# Tommy Schnurmacher: Montreal's Very Own Idiot **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 16, 2002, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376 "2002-06-16T16:55:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2002, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/1 "2002-06-16T16:55:31Z")
Tommy Schnurmacher, a local celebrity, writes for our local paper, the Gazette, as well as has a radio show. He is a jerk, big-time. On the radio show, he cuts people off and twists their words (my mother, when she called in, demanded that he let her finish, go her!). But, I am here to talk about his editorials in the Gazette. Unfortunately, as the archives on [canada.com](http://canada.com) ([montrealgazette.com](http://montrealgazette.com)) only go back 14 days, I’ve had to piece together the links from a few places. **[Column 1: It’s a sad day for many fathers.](http://www.canada.com/search/site/story.asp?id=F0134C91-B2B0-4DBA-A167-1A88E912B01E)** This was published in today’s Gazette. Some choice exerpts: > [@](#): > > For many divorced fathers, however, today will represent an agonizing reminder of just how painful it is to be deprived of the love of their own children and relegated to the role of a money machine. (…) > > In general, men commit suicide at four times the rate of women. Farrell, whom I interviewed on radio on Thursday morning, told me that figure has now climbed to 4.8. > > When I brought up the feminist response that women do, however, make more suicide attempts, Farrell agreed. He suggested than an attempted suicide is often a desperate move designed to attract attention because there is still some hope that lingers on. > > Other startling stats: > > -Seventy-three per cent of adolescent murderers come from mother-only homes. > > -Each year about 350 parents in the U.S. kill one or more of their children. Almost two-thirds of the parents who kill their children are mothers. > > -Children are 88 per cent more likely to be injured from child abuse or neglect by their mothers than by their fathers. > > Farrell does a superb job of debunking what has become the accepted wisdom, as he points to studies that show that children who grow up with single fathers “do better psychologically, socially and academically than those who grow up with single mothers.” **Column 2: We should support all victims of violence.** Unfortunately, I can’t find this article. I can, however, find two responses to it, which should give a good idea of what it was about, [here](http://www.canada.com/search/site/story.asp?id=94377D07-3F39-4D58-BDB2-ADEEA84CB349) and [here](http://www.canada.com/search/site/story.asp?id=28C65859-C5DC-435E-ABCE-347825E5BDBD). Some quotes from the responses: > [@](#): > > On one point, Mr. Schnurmacher is correct: there are male victims of domestic violence, and they should receive our full support. However, Mr. Schnurmacher’s use of statistics to claim that levels of domestic violence against men and women are similar and that murder rates for men are higher is a distortion at best. (…) > > The use of 1999 Statistics Canada bureau of justice statistics, as they were interpreted in Mr. Schnurmacher’s column, is misleading and irresponsible. General statistics do not reflect the specific context of conjugal or family violence > > The 69 per cent of homicides (cited in the article) involving men as victims are primarily within the context of criminal acts, not the result of family violence. The 69 per cent of the 536 people murdered in Canada in 1999 who were males were killed by other men in crimes of violence related to drugs, organized crime, robberies, extortion and so on. The other 31 per cent of the victims who were women, adolescents or children were murdered, for the most part, by men also. These statistics must not be used to support an argument that women are as violent as men. This is a flagrant misuse of information and unprofessional reasoning, used to uphold a personal point of view. **[Column 3: Gender bigotry permeates legal system.](http://fact.on.ca/news/news0203/mg020303.htm)** This column basically shows that women are not convicted for the same crimes men are. And women are not given the death penalty as often. Yeah Tommy, anecdotes **really** prove your point well. As a matter of fact, I think you do better with them than your “statistics”, actually. **[Column 4: Women are getting away with murder.](http://fact.on.ca/news/news0202/mg020224.htm)** This one’s about Andrea Yates. Yeah, I shuddered too when I realized he was going to take her on. Let’s see some exerpts: > [@](#): > > Andrea Pia Yates has one thing going for her. She’s not a man. If a depressed father took five of his children and drowned them one after the other in the bathtub, he wouldn’t be receiving much sympathy. (…) > > It’s politically incorrect to generalize about ethnic groups, but men are open season. (…) > > Women who commit violent crimes