The Countess

More State Legislators To See "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories"

A domestic violence group in a state that will go unnamed is going to host a program for state legislators. Part of that program includes an airing of "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". This documentary is about abused children who speak out about abuse they have experienced from their fathers. Parental Alienation Syndrome, which is junk science, is introduced in some of these cases to remove abused children from their protective mothers. Legislators who view the documentary are going to be urged to support bills that protect abused children in family court.

I'm not going to name the state or give any contact information about the program because I don't want fathers' rights activists who are definitely reading this to descend en-masse to bash the documentary and the presentation. Suffice to say that more legislators are going to see this important documentary. Let fathers' rights activists drive themselves nuts trying to figure out where this program is going to be held.

Working On Some Erotic Fiction

Update: I finished the story, and sent it out. When I get the story idea worked out in my head, it takes me no time at all to write it. I'm very happy with the final product. It's a very good story. If that story and the other one are accepted, I'll post about it.

-----

I have been having a heck of a time with a short story I've been working on for about half a week, and I finally figured out why. The story idea was lame. I didn't like it, and I kept trying to change it. Turns out it was the story itself that was the problem. So, I shelved that one, and started a new one. This one is much better. It's light and funny, just the way I like it. It's also very sexy, something else I wanted. I hope to have it finished today or tomorrow, and I will send it out before the weekend. I've already sent another erotic story to the same magazine, and I like to send them in pairs. Hopefully I can get this one finished in time to send it before the weekend. The good thing is that this magazine pays well. It is great to get paid to do something I love.

I've finished baking chocolates and making soap for the time being. It's time to start writing again.

I'm excited that I've been invited to speak at a conference for abused mothers and children who have to deal with the legal system. That's in January. I haven't decided what I'm going to speak about yet. One of my friends lives near the conference site, and I've written to her to see about dropping by for a visit. This is going to be fun. I haven't seen her in about ten years. We write often, though. We just don't live near each other anymore. She has been my best friend since I was four years old. It would be great to see her and her family again. It looks like that will happen in January.

New Documents On My "Breaking The Silence" Web Site

I've just added three new pages to my "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" web site. Fathers' rights activists, in particular Glenn Sacks and Wendy McElroy, have circulated outdated and inaccurate documentation by Scott Loeliger, Fatima Loeliger's father. Fatima Loeliger and her mother Sadiya Alilire spoke out in "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". Scott Loeliger circulated his outdated documentation in retaliation for his ex-wife and daughter participating in the documentary. Fatima now lives with her mother. For more documentation about this case, go to my "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" web site.

This documentary is about the children who have spoken out about abuse they have experienced in their abusive fathers' households. It also addresses how a favored weapon of fathers' rights activists - Parental Alienation Syndrome - is junk science that does not belong in a court room. Fathers' rights activists are very threatened by this documentary, and they have pulled out all the stops in their relentless efforts to attack it. My web site corrects the misrepresentations circulated by Glenn Sacks and other fathers' rights activists about the documentary and Sadiya Alilire and Fatima Loeliger.

These are the new pages:

Testimony Of Fatima Loeliger, Part I. She states having been in and out of court since she was very young. She's been in court for nearly fifteen years. She describes verbal and emotional abuse from her father and step-mother, and states she wants to live with her mother.

Testimony Of Fatima Loeliger, Part II. Shows that she was living in foster care per her fathers' wishes. She describes verbal and emotional abuse from her father and step-mother, and states she wants to live with her mother.

Fatima Loeliger's Second Response - To Documentation Circulated By Her Father, Which Appears On Glenn Sacks's Web Site. She addresses claims made about her and her mother on Glenn Sacks's web site. She says that she has never been abused by her mother, contrary to documentation posted on Sacks's site. Her mother is not a drug addict. She describes her father repeating calling Child Protective Services, claiming that her mother was abusing her. She also states that her father placed her in foster care when she stated she wanted to live with her mother. She ran away from her fathers' home. She described physical and emotional abuse in her fathers' household. She describes how her father tried to get people form the cult-like Rachel Foundation to talk to her when she stated she wanted to live with her mother. She states having been in and out of court since she was very young. She's been in court for nearly fifteen years. She describes verbal and emotional abuse from her father and step-mother, and states she wants to live with her mother. She lives with her mother now. She says she wants the custody battle to stop so she can live out her remaining couple of years like a normal teenager before she graduates from high school.

Deadline For The T-Shirt Slogans Contest

My hits are finally dying down some. I had an amazing amount of hits from MSGOP, Wonkette, and (of all things) Protein Wisdom. I'm grateful some top bloggers and the MSM decided to link to me. That was fun.

The deadline for my t-shirt slogans contest is Wednesday. I'll pick a winner on Thursday. Please keep an eye on my blog on Thursday to find out who the winner will be. Some people who wrote slogans didn't give an e-mail address, so if the winner is one of those persons you'll have to e-mail me.

The winner will get two of my X-rated chocolates, made with good chocolate. The winner will get a dick-on-a-stick (dick-sicle) and a torso of a busty women (tit-sicle). My chocolates are also available for sale for anyone who is interested. I don't have a web site yet. I'm working on that. If you are interested in buying my X-rated chocolates, just e-mail me. I'm also getting some new molds in the next couple of weeks, so there will be more to choose from. Some of the molds are people in ... er... various sexual positions. Heh. They're really cute and funny.

Keep an eye on my blog on Thursday. The winner will be announced. In the meantime, post lots of t-shirt slogans in my comments. The more, the better.

Scientific And Professional Rejections Of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

SCIENTIFIC and PROFESSIONAL REJECTIONS OF PAS

Compiled by Professor Joan S. Meier, Esq., November 9, 2005

"Although there are no data to support the phenomenon called parental alienation syndrome, in which mothers are blamed for interfering with their children's attachment to their fathers, the term is still used by some evaluators and courts to discount children's fears in hostile and psychologically abusive situations."
- APA Task Force Rpt, 40

"Family courts often do not consider the history of violence between the parents in making custody and visitation decisions. . . . Psychological evaluators not trained in domestic violence may contribute to this process by ignoring or minimizing the violence and by giving inappropriate pathological labels to women's responses to chronic victimization. Terms such as "parental alienation" may be used to blame the women for the children's reasonable fear of or anger toward their violent father"
- APA Task Force Report, p. 100

"PAS as a scientific theory has been excoriated by legitimate researchers across the nation. Judged solely on his merits, Dr. Gardner should be a rather pathetic footnote or an example of poor scientific standards."
- Dr. Paul J. Fink, past President of the American Psychiatric Association

Gardner's Sexual Abuse Legitimacy Scale ("SALS"), which PAS draws heavily upon, is "[p]robably the most unscientific piece of garbage I've seen in the field in all my time. To base social policy on something as flimsy as this is exceedingly dangerous"
- Professor Jon Conte, a leading expert on child sexual abuse

The American Psychiatric Association has refused to include PAS in the DSM – the diagnostic directory for psychiatric disorders - despite concerted campaigns by Gardner and his followers to have it included, presumably because it is not an actual proven syndrome.
- National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse

"Richard Gardner's theory positing the existence of ‘parental alienation syndrome' or "PAS" has been discredited by the scientific community."
- NCJFCJ Custody Evaluation Guidelines, p. 19

"Although PAS may be hailed as a "syndrome" . . . in fact it is the product of anecdotal evidence gathered from Dr. Gardner's own practice. . . PAS is based primarily upon two notions, neither of which has a foundation in empirical research.
- National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse/American Prosecutors
Research Institute/National District Attorneys Association

"PAS is not recognized by any professional associations, including the American Psychiatric Association."
- Id.

"PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children."
- Id.

The Truth About Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

THE TRUTH ABOUT PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME AND
THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Statement by Professor Joan S. Meier, Esq. (November 9, 2005)

Father's rights commentator Glenn Sacks and others are touting the American Psychological Association's (APA's) recent statement that they have not taken any "official position" on parental alienation syndrome (PAS), and are claiming that the APA has stated that Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories, and Professor Joan Meier, a Professor of Clinical Law at George Washington University Law School, are "incorrect" in stating that the APA has "discredited" and "thoroughly debunked" (respectively) PAS.

In fact, the only official APA statement that has been released on this subject is the following:

The American Psychological Association (APA) believes that all mental health practitioners as well as law enforcement officials and the courts must take any reports of domestic violence in divorce and child custody cases seriously. An APA 1996 Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family noted the lack of data to support so-called "parental alienation syndrome," and raised concern about the term's use. However, we have no official position on the purported syndrome.

APA Office of Public Affairs, October 28, 2005, available at
www.apa.org/releases/passyndrome.html.

Far from supporting Sacks' claims, the APA's statement is consistent with the film's criticism of the mis-use of PAS in custody litigation.

Moreover, the following should also be noted:

APA does not adopt "official positions" on matters such as this. Leading members of the APA have noted that the APA Board and Council never take an "official position" on a diagnosis. PAS is considered a diagnosis and therefore would never be the subject of an official vote of that sort. The APA's statement that it takes no "official position" on PAS means nothing more than that it takes no official position on any diagnosis.

APA's authoritative Report on Violence in the Family pointedly criticizes the misuse of PAS in domestic violence cases and unequivocally finds that there is no scientific evidence of such a "syndrome." In 1996 a leading task force of the APA published a widely disseminated and relied-upon report: Titled "Violence and the Family," written by the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, and published by the American Psychological Association, it is based on a comprehensive review of the literature and research on violence in the family.

The Report states, among other things:

"When children reject their abusive fathers, it is common for the batterer and others to blame the mother for alienating the children. They often do not understand the legitimate fears of the child. Although there are no data to support the phenomenon called parental alienation syndrome, in which mothers are blamed for interfering with their children's attachment to their fathers, the term is still used by some evaluators and courts to discount children's fears in hostile and psychologically abusive situations."
(page 40)

The Report further states:

"Family courts often do not consider the history of violence between the parents in making custody and visitation decisions. In this context, the nonviolent parent may be at a disadvantage . . . Psychological evaluators not trained in domestic violence may contribute to this process by ignoring or minimizing the violence and by giving inappropriate pathological labels to women's responses to chronic victimization. Terms such as "parental alienation" may be used to blame the women for the children's reasonable fear of or anger toward their violent father." (page 100)

The Task Force Report, like other APA Reports, is correctly viewed as a statement of "the APA."The copyright statement for the Report states "[t]his material may be reproduced in whole or in part without fees or permission, provided that acknowledgment is made to the American Psychological Association."

The Task Force Report was produced by the leading experts in the APA under the auspices of the APA. This authoritative Report is routinely cited for these propositions (and many others) throughout the fields of law, social sciences, and others, as a statement of the American Psychological Association. The Task Force Report will undoubtedly continue to be cited and relied upon by thousands of researchers for the many informative and objective analyses of family violence it contains. This Report is the sole authoritative statement on this subject issued by the APA.

The APA has also discussed the mis-use of PAS in domestic violence cases in a more recent "APA Online" document. "Issues and Dilemmas in Family Violence," http://www.apa.org/pi/pii/issues/homepage.html, in Issue 5, contains a substantial discussion that is relevant in its entirety to this issue, but is too long to reproduce here. Suffice it to say that it includes the following:

"Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children's witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers. If the court ignores the history of violence as the context for the mother's behavior in a custody evaluation, she may appear hostile, uncooperative, or mentally unstable. . . Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence."

This document too speaks for the APA. The Introduction to this document makes clear that it too, reflects a position of the APA: "Psychology provides a unique perspective for understanding and stopping family abuse and violence, and the APA joins a host of other professional groups expressing grave concerns about the magnitude and the effects of family violence."

The use of the word "syndrome" and the reliance on expert witnesses to present this evidence in court makes clear that PAS is propounded and applied as a scientific concept. Both the scientific basis and the validity of its use in cases concerning abuse have been "thoroughly debunked" by both the APA and numerous other expert sources. See attached Authorities Providing Scientific Critiques of PAS.

The statement in the film, that the majority of litigated custody cases involve a history of domestic violence, is based on numerous empirical studies. Of course statistics do not tell us what is true in any particular case. See attached Authorities Addressing history of violence in contested custody litigation.

Update On "Breaking The Silence" - Attacks On Sadiya Alilire And Fatima Loeliger

Fathers' rights activists have increased their attacks on the documentary "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". They, in particular Glenn Sacks, have lately taken to attacking a woman and child who spoke in the documentary, Sadiya Alilire and her teenaged daughter, Fatima Loeliger. Fatima currently lives with her mother, and she wants to stay there. Sacks has been circulating old documentation provided to him by Fatima's father, Scott Loeliger. Below are newer and better documents that give the full story. Contrary to fathers' rights claims, Sadiya Alilire is not a child abuser. Fatima also wishes to live with her mother.

Sadiya Alilire's statement in light of fathers' rights and her ex-husband's attacks against her is here.

Fatima Loeliger's statement is here.

This documentation is also available on my web site, on my "Breaking The Silence" pages.

Documentation Showing Sadiya Alilire Is Not A Child Abuser
And That Fatima Has Had Serious Problems While Under Her Fathers' Care

Statement From Fatima's Soccer Coach, Dated July 7, 2004 The coach describes aggressive and intimidating behavior by Scott Loeliger.

Report By Rick Gore, DA Investigator, Child Abduction Unit. Dated 2004. Indicates that Fatima has run away from her father, and that Fatima had been living with Sadiya since 2003. Fatima was doing well, getting straight A's. Scott Loeliger wanted Fatima removed from her mother's care and placed in foster care. Gore did not see a reason to do that, since Fatima was thriving. Scott Loeliger insisted despite this that Fatima be put in foster care, claiming that Sadiya was not a good parent, despite no evidence to prove any such thing. Gore wrote that "I told him he allowed his daughter to get established, make friends, and develop relationships and to abruptly remove her from this does not appear reasonable. I kept wanting to know of a specific allegation on why now, did he want the [custody] order enforced. Again, he never explained his reasoning." Gore noted that Scott Loeliger "appeared more interested in winning rather than what was best for his child." Included are Fatima's own statements regarding how she wants to live with her mother. Gore saw no reason to remove Fatima from her mother's care.

Second Report By Rick Gore, Dated 2004. Gore describes "condescending, accusatory", "unreasonable", "badgering", and demanding behavior by Scott Loeliger. When Scott Loeliger did not see his demands met, he demanded to meet with Gore's supervisor.

Testimony Of Steven Prinz, one of Fatima's teachers. Prinz indicates that Fatima is a very good student - above average academically. He also stated she had lots of friends and was in leadership positions at school. He described Fatima saying she wanted to run away from her fathers' home. She described what Prinz referred to as "verbal and emotional abuse" - that her father and stepmother were "calling her names and demoralizing her".

