|
lovesobedience -> RE: Why do guys not like to commit? (4/28/2014 1:49:56 AM)
|
First forum post. I hope I am replying to Aynne88's last comment with the link.
I read the article, and it sounds compelling, but then I continued reading comments.
Were you aware that the study that Weitzman published was never submitted for peer review? And that the work itself has been proven flawed?
I am all for men owning the responsibility to assist in supporting the family he helped create. But if you want to illustrate some numbers that seem a bit wild on the face of them, I would expect those to be backed up factually, and not with something that not only was not peer reviewed to insure accuracy, but that she later claimed the incorrect numbers were a computer error. However, this report was designed to bring these flawed numbers. She refused for years to release the data, claiming the errors were things she needed to fix. It was only after others were able to follow through and repeat the steps she said she took to analyze the data that they realized it was not even half but about a third for both of those values, nowhere near as high as her claims had been originally.
I don't think it is appropriate to use that study or anything that references it as anything other than a farce to support any statements here. It just doesn't feel right.
You might look at this page, ( http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm ) where a later aggregate data from years 83-87 were used, giving Stroup and Pollock close to 7,500 respondents, instead of the 228 that Weitzman used. I am still shocked that her number was the size it was.
Even more shocking was that instead of a 42% increase in income, or even the modified 10% increase that Peterson, using Weitzman's data but a corrected analysis, had obtained, instead shows that an average of a 10% decrease, 8% for professional men and less educated by 19%. For women, professionals dropped 12%, and unskilled dropped 30%. Those gaps are surprisingly close, considering that originally you had a gap of over 110% between men and women post-divorce earnings using Weitzman's original data and analysis!
She had even refused to allow other researchers to examine her data ten years later, until the National Science Foundation had threatened to declare her ineligible for federal grants in the future that she finally allowed Peterson to examine her data.
When he examined the data, it was sketchy-income or needs data was missing for 134 of the respondents, well above half of the entire study.
What is even more frightening is the decades of policy and court proceedings these flawed numbers have generated. Not to mention ill will towards husbands, especially considering that from the point of her book onward, and likely for some time prior, women were the majority in filing for divorce.
The whole thing stinks.
If this had been decades of women getting the shaft because of faulty statistics, it would have been national news, policies would be expected to change overnight for fear of seeming sexist or anti-woman, and reparations would have been assumed a necessity.
Guess the joke is on guys.
It is stuff like this that, ironically, make me glad I didn't have children with my abusive wife. Well, that and concern she would hit them too.
Please check your data and sources before bashing people over the head with it. It seems like the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
