Well.
I've been put in my place.
From my blog Friday - clearly I don't sufficiently "value" domestic responsibilities.
But then I'm not alone, am I?
Next time you ask someone to look after your children, see what happens when they tell you they charge $400.00 per hour. Will you pay it? Why not?
I go to a dentist and I pay that or more to get a root canal or a crown.. and so does most of society.
How odd.
Because if he or she is married and gets divorced, the court is going to blithely acknowledge the "equal" contribution of both spouses to the financial rewards of the marriage.
And so did my critics, including Kez.. whose opinions I value - but who, on this point I think, is being a little disingenuous.
Why don't we pay child care workers $75,000.00 per year like we do police officers?
Why is it that we hire Filipino immigrants to look after our children and tend to our homes for peanuts - but we pay lawyers and dentists hundreds of thousands of dollars per year?
Now - I'll acknowledge one thing.
If you believe in socialism, the idea that all contribution to society is to be valued equally, my opinions are completely off-base.
But.
If you believe in a free market and capitalism - well, you can't honestly say that domestic duties are just as valuable as any other contribution (from a purely financial perspective).
Because, to put it bluntly, the work and obligations of a full-time homemaker in a poor or lower middle-class family are abundantly more difficult than those of a homemaker in a wealthy family.
In the wealthy family, the woman probably has access to "on demand" child care, probably doesn't clip coupons and struggle to make healthy meals for her family, and probably doesn't even clean her own home.
Does anyone want to argue that point?
Ok.
So then, why doesn't the contribution of the women in the first example warrant MORE in a divorce settlement than in the second?
Why indeed?
Because domestic contributions don't create wealth. They may contribute to wealth - but they don't create wealth - and that is what the courts are dividing. Because they can't compensate the person working outside of the home for not having the same relationship with their children, they can't compesate the person working outside of the home for feeling the pressure of being the sole financial provider for the family - they can't compensate the person working outside of the home for most likely becoming an "occasional" parent upon a divorce.. they just divide the wealth.
And in family law - the wealth is divided equally because all contribution is valued equally.
Family law.
The last bastion of pure socialism in western society.
And we all have seen what socialism leads to.. and it certainly isn't "empowerment".
13 comments:
It seems like you're arguing that domestic labour is not valuable because our society does not value it, and the market is always right, right? Get this straight: domestic labour and child care are under-valued because they are women's work, and women have been and are under-valued. It's sexism.
You don't know how much unpaid labour the spouses of successful professionals contribute. Sure they might have a Filipina nanny, but then they also might have some personal ethics. And families who hire nannies tend have both partners in the workforce, so both are contributing financially. Are courts going to assess every partnership to determine what kind of unpaid labour was contributed and what kind of career sacrifices were made for the other partner's benefit? No. It's a reasonable assumption that the partner who is contributing less financially is contributing more in domestic labour and childcare. It is what tends to happen. And a spouse who takes on more domestic labour enables their partner to earn what they do. That's why they get half of it.
"And we have seen what socialism lead to"... in Sweden, Denmark, Finaland...
But I don't want to debate the merits of socialist democracy. Because division of property is not socialism, it's equity. You're reaching for the socialism boogeyman to avoid confronting the fact that your beliefs are sexist.
Ahh..
I thought someone might jump to this bait - and deliver the myth of the "double duty" mother.
Well, studies have shown, in fact, that it is a myth.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2010/08/CatherineHakimRenewal.pdf
So much for "It's a reasonable assumption that the partner who is contributing less financially is contributing more in domestic labour and childcare."
Why is it a "reasonable assumption"?
I'm not arguing any sexist position at all - what I'm saying is that the ASSUMPTION of equal distribution is wrong-minded and really contributes to the devaluation of women in society by discouraging self-sufficiency and by encouraging, essentially, what is socialist dogma.
And none of Sweden, Denmark or Finland are purely socialist.
Pure socialist efforts took place in the Soviet Union, in China, and in Cuba - and with the exception of Cuba ahve been completely abandoned.
And get this straight.
Domestic labor and child care are under-valued because they do not require the training and skill-set that we require, of say, a brain surgeon or a mechanical engineer.
For the same reason that we don't pay gas station attendants and fast good clerks $80,000.00 per year.
Because the "entrance" requirements are minimal.
On the other hand - if we said that people would not be able to have children without at least four years of post-secondar education, well, I might re-think your point.
But we don't.
So.
Call me sexist if you want - to reference others by epithets is always the refuge of the unimaginative and the weak of position.
