Joint Custody (was: Real Equality)
Ennead
I'm going to NY for Thanksgiving, so I won't be online for the
next week or so, starting Saturday.
Stephanie Smith, replying to my reply to her and so on, wrote:
: [snip -- a reasonable discussion without flames? I thought I
: was in alt.feminism!]
Oh, dear, this thread is in alt.feminism? I'm sorry - I'll try
to flame you more. Umn, you're mother is a bad person and, er,
you dress funny.
=) Anyway, I'm going to snip liberally and even put some of your
words out of order, not because I'm trying to alter what you said
but because I want to better organize my reply and to avoid
repetition. As you pointed out, some of what you ask me towards
the beginning of this post I answered later on.
: > OTOH, while there are some parents to whom JC will mean a
: > great deal, for better or worse (and by the nature of the
: > beast, these discussions tend to focus on those parents),
: > for most parents JC makes more symbolic difference than real
: > difference - or at least, that's what most of the evidence
: > I've read indicates. Despite the claims of father's rights
: > groups, *most* real-world JC: doesn't mean that fathers pay
: > less Child Support (as some claim) or more Child Support (as
: > some claim);
: If they share physical custody equally, CS shouldn't be an
: issue (unless one really couldn't make enough to support the
: child, which seems rare).
True, but even shared physical custody isn't always equal. What
about the case of a child who spends the school years with one
parent and the summers with another, for instance?
Even with equal-division Joint Physical Custody, it tends to be
the mothers who handle most of the tedious tasks - arranging
dental and orthodontic work,doctor's appointments and shots,
going shopping for clothes and school supplies, etc - and if the
parents can't get along, and if there's no legal obligation on
the father to pay for half of these things, the mother is liable
to end up covering the majority of the expenses despite her
probable lower income. (Of course, I'm talking about the average
parents - I don't deny that sometimes the father may end up doing
most of these things, and the mother may shirk her
responsibilities.)
: > it doesn't make fathers any more likely to spend time with
: > children, nor does it make fathers take on any greater share
: > of childrearing.
: Under the physical custody split model it would, though,
: wouldn't it? [...]
Yes, you're right.
: > And despite the claims of some feminist opponents, JC usually
: > doesn't lead to the custodial parent being any worse off than
: > the custodial parent in sole-custody cases.
: I do not understand how feminism -- which should stand for sex
: equality -- can oppose fathers getting custody. This is one of
: the areas where I think some feminism has been most
: hypocritical. (There are others.) [...]
I partly agree and partly disagree. I think that most feminists
have no problem with encouraging fathers to take on more
parenting, and mothers to take on less, pre-divorce.
There is an legitimate objection (which I disagree with, but I
can see the point) to legally treating parents who have =not=
been equal caretakers as if they =have= been. Wanting a reality
of shared parenting, and legally pretending that such a reality
is already here, are two different things.
Some feminists argue, and I strongly agree, that the time to
equalize parenting is =before= the divorce and in the larger
society, rather than concentrating all efforts on the tiny
percentage of families who have contested child custody cases.
Feminists are also right (imo) to point out that much (not all)
of the fathers' rights agenda has been to increase fathers'
rights (joint legal custody which is really mother-custody)
without increasing (or while decreasing) fathers'
responsibilities.
OTOH, so far it appears that Joint Custody, as it is practiced
(as opposed to the type you favor) hasn't made that much of a
difference. What Joint Legal Custody turns out to be, in most
cases, is no different in practice from sole mother custody.
There's no doubt in my mind that both sides have made too much of
a fuss about it, and some feminists have been hypocritical in the
way you say.
I favor doing everything possible to encourage =voluntary- joint
physical custody - as you argue, if Joint Physical Custody
becomes a societal expectation, more people will choose it.
Furthermore, there are far more parents who are able to
cooperatively agree (and thus don't need to sue each other over
child custody), so if we can convince substantial numbers of
these parents to choose Joint Physical Custody it'll have an
impact on a much larger number of families.
Unfortunately, the best changes would be larger societal changes
which encourage more two-parent families to share household
tasks, including childrearing - unfortunate because those matters
are far more complex and difficult to address than trying to
alter the divorce laws. In fact there has been some improvement
in this area, but such improvement has been slow to come, and our
economy isn't really set up to allow two parents to have a lot of
contact with their children.
: Average doesn't necessarily matter though. The parent could be
: paying more than enough to support the child and still lack
: rights. The point is that there is no required connection.
There should be no connection. If a parent has been reasonably
shown to physically or sexual abuse her children, for instance,
it's perfectly fair for her to have to pay Child Support while
having no visitation rights (or extremely restricted visitation
rights).
: He is still considered responsible and a parent (and probably
: wants to be in most cases), but has his rights taken away from
: him.
I'm still going back and forth on the "probably wants to be in
most cases" thing; do you have any empirical evidence to support
this? It's true that, according to Weitzman's survey, 57% of
fathers say that they'd like to have custody, at least in the
abstract (compared to 96% of mothers), but only 41% ever
mentioned this desire to their wife, 38% actually mentioned the
idea to their lawyer, and 13% ever actually requested custody in
the divorce petition. It seems to me that we may be talking more
about an abstract desire to be with the kids than a realistic
desire to raise children as a single parent.
: And also, the fact that the custodial parent has more
: responsibility does not make the situation fair. If it did, no
: one would have kids. While having a child is a lot of work, it
: is also considered rewarding by most, which is (one of the
: reasons) why people have kids. Part of the "payment" for
: raising the child is the enjoyment you get from it.
There are also substantial rewards for =not= being the one to
stay at home with the children. From an article in HARVARD LAW
REVIEW ("Dominant Discourse," HLR v101(4) 727-774.
In the process of generating family income, fathers are
simultaneously establishing themselves in their professions,
a benefit they retain throughout their careers. Although
this undeniably affords advantages to the entire family
during marriage, the sharing of the benefit generally
diminishes significantly at divorce, as evidenced by data
relative to fathers' post-divorce payment patterns.... By
contrast, mothers' sacrifices in providing daily care to
children yield no collateral advantages, except in terms of
the attachment that forms between mother and child.
I don't think matters are as one-sided as some people (both
feminists and fathers' rights advocates) have suggested. Both
roles have positives and negatives to be considered.
In another post (but also replying to me), you wrote:
: Only if you think of the responsibilities as only a bad thing.
: I would think that many people (and many fathers) would like to
: share that responsibility if it meant caring for the children.
: After all, what is more desirable for the average parent do
: you think -- control over decisions about the child or time
: with the child?
I think most parents want time with their children when the
children are being happy, on birthdays, on vacations, and when
the parent is in the mood for it.
I think that far fewer parents - especially those who have never
been the primary caretaker - want to be around an infant who has
a cold and is crying nonstop for four days; or around a child who
needs to be punished and is crying that she'll hate the parent
forever; or when the child whines on for three weeks without
stopping about how he =needs= to have this or that unaffordable
toy; or when the child is having a hysterical crying fit in a
grocery store; or when the child is sick and time off from work
needs to be arranged, although it means losing several days
income; or when raising the child means sacrificing most of your
social life; etcetera, etcetera.
You're right that many non-custodial parents wants more time with
the child, but it's not just ANY time they want; it's the good
times. Yes, raising children is incredibly rewarding, but it is
also frequently unpleasant, it is usually unrelenting and it is
hard work.
Two Canadian researchers who interviewed a wide variety of
fathers in fathers' rights groups ("The Fathers' Rights Movement"
in JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES v14(4) 1993 562-615), found that
"although some [non-custodial] fathers talked about the joys of
being with their children, not one father talked about wanting to
have the responsibility of the everyday care of his children."
They also found that the biggest topic at meetings was not
custody, but child support.
Back to your original post:
: [...] I've certainly known *lots*
: of women who end up using having a kid as an excuse to quit a
: stressful job. (Which harms those of us women still on the
: job, btw.) I realize this is a digression, but I'm interested
: in the subject. Unless you think that women just innately have
: a greater desire to be home with the kids (which I don't) I
I think that primary caretakers (of either sex) tend to develop
greater desires to be with their children. That currently most
primary caretakers are mothers is not due to anything
biologically innate in men or women, and is something that I want
to see changed.
: think the current system tends to be more unfair to men in many
: ways. [...]
...and more unfair to women in many other ways. It's a two-sided
coin; both sexes are hurt by our current set-up.
: [snip -- thanks for the cites, btw. you're far more well
: read on this subject than me]
Thanks, but I'm just beginning to research this. It may be I'll
change my opinion as I discover more facts - it's happened in the
past.
: [...] why is it fair for one parent to have "domination and
: control", especially if that parent was the one who basically
: determined that it would be that way ("I'm staying home --
: you'll have to make enough to support all of us", for example).
: The child is both of theirs.
I'm not convinced that "fair" solutions are a possibility, in
most bitterly contested child support cases. Sometimes all
possible outcomes are unfair.
Nor do I believe that many cases of the male being the primary
earner (which doesn't usually mean that the mother doesn't work,
btw) were unilateral decisions. Do you have a ref for empirical
evidence for that one?
: But I would say redefine Joint Custody, don't just decide that
: single is better. [...]
I agree. I would say that Joint Custody is =always= better if
the parents can mutually agree to do it, and that neither Joint
or Sole Custody should be given a preference otherwise.
[snip]
: It just seems (and YMMV) that the assumption is still so
: strongly that women care for the kids/sacrifice career for the
: kids/keep the kids after divorce, that people just do it
: without thinking. I'd like to shake that assumption up a bit.
Me too, but again, the place to do that is by trying to alter the
structure of childrearing pre-divorce, not in trying to do social
engineering with divorce laws. Even within divorce, I think that
trying to convince those parents who can get along to voluntarily
choose Joint Custody - through educational programs about the
benefits of Joint Custody, for instance - might be a more
effective strategy than trying to force more of the minority of
parents who need child custody suits into Joint Custody.
: > By "legally invisible," I mean the tendency of some judges
: > and arbitrators, in an attempt to be nonsexist, to ignore the
: > contribution of primary caretaking altogether if the primary
: > caretaker is female.
For instance, by assuming that if both parents worked full-time
then they are providing equal amounts of child care, when most of
the time this is far, far from the truth.
: How many really do this, though?
I don't know. Reliable statistics about child-custody
determinants are hard to come by (except that being a woman is an
undeniable advantage - although to what degree this reflects the
roles women take in marriage vs. how much of it is just pure
sexism, I don't know).
: Also, the woman has control over what she decided to do just
: as much as the man does. If non-sexism by the judge leads to
: this, fine with me, since I think it would encourage more
: equality of choice/role, as I said. [...]
The woman has relatively little choice in becoming the primary
caretaker, just as the man has relatively little choice in
becoming the primary earner. Social and economic factors often
constrain the freedom of choice in these situations.
Nonetheless, if there is a primary caretaker (usually the mother,
alas), then that person has probably done the most work for the
children, has probably formed the closer relationship with the
children, and probably will feel the loss most keenly if they
lose the children. That this was not entirely by free choice
doesn't make it less true. Ignoring who took care of the kid
=entirely= is as sexist against mothers as making that the =only=
factor would be sexist against fathers.
My "omnibus position on Joint Custody":
: > I'd have nothing against JC if 1) it were =true= JC, rather
: > than Joint one-parent-gets-physical-custody-and-most-of-
: > the-work Custody, 2) if evidence that parents are unable to
: > cooperate reasonably were considered reason to make an
: > exception to presumption of JC, 3) if opposition to JC on the
: > part of one parent cannot be taken as evidence that that
: > parent is "selfish" or less suitable, 4) if the law includes
: > a provision of reduction of parental rights in the case of
: > one parent persistently refusing to be available to the child
: > or participate in the work of raising the child [...]
: So you already answered my question at the beginning. :-) This
: actually sounds pretty good to me, with the one caveat being
: #2. I think this need to be defined rather strictly, so a
: parent can't be uncooperative just to get custody for
: him/herself. In this case, for example, there could be a way
: of dealing with it (dividing responsibilities based on who had
: custody at a particular time, perhaps) to limit the contact.
[...]
Well... I think that it's possible that just the fact of the
parents being hostile is an indication that Joint Physical
Custody may not be in the best interests of the child. One study
that's been cited a lot in favor of Joint Custody laws is
Wallerstein's and Kelly's five-year study which found that
children who maintain relationships with both parents adjusted
best after a divorce divorce.
But Wallerstein's study conclusions were for families where "the
conflict between the divorcing partners had subsided," not for
all divorced parents - which is the trouble with studies of
Joint Custody outcomes looking at families which =chose=
Joint Custody, who are likely to be more affluent, better
educated and more cooperative than the average divorcing parents.
In her later followup of the same sample group, Wallerstein found
that the most destructive post-divorce situation for children is
where the parents are extremely hostile to each other. If both
parents have custody of the child, the children can end up
caught in the middle, which is a terrible situation - but one
that's much more likely if courts force Joint Custody on
unwilling parent(s).
There's also the value of small children having a stable
environment, and going to a single school. It's one thing for my
friend Paul, whose parents divorced when he was 12 and
voluntarily chose Joint Custody. Luckily, Paul's parents had
similar incomes, making it possible for them both to live in the
same school district, in walking distance of each other, with
Paul having a bedroom in each home that he could wander to at
will. I think that outcome was, without a doubt, the best
possible set-up for all concerned in that situation.
It's quite another thing for small child to have to live equally
in two households in alternate weeks or months - small children
being shuttled from home to home report feeling disoriented and
unstable, and sometimes have trouble with their schoolwork and
social skills. (See "The experience of children in a joint-
custody arrangement," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOSPYCHIATRY v51
(3)) This is something that two cooperative parents will be able
to deal with, we might suppose - but two parents who had gone
through a nasty, hateful divorce, and have hurled accusations of
abuse at each other?
And how is Joint Physical Custody handled with two parents of
uneven incomes (the most common thing by far), who perhaps can't
live in the same town & school system? What happens when two
parents who can't agree that the ocean is wet need to decide what
kids their child is allowed to play with, or what school to send
their child to? What if one parent gets a great job offer - or a
great new marriage - in another state - should the other parent
be required to move, too?
All of these problems are reasonably solvable when parents get
along well - but I think that among parents who cannot get along,
these situations are liable to lead to harmful tugs-of-wars with
the child as the rope.
I think that it would be appropriate to wait until there's more
studies available of impact on children of nonvoluntary Joint
Custody and Joint Physical Custody before we rush into making it
a presumption of law. It seems to me that many JC advocates
aren't as cautious as I'd like to be. In the meantime, I think
California's recent changes - which say that neither Joint
Custody =or= Sole Custody is presumed to be better than the other
- is the way to go.
Yours,
--Ampersand
GJP
Ennead, where do you get your numbers from. If a father doesn't have
his children he cannot do this very easily. Or is it that dad should be
the errand runner for mom????
>
> : > it doesn't make fathers any more likely to spend time with
> : > children, nor does it make fathers take on any greater share
> : > of childrearing.
>
> : Under the physical custody split model it would, though,
> : wouldn't it? [...]
>
> Yes, you're right.
>
> : > And despite the claims of some feminist opponents, JC usually
> : > doesn't lead to the custodial parent being any worse off than
> : > the custodial parent in sole-custody cases.
>
> : I do not understand how feminism -- which should stand for sex
> : equality -- can oppose fathers getting custody. This is one of
> : the areas where I think some feminism has been most
> : hypocritical. (There are others.) [...]
>
> I partly agree and partly disagree. I think that most feminists
> have no problem with encouraging fathers to take on more
> parenting, and mothers to take on less, pre-divorce.
Again, where do you get your numbers from.....the 1950s. Maybe it is
only the people I know who happen to be in science and/or academics but
I have witnessed most of the fathers being very involved in raising
their children.
>
> There is an legitimate objection (which I disagree with, but I
> can see the point) to legally treating parents who have =not=
> been equal caretakers as if they =have= been. Wanting a reality
> of shared parenting, and legally pretending that such a reality
> is already here, are two different things.
>
> Some feminists argue, and I strongly agree, that the time to
> equalize parenting is =before= the divorce and in the larger
> society, rather than concentrating all efforts on the tiny
> percentage of families who have contested child custody cases.
It all comes down to the expectations of those invovled during
marriage. All bets are off after divorce because now there is no shared
responsibilities when you have the children.
>
> Feminists are also right (imo) to point out that much (not all)
> of the fathers' rights agenda has been to increase fathers'
> rights (joint legal custody which is really mother-custody)
> without increasing (or while decreasing) fathers'
> responsibilities.
Says who. The problem is fathers do not get sole physical custody 50%
of the time. Any father will tell you that joint legal custody is
worthless when it comes to having a say in their children's lives. This
a term that the courts like because it confuses the issue. This is no
different than joint physical custody that in practice is often sole
maternal custody.
>
> OTOH, so far it appears that Joint Custody, as it is practiced
> (as opposed to the type you favor) hasn't made that much of a
> difference. What Joint Legal Custody turns out to be, in most
> cases, is no different in practice from sole mother custody.
> There's no doubt in my mind that both sides have made too much of
> a fuss about it, and some feminists have been hypocritical in the
> way you say.
Agreed.
>
> I favor doing everything possible to encourage =voluntary- joint
> physical custody - as you argue, if Joint Physical Custody
> becomes a societal expectation, more people will choose it.
It had better become the issue. 37% of kids today have no father in
their life and 50% will go without a father at some time as they go
through childhood. We already know the outcomes of removing fathers
from families and children and in another generation or two we won't
have a society IMO.
> Furthermore, there are far more parents who are able to
> cooperatively agree (and thus don't need to sue each other over
> child custody), so if we can convince substantial numbers of
> these parents to choose Joint Physical Custody it'll have an
> impact on a much larger number of families.
This is true. The issue is money so this will not happen. Money for
mom and money for the divorce industry, states, federal government, more
government jobs, etc. is why.
>
> Unfortunately, the best changes would be larger societal changes
> which encourage more two-parent families to share household
> tasks, including childrearing - unfortunate because those matters
> are far more complex and difficult to address than trying to
> alter the divorce laws. In fact there has been some improvement
> in this area, but such improvement has been slow to come, and our
> economy isn't really set up to allow two parents to have a lot of
> contact with their children.
This is true which makes sole maternal custody even more foolish when
both parents work.
>
> : Average doesn't necessarily matter though. The parent could be
> : paying more than enough to support the child and still lack
> : rights. The point is that there is no required connection.
>
> There should be no connection. If a parent has been reasonably
> shown to physically or sexual abuse her children, for instance,
> it's perfectly fair for her to have to pay Child Support while
> having no visitation rights (or extremely restricted visitation
> rights).
Yep, mom should be able to determine who the kids interact with. And we
all know moms aren't controlling or vindictive or petty.
Righttttt.......
>
> : He is still considered responsible and a parent (and probably
> : wants to be in most cases), but has his rights taken away from
> : him.
>
> I'm still going back and forth on the "probably wants to be in
> most cases" thing; do you have any empirical evidence to support
> this? It's true that, according to Weitzman's survey, 57% of
> fathers say that they'd like to have custody, at least in the
> abstract (compared to 96% of mothers), but only 41% ever
> mentioned this desire to their wife, 38% actually mentioned the
> idea to their lawyer, and 13% ever actually requested custody in
> the divorce petition.
Ahh, the famous Lenore Weitzman???? Wasn't she the one that lied, hid
data, and publishes bogus and biased studies??????? Ahh, yes...the
feminist L. Weitzman.
It seems to me that we may be talking more
> about an abstract desire to be with the kids than a realistic
> desire to raise children as a single parent.
The amazing thing is that either parent can do it. You are not
genetically programmed to do it, but must learn either from your own
parents as you grew up, or on your own.
