Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics

Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

Here are some fascinating statistics from Divorce Magazine, folks (sources are provided at the bottom of the page):
http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

Some choice tidbits (as of 2002):

To those guys out there whining that they are the only ones who pay in divorce, you are wrong:

Drop in standard of living of females after divorce as of 2000:45%

Also, see: A University of Michigan study of Income Dynamics disclosed that mothers with minor children undergo a 30 percent drop in their after-divorce standard of living while their ex-husband’s standard of living increased. (The url is currently down for maintenance.)

And:  According to the 1990 U.S. Bureau of Census more than one million women who are owed child support, are not receiving it. Many fathers do not pay child support as they are so ordered. Many divorced mothers have to work, seek public assistance, be trained or retrained for the work force so that family life can be maintained. Women are usually paid less than men. Children’s living needs, including food, clothing, etc., becomes more expensive as children become older.

Perhaps because (which you can correlate to my WAGE GAP posted previously):
Married women earning at least $5,000 a year more than their husbands:8.408 million (14.9% of all married women)Unmarried women earning at least $5,000 a year more than their partners:821,000 (21.5% of unmarried couples)Married men earning at least $5,000 a year more than their wives:33.228 million (58.8% of all married men)Unmarried men earning at least $5,000 a year more than their partners:2.099 million (54.9% of unmarried couples)
Married couples in which only the husband is employed:12.642 million (22.4%)Married couples in which only the wife is employed:3.855 million (6.8%)Married couples in which both partners are employed:30.212 million (53.5%)

Percentage of children with single parents (by gender) earning under $12,500 in 1998: Living with fathers: 17%
Living with mothers: 41%

You can add to that a higher risk of psychological distress (only reflecting reported cases, of course):
Number of women who are stalked by a husband or ex-husband every year as of 1997:380,000

Number of men who are stalked by a wife or ex-wife every year as of 1997:
52,000

The following four suggest (the correlation/cause issue is duly noted, thank you–I merely offer some counterindicating statistics) that actually, you may be better off marrying a woman over 40–more women than men have been married, and the older the people are when they marry, the less likely they are to divorce.  Could it be that emotional maturity and experience leads to that happy marital state to which Noer referred?  Could it be that “career” marriages founder on the naivete of under-30 individuals?  Or could it be that a “starter” marriage drums out youthful arrogance?  Or could it be that after 45, the pressure is off re: having kids, perhaps because people have already had them, don’t want them, accept they won’t have them, or can now afford to have them after slaving away for years in a culture which only allows 14 days vacation per calendar year (practically guaranteed to drive anyone to divorce if both people are working since then you would never see each other, children or no children), no health care security, no affordable childcare facilities, etc. etc. etc.?  It looks like there are more bachelors than spinsters, even though there are more women than men, which rebuts the bag lady rhetoric? (I’d still like to know if Noer is married.)

Percentage of people who have ever been married by the age of 25:Males: 32%
Females: 50%

Percentage of people who have ever been married by the age of 45:Males: 87%
Females: 90%

Percentage of people that married under the age of 20 who eventually get divorced as of 1995:40%

Percentage of people that married over the age of 25 who eventually get divorced as of 1995:24%

These items suggest other issues might be involved, not merely “careers” (though “irreconcilable differences” covers a lot of ground, including careers):

Percentage of women whose parents were divorced who get divorced within 10 years as of 1995:

Percentage of smokers who had been divorced in 1997:49%Percentage of nonsmokers who had been divorced in 1997:32%Percentage of divorces due to economic problems in 1997: 4.2% Percentage of divorces due to irreconcilable differences in 1997:80%

43%

The burden of childcare falls on women:

Number of single parents:Males: 2.04 million
Females: 9.68 million

Percentage of all households run by single moms:9.2%Percentage of all households run by single dads:1.9%Total single fathers maintaining their own household:1.786 millionTotal single mothers maintaining their own household:7.571 millionIn 19 states reporting custody in 1997: 72% of custody were awarded to the wife, 9% were awarded to the husband. In 16% joint custody was awarded. Parents who are awarded and receive child support have higher incomes. Fatherless homes account for 63% of youth suicides, 90% of homeless/runaway children, 85% of children with behavior problems, 71% of high school dropouts, 85% of youths in prison, well over 50% of teen mothers.

Get it, guys?  FATHERLESS. Not motherless.

“Author Beth Levine suggests that young men need their fathers to teach them appropriate masculine behavior and to learn acceptable ways to deal with their feelings of aggression and how to relate to women. They need their fathers as good role models Young women also need their fathers to recognize and approve of them, and to show that they think their daughters are worthwhile individuals.” http://www.blackwomenshealth.com/2006/articles.php?id=31

I ‘m just tired of hearing guys bash the career woman–why aren’t we bashing the deadbeat dad after all these centuries?  Of course we are going to be career women–so many men run out on their women and children!  It’s just pragmatic survival tactics.