Court-Ordered Psychological Evaluation By Dr. Karen J. Quinn, Dated 1994. Dr. Quinn describes Scott Loeliger's desire to relocate to Hawaii (which Dr. Quinn recommended be denied), Scott Loeliger's bigamy (he was married to another woman when he married Sadiya.), Sadiya's difficulty adjusting to America and the acrimonous court battles, the endless court records filed by mostly by Scott Loeliger, normal maladaptive behavior on Sadiya's part that anyone subjected to long and intense custody battles would exhibit, Sadiya's bond with Fatima being stronger than Scotts, Scott Loeliger's obsessive fixation with Sadiya's whereabouts (he harassed babysitters to find out where Sadiya was and he followed her through the hospital where she worked. Security guards had to escort her to her car.), Scott Loeliger takes no responsibility for problems between he and Sadiya, Scott Loeliger's "passive-aggressive and paranoid tendencies", and other controlling and manipulative behavior designed to push Sadiya's buttons. Dr. Quinn notes the importance of Fatima identifying with her African cultural descent, and that she is stressed by the post-divorce conflict. Dr. Quinn also recommended that Fatima have more time with her mother, and that the current custody order should be reversed.

Testimony By Randi Gottlieb Robinson, Dated Sometime After 1998. Robinson was a personal friend of Scott Loeliger whom he had enlisted to act as Fatima's therapist. Robinson never spoke to Sadiya Alilire. She got all her information from Scott Loeliger, who paid for the evaluation. She has been on vacation and various social outings with Scott Loeliger, including (according to Sadiya) including sharing family backyard barbecues and sharing cabins together while on vacation. Goes to bias. Most importantly, Robinson noted that Fatima Loeliger had recanted the abuse allegations Robinson had attributed to her.

Sadiya's Complaint Against Randi Gottleib Robinson, Dated November, 2004. Includes statements that Robinson is biased because she had a close personal relationship with Scott Loeliger, including family barbeques, vacationing together, and sharing cabings together. Sadiya also notes that she was told that Scott Loeliger and Randi Gottlieb Robinson were carrying on an extramarital affair.

CPS Letter Of Complaint From Sadiya Alilire. Sadiya Alilire wants to see her visitation resumed, since Fatima had expressed her wish to see her mother. Sadiya Aliilre claimed that CPS supervisor Michael Coffron "confronted Fatima in his office, calling her "manipulative" and other such detrogatory terms, bringing her to tears."

New Web Site On "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories"

Due to the relentless attacks by fathers' rights activists against the documentary "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories", I have created some new pages on my web site. I have also created the new pages in light of recent attacks by fathers' rights activists, in particular Glenn Sacks, against mother and daughter Sadiya Alilire and Fatima Loeliger. Alilire has been called a "child abuser". Loeliger's own statements describing abuse by her father and stepmother, saying she wants to live with her mother, and that she wants the custody case to stop is referred to on Sack's site as "The Opposition". A teenaged girl's own statements about abuse from her father and her wish to live with her mother is "The Opposition"? As I said in an earlier post, that's one hell of a Freudian sliip.

Here are the pertinent links:

"Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories"
Abused Mothers And Children Speak - Fathers' Rights Activists Attack

Statement Of Sadiya Aliilire

Statement of Fatima Loeliger

I will post links to Acrobat files detailing Ms. Alilire's claims shortly.

Statements of Sadiya Alilire and Fatima Loeliger

Sadiya Alilire and Fatima Loeliger are mother and daughter. Both have told their stories in the documentary "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". Sadiya in particular has been under a relentless attack by fathers' rights activists who have called her a child abuser. In particular, Glenn Sacks and Wendy McElroy have engaged in these attacks. They are relying solely on old documentation provided by Fatima's father, Scott Loeliger. What fathers' rights activists are doing is continuing the abuse Sadiya and Fatima have experienced coming from Scott. Scott has found some enablers who are helping him do his dirty work.

Due to ugly attacks by fathers' rights activists against Sadiya and Fatima, Sadiya has taken it upon herself to provide details behind the abuse she and Fatima had experienced at Scott's hands. Below is her statement. I have reposted Fatima's statement below her mothers' so that my readers may have it handy.

Fathers' rights relentless attacks against "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" mirror the relentless attacks abused women and children go through all the time. It's very eye-opening to see how low fathers' rights activists will stoop to smear abused mothers and children.

Statement of Sadiya Alilire

11-08-2005

Overview

My name is Sadiya Alilire. I was formerly known as Sadia Ali-Loeliger. I am a very grateful woman, because I currently have my three children living with me and my husband in our home. My children are all great, happy, helpful and well-behaved kids. They are all healthy, and the two who are in school are both straight-A students. I am especially grateful that my oldest daughter Fatima, who is 16-years old, is safely living in my home. Throughout each of her 16 years, Fatima has been the primary victim of a vicious and unrelenting custody fight carried on against me by her father, Scott Loeliger. Despite that, Fatima is an exceptional child with a bright future (click here to read Practicing Medicine recent newspaper article about Fatima)

During the 16 years of custody fighting, Scott has accused me of unimaginable things. Every move he makes is calculated and planned, and always designed to better position him in his court arguments and emotionally, financially, and psychologically batter me and my loved ones or anyone who attempts to aid me. No aspect of mine or Fatima’s life is left untouched and unchallenged by Mr. Loeliger’s vicious custody fight. If Fatima gives him a birthday or holiday card or present, he saves it as a court exhibit to “prove” how much she loves him. If she doesn’t give him a card or present, it becomes “proof” of how I have destroyed their relationship and how she doesn’t “LOVE” him. I currently have sole legal and physical custody of Fatima, and Mr. Loeliger is allowed to see her only in a supervised visitation setting. Those restrictions were placed upon Mr. Loeliger because of the hostility, harassment, and constant arguing that he has instigated in his relationship with Fatima, and because of his repeated attempts to harass, lobby and involve anyone in Fatima’s life into the custody fight (teachers, school officials, soccer coaches, neighbors, and friends).

Throughout the 16 years of custody fighting, it became a regular pattern of Scott’s to falsely accuse me of “abuse”. He has repeatedly taken Fatima to Child Protective Services agencies in every county where she has lived, repeating the same allegations over and over again. Curiously, in the midst of all of his abuse allegations, on two separate occasions Scott has voluntarily given me custody of Fatima when it has been convenient for him[1]. When it is no longer convenient for him, he then turns around and drags me back into court, again reiterating his abuse allegations and insisting that he be given sole custody and that I be removed completely from Fatima’s life.

Scott is a highly skilled and unbelievably determined litigator. His latest salvo, undertaken through the website of Glenn Sacks, is merely a repeat of the countless and unrelenting allegations he has raised against me during each of Fatima’s 16 years. I have never abused Fatima or any of my children, or any other child. Scott knows this in his heart, but he never stops trying to label me as an “abuser”. He uses the term “abuse” because he knows it is an alarming term that will get attention. He has admitted that he uses this because he knows it is inflammatory and alarming. He does this in an attempt to deflect attention from his own actions, where he has effectively destroyed the relationship between he and Fatima due to his obsession with fighting over custody and his attempts to punish me for divorcing him. There have never been any criminal allegations or findings of abuse against me. Scott routinely exaggerates the custody case history and series of events and circumstances. He continues to take me to court on a monthly and sometimes weekly basis. Detailed below are my specific refutations of the claims that Scott and Glenn Sacks are now making against me, as retaliation for Fatima’s and my participation in the PBS documentary Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories.

Fatima and I are counting the days till her 18th birthday, which appears to be the only event that will cause her father to relinquish his unrelenting campaign against me. In the meantime, I continue to enjoy my children and my family and friends, and pray that they maintain good health and fortune. I also pray that the Yolo County Family Courts continue to focus on Fatima’s best interest, and I am confident they will. I wish my ex-husband, Scott Loeliger, well, despite all that has happened. I also hope that someday he is able to find peace in his heart and that he is able to once again enjoy a healthy relationship with our wonderful daughter Fatima.

History

I am writing this statement in response to the most recent publicity campaign instigated against me and my daughter by my ex-husband Scott Loeliger. For 16 years, Mr. Loeliger has engaged in an incredibly hostile and vicious campaign against me, usually carried forth through the California family court system. His unrelenting campaign has always been designed to punish me for divorcing him. During this time, he has accused me of unimaginable things, including being abusive to our daughter. He has never gotten over the divorce, and he has told me “I have made you, and I will unmake you.” Scott has always been a very manipulative and passive aggressive person, and he is very effective at pushing buttons to make people angry, and then turning around and immediately presenting himself as being “reasonable and misunderstood” (click here to read Quinn Report, Psychological Evaluation Report of Dr. Quinn). During our marriage, he often bragged about how well those skills served him in getting him what he wants.

Our 16-year old daughter has been the primary victim of her father’s campaign, as she has never been allowed to have a normal life. She has recently begun to speak out about this, as she is angered that her father continues to harass us and that he never stops dragging me and her to court (this is a child he didn’t even want when I first became pregnant). Fatima and I have a beautiful and loving relationship, and her father cannot accept that. He appears incapable of understanding that Fatima can love both parents at the same time. He becomes easily threatened if she shows affection or a desire to be with me, and then becomes hostile toward her and immediately challenges her about their relationship.

Fatima is a strong, intelligent, beautiful young woman, who needs to be left alone to live her remaining adolescent and adult life. She is an honors student with a 4.2 grade point average, and is excited about finishing high school and preparing for college life. Her sole wish right now is to have the custody fighting stop. In fact, that has been one of her primary wishes for a long time now.

My relationship with Scott was doomed from the beginning, because it rested on a foundation of lies he told to me. We met in my home country Somalia, dated, and formed a relationship. I was 18 years old at the time, and Scott was 28. After forsaking my parent’s wishes and marrying Scott, a man outside of my religion, race and culture. This marriage divided my family, as my mother strongly disapproved. My father gave his permission only after Scott promised him he would take care of me, and after he converted to Islam. I took a tremendous risk in marrying Scott, which except for having Fatima was a huge mistake. Shortly after relocating to the U.S., I found out that Scott was already married to a woman in this country. He had never told me about this; instead I found out when I learned that he had brought me to the U.S. on a student VISA, rather than as his wife (he filled out the paperwork at INS). Scott never apologized for being a liar and a polygamist, but I was foolish enough to stay with him when he promised to divorce his previous wife and to remarry me in this country. At the time, Scott told me that his then ex-wife was “crazy”, “abusive”, “dangerous”, “volatile” and “violent”, and that I should stay away from her. Little did I know at the time that he would soon be using the exact same language against me. His then ex-wife was also from Africa, as Scott loves to prey on people who place naïve trust in him. We had a tumultuous marriage after that, in which Scott continually argued and started fights, and he was very verbally and emotionally abusive. Our marriage ended shortly after our daughter was born.

The Custody Fight

In the 16 years since our marriage ended, Scott has never stopped taking me to court over custody matters. By my estimate, he has taken me to court over 150 times, forcing me to incur legal fees in excess of $300,000. This has never stopped, as there is a yet another court hearing scheduled. The animosity he exhibits and allegations he raises are just as nasty and fabricated today as they were 16 years ago. Scott has taken Fatima to Child Protective Services (CPS) in each of the four counties where she has lived prior to coming to live with me permanently three years ago. He has raised all sorts of abuse allegations against me, all of which are completely false, and refuted by Fatima’s own testimony. His allegations were also refuted by numerous family friends, school officials, investigators and others who had insight into our family life. Nevertheless, Scott has constantly badgered Fatima to try and get her to go along with his allegations. He did this to her even when she was a very young child, when he would “question” her about me and tape record her answers (sometimes when she was naked in the bathtub). Every professional involved in this case, and there have been many, has told Scott that the unrelenting custody fight is the single worst thing for our daughter (click here to read Clark Letter letter from Helen Clark, Fatima’s long-time therapist). Fatima herself has begged him to stop fighting and to let her have a normal childhood where she could be involved with both parents. He has never taken that advice and continues to instigate nonstop litigation. Just in the last year, he has taken me to court over 12 times. While I have always insisted that Fatima maintain a relationship with her father, and believe it important for her to be involved with both parents, Scott has at every turn attempted to have me excluded from Fatima’s life. She has developed a deep resentment of him because of this, and because of other things he has done to her.

The “Abuse” Allegations

Scott’s many and obsessive abuse allegations were always dismissed as groundless by the CPS agencies in numerous counties. I completely deny ever physically abusing Fatima or my two other children, or any other child. There have been no criminal allegations or findings against me. Scott and I both had findings of emotional abuse entered against us, due to the acrimony of the custody fight and the effect it was having on Fatima. Contrary to Mr. Sacks’s assertion, there have never been any findings whatsoever that I abused my other children. Those statements are complete fabrications.

In 1997 and 1998, I was a single mom working over 50 hours a week as a Rehabilitation Director for Locomotion Therapy. I was a highly respected member of the Porterville Community, and was nominated by the mayor to join the Porterville Leadership Program and was a member of the Porterville Soroptimists. I was making more money than Scott at the time. While this was going on, Scott was dragging me into court every week. Each time he would pick up Fatima for a visit, he would then call 911 and make false reports to the police claiming that my other children were “in danger” and “being abused”. The police and CPS were constantly showing up at my house due to Scott’s manipulative and malicious behavior, and it got the point where it became a joke between me and the Porterville police. Of course, it distressed my children greatly, but Scott refused to stop his behavior. In fact, it became a regular routine to have the police present every time Fatima was exchanged, because Scott insisted that they be present each time as a way to harass and embarrass me.

In 1997 and 1998, my niece was living with us and attending high school. My niece was a difficult teenager, and she regularly skipped school without my knowledge. When the school would call or write about her absence, she would answer the phone and pretend to be me, or take the letters written by the school and discard them before I saw them in the mail. I eventually found out about my niece’s behavior, and was planning to send her back to live with her father in Africa. When she found out my plans, my niece then started to make false allegations about me claiming that I had pulled a necklace on her. She pretended to write a letter to her father complaining about me. That letter is posted on Mr. Sack’s website. My niece never intended to send that letter to her father, and in fact she left it in the house where I would see it as she was trying to coerce me into not sending her back to Africa. It was one of many attention-seeking behaviors engaged in by my niece. While my niece later admitted what she had done and retracted her allegations against me, Mr. Loeliger came to possess a copy of the letter she had written. He was given this letter by an ex-babysitter of mine who I had fired because she was stealing expensive family heirloom jewelry from my home. I initiated and won a small claims action against her for that theft (click here to read Judgment). It is this babysitter, Doris Nava Arellano, who then later wrote a letter and declaration full of lies, claiming that I was abusive toward Fatima and my niece. It was later discovered that Scott had driven my fired, ex-babysitter 8 hours each way to his home in Red Bluff, where she had spent the weekend with him writing the letter making those false claims, and the declaration posted on Mr. Sack’s website. The letter and declaration were purposely and clearly patterned to repeat and significantly embellish the earlier false claims that my niece had made, which she had since admitted were lies. I also learned that Scott had paid my fired, ex-babysitter for helping him. Before any court proceedings occurred where I could challenge her claims, the babysitter disappeared and I was never able to find her (she had also lied to me about her immigration status, and I was told she returned to Mexico). She never appeared in court and never formally testified, yet Mr. Sacks and Mr. Loeliger falsely represent that she did. I was never given an opportunity to challenge or cross examine Ms. Arellano.