>
> : And also, the fact that the custodial parent has more
> : responsibility does not make the situation fair. If it did, no
> : one would have kids. While having a child is a lot of work, it
> : is also considered rewarding by most, which is (one of the
> : reasons) why people have kids. Part of the "payment" for
> : raising the child is the enjoyment you get from it.
>
> There are also substantial rewards for =not= being the one to
> stay at home with the children. From an article in HARVARD LAW
> REVIEW ("Dominant Discourse," HLR v101(4) 727-774.
>
> In the process of generating family income, fathers are
> simultaneously establishing themselves in their professions,
> a benefit they retain throughout their careers. Although
> this undeniably affords advantages to the entire family
> during marriage, the sharing of the benefit generally
> diminishes significantly at divorce, as evidenced by data
> relative to fathers' post-divorce payment patterns.... By
> contrast, mothers' sacrifices in providing daily care to
> children yield no collateral advantages, except in terms of
> the attachment that forms between mother and child.
If this is not a loaded biased statement!!!!! Must have been the 1940s
and 1950s when moms stayed home after the war to raise children.
>
> I don't think matters are as one-sided as some people (both
> feminists and fathers' rights advocates) have suggested. Both
> roles have positives and negatives to be considered.
>
> In another post (but also replying to me), you wrote:
>
> : Only if you think of the responsibilities as only a bad thing.
> : I would think that many people (and many fathers) would like to
> : share that responsibility if it meant caring for the children.
> : After all, what is more desirable for the average parent do
> : you think -- control over decisions about the child or time
> : with the child?
>
> I think most parents want time with their children when the
> children are being happy, on birthdays, on vacations, and when
> the parent is in the mood for it.
I don't know about your kids, but mine were happy most of the time. If
they were up too late, crabiness at bedtime doesn't count.
>
> I think that far fewer parents - especially those who have never
> been the primary caretaker - want to be around an infant who has
> a cold and is crying nonstop for four days; or around a child who
> needs to be punished and is crying that she'll hate the parent
> forever; or when the child whines on for three weeks without
> stopping about how he =needs= to have this or that unaffordable
> toy; or when the child is having a hysterical crying fit in a
> grocery store; or when the child is sick and time off from work
> needs to be arranged, although it means losing several days
> income; or when raising the child means sacrificing most of your
> social life; etcetera, etcetera.
More biased stuff. Sacrificing a social life is a consequence of
children.....there are restrictions. Do you have children???? Are you
young?????
>
> You're right that many non-custodial parents wants more time with
> the child, but it's not just ANY time they want; it's the good
> times. Yes, raising children is incredibly rewarding, but it is
> also frequently unpleasant, it is usually unrelenting and it is
> hard work.
Again very biased stuff.
>
> Two Canadian researchers who interviewed a wide variety of
> fathers in fathers' rights groups ("The Fathers' Rights Movement"
> in JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES v14(4) 1993 562-615), found that
> "although some [non-custodial] fathers talked about the joys of
> being with their children, not one father talked about wanting to
> have the responsibility of the everyday care of his children."
> They also found that the biggest topic at meetings was not
> custody, but child support.
Maybe because if they can't afford a car because there CS is so high
they can't afford to see their children or house them. Get real.
>
> Back to your original post:
>
> : [...] I've certainly known *lots*
> : of women who end up using having a kid as an excuse to quit a
> : stressful job. (Which harms those of us women still on the
> : job, btw.) I realize this is a digression, but I'm interested
> : in the subject. Unless you think that women just innately have
> : a greater desire to be home with the kids (which I don't) I
>
> I think that primary caretakers (of either sex) tend to develop
> greater desires to be with their children. That currently most
> primary caretakers are mothers is not due to anything
> biologically innate in men or women, and is something that I want
> to see changed.
Why don't you define primary caretaker in your opinion since you seem to
define it solely as a womans role.
>
> : think the current system tends to be more unfair to men in many
> : ways. [...]
>
> ...and more unfair to women in many other ways. It's a two-sided
> coin; both sexes are hurt by our current set-up.
You are wrong.....children are hurt by the present situation.
>
> : [snip -- thanks for the cites, btw. you're far more well
> : read on this subject than me]
>
> Thanks, but I'm just beginning to research this. It may be I'll
> change my opinion as I discover more facts - it's happened in the
> past.
>
> : [...] why is it fair for one parent to have "domination and
> : control", especially if that parent was the one who basically
> : determined that it would be that way ("I'm staying home --
> : you'll have to make enough to support all of us", for example).
> : The child is both of theirs.
>
> I'm not convinced that "fair" solutions are a possibility, in
> most bitterly contested child support cases. Sometimes all
> possible outcomes are unfair.
Kids loose again.
>
> Nor do I believe that many cases of the male being the primary
> earner (which doesn't usually mean that the mother doesn't work,
> btw) were unilateral decisions. Do you have a ref for empirical
> evidence for that one?
You who......this is the 1990's.
>
> : But I would say redefine Joint Custody, don't just decide that
> : single is better. [...]
>
> I agree. I would say that Joint Custody is =always= better if
> the parents can mutually agree to do it, and that neither Joint
> or Sole Custody should be given a preference otherwise.
What if a parent won't agree because of money involved??????
snipped
More biased stuff deleted. Do you even have children????
Greg Palumbo
> Yours,
> --Ampersand
Eric Conrad
In article <329B05...@uokhsc.edu>, GJP <gregory...@uokhsc.edu> wrote:
>Ennead wrote:
>> I'm still going back and forth on the "probably wants to be in
>> most cases" thing; do you have any empirical evidence to support
>> this? It's true that, according to Weitzman's survey, 57% of
>> fathers say that they'd like to have custody, at least in the
>> abstract (compared to 96% of mothers), but only 41% ever
>> mentioned this desire to their wife, 38% actually mentioned the
>> idea to their lawyer, and 13% ever actually requested custody in
>> the divorce petition.
>Ahh, the famous Lenore Weitzman???? Wasn't she the one that lied, hid
>data, and publishes bogus and biased studies??????? Ahh, yes...the
>feminist L. Weitzman.
None of that will stop feminists from quoting her.
Eric
--
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu)
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/
Department of Mathematics
The Ohio State University
Lenny Schafer
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) says:
: >Ahh, the famous Lenore Weitzman???? Wasn't she the one that lied, hid
: >data, and publishes bogus and biased studies??????? Ahh, yes...the
: >feminist L. Weitzman.
: None of that will stop feminists from quoting her.
Joint custody is what exists pre-divorce, and should then be the
presumption going into divorce.
Feminists are notorious for doing all sorts of contortions to justify
opting out of "equality" when it is percieve by them to not favor women --
(loss of special privileges) as is the case with joint custody.
Unless the children are in some immediate danger of being harmed, the
state does not have the right or the compelling reason to remove
either parent from their custodial relationship with their children.
Having your kids removed from you without criminal cause by the state is
a gross violation of human rights, IMO.
What we are left with is a system of parental aparthied, where the
second-class parent/citizen is by forced-labor, and without any criminal
behavior on his part, to pay an assessed tax for children removed from
him without his consent and no say on how his taxes are spent in the name of
what was formerly his children, too. If he refuses to pay, or cannot
pay his taxes, he goes to debtors prison.
Feminists are quick to say that the issue is the child support and only
secondarily the kids. And of course, the mothers have no such agenda,
according to the feminists. It's about both, and neither sex can claim
morally superior intentions, the major myth which underlies the
justification for putting fathers into indentured servitude, in the first
place: women are better people, make better parents. Again goes to the
matter of feminist style "equality" and how to justify worming out of it.
Other issues:
1. Exactly how "primary care" parenting is defined and who defined it?
Since custody is based on this concept, it needs to be examined and
reviewed. The assumption is that the more bonded parent makes the
better custodial parent. Why?
2. The feminist solution is to get men more invloved in child caring
during the marriage (so both career can go on the mommie track?)
Why is having a career not considered caring for children, if both
parents agree to divisions of labor giving one parent more hands-on?
3. Why do feminists expect men "to get more involved" when clearly
single women do not select men based on their nuturing skills, but rather
his ability to provide security i.e. money, has a job, is a good lover, etc.
Despite 30 years of feminist social re-engineering, what turns women on
is not Mr. Right's ability to perform breast feeding-like duties.
Do feminist expect then men to change into being more wife-like AFTER
marriage? Turn your man into Phil Donahue? Feminists seem to have
another chance at raising unreal expectations for women dumb enough to
listen. And as usual, will only succeed at raising the divorce rates.
Men who do want to be more involved with their children day to day,
should be encouraged. But that's a small minority and should have little
bearing on custody upon divorce, IMO. Feeding your kids and providing
shelter should not be grounds for having them take away from you upon
divorce.
Love, lenny
--
"People are more violently opposed to fur than leather, because
it's safer to pick on rich women than biker gangs."
Richard Bennett
rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
> A final word: remember that Weitzman's data are 18-19 years old,
>and are based on a Los Angeles sample. It's possible that more fathers
>today would be seriously interested in custody ... then again, we
>won't know until we find some recent (national) data.
>R. Peterson
Judith Wallerstein reported to the California State Assembly this year
that one third of divorcing couples in this state litigate over
custody. She didn't say what percentage of them are litigating over
who's the custodial parent, as opposed to fighting over timeshares,
but that's what she said.
Maccoby and Mnookin, in "Dividing the Child" also report on rates of
litigation and who wants custody, and the Bar Associations have
reported from time to time that 8-12 percent of divorce cases
nationwide involve custody litigation.
I would expect Californians to be more litigious than others, because
of the perverse nature of our child support formula. It goes after an
unreasonably high percentage of the NCP's income, and then allows him
to get some of it back by increasing his timeshare. This "timeshare
fight" is behind a lot of the litigation.
One solution to this mess is to increase alimony levels, which are not
dependent on timeshare, and decrease the amounts driven by the
perverse formula to actual costs of food, clothing, incidentals, and
optional expenses. The femmeroids are against this, as it calls a
spade a spade and makes them responsible for the tax consequences of
the alimony they currently receive tax-free when it's disguised as
child support. The fathers are also against it, because any change in
the law invariably works to their disadvantage, as did the child
support increases of 1989, 1991, and 1992.
It is interesting that femmeroids in California argue against alimony
reform using 1978 statistics. But not surprising.
RB
--
Richard Bennett Cupertino, CA
http://www.bennett.com Copyright (c) 1996, Richard Bennett
Richard R. Peterson
In <57hu91$s...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu> eco...@math.ohio-state.edu
(Eric Conrad) writes:
>
>In article <329B05...@uokhsc.edu>, GJP
<gregory...@uokhsc.edu> wrote:
>>Ennead wrote:
>>> most cases" thing; do you have any empirical evidence to support
>>> this? It's true that, according to Weitzman's survey, 57% of
>>> fathers say that they'd like to have custody, at least in the
>>> abstract (compared to 96% of mothers), but only 41% ever
>>> mentioned this desire to their wife, 38% actually mentioned the
>>> idea to their lawyer, and 13% ever actually requested custody in
>>> the divorce petition.
>
>>Ahh, the famous Lenore Weitzman???? Wasn't she the one that lied,
hid>>data, and publishes bogus and biased studies??????? Ahh,
yes...the >>feminist L. Weitzman.
>
>
>--
>Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu)
>http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/
>Department of Mathematics
>The Ohio State University
I see that the Weitzman controversy lives on. I have a couple of
comments. First of all, let me say that I am the person who published
the research showing that her much cited numbers (73% decline in
standard of living for women, 42% rise for men) were wrong. The "real"
numbers from her study are 27% decline for women, and a 10% rise for
men, on average. So her numbers do show a gender gap (as does every
other RELIABLE study I know of). (See article in American Sociological
Review, June 1996 Vol 61, pp. 528-540.) Second, some have argued
whether Weitzman is a feminist--see Susan Faludi's Backlash, for
example.
Now, on to the statistics in question about fathers wanting custody.
After reading this post, I decided to run the data. Before reporting
results, let me note the caveats: 1) this is a QUICK AND DIRTY
analysis, and subject to error--I have not had time to check this
carefully, 2) the data are from a potentially flawed part of the
computer file--I have not checked the answers to these questions
against the paper records of the interviews, as I did for my analysis
in American Sociological Review. Having said that, here's what I get
when analyzing data for the men in Weitzman's sample: 65% of those who
had children reported wanting custody, 45% mentioned this to their
wives, 42% mentioned this to their attorney, and 21% fought for custody
in court. These numbers are actually not that far from what Weitzman
reported in the book.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <57hu91$s...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu> eco...@math.ohio-state.edu
(Eric Conrad) writes:
>
>In article <329B05...@uokhsc.edu>, GJP
<gregory...@uokhsc.edu> wrote:
>>Ennead wrote:
>>> most cases" thing; do you have any empirical evidence to support
>>> this? It's true that, according to Weitzman's survey, 57% of
>>> fathers say that they'd like to have custody, at least in the
>>> abstract (compared to 96% of mothers), but only 41% ever
>>> mentioned this desire to their wife, 38% actually mentioned the
>>> idea to their lawyer, and 13% ever actually requested custody in
>>> the divorce petition.
>
>>Ahh, the famous Lenore Weitzman???? Wasn't she the one that lied,
hid>data, and publishes bogus and biased studies??????? Ahh, yes...the
>>feminist L. Weitzman.
>
-----
Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
some who has lied or distorted a fact? Interesting, since that
would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't there
a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the bible who
even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting material from
folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left to quote :]
But, of course, I understand why some men would like to hold
women to a "higher" standard.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <329da466....@nntp.best.com> Ric...@Bennett.com (Richard
Bennett) writes:
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
>> some who has lied or distorted a fact?
>
>
>RB
-----
Ok, time to toss out the Bible. :]
Lefty
Richard Bennett
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>In <329da466....@nntp.best.com> Ric...@Bennett.com (Richard
>Bennett) writes:
>>
>>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>>
>>> Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
>>> some who has lied or distorted a fact?
>>
>>Yes.
> Ok, time to toss out the Bible. :]
So now we're comparing Lenore Weitzman to God? I know the
sociological ass'n gave her a "distinguished scholar" award for lying,
but somehow the comparison seems a bit of a stretch, even for a
bonobo.
RB
Eric Conrad
In article <57k3nf$r...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <57hu91$s...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu> eco...@math.ohio-state.edu
>(Eric Conrad) writes:
>>
>>In article <329B05...@uokhsc.edu>, GJP
><gregory...@uokhsc.edu> wrote:
>>>Ennead wrote:
>>>> most cases" thing; do you have any empirical evidence to support
>>>> this? It's true that, according to Weitzman's survey, 57% of
>>>> fathers say that they'd like to have custody, at least in the
>>>> abstract (compared to 96% of mothers), but only 41% ever
>>>> mentioned this desire to their wife, 38% actually mentioned the
>>>> idea to their lawyer, and 13% ever actually requested custody in
>>>> the divorce petition.
>>
>>>Ahh, the famous Lenore Weitzman???? Wasn't she the one that lied,
>hid>data, and publishes bogus and biased studies??????? Ahh, yes...the
>>>feminist L. Weitzman.
>>
>
> -----
Leftylu, your powers of illogic never cease to amaze me.
Richard Bennett
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
> some who has lied or distorted a fact?
Yes.
Richard R. Peterson
In <57k3nf$r...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) writes:
>
>In <57hu91$s...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>
eco...@math.ohio-state.edu
>(Eric Conrad) writes:
>>
>>In article <329B05...@uokhsc.edu>, GJP
><gregory...@uokhsc.edu> wrote:
>>>Ennead wrote:
>>>> most cases" thing; do you have any empirical evidence to support
>>>> this? It's true that, according to Weitzman's survey, 57% of
>>>> fathers say that they'd like to have custody, at least in the
>>>> abstract (compared to 96% of mothers), but only 41% ever
>>>> mentioned this desire to their wife, 38% actually mentioned the
>>>> idea to their lawyer, and 13% ever actually requested custody in
>>>> the divorce petition.
>>
>>>Ahh, the famous Lenore Weitzman???? Wasn't she the one that lied,
>hid>data, and publishes bogus and biased studies??????? Ahh,
yes...the
>>>feminist L. Weitzman.
>>
>
> -----
> would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't there
> a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the bible who
> even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting material from
> folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left to quote :]
> But, of course, I understand why some men would like to hold
> women to a "higher" standard.
>
> Lefty
I find it odd that people on different sides of this issue assume
that Weitzman lied. I spent a lot of time investigating the error she
made, and I have concluded that she made an error in calculating her
statistics. She believed the numbers she published were accurate.
That's not lying, nor is it distorting the facts (at least not as she
knew them).
Having said that, I do believe that citing data from Weitzman's book
is potentially risky until the numbers she published are independently
verified. It was for that reason that I re-ran the analyses on fathers
wanting custody and posted the "quick and dirty" results--these results
are similar (but not identical) to those she published.
Richard R. Peterson
Richard Bennett
rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
> I find it odd that people on different sides of this issue assume
>that Weitzman lied. I spent a lot of time investigating the error she
>made, and I have concluded that she made an error in calculating her
>statistics. She believed the numbers she published were accurate.
>That's not lying, nor is it distorting the facts (at least not as she
>knew them).
Really? I would agree with you if any of the following conditions
held:
1. She was close.
2. She drew conclusions which were reasonably close to those found by
other researchers.
3. She double-checked her work, at least once, in the ten years
following publication.
4. She delivered her data to other researchers in a timely fashion.
Since none is, she lied, deliberately and willfully. To take the
position you're taking - "poor little innumerate thing, she just
couldn't do all that hard arithmetic" - is to call into question her
status as a "distinguished scholar" and is condescending.
> Having said that, I do believe that citing data from Weitzman's book
>is potentially risky until the numbers she published are independently
>verified. It was for that reason that I re-ran the analyses on fathers
>wanting custody and posted the "quick and dirty" results--these results
>are similar (but not identical) to those she published.
> Richard R. Peterson
Who really cares any more about the findings in a poorly done, twenty
year old study? Weitzman is a fraud, her findings are meaningless,
and anyone who references her is a charlatan.
Simple as that.
GJP
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <57hu91$s...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu> eco...@math.ohio-state.edu
> (Eric Conrad) writes:
> >
> >In article <329B05...@uokhsc.edu>, GJP
> <gregory...@uokhsc.edu> wrote:
> >>Ennead wrote:
> >>> most cases" thing; do you have any empirical evidence to support
> >>> this? It's true that, according to Weitzman's survey, 57% of
> >>> fathers say that they'd like to have custody, at least in the
> >>> abstract (compared to 96% of mothers), but only 41% ever
> >>> mentioned this desire to their wife, 38% actually mentioned the
> >>> idea to their lawyer, and 13% ever actually requested custody in
> >>> the divorce petition.
> >
> >>Ahh, the famous Lenore Weitzman???? Wasn't she the one that lied,
> hid>data, and publishes bogus and biased studies??????? Ahh, yes...the
> >>feminist L. Weitzman.
> >
>
> -----
> Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
> some who has lied or distorted a fact? Interesting, since that
> would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't there
> a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the bible who
> even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting material from
> folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left to quote :]
> But, of course, I understand why some men would like to hold
> women to a "higher" standard.
>
> Lefty
>
Lefty, your response is no surprise nor your arguement.
Greg Palumbo
GJP
Richard R. Peterson wrote:
>
> In <57k3nf$r...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
> Hemingway) writes:
> >
> eco...@math.ohio-state.edu
> >(Eric Conrad) writes:
> >>
> >>In article <329B05...@uokhsc.edu>, GJP
> ><gregory...@uokhsc.edu> wrote:
> >>>Ennead wrote:
> >>>> most cases" thing; do you have any empirical evidence to support
> >>>> this? It's true that, according to Weitzman's survey, 57% of
> >>>> fathers say that they'd like to have custody, at least in the
> >>>> abstract (compared to 96% of mothers), but only 41% ever
> >>>> mentioned this desire to their wife, 38% actually mentioned the
> >>>> idea to their lawyer, and 13% ever actually requested custody in
> >>>> the divorce petition.
