Villainous Company

This is going to take me a while to get through, but this statement sort of jumped out at me:

The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence... indicates that ... in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers.

So a statistical sample doesn't "by itself" establish "gender bias against women," but "additional evidence indicates" that the fundamental impartiality of the entire judicial system is corrupt and skewed in favor of fathers?

Damn! That must be some mighty "additional evidence" they've got there... somewhere.

I think I know what they're referring to, but I'd have to go back and read everything - can't do that now. I chose that quote b/c frankly I found it kind of amusing :p

The "high success rate" of custodial mothers has been widely quoted (and rarely questioned) as prima facie evidence of bias. If you don't bother to find out how many fathers even tried to get custody, the fact that 85 or so % of mothers *got* custody does nothing to establish a grossly unfair system. We're assuming the sample isn't skewed/self-selecting, which is a big assumption.

That has never made sense to me. Nor, IMO, does the fact that when fathers fight for custody, they are actually more likely than mothers to win. Again, we don't know if the sample is skewed by other factors (maybe - as it turns out, this is the case - fathers who spend more time with the kids before divorce are more likely to seek custody). Maybe they're more motivated if they don't think their ex is a good mom. There could be all kinds of things going on here.

What I do know is that if someone believes that the courts are biased based solely on the % of women who get custody (without knowing whether the fathers were OK with that or not), then on what rational basis could they question that fathers winning the majority of contested custody cases shows bias against mothers?

It is a puzzlement :p

Lots to digest here... One question jumps out at me - The Sage study mentions time spent with children by fathers going from 2.5 hrs/wk in 1965 to 6.5 hrs/wk in 2000. It then mentions time spent by women as 12.9 hrs/wk in 2000, but I can't find the 1965 number anywhere. I'm guessing that average is decreasing for women, which doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it's an interesting bit of data to be omitted in such a numbers centric report.

Well... I'd need a few anecdotes to settle some of my questions. :)

I'll have to give this a more careful reading and follow the links, but my first impression is that there is a whole lot of bad information out there on this subject.

The Sage study mentions time spent with children by fathers going from 2.5 hrs/wk in 1965 to 6.5 hrs/wk in 2000. It then mentions time spent by women as 12.9 hrs/wk in 2000, but I can't find the 1965 number anywhere. I'm guessing that average is decreasing for women, which doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it's an interesting bit of data to be omitted in such a numbers centric report.

That seems reasonable to me, Pogue. I think I found a more complete description of the study

The first national-level study was conducted in 1965, and it was replicated in 1975, 1985, and 1995. They drew on other time-diary studies from the late 1990s and early this decade, and made use of the Current Population Survey data on work hours, the 2000 General Social Survey, and other material.

Time diaries indicate that married fathers spent an average 6.5 hours a week caring for their children in 2000, a 153 percent increase since 1965. Married mothers spent 12.9 hours, a 21 percent increase. Single mothers spent 11.8 hours, a 57 percent increase.

Well... I'd need a few anecdotes to settle some of my questions. :)

OK, buster - that wins Comment of the Day :)

FWIW, I don't know if it's bad information, or just statistical illiteracy.

I only put information up here if I could find it corroborated by several studies with fairly consistent results. That's what took me so long.

But there are a lot of people out there using "disparate impact" reasoning: IOW, if blacks are 13% of the population and they are 90% of NFL players, obviously the NFL is racially discriminating against white players. Oddly, people embrace that reasoning (lots of conservatives do!) when it delivers an outcome they like, but criticize it when they don't care for the outcome (as in, women are 51% of the population therefore they should be 51% of mathematicians or gender injustics has occurred).

I was honestly quite surprised by what I found - as with no fault, I started off fully believing the family court system was VERY biased against men. This wasn't the result of a whole lot of conscious thought: it was more of an impression.

Now, I am not so sure and I'd go as far as to say that I'm leaning towards the presence of little/no systemic bias.

"Well... I'd need a few anecdotes to settle some of my questions. :)"

Welcome to the big analysis. There are a million datum scurrying around in there, each with their own anecdote.

I think I found a more complete description of the study

That is interesting... Even more so that from what they're saying the changes have actually occurred since 1985, which pretty much eliminates blaming (crediting) the social changes of the '60's as being a causal factor which would have been my guess.