I always get my hackles up when people throw random derogatory epithets around, such as charges of sexism. Marissa's synopsis does not have any solid defendable bases.
It is a given that some workers skills do not demand a high wage or even a living wage. Those positions, however lowly remunerated, are still being replenished by new workers seeking those jobs. Well skilled job seekers can and do attract positions but not necessarily in their own countries. Many are so well skilled that they are in demand and necessary worldwide.
As a conservative I believe in a subsantial safety net and well regulated working conditions for those who must take those low paying jobs.
I look at school bus drivers who are regulated to death by school boards, parents, governments, socialists, and the unionised teachers that they have virtually no job security. People still take those jobs. The company's that employ them dismiss them on a whim for any slight complaint.
Do not debase the issue with trite complaints of sexism and other code words.
The link you posted doesn't work.
Read The Second Shift, by Arlie Russell Hochschild.
Contributions are assumed to be equal because marriage is a partnership. And courts don't want to sift through evidence of who did what work.
And for the third time, men with wives earn more than do single men. You earn more if you have a spouse to do your domestic labour. Those spouses contribute to their partner's earning capacity. Hence, their entitlement.
You're saying that women who make career sacrifices in order to take care of their families, or who decide to be full time homemakers - which has no entrance requirements but is tedious, isolating, has long hours, little to no recognition, and is essential to the continuation of society - such women are not pulling their weight in relationships. That they are taking the easy way out. That women who run households are not "self sufficient".
That's not sexist?
Would you say that Murdoch v. Murdoch had and outcome that did promote self-sufficiency?
Laskin was such a socialist, wasn't he? And McLachlin too, with her decision in Peter v. Beblow. The Supreme Court has been like the PolitBuro since she became CJ!
It's equity, not socialism. Unless fairness has suddenly become an exclusively socialist value.
Division of property also promotes equality because it means that women will not feel pressured to stay in bad relationships for fear of being left with nothing, or being left in a far inferior social and economic position.
So you acknowledge that socialist policies aren't a big spooky threat, since the socialist democracies of northern Europe can implement them without turning into the reincarnation of the USSR?
Try this link (if it doesn't, google the title and Hakim):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6047/is_201001/ai_n53927363/?tag=content;col1
From (How) can social policy and fiscal policy recognise
unpaid family work? by
Catherine Hakim:
Who works hardest? Feminists have long complained about women's 'double shift' - a term invented in the United States, and automatically assumed to apply equally in Western Europe, despite our shorter work hours and widespread availability of part-time jobs. Indeed, the European Commission actively promotes the idea that women carry an unfair burden, working disproportionately long hours in jobs and at home as well, juggling family and work (1). However time budget studies show that women's double shift is a myth.
On average, women and men across Europe do the same total number of productive work hours, once paid jobs and unpaid household work are added together - roughly eight hours a day. Men do substantially more hours of paid work. Women's time is divided more evenly between paid and unpaid work. Men and women do roughly equal amounts of voluntary work - contrary to the popular myth that women do vastly more than men. Results for Britain are repeated in the USA and other countries, despite differences in the length of working weeks and lifestyles. It is only in the poorer nations that women work longer hours overall. Indeed, in Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands, men actually do more productive work than women.
The same pattern of equality in total productive work hours is found among couples aged 20 to 40 and those aged 40 to 60, so is reasonably constant across the lifecycle. In fact, an analysis by Susan Harkness shows that British men work longer hours in total than do women when there are children in the home, largely because men often work more overtime to boost family income at this stage, while wives switch to part-time jobs, or even drop out of employment (Harkness, 2008).
And don't get me started about our Supreme Court of Canada in the past two decades.. their decisions are a mish-mash of palm-tree justice that demeans the profession and their station.
I understand the "reasoning" behind the assumption of equal distribution - I just don't agree with it.
And - oddly enough - when you read the Hakim paper, you see that even today women are by and large still choosing their spouses based upon earnings capacity and wealth whereas those factors are much less important to men who tend to make their mate choices based upon physical attractiveness.
However - consider for a moment if the changing dynamic in family law - which really doesn't reach the public consciousness for about a generation or two - impacts on how people choose their spouses and what roles they demand of eachother once those choices are made.