> >>
> >>>Ahh, the famous Lenore Weitzman???? Wasn't she the one that lied,
> >hid>data, and publishes bogus and biased studies??????? Ahh,
> yes...the
> >>>feminist L. Weitzman.
> >>
> >
> > -----
> > Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
> > some who has lied or distorted a fact? Interesting, since that
> > would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't there
> > a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the bible who
> > even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting material from
> > folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left to quote :]
> > But, of course, I understand why some men would like to hold
> > women to a "higher" standard.
> >
> > Lefty
>
> that Weitzman lied. I spent a lot of time investigating the error she
> made, and I have concluded that she made an error in calculating her
> statistics. She believed the numbers she published were accurate.
> That's not lying, nor is it distorting the facts (at least not as she
> knew them).
> is potentially risky until the numbers she published are independently
> verified. It was for that reason that I re-ran the analyses on fathers
> wanting custody and posted the "quick and dirty" results--these results
> are similar (but not identical) to those she published.
> Richard R. Peterson
I thank you for running the numbers on fathers who wanted custody twenty
years ago....It gives us a historical perspective during a time when the
laws were based on the Tender Years Doctrine in many States.
I am also sure the number of fathers who want custody today would be
greater than 20 years ago.
As to the other issue of Weitzman making a mistake being a valid
excuse.......bullshit!!!!!!! I am in academics and my laboratory
performs medical research, collects data, and performs statisticcal
analyses. I also review scientific papers and reviews prior to their
publication. I have been in the field of medical research for 20
years. Scientists will publish observations and "preliminary data" that
may later be proved or disproved. Publishing data and writing a wishful
and thoughtful discussion of the data is not fraud....even if the
results turn out to be an exception and not the rule. Had Lenore
Weitzman published the true data and statistics at the time and
wishfully said at ammeting or in her paper that (and a reviewer of the
work let the notion be published without data) 'I think the situation
for mothers and children is far worse than my limited survey suggests.'
, she would have been truthful and giving her opinion. This is niether
fraud or scientific misconduct.....just an opinion. She then could have
tried to collect data that proved or disproved her hypothesis.
What this woman did are fraud and scientific misconduct. She
deliberately cooked the numbers to mislead and to further her own glory.
This is no simple error. What she did is no different than fabricating
data and presenting it as real...which she may have done. The only
major differnce being she had some numbers and chose not to use them.
The fact that the trends went the same way that your re-analysis of her
numbers showed is inconsequential. Any moron who understands that income
is divided into shares/individual in the family would understand this.
Of course assuming that the costs associated with raising a family
remain the same for each child, no matter the number of children is
ridiculous in the first place.
Greg Palumbo
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <57leto$7...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard
R. Peterson) writes:
>
>In <57k3nf$r...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>Hemingway) writes:
>>
>>In <57hu91$s...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>
>eco...@math.ohio-state.edu
>>(Eric Conrad) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <329B05...@uokhsc.edu>, GJP
>><gregory...@uokhsc.edu> wrote:
>>>>Ennead wrote:
>>>>> most cases" thing; do you have any empirical evidence to support
>>>>> this? It's true that, according to Weitzman's survey, 57% of
>>>>> fathers say that they'd like to have custody, at least in the
>>>>> abstract (compared to 96% of mothers), but only 41% ever
>>>>> mentioned this desire to their wife, 38% actually mentioned the
>>>>> idea to their lawyer, and 13% ever actually requested custody in
>>>>> the divorce petition.
>>>
>>>>Ahh, the famous Lenore Weitzman???? Wasn't she the one that lied,
>>hid>data, and publishes bogus and biased studies??????? Ahh,
>yes...the
>>>>feminist L. Weitzman.
>>>
>>
>> -----
>> Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
>> some who has lied or distorted a fact? Interesting, since that
>> would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't there
>> a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the bible who
>> even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting material from
>> folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left to quote :]
>> But, of course, I understand why some men would like to hold
>> women to a "higher" standard.
>>
>> Lefty
>
> I find it odd that people on different sides of this issue assume
>that Weitzman lied. I spent a lot of time investigating the error she
>made, and I have concluded that she made an error in calculating her
>statistics. She believed the numbers she published were accurate.
>That's not lying, nor is it distorting the facts (at least not as she
>knew them). Having said that, I do believe that citing data from
Weitzman's book>is potentially risky until the numbers she published
are independently>verified. It was for that reason that I re-ran the
analyses on fathers>wanting custody and posted the "quick and dirty"
results--these results>are similar (but not identical) to those she
published.
> Richard R. Peterson
-----
Mr. Perterson; I have no idea whether she "lied", published faulty
stats, or published reliable stats that were criticized as being
faulty. My comment was directed at the statement that we should
only quoted people who have NEVER published any untruth. When you
are someone who does research OR someone who has a theory to sup-
port, telling the truth 100% of the time (from stats based on the
collection of details from others) is nigh onto impossible. All
stats really do is to give us some idea of trending. It's not as
reliable as the actual facts that can be shown or proven up, but
it's probably the best we have, anyway. I would have a hard time
believing that Ms. Weitzman LIED. Her facts may have been faulty
to one degree or another, but my point was really more about the
expectations placed on women. I simply don't see why folks expect
women to somehow have more veracity, or even more credibility than
men. Touting the statement that "feminists lie" is like touting
the statement that "humans lie"....the response then becomes, "so
what?"
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <329e9a43....@nntp.best.com> Ric...@Bennett.com (Richard
Bennett) writes:
>rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
>
>> I find it odd that people on different sides of this issue assume
>>that Weitzman lied. I spent a lot of time investigating the error
she
>>made, and I have concluded that she made an error in calculating her
>>statistics. She believed the numbers she published were accurate.
>>That's not lying, nor is it distorting the facts (at least not as she
>>knew them).
>
>held:
>
>1. She was close.
>2. She drew conclusions which were reasonably close to those found by
>other researchers.
>3. She double-checked her work, at least once, in the ten years
>following publication.
>4. She delivered her data to other researchers in a timely fashion.
>
>Since none is, she lied, deliberately and willfully. To take the
>position you're taking - "poor little innumerate thing, she just
>couldn't do all that hard arithmetic" - is to call into question her
>status as a "distinguished scholar" and is condescending.
>
book>>is potentially risky until the numbers she published are
independently>verified. It was for that reason that I re-ran the
analyses on fathers>wanting custody and posted the "quick and dirty"
results--these results>>are similar (but not identical) to those she
published.
>> Richard R. Peterson
>
>Who really cares any more about the findings in a poorly done, twenty
>year old study? Weitzman is a fraud, her findings are meaningless,
>and anyone who references her is a charlatan.
>
>Simple as that.
-----
Well, if we are willing to dismiss (out of hand) the thesis of
folks whose work is dated, and include some meaningless or fraud-
ulent statistics, then perhaps it's time to toss the bible; after
all, it would be difficult to show that the world could have been
created in so short a time. :] Oh, I forgot; that was fiction,
wasn't it? .....and I'm sure there are no studies where male
scientists distorted stats....like that genome study where one
of the (male) scientists set the study back by recording innacurate
stats. When a man lies, it's business as usual, when a woman
reports an innacurate stat....it's noteworthy.
Lefty
GJP
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <57leto$7...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard
> R. Peterson) writes:
> >
> >In <57k3nf$r...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
> >Hemingway) writes:
> >>
> >>In <57hu91$s...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>
> >eco...@math.ohio-state.edu
> >>(Eric Conrad) writes:
> >>>
> >>>In article <329B05...@uokhsc.edu>, GJP
> >><gregory...@uokhsc.edu> wrote:
> >>>>Ennead wrote:
> >>>>> most cases" thing; do you have any empirical evidence to support
> >>>>> this? It's true that, according to Weitzman's survey, 57% of
> >>>>> fathers say that they'd like to have custody, at least in the
> >>>>> abstract (compared to 96% of mothers), but only 41% ever
> >>>>> mentioned this desire to their wife, 38% actually mentioned the
> >>>>> idea to their lawyer, and 13% ever actually requested custody in
> >>>>> the divorce petition.
> >>>
> >>>>Ahh, the famous Lenore Weitzman???? Wasn't she the one that lied,
> >>hid>data, and publishes bogus and biased studies??????? Ahh,
> >yes...the
> >>>>feminist L. Weitzman.
> >>>
> >>
> >> -----
> >> Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
> >> some who has lied or distorted a fact? Interesting, since that
> >> would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't there
> >> a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the bible who
> >> even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting material from
> >> folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left to quote :]
> >> But, of course, I understand why some men would like to hold
> >> women to a "higher" standard.
> >>
> >> Lefty
> >
> >that Weitzman lied. I spent a lot of time investigating the error she
> >made, and I have concluded that she made an error in calculating her
> >statistics. She believed the numbers she published were accurate.
> >That's not lying, nor is it distorting the facts (at least not as she
> Weitzman's book>is potentially risky until the numbers she published
> are independently>verified. It was for that reason that I re-ran the
> analyses on fathers>wanting custody and posted the "quick and dirty"
> results--these results>are similar (but not identical) to those she
> published.
> > Richard R. Peterson
>
> Mr. Perterson; I have no idea whether she "lied", published faulty
> stats, or published reliable stats that were criticized as being
> faulty. My comment was directed at the statement that we should
> only quoted people who have NEVER published any untruth. When you
> are someone who does research OR someone who has a theory to sup-
> port, telling the truth 100% of the time (from stats based on the
> collection of details from others) is nigh onto impossible. All
> stats really do is to give us some idea of trending. It's not as
> reliable as the actual facts that can be shown or proven up, but
> it's probably the best we have, anyway. I would have a hard time
> believing that Ms. Weitzman LIED.
Here you go again speaking volumes of what you know nothing about.
Half-truths to you are not lies. Weitzman having data, but publishing
results(lies) that are not even close to the data collected is fraud and
scientific misconduct.
Her facts may have been faulty
> to one degree or another, but my point was really more about the
> expectations placed on women.
That's right it is about women and those terrible males who want to trip
them up every chance they get. I know plenty of competent and
distinguished female researchers lefty, and there are those males and
females who survive by other means.
Greg Palumbo
Kep Brown
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> -----
> Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
> some who has lied or distorted a fact? Interesting, since that
> would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't there
> a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the bible who
> even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting material from
> folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left to quote :]
> But, of course, I understand why some men would like to hold
> women to a "higher" standard.
>
> Lefty
to a "higher" standard. However, the fact that you are objecting to a
woman being held to any standard, which is what the comments are about,
speaks volumes about your mentality.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <329F6C...@utech.net> Kep Brown <kepb...@utech.net> writes:
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> -----
>> Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
>> some who has lied or distorted a fact? Interesting, since that
>> would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't there
>> a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the bible
who
>> even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting material from
>> folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left to quote :]
>> But, of course, I understand why some men would like to hold
>> women to a "higher" standard.
>>
>> Lefty
> I read the thread and no where did anyone say women should be
held>to a "higher" standard. However, the fact that you are objecting
to awoman being held to any standard, which is what the comments are
about,>speaks volumes about your mentality.
-----
Since you stand there as my "accusor", just which standard is it
that I have suggested to which women should not be held? Name
the standard? What I HAVE suggested is that men and women have
both lied and "fudged" in statistics; Weitzman is no different
from any male scientist who has done the same. From what I have
heard, her deceptive stats were not as much a "lie" as they were
a mistake, but I'll leave that issue to those who know more about
the situation.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <329EFE...@uokhsc.edu> GJP <gregory...@uokhsc.edu> writes:
>(edit)
>
>
>Here you go again speaking volumes of what you know nothing about.
>Half-truths to you are not lies. Weitzman having data, but publishing
>results(lies) that are not even close to the data collected is fraud
and scientific misconduct.
-----
Well, I've heard different stories about Weitzman, and do you
really think any of us know the complete story of her "data" and
how it was somehow "missed"? From what I understand, there's a
book called "How to Lie With Statistics" that's mandatory reading
for a stat major :]
-------
>
>
>
>
>Her facts may have been faulty
>> to one degree or another, but my point was really more about the
>> expectations placed on women.
>
>That's right it is about women and those terrible males who want to
trip>them up every chance they get. I know plenty of competent and
>distinguished female researchers lefty, and there are those males and
>females who survive by other means.
>
>Greg Palumbo
---------
I would certainly hope so. I also think it would be amusing to
discover how many male scientists have muddied the waters, but
we generally let that slide. She got the attention and the notor-
iety because she's a woman. If you're asking me if I think that
researchers should be held to a high standard, why, of course I do.
Female and Male researchers! :]
-----------
Alan Madsen
Kep Brown (kepb...@utech.net) wrote:
: Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
: > -----
: > Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
: > some who has lied or distorted a fact? Interesting, since that
: > would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't there
: > a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the bible who
: > even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting material from
: > folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left to quote :]
: > But, of course, I understand why some men would like to hold
: > women to a "higher" standard.
: >
: > Lefty
: I read the thread and no where did anyone say women should be held
: to a "higher" standard. However, the fact that you are objecting to a
: woman being held to any standard, which is what the comments are about,
: speaks volumes about your mentality.
i am sure that someone with brown's mentality
would not find to too easy to back assertion
with fact in matters of his opinion...
asking him for a quote of carol's where she
objects "to a woman being held to any stan-
dard." reeks of an exercise in futility...
can he do it...? not that i've seen (and i went
to dejanews for the thread)...
will he do it...? i doubt it...
does it matter...? only to him (something i
feel sure he is ignorant of)...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
Alan Madsen
Ric...@Bennett.com
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
>> some who has lied or distorted a fact?
>
if bennett is to be taken at his word (someting i do
not recommend) then his treatment of pedophilia and
those he does not like, warrants him trash his own
work...
will he...?
ya gotta be kidding...!
bennett
for
soc.iopathic.alpha_male.idiot.wannabe
(who is)
unable to take out the trash...
Kep Brown
> >> -----
> >> would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't there
> >> a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the bible
> who
> >> even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting material from
> >> folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left to quote :]
> >> But, of course, I understand why some men would like to hold
> >> women to a "higher" standard.
> >>
> >> Lefty
>
> > I read the thread and no where did anyone say women should be
> held>to a "higher" standard. However, the fact that you are objecting
> about,>speaks volumes about your mentality.
>
> Since you stand there as my "accusor", just which standard is it
> that I have suggested to which women should not be held? Name
> the standard? What I HAVE suggested is that men and women have
> both lied and "fudged" in statistics; Weitzman is no different
> from any male scientist who has done the same. From what I have
> heard, her deceptive stats were not as much a "lie" as they were
> a mistake, but I'll leave that issue to those who know more about
> the situation.
>
> Lefty
Now lets see. Below are the comments to which you were objecting.
>>Ahh, the famous Lenore Weitzman???? Wasn't she the one that lied,
hid>data, and publishes bogus and biased studies??????? Ahh, yes...the
>>feminist L. Weitzman.
>
>None of that will stop feminists from quoting her.
What standard is mentioned? Honesty. Do these comments state
anything about men? No. Do they state anything about the standards men
should be held to? No. Hell, do they state anything about the standards
women should be held to? No. Did they imply that men and women should
be held to different standards? No. They simply state that someone who
lies, fudges, or distorts a fact should not be quoted from. You were
the only one who made a persons sex a basis for the evaluation of thier
work when you made the claim that holding Weitzman to a standard of
honesty was holding a woman to a "higher" standard. What did you
provide as supporting evidence? Nothing but some statement about the
bible which noone had used as the basis for their arguements. You
contrived some sexist situation, which never existed except in your
mind, then played off Weitzman's being a woman to keep her work from
being held to a standard of honesty.
The ball is in your court now carol. It's up to you to prove that
she was being held to a "higher" standard. Otherwise, as I have shown,
you were just manipulating the fact that she is a woman to keep her from
being held to even the simplest of standards.
Kep Brown
Alan Madsen wrote:
> i am sure that someone with brown's mentality
> would not find to too easy to back assertion
> with fact in matters of his opinion...
which is more than lefty did. The facts are no one but lefty was using
Weitzman's sex to judge her work. lefty was the one who created a bogus
sexist scenario, with out facts to back it up, (ie expecting honesty was
holding a woman to a "higher" standard.) to keep her from being held to
even the most basic standard thus justifying continueing to quote from
her.
If you can't follow that alan try to find this quote "tut tut looks
like rain". It's from a famos book and describes what lefty did
perfectly.
>
> asking him for a quote of carol's where she
> objects "to a woman being held to any stan-
> dard." reeks of an exercise in futility...
>
> can he do it...? not that i've seen (and i went
> to dejanews for the thread)...
>
> will he do it...? i doubt it...
>
> does it matter...? only to him (something i
> feel sure he is ignorant of)...
Laugh. alan, I can see you still haven't figured out irony. If it
didn't matter to you, you wouldn't have responded to my post.
Richard R. Peterson
In <329EF4...@uokhsc.edu> GJP <gregory...@uokhsc.edu> writes:
>Richard R. Peterson wrote:
>>
>> In <57k3nf$r...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol
Ann
>> Hemingway) writes:
>> >
>> >In <57hu91$s...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>
>> eco...@math.ohio-state.edu
>> >(Eric Conrad) writes:
>>
>> I find it odd that people on different sides of this issue assume
>> that Weitzman lied. I spent a lot of time investigating the error
she>> made, and I have concluded that she made an error in calculating
her>> statistics. She believed the numbers she published were
accurate.
>> That's not lying, nor is it distorting the facts (at least not as
she>> knew them).
>> Having said that, I do believe that citing data from Weitzman's
book>> is potentially risky until the numbers she published are
independently>> verified. It was for that reason that I re-ran the
analyses on fathers>> wanting custody and posted the "quick and dirty"
results--these results>> are similar (but not identical) to those she
published.
>> Richard R. Peterson
>
twenty
>years ago....It gives us a historical perspective during a time when
the
>laws were based on the Tender Years Doctrine in many States.
>
>I am also sure the number of fathers who want custody today would be
>greater than 20 years ago.
>
>As to the other issue of Weitzman making a mistake being a valid
>excuse.......bullshit!!!!!!! I am in academics and my laboratory
>performs medical research, collects data, and performs statisticcal
>analyses. I also review scientific papers and reviews prior to their
>publication. I have been in the field of medical research for 20
that>may later be proved or disproved. Publishing data and writing a
wishful>and thoughtful discussion of the data is not fraud....even if
the>results turn out to be an exception and not the rule. Had Lenore
>Weitzman published the true data and statistics at the time and
>wishfully said at ammeting or in her paper that (and a reviewer of the
>work let the notion be published without data) 'I think the situation
>for mothers and children is far worse than my limited survey
suggests.'>, she would have been truthful and giving her opinion. This
is niether>fraud or scientific misconduct.....just an opinion. She
then could have>tried to collect data that proved or disproved her
hypothesis.
>
>What this woman did are fraud and scientific misconduct. She
>deliberately cooked the numbers to mislead and to further her own
glory.>This is no simple error. What she did is no different than
fabricating>data and presenting it as real...which she may have done.
The only>major differnce being she had some numbers and chose not to
use them.
>The fact that the trends went the same way that your re-analysis of
her>numbers showed is inconsequential. Any moron who understands that
income>is divided into shares/individual in the family would understand
this.
>Of course assuming that the costs associated with raising a family
>remain the same for each child, no matter the number of children is
>ridiculous in the first place.
>
>Greg Palumbo
I guess I need to be clearer here. I never said that claiming to make
a "mistake" was a valid excuse for publishing incorrect numbers.
