masculinisme
extreme
Gene C. Colman
posted 26 Aug 2008
An excerpt from "Gender Bias: Where are We?"
http://www.4famlaw.com/Genbpapr.htm
Gender Bias: Where are We?
By Gene C. Colman
This paper was presented by Gene C. Colman to the Federation of LawSocieties National Family Law Program 2000 held in St. John'sNewfoundland, July 2000.
---
Myth: Women suffer a 73% drop in their standard of living followingdivorce while men experience a 42% increase in theirs
One of the most pervasive myths of family law, here and in theU.S.A., has been perpetrated by sociologist, Lenore Weitzman. Shehas reported that women suffered a 73% drop in their standard of livingfollowing divorce while men experienced a 42% increase in theirs. [LenoreWeitzman: The Divorce Revolution, 1985] This study has been citedfavourably in a number of Canadian cases[16] in numerous Americancases as well as in President Clinton’s 1996 budget.[17] “Weitzman’s figures have been cited by policy-makers and others as hardevidence of what’s become known as the ‘feminization ofpoverty’”.[18]
Contra:
For years, like many others, this writer accepted the Weitzman studyas ‘truth’.[19] But then I started to think about my own twenty-oneyears’ experience as a family law lawyer. I tried to recall thosesituations where the man improved his economic position post separationand divorce while the woman’s economic situation declined. I could thinkof precious few cases that fit the Weitzman model. In fact, I couldthink of none. Virtually all the cases I have seen witness thestandards of living of both sides going down. For most of us, it isa struggle to maintain mortgage payments, debt payments and otherresponsibilities. When you add separation and divorce into the mix,the same money has to provide for two households rather than one. Both sides are often faced with significant legal bills, other additionaldebt, and increased stress that naturally affects work performance. Common sense tells us that everyone’s standard of living suffers. My own personal experiences certainly do not constitute scientificanalysis. However, there has been ample criticism of Weitzman inthe literature:
The problem was that Weitzman’s numbers were woefully inaccurate, aconclusion shared by independent researchers, feminist researchers, and,eventually even Weitzman herself. [20]
Two social scientists whose methodology Weitzman had used, attempted toduplicate Weitzman’s results using their own data. Those socialscientists found that “post-divorce women suffered a much smaller andtemporary decline in their standard of living of 30%. The two alsofound that divorced women’s standards of living actually rose within fiveyears to figure higher than that obtained while married to their formerhusbands.” The two had tried to obtain Weitzman’s raw data but she hadheld back on that for four years. When she did finally release herdata, the figures were “disorganized and unreviewable”. The U.S.Census Bureau acknowledged that the Weitzman percentages were in errorand eventually, Weitzman herself acknowledged that “her study waserroneous”. [21]
Susan Faludi[22] highlights many reasons to suspect Weitzman’s data andconclusions:
1. For at least six years, Weitzman avoided releasing her data.
2. The authors of the methodology used by Weitzman could not gain hercooperation for release of her data and they found that Weitzman’s ownpublished data was not consistent with her conclusions.
3. The U.S. Census Bureau in 1991 supported the conclusions of the abovetwo researchers, which therefore cast doubt upon Weitzman’sconclusions.