08-29-2006 06:59 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

Also, see: A University of Michigan study of Income Dynamics disclosed that mothers with minor children undergo a 30 percent drop in their after-divorce standard of living while their ex-husband’s standard of living increased.

How could strong, capable women possibly have their standard of living drop.

Unless they benefited financially from the marriage, and once divorced must then pay their own way.

Those numbers have also been called into question.

The more realistic figures are the man’s standard of living goes up ~15%, and hers drops ~20%.

Proves that marriage is an economic boon to women.

BTW, does the study include support payments from the man to woman?
Does it account for the fact that he must pay taxes on those payments, but she does not?  Does it account for the fact that she gets the child deductions, but he does not?  Does it account for the fact that he gets to pay for her lawyer fees in many cases?

And why would you resent that his increased while hers decreased?  If his costs dropped, and she divorced him (and in 70+% of the cases, it was she who filed), then of course he should have a slight increase in standard of living.  If women shared 50-50 joint physical custody, this discrepancy would likely disappear.  But those are ‘her’ children, right?

08-29-2006 07:21 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms

Most of these statistics radiator promotes are highly subjective, or have been pretty much debunked.

For example, the data on post-divorce income disparity was first heralded by a person named Lenore Weitzman. It was widely cited by state legislatures, congress, government organizations and NGO’s back in the 90’s and formed the basis for many reforms in state and federal laws related to divorce. Weitzman stonewalled for almost a decade, but eventually had to admit that her statistics were wildly wrong due to an error in statistics (only after someone reanalyzed her own data and came up with statistics more in line with the ones you cited here).

Notwithstanding, the income disparity statistics are higly subjective (due to differences in opinion on quantitating additional costs of living arising from dependents) and the ones presented here are on the very highest end of the spectrum, and they do nor present a complete picture of the negotiations that occur in a divorce.

As Warren Farrel puts it, “Warren Farrell, the San Diego-based author of The Myth of Male Power, agrees with Pollock and adds that Weitzman’s and other studies usually omit several expenses which men face. ‘There are five expenses that men have after divorce, typically speaking, that Weitzman just didn’t measure,’ he says. These include: mortgage payments on a home they no longer live in, rent on a home or apartment they do live in, child support payments, alimony… Says Farrell, ‘No one that I know has controlled for all five of these variables.’ ”

Other factors are not accounted for. For example, many divorced women simply elect not to re-enter the work force after their divorce though they are capable of doing so ( I know a few of those). Others spend the first few years after a divorce going back to school for additional training (and hence have a period of negligible income following the divorce). Women live longer and retire earlier, and therefore spend a greater portion of their mature live living off of assets with limited or no income. They may retain additional sources of support after marriage, as for example an unmarried domestic partner who provides for them so that it becomes unnecessary for them to work full-time.  Most importantly, a great many women simply elect to forgo spousal support out of a sense of dignity and a desire for self-sufficiency. While this wieghs down on the average post-divorce income of women, it is not indicative of a disparity in the system.

In general, the degree to which men are abused by the court system when they do have aggressive litigious spouses is hidden by these statistics which look at a very restricted view of the divorce.

Any by the way, given that over 90 % of men work full time, whereas only 40 % of women do, why should it be that men and women should leave divorces with equivalent standards of living?

As for the other data related to child care expenses, the fact remains that women retain primary custody of children 85 % of the time in divorce, despite the fact that a great majority of men I know of would like to get it if it were only possible. This does not indicate bias against women as you sugest, it indicates bias against men. The rest of the discussion presented is more or less useless, given that men are typically not given the choice or option of taking primary custody of their own children.

If women have a problem with this, they can always offer primary custody of their kids to the biological dad. Since most women would sooner die, I don’t know what to tell you, this is just another case of say one thing, do another.

P.S. What’s the readership of divorce magazine by the way? 80 % female? Haha.

Message Edited by juliandroms on 08-29-2006 09:06 AM

08-29-2006 08:02 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

How could strong, capable women possibly have their standard of living drop.

Unless they benefited financially from the marriage, and once divorced must then pay their own way.

