Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

filtherton · 10-06-2004, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav

This is brief, I have to go out shortly.
On the 90% custody issue, slap it in a search engine and you will find it, you're just sidetracking the issue by unnecessarily nitpicking every little detail.

Just because you enjoy the benefits of sidetracking an issue by nitpicking(incest) doesn't mean that that is what i am doing. I'm just asking for a source. Quoting a stat as fact and then expecting the people arguing against you to run and verify it is not only lazy, but also also shows a complete lack of respect for your own argument. Good thing i took your suggestion and googled it. Here's what i found:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawr...4/mcneely.html

It's about a sixth of the way down, ctrl-f and type in "90%" if you want to find it.

Quote:

B. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts

Although allegedly implemented "to determine the extent, nature, and consequences of gender bias in the judiciary and to make remedial recommendations to promote the fair and equal treatment of men and women,"[106] the 1989 Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts is a prime example of a results-oriented study ironically reeking of gender bias.[107] Despite evidence demonstrating that mothers receive primary residential custody of children approximately 90% of the time that custody is first determined by the court,[108] this study offered the following remarkable conclusion to demonstrate that gender bias against fathers in child custody determinations was a myth, unworthy of further study or policy changes: "[F]athers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time."[109] This conclusion is often cited to discredit continuing claims by fathers and fathers' rights organizations of gender bias in child custody matters.[110] An analysis of the methodology underlying this conclusion, however, demonstrates fundamental flaws that seem to confirm a results-oriented analysis.[111]

First, the study=s methodology in the area of child custody was entirely subjective; that is, it was based on interviews rather than hard data from court files.[112] Second, the study dodged the hard questions of gender bias it purported to address. For example:

In most cases, mothers get primary physical custody of children following divorce. In general, this pattern does not reflect judicial gender bias, but the agreement of the parties and the fact that in most families mothers have been the primary caretakers of children. In some cases, however, perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody, and stereotypes about fathers may affect case outcomes.[113]

Clearly the study missed an opportunity to explore whether out-of-court gender bias led to situations in which mothers were predominantly the primary caretakers, the stated basis for mothers' success in court.[114] It did not look at the forces at play underlying "the agreement of the parties" regarding custody.[115] Most problematic, however, was its total absence of follow up on the speculation of how gender bias discouraged fathers from seeking custody and how stereotypes about fathers affected outcomes.

Thus, ignoring these potential gender biases against fathers allowed the study to conclude that "fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time."[116] However, based on its own data and not ignoring potential gender bias against fathers, the study could also have trumpeted any of the following results, leading to far different conclusions:

Mothers get primary residential custody 93.4% of the time in divorces.[117]

Fathers in divorce get primary residential custody only 2.5% of the time.[118]

Fathers in divorce get joint physical custody only 4% of the time.[119]

Fathers in divorce get primary or joint physical custody less than 7% of the time.[120]

Where fathers actively seek custody, they receive primary residency in less than one out of three cases (29%),[121] and joint physical residency in less than half (46%).[122]

Unfortunately, the preceding five conclusions did not seem to fit with the pre-conceived effort to "isolate patterns of behavior that disadvantage women and to examine the results of this behavior on the economic status of women."[123]

Finally, the foundation for the "70% solution" theory advanced by the study is hopelessly weak. The number implies that if a father wants custody, 70% of the time he will get either primary or joint physical residency. The number does not explain, for example, in how many of those cases mothers actually agreed that primary or joint physical residency was best for their children. It does not explain how many of those cases were contested cases where the judiciary determined custody after a hearing on the merits. Nor does it explain in how many of those cases the mother actively rejected custody or was unavailable to care for the children. In short, problems in the methodology underlying the 70% figure and basic failures to explore other possible explanations, render the figure utterly useless in concluding a lack of gender bias against fathers.[124] Indeed, analyzed fairly, the data underlying the figure strongly suggest social and cultural forces at play beyond a holistic analysis of children=s best interests. It cannot be fairly concluded through the analysis of these data that those forces are based on gender bias against fathers, but it can be fairly concluded that the study does not refute such gender bias.