Clearly, responsible research requires careful checking for mistakes
before publication.
Rather, I was addressing the issue of whether Weitzman lied. That's a
strong accusation. I can tell you that her former research assistant
(he was a graduate student at the time, now a market researcher, and by
the way, he is someone who has no axe to grind on this issue) remembers
producing the numbers that got published, and acknowledges that he may
have made an error in calculation. The point here is that Weitzman did
not "cook the numbers." Whether her research was responsibly done is
one issue; whether she lied or cooked the numbers is another. On the
latter issue, the answer is that she did not lie or cook the numbers.
ste...@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org
rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) insults our intelligence:
> I guess I need to be clearer here. I never said that claiming to make
> a "mistake" was a valid excuse for publishing incorrect numbers.
> Clearly, responsible research requires careful checking for mistakes
> before publication.
Come now, recklessly publishing nonsense comes to the same thing as
lying. And it makes such a great excuse, doesn't it? "Oopsie!" "I didn't
meeeeeean it, Daddy!" "It was an accident!"
> Rather, I was addressing the issue of whether Weitzman lied. That's a
> strong accusation.
Isn't it, though? Gee, I guess the wild accusation about standards of
living, that defamed about a hundred million men and robbed them of
literally billions of dollars, was tame compared to the accusation that
a Feminist lied, when the evidence for her deception is in plain sight.
Gee, it's not as if Feminists lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie... (You
probably don't understand that this is positively overflowing with
sarcasm)
> I can tell you that her former research assistant
> (he was a graduate student at the time, now a market researcher, and by
> the way, he is someone who has no axe to grind on this issue) remembers
> producing the numbers that got published, and acknowledges that he may
> have made an error in calculation.
Your anecdote proves nothing except your own bias.
> The point here is that Weitzman did
> not "cook the numbers."
What in the hell is wrong with you? There's no way she could have
honestly believed her crazy numbers! Obviously, your bigotry prevents
you from seeing a damn thing.
> Whether her research was responsibly done is
> one issue; whether she lied or cooked the numbers is another. On the
> latter issue, the answer is that she did not lie or cook the numbers.
You don't know that. Weitzman is the most shameless, black-hearted of
liars, and you're a fool and a bigot to not see it. And I hope someday
you have a taste of what you are helping to do to other men.
--
Steve Reynolds, ste...@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org
"Feminism is to female as racism is to race."
Richard Bennett
rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
>I guess I need to be clearer here. I never said that claiming to make
>a "mistake" was a valid excuse for publishing incorrect numbers.
>Clearly, responsible research requires careful checking for mistakes
>before publication.
Come on, Peterson, get real. When a researcher is off by 5 or 10
percent, that's a "mistake." When they're off by 400 percent, that's
"lying." Even if your colleague didn't have the time to check the
final numbers, the magnitude of the error is so large it should have
set of alarms long before you looked at them.
As a matter of fact, I do believe you were the second researcher to
check her numbers, and she refused to believe the first one. Do you
remember that?
>Rather, I was addressing the issue of whether Weitzman lied. That's a
>strong accusation. I can tell you that her former research assistant
>(he was a graduate student at the time, now a market researcher, and by
>the way, he is someone who has no axe to grind on this issue) remembers
>producing the numbers that got published, and acknowledges that he may
>have made an error in calculation. The point here is that Weitzman did
>not "cook the numbers." Whether her research was responsibly done is
>one issue; whether she lied or cooked the numbers is another. On the
>latter issue, the answer is that she did not lie or cook the numbers.
Even if this story is true, and some innocent party unfamiliar with
the data made a grossly mistaken calculation, she should have known it
was wrong. Certainly, she didn't share her "distinguished scholar"
award with this poor schmuck, did she? So who's responsible, and who
lied.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <329FC1...@utech.net> Kep Brown <kepb...@utech.net> writes:
>
>>None of that will stop feminists from quoting her.
>
> What standard is mentioned? Honesty. Do these comments state
>anything about men? No. Do they state anything about the standards
men>should be held to? No. Hell, do they state anything about the
standards>women should be held to? No. Did they imply that men and
women should>be held to different standards? No. They simply state that
someone who>lies, fudges, or distorts a fact should not be quoted from.
------
My suggestion to you was that people have lied, and still been
quoted from, from the beginnings of the written word. If we should
not quote from someone who has mutilated a statistic (for whatever
reason), it would appear to me that there would be little left to
quote from. Even within the now famous "genome" study, it was dis-
covered that one of the scientists "cooked" some stats. Do you
want to now throw out the entire study because of one flaw? I
don't think so. Years of research has gone into that, and while
it may set them back a bit, they will continue on and the study
will be quoted.
-------
You were>the only one who made a persons sex a basis for the
evaluation of thier>work when you made the claim that holding Weitzman
to a standard of>honesty was holding a woman to a "higher" standard.
-----
That is NOT what I claimed at all. My statement was that we don't
disembowel an entire lifetime of work for a statistical flaw. What
man can you name for which we have done that? Ms. W. is no diff-
erent from any other statistician; she will be prone to the same
statistical problems. If she has made a mistake, those who look at
her work will certainly be more careful, as is expected. Can you
imagine the types of statistical mistakes that were made by those
early on.....those who really didn't know how to evaluate the data
they had collected. We grow, we evolve, and we don't take away the
credibility of one scientist based on her gender, or her acknowle
ged feminism. BTW, the person who "cooked" the genome stats was
male; I guess I forgot to mention that.
---------
What did you>provide as supporting evidence? Nothing but some
statement about the>bible which noone had used as the basis for their
arguements. You>contrived some sexist situation, which never existed
except in your>mind, then played off Weitzman's being a woman to keep
her work from>being held to a standard of honesty.
------
Boy, are you ever reaching. The same standard of "honesty" should
exist for all scientists; so....when did you say you are ready to
throw out the 20 year genome study because a male skewed it?
-------
>
> The ball is in your court now carol. It's up to you to prove that
>she was being held to a "higher" standard. Otherwise, as I have
shown,>you were just manipulating the fact that she is a woman to keep
her from>being held to even the simplest of standards.
-------
You have proven nothing except your willingness to toss out the
work of a woman because she's a woman....without telling me what
male-inspired reconfiguration of skewed stats you're also willing
to toss.
Lefty
Jay Anderson
In article <54fgjhg....@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org>
ste...@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org writes from a server that does not exist:
>rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) insults our intelligence:
>> Rather, I was addressing the issue of whether Weitzman lied. That's a
>> strong accusation.
>
>Isn't it, though? Gee, I guess the wild accusation about standards of
>living, that defamed about a hundred million men and robbed them of
>literally billions of dollars, was tame compared to the accusation that
>a Feminist lied, when the evidence for her deception is in plain sight.
Her data and the data of others still show that women's standard of
living goes down and men's goes up, although not to the degree that she
reported.
>> The point here is that Weitzman did
>> not "cook the numbers."
>
>What in the hell is wrong with you? There's no way she could have
>honestly believed her crazy numbers! Obviously, your bigotry prevents
>you from seeing a damn thing.
Of course she could have. The trend is still the same, though not to
the degree she reported.
>> Whether her research was responsibly done is
>> one issue; whether she lied or cooked the numbers is another. On the
>> latter issue, the answer is that she did not lie or cook the numbers.
>
>You don't know that. Weitzman is the most shameless, black-hearted of
>liars, and you're a fool and a bigot to not see it. And I hope someday
>you have a taste of what you are helping to do to other men.
What, holding us to some standards?
Jay
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <anderson...@netcom.com> ande...@netcom.com (Jay Anderson)
writes:
>In article <54fgjhg....@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org>
>ste...@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org writes from a server that does not exist:
>>rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) insults our intelligence:
>
>>> Rather, I was addressing the issue of whether Weitzman lied.
That's a>>> strong accusation.
>>
>>Isn't it, though? Gee, I guess the wild accusation about standards of
>>living, that defamed about a hundred million men and robbed them of
>>literally billions of dollars, was tame compared to the accusation
that>a Feminist lied, when the evidence for her deception is in plain
sight.
>
>Her data and the data of others still show that women's standard of
>living goes down and men's goes up, although not to the degree that
she reported.
>
>>> The point here is that Weitzman did
>>> not "cook the numbers."
>>
>>What in the hell is wrong with you? There's no way she could have
>>honestly believed her crazy numbers! Obviously, your bigotry prevents
>>you from seeing a damn thing.
>
"Scientific lying" is always difficult to prove. Whether she lied
or didn't lie will probably never really be known. All we can
really do is assume there was some kind of mistake, and view her
numbers the same way I view folks like Faludi and Ferrell who
simply love to make rash generalizations. If one "lie" or one
"mistake" is to challenge an entire body of work, than why are
hacks like Mike Savage still on the airwaves; he just apologizes.
I guess that only works for hate mongers though. He calls himself
"Doctor Savage" and purports to be knowlegeable on many subjects.
Since his talk show is heard by thousands of people, I suspect he
makes quite an impression on impressionable minds. Perhaps if we
are to hold "scientists" more accountable we should consider the
number of those mislead by the number of the audience (or readers,
listeners).
>Of course she could have. The trend is still the same, though not to
>the degree she reported.
>
>>> Whether her research was responsibly done is>>> one issue; whether
she lied or cooked the numbers is another. On the>> latter issue, the
answer is that she did not lie or cook the numbers.
>>
>>You don't know that. Weitzman is the most shameless, black-hearted of
>>liars, and you're a fool and a bigot to not see it. And I hope
someday>>you have a taste of what you are helping to do to other men.
>
>What, holding us to some standards?
-----
Jay and I have not always agreed on every issue, but I would tend
to trust that he has researched what he offers here. It would
appear that someone here has a "win-at-all-costs-for-men" mentality
and that someone else is more interested in equity and standards.
Lefty
>
Justin Timothy Slonaker
To Whom it May Concern,
First off I'll introuduce myself. My name is
Justin Slonaker and I am a 13 year old. I live w/ my Grandmother
because my parents left me when I was 4 so I don't really remeber them.
I am a hard working kid who strives to get something but I did and I
got ripped off! Here is my true story!
All summer I worked every weekend to earn money
for my grandmother. We aren't the richest family in the world so I
decided I would work all summer and give the money to my grandmother. I
mowed grass, took trash out and did any odd job I could do to earn
money. After working all summer I earned $150.00! I was so happy! I
decided I would give the money to my grandmother but when I tried to
give it to her she said, "No, you earned it spend on it what you want."
This is was the first time in my life that I had money of my own to
spend on whatever I wanted. I advertised on this newsgroup posting what
I was looking for and after several weeks I got a response from this
guy selling what I wanted for luckily $150.00! I couldn't believe it!
Within in a week I sent him the money and now I haven't heard from him!
I wanna get my grandmother something for X-Mas and of course I don't
have any cash because it was stolen from me buy a scam artist who
enjoys ripping off 13 year old who worked there butts off to get money!
If there is anyone who cares or is kind enough to make a donation to me
please feel free to contact me at the followingn address! I hope
somebody out there cares about me!
Just...@ix.netcom.com
P.S.
You'll be seeing this post in alot of newsgroups because I'm hoping
someone will actually care about what I'm going through!
Richard R. Peterson
Jay makes some good points here (thanks)...
Some who have weighed in on this thread seem to have a different
definition of lying than I do. It appears that no amount of
information I collected in looking into this is going to dissuade some
from believing that Weitzman's lie is "in plain sight".
Richard Peterson
In <anderson...@netcom.com> ande...@netcom.com (Jay Anderson)
writes:
>
>In article <54fgjhg....@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org>
>ste...@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org writes from a server that does not exist:
>>rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) insults our intelligence:
>
>>> Rather, I was addressing the issue of whether Weitzman lied.
That's a
>>> strong accusation.
>>
>>Isn't it, though? Gee, I guess the wild accusation about standards of
>>living, that defamed about a hundred million men and robbed them of
>>literally billions of dollars, was tame compared to the accusation
that
>>a Feminist lied, when the evidence for her deception is in plain
sight.
>
>Her data and the data of others still show that women's standard of
>living goes down and men's goes up, although not to the degree that
she
>reported.
>
>>> The point here is that Weitzman did
>>> not "cook the numbers."
>>
>>What in the hell is wrong with you? There's no way she could have
>>honestly believed her crazy numbers! Obviously, your bigotry prevents
>>you from seeing a damn thing.
>
>the degree she reported.
>
>>> Whether her research was responsibly done is
>>> one issue; whether she lied or cooked the numbers is another. On
the
>>> latter issue, the answer is that she did not lie or cook the
numbers.
>>
>>You don't know that. Weitzman is the most shameless, black-hearted of
>>liars, and you're a fool and a bigot to not see it. And I hope
someday
>>you have a taste of what you are helping to do to other men.
>
>What, holding us to some standards?
>
>
Richard R. Peterson
In <329ff925...@nntp.best.com> Ric...@Bennett.com (Richard
Bennett) writes:
>
>rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
>
>>I guess I need to be clearer here. I never said that claiming to
make
>>a "mistake" was a valid excuse for publishing incorrect numbers.
>>Clearly, responsible research requires careful checking for mistakes
>>before publication.
>
>Come on, Peterson, get real. When a researcher is off by 5 or 10
>percent, that's a "mistake." When they're off by 400 percent, that's
>"lying." Even if your colleague didn't have the time to check the
>final numbers, the magnitude of the error is so large it should have
>set of alarms long before you looked at them.
big the mistake was. Really big mistakes become lies... I think of
lies as either/or propositions, not matters of degree.
>
>As a matter of fact, I do believe you were the second researcher to
>check her numbers, and she refused to believe the first one. Do you
>remember that?
unaware of anything anyone else did. Get real. The first researchers,
Hoffman and Duncan, are cited in my paper. BTW, I was the first to
force release of the data--H&D used published tables from the book to
cast doubt on the numbers, and they only looked at the number for
women, since the necessary data on men were not published in the book.
Unfortunately that wasn't enough to demonstrate that her numbers were
wrong. What was needed was a re-analysis of the original data.
>
>>Rather, I was addressing the issue of whether Weitzman lied. That's
assistant>>(he was a graduate student at the time, now a market
this issue) remembers>>producing the numbers that got published, and
here is that Weitzman did>>not "cook the numbers." Whether her
research was responsibly done is>>one issue; whether she lied or cooked
the numbers is another. On the>>latter issue, the answer is that she
did not lie or cook the numbers.
>
Lee Hunt
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
|> Well, if we are willing to dismiss (out of hand) the thesis of
|> folks whose work is dated, and include some meaningless or fraud-
|> ulent statistics, then perhaps it's time to toss the bible; after
|> all, it would be difficult to show that the world could have been
|> created in so short a time. :] Oh, I forgot; that was fiction,
|> wasn't it? .....and I'm sure there are no studies where male
|> scientists distorted stats....like that genome study where one
|> of the (male) scientists set the study back by recording innacurate
|> stats. When a man lies, it's business as usual, when a woman
|> reports an innacurate stat....it's noteworthy.
|>
|> Lefty
Noteworthy to who?
Weitzmans lies were quoted in 175 newspaper and magazine articles, 348
social science articles, 24 appeals and Supreme Ct cases and in
dipshit Clintons 1996 budget.
Now that we know she is a liar, has there been one retraction or
apolgogy from her. NOPE.
I sent her a personal letter and demanded an apology to men across
this country for the financial raping they have received as a result
of her lies. She failed to respond. Like I expected a response.
Had a man written an article with the same lies and distortions the
media would be in an uproar and demand a retraction.
Simple reason is that just because she sits to pee, she is not held to
the same academic standards as men are.
Lee
For a Real Good Time Check out:
http://www.inetnow.net/~leehunt/
10 Reason the CS guidelines are illegal,
immoral and unconstitutional.
http://www.inetnow.net/~leehunt/support.html
(e-mail about my postings on the newsgroups will
be rebroadcast for all to see.)
AMF (Adios My Friend(s))
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <57tijm$1...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard
R. Peterson) writes:
(edit)
>>
>>Even if this story is true, and some innocent party unfamiliar with
>>the data made a grossly mistaken calculation, she should have known
it>>was wrong. Certainly, she didn't share her "distinguished scholar"
>>award with this poor schmuck, did she? So who's responsible, and who
>>lied.
----
One doesn't imply the other. It would appear that you are the one
here who is unable to use logic. When someone reports bad data all
they must usually do to vindicate themselves is to print a retrac-
tion. She ultimately did that. To show that she lied required
much more "proof" than you have been able to offer here. In order
to "lie" one must "KNOW" that what they are publishing is false.
Now, if you want to look at her figures with some trepidation, I
would give you credit for some common sense; also, if you wanted
some corroboration, I might agree, but I'm afraid you simply don't
have enough information to make your charge of "lying" stick, and
her being a woman, won't help or hurt there. :]
Lefty
Ennead
(This post contains brief replies to Eric C., Richard P., and Lefty.)
Oy. What might conceivably have been an interesting, flame-free
discussion of Joint Custody has been diverted into squabbling about
Weitzman. I go away for one week and see what happens! <g>
Nonetheless, I'd like to thank Mr. Peterson very much for the
information he's posted; he certainly has a better claim on being well-
informed on this question than anyone else here. I hope he's prepared
for just how very irrational and flame-filled this newsgroup can get
sometimes.
Since the argument was started over the question of if I could responsibly
use Weitzman as a source or not, I think that explaining what I thought
about it when I posted might be helpful. When I initially began reading
about child custody issues, I planned not to read Weitzman, as my entire
impression of her work had come from what I'd read in BACKLASH and (iirc)
WHO STOLE FEMINISM, neither of which gave a flattering portrait. However,
nearly all of the studies I read included references to Weitzman - the
only more frequent reference I've noticed is the book DIVIDING THE CHILD.
And the people I'm reading are hardly all radical feminists; for instance,
Judith Seltzer, whose work is frequently cited by fathers' rights
advocates, cites Weitzman in her articles.
So I eventually came to the same compromise that many serious social
science researchers apparently have; I read THE DIVORCE
REVOLUTION and use it cautiously as a reference. I don't use her data
on post-divorce financial matters, as she's been proven mistaken on that
question; and I don't use her data where I've found other, contradictory
data (or, at the very least, I point out that contrary data does exist).
I do use her information when I don't know of any other source for the
question at hand (as was the case in this thread), or when I do know of
other sources that found results similar to Weitzman's.
Eric C. writes:
> None of that will stop feminists from quoting her.
Actually, some feminists have been quite critical of Weitzman. The
best-known example is chapter one of BACKLASH.
Richard Peterson wrote:
: Second, some have argued whether Weitzman is a feminist--see
: Susan Faludi's Backlash, for example.
I don't recall Faludi questioning Weitzman's feminism, just Weitzman's
calculations.
[A lot of good information snipped - thank you =very= much for posting
this!]
: A final word: remember that Weitzman's data are 18-19 years old,
: and are based on a Los Angeles sample. It's possible that more
: fathers today would be seriously interested in custody ... then
: again, we won't know until we find some recent (national) data.
Unfortunately, there's virtually no good national data available on many
of these questions, as far as I can tell. =(
Finally, Lefty wrote:
> Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work
> of some who has lied or distorted a fact? Interesting, since that
> would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't there
> a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the bible who
> even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting material from
> folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left to quote :]
> But, of course, I understand why some men would like to hold
> women to a "higher" standard.
I don't think this is a case of women being held to a higher standard; I
think it's a case of people who are disliked by (for lack of a better word)
antifeminists being held to a higher standard. [*] Had the flawed data
come from someone named Leonard Weitzman, I'm sure the reaction
would have been the same.
[*] Of course, feminists do the same thing to people they dislike.
I believe it's a universal reflex among politically-inclined folks.