Precisely–because there is a wage gap, as I have already posted. Of course women benefit from marriage, as do men.  Did you read the article I posted on Merrill Lynch being sued for gender discrimination?  Or U Cal?  Also, because women usually work at jobs which are less financially rewarding–such as childcare or other care labor.  And our society does not value care labor as much as it values other labor, which again, as I have pointed out several times already, says a lot about how little American society ACTUALLY values families.  If America really valued families, then the children and the elderly would be a top priority, not ranked at the bottom.  The American worker would have decent allowance of vacation so that families could spend time together.  An 80 hour work week would not be considered “normal” in the most lucrative circles (lawyers, investment bankers, doctors, etc.).  Anyone who works 80 hours a week isn’t going to see their children, much less their spouse.  So, strong and capable many (but not all of course) women in fact are, but we are still living in a discriminatory environment.  Why are you so upset about this fact?  You aren’t being attacked personally.  Not ALL men are being attacked.  Only deadbeat dads, career men who cheat on their wives, and corporate leaders who hate the family and love profit.  Perhaps you fall into one of these categories?

Those numbers have also been called into question.

The more realistic figures are the man’s standard of living goes up ~15%, and hers drops ~20%.
Proves that marriage is an economic boon to women.

Source? Still proves my point that divorce is an economic boon for men.

BTW, does the study include support payments from the man to woman?

It may–go look.  Since there are at least a million men in arrears for child support, obviously it does not include those!

Does it account for the fact that he must pay taxes on those payments, but she does not?

Is he being double-taxed for income?  Or is he just paying tax on income he already made? It wouldn’t make sense for her to be taxed if the tax is on income.  He is supposed to pay child support (if that’s what we are talking about) because this is a substitute for the income the children WOULD HAVE HAD if the parents had stayed together as a family.  It’s just that he is handing the income over to her to distribute as custodian since the children can’t take the money into their own hands.  In that sense, it’s technically not income for her.

Does it account for the fact that she gets the child deductions, but he does not?

If she’s head of household with kids, then she gets the deductions.  No-brainer.

Does it account for the fact that he gets to pay for her lawyer fees in many cases?

That usually correlates to income, doesn’t it.  “Many cases” is obviously not all cases.  And clearly this was done on a case-by-case basis, so…. would need to know more about the case.

And why would you resent that his increased while hers decreased?

Because -in the case of children– she is paying the price for having his kids.  It isn’t just about her.  It’s about the kids.  Her income dropping also means HIS kids’ income dropping.

In the cases where they dont’ have children, of course women benefit from marriage because the WAGE GAP as I have already posted elsewhere.  And as becomes clear if you look at the other statistics in this post.

If his costs dropped, and she divorced him (and in 70+% of the cases, it was she who filed)

Would be good to look into WHY “she” filed.  Could it be that he was never home because he worked too much and they didn’t have an actual relationship to speak of?  Cheated on her?  Refused to do any housework?  Because he was abusive?  Need more information.  The statistics only reveal so much.  And so far they reveal that the woman is penalized financially in divorce. That is irrefutable.  But there is a lot more that we need to know to have a full picture.

, then of course he should have a slight increase in standard of living.  If women shared 50-50 joint physical custody, this discrepancy would likely disappear.

Not necessarily.  Why would that be so? If this were the case, wouldn’t it be more likely that both would lose in standard of living, since the father would have to take time out of work to care for his kids, which would lead to his devaluation on the workforce marketplace. I bring your attention back to the WAGE GAP posting of earlier.  To which you did not reply at the time.

But those are ‘her’ children, right?

Nope.  I never suggested anything of the sort.  To the contrary.  They are both parents’ kids.

08-29-2006 08:07 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

radiator wrote:
Here are some fascinating statistics from Divorce Magazine,

Divorce Magazine… WTF???

I live in the UK and I’ve never heard of this before. Is it available on magazine racks in stores or is it just an online zine?

++++++++++

AMENDMENT

I just browsed their website and found this

http://www.divorcemag.com/articles/inretrospect.html

Covershots of magazines with barcodes, so the anwser is yes it’s real magazine.

Message Edited by Doc_Savage on 08-29-2006 08:29 AM

08-29-2006 08:21 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
Jman
Contributor
Jman

The whole idea of arguing about money, when it comes to marriage really misses the whole point. I don’t mind what your doing Radiator, your just trying to address the argument of who gets screwed over financially. But if your calculating to be married or not by the finances, your one sorry soul. No better, if your crying over the child support to take care of your children. (I might only grant you an out, if the payment is so big and you’ve had a drop in income while actually trying to work an honest job, you can’t make rent where you live, and the court won’t readjust the payment.) Your not really acting as someone worth being married to or a parent of anyone, man or woman. Have a good time sleeping in your cold bed, Scrooge.

08-29-2006 08:22 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
minx12
Regular Contributor
minx12

It just prove the old Adage time and again: “There lies, there are **bleep** lies, and there are statistics.”

08-29-2006 08:23 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
How about this: if women truly believe that the family law system treats women so unfairly in divorce, let’s get rid of the institution of marriage altogether.