After he obtained these false claims from my fired ex-babysitter, Scott then violated existing court orders and took Fatima to a personal therapist friend of his in Tehama County, Randi Gottlieb-Robinson. The two of them are close friends. Ms. Gottlieb-Robinson subsequently became the Director of CPS in Tehama County. It is her “report” that is listed on the Glenn Sacks website, claiming that Fatima substantiated her father’s allegations against me. She wrote that report without ever contacting or talking with me, even though I was the custodial parent. At the time, Mr. Loeliger worked with Ms. Gottlieb-Robinson’s husband (now ex-husband). Scott and Ms. Gottlieb Robinson have both admitted in sworn testimony that they have attended numerous social and friendship functions together, including sharing family backyard barbecues and sharing cabins together while on vacation (click here to read Gottlieb Testimony testimony of Gottlieb-Robinson, and here to read Gottlieb Complaint complaint filed against her). I have also received unsubstantiated reports that the two of them had an extramarital affair. She is the unnamed “Shasta County” therapist cited on Mr. Sacks’s website. She continues to be the head of CPS in Tehama County, and in fact in that role awarded Scott another child through adoption. That child was taken from a young, single black mother by Ms. Gottlieb-Robinson’s agency under her direction, and then awarded to Scott and his current 60-year old wife (Christina Loeliger who is 10 years older than Scott) through adoption by Judge King in Tehama County (the same judge later sitting on my family court case in that county).

Armed with his “new evidence”, Scott again returned to CPS, and to court, this time in Tehama County, reiterating his claims against me, even though all of the incidents he cited were false and had already been dismissed by Tulare County CPS and the Tulare County Court. Investigations were opened again and the case went back and forth in both Tehama and Tulare Counties for many months. During that time, my niece was fighting for me, accurately denying that there had been any abuse of any sort in our home, either to her or to Fatima. Our daughter Fatima also denied all of the allegations. Still, the investigation continued due to Scott’s insistence and harassment. I regained custody of Fatima twice during this period. Nevertheless, after a huge trial, where 30 people from my community tried to testify on my behalf and were denied, Fatima was ultimately taken away from me and given to Scott. I was crushed. I was denied any communication with Fatima for over 3 years, based on the court’s findings. What were the court’s “abuse” findings? The court found that I “threw a shoe at Fatima” and that I “spanked her with a plastic coat hanger”. There were no findings about my other child, contrary to the misrepresentation posted on Mr. Sacks’s website. In fact, my other daughter who was 2 years old at the time, remained in my home throughout the “investigation” and throughout the time Fatima was taken away from me. The court made its findings despite the fact that both Fatima and I denied, and continue to deny that it actually happened. It did not happen, but Fatima and I have nevertheless moved on. Scott has not, and it is clear that he never will.

The Last Four Years

Beginning in 2001, I was reunified with Fatima and we immediately reconnected with the strong mother/daughter bond we have always had. After a short time, Fatima began to express her desire to live with me instead of her father. Scott could not handle that, and began to attack both me and Fatima. Predictably, we ended up in court again when Scott refused to allow me to even have visitation with Fatima. In court proceedings, Fatima told Judge King that she did not want to live with her father, that he is emotionally and verbally abusive toward her (telling her she is “worthless”, “evil”, “vile”, and numerous other unimaginable names). She also told the judge that Scott had physically struck his current wife, and that her adopted brother was repeatedly physically and verbally abused by both Scott and his wife Christina Loeliger. This testimony was further substantiated by one of Fatima’s teachers (click here to read Teacher testimony testimony of Fatima’s teacher), who testified that Fatima had confided in him what was happening in her father’s home, and he was so disturbed by it that he filed a report with the Tehama County CPS.

As court events unfolded, Fatima ran away from school and told the police that she could no longer live with her father. She pleaded to be allowed to live with me. As a result, Scott placed her “voluntarily” into foster care, under the control of Tehama County CPS, where Ms. Gottlieb-Robinson was and continues to be the Director. Fatima spent the next 6 months in foster care, and was forced to attend 3 different schools during her 8th grade year. During the same month that he placed Fatima in foster care, Scott accepted a new job in Martinez, CA, and made plans to relocate to a new community 200 miles away. Despite her clear testimony and preference to live with me, Tehama County CPS and Judge King did nothing for Fatima. In fact, she was scolded and harassed by Tehama County CPS workers Michael Coffron and Jennifer Mitchell, and told directly to lie to me about visits she was having with her father. (click here to read CPS Complaint letter of complaint written to Tehama County CPS). Even Judge King scolded Fatima rather than helping her, stating that he “would not allow a child to extort an order out of his court.” In the end, Scott was allowed to retain custody of Fatima and I was granted regular visitation.

Scott proceeded to move to Martinez. Fatima refused to live with Scott, and stated she would rather stay in foster care than live with her father. She stayed in foster care for another 4 months after Judge King’s order. At that time, Scott finally gave in when Fatima told him she would only agree to leave foster care and live with him, if she could then be allowed to live with me beginning the following August when school began. Scott agreed, and Fatima went to live with him in Martinez from April to June, 2002. She then split the summer spending half of the time with each of us, and moved to my home permanently in August, 2002. At that time, she began attending Junior High School in Davis. Fatima has been living with me ever since. Scott effectively granted me primary physical custody of Fatima at that point.[2] For the first several months after Fatima first moved here, everything worked fine and she visited Scott every other weekend. However, Scott then started to harass her during each weekend visit, constantly challenging her about their relationship, and why she was not “closer” to him. He also began to harass officials at Fatima’s school, and others such as her soccer coaches, family friends, etc (click here to read Soccer Coach Letter letter from Fatima’s soccer coach). He began talking to anyone who would listen about “the custody case”. Fatima was very upset by this, as she had been hoping for a fresh start in Davis after having spent 6 months in foster care the previous school year.

In subsequent months, Fatima reported that visits with her father became increasingly uncomfortable, because he was constantly coming into her room demanding that they “talk”, and claiming that she was not being respectful enough to him and his wife, and again challenging her about why she has a better relationship with me than with him. Fatima is a strong-minded young woman, so she and her father often ended up in confrontation and argument. Fatima’s weekend visits with her father proceeded this way, until the President’s Day weekend in February, 2003.

On February 13, Fatima went for her regular weekend visit with Scott. When we dropped her at the train station, we noticed that someone appeared to be taking photographs of us, but didn’t get too alarmed. When Fatima got to her dad’s house, he was there alone and his wife and adopted son were gone for the weekend.

The next morning (Saturday, Feb 14th), Fatima got up and there were two people she didn’t know in the house who introduced themselves as being from the Rachel Foundation. They indicated they wanted to talk to her. Scott apparently told her a little bit about why they were there. Fatima declined to speak with them and retreated to her bedroom for most of the day. They kept coming by knocking on her door and trying to draw her out but she declined. They left around 6 pm and then came back early the next morning.

The same scenario repeated the next day (Sunday, Feb. 15, 2004). Again Fatima politely declined to talk to the Rachel Foundation people. In the late afternoon, Fatima began to pack her bags in normal preparation of returning to Davis on the train. At that point, Scott came into her room and told her that she was “never going back” to her mother’s home, because she treated him “shitty” and the whole thing was “shitty” and that the “experiment” of living with her mom was over. He refused to let her leave and pushed her with the door when she told him to get out of her room. Fatima became very upset, and apparently broke a plate in her room, kicked the bedroom door and refused to come out of the room. At that point Scott called the Martinez police and reported Fatima as endangering herself. When the police came, Scott encouraged them to take her to the psyche ward. The police asked Fatima if she was going to hurt herself, and she said “yes”. They then handcuffed her and took her to the psyche ward at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center (the same hospital where Scott works). Scott and the Rachel Foundation people were already there when Fatima arrived with the police. Scott pleaded with the medical personnel to admit Fatima to the psyche ward and at one point called her “psychotic.” The staff person on duty called me to let me know what was going on. He told me there was nothing wrong with Fatima and said there was no way she belonged there. He refused to admit Fatima but said his hands were tied to do anything else because Scott still had legal custody.

When Scott couldn’t get Fatima committed to the psyche ward, he then tried Contra Costa County CPS, who declined. He then took Fatima to the Northern California Family Center, which is basically a placement center for runaway and homeless children in Martinez. While there, Scott tried to persuade Fatima to again go into foster care. He indicated he already had a court hearing scheduled for Wednesday (Feb 18th) where “everything would be resolved”. As it turns out, Scott’s intended resolution was to have Fatima removed from her school, and shipped off to the State of Maryland to the Rachel Foundation headquarters for “psychological deprogramming” and “emergency therapy.” Fatima refused to go along with Scott’s demand that she again go into foster care. Instead, later that day she stated she wanted to return to his home. Scott refused and pleaded with her to go into foster care instead. Fatima left the Family Center and walked several miles in the nighttime rain to her father’s house, while he followed her in his car. When she got to his house, Scott refused to let Fatima inside, stating that she was a “danger” to him and his wife and adopted son (Fatima has never in any way threatened to harm anyone). The police were called again and ultimately forced Scott to let our daughter in out of the rain and into his house for the night.

The next day Fatima ran away from her father’s house, took the train to Davis, and hid with friends. I had no idea where she was or if she was safe. I got the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office Child Abduction Unit involved, to help me find Fatima and to make sure she was safe. Investigator Rick Gore got involved and began an investigation. He interviewed both me and Scott, concluding that Scott “appeared more interested in winning (the custody fight with me) rather than what was best for his child.” The next day Fatima came to my home, and Mr. Gore came and interviewed her. He and the Yolo County DA’s office elected to let Fatima remain in my home until ongoing court proceedings were resolved. (click here Gore Initial Report and here Gore Supplemental Report to read Gore reports on his investigation).

In the court hearing held in Tehama County, I prevailed and Fatima was allowed to remain living with me and to not be removed from her school. Scott was given every other weekend visitation with her. Jurisdiction was also transferred to Yolo County, where Fatima and I live. In the weeks that followed, Fatima reluctantly went to visit her father several times. She agreed to this despite the fact that she was incredibly angry with him over his attempt to have her committed to a psyche ward and to again have her placed in foster care. Predictably, the weekend visits did not go well, as Scott continued to challenge Fatima when she went to visit him. Each time she went to visit, Scott ended up calling the Martinez police seeking to have them intervene in arguments and discussions between the two of them. The last time Fatima was in her father’s home, in March, 2004, he called the police because she had taken a house key so she could let herself back in after she went for a walk. He insisted that the police force Fatima to hand over the key, but they refused to intervene. Scott has no qualms about involving the police, CPS, the courts, or anyone else in his relationship with his own daughter. This curious parental behavior is a primary source of most of the problems that continue to exist in his relationship with Fatima.

Under existing court orders issued in Yolo County during 2004, I have been awarded sole physical and legal custody of Fatima. Scott has been given a right only to see school and medical records, but no additional custodial rights. Given the acrimony in his relationship with Fatima, Scott is allowed to see her only in a supervised visitation setting where a court-ordered therapist is present. Scott continues to take me to court once or twice each month, but luckily the Yolo County Court is focused squarely on Fatima’s best interest, and she has been allowed to stay with me where she is thriving in both her academic and social life.

[1] The first time occurred in 1995, when Scott elected to relocate to Hawaii. He made that decision following some professional turmoil in his life, where a young woman and child he was attempting to deliver as a general practitioner, both tragically died. The second time occurred in 2003 when he agreed to let Fatima come live with me. In each case, he has accused me of abuse before, after and in between the times that he voluntarily gave up custody. Does that mean he is a negligent father? Someone willing to place Fatima with me when it is convenient for him? Or does it mean his “abuse” allegations are simply fabrications designed to quench his litigation thirst?

[2] This was the second time that Scott voluntarily gave me custody of Fatima. He also gave me custody of Fatima in 1995, when he decided to relocate to Hawaii. He made that decision following some professional turmoil in his life, where a young woman and child he was attempting to deliver as a general practitioner, both tragically died. It has always struck me as ironic that Scott has voluntarily given me custody two times, given his never-ending claims that I am an “abuser”. Does that mean he is a negligent father? Someone willing to place Fatima with me when it is convenient for him?

Now, for Fatima's story. Please note that she wrote this last year. Her statement is considerably newer than the one-sided documentation her father is circulating against her.

Fatima's Story
April 4, 2004

    My name is Fatima Busaat Loeliger. I am fourteen years old and for as long as I can remember, I have been in the California court system. From about the age of four to the age of eight I was living with my mom. Previous to that, I had been living off and on with either parent. I was a happy, well cared for child. I did well in school and all my teachers liked me. I was a Spelling Bee Champion and I always had a lot of friends and toys. My mom was a single mom who supported two children on her own. She always made sure we had babysitters and whatever it takes to make us happy. The court decision then was that I would live and go to school with my mom and visit my dad two weekends a month.

In 1998 I went for a scheduled visit with my dad. He took me to CPS in Red Bluff, California and accused my mom of child abuse. The CPS worker asked me if my mom ever spanked me. Once in a while my mom gave me a swat on the butt as discipline so I answered "yes." Suddenly, my mom was accused of being a child abuser, which she wasn't. The next time I would receive contact from my mom would be in three years when I was entering the seventh grade. In the three years I was living with my dad, the only information I was given by him and his wife was that my mom abandoned me, she was a drug abuser, she didn't want me, she has a new family and forgot about me, and she was going to hurt me. I was sad and confused. I couldn't understand what I had done wrong to make her not love me anymore. My father and the people who helped him keep me from my mom brainwashed me so that I began to resent my mom.

At my school, I was the only child of color and the only one without a mother. At home I was ignored, with my dad barely taking anytime to talk to me or see how I was. His wife was mean to me and would lie about me to my dad who would ground me without even asking what happened. To this day she still calls my mother a whore, my siblings bastard children, and my step dad and ass-kisser. She would repeatedly say that I was not part of their family and that it was her house and she could do anything she wanted. She still says these things. I felt alone and like an outsider. Everyday of my life I missed my mom, my little sister, my life, everything. After I was taken away from my mom the only thing I got was an occasional picture of what I was missing in my past life.

Finally in seventh grade I got to visit my mom. At the beginning of eighth grade I decided I wanted to live with my mom. I was tired of being verbally, mentally, and emotionally abused by my father and his wife. My family went to court once again and this time it was much more painful. The reigning judge, Judge King the third, I had met a year earlier when he signed the adoption papers for my dad and his wife to adopt a son. After appealing to the judge to let me live with my mom and to be present at future court trials and being denied, I ran away from school and turned myself into the police. Jennifer Mitchell became my CPS worker when I was placed into foster care by my father. I pleaded to be able to see my mom. They enforced strict supervised visitations with my mom but let my dad come to the foster home as often as he liked even though I expressed my extreme discomfort about my dad visiting to Jennifer Mitchell, the foster mother Deborah Sheehan, and Judge King. I felt very vulnerable and overwhelmed. I felt ganged-up on. Every time I made a court appearance and I explained to the judge and Jennifer Mitchell that my dad and his wife verbally abused me and physically abused their adopted son I was told that I was lying and manipulative and that I had been in the system too long for my words to hold integrity. This is exactly what my father has said about me to the court. He told the court my mother was alienating me from him.