are often depicted as victims of patriarchy. > > If patriarchy continues to have such a horrific impact on women, why is the suicide rate so much higher for men? > > The feminist organization is calling for more research into the illness. > > How about calling for research to find out why 70 per cent of confirmed cases of child abuse and 65 per cent of parental murders of children are committed by mothers? > > Those stats come from the United States Department of Justice. > > Let’s do some research to find out why a custodial mother is five times more likely to murder her own children than is a custodial father even if you take into account the greater number of single mothers. > > Those figures are supplied by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. > > When it comes to crime and punishment, place your bets on the ladies. A man is 20 times more likely to receive the death penalty than a woman convicted of the same crime. > > NOW has stated “this criminal response to women who are ill is barbaric.” > > Less barbaric than the apathetic response to young men who are ill, depressed and killing themselves at six times the rate of women. > > If Andrea Yates gets away with murder, she won’t be the first. You, Tommy Schnurmacher, are a shmuck. You skew statistics to make your point, and you pull out the same “well, men commit suicide more often than women” card to elicit sympathy and prove your point every time. Well, it’s not working. Your attempts to further men’s rights by villifying women just hurts us all, don’t you see? > [@](#): > > TS: This isn’t misogynistic whining. It’s the truth. Only in your sad world, Tommy boy. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2002, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/2 "2002-06-16T17:48:44Z")
Here are the stats for family violence in Canada: [http://www.statcan.ca:80/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/free.htm](http://www.statcan.ca:80/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/free.htm) I strongly recommend reading at least the most recent annual report from cover to cover before venturing any opinions. In short, the violence goes both ways, with women taking the worst of it. Tommy Schnurmacher is promoting a zero sum game, rather than helping find solutions. ---
**Author:** ![Elenfair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cc9497/32.png) [@Elenfair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elenfair)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2002, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/3 "2002-06-16T18:15:24Z")
Maybe his mother never loved him… :rolleyes: Elly ---
**Author:** ![pesch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pesch/32/4925_2.png) [@pesch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pesch)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2002, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/4 "2002-06-16T19:09:57Z")
And imagine, Andrea Yeager is now breathing the free air of Texas, while her enabling, controlling smuck of a husband is behind bars. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![detop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bcef8e/32.png) [@detop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/detop)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2002, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/5 "2002-06-17T16:43:15Z")
I agree with your evaluation of Tommy-boy **LaurAnge** , but I wouldn’t give the jackass too much credit, intelligence or influence. Don’t forget he started his media career as a gossip and society columnist and only jumped on the op-ed/political bandwagon during the Galganov and Angryphones years. I have to admit though, he’s good at pushing people’s buttons. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2002, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/6 "2002-06-17T16:54:40Z")
Really? I totally didn’t know that. He doesn’t seem very informed, this isn’t the only issue on which he has formed an opinion apparetnly before learning the facts. ---
**Author:** ![detop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bcef8e/32.png) [@detop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/detop)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2002, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/7 "2002-06-17T17:27:52Z")
I guess is motto should be “Don’t bother me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind !” ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2002, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/8 "2002-06-17T18:09:31Z")
Serves you right for reading the tabloids, **LaurAnge** 😛 IMHO, _The Gazette_ has gotten lurid more lately than _Le Journal de Montréal_. Did you see that front-page last week, “What if a dirty bomb exploded in the middle of Montreal?” (Peel Street’s the middle of Montreal?) As for Shnurmacher, he’s always been a idiot whenever I’ve heard him on the radio or television. I hadn’t realized he’d brought his inanities to print, but the _Gazette_ seems to right place for them. They deserve each other. ---