4. Weitzman’s sample size was a mere 114 divorced women and men and herresponse rate was very low.
5. The sample was restricted to Los Angeles County.
6. Weitzman’s sole data source was the memory of the womeninterviewed.
7. Weitzman had no comparable data on those divorced prior to theno-fault divorce laws of 1970.
8. A 1990 study by two law professors found that women and children wereslightly better off under the no-fault law.
Sanford Braver’s book, Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, demonstratesthat much of the research on the topic subsequent to Weitzman’s fails toconsider the U.S. Tax Code which, like our own, favours the singlecustodial parent. Like our own Child Support Guidelines, thisresearch also fails to consider the non-custodial father’s spending onthe children. After making these adjustments, Braver tells us thatthe economic effects of divorce are similar for both genders; mothersmight even have a slight advantage.[23]
Canadian Study with Empirical Data: The Federal Governmentcommissioned studies prior to the drafting and ultimate implementation ofthe Federal Child Support Guidelines. One such study is dated 1995and is entitled: “An Overview of the Research Program to develop aCanadian Child Support Formula”.[24] The researchers used empiricaldata gathered from fifteen court districts across Canada over athree-month period during 1991. They readily admitted the possiblefrailties of their data,[25] but ultimately concluded that the “empiricalanalysis based on this database to be original, useful andworthwhile”.[26] They divided the families into three subsections:low income – less than $15,000 annually; medium income - $15,001 to$30,000; high income – greater than $30,000.00.[27] There was arather startling result when one considers the conventional wisdom à laWeitzman et al: “In most cases, the standard of living of both partiesdeclined as a result of the separation.”[28] We are dealinghere with a sample of 869 cases. Other findings of note:
• “In general, when both parents were in a low income category ($15,000or less) and there was only one child, the custodial parent had a higherstandard of living after taxes. … If there were two children, the parentshad similar standards of living, and if there were three or morechildren, the non-custodial parent had the higher standard of livingafter taxes and payment of awards.”[29]
• “[W]hen the non-custodial parent has a low income, the average decreasein his or her income-to-needs ratio is further than the custodialparent.”[30]
• The authors analyze further the situation where both parents are in thelow income category. They find that prior to separation, the familycan manage – average household income is found to be 17% higher thanneeds as defined by the “low income measure” that we are now familiarwith from the household standards of living test. Afterseparation, however, “the loss of economies of scale at marriagebreakdown reduces standards of living for both households; on average,the custodial household has an income-to-needs ratio of 0.88, and thenon-custodial household is even worse off at 0.83.”[31]
• The study did reveal that where the non-custodial parent was in thehigh-income category, they did “enjoy very high standards of livingrelative to their ex-spouses and children”.[32]
Recall that the data was gathered in 1991. We are now nine yearslater and under the regime of the Guidelines across Canada. Childsupport awards are now higher relative to the non-custodial parent’sincome, there is no tax treatment to child support, and spousal supportawards tend to be higher and for longer periods of time. To whatextent, and especially in the case of low-income non-custodial parents,do we actually experience the “feminization of poverty” as decried byLenore Weitzman?
But popular myths do not die easily. One Canadian court acknowledged thatthe Weitzman work was flawed, but it still accepted heranalysis:[33]
"I am aware the Weitzman study has been criticized, and that furtherresearch has been done which supports the conclusion that the impact ofdivorce upon women is not statistically greater five years after divorcethan the impact on women of the general conditions of the work force.(Faludi, Susan: “Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women”,Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1991.) However, the Supreme Court of Canada inMoge (supra) did not rely solely on the Weitzman study to conclude thatdivorce support awards were impoverishing women and allowing men tobecome richer."
http://www.4famlaw.com/Genbpapr.htm
Gender Bias: Where are We?
By Gene C. Colman
This paper was presented by Gene C. Colman to the Federation of LawSocieties National Family Law Program 2000 held in St. John'sNewfoundland, July 2000.
---
Myth: Women suffer a 73% drop in their standard of living followingdivorce while men experience a 42% increase in theirs
One of the most pervasive myths of family law, here and in theU.S.A., has been perpetrated by sociologist, Lenore Weitzman. Shehas reported that women suffered a 73% drop in their standard of livingfollowing divorce while men experienced a 42% increase in theirs. [LenoreWeitzman: The Divorce Revolution, 1985] This study has been citedfavourably in a number of Canadian cases[16] in numerous Americancases as well as in President Clinton’s 1996 budget.[17] “Weitzman’s figures have been cited by policy-makers and others as hardevidence of what’s become known as the ‘feminization ofpoverty’”.[18]
Contra:
For years, like many others, this writer accepted the Weitzman studyas ‘truth’.[19] But then I started to think about my own twenty-oneyears’ experience as a family law lawyer. I tried to recall thosesituations where the man improved his economic position post separationand divorce while the woman’s economic situation declined. I could thinkof precious few cases that fit the Weitzman model. In fact, I couldthink of none. Virtually all the cases I have seen witness thestandards of living of both sides going down. For most of us, it isa struggle to maintain mortgage payments, debt payments and otherresponsibilities. When you add separation and divorce into the mix,the same money has to provide for two households rather than one. Both sides are often faced with significant legal bills, other additionaldebt, and increased stress that naturally affects work performance. Common sense tells us that everyone’s standard of living suffers. My own personal experiences certainly do not constitute scientificanalysis. However, there has been ample criticism of Weitzman inthe literature:
The problem was that Weitzman’s numbers were woefully inaccurate, aconclusion shared by independent researchers, feminist researchers, and,eventually even Weitzman herself. [20]
Two social scientists whose methodology Weitzman had used, attempted toduplicate Weitzman’s results using their own data. Those socialscientists found that “post-divorce women suffered a much smaller andtemporary decline in their standard of living of 30%. The two alsofound that divorced women’s standards of living actually rose within fiveyears to figure higher than that obtained while married to their formerhusbands.” The two had tried to obtain Weitzman’s raw data but she hadheld back on that for four years. When she did finally release herdata, the figures were “disorganized and unreviewable”. The U.S.Census Bureau acknowledged that the Weitzman percentages were in errorand eventually, Weitzman herself acknowledged that “her study waserroneous”. [21]
Susan Faludi[22] highlights many reasons to suspect Weitzman’s data andconclusions:
1. For at least six years, Weitzman avoided releasing her data.
2. The authors of the methodology used by Weitzman could not gain hercooperation for release of her data and they found that Weitzman’s ownpublished data was not consistent with her conclusions.