A better example than the Bible, for your purposes, would be Christina
Hoff Sommers, who made significant factual errors in her book WHO STOLE
FEMINISM (I outlined a half-dozen or so in a post last week), and yet I
doubt a single antifeminist here would be willing to say that therefore
WSF should be rejected altogether. (But this supports my point as well;
neither Sommers or, say, Katie Roiphe's error-ridden THE MORNING AFTER is
held to such a high standard, and yet they're both women.) My position on
Sommers is like my position on Weiztman; I'll use her as a source, but
cautiously.
Yours,
--Ampersand
Mark Evans
Jay Anderson (ande...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <54fgjhg....@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org>
: ste...@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org writes from a server that does not exist:
: >rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) insults our intelligence:
: >> Rather, I was addressing the issue of whether Weitzman lied. That's a
: >> strong accusation.
: >
: >Isn't it, though? Gee, I guess the wild accusation about standards of
: >living, that defamed about a hundred million men and robbed them of
: >literally billions of dollars, was tame compared to the accusation that
: >a Feminist lied, when the evidence for her deception is in plain sight.
:
: Her data and the data of others still show that women's standard of
: living goes down and men's goes up, although not to the degree that she
: reported.
However the point is that the comparison is being made against the wrong
standard. It's being made against what was happening inside the marriage
rather than using the state of things BEFORE the marriage as a baseline.
: >> The point here is that Weitzman did
: >> not "cook the numbers."
: >
: >What in the hell is wrong with you? There's no way she could have
: >honestly believed her crazy numbers! Obviously, your bigotry prevents
: >you from seeing a damn thing.
:
: Of course she could have. The trend is still the same, though not to
: the degree she reported.
However in many cases the "trend" is exactly what would happen in the
split up of a relationship where one peson supported the other.
i.e. when they are split up both people will more towards their NATURAL
level, the standard of living inside the marriage is an artifact of
the marriage, it has ZERO relevence in any other circumstance.
Happy...@gl.tfnet.org
In article <57t9pn$r...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
just...@ix.netcom.com(Justin Timothy Slonaker) wrote:
> To Whom it May Concern,
> First off I'll introuduce myself. My name is
> Justin Slonaker and I am a 13 year old. I hope
> somebody out there cares about me!
>
>
> Just...@ix.netcom.com
> P.S.
> You'll be seeing this post in alot of newsgroups because I'm hoping
> someone will actually care about what I'm going through!
Talk about a SCAM!!!!!
Richard Hague
Justin,
Post for us complete copies of all correspondence and notify the Federal
Trade Commission. I'm sure someone out here can help you catch the artist
and retrieve your money and put this person out of business.
Rich
Justin Timothy Slonaker (just...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> To Whom it May Concern,
> First off I'll introuduce myself. My name is
> Justin Slonaker and I am a 13 year old. I live w/ my Grandmother
> because my parents left me when I was 4 so I don't really remeber them.
> I am a hard working kid who strives to get something but I did and I
> got ripped off! Here is my true story!
> All summer I worked every weekend to earn money
> for my grandmother. We aren't the richest family in the world so I
> decided I would work all summer and give the money to my grandmother. I
> mowed grass, took trash out and did any odd job I could do to earn
> money. After working all summer I earned $150.00! I was so happy! I
> decided I would give the money to my grandmother but when I tried to
> give it to her she said, "No, you earned it spend on it what you want."
> This is was the first time in my life that I had money of my own to
> spend on whatever I wanted. I advertised on this newsgroup posting what
> I was looking for and after several weeks I got a response from this
> guy selling what I wanted for luckily $150.00! I couldn't believe it!
> Within in a week I sent him the money and now I haven't heard from him!
> I wanna get my grandmother something for X-Mas and of course I don't
> have any cash because it was stolen from me buy a scam artist who
> enjoys ripping off 13 year old who worked there butts off to get money!
> If there is anyone who cares or is kind enough to make a donation to me
> please feel free to contact me at the followingn address! I hope
> somebody out there cares about me!
>
>
> Just...@ix.netcom.com
> P.S.
> You'll be seeing this post in alot of newsgroups because I'm hoping
> someone will actually care about what I'm going through!
--
Richard Hague
"From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs." -Marx
Made in England, failtested in USSR, further testing in progress in USA.
Kep Brown
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <329FC1...@utech.net> Kep Brown <kepb...@utech.net> writes:
> >
> >>None of that will stop feminists from quoting her.
> >
> >anything about men? No. Do they state anything about the standards
> men>should be held to? No. Hell, do they state anything about the
> standards>women should be held to? No. Did they imply that men and
> women should>be held to different standards? No. They simply state that
> someone who>lies, fudges, or distorts a fact should not be quoted from.
>
> ------
> My suggestion to you was that people have lied, and still been
> quoted from, from the beginnings of the written word. If we should
> not quote from someone who has mutilated a statistic (for whatever
> reason), it would appear to me that there would be little left to
> quote from.
statisticians are intentionally producing faulty statistics.
> Even within the now famous "genome" study, it was dis-
> covered that one of the scientists "cooked" some stats. Do you
> want to now throw out the entire study because of one flaw? I
> don't think so. Years of research has gone into that, and while
> it may set them back a bit, they will continue on and the study
> will be quoted.
First. Since noone had stated anything about a genome study, it
can not be used as a comparisson of the standards the original posters
were holding Ms. W. as compared to men. But anyhows. You are stating
that he is still being quoted as a credible source and suffers no
credibility problem. Ok post where you got this fact and I will look
into it up myself. As far as the study goes, yes I would consider his
work and any work that is based upon his numbers, as unreliable until
someone else could either prove or disprove the validity of them. There
is an old saying in the computer field which I believe in. Garbage in -
Garbage out.
>
> -------
> You were>the only one who made a persons sex a basis for the
> evaluation of thier>work when you made the claim that holding Weitzman
> to a standard of>honesty was holding a woman to a "higher" standard.
>
> -----
> That is NOT what I claimed at all. My statement was that we don't
> disembowel an entire lifetime of work for a statistical flaw.
Sigh. Carol, you really should reread your posts before responding.
Below is what you stated. Notice there is nothing about statistical
flaws, you didn't even start mentioning them in your posts until after
someone else later posted that the problem could have been statistical
in nature. Your original arguement was that if Ms W. lied or distorted
facts she should still retain her credibility and that to do otherwise
was to hold a woman to a "higher" standard. So you did make that claim.
No use trying to distort the facts.
*> Are you suggesting that we should NEVER quote from the work of
*> some who has lied or distorted a fact? Interesting, since that
*> would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't there
*> a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the bible who
*> even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting material from
*> folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left to quote :]
*> But, of course, I understand why some men would like to hold
*> women to a "higher" standard.
< More of Carol's attempts to distance herself from her liars
should be trusted possition snipped>
> We grow, we evolve, and we don't take away the
> credibility of one scientist based on her gender, or her acknowle
> ged feminism. BTW, the person who "cooked" the genome stats was
> male; I guess I forgot to mention that.
And his sex matters why? Once again you are the only one who is
trying to make a persons sex the central issue. If someone lies about,
distorts or cooks facts then they can no longer be considered as
credible sources. That is not holding a woman to a "higher" standard.
If you fail to see that then shrug.
> ---------
>
> What did you>provide as supporting evidence? Nothing but some
> statement about the>bible which noone had used as the basis for their
> arguements. You>contrived some sexist situation, which never existed
> except in your>mind, then played off Weitzman's being a woman to keep
> her work from>being held to a standard of honesty.
>
> ------
> Boy, are you ever reaching. The same standard of "honesty" should
> exist for all scientists; so....when did you say you are ready to
> throw out the 20 year genome study because a male skewed it?
Laugh. The only one reaching is you with your contrived sexist
situations. I already answered your question above. If he intentionally
lied or distorted his figures then his work should be considered
unreliable and so should any subsequent work based upon his work, until
the validity of his work can be proven by an outside source. No matter
how much it may gall you, Ms. W.s being a woman does not keep her from
being held to that standard.
> -------
> >
> > The ball is in your court now carol. It's up to you to prove that
> >she was being held to a "higher" standard. Otherwise, as I have
> shown,>you were just manipulating the fact that she is a woman to keep
> her from>being held to even the simplest of standards.
>
> -------
> You have proven nothing except your willingness to toss out the
> work of a woman because she's a woman....without telling me what
> male-inspired reconfiguration of skewed stats you're also willing
> to toss.
Headshake. Lefty according to the rules, as you defined them, it is
up to you, as my "accusor", to prove your charges against me or are you
attempting to hold me to a "higher" standard than you hold yourself to.
Besides of the two of us, you are the one who has proven, on numerous
occassions, your sexist attitudes and have argued for a duality of
standards by which men and women are to be judged. You are also the one,
who has shown, that you are more than willing to make broad negative
judgements of the opposite sex while at the same time making broad
positive judgements of your own. Since you have yet to offer any
evidence that she was being held to a "higher" standard, I will
reiterate it once more. You were just trying to manipulate the fact that
she was a woman to keep her from being held to even the simplest of
standards, so you could continue to quote from her.
James Buster
In article <anderson...@netcom.com>,
Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Her data and the data of others still show that women's standard of
>living goes down and men's goes up, although not to the degree that she
>reported.
Too bad that most such data is flawed and totally wrong.
Consider this example:
Man: $50K salary
Woman: $30K salary
Given the usual way that those papers compute "standard of living", we can
see that both the man and woman in this example "have" a $40K standard of
living. If they divorce, the woman now has only a $30K standard of living,
while the man now has a $50K standard of living: his SOL went *up* 25%,
while hers *dropped* 25%. Actually, since two people at $80K have a higher
SOL than one at $50K, her SOL can be considered to have dropped even more.
The problem is, the drop in the woman's SOL cannot be considered unjust in
this example, though I am sure many women's groups will disagree. Her SOL
was subsidized by her husband; now that they are divorced, that subsidy
is gone, an entirely just result.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking atomsphere of
poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not much like Earth.
-- Calvin
GJP
James Buster wrote:
>
> In article <anderson...@netcom.com>,
> Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >Her data and the data of others still show that women's standard of
> >living goes down and men's goes up, although not to the degree that she
> >reported.
>
> Too bad that most such data is flawed and totally wrong.
> Consider this example:
>
> Man: $50K salary
> Woman: $30K salary
>
> Given the usual way that those papers compute "standard of living", we can
> see that both the man and woman in this example "have" a $40K standard of
> living. If they divorce, the woman now has only a $30K standard of living,
> while the man now has a $50K standard of living: his SOL went *up* 25%,
> while hers *dropped* 25%. Actually, since two people at $80K have a higher
> SOL than one at $50K, her SOL can be considered to have dropped even more.
> The problem is, the drop in the woman's SOL cannot be considered unjust in
> this example, though I am sure many women's groups will disagree. Her SOL
> was subsidized by her husband; now that they are divorced, that subsidy
> is gone, an entirely just result.
But you suggest individuals be responsible for themselves???? That they
actually get only what they deserve because they earned it?????? That
they actually look at the truth behind the numbers???????
NAaaaaaaaahhh!!!!! Too politically incorrect.
Greg Palumbo
Richard R. Peterson
Ampersand, thanks for returning this discussion back to its roots. I
agree with your view that The Divorce Revolution can be "cautiously"
used as a reference.
You are right about the lack of good national data on custody issues,
as far as I know.
And I agree that the reaction to Weitzman's error would be as strong
if it had been an error by a male researcher.
Richard Peterson
In <57uuim$5...@nadine.teleport.com> enn...@teleport.com (Ennead)
writes:
>
>> None of that will stop feminists from quoting her.
>
>best-known example is chapter one of BACKLASH.
>
>Richard Peterson wrote:
>
>: Second, some have argued whether Weitzman is a feminist--see
>: Susan Faludi's Backlash, for example.
>
>I don't recall Faludi questioning Weitzman's feminism, just Weitzman's
>calculations.
>
>[A lot of good information snipped - thank you =very= much for posting
>this!]
>
>: A final word: remember that Weitzman's data are 18-19 years old,
>: and are based on a Los Angeles sample. It's possible that more
>: fathers today would be seriously interested in custody ... then
>: again, we won't know until we find some recent (national) data.
>
>Unfortunately, there's virtually no good national data available on
many >of these questions, as far as I can tell. =(
>
>Finally, Lefty wrote:
>
that>> would prevent us from using book sources of renoun. Isn't
there>> a fellow in the Bible who wrote one of the books of the
bible who>> even lied to Jesus himself? If we stopped quoting
material from>> folks who lied, I don't imagine there'd be much left
to quote :]>> But, of course, I understand why some men would like
to hold >> women to a "higher" standard.
Richard R. Peterson
This is NOT how standard of living is measured in the studies on
economic consequences of divorce. Standard of living for a household
equals income divided by the poverty threshhold for the the household.
R. Peterson
In <5801kb$h...@fido.asd.sgi.com> bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James
Gerry Harbison
Jay Anderson wrote:
>
> Her data and the data of others still show that women's standard of
> living goes down and men's goes up, although not to the degree that she
> reported.
Men on average earn more than women. Married men earn a *lot* more than
married women. If they get divorced, and the woman has to live primarily
on her own labor rather than that of her husband, it seems pretty
obvious that her income is going to go down.
If women want to stop this situation, obviously they need to start
marrying poorer men.
--
Gerry Harbison mailto:ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu
http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/harbison_group/harbison.html
"They are trying to make some people feel good by making other people
feel bad, and if I were a boy, I'd move to New Guinea."
-- Sadie Stein, an eighth grader from New York, on Take Your Daughter To
Work Day.
Jay Anderson
>I don't think this is a case of women being held to a higher standard; I
>think it's a case of people who are disliked by (for lack of a better word)
>antifeminists being held to a higher standard. [*] Had the flawed data
>come from someone named Leonard Weitzman, I'm sure the reaction
>would have been the same.
I agree, but IMHO the important thing that has been missed in this
discussion is why she has been so demonized. Her data were cited in
setting child custody payments and frankly, I've never seen knees jerk
so fast among the fathers' rights guys as when their wallets are being
forced open. If I saw half as much concern for children as for money
among the fathers' righters I've seen online, I'd have a much better
impression of the fathers' rights movement.
Jay
Roger J. Ruby
This response is quite short-shided and only shows that you have no idea
of what many fathers have to go through when the higher child support
payments have forced many of them into near-poverty. Couple that with
the potential of being alienated from their children by circumstances
beyond their control and you have a recipe for your so-called
"knee-jerk" reactions. I am the custodial father of my son and I have
decided that it would be immoral for me to "force open" the wallet of
his mother. She will have her own conscience to deal with, in the final
analysis. I don't need the state to play the final round of "I've got
you now..." for me. Granted, children need to be considered first and
foremost, but when the present c-s policies have the potential of
devestating one of their parents financially and emotionally, then, yes,
I am proud to support the men's movement. There are many fathers that
would love to open their wallets directly to their kids, on their own
terms, but many of their options are closed to them. Remember, the c-s
is paid to the mother, not to the kids.
GJP
Richard R. Peterson wrote:
>
So give us an example of how the denominator changes. Mom + 2 kids=3 vs
one dad. I guess it will take 3 times the income or 75% of the joint
income to support three right?????? And if only dad makes an income,
75% of his income goes to support three????? Educate us;)
Greg Palumbo
> This is NOT how standard of living is measured in the studies on
> economic consequences of divorce. Standard of living for a household
> equals income divided by the poverty threshhold for the the household.
> R. Peterson
> In <5801kb$h...@fido.asd.sgi.com> bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James
> Buster) writes:
> >
> >In article <anderson...@netcom.com>,
> >Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >>Her data and the data of others still show that women's standard of
> >>living goes down and men's goes up, although not to the degree that
> she
> >>reported.
> >
GJP
Gerry Harbison wrote:
>
> Jay Anderson wrote:
>
> >
> > Her data and the data of others still show that women's standard of
> > living goes down and men's goes up, although not to the degree that she
> > reported.
>
> married women. If they get divorced, and the woman has to live primarily
> on her own labor rather than that of her husband, it seems pretty
> obvious that her income is going to go down.
>
> If women want to stop this situation, obviously they need to start
> marrying poorer men.
>
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Greg Palumbo
Alan Madsen
Ennead (enn...@teleport.com) wrote:
: (This post contains brief replies to Eric C., Richard P., and Lefty.)
: Oy. What might conceivably have been an interesting, flame-free
: discussion of Joint Custody has been diverted into squabbling about
: Weitzman. I go away for one week and see what happens! <g>
: Nonetheless, I'd like to thank Mr. Peterson very much for the
: information he's posted; he certainly has a better claim on being well-
: informed on this question than anyone else here. I hope he's prepared
: for just how very irrational and flame-filled this newsgroup can get
: sometimes.
<snip>
and have been archived for that fact of reasonable claim...
hi ennead...! harbison says you are male, sorry about the
confusion...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
GJP
Richard R. Peterson wrote:
>
> Ampersand, thanks for returning this discussion back to its roots. I
> agree with your view that The Divorce Revolution can be "cautiously"
> used as a reference.
> You are right about the lack of good national data on custody issues,
> as far as I know.
Oh you must mean there are no good studies of custody issues for white
middleclass or better families????? It would seem to me that 30 years
of paying poor mommies should generate all the data you need to see what
happens when dads are forced out of their kids lives. There also must be
some studies on latch-key kids since it was such a big issue in the
1960's.
Greg Palumbo
> And I agree that the reaction to Weitzman's error would be as strong
> if it had been an error by a male researcher.
> Richard Peterson
> In <57uuim$5...@nadine.teleport.com> enn...@teleport.com (Ennead)
> writes:
> >
> >(This post contains brief replies to Eric C., Richard P., and Lefty.)
> >
> >Oy. What might conceivably have been an interesting, flame-free
> >discussion of Joint Custody has been diverted into squabbling about
> >Weitzman. I go away for one week and see what happens! <g>
> >
> >Nonetheless, I'd like to thank Mr. Peterson very much for the
> >information he's posted; he certainly has a better claim on being
> well->informed on this question than anyone else here. I hope he's
> prepared >for just how very irrational and flame-filled this newsgroup
> can get >sometimes.
> >
> >I don't think this is a case of women being held to a higher standard;
> I >think it's a case of people who are disliked by (for lack of a
> better word) >antifeminists being held to a higher standard. [*] Had
> the flawed data >come from someone named Leonard Weitzman, I'm sure the
> reaction >would have been the same.
> >
Gerry Harbison
> Richard R. Peterson wrote:
> >
>
> > This is NOT how standard of living is measured in the studies on
> > economic consequences of divorce. Standard of living for a household
> > equals income divided by the poverty threshhold for the the household.
> > R. Peterson
Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the poverty
threshold was a non-linear function of household size: that is to say,
that it recognizes that two people, each with incomes on the poverty
line for a single person, living together are well above the poverty
line.
In which case James' point is entirely valid, no?
This whole discussion has made me wonder whether maybe there should be a
bit more math required for a degree in sociology.
> > In <5801kb$h...@fido.asd.sgi.com> bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James
> > Buster) writes:
> > >Too bad that most such data is flawed and totally wrong.
> > >Consider this example:
> > >
> > >Man: $50K salary
> > >Woman: $30K salary
> > >
> > >Given the usual way that those papers compute "standard of living", we
> > can
> > >see that both the man and woman in this example "have" a $40K standard
> > of
> > >living. If they divorce, the woman now has only a $30K standard of
> > living,
> > >while the man now has a $50K standard of living: his SOL went *up*
> > 25%,
> > >while hers *dropped* 25%. Actually, since two people at $80K have a
> > higher
> > >SOL than one at $50K, her SOL can be considered to have dropped even
> > more.
Lenny Schafer
Ennead (enn...@teleport.com) says:
: "If God had intended people to be bisexual,
: God would've created two sexes."