08-29-2006 08:25 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

The whole idea of arguing about money, when it comes to marriage really misses the whole point. I don’t mind what your doing Radiator, your just trying to address the argument of who gets screwed over financially. But if your calculating to be married or not by the finances, your one sorry soul. No better, if your crying over the child support to take care of your children. (I might only grant you an out, if the payment is so big and you’ve had a drop in income while actually trying to work an honest job, you can’t make rent where you live, and the court won’t readjust the payment.) Your not really acting as someone worth being married to or a parent of anyone, man or woman. Have a good time sleeping in your cold bed, Scrooge.

As a matter of fact, I’ve never been married.  And as I have commented on my other posts, I could have been married already (easily), and I could have been married, possibly, to at least two rich guys back when we were both under 30.  But I didn’t love them.  Actually, I ended up not even liking them.  So a gold-digger I aint.  Also, I don’t have any kids.  You really should click on my handle and read my other posts before replying with silly comments that aren’t even grammatically correct.

You’re obviously skipping the statistics about how poor most single mothers actually are.  Guess what: most single mothers haven’t even heard of Forbes mag, much less read it or post on it.

The Scrooges are the deadbeat dads.

08-29-2006 09:10 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

I missed the “proof” part in your vapid comment.  Do explain.

08-29-2006 09:11 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

Well, if you are Noer and others, you won’t want that because marriage is actually healthier for men, and leads to a higher income–for men.  So you must disagree with Noer, then.

Second, I never suggested that the family law system is not in need of reform.  And I never suggested that there are not men who get screwed by it.  I’m absolutely sure that there are–and that’s wrong.  I’m merely presenting information as things stand.

08-29-2006 09:17 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
>
>So you must disagree with Noer, then.
>

I never said that I did agree with Michael Noer. I’m just saying, it’s a valid and thoughtful article, and that men should generally put more rational thought into how they choose to partner rather than listening to this and that person tell them what is “right”, or jumping into the biggest and most complicated legal contract of their entire lives based on onlyl a hunch, an emotion or a political ideology (a.k.a. feminism, politics).

(Before you even start to suggest that surrendering completely to emotion is somehow essential to marriage, consider that there is a wide body of evidence that contradicts this hypothesis. In fact, marriage has never been so unhealthy as it is now, and people are as emotional about relationships as ever. Not uncoincidentally, arranged marriages amongst those from traditional cultures living in the U.S., which are based foremost on practical considerations, are among the healthiest and stable of all relationships in this country today. Sorry, it may not sound romantic, but that’s the truth of it.)

08-29-2006 09:27 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

(only after someone reanalyzed her own data and came up with statistics more in line with the ones you cited here).

So you agree with me….

Notwithstanding, the income disparity statistics are higly subjective (due to differences in opinion on quantitating

quantitating

The correct word is “quantifying”.  Are you sure you are qualified to discuss statistics?

additional costs of living arising from dependents) and the ones presented here are on the very highest end of the spectrum,

Which ones?  I’m curious–please point them out.  Single mothers earning under $12K per year are the high end?  Scary thought, that.

and they do nor present a complete picture of the negotiations that occur in a divorce.
Agreed.

As Warren Farrel puts it, “Warren Farrell, the San Diego-based author of The Myth of Male Power, agrees with Pollock and adds that Weitzman’s and other studies usually omit several expenses which men face. ‘There are five expenses that men have after divorce, typically speaking, that Weitzman just didn’t measure,’ he says. These include: mortgage payments on a home they no longer live in, rent on a home or apartment they do live in, child support payments, alimony… Says Farrell, ‘No one that I know has controlled for all five of these variables.’ ”

Well, you’ve said that Weitzman has been debunked, and that my stats are more correct.  However, it could very well be that Farrell just conveniently didn’t look at every possible source and only chose those that would support his agenda.  It could be that he is correct. It could be that a new study has come out.  Noer says most divorcees find a drop in assets, but he doesn’t distinguish between men and women–maybe the study he cited does and Noer conveniently failed to differentiate.  Just because Farrell says no one has controlled for these variables doesn’t actually mean no one has.

Other factors are not accounted for. For example, many divorced women simply elect not to re-enter the work force after their divorce though they are capable of doing so ( I know a few of those).

No doubt.  I am not saying all women are angels or the same.  By the way, what income bracket are you in?  Who were these women married to?  Are they on welfare now, or were they married to stock brokers or movie stars who were never home?

Others spend the first few years after a divorce going back to school for additional training (and hence have a period of negligible income following the divorce).

Welfare moms often fall (and fail) into this category.  Just read yet another story about this.

Women live longer and retire earlier, and therefore spend a greater portion of their mature live living off of assets with limited or no income.

Exactly.  Are you saying this is good?

They may retain additional sources of support after marriage, as for example an unmarried domestic partner who provides for them so that it becomes unnecessary for them to work full-time.

Could be.

