Women's rights then...and now (USA)

Great post by an anonymous friend.

Women's rights today versus 20 years ago:

In 1990:

-- women in all states could pretty much count on getting "sole custody" of their children upon divorce, and good fathers' visitation rights were considered to be half of all non-work, non-school time (every other weekend, half the holidays and summers).

-- joint custody was expressly disfavored either in the statutes or case law of a supermajority of states.

-- most states still had fault divorce grounds, and where they didn't, still required lengthy formal separations.

-- women with custody of their children pretty much could pick up and move wherever they wanted to move. Restrictions were rare, and not in the law but in court orders and marital settlement agreements.

-- all states had not yet complied with the federal demand for the establishment of child support enforcement, but guidelines generally were in place -- and they actually were, on balance, more generous to women than they are today (no offsets for male parenting time, e.g., and some states had formulas that just outright took percentages of fathers' incomes.)

-- a repeated big deal in the divorce media cases was whether this or that millionaire would actually have to give a full "half" of his assets accumulated during the marriage to his ex-wife, instead of, say 30 or 40%. Much theoretical commentary on this but, of course, little relevance to 90% of the divorcing population.

-- more women kept their own last names upon marriage than do so today.

-- the problem of women wanting to remain with the kids in the marital home instead of having to leave upon obtaining dv injunctions was being addressed, except in instances in which her name was not on the title or lease. Where it was, in at least some states, an alternate to a dv injunction was to just file for divorce and get an order for him to vacate the premises (largely unheard of today).

-- a lot of talk was ensuing about women's economic plights compared with men's situations post-divorce, but that never went anywhere, never translated into demonstrable changes in alimony theory that alleviated this a whit. The talking also presumed that mothers would have custody of their children post-divorce.

-- the few psychs who occasionally were called into divorce cases and who wrote opinions and articles were still saying things like small children belong with their historical primary caregivers, and that primary caregiving = attachment.

-- primary caregiving was a factor in most state custody determination statutes that were "gender neutral".

-- unwed mothers were universally considered to be the sole natural custodian of their children; often they did not name the paternates, and often they did not get child support. Sometimes, though, they got welfare.

-- fewer women remained childless (although 80% today still become mothers)

-- the percentage of women applicants to most professional and graduate schools was about the same as it is today; the mean age of women getting married was lower than today; women were less likely than today to live in poverty, even though (due in part to affirmative action) women today outpace men in obtaining higher degrees, and even though today a far higher percentage of mothers are in the workforce; and far and away the largest segment of the population living in poverty is single mothers with children

Since 1990, the amount of money donated to members of Congress, for campaigns and in connection with lobbying, ostensibly to promote women's issues, by various women's issue organizations (virtually all of it going to the Democratic Party) has increased astronomically, both in the absolute sense and relative to other donations.


HOW ARE WE DOING?