3. The U.S. Census Bureau in 1991 supported the conclusions of the abovetwo researchers, which therefore cast doubt upon Weitzman’sconclusions.
4. Weitzman’s sample size was a mere 114 divorced women and men and herresponse rate was very low.
5. The sample was restricted to Los Angeles County.
6. Weitzman’s sole data source was the memory of the womeninterviewed.
7. Weitzman had no comparable data on those divorced prior to theno-fault divorce laws of 1970.
8. A 1990 study by two law professors found that women and children wereslightly better off under the no-fault law.
Sanford Braver’s book, Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, demonstratesthat much of the research on the topic subsequent to Weitzman’s fails toconsider the U.S. Tax Code which, like our own, favours the singlecustodial parent. Like our own Child Support Guidelines, thisresearch also fails to consider the non-custodial father’s spending onthe children. After making these adjustments, Braver tells us thatthe economic effects of divorce are similar for both genders; mothersmight even have a slight advantage.[23]
Canadian Study with Empirical Data: The Federal Governmentcommissioned studies prior to the drafting and ultimate implementation ofthe Federal Child Support Guidelines. One such study is dated 1995and is entitled: “An Overview of the Research Program to develop aCanadian Child Support Formula”.[24] The researchers used empiricaldata gathered from fifteen court districts across Canada over athree-month period during 1991. They readily admitted the possiblefrailties of their data,[25] but ultimately concluded that the “empiricalanalysis based on this database to be original, useful andworthwhile”.[26] They divided the families into three subsections:low income – less than $15,000 annually; medium income - $15,001 to$30,000; high income – greater than $30,000.00.[27] There was arather startling result when one considers the conventional wisdom à laWeitzman et al: “In most cases, the standard of living of both partiesdeclined as a result of the separation.”[28] We are dealinghere with a sample of 869 cases. Other findings of note:
• “In general, when both parents were in a low income category ($15,000or less) and there was only one child, the custodial parent had a higherstandard of living after taxes. … If there were two children, the parentshad similar standards of living, and if there were three or morechildren, the non-custodial parent had the higher standard of livingafter taxes and payment of awards.”[29]
• “[W]hen the non-custodial parent has a low income, the average decreasein his or her income-to-needs ratio is further than the custodialparent.”[30]
• The authors analyze further the situation where both parents are in thelow income category. They find that prior to separation, the familycan manage – average household income is found to be 17% higher thanneeds as defined by the “low income measure” that we are now familiarwith from the household standards of living test. Afterseparation, however, “the loss of economies of scale at marriagebreakdown reduces standards of living for both households; on average,the custodial household has an income-to-needs ratio of 0.88, and thenon-custodial household is even worse off at 0.83.”[31]
• The study did reveal that where the non-custodial parent was in thehigh-income category, they did “enjoy very high standards of livingrelative to their ex-spouses and children”.[32]
Recall that the data was gathered in 1991. We are now nine yearslater and under the regime of the Guidelines across Canada. Childsupport awards are now higher relative to the non-custodial parent’sincome, there is no tax treatment to child support, and spousal supportawards tend to be higher and for longer periods of time. To whatextent, and especially in the case of low-income non-custodial parents,do we actually experience the “feminization of poverty” as decried byLenore Weitzman?
But popular myths do not die easily. One Canadian court acknowledged thatthe Weitzman work was flawed, but it still accepted heranalysis:[33]
"I am aware the Weitzman study has been criticized, and that furtherresearch has been done which supports the conclusion that the impact ofdivorce upon women is not statistically greater five years after divorcethan the impact on women of the general conditions of the work force.(Faludi, Susan: “Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women”,Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1991.) However, the Supreme Court of Canada inMoge (supra) did not rely solely on the Weitzman study to conclude thatdivorce support awards were impoverishing women and allowing men tobecome richer."
Faites vos commentaires sans vulgarite, SVP