Most importantly, a great many women simply elect to forgo spousal support out of a sense of dignity and a desire for self-sufficiency. While this wieghs down on the average post-divorce income of women, it is not indicative of a disparity in the system.

True–HOW MANY?

You’ve made a lot of statements without a shred of evidence.  Provide some–citations!!!!!

In general, the degree to which men are abused by the court system when they do have aggressive litigious spouses is hidden by these statistics which look at a very restricted view of the divorce.
And the actual degree to which men are abused is….?

ny by the way, given that over 90 % of men work full time, whereas only 40 % of women do, why should it be that men and women should leave divorces with equivalent standards of living?

Right, well those women are often home taking care of the kids in the other 60% of their time because in America these days you need 2 incomes to get by.  Or cleaning that dirty house Noer is so upset about.

As for the other data related to child care expenses, the fact remains that women retain primary custody of children 85 % of the time in divorce, despite the fact that a great majority of men I know of would like to get it if it were only possible. This does not indicate bias against women as you sugest, it indicates bias against men. The rest of the discussion presented is more or less useless, given that men are typically not given the choice or option of taking primary custody of their own children.

This is just another issue and I’m not going there.  We’re talking about men, career women, and marriage, not custody battles.

If women have a problem with this, they can always offer primary custody of their kids to the biological dad. Since most women would sooner die, I don’t know what to tell you, this is just another case of say one thing, do another.
Why would they want to give their kids to a man who cheated on them or surfed porn or worked 80 hours a week?  Who is going to take care of the kids if the father is working full-time?  His new girlfriend?  His mother?  No freaking way is what most women would say.

P.S. What’s the readership of divorce magazine by the way? 80 % female? Haha.

Find out for yourself.  The stat sources are, as I pointed out, listed at the bottom of the page.

08-29-2006 09:36 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
A post from ‘thechief’ from the dontgetmarried forum:
http://tinyurl.com/p992u

But let’s talk about your link from Divorcemag.com.

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

The link does indeed say that women suffer a 45% drop in the standard of living after a divorce, but as I’ve said, statistics can be massaged, manipulated, cooked beyond all belief.

In a quicky, facile table from some obscure site on the internet, it’s tough to really interpret statistics, but I’ll take a swing at it. For starters, I suspect such a statistic would only look at income, as in money she earns at a job….which doesn’t include child support or alimony. Child support and alimony are not taxable, so it probably doesn’t take them into account, as most government statistics don’t.

Even if it does, it almost certainly doesn’t take into account the assets a woman walks away with after a marriage. The house, or a portion of the equity in the house. The stocks, bonds, mutual funds and ETFs the man invested in and the woman was awarded. The retirement account he had to cash out in order to give her a court awarded lump sum.

In other words if you take her income PLUS the alimony and child support PLUS the assets, you get a very different picture.

But just for argument’s sake, let’s grant for a moment or two that the statistic is right. The total, overall standard of living of a divorced woman drops. Why? Well for starters, Cupcake may make some nasty discoveries about caring for children on her own. In kicking out her Evil, Chauvinistic, Patriarchal Oppressor she also kicked out his Evil, Chauvinistic, Patriarchal help with the kids. She may have a lot bigger daycare bills because he doesn’t pick them up or drop them off like he used to, or take care of them while she’s on the job if they worked opposite shifts. She may have to take a lower paying job with more flexible hours in order to work around the kid’s schedule. True, Cupcake asked for this when she filed that no-fault divorce, but she wasn’t thinking of that back then (during the first of our two trial separations, my wife was actually more angry and bitter towards me after about a week because she resented the fact that I wasn’t there to assist with our children…even though the separation occured at her insistence).

Or maybe the overall standard of living went down because Cupcake forgot about the concept of “economies of scale,” which is a fancy way of saying two people can live cheaper than one. In kicking out her Evil, Chauvinistic, Patriarchal Oppressor she also kicked out his Evil, Chauvinistic, Patriarchal contribution towards paying the bills. Yeah, she gets child support and/or alimony, but it’s not the same as an extra full paycheck coming in, especially if she has physical custody of the kids (and all their accompanying costs) the majority of the time. Again, the problem may have been that she was so busy listening to her therapist, her coffee klache, her mother and Oprah that she forgot that she isn’t a fish, her ex-husand isn’t a bicycle and yeah, she did kind of need him, at least while trying to raise and pay for the kids.

