Samson and Delilah in Divorce Mediation

Abstract

Does divorce mediation pose special problems for women that it does not pose for men? This article argues that the metaphor of power imbalances that has been invoked to express this concern has not only caused those in the field to see husbands and wives in political terms, but also prevented them from seeing how women, as well as men, influence the outcome of the discussions that take place between them.

Divorce Israeli Style: Professional Perceptions of Gender and Power in Mediated and Lawyer‐Negotiated Divorces

“…Feminists argue that the mediation model assumes that divorcing men and women are equal and that both make autonomous choices, thus ignoring the context of financial, physical, and social inequality within which women's choices are made (Neave 1995; Shaffer 1988), especially in cases of battered women (Astor 1995; Beck & Sales 2001; Conneely 2002; Goundry, Peters & Currie 1998; Hunter 2003a; Pearson 1997; Raitt 1997; Shaffer 1988; Saccuzzo 2003; Ver Steegh 2003). Moreover, it has been suggested that according to the “care ethic,” women place a greater value on cooperation, peacemaking, and minimizing the damage to the children than achieving financial or other gains (Bryan 1999; Goundry, Peters & Currie, 1998; Marlow 2000; Maxwell 1992; Meyers 1996; Rose 1992). A number of empirical studies have revealed different negotiation and discourse styles between men and women that advantage men in divorce mediation (e.g., Dingwall, Greatbatch & Ruggerone 1998; Malach‐Pines, Gat & Tal 1999; D.…”