In short, gender bias can play a role in the determination of which parent recieves custody of their children in divorce proceedings.

Quote:

C. Discriminating Against Fathers as Men

Much has been written about and many studies conducted regarding gender stereotypes and sex-based discrimination against women. Comparatively, little attention has been focused on gender stereotypes and sex-based discrimination against men.[125] Yet, as Professor Leo Kanowitz wrote nearly twenty years ago:

Centuries of sex-role allocation, based on "habit, rather than analysis," simply disabled Americans of either sex from restructuring the duties of military service, family support, and protections in the work place so as to permit men and women to share the burdens and benefits of social existence more equitably. Viewed in this light, the apparent power of men to change their sex-based roles in the past can be seen as being more theoretical than real. In this respect, men were as powerless as any other discrete, insular minority; past discrimination against them was invidious in every sense of the word.[126]

One expert noted that "[i]n sum, over the past two hundred years, fatherhood has lost, in full or in part, each of its four traditional roles: irreplaceable caregiver, moral educator, head of family, and family breadwinner."[127] Thus, particularly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution, the role of the father in the father-child dynamic has become unclear and undefined. Yet, compared to mothers, little focus has been placed on understanding the role of fathers and diminishing discrimination against them. Instead, more effort has seemingly been placed in disseminating anti-father propaganda that devalues fathers. For example, Joan Zorza, an author who writes about domestic violence, noted in a recent article that:

[a]fter separation, fathers tend to fade from their children's lives, even when they have joint custody and are strongly encouraged to stay involved. Not only do separated fathers have less physical contact with their children, but also they become less altruistic over time, less likely to pay child support, and further likely to disengage from their children.[128]

Even though this article purportedly focused on domestic violence among mothers and fathers, Zorza transcended the original premise to make broad comments about the inferiority of fathers in general, "whether or not abusive."[129] Although numerous studies show that fathers with joint custody are much more likely to pay child support,[130] Zorza stated that "[j]oint legal custody does not increase the father's compliance with child support orders, does not result in his assuming greater child-rearing responsibilities, and does not increase the amount of time he spends visiting with his children."[131] Many experts disagree with these conclusions.[132] Clearly, Zorza uses domestic violence as a springboard from which to attack fathers in general, a practice she implements in other articles as well.[133]

These generalized distortions encourage the anti-father attack and promote the limitation of the father's role to financial provider and insignificant caretaker. Viewed from the opposite end of the twentieth century, the continuous refrain throughout the last one hundred years has been that when it comes to childrearing, fathers are not that important.[134] Consequently, "In most parts of the country, only if the mother is grossly negligent or abusive does the father have a chance of keeping custody. Even then, the cards of the family court system are stacked against him."[135]

Conversely, since the 1960s, society has made a significant effort to assist women with throwing off the shackles of societally imposed gender stereotypes, most notably by passing much-needed laws to protect women seeking economic self-sufficiency.[136] However, because of persistent stereotypical beliefs that women are not as efficient as men in traditional male-dominated jobs, or that women are not the primary familial breadwinners,[137] women still earn only 71.5% of every dollar a man earns for the same job.[138] Moreover, while white men are a minority in the total work force (47%) and in the number of those with college degrees (48%), they hold the top jobs in nearly every field.[139]

For the most part, however, our culture and laws have, within the last twenty-five years, encouraged women to enter into traditional male territories such as the workplace.[140] At the same time, though, our culture has continued to assure women that they will be recognized and protected as the primary caregivers of children, even when women trade their traditional roles as home-dwelling caretakers for workplace laborers.[141] By contrast, our culture and our laws have not uniformly promoted father involvement in the home and with children. Accordingly, most men have not been permitted by society to likewise alter their roles to fully participate in childrearing.[142]

Fathers are often not permitted by society's gender expectations to alter their roles to fully participate in child rearing. Notice how this attributed to society and not some innate biological condition. These are the same human psychologists who you claimed to speak for.

Sorry to nitpick, but it is hard to take you seriously when you make statements that are so obviously untrue or unknowable like, "Women are better parents than men."