If God had intended people to use specious logic,
God would've created some dumb newsgroup posters.
--
Lenny Schafer
Jay Anderson (ande...@netcom.com) says:
: IMHO
"Humble" Opinions? From the Jayster?
: the important thing that has been missed in this
: discussion is why she has been so demonized. Her data were cited in
: setting child custody payments and frankly, I've never seen knees jerk
: so fast among the fathers' rights guys as when their wallets are being
: forced open.
Of course feminists, who at every chance push for higher child
care (welfare) support legislation, have only the poor dear children's
well being at heart. After all, if money was the only real issue for
feminists, they'd have aborted far more of their little barriers to
equality by now. The Jayster's anti-father bigotry is showing.
: If I saw half as much concern for children as for money
: among the fathers' righters I've seen online, I'd have a much better
: impression of the fathers' rights movement.
The poor impression of fathers The Jayster sees is in the eye of the
beholder.
People, fathers' rights advocates or otherwise, are wise not to discuss
vulnerable details of their private lives -- like their children -- on the
Internet.
Far too many debators have an obsessive lust for ad hominem, character
assasination, personal attacks as their arguments are too weak to stand
on their own merits. Like the negative political advertising everyone
complains about, opponent bashing is a short cut to "winning" that
can work .
The Jayster shouldn't be too surprised that people are reluctant to
share intimacies of their private lives on the newsgroups, especially when
he's around.
Love, lenny
--
Michael Koster
ande...@netcom.com (Jay Anderson) writes:
>In article <57uuim$5...@nadine.teleport.com> enn...@teleport.com (Ennead) writes:
>>I don't think this is a case of women being held to a higher standard; I
>>think it's a case of people who are disliked by (for lack of a better word)
>>antifeminists being held to a higher standard. [*] Had the flawed data
>>come from someone named Leonard Weitzman, I'm sure the reaction
>>would have been the same.
>I agree, but IMHO the important thing that has been missed in this
>discussion is why she has been so demonized. Her data were cited in
>setting child custody payments and frankly, I've never seen knees jerk
???????
>so fast among the fathers' rights guys as when their wallets are being
>forced open. If I saw half as much concern for children as for money
>among the fathers' righters I've seen online, I'd have a much better
>impression of the fathers' rights movement.
>Jay
Thanks, Jay, but what you fail to see is that it's not about the children.
The inflated income disparity figures from Weitzman's study were used to
turn child support into alimony. Weitzman's results shifted the focus away
from children's needs and on to economic reparations paid from men to women.
What do you have to say about a system that forces my wallet open to the
tune of $1000 per month, and then allows mom to put the (one) child up
with grandparents and keep the $1000 for herself?
Your feeble attempt to show that no harm has been done (e.g. well, the
amounts may be wrong but the *trend* is the same) rings a bit hollow to
those of us who are wondering how they're going to finance kid's college
education after supporting kid(s) and CP all these years.
This is OK with you?
Whatever.
PS Father's rights and children's rights are not necessarily mutually
exclusive.
Andras Kovacs
Alan Madsen <ama...@dorsai.org> wrote in article
<57o0q2$g...@amanda.dorsai.org>...
[snip]
> bennett
> for
> soc.iopathic.alpha_male.idiot.wannabe
>
> (who is)
> unable to take out the trash...
Why would anyone want to take you out, Alanna?
Andras
----
"All I say is by way of discourse and nothing is by way of advice.
I shall not be so bold if it were my due to be believed."
Montaigne
Richard R. Peterson
OK, here's a hypothetical example: Mom, Dad and 2 kids before divorce.
Mom makes $30,000 Dad makes $40,000, for total household income of
$70,000. The Federal poverty threshhold for a family of 4 (last
updated March 1996) is $15,600. So the standard of living for this
household is 70,000/15,600=4.49 (i.e., they earn 4.49 times the poverty
threshold).
The couple divorces, Mom gets both kids. ASSUMING no changes in
income for either parent, and NO transfer of either alimony or child
support from Dad to Mom, the standard of living for each household is
as follows:
Mom: 30,000/12,980=2.31 (a 49% decline) (NOTE: 12,980 is poverty
threshhold for household of 3 people).
Dad: 40,000/7,740=5.17 (a 15% increase) (NOTE: 7,740 is poverty
threshold for a household of 1 person)
NOTE: both Weitzman and I (and most who do these calculations) DO
take transfers of alimony and child support into account before
calculating standard of living. So, for the sake of argument, suppose
Dad pays $10,000 per year in child support to Mom, the standards of
living are:
Mom: 40,000/12,980=3.08 (a 31% decline)
Dad: 30,000/7,740=3.88 (a 14% decline)
Everyone experiences a decline in standard of living, because the
poverty threshhold assumes it costs more to maintain two households
than one. The poverty threshhold for 4 people living in one household
is $15,600, the sum of the poverty threshholds for a household of 1
(7,740) and a household of 3 (12,980) is $20,720, a $5,120 increase (=
about 33% greater costs).
This method assumes that mom and 3 kids need approx. 63% of the
pre-divorce household income to have the same standard of living as her
ex-husband living alone does (12,980/20,720=.63). (Again, this is under
the assumption that no one's income changes.) So to equalize the
standards of living of each household, and assuming total income of the
2 ex-spouses is still $70,000, Mom and 3 kids need approx. $43,850 and
Dad needs $26,148. Under these circumstances, both households will
have experienced approx. a 25% decline. So, to answer Greg, the method
does NOT assume that Mom and 2 kids need 3 times (or 75%) of the joint
income.
Final note: the numbers and math change for various household
sizes. Here are the poverty threshholds for households of 1 to 8 as of
March 1996:
1 $7,740
2 $10,360
3 $12,980
4 $15,600
5 $18,220
6 $20,840
7 $23,460
8 $26,080
I suspect we are now going to see a lot of posts using the above
numbers, citing a variety of hypothetical situations.
Richard Peterson
In <32A467...@uokhsc.edu> GJP <gregory...@uokhsc.edu> writes:
>
>Richard R. Peterson wrote:
>>
>
>
>So give us an example of how the denominator changes. Mom + 2 kids=3
vs
>one dad. I guess it will take 3 times the income or 75% of the joint
>income to support three right?????? And if only dad makes an income,
>75% of his income goes to support three????? Educate us;)
>
>Greg Palumbo
>
>
>
>> This is NOT how standard of living is measured in the studies on
>> economic consequences of divorce. Standard of living for a
household
>> equals income divided by the poverty threshhold for the the
household.
>> R. Peterson
>> In <5801kb$h...@fido.asd.sgi.com> bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James
>> Buster) writes:
>> >
>> >In article <anderson...@netcom.com>,
>> >Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> >>Her data and the data of others still show that women's standard
of
>> >>living goes down and men's goes up, although not to the degree
that
>> she
>> >>reported.
>> >
>> >Too bad that most such data is flawed and totally wrong.
>> >Consider this example:
>> >
>> >Man: $50K salary
>> >Woman: $30K salary
>> >
>> >Given the usual way that those papers compute "standard of living",
we
>> can
>> >see that both the man and woman in this example "have" a $40K
standard
>> of
>> >living. If they divorce, the woman now has only a $30K standard of
>> living,
>> >while the man now has a $50K standard of living: his SOL went *up*
>> 25%,
>> >while hers *dropped* 25%. Actually, since two people at $80K have a
>> higher
>> >SOL than one at $50K, her SOL can be considered to have dropped
even
>> more.
Richard R. Peterson
In <32A455...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> Gerry Harbison
<ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> writes:
>
>> Richard R. Peterson wrote:
>> >
>>
>
>> > This is NOT how standard of living is measured in the studies on
>> > economic consequences of divorce. Standard of living for a
household
>> > equals income divided by the poverty threshhold for the the
household.
>> > R. Peterson
>
>threshold was a non-linear function of household size: that is to say,
>that it recognizes that two people, each with incomes on the poverty
>line for a single person, living together are well above the poverty
>line.
>
>In which case James' point is entirely valid, no?
>
>This whole discussion has made me wonder whether maybe there should be
a
>bit more math required for a degree in sociology.
See my previous post, which confirms that poverty threshhold is a
non-linear function of household size. It also confirms that James
point is NOT valid. In James example, the man experiences a 16%
decline in standard of living (not a 25% increase), and the woman a 50%
decline (not a 25% decline). (though his last note about the woman's
standard of living having declined even more than 25% IS accurate).
Since I'm doing this at a late hour, I'll leave it to you to check my
math, Gerry.
James Buster
In article <581l1r$q...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
Richard R. Peterson <rrpe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>This is NOT how standard of living is measured in the studies on
>economic consequences of divorce. Standard of living for a household
>equals income divided by the poverty threshhold for the the household.
Running the numbers makes it even clearer where these bogus
numbers are coming from. Anyway, on to the example.
I assume you mean here "income *minus* poverty threshold". That just
makes my example even better. To reiterate:
Man: $50K salary
Woman: $30K salary
I'll make up some poverty numbers, but I don't think them unreasonable:
Poverty threshold, 1 person: $15K
Poverty threshold, 2 people: $22K
Standard of living (SOL) of the parties equals income - poverty threshold.
There are some minor effects of tax bracketing I have not considered here.
Woman, single: $15K
Man, single: $35K
Woman + Man, married: $58K (or, $29K each)
When they live together, the man's SOL drops 17.2%, but the woman's
increases an astounding 93.3%. When they divorce, the man's SOL
increases 20.6%, but his ex-wife's drops 48.3%. This is very much
like Weitzman's numbers. Too bad that since the result is just,
these numbers are meaningless.
Carol Ann Hemingway
>Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Her data and the data of others still show that women's standard of
>>living goes down and men's goes up, although not to the degree that
she>>reported.
>
>Consider this example:
>
>Woman: $30K salary
>
can>see that both the man and woman in this example "have" a $40K
standard of>living. If they divorce, the woman now has only a $30K
standard of living,>while the man now has a $50K standard of living:
his SOL went *up* 25%,>while hers *dropped* 25%. Actually, since two
people at $80K have a higher>SOL than one at $50K, her SOL can be
woman's SOL cannot be considered unjust in>this example, though I am
sure many women's groups will disagree. Her SOL>was subsidized by her
husband; now that they are divorced, that subsidy>is gone, an entirely
just result.
-----
If the woman stayed home and damaged her career to have children;
if SHE sacrificed for home and family allowing her husband to
increase HIS income, the benefit of that should be attributed to
both. His additional income is NOT a subsidy; it is part of the
plan of increase within the marital contract. If this woman had
anticipated the divorce, and her economic inferiority, she could
have put the effort to maintain her family into her career. Judges
know this. Thus her $30,000 per year might have been more had she
and her hubby not placed her in a position to sacrifice. The
"mommy" track is not one of financial reward, but it is a choice
that both people in the marriage make when the decide to have
children. It's not only feminists that will disagree with your
"subsidy" theory....it's women (and most fair-minded men) around
the world. :]
Lefty
GJP
Richard R. Peterson wrote:
>
> In <32A455...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> Gerry Harbison
> <ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> writes:
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >> > This is NOT how standard of living is measured in the studies on
> >> > economic consequences of divorce. Standard of living for a
> household
> >> > equals income divided by the poverty threshhold for the the
> household.
> >
> >Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the poverty
> >threshold was a non-linear function of household size: that is to say,
>
> >that it recognizes that two people, each with incomes on the poverty
> >line for a single person, living together are well above the poverty
> >line.
> >
> >In which case James' point is entirely valid, no?
> >
> >This whole discussion has made me wonder whether maybe there should be
> a
> >bit more math required for a degree in sociology.
> See my previous post, which confirms that poverty threshhold is a
> non-linear function of household size. It also confirms that James
> point is NOT valid. In James example, the man experiences a 16%
> decline in standard of living (not a 25% increase), and the woman a 50%
> decline (not a 25% decline). (though his last note about the woman's
> standard of living having declined even more than 25% IS accurate).
> Since I'm doing this at a late hour, I'll leave it to you to check my
> math, Gerry.
> R. Peterson
> >
snip the trigger of the discussion.
A post from the Men's Hotline:
__________________________________________________________________
Another interesting piece from Cathy Young, thanks to Talk-Man
discussion list.
Men's HOTLINE : 512-472-3237 : m...@menhotline.org
------- A crisis line for men -------
807 Brazos, Suite 315 : Austin, Texas 78701
A service of the Men's Health Network : Washington, D.C.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- ---------- Forwarded message
---------- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 19:19:27 +0400 From: Danny Garcia
To: Multiple recipients of list TALK-MAN <TALK...@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: HOW VICTIMIZED ARE DIVORCING WOMEN?
HOW VICTIMIZED ARE DIVORCING WOMEN?
By Cathy Young
On the heels of First Wives Club comes a more serious but equally
tendentious treatment of the women-as-divorce-victims theme: journalist
Karen Winner's Divorced from Justice: The Abuse of Women and Children by
Divorce Lawyers and Judges. With rhetoric out of a Gothic novel, Winner
paints a grim picture in which divorcing women enter a world of "shadows
and terror." Trapped in a male-dominated system, they face economic ruin
and the loss of their children. Winner credits Lenore Weitzman's 1985
The Divorce Revolution as a trailblazer in documenting the abuse of
women in divorce courts. Alas, she cannot use the factoid that made
Weitzman one of America's most quoted: that women's income post-divorce
drops 73 percent while men's goes up 42 percent.
A fellow sociologist who recently reanalyzed Weitzman's 1977 data found
that the actual drop for women was 27 percent, the rise for men 10
percent; Weitzman has acknowledged her error. (There is evidence that,
since non-custodial parents cannot deduct child support payments, while
custodial parents don't have to report them as taxable income, women
come out ahead when taxes are factored in.)
An error of this size might be thought to cast doubt on the book's
value, but it doesn't give Winner pause. Yet many of Weitzman's other
claims -- picked up by Winner -- are at odds with virtually all other
research. She is the only scholar to find fathers' non-payment of child
support is not related to their financial hardships and that most of
these men do not want more contact with their children.
Winner also says fathers who seek custody mostly do so as a ploy, to
blackmail mothers into accepting less property and child support.
Predictably, she concludes that gender-neutral custody laws hurt women
and urges a return to explicit maternal preference.
This is a familiar argument. But those few researchers -- such as
Eleanor Maccoby and Robert Mnookin of Stanford -- who have bothered to
investigate rather than decry "custody blackmail" have found that it may
occur but is far from common, both because few men stoop to such tactics
and because an insincere custody bid may not work as a credible threat.
Winner contends, too, that under a veneer of neutrality the courts
actually discriminate against mothers, giving custody to men in the
majority of litigated cases. This pseudo-factoid deserves a separate
analysis. For now, let's just say it's a whopper.
Undoubtedly, as Winner argues, far too many lawyers mistreat clients.
But her contention that women are more vulnerable to such abuse is not
backed by any research, only by more rhetoric that insultingly portrays
women as guileless naifs. You'd never know that more husbands than wives
in divorces have no legal representation.
Many studies show divorced men often feel helpless and abused by lawyers
and the courts; Sanford Braver of Arizona State University has found
they are more likely to feel this way than women, who are more satisfied
by the legal process. In his study, 75 percent of the men and 35 percent
of the women believed the system in divorce cases was slanted toward
mothers; fewer than 10 percent of the women and no men said it was
slanted toward fathers.
After years of deadbeat-dad-bashing, many scholars of both sexes now
argue that many divorced dads vanish because they are disenfranchised,
and that the way to help them be good fathers is to make sure they have
a say in their children's lives. Winner's book is a throwback to a women
good/men bad mind-set.
Sadly, it comes with a foreword from famed prosecutor Christopher Darden
and blurbs from U.S. Congressman Jerrold Nadler -- and conservative
columnist Maggie Gallagher, undeterred by the quotations from radical
feminists that pepper Divorced from Justice. Apparently, the idea of men
as beasts and women as damsels in distress still has broad appeal.
Cathy Young is vice-president of the Women's Freedom Network.
_____________________________________________________
Who's facts are right????? Do you wanna guess???????
Greg Palumbo
GJP
Small percentage of professionals (keyword lefty) I know do this. You
really have a 1950s view of life.
His additional income is NOT a subsidy; it is part of the
> plan of increase within the marital contract.
I.e., a contract to support the woman for life????
If this woman had
> anticipated the divorce, and her economic inferiority, she could
> have put the effort to maintain her family into her career.
Women do it all the time. Maybe you didn't????
Judges
> know this.
Judges who praticed law in the 1950s and 1960s have a warpd view of
reality in the 1990's...but you probably already know that.
Thus her $30,000 per year might have been more had she
> and her hubby not placed her in a position to sacrifice. The
> "mommy" track is not one of financial reward, but it is a choice
> that both people in the marriage make when the decide to have
> children.
Small element of society based on how many famileis are dual wage
earners.
Greg Palumbo
GJP
Richard R. Peterson wrote:
>
> OK, here's a hypothetical example: Mom, Dad and 2 kids before divorce.
> Mom makes $30,000 Dad makes $40,000, for total household income of
> $70,000. The Federal poverty threshhold for a family of 4 (last
> updated March 1996) is $15,600. So the standard of living for this
> household is 70,000/15,600=4.49 (i.e., they earn 4.49 times the poverty
> threshold).
> The couple divorces, Mom gets both kids. ASSUMING no changes in
> income for either parent, and NO transfer of either alimony or child
> support from Dad to Mom, the standard of living for each household is
> as follows:
> Mom: 30,000/12,980=2.31 (a 49% decline) (NOTE: 12,980 is poverty
> threshhold for household of 3 people).
> Dad: 40,000/7,740=5.17 (a 15% increase) (NOTE: 7,740 is poverty
> threshold for a household of 1 person)
> NOTE: both Weitzman and I (and most who do these calculations) DO
> take transfers of alimony and child support into account before
> calculating standard of living. So, for the sake of argument, suppose
> living are:
Nah. Where do the taxes, deductions for dependents, mortgage deduction
and, cafeteria plans figure into the equation??? A family of 3 with
those deductions pays little in taxes to the state or federal government
based on your example, but dad is getting hammered by the courts, the
state, and the federal government. (see above post with article by
Cathy Young).
Greg Palumbo
> In <32A467...@uokhsc.edu> GJP <gregory...@uokhsc.edu> writes:
> >
> >Richard R. Peterson wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> >So give us an example of how the denominator changes. Mom + 2 kids=3
> vs
> >one dad. I guess it will take 3 times the income or 75% of the joint
> >income to support three right?????? And if only dad makes an income,
> >75% of his income goes to support three????? Educate us;)
> >
> >Greg Palumbo
> >
> >
> >
> >> This is NOT how standard of living is measured in the studies on
> >> economic consequences of divorce. Standard of living for a
> household
> >> equals income divided by the poverty threshhold for the the
> household.
> >> R. Peterson
Richard R. Peterson
Greg, Not clear when you ask "whose facts are right" which "facts" you
are talking about. The article you appended is jammed full with all
kinds of "facts," including my own research correcting Weitzman (the
report on the 10% increase for men/27% decline for women in standard of
living after divorce) [I'm the "fellow sociologist" Cathy Young
discusses].
R. Peterson
In <32A572...@uokhsc.edu> GJP <gregory...@uokhsc.edu>
Richard Bennett
rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
> I suspect we are now going to see a lot of posts using the above
>numbers, citing a variety of hypothetical situations.
> Richard Peterson
In a recent article on Divorce, journalist Cathy Young said:
"A fellow sociologist who recently reanalyzed Weitzman's 1977 data
found that the actual drop for women was 27 percent, the rise for men
10 percent; Weitzman has acknowledged her error. (There is evidence
that, since non-custodial parents cannot deduct child support
payments, while custodial parents don't have to report them as taxable
income, women come out ahead when taxes are factored in.)"