One of my father’s witnesses was a psychologist named Randy Robinson. This woman was a very close friend of my father. Her husband was a colleague of my father and on several occasions we had gone to her house. Most recently, we had gone on vacation with them white-water rafting and had shared a cabin for a week. My father’s attorney, Matthew McGlynn told the court that if I was allowed to be in the care of my mother I would become a juvenile delinquent and end up pregnant. These and other comments hurt me deeply. They made me experience feelings of worthlessness and made me sound like a prostitute walking the streets. I had always prized myself on being very modest and clean. The comments degraded me and my father seconded the opinion.

Jennifer Mitchell, my CPS worker, didn't help me either. She would always try to intimidate me and keep me from seeing my mom. On several occasions she promised me a visit with my mom in her office. I would drive down and wait for over three hours and when I would confront her about why she was making me sit here without seeing my mom she would send in her supervisor who would yell at me calling me manipulative, a liar, a good for nothing trying to control his office, and a "foster care throw back." He would continue to yell until I would cry and then he would leave without letting me explain my problem. Ms. Mitchell also instructed me to lie to my mom about visits I had with my father, because he was allowed to see me more than my mom was. It was later found at trial that Mrs. Mitchell had discarded a CPS report my concerned teacher had filed a few months previously, after I had complained to him about the treatment I received in my father’s house.

Finally last year I was able to live with my mom in Davis, and visit my dad on weekends. However, nothing has changed at my father's house. I am still being emotionally abused there, and because I complain about it, my dad is once against trying to get me taken away from my mom, even though I am happy here and doing great in school. My point is that my childhood was lost. I can never get back what I have lost but that is not why I am here. I am here because this abuse and disregard of the laws that should protect and nurture every child are not being upheld. It doesn't matter if this has happened to one or one million children. One is too many. I have little respect, trust, or regard for the California family court system and I will be emotionally scarred for life because my father was able to use the courts as he willed to retaliate against my mother and I. Children may be young, but we know what feels right and what doesn't. It is our lives, not yours, that you are playing with. Please help us help ourselves
.
--- Fatima- Busaat Loeliger,
written at age 14

Fathers' Rights Activists Continue Attacking "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories"

Fathers' rights activists are heavily into their second phase of attacking Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories. This is a documentary about children who claim that their fathers have been abusing them. The courts, who did not believe the children or their protective mothers, had awarded custody of these children to the fathers these children say have been abusing them. Mothers who try to protect their children from abuse are accused of "alienating" the children and "brainwashing" them against their fathers. Mothers and children are accused of having Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), junk science that is not recognized as a valid mental disorder by the American Psychological Association (APA). The mothers are not believed. The children are not believed. This is a travesty of justice that is finally getting some much-deserved media attention.

Fathers' rights activists recently have been circulating the following web document that purports that the the documentary has distorted the APA's position on PAS.

American Psychological Association Says Breaking the Silence Misrepresents Its Position on PAS

October 24, 2005

A spokeswoman for the American Psychological Association says that PBS's new documentary Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories distorts the APA's position on Parental Alienation Syndrome. The film criticizes PAS, which arises when one parent tries to turn his or her children against the other parent during a divorce or separation.

In the documentary Joan Meier, a professor of clinical law at George Washington University and one of the film's chief spokespersons, states that PAS "has been thoroughly debunked by the American Psychological Association." Connecticut Public Television, one of the film's producers, put out a press release promoting the film which stated that PAS had been "discredited by the American Psychological Association."

However, according to Rhea K. Farberman, Executive Director of Public and Member Communications of the American Psychological Association, these claims are "incorrect" and "inaccurate." Farberman says that the APA "does not have an official position on parental alienation syndrome--pro or con." She adds:

"The Connecticut Public Television press release is incorrect. I have notified both Connecticut Public Television and their PR firm of the inaccuracy in their press release."

Breaking the Silence aired on some PBS affiliates on October 20 and will air on others in the coming weeks. The film's central contention is that PAS is "junk science" which abusive fathers are using to wrest custody of children away from fit mothers. The film has been the subject of large protests by fatherhood advocates, who claim that the film is one-sided and inaccurate. Many fathers believe that they have been the target of parental alienation campaigns by their children's mothers. Meier made her statement about PAS and the APA six minutes into the show.

PAS is not in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders (DSM-IV), the "bible" of psychiatry that describes diagnoses of mental illnesses. Without a diagnosis, there can be no treatment. Mothers are overwhelming accused of having PAS, and PAS is "diagnosed" strictly in a court setting - during a contested custody case. Dr. Richard Gardner, who coined PAS, found that 90% of his PAS caseload was mothers. "Treatment" of PAS consists of removing the child from the allegedly alienating mother, and awarding that child to the father the child and mother claim is abusive. The mother often sees her contact with her own child either severely curtailed or eliminated entirely.

The APA has already taken a position regarding the lack of data to support PAS. Below is an excerpt from the APA Presidential Task Force On Violence And The Family. Bold is my emphasis.

Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children's witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers. If the court ignores the history of violence as the context for the mother's behavior in a custody evaluation, she may appear hostile, uncooperative, or mentally unstable. For example, she may refuse to disclose her address, or may resist unsupervised visitation, especially if she thinks her child is in danger. Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence.

Some professionals assume that accusations of physical or sexual abuse of children that arise during divorce or custody disputes are likely to be false, but the empirical research to date shows no such increase in false reporting at that time. In many instances, children are frightened about being alone with a father they have seen use violence towards their mother or a father who has abused them. Sometimes children make it clear to the court that they wish to remain with the mother because they are afraid of the father, but their wishes are ignored.

There is also this statement, from the APA Office of Public Affairs:

Statement on Parental Alienation Syndrome
October 28, 2005

The American Psychological Association (APA) believes that all mental health practitioners as well as law enforcement officials and the courts must take any reports of domestic violence in divorce and child custody cases seriously. An APA 1996 Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family noted the lack of data to support so-called "parental alienation syndrome", and raised concern about the term's use. However, we have no official position on the purported syndrome.

A second thing fathers' rights activists have done is to circulate documentation provided by the one of the fathers accused of abuse in the documentary. Fathers' rights activist Glenn Sacks in particular has been circulating materials by Scott Loeliger, the allegedly abusive father of one of the children covered in the documentary. Loeliger has been circulating his literature to anyone willing to listen since the documentary began filming. Sacks has an entire web page devoted to Loeliger's documentation.

What is not getting circulated is a statement the daughter has made. That statement is reproduced below. She claims her father and stepmother had abused her, and she wants to live with her mother. The documentation provided by the father is considerably older than the daughter's statement.

Please remember that this documentary is about children who speak out about abuse they experience at their father's hands who find that they are not believed. It is assumed that they are being coached by their mothers. It is telling that Glenn Sacks did post the daughter's side of the story, but he buried her statement within his web site. It is not on the main page that gives prominence to the statements of her allegedly abusive father and those who support him.

Most tellingly, the daughter's statement is on Sacks's web site entitled "The Opposition's Side Of The Story." This teenaged girl who spoke about her own experience of being abused by her father and stepmother is considered "the opposition". That's one hell of a Freudian slip. He also refers to her statement as "Story Written by or for Fatima Loeliger: Fatima's Story". The assumption is that she was coached in making her statements, which would in fathers' rights minds be evidence of PAS. What it really means is that fathers' rights activists such as Sacks do not believe a child who has written about abuse she experienced from her father and stepmother. Fathers' rights activists have silenced her voice in favor of supporting the position of her allegedly abusive father.

Keep in mind that one of the points of this documentary is that children who speak out about abuse they experience at the hands of their fathers are not being believed. Authorities and legal personnel assume that these children are being coached by their mothers, and they then recommend that custody be awarded to the abuser. In promoting Loeliger's side of the story while at the same time ignoring his daughter's own statements about her abuse, fathers' rights activists are doing exactly what the documentary is talking about - ignoring the statements of a child who says she has been abused by her father. Ms. Loeliger's experience of seeing her cries for help being ignored is being repeated on the Internet, thanks to fathers' rights activists. These people claim they are concerned with the welfare of children, yet they are lobbying against a child who has claimed that she has been abused by her father.

Here is the statement of that daugther, Fatima Busaat Loeliger.

Fatima's Story
April 4, 2004

    My name is Fatima Busaat Loeliger. I am fourteen years old and for as long as I can remember, I have been in the California court system. From about the age of four to the age of eight I was living with my mom. Previous to that, I had been living off and on with either parent. I was a happy, well cared for child. I did well in school and all my teachers liked me. I was a Spelling Bee Champion and I always had a lot of friends and toys. My mom was a single mom who supported two children on her own. She always made sure we had babysitters and whatever it takes to make us happy. The court decision then was that I would live and go to school with my mom and visit my dad two weekends a month.

In 1998 I went for a scheduled visit with my dad. He took me to CPS in Red Bluff, California and accused my mom of child abuse. The CPS worker asked me if my mom ever spanked me. Once in a while my mom gave me a swat on the butt as discipline so I answered "yes." Suddenly, my mom was accused of being a child abuser, which she wasn't. The next time I would receive contact from my mom would be in three years when I was entering the seventh grade. In the three years I was living with my dad, the only information I was given by him and his wife was that my mom abandoned me, she was a drug abuser, she didn't want me, she has a new family and forgot about me, and she was going to hurt me. I was sad and confused. I couldn't understand what I had done wrong to make her not love me anymore. My father and the people who helped him keep me from my mom brainwashed me so that I began to resent my mom.

At my school, I was the only child of color and the only one without a mother. At home I was ignored, with my dad barely taking anytime to talk to me or see how I was. His wife was mean to me and would lie about me to my dad who would ground me without even asking what happened. To this day she still calls my mother a whore, my siblings bastard children, and my step dad and ass-kisser. She would repeatedly say that I was not part of their family and that it was her house and she could do anything she wanted. She still says these things. I felt alone and like an outsider. Everyday of my life I missed my mom, my little sister, my life, everything. After I was taken away from my mom the only thing I got was an occasional picture of what I was missing in my past life.

Finally in seventh grade I got to visit my mom. At the beginning of eighth grade I decided I wanted to live with my mom. I was tired of being verbally, mentally, and emotionally abused by my father and his wife. My family went to court once again and this time it was much more painful. The reigning judge, Judge King the third, I had met a year earlier when he signed the adoption papers for my dad and his wife to adopt a son. After appealing to the judge to let me live with my mom and to be present at future court trials and being denied, I ran away from school and turned myself into the police. Jennifer Mitchell became my CPS worker when I was placed into foster care by my father. I pleaded to be able to see my mom. They enforced strict supervised visitations with my mom but let my dad come to the foster home as often as he liked even though I expressed my extreme discomfort about my dad visiting to Jennifer Mitchell, the foster mother Deborah Sheehan, and Judge King. I felt very vulnerable and overwhelmed. I felt ganged-up on. Every time I made a court appearance and I explained to the judge and Jennifer Mitchell that my dad and his wife verbally abused me and physically abused their adopted son I was told that I was lying and manipulative and that I had been in the system too long for my words to hold integrity. This is exactly what my father has said about me to the court. He told the court my mother was alienating me from him.

One of my father’s witnesses was a psychologist named Randy Robinson. This woman was a very close friend of my father. Her husband was a colleague of my father and on several occasions we had gone to her house. Most recently, we had gone on vacation with them white-water rafting and had shared a cabin for a week. My father’s attorney, Matthew McGlynn told the court that if I was allowed to be in the care of my mother I would become a juvenile delinquent and end up pregnant. These and other comments hurt me deeply. They made me experience feelings of worthlessness and made me sound like a prostitute walking the streets. I had always prized myself on being very modest and clean. The comments degraded me and my father seconded the opinion.

Jennifer Mitchell, my CPS worker, didn't help me either. She would always try to intimidate me and keep me from seeing my mom. On several occasions she promised me a visit with my mom in her office. I would drive down and wait for over three hours and when I would confront her about why she was making me sit here without seeing my mom she would send in her supervisor who would yell at me calling me manipulative, a liar, a good for nothing trying to control his office, and a "foster care throw back." He would continue to yell until I would cry and then he would leave without letting me explain my problem. Ms. Mitchell also instructed me to lie to my mom about visits I had with my father, because he was allowed to see me more than my mom was. It was later found at trial that Mrs. Mitchell had discarded a CPS report my concerned teacher had filed a few months previously, after I had complained to him about the treatment I received in my father’s house.

Finally last year I was able to live with my mom in Davis, and visit my dad on weekends. However, nothing has changed at my father's house. I am still being emotionally abused there, and because I complain about it, my dad is once against trying to get me taken away from my mom, even though I am happy here and doing great in school. My point is that my childhood was lost. I can never get back what I have lost but that is not why I am here. I am here because this abuse and disregard of the laws that should protect and nurture every child are not being upheld. It doesn't matter if this has happened to one or one million children. One is too many. I have little respect, trust, or regard for the California family court system and I will be emotionally scarred for life because my father was able to use the courts as he willed to retaliate against my mother and I. Children may be young, but we know what feels right and what doesn't. It is our lives, not yours, that you are playing with. Please help us help ourselves
.
--- Fatima- Busaat Loeliger,
written at age 14

The Los Angeles Journal and the San Francisco Daily Journal published an article by The Family Court Reform Coalition which is a response to misleading reports published by fathers' rights activists who are protesting the documentary. In particular, the article focuses on statements written by fathers' rights activist Glenn Sacks.

Los Angeles Daily Journal
(Also published in the San Francisco Daily Journal)

(CA Legal Newspapers)

11/01/05

"Critics of Child Abuse Film Miss the Point in Rush to Defend Fathers"

By: Paul J. Fink, Judge Sol Gothard,
and Tasha Amador

The Family Court Reform Coalition (FCRC), a national organization composed of many of the nation's leading experts in the fields of child custody, child abuse, psychology, and domestic violence, would like to respond to the controversy surrounding the outstanding new PBS documentary Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories.

This groundbreaking film explores the failure of many family courts to protect child abuse victims in custody cases involving domestic violence.

The national talk radio host, Glenn Sacks, has launched a nationwide protest campaign against the PBS film and has made numerous public statements strongly criticizing the documentary.

Sacks has stated that "PBS has declared war on fathers" and the film is 'an assault on fatherhood'." What is of concern is Sacks‚ near-total focus on the portrayal of fathers in the film, and what he views as the questionable behavior of mothers in custody disputes.

What Sacks fails to recognize is that this issue is not about fathers or mothers.

This issue is about children, and about ensuring that abused children are protected in the family courts. That important and salient point somehow was lost in Sacks; public statements, which reflect a multitude of accusations and concentrated diatribe against mothers and his concerns regarding the negative effects of "draconian" domestic violence policies on fathers in the documentary.