"The rise in child-care time documented in parents' diaries began after 1985. Mothers' child-care hours fell from 1965 to 1985, consistent with an era in which the average number of children per family declined, women's employment rose sharply, and single parenting increased. Since then, though, mothers with paid jobs and mothers without them have increased their time with their children. Married fathers' child-care hours changed little until 1985, and rose substantially after that."

I would have guessed that mothers spent less time with their kids on average, too Pogue.

That's one reason I'm such a stickler about research. I never have time to do as much as I'd like and I always take it with a grain of salt, but it's really shocking to me how many times something "everyone knows" has turned out to be totally unsupported by any serious data.

People don't usually go looking for evidence to support conclusions they don't agree with.

In this case, I wasn't looking for it because it contradicted my belief. It wasn't until the moron PUA types started blathering on and on about how horribly unfair life is and how that justifies pretty much anything they feel like doing that I started really wondering: are they correct?

Because I never once saw them cite a single statistic that (if true) would support their version of events. As I said earlier, the whole disparate impact argument is a non-player with me.

This is one of those cases where I found something I was not expecting to find. I had begun to suspect that the conventional wisdom might be wrong, but I didn't think it might be *this* wrong.

I will say this: I worked when my oldest boy was a toddler for about 9 months because we desperately needed the money. Despite arranging my work schedule so I only missed 2 hours of the time he was awake, I felt terribly guilty and probably spent more time with him than I would have, otherwise as a result. So it's plausible.

What jumps out at me -- especially clicking through to your survey on income, and comparing the graphs for men as well -- is that Part Time/Full Time earnings for divorced women are so consistent. That's counter-intuitive: normally we'd expect the full-time pay line to be much higher.

All I can think of is that that women who divorce strive to earn just enough to maximize the benefit of EITC and other welfare payments: beyond that level you start coming off the "safety net," which as Ms. McArdle points out means facing the highest marginal tax increases in the world.

This looks like a major disincentive for these women to work full time, if they are in a field where their rate of pay achieves that income level on a part-time basis. That, in return, is going to have significant effects on their promotion potential within their field, etc.

"That's one reason I'm such a stickler about research. I never have time to do as much as I'd like and I always take it with a grain of salt, but it's really shocking to me how many times something "everyone knows" has turned out to be totally unsupported by any serious data."

It's so good that you're posting again M'lady. Always excellent.

What jumps out at me -- especially clicking through to your survey on income, and comparing the graphs for men as well -- is that Part Time/Full Time earnings for divorced women are so consistent. That's counter-intuitive: normally we'd expect the full-time pay line to be much higher.

I would think a key point here would be that if you're part time, you aren't guaranteed health care or other benefits FT-ers get. To a custodial mother, that would be a HUGE issue.

If I were in that position, my impulse would be to work as few hours as possible until my kids were in school and old enough to be in some kind of after school activity. I'd rather scrimp on money that parental attention, especially after a divorce. I've seen kids end up pretty messed up after a bad divorce and better safe than sorry.

But not having benefits might well push me over the edge to FT. That could be a major security issue, especially if your children aren't covered by their Dad's policy. My firm doesn't make us pay for HC insurance, which is a HUGE benefit. So I actually have The Unit on part of my insurance (vision and dental). He has basic HC insurance through his job, mostly b/c we're cautious, even though he pays for it and I don't.

We're still debating what to do next year.

All I can think of is that that women who divorce strive to earn just enough to maximize the benefit of EITC and other welfare payments: beyond that level you start coming off the "safety net," which as Ms. McArdle points out means facing the highest marginal tax increases in the world.

If I remember correctly, though, only 30% or so of custodial parents receive transfer payments from the govt. My memory may be off - I looked at an awful lot of studies over the last few days.

It's so good that you're posting again M'lady.

I really did miss you all terribly, bthun. Can't tell you how nice it is seeing all those familiar names in the comments, and having the benefit of your insights (and sometimes well deserved criticisms!).

Hi Cass,

Very interesting post, and I agree with you that a lot of the rhetoric from fathers' rights groups is excessive. However, I would approach the study that you mention with a huge amount of caution (or indeed any study produced by a body that has the words "gender bias" in its title).

