty. She knows that this relationship is unstable and has no future.

Instead, I try to give women control of the relationship by giving them a choice. I give her a few small things to do that are related to marriage and parenting. This would include apologetics, theology, economics, etc. What does that say to her? It says to her that she is in control of the relationship, and that I need her. All she has to do to keep me from leaving is to keep trying to learn about marriage and parenting, and to keep trying to work at marriage and parenting as well as she can. And stating those things up front attracts the right kind of woman anyway – the kind that wants to help.

What you are really doing in the courtship is communicating to her what really matters to you about her. If you hand her books to read about why divorce harms children, then she understands that you want children, but you don’t want a divorce. And she understands that you are going to exclude other women who don’t want children, and who do not understand what divorce does to children. That’s the kind of thing that indicates to her that you have a long-term relationship plan, so that she knows that you will still like her more than other women, even after her beauty fades.

I also found that it helps women to have a sense of security when she knows what the man considers to be a deal-breaker. I like to clearly set out for her what I do not want in a relationship. What I’m trying to do is avoid the situation where she cannot feel secure because she doesn’t know what makes her different and special. I like to tell her what it is that makes her different and special, with specific details. And I also want to build her confidence by building up her capabilities for marriage and parenting. So she knows that she is valuable and irreplaceable.

Related posts