**Author:** ![scott\_evil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@scott\_evil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scott_evil)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2002, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/9 "2002-06-17T19:14:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hamish \* > \*\*As for Shnurmacher, he’s always been a idiot whenever I’ve heard him on the radio or television. \*\* Plus, he has really, really bad hair. 😉 - s.e. ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2002, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/10 "2002-06-17T20:02:49Z")
Here I thought he was wearing a clown wig 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2002, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/11 "2002-06-17T23:12:47Z")
So…Since you don’t like what the statistics show, Tommy Schnurmacher is the one to blame. Nice. It is good to see that the leftists are not bothered by little things like ‘fact’ and ‘truth’. ---
**Author:** ![lno](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a8b319/32.png) [@lno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lno)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/12 "2002-06-18T01:14:50Z")
Pfffft, facts. You can prove anything you want with those. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/13 "2002-06-18T01:15:49Z")
Alright **Brutus** , I’ll take this seriously. First of all, what in the world indicates to you that he is right-wing, and that we are left wing? I’d really like to know. Second, it isn’t a matter of not liking what the statistics show. The statistics he use misrepresent his point. I’ll give you some examples: In what I call column 2, Schnurmacher is arguing that men should get more attention, 'cause they are big victims in domestic violence. To prove this, he gives the statistic that **in all ways, not just domestic violence** 69% of murders were men. He, in his column, did not qualitfy it as such, and therefore gave a very misleading image of the statistics of domestic violence in Canada. See **Muffin** link for the real numbers for this issue. In the same vein, showing that men commit suicide more than women really shouldn’t have any bearing on how we see divorce. Can you see how he’s using statistics falsely, not explaining how they really affect his argument? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/14 "2002-06-18T03:37:15Z")
Brutus, go back in the thread and read what I posted. I have provided you with a direct link to the Stats Canada figures which Schnurmacher mis-uses, but you have failed to make use of it. I specifically directed that one should read at least the most recent Stats Canada report before posting, but you clearly have not done so. That is unacceptable. Please provide the specific Statistics Canada data, with a page cite, which you believe that Schnurmacher is correctly using but that the “leftists” don’t like. If you are unwilling to support your allegations in the method I have set out, then you should retract them or be taken someone who blatently ignores the facts but still tries to offend – as Schnurmacher does. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/15 "2002-06-18T03:47:23Z")
Since I have not read the actual second column (just the two reponses), it is impossible to say whether or not he was misreprenting statistics to prove a point. But lets have a look at the ‘first’ response to column 2. > [@](#): > > … The 69 per cent of the 536 people murdered in Canada in 1999 who were males were killed by other men in crimes of violence related to drugs, organized crime, robberies, extortion and so on… So ALL males killed in Canada were involved in drugs, OC, robbery, extortion, and so on? Bullshit. I would love to see some solid statistics on this. It sounds like blanket-statement to me. > [@](#): > > …The other 31 per cent of the victims who were women, adolescents or children were murdered, for the most part, by men also. . Apart from the fact that men are ‘killed’, where as women and children are ‘murdered’, the ‘for the most part’ statetement doesn’t sound to scientific to me. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/16 "2002-06-18T05:16:00Z")