I analyzed the Massachusetts study that you refer to and found that it was quite shoddy and unsupported in its conclusions. I briefly discuss the problems with it in this column: http://www.cathyyoung.net/bgcolumns/2004/divorce.html

Basically, the biggest problem with the study is that it did not separate contested from uncontested custody cases. Many of the cases in which the father received custody were ones in which this arrangement was achieved by mutual agreement.

Overall, when the father asked for sole custody, he received it 44% of the time. When the mother asked for sole custody, she received it 75% of the time, and the vast majority of the rest received joint legal/primary physical custody.

Also, at one point in the study, the authors actually state that female non-custodial parents are disproportionately likely to have either mental/emotional problems or physical handicaps (this is stated in explaining why women who do not have primary custody are far less likely than men to have child support obligations imposed on them). This suggests that cases in which mothers lose custody are not entirely typical and often, fathers only seek custody when the mother is in some way "unfit."

I haven't looked at the studies claiming that false allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases are quite rare, but just looking at your summary, I wonder what role the investigators' and the judges' own biases played in these conclusions -- especially the conclusion that 21% of sexual abuse allegations by fathers against mothers were intentionally false, as opposed to 1.3% of those made by men. Could this be because "everyone knows" that women don't molest kids, so an allegation by the father against the mother is far more likely to be seen as intentionally false?

Not to shamelessly toot my own horn, but I discuss divorce/custody issues pretty extensively in my book Ceasefire; it was published in 1999, so the data is somewhat out of date by now, but you may still find it to be of interest.

Cass:

EITC isn't a transfer payment, it's a refundable tax credit. The difference may be a little technical (since in either case you're getting a check from the government for money you didn't earn), but the distinction is legally real enough that I would think it wouldn't show up in your "transfer payment" statistic.

Meaning -- since the line for men and women turns out to be pretty similar, post-divorce -- that something close to 100% of divorcees are receiving checks from the government for money they didn't earn.

Thus, family collapse is a huge social expense, the cost of which is masked by a technical distinction in how we draw the charts.

Thanks for the insights, Cathy! I will take a look.

I think the way I represented it ('where the fathers requested custody') was OK, but I was juggling a lot of studies and I'll have to go back and check.

A few comments:

...the biggest problem with the study is that it did not separate contested from uncontested custody cases. Many of the cases in which the father received custody were ones in which this arrangement was achieved by mutual agreement.

I'm going to have to go back and look at the wording, but I see the same problem with stats about how many of the mothers got custody. I've never seen much (or any, really) context around whether the cases were contested or not.

But I agree they should be apples to apples comparisons (mothers who got custody in contested cases vs. fathers who got custody in contested cases, or mothers who got custody overall vs. fathers who got custody overall). It seems that mixing the two would be what would be misleading.

I haven't looked at the studies claiming that false allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases are quite rare, but just looking at your summary, I wonder what role the investigators' and the judges' own biases played in these conclusions -- especially the conclusion that 21% of sexual abuse allegations by fathers against mothers were intentionally false, as opposed to 1.3% of those made by men. Could this be because "everyone knows" that women don't molest kids, so an allegation by the father against the mother is far more likely to be seen as intentionally false?

Possible, but then statistics about sexual abuse aren't exactly laden with cases where the female is the abuser. Which is not at all the same as saying females never commit such acts: it's just to say that more men do (just as more men kill their own children, etc). These aren't subjective stats, and to me it's problematic for conservatives to say that there are differences between men and women, but then turn around and object when there's something fairly objective like murder stats (hard to hide those bodies!) :)

My personal belief - based on nothing more than a lifetime of watching mothers and fathers - would be to think fewer Dads would ask for full custody. I did see stats showing that custodial fathers work more hours a week than married men with kids, but custodial mothers, don't. And my purely anecdotal experience has been that even Dads who love their kids tend to spend more hours at work when they're small.

I don't discount bias in the Mass report, but I did run across numerous other references to studies on fathers' rights sites saying exactly the same thing, and I would think their bias would cut in the other direction.

Anyway, looking forward to reading your article and thanks for letting me know about the book!

I don't discount bias in the Mass report, but I did run across numerous other references to studies on fathers' rights sites saying exactly the same thing, and I would think their bias would cut in the other direction.