Regardless of why it happens–IF it happens at all–I find it hard to automatically feel sympathy for any drop in lifestyle a divorce woman experiences. If she wanted to maintain that standard of living, she really shouldn’t have filed that no-fault divorce. I assume any rational person who doesn’t take a knee-jerk, “poor widdle things” approach to all women’s problems would feel the same way.

http://tinyurl.com/k8s9s

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

08-29-2006 10:00 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
porkchops38
Regular Contributor
porkchops38
The only statistics that are relevant to my life, are the facts that if I get married to an American woman I will face a 50% chance of divorce, and there will be a 70% chance that my hypothetical wife will initiate the divorce. That’s akin to playing russian roulette with a half-loaded gun with my hypothetical wife shooting the gun to my head 70% of the time.

The rest of the statistics radiator quotes are just useless dribble to me.

08-29-2006 10:05 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
>
> quantitating
>
> The correct word is “quantifying”. Are you
> sure you are qualified to discuss statistics?
>

I went to M.I.T. YES

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=quantitate

>
> additional costs of living arising from
> dependents) and the ones presented here are
> on the very highest end of the spectrum,
>
> Which ones? I’m curious–please point them
> out. Single mothers earning under $12K per
> year are the high end? Scary thought, that.

I’m talking about the income “disparities.” The study you quoted is one of many addressing the question of differences in income between men and women following divorce, and Divorce magazine apparently has chosen to tell you only the most dramatic appearing results.

> Other factors are not accounted for. For example
> many divorced women simply elect not to re-enter
> the work force after their divorce though they
> are capable of doing so ( I know a few of those).
>
> No doubt. I am not saying all women are angels
> or the same.

Definitely true. But that’s their choice not to work. Just so long ast they don’t expect to get paid, no problem.

> By the way, what income bracket are you in? Who
> were these women married to? Are they on welfare
> now, or were they married to stock brokers or
> movie stars who were never home?

It doesn’t matter. The statistics on income “disparity” after divorce make no account of what income bracket a divorced pair is in. If the Guy makes a million dollars per yer, and the wife only gets $100,000 of it per year, that’s $800,000 per year of income disparity, according to you.

> Women live longer and retire earlier, and
> therefore spend a greater portion of their
> mature live living off of assets with
> limited or no income.
>
> Exactly. Are you saying this is good?

Yes.

Would you rather women died sooner? As it is, women already collect social security for twice as many years as men, paid for mostly by men. What more do you want?

> Most importantly, a great many women simply
> elect to forgo spousal support out of a sense
> of dignity and a desire for self-sufficiency.
> While this wieghs down on the average post-
> divorce income of women, it is not indicative
> of a disparity in the system.
>
> True–HOW MANY?

That’s an intersting question. The “researchers” who publish studies on income “disparity” after divorce have no idea. Don’t you think they should make a solid effort to find out before they submit their statistics to all 50 of the state legislatures and congress as part of their argument that divorce courts supposedly treat women unfairly?

I agree wholeheartedly.

> Right, well those women are often home taking
> care of the kids in the other 60% of their time
> because in America these days you need 2
> incomes to get by. Or cleaning that dirty
> house Noer is so upset about.

Well, whose fault is that? Did you see my post about wanting to be a house husband? I happen not to be one of the guys who agrees with Michael Noer, and I for one would never marry a woman who didn’t have a career on par with my own.

But suppose I do marry such a woman, she has a kid, then decides (unilaterally) that she doesn’t want to work anymore, what’s my recourse?

Is it yet socially acceptable for me (a man) to kick my wife (a woman) out of the house because she won’t find a job, then take the kids (fat chance) and sue her for support? Or is that something that only women are yet allowed to do?

Where’s the justice in all this.

My suggestion: before you advocate using the state as a bull whip to “rob from the rich” and “give from the poor”, at least try to figure out what the hell is going on.

> As for the other data related to child care
> expenses, the fact remains that women retain
> rimary custody of children 85 % of the time
> in divorce, despite the fact that a great
> majority of men I know of would like to get
> it if it were only possible. This does not
> indicate bias against women as you sugest,
> it indicates bias against men. The rest of
> the discussion presented is more or less
> useless, given that men are typically not
> given the choice or option of taking primary
> custody of their own children.
>
> This is just another issue and I’m not going
> there. We’re talking about men, career women,
> and marriage, not custody battles.

You already did go there when you stated the following: “Percentage of children with single parents (by gender) earning under $12,500 in 1998: Living with fathers: 17% Living with mothers: 41%”

Well, duh! The guys can’t get custody of the kids in the first place.

Also, since you offered the statistic, cite me more information about what “earning” means in this context. Does child support count as “earnings” according to the definition of this particular group of social scientists?

08-29-2006 10:11 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

THE SOURCES FOR THE STATS ARE LISTED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE URL, AS I MENTIONED AT THE TOP OF MY MESSAGE.  SO, ADDRESS THOSE STATS IN DETAIL AND THEN I WILL BOTHER TO READ YOUR POST.

08-29-2006 10:13 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
And what about welfare?

