Here, Lexet brings to our attention a report from the U.S. Census Bureau which describes how an easy Divorce is a positive thing for both women and society!
Readership: Christians in the United States; Others who may be interested;
* * * * *
In December of 2019, the U.S. Census Bureau published an article by one of their employees titled, “When Laws Make Divorce Easier, Research Shows Women Benefit, Outcomes Improve.” This article is intended to showcase
“…one of the many independent research projects done by U.S. Census Bureau experts on topics relevant to the agency’s mission.”
This research has the backing of the government (under Donald Trump’s presidency).
The author of this article is Dr. Misty Heggeness. Misty has worked for the National Institute of Health, and is apparently still a senior advisor at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. She is currently a principal economist and senior advisor in research and methodology. Her pay grade is GS-14 ($127,000 base pay). By all accounts, she is intelligent, and knows data. But from the looks of her report, it seems that she also specializes in data manipulation to further feminist goals.
“Surprise! An easy Divorce is good for you!” …she says.
The article starts out by stating that divorce carries a negative stigma – broken homes and acrimony. Don’t worry, though. New studies now show,
“…divorce laws can actually have a positive effect on society and the economy.”
It’s hard to imagine exactly how Divorce helps the economy. I suppose it has always been obvious that divorce supports private investigators and others in the legal profession, but we would have never guessed that barristers had so much influence over the national economy. But if we take Misty at her word, then it stands to reason that if we could make divorce easier for women, then we could pay off the national debt a century sooner!
The second sentence of the article literally says,
“…laws that make it easier to divorce can improve the welfare of household members, even for couples that stay together.”
Mind . . . blown!
Misty’s third sentence then contradicts everything else she writes:
“…divorce can be difficult and lead to less than ideal well-being outcomes.”
This sentence links to a research paper written by Jonathan Gruber (a man) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), who used 40 years of data and found,
“…unilateral divorce regulations do significantly increase the incidence of divorce. Adults who were exposed to unilateral divorce regulations as children are less well educated, have lower family incomes, marry earlier but separate more often, and have higher odds of adult suicide.”
I do not know how the ħɘ11 you read his study, and then dare cite it in a paper that concludes divorce is great because it benefits only one party. Misty’s point, however, is that divorce is good so long as it benefits women. The fact that divorce is destructive to families, and destroys the livelihood of men, and sets children on a downward trajectory in life is a minor consideration. Yay! More children with an increased likelihood of a future of crime, divorce, increased suicide, and depression!
What makes divorce so great to Misty?
The reason why Misty presents divorce in a positive light, is because it allows “wives” to do/have more of the following:
- Invest in quality schooling for their children and other amenities supporting schooling in general. (This is based on Misty’s study of kids in Chile, which looked at school enrollment and length of divorce finalization. Looking at only two data points in a foreign country not comparable to the U.S. sounds like a study that leads to more questions rather than conclusions.)
- Enjoy an increase in leisure time.
- Spend more time working.
- Spend less time on household chores, such as cleaning and cooking.
What is it about divorce that causes these “benefits” that a woman could not enjoy had she remained married? Why of course, it is “family” laws that “shift property rights to women, and provide payments directly to women upon divorce.”
Those of us who have been married with children and have gone through the divorce wringer might make several observations here:
You cannot be divorced with children while having more leisure time, working longer hours outside the home, and spending less time on chores. That is literally impossible. The only way to increase the ability to get more work done, inside and outside the home, while simultaneously increasing leisure time is by creating a division of labor – and this requires an intact family, coupled alongside public schooling to care for and educate the children during the day. In fact, a combined income and additional resources from both the husband and wife working together is what provides the means to afford a better quality life and an improved education for the children.
If, however, “family” laws allow a woman to extract a significant amount of her ex-husbands income to be used for her own disposal, she may then be able to afford to pay others to perform those duties that she herself, or other family members would have otherwise fulfilled, such as child care, cooking meals, cleaning house, and arranging transportation for the children. This is presumably all well and good for the divorced woman, but at what cost to the husband? Furthermore, how badly are the children impacted from their father being absent from living in their home?
These all lead to the conclusion that none of Misty’s claims are true for most women who are actually divorced. And for those divorced women who do happen to find all the benefits that Misty describes, it could only come at a tremendous economic and psychological cost to the ex-husband and children.
How do Divorced wives spend more money on education?
Misty hides the reason why divorced wives spend more money on education in her statement,
“Expanded alimony and child support and allowances for divorced mothers have been shown to increase investments in children’s schooling and clothing.”
No, she did not use an Oxford comma there. If she really thinks and talks the way she writes, I can imagine she talks like, soo like, a rɘTardɘd Valley Girl™. Like, totally gross me out, you know? With like, all the “and’s” and like, whatever… Or could she simply be a weedo too “busy” smoking something, and too careless to proofread a formal (and perhaps national) publication?
The text links to a study of “Alimony Rights and Intrahousehold Allocation of Resources: Evidence from Brazil“, by Marcos A. Rangel.
Misty made a middle school error – she confused causation with correlation. A significant increase in disposable income nearly always leads to a better quality of life and education (for the children of caring, conscientious parents), regardless of age, sex, race, socioeconomic tier, or marital status. This is more likely to be the cause of the increased investments in children’s schooling and clothing, not divorce. But that added income for the divorced woman didn’t just materialize out of thin air, neither is it absorbed by the nebulous tax payer. It came from a divorce court mandated wage garnishment from her ex-husbands paycheck. The ex-husband is forced to work excessive overtime just to make ends meet, and must forego the possibility of ever becoming a home owner, just so his ex can enjoy the pleasure of bragging to her social circle that her kids go to Worthington Academy, instead of the county public high school. Is that really a net positive result?