The Family Court Reform Coalition supports this compelling and powerful PBS film, as it brings to light a national scandal hidden in many family courts for the last 20 years. Many family courts are failing to protect children from their abusers, in custody cases involving domestic violence.

Over the last two decades, it has been reported that hundreds of children across the country have been placed in the custody of the parent they disclosed sexually and/or physically abused them. These abusive parents overwhelmingly have a history of domestic violence. Research indicates that at least 50% of contested custody cases involve domestic violence.

As accurately noted in the film, many domestic batterers are deliberately sexually and/or physically abusing their children as a means to traumatize the former abused partner, as they recognize hurting the children is the single most painful way to hurt the ex-partner.

These batterers then use the family court system as a continuing tool of abuse by filing for sole custody of the children in order to continue harming their families after the abused partner escapes the violent relationship.

Parents who leave abusive partners are often met with retaliatory lawsuits for child custody by batterers in family court, who seek to punish the partner for leaving by taking the children away.

Recent studies show that batterers are 4 to 6 times more likely to sexually abuse their children than non-violent parents. Multiple studies have established the high overlap between battering and incest perpetration.

In attacking the PBS documentary and its support for the abuse disclosures of children in family court custody cases, it is important to note that Family Court Reform Coalition disputes Sacks‚ public statements of fact and his representations of research findings.

Sacks has made public statements claiming that "the vast majority of accusations of child sexual abuse made during custody battles are false."

This is inaccurate. Multiple studies show that at least 50 percent of sexual abuse allegations raised during custody disputes are in fact "substantiated" or "founded". McDonald; Thoennes & Tjaden; Jones & McGraw.

While false abuse allegations do occur in contested custody cases, the research indicates that they are uncommon. The largest study to date on the topic, by Thoennes & Tjaden of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, comprising 9,000 families with custody disputes, indicated that less than 2 percent of the cases even had allegations of sexual abuse - hardly an epidemic.

While some judges and family court officials believe that most abuse allegations made during divorce are false, the research on the topic shows that the actual rates of such "false allegations" are very low.

A cross section of studies showed that the rate of false allegations in a custody context was found to be quite low, between 1 percent to 7.6 percent. McDonald; Thoennes & Tjaden; Jones & McGraw.

In attempting to discredit the PBS film, Sacks grossly misrepresents the findings of a 1996 study published in Social Science and Modern Society by Douglas Besharov and Lisa Laumann.

Sacks inaccurately claims the study shows that "the vast majority of accusations of child sexual abuse made during custody battles are false, unfounded or unsubstantiated."

Sacks‚ statement implies that the study states that these are deliberate false allegations.

The study did not say such abuse allegations were "false"; what the study actually stated was that "Upon investigation, as many as 65 percent of the reports now being made are determined to be 'unsubstantiated'."

It must be understood, however, that "unsubstantiated" or "unfounded" is not necessarily the same as false.

The 1996 study cited by Sacks directly confirms this and states that "Moreover, an unfounded report does not necessarily mean that the child was not actually abused or neglected."

In fact, the study states that "Few unfounded reports are made maliciously. Studies of sexual abuse reports, for example, suggest that, at most, from 4 to 10 percent of these reports are knowingly false. Likewise, few inappropriate or unfounded reports are deliberately false statements. Most involve an honest desire to protect children coupled with confusion about what conditions are reportable."

The 1996 study cited by Sacks also provides reasons that true cases of abuse might be labeled "unfounded" or "unsubstantiated". "Evidence of child maltreatment is hard to obtain and might not be uncovered when agencies lack the time and resources to complete a thorough investigation or when inaccurate information is given to the investigator."

In addition, there are other legitimate reasons why true cases of child sexual abuse might be labeled "unsubstantiated", including a lack of physical evidence, which often leads some judges to think the abuse allegation was "false" and the accused parent must be "innocent."

However, studies show that even in cases with proven penetration, up to 95 percent of true cases of sexual abuse will have no physical evidence. Kellogg et al; Heger et al; Adams et al. This is because children heal very quickly, and if they are not examined within 48 hours of the abuse, any genital injuries will often have already healed and there will be no detectable physical evidence to be found upon examination.

Also, most molestation/incest involves abuse that does not leave a physical trace, such as fondling or oral sex, thus, there will be no detectable physical evidence to be found in such cases. As a result, true sexual abuse cases are often labeled "unsubstantiated". which again, is not the same as false.

Sacks has also provided distorted and inaccurate information regarding the controversial theory called "parental alienation syndrome".

Parental Alienation Syndrome theory claims that exclusively in the context of a child custody dispute, parents will spontaneously develop a "mental illness" in which they seek to vilify the other parent, "brainwashing" the child into making false allegations of sexual abuse against the other parent.

The theory proposes that the proper "treatment" for this "mental disorder" is to increase the child's time with the allegedly molesting parent to counteract the "alienating" behaviors of the accusing parent.

While the idea of "badmouthing" and negative feelings in divorce sounds familiar and plausible to most people, there is no research to show that such behavior can be equated with a "mental illness."

Parental Alienation Syndrome has been used nationwide by batterers as a courtroom tactic to silence abused children by attempting to discredit their disclosures of abuse.

This theory is not recognized as valid by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, or the American Medical Association.

Parental Alienation Syndrome is not accepted as a psychiatric diagnosis, and has been rejected by the mainstream psychological community.

Parental Alienation Syndrome is junk science; there is no valid research or empirical data to support this unproven theory. While in 1980, Wallerstein and Kelly described children temporarily aligning with one parent after divorce, they state that such normal behavior dissipates over time.

No valid studies have ever been conducted to test or confirm the validity of PAS theory. A 2004 article in the American Journal of Family Therapy states that "The review of the literature does not show evidence of any previous inter-rater reliability studies for the purpose of testing PAS as a reliable syndrome and as suggested by Gardner" Rueda.

Sacks claims that PAS is a "well-documented phenomenon" that has been validated by a study of 700 divorce cases published by the American Bar Association.

In fact, the study cited by Sacks, published in 2003 (actually a reprint of a 1991 study) by Clawar and Rivlin, was a flawed study.

A 2004 article in the Journal of Child Custody, states that Clawar and Rivlin "fail to describe their methods and measures" for their study, showing a lack of sound scientific methodology. Garber.

The tactical use of Parental Alienation Syndrome theory by batterers in family court cases is greatly endangering children, by causing their disclosures of abuse to be discounted.

In the final analysis, we must consider the reality of the immeasurable damage done to children who are forced to live by court order with a molesting or abusive parent.

Anyone who cares about children should watch this important PBS documentary.

Countless children are undergoing unspeakable suffering in the custody of an abusive parent. Some family court systems which were designed to protect children have instead put them in danger, and something must be done about it ˆ now.

Please contact the FCRC for more information or to learn when the PBS film will be aired in your state at: info@familycourtrc.org.

Dr. Paul J. Fink and Judge Sol Gothard are members of the Family Court Reform Coalition, and Tasha Amador is an executive board member of the group.

Fink is past president of the American Psychiatric Association and current president of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence.

Gothard is a retired 5th Circuit Court of Appeals judge, a former chief judge for the Louisiana Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court and a former faculty member for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

The fact that this documentary continues to be under attack from fathers' rights activists shows how effective it is. Fathers' rights activists feel threatened that their support of junk science such as PAS is getting media attention. This documentary is being shown to legislators and legal personnel in order to educate them about what protective mothers and abused children go through in court. Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories is about the children whose claims of abuse at the hands of their fathers are being ignored. Junk science such as PAS is being used in court to remove these children from their protective mother's custody, and then they are handed over to their abusive fathers. This practice must stop. Hopefully, this documentary will educate the public to prevent such tragedies from happening.

Sexist T-Shirts And A Contest!

Another Update: My hits are finally dying down some. I had an amazing amount of hits from MSGOP, Wonkette, and (of all things) Protein Wisdom. I'm grateful some top bloggers and the MSM decided to link to me. That was fun.

The deadline for my t-shirt slogans contest is Wednesday. I'll pick a winner on Thursday. Please keep an eye on my blog on Thursday to find out who the winner will be. Some people who wrote slogans didn't give an e-mail address, so if the winner is one of those persons you'll have to e-mail me.

My chocolates are also available for sale for anyone who is interested. I don't have a web site yet. I'm working on that. If you are interested in buying my X-rated chocolates, just e-mail me. I'm also getting some new molds in the next couple of weeks, so there will be more to choose from. Some of the molds are people in ... er... various sexual positions. Heh. They're really cute and funny.

Keep an eye on my blog on Thursday. The winner will be announced. In the meantime, post lots of t-shirt slogans in my comments. The more, the better.

-----

Update: Just so you know, the winner of this contest will get a box of my homemade X-rated chocolates. The winner will get a dick-on-a-stick (dick-sicle) and a torso of a busty woman on a stick (tit-sicle). I use good chocolate, either Ghirardelli or Lindt for my chocolates. The winner will not only get X-rated chocolates, but very tasty chocolates. I don't skimp on my treats. I'm a food blogger, and I use only the best ingredients.

-----

A lot of feminist bloggers are writing plenty about the Abercrombie and Fitch t-shirts. You've probably already read about them. They say things like "No Car. No Money. No Chance." Some see the t-shirts as sexist garbage. Some see the t-shirts as a chance to be ironic. For example, having a female math geek wear an "I'm Too Pretty To Do Math." t-shirt.

Ginmar asked people to come up with t-shirts they'd like to see. Here are some suggestions, including a few of my own.

"Do I Make You Look Stupid?" (From Ginmar)

Freshman 15, with a list of A+ classes next to them. (From Ginmar)

"I had a nightmare. I dreamed I was a frat boy." (From Ginmar)

"No brains, no opinions, no chance." (From Ginmar)

"No Brains. No Manners. No Chance." (From Ivyfree)

From Sunfell:

"I'm sorry- did I make you think?"
"Hair color does not equal IQ"
"Smart is sexy."
"Use your head, not your 'nads"

And from me:

For natural blondes: "The Collar And Cuffs Match."

For pregnant doctoral students: "I'm With Stupid." with an arrow pointing up.

"No Job. Living In Your Parent's Basement. Over 30. No Chance."

"My Eyes Are Up There.", with an arrow pointing up.

"Brains And Boobs. Best Of Both Worlds."

"If You Don't Eat 3.14159265, I'll Pass You By."

"I Had A Nightmare. I Dreamed I Was A Comb-Over."

Freshman 15: Emily Dickinson, Grace Hopper, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Carrie Chapman Catt, Elizabeth Blackwell, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Emmaline Pankhurst, Alice Paul, Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth, Mary Wollstonecraft, Lucy Stone, Abigail Adams, Jane Addams

-----

Feel free to add your own ideas. I might make this a contest if I get lots and lots of comments. The winner will get a gift of X-rated chocolates from me. Post your brainstorms in my comments. I want lots of comments!

Alito Is Not An Extremist, Activist Judge!

Of course Alito is not an extremist, activist judge, but only if you ignore...

His position against the Family Leave Act.

His position that anti-gay hate speech is okay in schools.

His position against the upholding of the legality of a ban on the sale or ownership of machine guns manufactured after 1986.

His position favoring that married women be required to inform their husbands if they wish to get an abortion. As Roxanne asked, would he favor married husbands be required to inform their wives if they intend to get vasectomies? Probably not. Violations of the Constitution are okay only if they affect women and not men. You may read Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey here.

His position favoring race discrimination, in particular his dissenting opinion in a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated agianst based on her race.

His position that it's okay to fire AIDS victims because of "fear of contagion whether reasonable or not."

His position on the following matters, as reported by People For The American Way. [Acrobat file.]

* Alito believes that laws restricting intact dilation and extraction procedures (so-called "partial birth" abortion) are not Constitutionally vague, even when they do not provide exemptions for the life and health of the mother.

* Alito wants to see fetuses treated by the law as "Constitutional persons".

* Alito, in a dissenting opinion, favored violating privacy in Doe v. Groody, in which police strip-searched a woman and her ten-year old daughter. In his dissenting opinion (the court found in favor of the Does), he argued that "the warrant could be read to authorize a search on anyone on the premises and that 'even if the warrant did not contain such authorization, a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so, and therefore the appellants are entitled to qualified immunity.'"

There are many more cases cited at the People For The American Way site, including cases of age, disability, racial, and religious discrimination. Go there to read the rest.

The Latest Fathers Rights Attack Against "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories"

Fathers' rights activists are quite underhanded in their attacks against "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". Now they are circulating one of their own statements, while pretending it comes directly from the American Psychological Association. This is what is being circulated by fathers' rights activists in their latest attempt to attack the documentary. I first heard about it yesterday, and I've seen it in several locations.

This is the fathers' rights circular:

The APA has come out and said that the association's stance on Parental Alienation Syndrome was mis-reprented in the movie.

In the documentary Joan Meier, a professor of clinical law at George Washington University and one of the film's chief spokespersons, states that PAS "has been thoroughly debunked by the American Psychological Association." Connecticut Public Television, one of the film's producers, put out a press release promoting the film which stated that PAS had been "discredited by the American Psychological Association."

However, according to Rhea K. Farberman, Executive Director of Public and Member Communications of the American Psychological Association, these claims are "incorrect" and "inaccurate." Farberman says that the APA "does not have an official position on parental alienation syndrome--pro or con." She adds:

"The Connecticut Public Television press release is incorrect. I have notified both Connecticut Public Television and their PR firm of the inaccuracy in their press release."

The APA has made a statement already denouncing PAS and alienation in general. Here is an excerpt from the statement. Note that the end of that first paragraph comes right out against garbage like PAS. Bold emphasis is mine.

Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children's witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers. If the court ignores the history of violence as the context for the mother's behavior in a custody evaluation, she may appear hostile, uncooperative, or mentally unstable. For example, she may refuse to disclose her address, or may resist unsupervised visitation, especially if she thinks her child is in danger. Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence.

Some professionals assume that accusations of physical or sexual abuse of children that arise during divorce or custody disputes are likely to be false, but the empirical research to date shows no such increase in false reporting at that time. In many instances, children are frightened about being alone with a father they have seen use violence towards their mother or a father who has abused them. Sometimes children make it clear to the court that they wish to remain with the mother because they are afraid of the father, but their wishes are ignored.

Fathers' rights activists are pulling out every ugly weapon they have in their arsenal to attack women and children who have been victims of abuse by abusive fathers and husbands. I have a feeling they are not finished attacking the documentary. Their ugly attacks show me that they are really not interesting in helping child victims of abuse, nor are they interested in helping good dads parent their children. This documentary provides a much-needed voice for women and especially children who have suffered abuse at the hands of abusive fathers and husbands. Fathers' rights activists seek to silence that voice, and they are not succeeding.