08-29-2006 10:15 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
radiator
Regular Contributor
radiator

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=quantitate
Fair enough. What did you study at MIT?

I’m talking about the income “disparities.” The study you quoted is one of many addressing the question of differences in income between men and women following divorce, and Divorce magazine apparently has chosen to tell you only the most dramatic appearing results.

Provide the others, then.

> Other factors are not accounted for. For example
> many divorced women simply elect not to re-enter
> the work force after their divorce though they
> are capable of doing so ( I know a few of those).
>
> No doubt. I am not saying all women are angels
> or the same.

Definitely true. But that’s their choice not to work. Just so long ast they don’t expect to get paid, no problem.
Do the divorce proceedings require her to work after the divorce?  The point of alimony (which I assume we are talking about rather than child support) is that the spouse who gets compensation was there to help the big earner make the bucks.  While Big Daddy is at the office, Big Momma is planning parties, the catering, the gift lists, etc.  If you noticed, Noer’s article said that married men are more likely to make MORE money than unmarried.  SO obviously, the wife ADDED yto his income just by being there.  And therefore she should be compensated accordingly, whether she chooses to work or not–she earned it. There are also plenty of cases where the guy runs off with the woman’s money, too.  You haven’t provided a source for this information as requested.

> By the way, what income bracket are you in? Who
> were these women married to? Are they on welfare
> now, or were they married to stock brokers or
> movie stars who were never home?

It doesn’t matter. The statistics on income “disparity” after divorce make no account of what income bracket a divorced pair is in. If the Guy makes a million dollars per yer, and the wife only gets $100,000 of it per year, that’s $800,000 per year of income disparity, according to you.
And?

> Women live longer and retire earlier, and
> therefore spend a greater portion of their
> mature live living off of assets with
> limited or no income.
>
> Exactly. Are you saying this is good?

Yes. Well, the real problem is that you hate women.

Would you rather women died sooner? As it is, women already collect social security for twice as many years as men, paid for mostly by men. What more do you want?

Equal pay. An end to sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the workplace (see my posts under “How About Some Data” as examples).  No more deadbeat dads.

As you know, Social Security does not provide enough to live on for most people, men or women, particularly since it correlates to how much money you made in the workplace.  If women inherit their husband’s SS, in fact that is no small price to pay for the fact that married men live longer than single, so marriage actually probably prolonged his life.  Men could live longer, too, if they went to the doctor, drank less, abused drugs less, worked less, and committed suicide less.  For starters.
> Most importantly, a great many women simply
> elect to forgo spousal support out of a sense
> of dignity and a desire for self-sufficiency.
> While this wieghs down on the average post-
> divorce income of women, it is not indicative
> of a disparity in the system.
>
> True–HOW MANY?

That’s an intersting question. The “researchers” who publish studies on income “disparity” after divorce have no idea. Don’t you think they should make a solid effort to find out before they submit their statistics to all 50 of the state legislatures and congress as part of their argument that divorce courts supposedly treat women unfairly?

I agree wholeheartedly.

A good study would also ask why.  Perhaps it was because their husband cheated on with them with his cute secretary, etc. etc.  Men’s infidelity is often a main source of divorce.  Again, you don’t know why they got divorced.  We also need a solid effort to find out about causes of divorce, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and so on.  You are simply erasing the long, sad history of why women divorce men in the first place.  As I have said earlier, stop the psychopath routine and you will get more sympathy from me.  See my other posts.

> Right, well those women are often home taking
> care of the kids in the other 60% of their time
> because in America these days you need 2
> incomes to get by. Or cleaning that dirty
> house Noer is so upset about.

Well, whose fault is that?

??

Did you see my post about wanting to be a house husband? I happen not to be one of the guys who agrees with Michael Noer, and I for one would never marry a woman who didn’t have a career on par with my own.

Ah.

But suppose I do marry such a woman,

she has a kid,  You mean “we have a kid together”?  Sounds like you are deadbeat dad material.

then decides (unilaterally) that she doesn’t want to work anymore, what’s my recourse?
Depends, of course, on why she doesn’t want to work anymore.  If her boss is constantly hitting on her, then yeah, I can see why she might not want to work anymore.  Some options:

Move to a better place to live so she can find work that doesn’t make her miserable (or you miserable).
Lower your standard of living so that she doesn’t have to work.
Marriage counseling.
Divorce and file for child custody.

Is it yet socially acceptable for me (a man) to kick my wife (a woman) out of the house because she won’t find a job, then take the kids (fat chance) and sue her for support? Or is that something that only women are yet allowed to do?

Why are you worried about what the neighbors think?  Actually, I have a good male friend whose wife was alcoholic, didn’t work much or at all, so he divorced her and, yep, got child custody.  Much happier guy.

Where’s the justice in all this.
Usually in the courthouse.

