According to Men's Stuff, only 10 to 15% of divorced fathers have their children living with them more than half of the time. Most recently we saw this reported in Australia but it is consistent, across time and across Western countries. Canada, the US, the UK, they all have this problem. The majority of these arrangements are made by private agreement among the divorcing parties, but when there is a conflict, the man is going to lose, period.

Because men lose their children, they also lose their money, and possibly their home, because the law says the money must follow the kids.

Men "get" to visit with their kids, 3 or 4 days per month. Listen to those words. They "get" to visit their kids. As if this is some kind of gift. The men "get" their children - their own children, who they've lived with all their lives, their children who they built snowmen with, coached in little league, took to church. They now "get" to see them 3 or 4 days per month.

For the privilege of no longer being welcome near their kids, men can be legally bound to pay thousands of dollars per month in support costs. Because of the tactics applied in the contested divorce , many of these men stand accused of domestic violence - this is the fig leaf under which children can be taken away from a parent legally. It's very effective in the divorce case, but the repercussions don't end with settlement. Remember there is no legal charge against many of these men - it is merely an allegation. It is never investigated nor adjudicated. Nonetheless, the police keep the man's name in a register, and monitor the movements of the ex-father. He can be compelled to attend mandatory anger management courses, at his expense - remember this is in addition to the expense of the support, and in addition to the new expense of housing for himself.

These men have no say, no way around this. They are literally disenfranchised. Once accused, there is nothing, literally nothing, a man can do to avoid the penalty box of loss of custody, mandatory psychological exams, and police surveillance. If the men cannot make the payments, they lose their driver's license, and then suffer the cascade of problems associated to that - losing the job, criminal charges, losing credit, and finally, just losing.

Why do men accept this? Why do men continue to say, "This is ok. I can handle this. I can deal with this." I'm not a fan of hyperbole, but this is slavery. It is disenfranchisement and enslavement of an entire gender of people. And then these people are labeled as "deadbeets" as if this somehow excuses how the courts have treated them. As if it is a retroactive justification for their disenfranchisement.

We hear that 75% of suicides of adults, in the range of ages from 35-65, are by men, and of those men, 75% are divorced or separated. Given the state of powerlesness among men in the areas many of them deem most important, we should not be surprised. If anything, we should wonder, why do we not see MORE divorced men committing suicide? I don't advocate violence, against one's self or others.

But why does society want men to accept this? We should encourage more men to protest. More men should stage hunger strikes. More men should refuse to accept this.

It is absolutely NOT OK for a court to take away children from a man, on the accusations of a woman who obviously hates him. It is NOT Acceptable for the state to intervene in this way, in the private lives citizens - or what previously were legal citizens in good standing.

NO ONE should stand for this. No moral individual can possibly accept this as a tolerable state of affairs.

In closing, I'm going to offer a few evocative observations from people who have witnessed real tragedy around them:

"What would things have been like [in Russia] if during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there, paling with terror at every bang on the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people?"

-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, talking about Stalin's police state

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak out for me.

-- Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984), talking about the Nazi regime

In answer to the question I posed in the headline - Who is Responsible? Everyone is. Every citizen is responsible for tolerating this, thinking "it isn't my issue, I'm happily married" or "I'm not married and I'll never marry" or "I don't have kids" or "even if we divorce, she would never do that to me."

I was that guy just 3 years ago.

What are you going to do to fight the inequity in divorce cases today?