Hmm, are you sure? Because if anything the stats I've seen fathers' rights groups bandy about lean in the opposite direct; they point to the fact that mothers gets custody in the vast majority of cases as prima facie evidence of bias.

As for sexual abuse -- I'm somewhat less inclined than you to credit innate sex differences in behavior (or at least more likely to emphasize the huge overlap in individual behavior across gender lines), but I certainly don't deny that sexual abusers are much more likely to be male. What I'm saying is that because of that, judges (and investigators) are probably more likely to assume that the father who accuses the mother of sexual abuse is intentionally lying, rather than honestly mistaken (or even paranoid). Although I would imagine that some sexual abuse charges made by fathers are directed not at the mom but at the mom's new boyfriend.

Also, I would point out that the vast majority of custody cases are uncontested. So, even if only a very small percentage of custody cases overall involve wrongful allegations of sexual abuse, the percentage may be much higher when you look at contested cases only.

(I may be slightly biased because a family friend -- the son of a friend of my mom's -- is currently dealing with completely insane allegations of abuse from his ex, which probably wouldn't even count in this kind of study because they were not made initially during the divorce but about two years later when the ex began to try to take away his visitation rights. Which ever so coincidentally happened immediately after he remarried.)

If you don't believe that 1) men and women are completely different, but 2) women should never receive custody of kids, even when they've been those kids' primary caregiver, I'm going to have to conclude that you are some sort of feminist, and do my level best to have you kicked out of the conservative movement.

Hmm, are you sure? Because if anything the stats I've seen fathers' rights groups bandy about lean in the opposite direct; they point to the fact that mothers gets custody in the vast majority of cases as prima facie evidence of bias

Yes - I can provide links. They all cited the same stat (but no attribution, which made me suspicious) of 50%. There were a lot of unattributed stats out there. My preference is always to cite the original source if possible. I don't have a Lexis/Nexis account, so I"m limited to what I can find or buy on the Web.

I would point out that the vast majority of custody cases are uncontested. So, even if only a very small percentage of custody cases overall involve wrongful allegations of sexual abuse, the percentage may be much higher when you look at contested cases only.

That's a point I've made myself many times in other posts :p

Here's the takeaway - what this post addresses is the allegation that because 80+ % of custody goes to the woman, the courts must be biased.

As you point out, most custody cases are uncontested. That cuts both ways, though. If you're trying to decide whether the *courts* are biased, you have to look at how many Dads even *ask* for custody and the disposition of those contested cases. In the Mass study cited above (I went back last night and tightened up the wording to make it more clear) we have:

1. A study of 2100 cases where the father asked for custody. 29% got sole and 65% got joint. What we don't know here is who was the primary caretaker before the divorce. If all these men were the primary caretaker, then arguably this should be closer to 50% sole custody, all other things being equal(!). But we don't know.

2. Two studies, with 700 and 500 cases, where about 8% of dads asked for custody. Results strikingly similar, but I tend to wonder whether the first stat (67%) represents only sole custody? The same sizes aren't large here, so a few cases would have a tremendous impact on the percentages.

3. LA County - not much info.

4. National study, appellate courts. Not sure what sample size is here but it has to be a subset of Dads who originally asked for custody and persisted to the appellate level. Still, it shows something important: if you're willing to fight, your chances of winning aren't bad.

Here are several references to the 50% number:

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/more-fathers-getting-custody-in-divorce/

http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Jan/59218.html

http://www.menslegal.com/blog/entry/statistics-reveal-that-50-percent-of-fathers-who-seek-primary-custody-are-successful.html

http://www.workingmother.com/special-reports/custody-lost

This is the most detailed link:

http://homepages.uwp.edu/martinm0/child_custody_issues.htm

Statistics showing that women gain custody of their children 90% of the time reflect the fact that over the past 50 years, fathers rarely asked for custody. A study of Utah custody decisions between 1970-1993 shows that only 13% of fathers requested custody (Mason and Quirk 1997: 217).

When fathers do contest custody, studies show they win anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of the time. Maccoby and Mnookin studied 930 divorce cases in California in the 1980's and found that only 14 of these ended up before a judge. But of those cases, fathers won custody 50% of the time (Maccoby & Mnookin 1992).

Weitzman and Dixon found that in Los Angeles County alone in the 1970's, fathers gained custody 63% of the time (Weitzman and Dixon 1986).

A study by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court Taskforce on Gender found that fathers who contest custody in Massachusetts win sole or joint physical custody more than 70% of the time (Jacobs, 1997:11).

Another study in Minneapolis found fathers winning custody in 45% of the contested cases (Polikoff, 1993:11).

All told, I looked at over 50 sources for this post. Most I ruled out, but that's a fair amount of research for a simple blog post.

If you don't believe that 1) men and women are completely different, but 2) women should never receive custody of kids, even when they've been those kids' primary caregiver, I'm going to have to conclude that you are some sort of feminist, and do my level best to have you kicked out of the conservative movement.

*snort*

Little Miss Attila! Good to see you. And *snort*, like she said.

When guys start to stay home with kids in large numbers, they'll start to have some notion how that side of the equation works. Until then, it would be insane to expect them to win the lion's share of custody cases even if we magically removed all bias from judges. Similarly, when guys start to earn less than women on average, they can expect to quit seeing marriage (or divorce) as a transfer of wealth from men to women.

On the flip side, if when women rely on men to take care of the kids and go on to make a lot more money themselves, they're probably going to be horrified to find that the men win custody of the kids and expect child-support payments or alimony to boot. Boo hoo.

Most divorces don't involve one spouse who's devastated and another who's just thrilled with the results. It's usually pretty unspeakable all around, especially if there are kids.

Having said all that, I know there are people who use custody disputes and TROs as tactical weapons in a quest for money or revenge, and that's despicable.

Very interesting stats. I wonder what those stats look like from say 2000-2010?? Lets see, between 2001 and 2009 here are some anecdotes. In one case the father didn't want custody at all, just visitation. Was never asked for alimony, just child support (and has had difficulty keeping up with that let alone spending time with his child). In 2 other cases the father has custody as the mothers are still 'finding' themselves. One mother took the father to court recently asking for alimony and judge said Nope - you have degree, you have job (higher paying than father by $23,000 per yr) . . . judge almost decided to make her pay him alimony except father didn't want it. Three other situations involve joint custody which, for the most part, work very well and were mutually agreed upon by both parties from the very beginning. IMO studies only give you a broad overview of the particular issue, in this case divorce and custody. The devil is in the details. And I agree with Texan99 - custody and the finances should never ever be used as weapons. The losers end up being themselves and their relationship with their child.

One mother took the father to court recently asking for alimony and judge said Nope - you have degree, you have job (higher paying than father by $23,000 per yr) . . . judge almost decided to make her pay him alimony except father didn't want it.

Bwa ha ha ha!!! Now *that's" funny!

Seriously, I ran into lots of stories and studies showing exactly what you're describing - while still in the minority, higher earning (and often childless) females are being ordered to pay alimony to their husbands and mothers are losing custody because Dad was the primary caretaker.

Working in family law for a short time was enough to drive home to me that every situation is different and in many situations, there's really no great outcome. These are people who have already failed to cooperate and compromise, and who often have retreated to their own corners and refused to even try to see the other party's point of view.

I began in family law very biased in favor of men. I left with the impression that there was a lot more truth to feminist stereotypes than I wanted to admit. I saw incredibly scummy behavior far more often than was good for my peace of mind from both men and women.

Which often caused me to think, "Now that should have been a marriage made in heaven. Those two deserved each other."

Which often caused me to think, "Now that should have been a marriage made in heaven. Those two deserved each other."

LOL!!!!!

I remember reading a post somewhere from a guy who used to work in family law. He apparently hated it so much he used to fantasize about being T-Boned on the way to work and forced to spend weeks in the hospital because at least it would get him out of going to his job. And I think it was Stephen King who once wrote that custody does an even better job than divorce of turning people into insects.

It was the worst job I've ever had. Bar none.

Bar none.

Was that a lawyer joke?

I wish I were clever enough to have thought of that!

Or of a twisted enough mind to find puns humorous. Like me. The Lovely Bride thinks it is my most unattractive feature. Punning, that is.

The woman who wanted alimony went thru 3 attorneys before she finally gave up . . . Which leads me to wonder as I wander . . . when did alimony become maintenance? When my attorney informed me I could ask for maintenance I had to laugh. I said . . maintenance makes me think of needing to hire an electrician or a plumber or, speaking as a ranchers daughter, perform maintenance on a tractor! And would that be twisted punning or punning twisted?? ;-)

It is unfortunate that the information stating that fathers who request and fight for custody is so old (22 years old or so). Anything newer?

The way custody is described (85% "awarded") is inaccurate. Most of those women are not awarded because they never go to court. It would be more accurate to say that the 30% of fathers seek custody and get it half the time, which is more than what is actually warranted if you look at whether or not they were very involved with the child beforehand. Just because 85% of mothers and 15% fathers have custody doesn't mean that the system is biased towards men. In fact it is heavily biased towards fathers, because they weren't actually primary caretakers in half the custody cases they bring forth. The first comment was interesting- the "other evidence" might be a lot of things, but the fact that not 30% of men are the primary caretakers of children (maybe 1-2%)but 30% seek custody should tell you something. There is no judicial bias agaisnt men; they get custody half the time they seek it, and it isn't even warranted that much of the time.

That said, 70% of men do not seek custody because they were not the primary caretaker before, and don't suddenly want to be in the case of divorce. They know that their children will be better off in the immediate care of their mother, it was their mother that always had taken care of them, and had done just fine. Most men who care about their kids support the mother, remain involved with their kids, and do not seek to disrupt the roles that were already established.

Since men are not actually the primary caretakers 30% of the time, you have to wonder what motivates the men who are not primary caretakers to seek custody. Father's rights groups prey on men's indignation that their wives have left them and their hurt feelings, and they empower abusers and other inappropriate people to seek custody the same as anyone else. They are very dangerous for this reason. They simply do not believe that men EVER abuse their wives or children, they NEVER argue for an individual woman even if if the man is a proven abuser. These groups are totally ideological and are all about sticking it to women. They encourage men to control or punish the wife, because that is the type of man who is attracted to the movement in the first place, and what this movement is all about. These men believe that it is THEIR household and family, the wife is not a full person, and that the wife and children are their property. This eventually becomes unbearable for the wife. The movement and that mentality is about privileges, not rights. It ruins marriages, and seeks revenge on women. Abusers are disproportionately involved with this movement. Almost none of the men involved with this movement were primary caretakers of their children beforehand, because almost no men are.

Men who seek custody are the exception, and that also has a lot to do with support enforcement- since it has been enforced more consistently since the 90s we've seen the numbers of dads seeking custody almost double. Abusers are also twice as likely to seek custody.

Want to be a good dad? Support mom and avoid "father's rights" groups. If mom was the primary caretaker before, that IS what is best for the child.

http://americanmotherspoliticalparty.org/ampp-article-library-family-court-custody-abuse-dv/1-research-articles-family-court-bias-custody-abuse-battered-moms/64-want-to-be-a-good-dad-support-mom-and-avoid-fathers-rights-groups

All I can think of is that that women who divorce strive to earn just enough to maximize the benefit of EITC and other welfare payments:

Your income has to be so low to get any kind of gov benifits. Having a part-time job would make you over qualifyed so I doubt that has anything to do with it.

Excerpted above from this blog:

"Father's rights groups prey on men's indignation that their wives have left them and their hurt feelings, and they empower abusers and other inappropriate people to seek custody the same as anyone else. They are very dangerous for this reason. They simply do not believe that men EVER abuse their wives or children, they NEVER argue for an individual woman even if if the man is a proven abuser. These groups are totally ideological and are all about sticking it to women. They encourage men to control or punish the wife, because that is the type of man who is attracted to the movement in the first place, and what this movement is all about. These men believe that it is THEIR household and family, the wife is not a full person, and that the wife and children are their property. This eventually becomes unbearable for the wife. The movement and that mentality is about privileges, not rights. It ruins marriages, and seeks revenge on women. Abusers are disproportionately involved with this movement."

That about says it all regarding the ability, or lack thereof, to produce fact-based commentary -- and serves to focus on the relative ability of the blog's author to present objectively. As cop show lovers might remark appropriately; "busted!"

A random commentor says something you disagree strongly with, and this is the blog author's problem?

You fail logic.

I guess I'm supposed to delete comments I don't agree with, or be accused of having written them myself :p