Brutus, for the last time I am advising you to read the Statistics Canada data which I have provided for you before you hold out upon whether or not it has been misinterpreted. For example, you have quibbled about the murder stats as differentiated between men and women. Here are a few selections from the Stats Canada profiles that you have been too intellectually lazy to review. I will not be typing such material out again for your benefit, so you had best learn to use follow and use cites. From page 35, section 5.0 “Family Homicide” of the 1999 Stats Canada profile on Family Violence in Canada: > [@](#): > > From 1978 to 1997 there were 12,871 victims of homicide in Canada. Family members were responsible for nearly one-third (31%) of these, another 39% were committed by acquaintances, and 12% by strangers. Throughout the period, women and girls were most likely to be killed by a family member (50%), whereas men and boys were most likely to be killed by acquaintances (46%). > > Given the relatively high rates of spousal violence against women, it is not unexpected that husbands represent the vast majority of family members who kill female victims (67%). Parents accounted for the next largest proportion of suspects in family homicides involving female victims (18%). > > Male victims of family homicide were most likely to have been killed by parents (28%) followed by wives (including current or estranged partners) (26%). Other family members, including extended family members such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and in-laws, accounted for 20% of the perpetrators. From page 39, section 5.0 “Family Homicide” of the 2000 Stats Canada profile on Family Violence in Canada: > [@](#): > > Spousal homicide accounts for a substantial proportion of all homicides in Canada. From 1979 to 1998, spouses represented 15% of all victims of solved homicides and 49% of family-related incidents. Over the two decades, more than three times as many wives as husbands were killed by spouses (1,468 women and 433 men). > > Between 1979 and 1998, the annual rate of spousal homicide was, on average, 10 wives and 3 husbands per million couples in Canada. From page 33, section 4.5 “Killings by ex-spouses” of the 2001 Stats Canada profile on Family Violence in Canada: > [@](#): > > _Women have a heightened risk of homicide after marital separation._ Marital separation is a factor that elevates the rate of spousal homicide for women. Ex-marital partners were responsible for 28% of all homicides perpetuated against women, and 10% of homicides committed against men. Although spousal killings that occur after separation are fewer in number than those that occur in intact unions, when calculated as a rate per million couples, the rates for separated women are higher. Between 1991 and 1999, women were killed by estranged husbands at a rate of 38.7 per million. In comparison, an average of 26.4 per million women were killed by current common-law partners, and 4.5 per million were killed by current husbands. > > This heightened risk of homicide victimization following separation is not found for men. Instead, men are at greater risk of homicide by a current common-law spouse than an ex-spouse. An average of 11.5 men per million were killed by a current common-law partner between 1991 and 1999, about five times the rate for separated men. Cry me a river, Brutus. Your attempt to polarize domestic violence is pathetic. Domestic violence devastates many people of either gender, with women taking the greatly disproportional brunt of it. Solutions to violence against both genders will not be found by marginalizing violence against women. The next time you post, do your homework first, or better yet, keep your ignorant yap shut, for your are an embarrassment to your gender. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/17 "2002-06-18T06:59:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Cry me a river, Brutus. Your attempt to polarize domestic violence is pathetic. Domestic violence devastates many people of either gender, with women taking the greatly disproportional brunt of it. Solutions to violence against both genders will not be found by marginalizing violence against women. The next time you post, do your homework first, or better yet, keep your ignorant yap shut, for your are an embarrassment to your gender. I at no point attempted to polarize domestic violence, and you’ll kindly stop trying to fucking define my postition for me. I have been a reserve police officer for about a year and a half now. Like I stated in a post in another topic, I have responded to dozens of ‘domestic disturbance’ calls in that short time. The majority involved, of course, ‘men’ getting drunk, and beating their wife or girlfriend. On a few occassions, it was a mother getting drunk and beating her children, but a WAG would put the ratio at 12:1 or so. The point? I would just as soon shoot the abusers as take them in, again, and come back 3 weeks later to see the wife and/or child beaten again. (No, I will not shoot anyone apart from situations where there is threat of greivous bodily harm, but that’s how I feel). Don’t ever fucking accuse me of in anyway being lenient on domestic abuse, Muffin. Thank God, my family had no such problems, but I see it far too often, and it is beyond fucking horrible. And sort of back on topic: Does anyone here deny that men get shafted during divorce proceedings? ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/18 "2002-06-18T12:11:00Z")
He’s not accusing you of being lenient on domestic violence, but being a willing dupe of this guy’s false reporting of statistics. Just FYI. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/19 "2002-06-18T21:52:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Brutus \* > \*\*I at no point attempted to polarize domestic violence, and you’ll kindly stop trying to fucking define my postition for me. > . . . > Does anyone here deny that men get shafted during divorce proceedings? \*\* Quod erat demonstrandum, Brutus. I am not concerned with whether or not you are soft on violence against women, Brutus, but rather that you appear to be rather soft in the head when it comes to reasoning. Again, I urge you to actually review the facts before spewing forth with your opinions. I will take your last post as an admission that indeed women suffer a grossly disproportionate proportion of spousal violence. Now let’s move on to the issues of child rearing and poverty. Over a quarter of a century ago the “tender years” doctrine was tossed out by the Supremes in Talsky v. Talsky [1976] 2 S.C.R. 292. This has been repeatedly confirmed by the Supremes, including in Young v. Young [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3: > [@](#): > > 34 As has been widely observed by those studying the nature and sources of changes in family institutions, popular notions of parenthood and parenting roles have undergone a profound evolution both in Canada and elsewhere in the world in recent years (see generally M. A. Fineman, The Illusion of Equality: The Rhetoric and Reality of Divorce Reform (1991); L. J. Weitzman, The Divorce Revolution (1985); J. Drakich, “In Whose Best Interests? The Politics of Joint Custody”, in B. Fox, ed., Family Bonds and Gender Divisions: Readings in the Sociology of the Family (1988); C. Smart and S. Sevenhuijsen, Child Custody and the Politics of Gender (1989), and S. B. Boyd, “Women, Men and Relationships with Children: Is Equality Possible?”, in K. Busby, L. Fainstein and H. Penner, eds., Equality Issues in Family Law: Considerations for Test Case Litigation (1990)). One of the central tenets of this new vision is that child care both is no longer and should no longer be exclusively or primarily the preserve of women. Society has largely moved away from the assumptions embodied in the tender years doctrine that women are inherently imbued with characteristics which render them better custodial parents (for a discussion, see D. L. Chambers, “Rethinking the Substantive Rules for Custody Disputes in Divorce” (1984), 83 Mich. L. Rev. 477). Moreover, both economic necessity and the movement toward social and economic equality for women have resulted in an increase in the number of women in the paid workforce. Many people have tended to assume that a natural result of this change would be the concurrent sharing of household and childcare responsibilities with spouses, companions and, of course, fathers. In addition, the increased emphasis on the participation of fathers in the raising of children and financial support after divorce gave rise to claims by fathers and fathers’ rights groups for legislative changes that would entitle them to the benefit of neutral presumptions in custody decisions. > > 35 A corollary of the acceptance of neutral parenting roles is the notion that children after divorce need to maintain contact with both parents. It is now widely assumed to be self-evident in the child’s best interests to ensure the non-custodial parent’s involvement in the life of the child. One result of these changes has been the emergence of joint custody awards which are > predicated explicitly on equality of parental responsibilities and the belief that children’s interests are served by maximizing the involvement of both parents in decisions concerning the child. > > 36 The custody provisions of the Act reflect, to some degree, this evolving view of parental roles. Under the best interests test, courts no longer automatically grant custody according to the tender years doctrine. Instead, decisions are made according to the best interests of the child without the benefit of a presumption in favour of the mother, or, for that matter, the father. Thus there is a prohibition against a presumption in favour of women, there is a goal of maximum contact with the child by both parents, and the test which must be used is “the best interests of the child.” That’s the law of the land, so don’t go whining about men getting the short end of the stick when it comes to custody. The Supremes have concluded that women carry a grossly disproportionate financial burden upon divorce, very often pushing them into poverty. The powerhouse decision of Moge v. Moge [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 thoroughly discussed the problem: > [@](#): > > 57 The picture in Canada seems to follow a similar pattern. In the