My suggestion: before you advocate using the state as a bull whip to “rob from the rich” and “give from the poor”, at least try to figure out what the hell is going on.
Same could easily be said for you.  You’re just wrong.  Pretty obvious that I am trying to figure out what is going on, which can’t be said for Noer!

You already did go there when you stated the following: “Percentage of children with single parents (by gender) earning under $12,500 in 1998: Living with fathers: 17% Living with mothers: 41%”

The point is that these mothers are impoverished because the father is a loser sack of faecal matter and won’t pay child support much less take on child custody.  Much less likely to happen for fathers–esp. since their wives didn’t make as much money–if you read the other stats.  Also, these statistics are undoubtedly from the lower income bracket, which means the fathers are unlikely to be making much more than minimum wage themselves.  And so all they would gain would be the same wretched situation as the mothers.  The lesson of all this being that people should be careful before they have kids.

Well, duh! The guys can’t get custody of the kids in the first place.

Not true.  But they probably won’t get it if they work more than 40 hours a week or cheated on their wife.

Also, since you offered the statistic, cite me more information about what “earning” means in this context. Does child support count as “earnings” according to the definition of this particular group of social scientists?

Go look it up yourself.  I’m off to make money and plan my next date.

08-29-2006 10:38 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
Jman
Contributor
Jman

“As a matter of fact, I’ve never been married.  And as I have commented on my other posts, I could have been married already (easily), and I could have been married, possibly, to at least two rich guys back when we were both under 30.  But I didn’t love them.  Actually, I ended up not even liking them.  So a gold-digger I aint.  Also, I don’t have any kids.  You really should click on my handle and read my other posts before replying with silly comments that aren’t even grammatically correct.

You’re obviously skipping the statistics about how poor most single mothers actually are.  Guess what: most single mothers haven’t even heard of Forbes mag, much less read it or post on it.

The Scrooges are the deadbeat dads.”:

Oh my apology, Radiator, I didn’t make myself clear in my post, I don’t mind you arguing finances, you really didn’t start it. My post was meant for everyone else crabbing about how men are getting screwed in marriage. Almost everyone gets screwed in marriage ultimatly, unless you didn’t go into marriage on good faith. I was trying to distance you from what I was going to follow with. So if you reread it again, I’m sure you’ll see we both agree both that dead beat dads are the scrooges. As you can remember from the story while Scrooge was the riches as far as money, he was by far the poorest.

08-29-2006 11:18 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

Precisely–because there is a wage gap, as I have already posted. Of course women benefit from marriage, as do men.

The wage gap is a myth.

Read Warren Farrells’ books “Why Men Earn More”.  He statistically counters the wage gap myth completely.

On an anecdotal note, if there was a wage gap, and men were paid more for the same job, same title, same hours, same responsibilities, same education, it would be incredibly easy to prove.

HR and Payroll is sent via modem or email attachment to the bank.  It is nothing more than a text document or spreadsheet.  It would be simple for someone in Payroll to send this information to NOW or the EOC.  I have never heard of this happening.  Not once.

I work in Accounting.  I have worked many jobs.  I have access to resumes and payroll and salary data.  The women earn PRECISELY the same as the men.  The wage gap is a myth.

The fact that women benefit from marriage does not prove a wage gap.  You are grasping at straws.

The fact that someone is being sued, for any reason, does not imply guilt.  In the U.S. we presume innocence.

08-29-2006 11:32 AM

Re: Divorce Magazine: Fascinating Statistics
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
Radiator said:
>
> A bunch of crap.
>

Equal pay already happens. Unmarried women without children less than age 40 or so make 101 % of what men do in comparable positions. It’s only once women get married or have children and spend substantially fewer hours at work for many years that they start to earn comparably less.

No more deatbeat dads? Well, I’m sorry, that’s not going to happen. Most of those guys are **bleep**ing broke as hell, often times even in jail, or don’t have enough money or the brains to hire a lawyer to obtain a downwar modificiation in support.

Statistically, a non-custodial mother is more likely to be in arrears for child support than a non-custodial father.

>
> Go look it up yourself.
>

Actually, I’m not going to look it up myself. Because I’ve already looked all this **bleep** up myself and read it. Maybe you should too, and stay away from the woman centered sources and read from a couple sources written by men with balls.

And anyhow, there is no reason why any man should necessarily have to look any of this up. Why? Because it’s no man’s obligation to date or marry any given women when he doesn’t want to, for whatever reason he can think of.

So if Michael Noer or any other guy thinks that, based on his priorities in life, career women are a poor choice, I guess your only recourse to change his mind is to be the one to produce the full data.

Otherwise, have fun at your “date.”

Message Edited by juliandroms on 08-29-2006 02:46 PM

08-29-2006 02:45 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: