Liar Lenore Weitzman
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:46:57 -0800
I have produced the following msg and printed it on labels (Avery 5263
Prof. Weitzman has admitted that the data used to show women suffer a
It looks much nicer in MS-Word of course. (attached).
I think everyone should print out these labels and go to as many
Subject: Would a Feminist LIE????
I haven't seen this posted, so I thought I'd better do it: On the front page of yesterday's Santa Rosa Press Democrat:"Widely quoted post-divorce figures wrong by Katherine Webster, Associated Press BOTSON - It was a jaw-dropping statistic, widely influential in the movement to change America's divorce and child-support laws.
Eleven years ago, sociologist Lenore Weitzman published 'The Divorce Revolution', her ground-breaking study of California's no-fault divorce system. In it, she reported women's households suffered a 73 percent drop in their standard of living in the first year after divorce, while men's households enjoyed a 42 percent rise.
The figures since have been quoted hundreds of times in neswpapers, politicians' speeches and court rulings.
There's only one problem: Her figures are wrong.
Richard Peterson, a New York sociologist who reanalyzed Weitzman's data from computer and paper records archived at Radcliffe College's Murray Research Center, found a 27 percent decline in women's post-divorce standard of living and a 10 percent increase in men's - still a serious gap, but not the catastrophic one that Weitzman saw.
Weitzman, a professor of sociology and law at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA., acknowledged her figures were wrong. She blamed the loss of her original computer data file, a weighting error or a mistake in the computer caluculations performed by a Stanford University research assistant.
But 'I'm responsible--I reported it', she said.
Peterson went back and check Weitzman's conclusions because they were so much at odds with what other researchers had found and because they conflicted with some of her own data. For several years after the publication of her book, she did not make her data available to other researchers; she explained there were errors in the master computer data file that she wanted to correct first.
Peterson's research and Weitzman's response will be published next month in the American Sociological Review.The publicity that greeted Weitzman's findngs was similar to what occurred after a 1986 study said that if a college-educated white woman hasn't married by age 40, she has only a 1-in-100 chance of getting hitched. That figure was later discredited, but not before a Newsweek cover story declared a 40-year-old woman had a better chance of being killed by a terrorist than of getting married. The dispute over Weitzman's standard-of-living figures is more than academic.
A search of the Nexis database found more than 175 newspaper and magazine stories citing Weitzman's numbers. Peterson says he also found citations in 348 social science articles, 250 law review articles and 24 appeals and Supreme Court Cases. The statisic even appeared in President Clintons' 1996 budget.
'This has been one of the most widely quoted statistics in recent history', says Ann Cobley, director of the Murray Center.Weitzman's figures have been cited by policymakers and others as hard evideence of what's become known as the 'feminization of poverty.' And her book is credited with helping bring about stricter child-support enforcement and more flexible property-division laws around the country. Morevoever, in a recent essay, Susan Faludi, feminist author of 'Backlash', called Weitzman's statistic 'the centerprice for recent attacks on no-fault divorce.'
Weitzman's study, which looked at divorcing families in Los Angeles in 1977 and 1978, was designed to evaluate California's first-in-the-nation no-fault divorce law and accompanying economic returns."
.......end of article.....
Sylvia aka phoenix aka DBSM
From: Gene Hopp <70224.2627@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Weitzman's Lies
12819 SE 38th St. #237
Bellevue, WA 98006
May 19, 1996
I eagerly await the USA Today report on the damage done to men, fathers, and society in general as a result of Lenora Weitzman's dishonest reporting. (Female standard of living falls dramatically after divorce while male standards rise) Don't we all know that USA Today has a de facto quota of articles about "women?" Here's an unusual chance to be honest. From the independent, and far more honest, Detroit Free Press (Front Page, Friday, May 7, 1996), we learn that some 250 law review articles and no less that 24 Supreme Court appeals relied on these falsehoods. But then again, so did USA Today in its endless quest for American victimhood and gender conflict.
206-644-7870 - FAX 206-746-3316
From: Seeking Equality for All <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Weitzman -- Would a Feminist LIE????
What was also ignored is that attorneys routinely advise their women clients to not earn to much money "on the books", in order to "collect more child support". I have not seen this "factored into" the above figures anywhere.seeking justice for all - that includes all childrens constitutional rights to the love of BOTH PARENTS.
American Sociological Association
1722 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
via email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Ms. Levine,
I believe that it is virtually mandatory to rescind the Distinguished Contribution award made by your organization to Lenore Weitzman. We must not reward those who fake data to achieve a particular idealistic goal.Her data has perpetrated millions of frauds in the courts system, damaged many families in the process, and put millions of children at risk.Weitzman has based her revised figures on data which she claims is now lost. Therefore, how can we even believe her revised figures? Can we simply believe her new "interpretation" when there is no foundation in existence for it?
Various other studies on the same subject suggest that Weitzman's revised figures are still incorrect. It would appear to be reasonable to believe that her entire study is untrustworthy, and should be abandoned as a source for public policy responses.
The very credibility of the American Sociological Association rests on whether or not you withdraw the award to Lenore Weitzman. May I suggest that this be taken care of at the earliest possible moment.
Board of Advisors, National Congress for Fathers and Children
118 Oakwood, Webster Groves, MO 63119
(314) 961-5875 FAX (314) 963-7562 E-mail email@example.com
From: "Walter H. Schneider" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Read my comments between the lines in your message.
> I believe that it is virtually mandatory to rescind the Distinguished
> Contribution award made by your organization to Lenore Weitzman. We must
> not reward those who fake data to achieve a particular idealistic goal.
> Her data has perpetrated millions of frauds in the courts system, damaged
> many families in the process, and put millions of children at risk.
It can be claimed by the people who have based their arguments in court on the Weitzman "study", and have won their case against the uncounted helpless fathers, that they had acted in good faith and not fraudulently. There is no doubt that many families have been damaged in the process.But, should it not be that many of the families who have been damaged by the false Weitzman figures in so many cases should be recompensed, and that in fact Leonore Weitzman herself, and the people who have used her figures to win cases, without taking the responsibility of verifying them, should be held responsible to make good the damages that were caused by them?
Should it not be that the members of those families whose livelyhood was damaged as a result of falsified figures that were used against them are automatically entitled to at least a retrial of their divorce or custody hearings, due to the fact that the so-called expert evidence used to deny them mutual contact between children and fathers, as well as due to the fact that many of the social and emotional suffering that arose from unjustly enforced separation of fathers and their children, was in fact caused by the falsified data used in those hearings?
Many criminal cases have been re-opened as a result of it becoming public knowledge that false evidence was used to obtain judgements against alleged criminal offenders. Don't fathers, who have-- along with their children -- been condemned to a life-time of suffering, have the same rights as alleged criminals in our judicial system?
> Weitzman has based her revised figures on data which she claims is now
> lost. Therefore, how can we even believe her revised figures? Can we
> simply believe her new "interpretation" when there is no foundation in
> existence for it?
> Various other studies on the same subject suggest that Weitzman's revised
> figures are still incorrect. It would appear to be reasonable to believe
> that her entire study is untrustworthy, and should be abandoned as a source
> for public policy responses.
> The very credibility of the American Sociological Association rests on
> whether or not you withdraw the award to Lenore Weitzman. May I suggest
> that this be taken care of at the earliest possible moment.
The apology offered by Weitzman for producing the false information is not enough, neither is a simple withdrawal of awards. Her figures were were used by the judicial system *with her knowledge* to cause much suffering, of which she also has been aware, yet she had not felt obliged to offer even the least bit of effort in admitting that her original figures were false in all these years until a public criticism of her study was published. It is incredible that such professional mis-conduct should go completely unpunished.
Walter H. Schneider Bruderheim, Alberta, Canada
From: Amneus <email@example.com>
More About Weitzman
In my GARBAGE GENERATION (Primrose Press, 1990), I have a chapter on this lady, which is, I believe, the best refutation of her contention that following divorce the wifes standard of living falls 73 percent, the husbands rises 42 percent. Permit me to quote myself:Dr. Weitzman's statistics concerning the ex-husband's improved and the ex-wife's deteriorated standard of living are spurious.
But suppose they were valid. What then?
First, it follows that there are excellent economic reasons for placing children of divorce in the custody of fathers rather than mothers.
Second, it follows that during the marriage the husband performed extremely valuable services for the wife, so valuable that when they are withdrawn her standard of living falls by 73 percent. (The wife's "unpaid" services to the husband during marriage are frequently referred to in feminist literature as something justifying compensation. How can a woman's standard of living be lowered by 73 percent by divorce if all she is losing is nothing--her services had been unpaid?)
Third, it follows that the husband performed these services at great sacrifice to himself, so great that even with his continued subsidization of her by alimony and child support payments, and despite the ex-wife's withdrawal of her "unpaid services" worth $25,000 a year (Gloria Steinem's estimate), his own standard of living, once he is partially emancipated from her, skyrockets by 42 percent.
Fourth, it follows that during the marriage the husband had nothing to show for having raised his wife's standard of living by 73 percent at a cost of a 42 percent lowering of his own--nothing except the loss of his children and his motivation (not to mention the probable loss of his home, etc.). But this loss of children and motivation is an economic fact of the first importance. From the economic standpoint, the ex-husband's greatest asset is not his skill, not his degrees and credentials, not his customer goodwill, not his reputation, but his motivation, which in the typical case (since most divorce actions are initiated by wives) the wife herself destroys--and then demands to be compensated for.
Fifth, it follows that Dr. Weitzman is glaringly inconsistent in maintaining on the one hand that the wife's contribution to the marriage is the reason for the husband's (and ex-husband's) economic success, and on the other that he owes her a post-marital free ride despite the fact that she has been a ball-and-chain on him, lowering his standard of living by 42 percent. One is reminded of Betty Friedan's assertion that "There are, of course, many reasons for divorce, but chief among them seems to be the growing aversion and hostility that men have for the feminine millstones hanging around their necks."
Sixth, it follows that Dr. Weitzman disproves her own contention that the wife's contributions to the marriage account for the husband's financial success, and that his future earnings--"assets of the marriage" for which withdrawn services cannot be responsible--ought for this reason to be shared by the ex-wife. These contributions are said to consist largely of "moral support." Why is not this moral support as much community property as the male earning ability it is said to generate? Why is not its withdrawal by divorce a justification for the withdrawal of the earning which is said to result from it?
Seventh, it follows from Dr. Weitzman's estimate of the value of the wife's contributions to the marriage that the husband sustains a crippling loss from her withdrawal of these contributions. If they are the reason for the husband's economic achievement, then their denial entitles him not only to withdraw his earnings, but to be compensated.
Eighth, it follows that if the 42 percent statistic is valid, the ex-husband is entitled to compensation from the ex-wife for her lowering of his pre-divorce standard of living by that amount. (Such a claim would correspond to the demand made by ex-wives to be compensated for the careers they forfeited by marriage.)
ps--Fatherless children are 5 times more likely to commit suicide, 32 times more likely to run away, 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders, 14 times more likely to commit rape, 9 times more likely to drop out of school, 10 times more prone to substance abuse, 9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution, 20 times more likely to end up in prison.
To: ASA Executive Office <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: response from ASA
Felice J. Levine
American Sociological Association
Dear Felice J. Levine:
By your response, quoted below, you have indicated to me that the American Sociological
The issue of internal discipline of an ASA member, as covered under Section V of the ASA Code of
The work in question is clearly fraudulant and the award for the work is a reward by the ASA for
By so doing, the ASA brands itself as an associationa of charlatins, cheats and incompetents.
And do not again insult my intelligence by responding to this e-mail as an "inquiry." It is not an
Any further such condescending response from you will be interpreted by me as your personal
>Dear Gary Clark:
>I am in receipt of your inquiry. The American Sociological Association >(ASA) and its members
>A copy of the Code of Ethics of the American Sociological Association is >available on the ASA
>Felice J. Levine
>American Sociological Association