Try this link (if it doesn't, google the title and Hakim):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6047/is_201001/ai_n53927363/?tag=content;col1
From (How) can social policy and fiscal policy recognise
unpaid family work? by
Catherine Hakim:
Who works hardest? Feminists have long complained about women's 'double shift' - a term invented in the United States, and automatically assumed to apply equally in Western Europe, despite our shorter work hours and widespread availability of part-time jobs. Indeed, the European Commission actively promotes the idea that women carry an unfair burden, working disproportionately long hours in jobs and at home as well, juggling family and work (1). However time budget studies show that women's double shift is a myth.
On average, women and men across Europe do the same total number of productive work hours, once paid jobs and unpaid household work are added together - roughly eight hours a day. Men do substantially more hours of paid work. Women's time is divided more evenly between paid and unpaid work. Men and women do roughly equal amounts of voluntary work - contrary to the popular myth that women do vastly more than men. Results for Britain are repeated in the USA and other countries, despite differences in the length of working weeks and lifestyles. It is only in the poorer nations that women work longer hours overall. Indeed, in Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands, men actually do more productive work than women.
The same pattern of equality in total productive work hours is found among couples aged 20 to 40 and those aged 40 to 60, so is reasonably constant across the lifecycle. In fact, an analysis by Susan Harkness shows that British men work longer hours in total than do women when there are children in the home, largely because men often work more overtime to boost family income at this stage, while wives switch to part-time jobs, or even drop out of employment (Harkness, 2008).
And don't get me started about our Supreme Court of Canada in the past two decades.. their decisions are a mish-mash of palm-tree justice that demeans the profession and their station.
I understand the "reasoning" behind the assumption of equal distribution - I just don't agree with it.
And - oddly enough - when you read the Hakim paper, you see that even today women are by and large still choosing their spouses based upon earnings capacity and wealth whereas those factors are much less important to men who tend to make their mate choices based upon physical attractiveness.
However - consider for a moment if the changing dynamic in family law - which really doesn't reach the public consciousness for about a generation or two - impacts on how people choose their spouses and what roles they demand of eachother once those choices are made.
Try this link (if it doesn't, google the title and Hakim):
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6047/is_201001/ai_n53927363/?tag=content;col1
From (How) can social policy and fiscal policy recognise
unpaid family work? by
Catherine Hakim:
Who works hardest? Feminists have long complained about women's 'double shift' - a term invented in the United States, and automatically assumed to apply equally in Western Europe, despite our shorter work hours and widespread availability of part-time jobs. Indeed, the European Commission actively promotes the idea that women carry an unfair burden, working disproportionately long hours in jobs and at home as well, juggling family and work (1). However time budget studies show that women's double shift is a myth.
On average, women and men across Europe do the same total number of productive work hours, once paid jobs and unpaid household work are added together - roughly eight hours a day. Men do substantially more hours of paid work. Women's time is divided more evenly between paid and unpaid work. Men and women do roughly equal amounts of voluntary work - contrary to the popular myth that women do vastly more than men. Results for Britain are repeated in the USA and other countries, despite differences in the length of working weeks and lifestyles. It is only in the poorer nations that women work longer hours overall. Indeed, in Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands, men actually do more productive work than women.
The same pattern of equality in total productive work hours is found among couples aged 20 to 40 and those aged 40 to 60, so is reasonably constant across the lifecycle. In fact, an analysis by Susan Harkness shows that British men work longer hours in total than do women when there are children in the home, largely because men often work more overtime to boost family income at this stage, while wives switch to part-time jobs, or even drop out of employment (Harkness, 2008).
And don't get me started about our Supreme Court of Canada in the past two decades.. their decisions are a mish-mash of palm-tree justice that demeans the profession and their station.
I understand the "reasoning" behind the assumption of equal distribution - I just don't agree with it.
And - oddly enough - when you read the Hakim paper, you see that even today women are by and large still choosing their spouses based upon earnings capacity and wealth whereas those factors are much less important to men who tend to make their mate choices based upon physical attractiveness.
However - consider for a moment if the changing dynamic in family law - which really doesn't reach the public consciousness for about a generation or two - impacts on how people choose their spouses and what roles they demand of eachother once those choices are made.
It says right off the bat that the study is about Europe (not Canada or the US) with its "shorter work hours and widespread availability of part-time jobs." Those are the kind of work policies that Hochschild advocated in The Second Shift. I wouldn't say that it shows that the second shift is a myth, just that it's existence depends on the work culture. Which is what Hochschild said in the first place.
And it confirms the notion that women do more unpaid work than do men. It confirms the "reasonable assumption" that the partner who does less paid work contributes more in unpaid labour. And that women make career sacrifices to care for their families.