So I'd like to ask Mr. Peterson whether he or Ms. Weitzman based their
calculations on gross income or net income? As Ms. Young points out,
it makes a big difference. Mom gets the deductions for the kids, and
the tax on child support is paid by the father at his higher bracket
amount. In many cases of which I am aware, the father pays more
income tax than the mother makes in net income on her own.
So are we talking gross or net?
RB
--
Richard Bennett Cupertino, CA
http://www.bennett.com Copyright (c) 1996, Richard Bennett
Jay Anderson
In article <32A47...@verilink.com> rr...@verilink.com writes:
>Jay Anderson wrote:
>> I agree, but IMHO the important thing that has been missed in this
>> discussion is why she has been so demonized. Her data were cited in
>> setting child custody payments and frankly, I've never seen knees jerk
>> so fast among the fathers' rights guys as when their wallets are being
>> forced open. If I saw half as much concern for children as for money
>> among the fathers' righters I've seen online, I'd have a much better
>> impression of the fathers' rights movement.
>This response is quite short-shided and only shows that you have no idea
>of what many fathers have to go through when the higher child support
>payments have forced many of them into near-poverty. Couple that with
>the potential of being alienated from their children by circumstances
>beyond their control and you have a recipe for your so-called
>"knee-jerk" reactions.
I have some idea of what some of the fathers' rights guys online are
doing.
A guy who calls himself the executive director of a Texas fathers'
rights group, the Utopia Foundation, posted on a mailing list how much
he missed his daughter. Sad, huh? But you should have read his posts
about how maybe there need to be masculist death squads to bomb NOW
offices and kill feminists, about how women are inferior in all ways -
great thing to teach that daughter, right? - , and how when he goes to
court and sees that the opposing lawyer is a woman, he goes up to her
and whispers to her that he'd like to fuck her in the ass and wipe his
dick on her hair. The Utopia Foundation is a little more discreet than
its executive director, although it supports a six-month moratorium on
paying child support and its web page gives details on how to do that
legally. When I asked the Advocate how the children who were deprived
of half a year of child support would eat, he said that they could get
food stamps or their mothers could drink cheaper beer. That *really*
impressed me as to how much he cared about children's well-being.
Then there's John Knight, who came up with the Fathers' Manifesto which
said that after a divorce, fathers should receive automatic custody of
the children. IMHO John was a raving misogynist, but he claimed his
Manifesto had thousands of signers. Some of the fathers' rights guys
active online signed his Manifesto, although at least two of them have
since posted that they asked for their names to be removed from the list
of signers.
Then Richard Bennett who is director of the Silicon Valley chaper of
COPS. He's posted that he thinks only women and children want to talk
about feelings and said that men need to be nice to peevish, ugly
children so they don't turn into "male-hating Lesbo"s like Anna Freud.
Some of the women are just as interesting. When one isn't testifying at
state meetings, she's writing about a woman she doesn't like "I may have
a cunt, but [...] sure as hell is one," or commenting, when asked did
she really believe women deserved to be beaten and raped, "Some women
like it, some women deserve it, some women ask for it. [...} falls into
all three catagories." And I thought stepmoms like that only existed
in fairy tales.
I am the custodial father of my son and I have
>decided that it would be immoral for me to "force open" the wallet of
>his mother. She will have her own conscience to deal with, in the final
>analysis. I don't need the state to play the final round of "I've got
>you now..." for me.
You may not need the state to get his mother to pay child support, but
obviously many women need the state to get fathers to pay child support,
and some men need the state to get mothers to pay child support.
Granted, children need to be considered first and
>foremost, but when the present c-s policies have the potential of
>devestating one of their parents financially and emotionally, then, yes,
>I am proud to support the men's movement.
When the push to reduce child support payments means that more children
will be left without adequate shelter, clothing, food, and education,
I'm proud to support the movement to enforce child support.
There are many fathers that
>would love to open their wallets directly to their kids, on their own
>terms, but many of their options are closed to them. Remember, the c-s
>is paid to the mother, not to the kids.
Of course it's paid to the mother, since it's usually the mother who is
the one paying the rent where the children live, buying food that goes
into the children's stomachs, buying their clothes, and so on. These
kinds of expenses aren't as much fun as buying the kid a new bike, but
they're more essential. I would love to see how those fathers who
resent paying child support that goes to feed, clothe, and house their
children would open their wallets if they weren't forced to.
I'll say this since I've been accused of being anti-father. I'm not and
I think it's shameful that good fathers have trouble getting custody of
their children over bad mothers, and that some fathers can't get child
support off noncustodial mothers. I will do my best to work for a fair
solution to problems like that. But don't expect me to look favorably
at the fathers' rights movement after what I've seen of them online.
From what I've seen of them, they're conservative, homophobic, often
misogynist, and seem to care much less for their children than their
wallets and their girlfriends or new wives.
Jay
Richard R. Peterson
Taxes, deductions etc. are built into the poverty threshhold (i.e.,
including as necessary expenses of the household). Of course, these do
rise as income rises (our tax system is based on the assumption that
those with higher standards of living should pay a higher percentage of
their income in taxes--of course that's before tax loopholes etc. are
factored in, but that's a whole other discussion). So the total effect
of taxes/deductions etc. is NOT taken into account in the standard of
living calculations. Whether that's appropriate or not depends on
one's point of view.
In any event, I WOULD like to see someone factor in the effects of
taxes and deductions for children into the numbers. Any accountants or
tax lawyers out there who want to help out? Maybe by working on the
hypothetical ex.?
R. Peterson
Leigh
In article <32A573...@uokhsc.edu>, gregory...@uokhsc.edu
says...
> Richard R. Peterson wrote:
> >
> > OK, here's a hypothetical example: Mom, Dad and 2 kids before divorce.
> > Mom makes $30,000 Dad makes $40,000, for total household income of
> > $70,000. The Federal poverty threshhold for a family of 4 (last
> > updated March 1996) is $15,600. So the standard of living for this
> > household is 70,000/15,600=4.49 (i.e., they earn 4.49 times the poverty
> > threshold).
> > The couple divorces, Mom gets both kids.
>
Let's back the truck up right here.
Richard, WHY did mom get both kids?
GJP
Richard R. Peterson wrote:
>
> Greg, Not clear when you ask "whose facts are right" which "facts" you
> are talking about. The article you appended is jammed full with all
> kinds of "facts," including my own research correcting Weitzman (the
> report on the 10% increase for men/27% decline for women in standard of
> living after divorce) [I'm the "fellow sociologist" Cathy Young
> discusses].
> R. Peterson
Richard,
Cathy Young wrote in her article that "(There is evidence that, since
non-custodial parents cannot deduct child support payments, while
custodial parents don't have to report them as taxable income, women
come out ahead when taxes are factored in.)"
I have asked before if tax breaks including daycare, cafeteria plans,
mortgage deductions, dependent deductions, etc. are figured into the
numbers when calculating standard of living for middle income or better
CPs (women mainly). The old net vs. gross income issue. Since the NCP
pays the taxes on the CS, that income to the CP is real dollars to be
spent.
I also wonder about including subsidies from the state for poor CPs
including daycare credits, foodstamps, welfare, AFDC, special housing,
and the like are factored into the equations. In this latter case, I
could see how the standard of living may actually increase for a CP and
children when they go/went on the state and federal dole instead of
relying on the low wage earning NCP.
Greg Palumbo
Richard R. Peterson
Greg,
Ok, thanks for clarification. See comments below.
In <32A604...@uokhsc.edu> GJP <gregory...@uokhsc.edu> writes:
>
>Richard R. Peterson wrote:
>>
>> Greg, Not clear when you ask "whose facts are right" which "facts"
you>> are talking about. The article you appended is jammed full with
all>> kinds of "facts," including my own research correcting Weitzman
(the>> report on the 10% increase for men/27% decline for women in
standard of>> living after divorce) [I'm the "fellow sociologist" Cathy
Young>> discusses].
>> R. Peterson
>
>Richard,
>
>Cathy Young wrote in her article that "(There is evidence that, since
>non-custodial parents cannot deduct child support payments, while
>custodial parents don't have to report them as taxable income, women
>come out ahead when taxes are factored in.)"
>
>I have asked before if tax breaks including daycare, cafeteria plans,
>mortgage deductions, dependent deductions, etc. are figured into the
>numbers when calculating standard of living for middle income or
better>CPs (women mainly). The old net vs. gross income issue. Since
the NCP>pays the taxes on the CS, that income to the CP is real dollars
to be>spent.
As I said in a previous post, the calculations use gross income--we
need an accountant or tax lawyer to work out the effects of taxes on
the calculations.
>I also wonder about including subsidies from the state for poor CPs
>including daycare credits, foodstamps, welfare, AFDC, special housing,
>and the like are factored into the equations. In this latter case, I
>could see how the standard of living may actually increase for a CP
and>children when they go/went on the state and federal dole instead of
>relying on the low wage earning NCP.
Welfare/AFDC income and other cash payments ARE counted as post-divorce
income. The other items you mention ("in-kind" benefits) are NOT
counted as post-divorce income. You are right, there are cases,
usually where the family was poor before the divorce, where the
standard of living of the women and children may go up. There is a lot
of variation in outcomes after divorce (I address this briefly in my
paper that critiques Weitzman).
My exchange with Weitzman focused primarily on the AVERAGE
effects--using the methods described in a previous post, the average
standard of living declines for women, and increases for men. No one
denies (I certainly don't) that there are other patterns of change
(i.e., some men end up worse off, some women end up better off). It's
just that these are not the average results.
R. Peterson
James Buster
In article <584nul$g...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,>Numbers are meaningless because I did not mean income minus poverty
>threshhold--I meant income divided by poverty threshhold. See my post
>on this with hypothetical example.
How so? I think it is far more meaningful to say "I make $15,000 above
poverty threshold" than to say "I make 2x the poverty threshold",
because the former actually gives a hard number, whereas the latter
tells us nothing.
Richard R. Peterson
Numbers are meaningless because I did not mean income minus poverty
threshhold--I meant income divided by poverty threshhold. See my post
on this with hypothetical example.
In <5836oe$i...@fido.asd.sgi.com> bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James
Buster) writes:
>
>In article <581l1r$q...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
>>economic consequences of divorce. Standard of living for a household
>>equals income divided by the poverty threshhold for the the
household.
>
>numbers are coming from. Anyway, on to the example.
>
>I assume you mean here "income *minus* poverty threshold". That just
>makes my example even better. To reiterate:
>
>Woman: $30K salary
>
unreasonable:
>
>Poverty threshold, 1 person: $15K
>Poverty threshold, 2 people: $22K
>
>Standard of living (SOL) of the parties equals income - poverty
threshold.
>There are some minor effects of tax bracketing I have not considered
here.
>
>Woman, single: $15K
>Man, single: $35K
>Woman + Man, married: $58K (or, $29K each)
>
>When they live together, the man's SOL drops 17.2%, but the woman's
>increases an astounding 93.3%. When they divorce, the man's SOL
>increases 20.6%, but his ex-wife's drops 48.3%. This is very much
>like Weitzman's numbers. Too bad that since the result is just,
>these numbers are meaningless.
Mark Jebens
In article <5833de$g...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
> OK, here's a hypothetical example: Mom, Dad and 2 kids before divorce.
> Mom makes $30,000 Dad makes $40,000, for total household income of
> $70,000. The Federal poverty threshhold for a family of 4 (last
> updated March 1996) is $15,600. So the standard of living for this
> household is 70,000/15,600=4.49 (i.e., they earn 4.49 times the poverty
> threshold).
> The couple divorces, Mom gets both kids. ASSUMING no changes in
> income for either parent, and NO transfer of either alimony or child
> support from Dad to Mom, the standard of living for each household is
> as follows:
> Mom: 30,000/12,980=2.31 (a 49% decline) (NOTE: 12,980 is poverty
> threshhold for household of 3 people).
> Dad: 40,000/7,740=5.17 (a 15% increase) (NOTE: 7,740 is poverty
> threshold for a household of 1 person)
My, my, my. What a disgustingly flawed analysis.
If you are going to do an analysis like this, you must first look at
the nominal case. In the above situation, this is where there are no
kids.
In that case, using your methods above, the man will suffer a 24%
decrease in his standard of living, while the woman suffers a 43%
standard of living. You will note that the decrease for the woman
in this nominal case is still far greater than for the man.
The question then is why do we see this effect. Well, very simply, it is
because when they married, the woman's standard of living increase was
twice that of the man's (a 74% increase for the woman compared to a 31%
increase for the man).
Similarly, after the man in your hypothetical situation has the two kids,
his standard of living will have decreased by 13% from his heady bachelor
days. At the same time, the woman's standard of living will have
increased by 16% over the same period.
Thus, a major part of the decline that you are claiming above is because
the father is no longer subsidizing the mother's standard of living.
Surely, the subsidization of the woman is a burden that the man should
not have to bear after the marriage is over.
--
Mark Jebens
mje...@primenet.com
"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no
better than we deserve." George Bernard Shaw
Richard Bennett
rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
>As I said in a previous post, the calculations use gross income--we
>need an accountant or tax lawyer to work out the effects of taxes on
>the calculations.
As the calculations are based on gross income, they are most certainly
wrong, even as "corrected."
I have a great little tax program which I can use to figure "quick and
dirt" tax rates. All I need is gross income, child support, alimony,
and number of kids. For which data points would you like taxes
calculated?
The program is pretty accurate.
RB
--
Richard Bennett, Cupertino, CA.
copyright (c) Richard Bennett, 1996.
Richard Bennett
ande...@netcom.com (Jay Anderson) wrote:
>I have some idea of what some of the fathers' rights guys online are
>doing.
And then there are the lesbian feminists who say "pedophilia is a
practice intrinsic to gay male culture."
Kinda makes it hard to figure who your friends are.
Richard Bennett
rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
OK, dude, here's what happens to your hypothetical when you crunch the
taxes and child support into it. Let's make Dad pay $855/mo in child
support, as he would under the Calfornia formula with a 10 percent
timeshare. His taxes are $944/mo, and mom's are $426. The net
spendable income, after wages, child support, and taxes, comes to
2,929 for mom and 1,534 for dad, each month, or $35,148 for mom and
$18,408 for dad.
According to the method you've described, mom's standard of living is
now 2.7, and for dad it's 2.4. So mom's declined by 40%, and dad's by
47%. Dad also loses the kids.
These tax figures come from Dissomaster, the program used by
California judges in divorce cases.
Next example.
>OK, here's a hypothetical example: Mom, Dad and 2 kids before divorce.
> Mom makes $30,000 Dad makes $40,000, for total household income of
>$70,000. The Federal poverty threshhold for a family of 4 (last
>updated March 1996) is $15,600. So the standard of living for this
>household is 70,000/15,600=4.49 (i.e., they earn 4.49 times the poverty
>threshold).
> The couple divorces, Mom gets both kids. ASSUMING no changes in
>income for either parent, and NO transfer of either alimony or child
>support from Dad to Mom, the standard of living for each household is
>as follows:
> Mom: 30,000/12,980=2.31 (a 49% decline) (NOTE: 12,980 is poverty
>threshhold for household of 3 people).
> Dad: 40,000/7,740=5.17 (a 15% increase) (NOTE: 7,740 is poverty
>threshold for a household of 1 person)
Mark Jebens
In article <58344l$c...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
> In <32A455...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> Gerry Harbison
> <ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> writes:
> >
> >> Richard R. Peterson wrote:
> >> > This is NOT how standard of living is measured in the studies on
> >> > economic consequences of divorce. Standard of living for a
> household
> >> > equals income divided by the poverty threshhold for the the
> household.
> >Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the poverty
> >threshold was a non-linear function of household size: that is to say,
> >This whole discussion has made me wonder whether maybe there should be
> > a bit more math required for a degree in sociology.
> See my previous post, which confirms that poverty threshhold is a
> non-linear function of household size.
Not only is the poverty threshold non-linear, but it is reasonable to
believe that the effects of income beyond the poverty line is
non-linear as well. That is to say that going from, say, 4 times the
poverty level to 4.4 times the poverty level will not result in a
10% increase in the standard of living.
For example, look at the hypothectical siutation used by Peterson earlier
where the man earns $40K and the woman $30K. If 30% of income goes toward
housing, then the couple would be able to spend $1750/mo for a home as
opposed to the $1000/mo he would have without the wife and kids present.
I contend that the $1750/mo home shared with three other people is a
higher standard than the $100/mo used only by the man. This is despite
Peterson's figures that indicate just the opposite.
In other words, Peterson's method seems to be fundamentally flawed
in its concept. Which, of course, means that the results are
also flawed.
Note: I am not even sure that standard of living can be quantifiable.
For instance, take two household that are identical in very way
except that one has a computer and the other does not. If the
computer takes 10% of the first family's income, does that mean that
the standard of living in the first household is 10% higher - just
because of a computer? If the income over the poverty line in
each household doubles, does the first household now have a 5%
higher standard of living?
Also, how does savings for retirement play into the equation?
Savings provide a delay or averaging of the benefits of his income, but
the method used does not look into future standards of living - only
the present. Two households will have a different standard of living
if one saves and the other does not. Since the ability to save is a
non-linear function based on how close the household is to the
poverty line, this means that the use of monies not saved is non-linear.
Richard Bennett
Ric...@Bennett.com (Richard Bennett) wrote:
>rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
>
>OK, dude, here's what happens to your hypothetical when you crunch the
>taxes and child support into it. Let's make Dad pay $855/mo in child
>support, as he would under the Calfornia formula with a 10 percent
>timeshare. His taxes are $944/mo, and mom's are $426. The net
>spendable income, after wages, child support, and taxes, comes to
>2,929 for mom and 1,534 for dad, each month, or $35,148 for mom and
>$18,408 for dad.
>
>According to the method you've described, mom's standard of living is
>now 2.7, and for dad it's 2.4. So mom's declined by 40%, and dad's by
>47%. Dad also loses the kids.
Pardon me, but I lied. I didn't calculate the pre-divorce std. of
living using net income, only post-divorce. So it should be $50,772
as pre-divorce income, or 3.3. Post-divorce is still 2.7 for mom and
2.4 for dad, or an 18% decline for mom and a 27% decline for dad.
More or less common sense.
RB
>
>These tax figures come from Dissomaster, the program used by
>California judges in divorce cases.
>> 1 $7,740
Michael Koster
GJP <gregory...@uokhsc.edu> writes:
>Richard,
When you apply for a mortgage loan, the bank doesn't care at what
multiple of the poverty level you are. How about looking at the ability
of respective parties to secure a mortgage loan as a factor in standard
of living?
Hint: CS is counted as debt, and most mortgage criteria allow 33% of
your net income *total* debt. So with 25% CS, that gives the NCP about
8.3% of net income to spend on a house payment.
Another hint: If you have children you're directly responsible for,
there is no particular amount of money deducted from your income for
the purpose of determining your debt ratio. You probably have the whole
33%, which includes 33% of any CS and alimony payments also.
I guess we could get the banks to re-think their formula... right.
Michael.
Richard R. Peterson
This reply, and others by Jebens and Bennett raise interesting and
important questions. The issue of how to measure standard of living is
a thorny one. (I can't take credit for the method I used--it has been
in common use for a long time.) A Government panel that was convened
to come up with a new way of measuring poverty recommended sweeping
changes in the way the poverty threshhold is defined, to take into
account issues like taxes, transfer of child support, etc. Their
recommendations have not been implemented, and I don't know that there
are any prospects for Congress acting on the recommendations soon.