Supportive Article About "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories"

Custody Fight: Documentary sheds light on system that lets children suffer at the hands of abusive fathers

By BOB PORT
First published: Sunday, October 16, 2005

This week, every judge, lawyer, psychiatrist, psychol social worker
with any connection to family law in New York ought to be taken into
custody, escorted to their local courthouse and forced to
watch "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," a PBS documentary
set to air in the Capital Region at 10 p.m. Thursday on WMHT Ch. 17.
Before coming to Albany, I worked for years at the New York Daily
News. I had occasion to cover stories from Family Court and custody
battles, largely in New York City. I've heard the tales of more than
a hundred people in recent years caught up in the "Twilight Zone" of
a custody dispute, as many of them identically refer to the legal
system.

This exquisite documentary, "Children's Stories," like no other
production I have seen, makes comprehensible the subtlety of a
scandal that recurs in custody proceedings in New York and other
states. It is an almost impossible story to tell, one from which
journalists flee, and it boils down to this: A judge, often misled by
self-interested lawyers and court-appointed professionals, ignores a
protective mother, ignores the wishes of children and awards custody
to a man who is an abuser, emotionally or physically, of his wife or
their children.

In a bitter irony, the judge orders this injustice wrapped in the
banner that is New York's legal standard for deciding custody: "best
interests of the child."

What our legal system has failed to grasp is that lust for vengeance
drives the worst of fathers to use litigation itself as a way to
abuse ex-wives. Their economic incentive has also grown. Winning
custody can be cheaper than child support.

"Children's Stories," filmed partly in Loudonville, will not try your
patience with he-said, she-said debate between couples or among
experts. Save that for later. Instead, the filmmakers select wise
experts to explain and ask that you do two things our courts easily
fail to do: Trust mothers to behave like mothers and listen to what
children say.

There is little Sarah, ordered to live with a father she feared. "You
feel like," she says, biting her lip, "you want to die."

There is the terror-stricken voice of Manya recorded on the phone,
pleading with her mother to rescue her from her father, who molested
her for years. "I don't care if you have to break the law," she
sobs, "get me out right now."

There are the observations of Jeff, who turned 18 and escaped, but
who remains haunted at having lain awake across the hall from his
little sister as she was raped and sodomized by his dad, who won
custody. "It's the most helpless feeling," Jeff laments.

These are the raw extremes of custody law gone awry. The typical
abusive parent is less severe or far less obvious, and abuse is
always difficult to discern. Two adult men speak in "Children's
Stories" with memories of their own abusive fathers to shed light.

One of them, Joe Torre, manager of the New York Yankees, who suffered
in the care of a violent father, recalls why he never called
police. "My father was the police," Torre says.

"It is never an event," says the other, Walter Anderson, CEO of
Parade magazine. "It is a pattern of behavior." Abuse, he explains,
is "the systematic diminishment of the child." This common sense can
elude family courts.

Some facts are in order here. We're talking about a big but very
narrow problem. Custody is not disputed in court in the overwhelming
majority of divorces as many as nine in 10 cases settle amicably,
according to studies. In uncontested custody, mothers win out over
fathers, taking custody about 2-1, although this is partly because
some fathers see trying to win custody as futile.

Contested custody, about 10 percent of break-ups, clogs courts. In
these disputes, some studies show, a mildly abusive, or brutally
battering or seriously molesting parent lurks in three fourths of
cases. It can be a mother, but mostly it tends to be a father, and
recent studies show fathers winning these battles 2-1.

Do the math. It's a problem.

Custody case law in New York, as in many states, enshrines one of the
most ridiculous legal principles ever to evolve, called "parental
alienation."

Conceived by the late Columbia University psychiatrist Richard
Gardner, "parental alienation syndrome" was a proposed name for a
mental illness in which a mother, to punish her ex-mate, alienates
kids against dad by coaching them to allege abuse.

The antidote for this alleged insanity, Gardner theorized, is to give
the kids to dad, thereby counteracting mom's alienation by removing
the kids from her control. It's the ultimate mind game in custody
battles. We can almost never prove what's really true in an abuse
allegation, and a bald abuse allegation, even if false or exaggerated
itself, can be symptomatic of a deeper, less severe pattern that is
true. The victim of abuse thus becomes the perpetrator and a villain
can win. Gardner's ideas became a playbook for fathers using
litigation to punish ex-lovers.

Gardner's colleagues rejected the addition of his theory to the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the peer-reviewed handbook of
mental illnesses. His work has been debunked by the American
Psychological Association and others. Parental alienation syndrome is
junk science.

Yet in a monument to ignorance, New York courts continue to
recognize "parental alienation" as if it were some psycho-law of
medicine and continue to give kids to oppressive, if not abusive
fathers simply when mothers make accusations. It's as if judges are
years behind in reading social science literature.

Father's rights groups have legitimate concerns about false abuse
allegations, but given the nature of contested custody, these
utterances should not trigger instant death for mothers. Yet,
Gardner's remedy for alienation is etched in precedent in our state
appellate law books. Judges continue to fall for it as medical dogma
when it comes from court-appointed forensic psychiatrists. These
experts, unregulated in the court system, are often ordered by a
judge to evaluate parents, but they answer to no one. They must be
right, judges are pressed to believe. After all, judges appointed
them.

In "Children's Stories," a judge, who happens to be a social worker,
as perhaps we should require of all our Family Court judges, tries to
set the record straight. Maybe our Court of Appeals will get the
message.

Also aired in this documentary are the problems with some law
guardians, lawyers appointed for children. The documentary shows us
how they can do more harm than good. They can be patronage-seeking
pals of judges who authorize legal fees billed to parents for
whatever the market will bear.

Law guardians may not listen to their clients, the children, and they
inevitably end up taking sides, then avoid communication with the
losing side. They can freely engage in what lawyers call ex-parte
communication they talk to one side without the other present. Judges
do it, too. It's unethical and it deprives one party of a fair
hearing. Yet, in our family courts, ex-parte exchanges, even
hearings, can be standard operating procedure.

Dominique Lasseur, the producer of "Children's Stories," told me he
expects to be sued, but I say he deserves a Nobel Prize for honesty
for his work here. The Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation, which
financed this effort, deserves our gratitude. And this documentary
should prove again the incalculable value of public broadcasting.

An annual event at Siena College became the setting for some
of "Children's Stories." Mo Therese Hannah, a psychology professor at
Siena, is already organizing the third Battered Mothers' Custody
Conference there, set for next January.

The judiciary in New York is aware of the problems you'll see on TV.
A 32-member Matrimonial Commission, appointed by our chief judge, has
heard from hundreds of citizens. Appellate Judge Sondra Miller of
Westchester County, chairwoman, says her commission is preparing its
report for release in December and it will recommend major changes.

"We hope that we can change the tenor of these proceedings," Miller
said. She intimated her commission is considering some new court
model for resolving custody, one based on principles of mediation and
arbitration more than advocacy.

We'll all be watching.

Bob Port is senior editor/investigations at the Times Union. He can
be reached at 454-5064 or by e-mail at bport@timesunion.com

Japanese Women Tired Of Playing Servant To Their Retired Husbands

I'm not surprised to see this happening. Please see my previous posts about Japanese women and marriage - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

-----

Stress Disorder Diagnosed in Many Women After Spouses Retire

By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, October 17, 2005; Page A01

TOKYO -- Sakura Terakawa, 63, describes her four decades of married
life in a small urban apartment as a gradual transition from wife to
mother to servant. Communication with her husband started with love
letters and wooing words under pink cherry blossoms. It devolved over
time, she said, into mostly demands for his evening meals and
nitpicking over the quality of her housework.

So when he came home one afternoon three years ago, beaming, and
announced he was ready to retire, Terakawa despaired.

" 'This is it,' I remember thinking. 'I am going to have to divorce
him now,' " Terakawa recalled. "It was bad enough that I had to wait
on him when he came home from work. But having him around the house
all the time was more than I could possibly bear."

Concerned about her financial future if she divorced, Terakawa stuck
with their marriage -- only to become one of an extraordinary number
of elderly Japanese women stricken with a disorder that experts here
have recently begun diagnosing as retired husband syndrome, or RHS.

Feeling chained to the tradition of older women remaining utterly
dedicated to their husbands' well-being, Terakawa said, she devoted
herself to her spouse. Retirement cut him off from his longtime office
social network, leaving him virtually friendless and her with the
strain of filling his empty time. Within a few weeks, she said, he was
hardly leaving the house, watching television and reading the
newspaper -- and barking orders at her. He often forbade her to go out
with her friends. When he did let her go, Terakawa said, she had to
prepare all his meals before leaving.

After several months, she developed stomach ulcers, her speech began
to slur and rashes broke out around her eyes. When doctors discovered
polyps in her throat but could find no medical reason for her sudden
burst of ailments, she was referred to a psychiatrist who diagnosed
stress-related RHS.

Terakawa began receiving therapy from Nobuo Kurokawa, a physician who
is one of Japan's leading RHS experts. Kurokawa coined the term
retired husband syndrome in a presentation to the Japanese Society of
Psychosomatic Medicine in 1991, leading to its use in books, journals
and mainstream media here. Confirming Terakawa's account in an
interview, Kurokawa said he offered her the same advice he has given
numerous other older women in the same position.
"Come to therapy," he said. "Then spend as much time as possible away
from your husband."

In Japan, retirement has become a risky business for many wives, who
are finding the stress of their husband's presence at home
unendurable. Though after-retirement stress is a common problem in
most developed countries as husbands and wives try to balance
relationships in their twilight years, analysts say Japan has become
extraordinary for myriad reasons -- including the fact that one-fifth
of Japanese are now over 65, the highest percentage in the world.

Even as gender roles have changed for younger people here, with women
entering the workforce in record numbers, older Japanese have remained
far more rigid. As with most Japanese men of his generation,
Terakawa's husband demanded strict obedience from her, she said, even
while he spent his life almost entirely apart from her and their three
children. He left home for the office just after dawn and stayed out
late socializing after work. He even took most of his vacations with
colleagues and clients. Those long absences, she said, made his
presence around the house after retirement even more jolting.

"I had developed my own life, my own way of doing things, in the years
when he was never home," Terakawa said. She said she cannot even stand
to look at her husband across the dinner table now and sits at an
angle so she can stare out a window instead.

Part of the problem is that the nature of Japanese family life has
changed dramatically over the past two decades. The tradition of
retired parents living with their married adult children is rapidly
disappearing, with new generations remaining single well into their
forties and modern young couples choosing greater privacy. As older
couples are forced to spend more time alone together, the divorce rate
among those married more than 20 years -- a group that includes most
of Japan's married senior citizens -- is now the fastest-growing in
the country, more than doubling to 41,958 divorces in 2000 compared
with 20,435 cases in 1985, according to government statistics.

Kurokawa estimates that as many as 60 percent of the wives of retired
men may suffer from some degree of RHS.

With a record number of Japanese men set to retire -- almost 7 million
from 2007 to 2009 -- experts warn that the disorder has the potential
to explode. The Japanese boast the longest lifespan on Earth, yet
older Japanese men still cling to the outmoded idea of wives as
servile attendants -- leaving many elderly women to view their
longevity as more of a curse than a blessing. One survey from the
Tokyo-based advertising firm Hakuhodo showed that while 85 percent of
soon-to-retire husbands are delighted by the idea of retirement, 40
percent of their wives described themselves as "depressed" by the
prospect.

Fear of husbands coming home to roost has become a hot topic in Japan.
Bookstores are loaded with self-help titles for elderly women
attempting to cope with spouses who have turned into sodaigomi -- or
bulky trash.

"This is a severe problem for us," said Sayoko Nishida, 63, an author
of two books on the topic who has organized Zen retreats to help older
couples deal with RHS. "One of the main issues is that we are not a
culture where people directly express their feelings, and many older
women have nowhere to turn to share their anxiety."

Tomohisa Kotake, a 66-year-old retired banker, knows the story well.
"At first, I was a typical retired Japanese husband -- I didn't do
anything for myself and asked my wife to serve me," he said. It
immediately strained his marriage. Part of the problem, he said, was
that his wife still had many female friends, but most of his friends
had been work acquaintances. Pushed by his wife, he finally joined one
of the more than 3,000 support groups that have recently sprouted up
nationwide, aimed at "re-training" retired Japanese men to be more
independent and communicative with their wives.

Kotake's group -- Men in the Kitchen -- taught him how to shop, cook
and clean for himself. He now does the dishes and cooks for his wife
at least once a week. "I will never forget the look of happiness in
her eyes the first time I cleaned the house while she was taking a
bath," he said.

Kotake's wife, Nobuko Kotake, 62, now speaks glowingly of her husband.
She said she had given up many outings with female friends to spend
more time with him.

"By Japanese standards, we are still relatively young even though we
are retired," Tomohisa Kotake said. "We have a long life ahead of us.
It is better that we spend that time enjoying each other. Doing more
around the house is a small price for me to pay."

The National Organization For Women On "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories"

Here is what N.O.W. has to say about "Breaking The Silence: Children's Issues":

Must See TV:

Must See TV on PBS Tonight

On Thursday October 20 at 10pm EST, PBS will be airing a documentary titled "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," depicting a national family court scandal that is putting children into the hands of a physically or sexually abusive parent. Nationwide, supporters of battered mothers in custody challenges have been demonstrating at family courthouses and other locations in support of the documentary and in protest of the court scandal.

The film is generally set to air on Thursday, October 20, but different show times are possible, including Friday or the weekend. To get more information about the documentary and to see when it is airing in your area, go to: http://www.pbs.org/stationfinder/index.html and type the title of the documentary in the search field. If the PBS station in your area is not airing it, please call your local station and insist that they do. Your local station phone numbers can be found at the web site listed above.

It is important that we make sure that all local public television stations air the show and that we tune in for this program to show our support for PBS and their commitment to showing this documentary. Please send your own message to Pat Mitchell, CEO of PBS to show your appreciation to PBS for airing this important film.

Your emails are especially important, as we know that PBS is being flooded with emails from bogus "fathers' rights" activists opposing the airing of the film. You may use our suggested comments or enter your own.

Fathers' rights activists, both male and female, are LIVID over this documentary. Stand Your Ground, a men's rights forum that has bashed me in the past, includes a post where one person referred to N.O.W. as "The National Organizaton for Misandrist Bitches" and the documentary as "a smearfest". This poster is really angry that this documentary is going to air, even after lots of ugly email and phone calls to PBS from fathers' rights activists. This poster said "I used to dislike feminists, but now I absolutely hate them. I used to think conservatives who labeled feminists "anti-family" were exagerating and overreacting. Now I realize they are completely right. God, this pisses me off. These feminazis going destroy America (and the rest of the Western world)."

Yup, abused women who are trying to protect their abused children are going to "destroy America and the rest of the Western world". Heaven forbid.

At least one fathers' rights supporter at Stand Your Ground got all twisted and pissy over N.O.W. referring to fathers' rights groups as "bogus". That was great to see.

I'm glad that PBS didn't back down under the pressure from these angry people. All those ugly e-mails and phone calls had little effect at all. They are angry again that they didn't get their way. This documentary needs to air, and it will.