federal Department of Justice (Bureau of Review), Evaluation of the Divorce Act – Phase II: Monitoring and Evaluation (1990), it was found, based on client interviews that, following divorce, 59 percent of women and children surveyed fell below the poverty line, a figure that dropped to 46 percent when support was included [page855] in the calculation of their incomes (see pp. 92-93). However, a more realistic picture, as it is not restricted to the more affluent segment of the divorcing public, is probably revealed by an analysis of court files, which determined that in 1988, overall two-thirds of divorced women had total incomes which placed them below the poverty line. When support was excluded, 74 percent of divorced women fell below the poverty line (see pp. 94-95). It is apparent that support payments, even assuming they are paid, are making only a marginal contribution to reducing economic hardship among women following divorce. In contrast, a previous study released in 1986, Evaluation of the Divorce Act - Phase I: Monitoring and Evaluation, found that only 10 percent of men were below the poverty line after paying support, and the average income was $13,500 above the poverty line in such one-person households after the payment of support. > > 58 Other studies confirm the trend. According to Statistics Canada, “Alimony and child support”, in Perspectives on Labour and Income (Summer 1992), 8, at p. 18, the per capita income of those paying support in 1988 was $25,800 while the per capita income of those receiving it in the same year was $10,500. > > 59 An examination of the economic position of single mothers is also useful in assessing the effects of dissolution of marriage since about 30 percent of single mothers are divorced: Statistics Canada, Women in Canada: A Statistical Report (2nd ed. 1990), at p. 16. In 1987, 57 percent of single mothers lived below the poverty line: National Council of Welfare, Women and Poverty Revisited (1990), at p. 58. Gunderson, Muszynski and Keck, supra, report a figure of 44.1 percent in 1986 (p. 18). (See also Statistics Canada, “Work and relative [page856] poverty”, in Perspectives on Labour and Income (Summer 1990), 32.) > > 60 Reports such as these have led many Canadian commentators to draw direct links between female poverty and the financial consequences of the dissolution of marriage. While M. Eichler emphasizes the limits of family law in addressing poverty in “The Limits of Family Law Reform or, The Privatization of Female and Child Poverty” (1990-91), 7 C.F.L.Q. 59, she recognizes that family law nevertheless has a role to play in alleviating poverty for single mothers when she writes at p. 60: > “What are the consequences of divorce for women, men and children, besides emotional pain? They are very different. Men tend to maintain the standard of living they had before the divorce, while women and children sink into instant poverty.” > (See also E. D. Pask and M. L. McCall, “How Much and Why? An Overview” (1989), 5 C.F.L.Q. 129, at pp. 139-40.) So there you have it. Following divorce, two-thirds of women fall below the poverty line even with support, and 74% would fall below the poverty line without support, whereas only 10% of men fall below the poverty line after paying support. If that isn’t a disproportional financial burden being placed on women, I don’t know what is, so don’t go complaining that men are treated unfairly financially in divorces. I don’t know what it takes to get through to you, but I’ll tell you once again: assemble your facts and have a good hard look at them before you state your conclusions. Simply throwing out misinformed opinions is not acceptable, particularly when those little jewels of yours promote the marginalization of women with respect to violence, child rearing, and poverty. The statistics and the Supreme Court decisions quite solidly indicate that upon divorce, women as a segment of the population face grossly disproportionate amounts and degrees of violence at the hands of their previous husbands, are not given any preferential presumptions as to custody, and take severely disproportionate hits in their standards of living. Despite this, you claim that men get “shafted” when divorcing. You have refused to provide any data or decisions to support your allegation, and you have ignored the data and decisions which have been placed before you. In short, you appear to be thick as a brick, Brutus, not for your opinion, but rather for your inability to look, think, and respond in a rational manner. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2002, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tommy-schnurmacher-montreals-very-own-idiot/114376/20 "2002-06-18T23:05:13Z")
Wait, wait, **Muffin**! You forgot that kids in single-mother families grow up to be murderers! :rolleyes: Nothing to do with the correlation between single-mother families and low-income families. None at all…