Unfortunately I don't have time to read the whole thing right now. But the logic behind division of property doesn't depend on the existence of the double shift, just that there are equal contributions. So I don't see how the paper detracts from that at all.
I liked her decision in Peter v. Beblow, but overall I'm not a fan of McLachlin.
What changing dynamic are you referring to, specifically? People are generally aware of the 50/50 division of property now.
I think dispensing with division of property would discourage women from starting families to an even greater extent than they already are discouraged. I think it would force people to stay in relationships that are emotionally and even physically harmful. And it would discourage women from contributing to the maintenance of property that's in a husband's name.
What do you think the law should be? Do you think women should be punished economically for the decision to start a family? Do you think Murdoch was a fair decision?
Murdoch was correct in law.
The outcome may appear unfair - but it isn't the job of the legal system to be "fair" its the job of the legal system to be correct at law - because the ability to organize our lives based upon predictable outcomes is what gives the law efficacy.
Subsequently, in the case of Petkus v. Becker, Laskin's dissent became law - and thus we entered the era of justice on a case by case basis.
I'm not suggesting for a momement that the law - ie) legislation -should be the outcome in Murdoch.
A reasonable allocation of resources post-divorce should be accomodated.. and in many marriages, that will be equal.
But in my opinion, in high income, high asset cases - there is a blithe ignorance of the reality that the financial contributions have been grossly unequal.
So - for example in Tiger Woods situation - assuming he's paying I would guess tens of thousands of dollars in child support - would it have been so grossly unfair for his wife to receive $10 million instead of $100 million?
Is there seriously an argument that her contribution to his career - which was already well established before they met - was worth 40 or 50% of his net worth?
I'm not suggesting a repeal of the Matrimonial Property Act, or suggesting that only financial contributions should be valued in distribution of assets.
What I'm suggesting is that the court do a more nuances and case-by-case review of the relative contributions and perhaps give at least a nodding acknowledgement of who contributed most to the over-all asset picture - even including a reasonable allocation of value to domestic and non-paid effort.
I don't think more 60/40 slits in cases of grossly differential financial contributions would be so perverse as to fundamentally change the dynamic of marriage or the ability of a spouse to reasonably leave a poor marriage.
You're suggesting that the law apply differently to the wealthy?
Prenups: they exist for a reason.
I'm suggesting that when someone earns $500 million dollars - half of that is a lot different than half of say $100,000.00.
And prenups would be great if the courts treated them like any other contract between consenting adults - but that gets back to my other point.. effectively, the court treats women typically as somehow disabled and even the face of having independant counsel - may ignore the agreements entered into (See Rick v Brandsema S.C.C.)
In virtually 90% of all files, I have no fundamental disagreement with the notion of an equal division.
For a spouse making $70 - $100,000 per year, the idea of dividing assets equally in my mind is abundantly reasonable - because, basically, you are right that we shouldn't arbitrarily devalue domestic contribution simply becasue we don't "pay" for it..
But in other cases - where one spouse has made a significant sacrifice or has exhibited an exceptional skill-set not typical of the average person - I'm not so comfortable with the idea of a purely equal division of assets.
Likewise - with the division of income.
Spousal support guidelines posit a rough distribution of 40- 50% of total income to the spouse with the lower income in a marriage that isn't brief in duration.
Again - for a surgeon for example to have to undertake the years of difficult training (and massive expense) and then continue to use a skill-set which is so beyond the skills of the average person and so beyond the pressures engaged by the average person - it seems quite inequitable to suggest that the person making that degree of sacrifice should share more or less equally the income generated from those efforts.
So - not suggesting a doctor's spouse should get by on subsistance support - but the idea of "equal" contribution to that career path I think flies in the face of reasonable logic.
But.
Hey - it's been very interesting engaging in this discussion - so often on blogs all we exchange are insults.. I appreciate the exchange.
About prenups: Hartshorne. If you have legal counsel, it's probably going to be enforced.
What if that surgeon got married while in school, and was supported by his wife until he started working? Not an uncommon occurance.
You haven't addressed the argument that a professional is able to devote time and energy to their job because they have someone to take care of their personal needs. You disagree with that, but why?
In Rick, the guy actually lied. What good is legal advice if the other party is just plain dishonest? And I don't think it's necessary to conclude that because the trial judge found that the woman was mentally unstable, that courts will typically treat women that way. It doesn't overturn Hartshorne.
Post a Comment