Jebens argues that standard of living may not be quantifiable--if we
go along with that, then none of the discussion about percentage
changes in standard of living matters at all. I think any measure of
standard of living is going to be incomplete, for two reasons: 1) not
everything that contributes to standard of living can be measured 2)
different people will disagree about those parts of standard of living
that can be measured. Having said that, some of us have thought it was
worth trying to get a least a rough estimate of the changes in standard
of living that are associated with divorce. Admittedly, these measures
have their limitations, and could use improvement. It comes down to
whether one thinks that they are so far off the mark that they're
useless or that they provide at least a rough measure of what's
happening. I guess I'm in the latter group.
If we are going to use the measures, I think taking taxes into
account is an important improvement. Bennett's work on the
hypothetical example showed that in one situation the woman's standard
of living declined 18% while the man's declined 27% (if I remember
right). Since the example is hypothetical, it doesn't tell us what is
typically happening to real people (more on that later). We can think
of other hypothetical situations to see what effect they have on the
results. I suspect that as the gap between the husband's and the
wife's income increases, the results start to favor the husband (or at
least move in that direction). I also suspect that when both spouses
have lower incomes, the effects of taxation are smaller. There are
probably also differences in results as the number of children
increases or decreases. There are a lot of hypothetical situations we
could examine.
More importantly, what we really need is to apply the taxation
adjustment to a representative sample of divorced couples in the U.S.
(unfortunately a lot of samples don't include information on taxes
paid, and estimating taxes paid using different formulas for residents
of each state would be a nightmare). This will tell us what is
happening to real people, and we would then be able to determine
whether, on average, women or men come out better. We would also be
able to look at the factors affecting which men and women fare better
or worse. We would be able to take into account whether the child
support is actually paid (some states are not as vigorous as others in
their enforcement mechanisms), and a host of other issues.
R. Peterson
In <587q88$g...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> mko...@eng.sun.com (Michael
Koster) writes:
Richard R. Peterson
After posting this, I received several requests for information. I'll
respond to all of these here:
The citation for my article is American Sociological Review vol. 61,
June 1996, pp. 528-540.
Yes, there may have been some confusion in news reports about
whether the percentages referred to an income drop or a
standard-of-living drop. Any news stories that referred to an income
drop are incorrect.
I am not at liberty to release Weitzman's data to others. To get
access to the data, I was required to sign a contract saying that I
would not share the data. FYI, remember that her data are limited to
L.A. in 1977-78. Many of the issues that people are interested in
could be better addressed with more recent national data (e.g., the
National Survey of Families and Households).
R. Peterson
In <58a5p8$9...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
John Watson
In article <schaferE...@netcom.com>, sch...@netcom.com (Lenny
Schafer) wrote:
>
> Joint custody is what exists pre-divorce, and should then be the
> presumption going into divorce.
>
Excellant post Larry, however I disagree on this point. Until such time
that their is statistical equality in custody, i.e. 50% of all kids in
single parent households are with their male parent, custody should be
given to the father (with the exception being made for immediate danger to
the child). This arguement should be quite rational to feminists since it
is same one used to justify the equal pay for equal work, affirmative
action, political equalization, title IX etc. Remember no consideration
should be given to different levels of interest in custody or anything
other than a statistical 50% distribution.
John Watson
John Watson
>
> Joint custody is what exists pre-divorce, and should then be the
> presumption going into divorce.
>
Excellant post Lenny, however I disagree on this point. Until such time
LilChica
Lenny Schafer wrote:
Also, biological fathers tend to be less abusive
> towards their children than moms.
Hehe I know this sounds familiar... but.... where can I find the
statistics that prove that?????
This time I just want to see some facts to back that up, I'm not
interested in writing a paper on this subject as it hits too close to
home for me (having 2 abusive step-parents and an abusive ex-husband).
Thanks!
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <watson-0712...@mptc3-cs-8.midplains.net>
----
Legally speaking, children's best interests will ALWAYS be placed
before daddy's best wishes; that's the way the court continues to
see it...so put this with your wishes to Santa.
Practically speaking, women who saw some sort of custody changes
that did not go in their favor are at a different place in history.
You see, back when men had total custody rights, women didn't have
birth control. Women who want children rather than the children
of a particular man, will seek solace elsewhere, negating the need
for child support AND the need for custody choices.
Lefty
Eric Conrad
Try the Encyclopedia of Social Work. It will give you a summary
of the evidence as well as references that you can follow up on.
Not only are moms the most common abusers, but when abuse is classified
according to seriousness of injury and fatalities, moms actually ascend
to in prominence as abusers. (Disclaimer for the Politically Correct and
Logically Impaired: While most child abusers are in fact women, it does
not follow that most women are in fact child abusers.)
Eric
--
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu)
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/
Department of Mathematics
The Ohio State University
Eric Conrad
In article <58d1hv$i...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Legally speaking, children's best interests will ALWAYS be placed
> before daddy's best wishes; that's the way the court continues to
> see it...so put this with your wishes to Santa.
That should read "mommy's best interests". The phrase "child's best
interests" is nothing but a euphemism.
> Practically speaking, women who saw some sort of custody changes
> that did not go in their favor are at a different place in history.
> You see, back when men had total custody rights, women didn't have
> birth control. Women who want children rather than the children
> of a particular man, will seek solace elsewhere, negating the need
> for child support AND the need for custody choices.
But not the need for palimony which lawyers euphemistically refer to
as "child support payments".
Leigh
In article <32AA05...@itol.com>, yc...@itol.com says...
> This time I just want to see some facts to back that up, I'm not
> interested in writing a paper on this subject as it hits too close to
> home for me (having 2 abusive step-parents and an abusive ex-husband).
>
Out of curiousity, do you feel that the environment you grew up in
shaped your choice of a mate?
andrea lea baker
wat...@epicentre.com (John Watson) wrote:
>Excellant post Lenny, however I disagree on this point. Until such time
>that their is statistical equality in custody, i.e. 50% of all kids in
>single parent households are with their male parent, custody should be
>given to the father (with the exception being made for immediate danger to
>the child). This arguement should be quite rational to feminists since it
>is same one used to justify the equal pay for equal work, affirmative
>action, political equalization, title IX etc. Remember no consideration
>should be given to different levels of interest in custody or anything
>other than a statistical 50% distribution.
No, it should have nothing at all to do with the gender of the parent, it
should have everything to do with the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (please
note that this is coming from someone who has, and is happy with, 50%
legal and physical custody).
Parents in contested custody situations should have drug and alcohol
evaluations, psychometric tests, extensive interviews as to why they want
custody, and the decision should be made exclusively on who is going to
provide the most stable and secure home for the child; who is going to
raise the most well-adjusted child.
Custody should not be about parents using each other to retaliate against
one and other, and it should not be a political platform. If people
can't be mature enough to put their differences behind them and realize
that some wrongs that have committed against them by a spouse simply
won't be righted, they arguably are not mature enough to raise a
psychologically healthy child.
Andrea Baker
Lenny Schafer
LilChica (yc...@itol.com) says:
: Lenny Schafer wrote:
: Also, biological fathers tend to be less abusive
: > towards their children than moms.
: Hehe I know this sounds familiar... but.... where can I find the
: statistics that prove that?????
: This time I just want to see some facts to back that up, I'm not
: interested in writing a paper on this subject as it hits too close to
: home for me (having 2 abusive step-parents and an abusive ex-husband).
Dear Hehe,
Here are some references, forwarded:
Wolfner GD. Gelles RJ. A profile of violence toward
children: a national study. Child Abuse & Neglect.
17(2):197-212, 1993 Mar-Apr. This paper presents a profile of violence
toward children in the United States, based on the results from the
results from the Second National Family Violence Survey. A national
probability sample of 6,002 households was surveyed by telephone in
1985, of which 3,232 households had at least one child under 18 years old
living at home. Minor violence, or physical punishment, was most common
among mothers, caretakers 18 to 37 years old, fathers who were
unemployed, caretakers with blue-collar occupations, households with two
to four children at home, and among caretakers who used alcohol and other
drugs, male children, and children 3 to 6 years old. The highest rates
of abusive violence occurred in families located in the East, families
whose abusive violence occurred in families located in the East, families
whose annual income was below the poverty line, families where the father
was unemployed, families where the caretakers held blue-collar jobs,
families with four or more children, caretakers who used drugs at least
once, male children, and children 3 to 6 years old. Logistic regressions
were done to examine the predictive value of these variables.
Bourget, D. & Bradford, J.M.W. (1990). Homicidal parents. Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry, 35(3), 233-238. In a retrospective study of 13 cases of
parents who have killed their children, the relevant demographic and
clinical data are reviewed. The diagnostic classification using the
DSM-III-R is discussed in detail. A higher incidence of maternal
perpetrators was found, and exposure to a variety of psychosocial
stresses appears to have been a major factor. Similarly the suicidal
history and behavior of the subjects is significant.
Kaplun, D. & Reich, R. (1976). The murdered child and his killers.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 133(7), 809-813. The authors studied 112
cases of child homicide in New York City during 1968-1969 to identify
contributing social and psychiatric factors and during 1968-1969 to and
to determine the fate of the surviving siblings and the degree of
involvement of the city's social agencies with the families. There was a
pattern of long-term familial child maltreatment extending to the
siblings and continuing after the murders. The victims were usually
illegitimate preschoolers; the assailants, usually the mothers or their
paramours, had backgrounds of assaultiveness and social deviance and
killed in impulsive rage. Case illustrations and prevention guidelines
are presented.
A web resource is:
http://indy.radiology.uiowa.edu/Providers/Textbooks/peds/
books/ChildAbuseAndNeglect/Appendice/appCperpetrator.html
More references are being obtained and will be presented shortly.
Love, lenny
--
GJP
Richard R. Peterson wrote:
>
> This reply, and others by Jebens and Bennett raise interesting and
> important questions. The issue of how to measure standard of living is
> a thorny one. (I can't take credit for the method I used--it has been
> in common use for a long time.) A Government panel that was convened
> to come up with a new way of measuring poverty recommended sweeping
> changes in the way the poverty threshhold is defined, to take into
> account issues like taxes, transfer of child support, etc. Their
> recommendations have not been implemented, and I don't know that there
> are any prospects for Congress acting on the recommendations soon.
Richard,
I have another question and several observations that maybe you can
address. How does one calculate the poverty level? The reason I ask
this question is because eleven years ago Congress passed a law that
made fellowships for graduate students taxable. At that time graduate
student stipends in Dallas TX and other cities across the country raised
their graduate student stipends to account for this loss in income by
several thousand dollars. At that time, 7500.00/year was considered
poverty for a single person in Dallas and was the yearly stipend. Not
to have raised the stipend to account for taxes would have placed the
students below the poverty level, so stipends were raised to around
10,000.00/yr. Now eleven years later the poverty level remains at
7500.00/yr for a single person. What gives? I know it costs more than
it did eleven years ago to survive.
Is the government playing a shell game to hide the true numbers of
people in poverty by classifying them as living above an artificially
low living wage---a level they set? Are they telling this lie by using
numbers that haven't undergone substantial adjustment in 10 years? Is
this any different than all the other manipulations they have performed
in their accounting practices to show the nation that the people are in
good shape and that the government is not running such large
deficits??? Is this any different than the tens of billions of dollars
they plan on saving by changing how they calculate the cost of
living----reducing it by only a percentage point????? Is this all smoke
and mirrors by snakeoil salesman (government sponsored analyists and
statisticians)and politicians in Washington.D.C.?????
If the denominator of the standard of living calculation doesn't take
into account variables, a true poverty level, subsidies, taxes and
breaks, etc.....it is then meaningless as are the numbers generated.
Why not then just choose a number like 2 or 200 or 2000 or 20,000 or
200,000????? I am sure we could decide on a denominator that could help
any group of citizens desired, as well as the government.
Greg Palumbo
Mark Jebens
In article <57leto$7...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
> I find it odd that people on different sides of this issue assume
> that Weitzman lied. I spent a lot of time investigating the error she
> made, and I have concluded that she made an error in calculating her
> statistics. She believed the numbers she published were accurate.
> That's not lying, nor is it distorting the facts (at least not as she
> knew them).
The porblem is that when asked about her figures, Weitzman refused to
release th data to back them up. It definitely appears that she was
involved in a coverup of her mistake. Later, she said that any
mistake was made by her assistant, as if that absolves her of
publishing bad data and at least a decade of not admitting the
problem.
It may not be lying, but it is intellectual dishonesty. I see little
difference betweeen the two.
Mark Jebens
In article <58a5p8$9...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
rrpe...@ix.netcom.com(Richard R. Peterson) wrote:
> This reply, and others by Jebens and Bennett raise interesting and
> important questions. The issue of how to measure standard of living is
> a thorny one. (I can't take credit for the method I used--it has been
> in common use for a long time.) A Government panel that was convened
> to come up with a new way of measuring poverty recommended sweeping
> changes in the way the poverty threshhold is defined, to take into
> account issues like taxes, transfer of child support, etc. Their
> recommendations have not been implemented, and I don't know that there
> are any prospects for Congress acting on the recommendations soon.
> Jebens argues that standard of living may not be quantifiable--if we
> go along with that, then none of the discussion about percentage
> changes in standard of living matters at all. I think any measure of
> standard of living is going to be incomplete, for two reasons: 1) not
> everything that contributes to standard of living can be measured 2)
> different people will disagree about those parts of standard of living
> that can be measured.
Good post. This is a topic that deserves some discussion.
Standard of living is very subjective. While we can all agree that
Bill Gates' standard of living is better than than the man living in a
slum, it becomes much harder when the wealth of the parties is a bit
more equal.
If you say that person X has a 10% higher standard of living than person
Y, I have no idea what that means in real terms. That is, what does a
10% higher standard of living buy you. It definitiely sounds like
something I would like to have, but as I pointed out in a previous
post I would prefer a house that I share with a wife and two kids over
a large apartment solely for my own use. (OTOH, I would rather have
the apartment than share a house with three other men.)
>Having said that, some of us have thought it was
> worth trying to get a least a rough estimate of the changes in standard
> of living that are associated with divorce. Admittedly, these measures
> have their limitations, and could use improvement. It comes down to
> whether one thinks that they are so far off the mark that they're
> useless or that they provide at least a rough measure of what's
> happening. I guess I'm in the latter group.
When the mathematical model used is as poor as the currently one, I have
to fall in the former group.
Let me pose a hypothetical situation. If the model were a contant value
(as opposed to linear equation), would you still want to use it? For
instance, suppose we said that after divorce, everyone's standard of
living fell by 10%. I suspect that you would discount the results as
being worthless. As a mathematician, I see that the current model is
not much better.
Also, I reject the claim that using the existing model is acceptable
since it has been in common use for years. If this were a physical
product in use for years and it was known to be defective, the maker
of the product would be liable for the damages caused by the defect.
An intellectual product should not be subject to less stringent criteria.
[rest of very good discussion snipped]
The Blue Eyed Woman
Eric Conrad wrote:
> (Disclaimer for the Politically Correct and
> Logically Impaired: While most child abusers are in fact women, it does
> not follow that most women are in fact child abusers.)
>
What a silly statement. It would only be accurate if all or nearly all
children are abused. Most child abusers are CP, the majority of CP are
women, therefore most child abusers are women. If the majority of CP
were men, then the majority of child abusers would be men. To paint
women with such a broad brush is no more accurate than if I were to
assume that all persons named "Eric" were clueless.
Tricia
PS: this was my first post to this group. If I've violated the culture
of the group, don't hesitate to let me know.
Mark Jebens
In article <32AC8B...@yebb.com>, The Blue Eyed Woman
<blue.ey...@yebb.com> wrote:
> Eric Conrad wrote:
>
> > (Disclaimer for the Politically Correct and
> > Logically Impaired: While most child abusers are in fact women, it does
> > not follow that most women are in fact child abusers.)
>
> What a silly statement. It would only be accurate if all or nearly all
> children are abused.
Silly or not, when someone points out that the majority of child abuse is
done by the biological mother,there is always someone dumb enough to
claim that it is incorrect to say most mothers are not abusers. Eric
was merely cutting off the inevitable stupid replies.
>Most child abusers are CP, the majority of CP are
> women, therefore most child abusers are women.
Is this true? Where did you get this information?
>If the majority of CP
> were men, then the majority of child abusers would be men.
I don't see how you can make such a claim. Activists within the feminist
movement claim that abusive men do not require much motivation or access
to inflict their abuse. They will take whatever motivation and access
they can get to inflict their abuse. If this is true, then the same
also has to be true for women. You can't have it both ways.
>To paint
> women with such a broad brush is no more accurate than if I were to
> assume that all persons named "Eric" were clueless.
I don't see how you can claim that Eric was painting with a broad brush
when he was making a simple statistical statement. His statement was
objective, while your example is subjective. Perhaps the problem is that
you do not like the implication of his statement.
James Buster
In article <32AC8B...@yebb.com>,
The Blue Eyed Woman <blue.ey...@yebb.com> wrote:
>What a silly statement. It would only be accurate if all or nearly all
>women, therefore most child abusers are women. If the majority of CP
>were men, then the majority of child abusers would be men.
If what you suggested were true, then you would expect that co-habiting
men and women to have equal abuse rates. They do not.
Richard R. Peterson
Greg, the figure of $7500 per year for a single person is too high to
have come from the federal government's definition. In 1992, the
poverty threshhold for a single person under age 65 was $7,299. So the
$7500 figure must come from some other source.
As to the question of how the poverty level is calculated, it would
take a book to describe it, and how it should be fixed. And that book
has been written. See MEASURING POVERTY: A NEW APPROACH, edited by
Citro & Michael, published by National Academy Press, 1995 (Wash. D.C).
> Is the government playing a shell game to hide the true numbers
of>people in poverty by classifying them as living above an
artificially>low living wage---a level they set?
YES
Are they telling this lie by using>numbers that haven't undergone
substantial adjustment in 10 years?
NO, they are adjusted for inflation.
Steven Malcolm Anderson
In <32AC8B...@yebb.com> The Blue Eyed Woman
<blue.ey...@yebb.com> writes:
>
>Eric Conrad wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> (Disclaimer for the Politically Correct and
>> Logically Impaired: While most child abusers are in fact women, it
does
>> not follow that most women are in fact child abusers.)
>>
>
all
>children are abused. Most child abusers are CP, the majority of CP
are
>women, therefore most child abusers are women. If the majority of CP
>women with such a broad brush
He did not paint women with a broad brush. He said: "...it does not
follow that most women are in fact child abusers."
is no more accurate than if I were to
>assume that all persons named "Eric" were clueless.
>
>Tricia
>
>PS: this was my first post to this group. If I've violated the
culture
>of the group, don't hesitate to let me know.
--
sm...@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia
Alan Madsen
Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: blue.ey...@yebb.com> writes:
: >Eric Conrad wrote:
: >> (Disclaimer for the Politically Correct and
: >> Logically Impaired: While most child abusers are in
: >> fact women, it does not follow that most women are in
: >> fact child abusers.)
: >>
: >
: > What a silly statement. It would only be accurate if all
: > or nearly all children are abused. Most child abusers are
: > CP, the majority of CP are women, therefore most child abusers
: > are women. If the majority of CP were men, then the majority
: > of child abusers would be men. To paint women with such a broad
: >
: > Tricia
: >
: > PS: this was my first post to this group. If I've violated the
: > culture of the group, don't hesitate to let me know.
: He did not paint women with a broad brush. He said: "...it does
: not follow that most women are in fact child abusers."
handly true... what is also true is that such nicetys
of truth are left in the dust and what remains is that
women are the most abusive of children...
i mean, come on jay - what do you think is found attractive
about that statistic to the anti-female crowd (largely the
ex-husbands)...?
intrestingly enough, if one counts the paternal male being
absent as abuse (you know, all the fathers-rights guys say-
ing children need a father), males become the most abusive
of children...
***
hey, tricia... these groups will survive someone
concerned for their well-being... wear boots...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.