Angry Fathers' Rights Activists Vs. PBS

Fathers' rights activists are livid that their e-mail bombing and phone calling of PBS has not resulted in "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" being pulled off the air. They claim that this documentary is biased and bashes fathers. It does nothing of the kind. Fathers' rights activists also claim that only one side of the issue is being aired, and they are demanding what they think is their "fair" airing time for their views. Nonsense. Their views are all over the place. They permeate the Internet, and they get more than their fair share of one-sided articles printed in newspapers. They don't like that the side of the abused mothers and children is getting massive public airing.

I'm glad that PBS is not backing down to the massive pressure from fathers' rights groups. As anyone with a blog who has gone up against fathers' rights activists knows, they can be unbearably nasty.

This apparently is the letter these angry men are getting when they protest the airing of the documentary:

Thank you for taking the time to write to PBS about your concerns regarding BREAKING THE SILENCE: CHILDREN’S STORIES. Comments from our viewers - both positive and negative – are the best guides we have to make future programming decisions.

We have forwarded your observations to the filmmakers - producer Dominique Lasseur and
director Catherine Tatge - who have asked us to share their thoughts about the documentary with you.

“When we began this project over a year ago, our goal was to produce a documentary about domestic violence and children. We had no preconceived notions about the issue … no specific agenda to prove or disprove. The finished documentary is simply a result of where countless hours of extensive research and interviews took us. These are the real stories of real women who lost custody of their children when Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) was used as scientific proof in their family court cases. These were the stories we found over and over again.

There have been a number of concerns raised regarding Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and how it is addressed in the piece. We do not make the assertion that the phenomenon of alienation does not exist, simply that PAS is wrongly used as scientific proof to justify taking children away from a protective parent. We as filmmakers are in no position to determine the scientific validity of PAS. However, the fact remains that the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have not recognized PAS as legitimate science.

Some individuals have expressed concern that the documentary only features the stories of women as the victims of domestic violence. Research shows that “while women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.” (U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998). If we had featured the stories of one man and five women who had been victims of domestic abuse, statistically we would have grossly overstated the problems of men in this area. Nevertheless, we recognize that men are also victims and men are also sometimes victimized by family courts, but it is overwhelmingly women who are victims. In all cases, the children are the victims.

These are difficult and controversial issues that stir human emotions. Nothing can galvanize one’s passion like the welfare of a child. We understand certain individuals will never be completely satisfied with the information presented in the documentary. All we can do is offer, in the most open and transparent manner, the reasoning and research that went into this program.”

We appreciate your interest in PBS programming and hope that you will continue to enjoy and support your local PBS member station.

Sincerely,
Madison
PBS Viewer Services

Still More On "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories"

Here is an excellent article on the documentary, "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories". Angry fathers' rights activists have been dive-bombing PBS and the media to prevent this documentary from airing. I have been writing to PBS, and it isn't going to cave under the pressure. PBS is airing the documentary. Fathers' rights groups and activists outnumber the protective moms who need for this documentary to air. These men have the time to write angry protest letters and make angry phone calls that the moms don't have to time or energy to handle. These moms are too busy trying to raise their families and fend off the control tactics of these abusive dads who fight for custody.

"Breaking The Silence" outs fathers' rights custody tactics for the abusive behavior that it is, in particular the use of bogus syndromes like Parental Alienation Syndrome. PAS is used to by abusers and the courts to take abused children from the mothers who are protecting them, and giving them to their abusive fathers. Professionals who make their living from these kinds of cases don't want this documentary to air, because airing the truth about these ugly contested custody cases will put a big hole in their pockets.

-----

Caught in the middle: Documentary shows how kids can be pawns in abuse, custody cases
 
Oct 17, 2005

By Camilla A. Herrera
Staff Writer

Published October 17 2005

In "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," a new PBS documentary premiering Thursday, Karen describes how she lost custody of her son and two daughters to a father who had sexually molested the girls.

"I naively thought that if somebody molested their kid ... they'd just go to jail," she says.

Karen describes how a court-appointed evaluator failed to interview the children and ignored medical evidence and police reports that substantiated the abuse. The evaluator instead testified that Karen had purposely alienated her children from their father by raising false allegations of sexual abuse.

The opinion was legally based on Parental Alienation Syndrome, a theory that has been debunked by the American Psychological Association but is commonly used by abusive fathers to justify the removal of children from their mothers' care.

In Karen's case, the defense worked.

"Breaking the Silence," co-produced by Tatge/Lasseur Productions and Connecticut Public Television, with funding from the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation, highlights the stories of mothers like Karen and children who have endured abuse at home to later suffer more trauma in family court.

"Custody and visitation litigation is frequently used as a weapon against a victim," says Kathleen Healy, associate director of the Domestic Violence Crisis Center in Stamford and Norwalk, a member agency of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence that provides a toll-free, 24-hour hotline; emergency shelter; counseling; and education.

Experts in the documentary join Healy in saying PAS effectively distracts the court from assessing whether an abusive father is a continued risk to the mother and their children.

"There is a common misconception that when a victim leaves, the abuse stops," says Healy. "When there are children involved, (the abuse) goes on forever."

Documentary producer Dominique Lasseur, whose recent credits include "Breaking the Silence: Journeys of Hope," "The Question of God: C.S. Lewis & Sigmund Freud" and "Justice and Jihad" and "Islam vs. Islam" for "NOW with Bill Moyers," says the use of custody as a weapon against a victim is more common than believed.

"People have said it is a he-said/she-said thing, but in the cases we reported on, there is evidence a judge has chosen to disregard, and/or there is use of a supposedly scientific syndrome which has been discredited but is still being used on why the kids should be taken away from the mother.

"The stories were chilling, from doctors, lawyers, pilots, a Ph.D. in physics, extremely well educated women in all cases who were accused of alienating their children against their father. The courts removed their children, and in many cases prevented the kids from seeing their mother."

It is what happened to Karen's children.

"I was snatched up from my normal life and all that anyone would tell me was that my mom was crazy and she was going to a mental hospital," says Jeff, Karen's son.

Now 18, he no longer lives with his father and is a member of the Courageous Kids Network, a Davis, Calif., support group for young people who were forced to live with an abusive father and many times denied access to their mother.

Jeff's sisters still live with their father.

According to Joan Meier, an attorney and professor of clinical law at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., who was interviewed for the documentary, fathers who are accused or adjudicated of battery are awarded joint or full custody in two-thirds of family court cases.

"There are so many stories of dysfunctional courts that they are running the risk of undoing the progress that has been made to address domestic violence," says Lasseur. "If women do come out and report domestic violence, they run the risk of losing their kids. I've heard anecdotal stories of attorneys and police officers telling clients not to bring charges because the risk of losing children is significant."

A factor complicating custody disputes is the psychological testing that court-appointed evaluators administer to the children they represent. Meier says these are generally, "not validated for use in a domestic violence context."

The standard "best interests of the child," typically applied in custodial matters where domestic violence is not a factor, correctly assumes that a child's interests are best served when they have full contact with both parents. Such a standard, however, can be difficult to apply if a child's safety depends largely on restricting a parent's contact, says Lundy Bancroft, an expert interviewed for the documentary.

Read the rest of the article below.

He also is a counselor; a former co-director of Emerge, the country's first program for abusive men; and author of "Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men" (G.P. Putnam's Sons, $26.95) and "When Dad Hurts Mom: Helping Your Children Heal the Wounds of Witnessing Abuse" (G.P. Putnam's Sons, $25.95).

"In a case where those children have been abused or the mom has been abused, what's really best for children is for their safety to be made the top priority," he says.

Healy says: "Part of the problem is our court systems are so chopped up from state to state. Abusers are handled in criminal court. Restraining orders are handled in civil court and custody matters in family court. Since these are handled separately by different legal and court personnel, the relevant information can get lost or misrepresented."

Another obstacle, she adds, is control over family finances, which in many cases is in the hands of the abuser. When custodial disputes are prolonged, many victims have little means with which to continue appealing.

What can follow, particularly after an abusive father gains custody, is emotional abuse of the child.

"When a father is bad-mouthing the mom, he shows he has consistently disrespected their mother throughout the relationship. It's not going to stop because the parents are apart. It not only has implications for the relationship between the mother and the child but also for their view of their mother and their view of women in general.

"(Emotional abuse) affects their own self-image and their own self-esteem, their own relationships and there is the fact they could grow up to be victims or abusers themselves, more vulnerable to abuse, more vulnerable to substance abuse, suicide and depression, even if dad doesn't abuse them directly."

Lasseur carefully acknowledges that "Breaking the Silence" focuses only on men as abusers.

"I know we'll be criticized for not including men. We are aware of men who lose children to unfit mothers. From what we've seen, the overwhelming majority of cases are mothers losing their kids. In our documentary, a story of a man would disproportionately represent what it is really like."

What can be done depends largely on shining a spotlight on what is happening in family court, he says.

"My job is to report what I found. It would be presumptuous of me to offer solutions. If what I show is brought to light, people have an open discussion about what is functioning and what is not, people start paying attention, then people will come up with solutions."

More On "Breaking The Silence"

I received this press release in e-mail.

-----

I presume that most of you are aware that on Oct 20, PBS will be airing a
groundbreaking documentary Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories, that exposes
Parental Alienation Syndrome by telling the tragic stories of children who
have been assigned custody to their abusers.

You may or may not be aware that the Father’s Rights folks have mounted a
campaign to PBS urging them to pull the film. I have spoken to people at PBS and
they have assured me of their commitment to airing the film, but they’ve also
indicated that it would be helpful to have letters of support from the
professional community.

Please visit http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/196 to sign on indicating your
professional or organizational support for PBS’s airing of this important
film. Since I realize no one sign-on letter says it all, and since some of you
may have seen the film, I’ve set up the webform so that you can include comments
if you’d like.

In addition, I encourage you to send your own letters to Pat Mitchell, CEO of
PBS pmitchell@pbs.org
Please cc me on any messages you send.

You may also wish to visit http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/194, where your
support and comments will be displayed to our site visitors. On this page
you can also view the rest of Stop Family Violence’s campaign to PBS. We are
collecting stories from women and children who have been adversely affected by
PAS decisions and will be submitting those to PBS as well.

October Is Domestic Violence Awareness Month

... and fathers' and men's rights activists aren't too happy about it.

The PBS documentary "Breaking The Silence: Children's Stories" is about child victims of abuse, especially those who have been given to their abusive fathers by the courts. Fathers' and men's rights activists have predictably protested the airing of this documentary, and have demanded that it either not be aired, or that they get so-called equal time to air their side of the issue. Their side is full of unsupported garbage about women being as abusive as men, and women lying frequently to get restraining orders to use as leverage in court in abuse, divorce, and custody cases. "Breaking The Silence" is due to air in my area on October 21. I plan to watch it. I know that local fathers' rights groups have written and called PBS in protest of the airing of this documentary. I have written to PBS to urge them to air it.

In related news, via the Family Law Professors Blog:

Screening for Domestic Violence

"In conjunction with Domestic Violence Awareness Month, the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence is proud to announce the release of our latest publication, “Tool for Attorneys to Screen for Domestic Violence.”  This wonderful resource is for use by ALL attorneys who provide individual representation to enable them to identify if their client is a victim of domestic violence.  The Tool contains suggested questions to integrate into interview questions, as well as guidance on how an attorney can provide support and resources to their clients who are victims of domestic violence." By the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence Link to Download Tool (last visited 10-19-05 NVS)

American Apparel And Sexual Harassment

Sheelzebub at Pinko Feminist Hellcat continues to cover Dov Charney and the American Apparel sexual harassment lawsuit. As Sheelz said, "This isn't about Charney's right to speak his mind on issues, it's about inappropriate behavior, and how workers are silenced and dismissed for standing up for themselves." Whistleblowers risk being seen as troublemakers, and it can make it difficult for them to find work in other companies if they choose to leave the unsavory environment that American Apparel has been accused of being.

If the work environment is as toxic as the lawsuit states, then the work environment should change. People who have to suffer it shouldn't be told that they should just get out and find new jobs. Finding a new job in this rotten economy is not going to be easy. Plus, what if a new job requires a relocation or a very long commute? The people complaining are not executives. They are lower-tier workers. They don't have thousands of dollars stashed away to tide them over until they find a more suitable job. Besides, the work environment is not their fault. "[U]sing crude language and gestures, conducting job interviews in his underwear, ordering the hiring of women in whom he had a sexual interest and giving one of the plaintiffs a vibrator" are not the way to run a business. [Link via Majikthise.]

Harriet Miers

Lauren at Feministe has the same mixed feelings about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers that I have. Miers is too anti-choice for my taste, and she doesn't seem to have much experience interpreting Constitutional law. However, Miers did open doors for women. According to Lauren, "she first female president of Texas State Bar and first female president of Dallas Bar Association." I was especially pleased to learn that "she used her posts to start conversations between warring interest groups, and developed a record for being “unafraid to take on controversial issues, sometimes even to her own political detriment.”" I hope this means she won't be a right wingnut ideologue operating from the bench if she is confirmed.

Bloggers have already pointed out that she organized a women's studies lecture series while she was on the advisory board for Southern Methodist University's law school. Gloria Steinem was one of the speakers.

I've looked at conservative blogs to see their reaction to Miers, and they are not happy. Redstate.org, Little Green Goofballs, and Free Republic resident wingnuts are going bonkers. They went into apoplexy when they learned about Miers' role in that women's studies lecture series, especially when they learned that Gloria Steinem was the first speaker. The Republican base is spintering over Miers. Colleen Parro, executive director of the National Republican Coalition for Life, said that "I think it certainly could be a sign of bigger problems. There has been an underlying feeling, deeper than concern, among many Republicans for a long time now regarding the outrageous spending going on, the lack of border security, and the threat of terrorism, a whole range of issues. The Miers nomination just caused it to boil over." I think that the wingnut fundamentalist base was expecting someone like Janet Rogers Brown - an ideologue who would deliver their demands from the bench - like overturning Roe v. Wade - but that's not what they got. They are pissed. Republicans are finally admitting what Democrats have been talking about for aeons.

On top of all that, there are the conspiracy and money-laundering indictments against Tom Delay and the investigations into Karl Rove's role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Richard Viguerie, "a Republican activist and advertising executive credited with pioneering the use of mail to voters' homes as a way of making pinpoint political appeals, said that "[w]hen you add all of these things on top of each other, the party is drunk with power, the ethics problems are so thick you can cut them with a knife. I think Republicans are heading for some tough times in the 2006 and 2008 elections."

So Republicans are finally seeing what the Dems have seen since Bush was crowned King George by the Supreme Court.

The problem with Harriet Miers is that no one really knows yet what she stands for. There has been allegations of cronyism, and considering her relationship with Bush, that's not surprising. I think that with Bush's approval ratings going into a swandive, especially after Katrina, he couldn't risk putting an out-and-out wingnut on the Supreme Court. I need to learn more about Miers before I decide how I feel about her, but some of what I'm learning about her is actually quite good. If she can keep her personal feelings about abortion from influencing her decisions about the law, she might be quite good.