It also seems that she made numerous assumptions in order to reach these bizarre and contradictory conclusions. Her main assumption is that robbing one spouse of their earned income, to be delivered to a divorcing wife, is somehow an economic stimulus. In fact, it’s the basic broken window fallacy applied to marriage and divorce. Again, how the ħɘ11 can a statistician who advises a federal reserve bank not know this? Or worse yet, maybe they do know it, but the Dɘɘp Statɘ parasites in charge of the federal reserve just don’t give a crap because they have been lining their pockets for decades by adhering to the broken window fallacy, and thereby destroying this nation’s financial culture for generations to come.
We must give women a sufficient incentive to destroy their husbands and families
The author wrote the following myopic argument.
“In a divorce, family courts redistribute resources gained during (and sometimes before) marriage. Women have more to gain in divorce if laws are more favorable to wives.
No $ħ!t, Sherlock! You have more to gain in pursuing something that will benefit you!
The prospect of onerous alimony, child support and other divorce compensation increases wives’ bargaining power when they have the option to divorce.”
While she was at least frank enough to mention earlier (in passing) the emotional carnage involved in the nature of divorce, sadly, she has yet to realize that economic incentives incentivize such behavior. The laws are currently favorable to wives. No one disputes that. All women need to do is to manufacture a spurious accusation and make one call to the local police, who will employ the Duluth model to get him kicked out of the house. Next, call a divorce lawyer to handle the rest. She shouldn’t worry about a thing. The court will ensure that her ex will pay for it all! Not even anyone at her converged choich will condemn her. It’ll be cheap, quick, easy, and she’ll never have to feel guilty nor ashamed. (At least, not for the next few years.)
“It may be less favorable for husbands but the reverse is also true when divorce laws are more favorable to husbands.”
But Misty, the reverse is not true! As it now stands, about 70% of divorces are initiated by women. As more Unhaaappy™ wives realize that a divorce could provide them with nearly the same income but without the burdens of marital responsibilities, such as being subject to the man’s authority, then more wives will wake up to the common sense wisdom of getting a divorce.
In spite of the fact that a divorcing woman may gain extra income from a divorce in a gynocentric court system, a comprehensive assessment of divorce reveals it to be an extravagant, selfish, and wasteful expense, and one that produces massive financial, emotional, and societal costs. Thus, enhancing women’s “bargaining power” in this case, is not something that is good for the integrity of the American family, and it is not something that produces an overall economic gain. There is no man in ‘Murica who will be motivated to work harder, or build his own business, just to earn more money to fork over to a self-centered ex who promised him heaven, and instead, delivered ħɘ11.
How is divorce good for society?
Heggeness claims that making Divorce easier has “positive ripple effects” on society at large. These benefits, according to Misty, are:
- An increase in marriages – Sorry Misty, but I will bet these are nearly all divorced people remarrying mostly other divorced people. It’s not a benefit unless the marriage rate shows a net increase over the divorce rate.
- Nearly nonexistent suicide rates for females go down further. – Misty, compare that to male suicide.
- Women start working outside the home. – Misty makes yet another mistake of misattributing cultural trends, and confusing causal events. Easy divorce laws came about during the time women’s participation in the workforce, particularly the upper echelons, continued to grow. While the two were pushed by the same movement, the only reason easy divorce would increase economic participation is the fact that alimony alone wouldn’t support a divorced woman, and she had to get a job to have a better quality of life. This literally means that women had it better when married and staying at home!
More fluff and nonsense
“Studying divorce is hard…” the author states, not realizing that a lack of intelligence and discipline is what makes studying hard.
She states, “pinning down cause and effect is challenging.” Had Misty spent 30 minutes reading her own article, applying basic logic to it (and proofreading the English), she could have seen all of the causal errors she made. Apparently she never came across “economic incentives” when studying economics.
The rest of her paper hawks an upcoming paper she has, which focuses on Chile. Of course, women have it well off in Chile now, because back in the day, commies were thrown from helicopters there. (If you think about it, that sentence bears more truth than Misty’s causal errors). How about a study that focuses on the longitudinal effects of frivorce in the United States?
Ms. Epiphany expects to provide us with more groundbreaking revelations:
“My newly published research shows that both the design of divorce law and how local governments execute it can have profound effects.”
I look forward to her deep thoughts on water being wet.
[SF: In future posts, I will examine some of her “work”, and the research papers cited therein.]
Misty’s article, while bizarre, tells men a lot. Yes, the article shows how agenda-driven feminism is, and how leftism in general permeates at all levels of government. (This is what people mean by “the swamp”.)
Not only is she getting paid to write this nonsense, but she is paid on our dime, with the government’s full support.
[Dear Trump administration, please fire her, her boss, and everyone else who approved this.]
However, the most important part of the article is the fact that government officials view divorce as positive, while completely ignoring the downsides of divorce. Government does not view divorce as destructive, simply because it is positive for women. Government doesn’t care that men have less income, or that children have poor life outcomes as a result of divorce. Divorce is like, great and all, because it like, empowers women!
I doubt that they’ll ever come clean enough to mention that empowering women is a strategy towards the endgame of destroying the nuclear family, and hopefully by extension, American society.
Feminists owe a debt of gratitude to Misty for making this important, but heretofore esoteric information available to add to their propaganda. Yay! Now that Divorce is favored as official policy, all the Manospherian authors can retire from blogging.