And This Is News, Why?

CBS-2's web site in New York informs us of a Federal study (whatever that means) that shows same sex relations between women is on the rise.

Holy Jesus Jumped Up... so who really gives a crap! And, why are they worried about it? Well, I assume they're going to be worried about it... why not, after all the ruling party who claims to want less Government regulation just can't stop increasing Government regulation of your bedroom.

More On Dems Abandoning Their Base

Several bloggers (see these posts for links) have written about how the Democratic party has alienated its base. Stephanie Schulte is the latest to chime in:

[Markos] asks:

And yet HRC is fundraising for Chafee because he pays lip service to gay equality? Why do groups like NARAL and HRC have a hard time grasping the big picture?

Geez, what part of "we don't trust you" with our "pet issues" doesn't he get? It's not like the Democrats have a stellar record on gay rights anyway. And isn't the goal ultimately to get both Democrats and Republicans to support gay rights? What incentive do the Republicans have to reach out to gay voters at all? How is HRC supposed to have any leverage in the Republican party if they refuse to work with them just because they are not Democrats?

I guess we're not allowed to reach across the aisle though. Apparently, being in the progressive movement now requires you to get explicit authority from dear leader before you open your mouth and say something he might not like.

Have fun with that guys. Just remember that you're not going to get far without those feminsts, gays and hippies you pissed off.

Here's more:

Rhetorically Speaking

Booman Tribune

On Roberts, Reproductive Freedom, and Progressive Men and Women

I've been thinking quite a bit about the way women's issues have been treated by liberal white male bloggers. This latest dust-up at dKos is nothing new. Reproductive rights is a very important issue to me and to plenty of other women, and there are a lot of feminists out there who are not happy seeing this very issue set aside by the liberal white men who are supposed to be on our side. Keeping democratic unity must be upheld, even if that means placing an important issue such as women's reproductive freedom on the back burner. Now that Armando and Markos decided that reproductive rights and the Roberts hearings are important enough, feminist bloggers are supposed to jump right in and talk about it, now that we have a permission slip from the the white guys who think their opinions and blogs are so important. We are supposed to be grateful. Not only that, the Important White Dudes don't think us feminist bloggers are talking about Roberts as much as they think we should, although the feminist bloggers have been talking about it. The guys don't understand why feminist bloggers are angry over this kind of treatment.

What are women supposed to do? Wait until the guys think reproductive rights are important, and then they'll get around to standing up for women on that issue? Wait until all of the important things (read: what interests white men) are dealt with - then we'll get to the icky female stuff. Now that some progressive white male bloggers have decided that the Roberts hearings and reproductive rights are worthy of bandwidth, all the feminists are supposed to fall in lock-step behind them and be properly grateful?

Gimme a break.

Amanda had plenty to say about this issue:

Armando, I think I have the answer to your question here.

Finally, I noticed more than a few bloggers who enjoyed raking Markos over the coals for his saying he was not going to sweat the "pie ad" and would concentrate on the important stuff had no blogging on Roberts today. Love that commitment to women's issues from those bloggers.

Well, guess what. This IS the important stuff. And guess again -- Markos gave me carte blanche to blog Roberts throughout the day.

I hope folks remember that when they are again tempted to attack daily kos as lacking commitment to women and their rights.

Because that is bullshit.

A little birdie told me that after a conference call the other night, it was made very clear to the feminist bloggers that we don't have to worry our pretty little heads about John Roberts because the big boys were on it.

For what it's worth, it's hard for me to write about Roberts for the same reason it's hard for Kevin Drum—it's such a farce. He's clearly going to get the position and it's just a matter of noting what idiotic Democrats go along with it. That and I've been worn down by the people who thought this wasn't worth fighting about and that things like Roe v. Wade weren't really being threatened. I do it anyway, but my heart isn't in it, which is maybe why Armando thinks female bloggers aren't all up on Roberts. That or maybe I really am a man, as I sometimes get to thinking when reading my advice columns and/or essentialist literature. Abortion really is going to have to be criminalized before a good number of people wake up, I think.

Sheelzebub didn't mince words, either:

Oh, my flippin' head

Jaysus, for once I agree with Kevin Drum, much to the chagrin of some Democratic Party shills.  We're not supposed to say out loud that the Dems are rolling over on this one--yet again.

Apparently, dismissing women's concerns as unimportant isn't misogynist and dismissing choice as a side issue isn't misogynist.  However, it's the height of feminist action to blog endlessly about John Roberts, while decrying feminist bloggers for not blogging about Roberts when they've done nothing but blog about him

If a woman blogs about Roberts, but a not-so-closeted sexist doesn't acknowledge it, does she even exist?  If she blogs about Roberts, but not in the Officially Approved Way (TM), does it count?

This is rich, considering we are supposed to support the very Democrats who have no problems selling our rights down the river.

This kind of treatment of women by lefty/progressive men is nothing new. All you have to do is look back to the first wave of feminism to see it. The setting was abolitionism, and feminists at that time saw their issues - especially women's right of citizenship and the right to vote - placed on the back burner by men who supposedly were their colleagues.

FEMINISM OLD WAVE AND NEW WAVE
by Ellen DuBois

There have been two major feminist waves in this country, one running from about 1835 to 1920 (it took that long to win its major demand -the vote); the other beginning some time in the middle of the sixties and ending who knows when.

In both cases, a feminist upsurge was initiated by women who had attempted to function politically in the major reform movements of their days, and had found that because they were women, they would be unable to do very much at all. They found that they would be isolated from positions of decision-making, and instead they would do the shitwork (the typing, petition-gathering, meeting-organizing, etc.) while men made the decisions and got the recognition.

[...]

The first wave of feminism grew out of the major reform movement of the mid-nineteenth century --abolitionism. Like contemporary feminists, women working in abolition found that their full and equal participation in political activity was not especially wanted --that as long as they worked within "woman's sphere," everything would be fine. But as soon as they stopped beyond it, they were severely reprimanded by their abolitionist brothers. Like the women of the New Left, these 19th century sisters discovered that the political world in which they moved -- and which they thought was dedicated to equal justice for all -- was perfectly content to abide by the rules for "proper feminine behavior" that the outside, less politically sophisticated world provided.

What this meant for these 19th century feminists --as it meant for us --was that the women did the shitwork and the men made the decisions. Thousands of women participated in the abolition movement --collecting signatures on petitions to Congress; their labor and those petitions provided the organizational backbone of the abolitionist movement. The decision-making and public acknowledgement were reserved for the men.

In 1837, however, this peaceful division of labor was shattered when two female abolitionists and ex-slaveholdors -Sarah and Angelina Grimke --started to speak out publicly to mixed audiences against slavery. New England --and especially its clergy -- was shocked at women lecturing to what it called "promiscuous audiences." Some male abolitionists, notably William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, defended the Grimkes, But what is striking is how many male abolitionists did not. The Grimkes succeeded in preserving their right to lecture, and even began to write and speak about the "woman question." The controversy they had begun -- whether or not women were going to be allowed to participate equally with men in all aspects of the abolitionist movement -- continued to be hotly debated. In the end, it can be credited with generating l9th century feminism.

The next major event in which the "woman question" figured was three years after the Grimkes, in 1840. In that year, British abolitionists announced that they would sponsor a World Anti-Slavery Convention. Off to London went most of the major American abolitionists, among them Lucretia Mott (who was primarily responsible for organizing anti-slavery work in Philadelphia) and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a young bride on her honeymoon with her abolitionist husband.

Once in London the American abolitionists had a surprise waiting for them. British abolitionists were offended by the thought of women functioning politically as the equals of men. and therefore the sponsors of the convention decreed that women -- even women like Lucretia Mott -- would not be seated as delegates to the Convention. Once again, a few male abolitionists stood up for the women, but the majority did not bother to even protest this discrimination. The women were placed behind a curtain in the convention hall -- so they might hear the proceedings without offending any male sensibilities. Stanton and Mott left the hall in disgust, to wander around London and discuss the "woman question." They found that they agreed on many things, but especially that the oppression of women deserved attention. Eight years later, in 1848, these same two women organized the first woman's rights convention in the United States, the Seneca Falls Convention.

By the time the Civil War had started, therefore, women were beginning to understand how they were oppressed and slightly wary of working with men, but they were not yet totally convinced that it was impossible for women to work as political equals with men in reform political activity.

When the War began, the women dropped all their activities as feminists, and threw themselves into patriotic work. They were very conscious that their participation in the national wartime mobilization would be a test of their political seriousness. They also expected to be amply rewarded for their selfless activity once the war was over. They were not. And that was where the final blow was struck and the leading feminists realized that they could not put political trust in men; that it was nearly impossible for even the most liberal of men to understand how much woman feels her oppression and how much she wants her freedom.

The first hint of this final betrayal by liberal men was in the 14th Amendment. This amendment -- the second of the three amendments that followed the Civil War -- defined the rights of citizenship, and. prohibited the denial of those rights to persons on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This was all fine and good except for one thing -- the federal government was extending its protection only to all citizens of the male sex. Not only were women ignored by the Amendment, but they discovered that, after its passage, they were considerably worse off than before, For the first time, the word "male" appeared in the Federal Constitution.

Previously, political discrimination against women had been a matter of local statute and public sentiment. Now, with the 14th Amendment, this discrimination was being endorsed on the national level. Women were furious. They appealed to male abolitionists and radical republicans for support; is this how they were to be repaid for their loyal services during the war? Wendell Phillips, leader of the abolitionist forces, assured them that their time would come, that when he started laboring for the enfranchisement of the black man, he would labor for women also. Two years later the Fifteenth Amendment was passed by Congress. It prohibited disfranchisement on the grounds of race, color, or previous condition of servitude -- but not one word about sex.

Once again women discovered that they could not put their faith in male reformers because the oppression of women was not top priority for anyone but women themselves. They had been literally abandoned by the most radical political movement of the day. As it turned out, the decision of the abolitionists to ignore women's claim to the ballot was a particularly momentous one. It took another fifty years to get the ballot for women. This was the final blow -- feminists had learned that if women were to ever win their rights, they would have to win them without the help of men. Looking back on the 1860s, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote:

'We would warn the young women of the coming generation against man's advice as to their best interests their highest development. We would point for them the moral of our experiences: that woman must lead the way to her own enfranchisement, and work out her own salvation with a hopeful courage and determination that knows no fear nor trembling. She must not put her trust in man in this transition period, since, while regarded as his subject, his inferior his slave, their interests must be antagonistic."

The process has been the same for the feminists of the second wave. First, we began to understand that women were oppressed, throughout our society, and that the oppression of women had crept into even the most radical political movements of the day. They were started to raise questions about the oppression of women and the "proper spheres" (19th century) or "stereotyped roles" (20th century) of men and women. But we have found that at worst iron were uninterested (or amused) by such issues -- and at best that men were incapable of fully understanding the oppression of women.

So, like the feminists of the 19th century, we have gone the separatist route and formed a movement of our own. We work in women's liberation because we are not permitted to function fully in other movements for social change and because, if we don't demand out own liberation, no one else will.

Perhaps two waves of feminism will be enough to free us.

So ladies, take this to heart: progressive men have been treating their progressive sisters like so much baggage for over one hundred years. We're expected to do the grunt work, yet our issues get set aside for more "important" issues. Issues of importance to women must be set aside in favor of "party unity". We're right to continue to demand that issues important to us such as reproductive freedom must be dealt with now, not later with promises by progressive men that "we'll get to it." It seems that that issues important to feminists, reproductive rights in particular, are only going to be addressed in a timely manner by the feminists who think they are important.

I'm Not Going To Be A Dem Much Longer

I've come to the conclusion that women's issues are important to the Dems only when there is an election on the horizon. The Roberts hearings have been going on, and the Dems aren't doing a damned thing to keep him from being confirmed. Women's reproductive health has taken a back seat to more "important" issues.

Just wait until it's election time, and the Dems suddenly shift sail and try to woo women. I'm registered as a Dem at the moment after years of being registered as an Independent. I'm switching to Independent again, since the Dems seem to have no problem with confirming a guy who wants to put a shackle on my uterus. I think Dem women who are sick of the way the Dems have rolled over and played dead when it comes to their welfare should do the same.

Apparently, women's reproductive health is an important issue only if some self-important bloggers say it is. As Roxanne said, maybe we need permission slips to blog about the issue.

More at Roxanne's, Lauren's, Pandagon (Amanda), Sheelzebub's, and Jessica at Bush v. Choice.

Help Domestic Violence Shelters In Louisiana

I saw this posted at Cool Beans, and I thought it was worth repeating.

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AUGUST 31, 2005

Louisiana Domestic Violence Victim's Hurricane Relief Fund

The Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence (LCADV), a private 501c3, not-for-profit organization incorporated in 1982, is establishing a Louisiana Domestic Violence Victim's Hurricane Relief Fund to assist victims of domestic violence and child victimization who are displaced and affected by Hurricane Katrina.

LCADV is a network of 20 domestic violence programs/shelters throughout the state. Four of our shelters and two nonresidential programs are completely closed at the time and two or three may be completely destroyed. Sad to say, domestic violence and child victimization are social problems that do not stop during this natural disaster we are experiencing and with cessation of all direct services in the gulf coast region, the increased need for relocation and basic monetary assistance is essential for these women and children.

LCADV is accepting donations that are specifically earmarked to assist battered survivors and their children who have been directly affected/displaced by the hurricane. The donations will be used to assist battered victims from the following parishes in Louisiana: Orleans, Jefferson, St. Tammany, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines.

The donations will be used for the following purposes:

1. Relocation of domestic violence victims.
2. Purchasing of basic needs, i.e. baby formula, diapers, food, clothing, etc. that could not be met elsewhere.
3. Deposits on houses, electric bills,
4. Car repair, gas, public transportation
5. Medical/prescription needs,
6. Other basic, life sustaining needs

All donations go directly to victims of domestic violence affected by this hurricane and will not be used for any administrative or other purposes.

The Louisiana Domestic Violence Hurricane Relief Fund Account is setup with AmSouth Bank which is located in the following states: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee. If you live in one of these states you could make a donation at the local AmSouth Bank Branch to the LCADV Domestic Violence Hurricane Relief Fund Account number: 0020085338. Donations from other states can be made through wire transfer to this account.

If you would like to make a donation using MasterCard or Visa, you may contact the Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence office at 225-752-1296 with your credit card information. Donations may also be electronically deposited into our account by faxing a voided check with the amount of the donation to (225)751-8927. LCADV will setup an electronic deposit and you will receive confirmation of your donation with the tax-deductible receipt.

RIP Rehnquist

Chief Justice William Rehnquist has died. Since he was already anti-Roe, his conservative replacement on the Supreme Court won't be much of a change. I wonder who will now be Chief Justice? Any ideas?

Gee, I Can't Imagine Why

Susan Wood, Director of the Office of Women's Health and Assistant Commissioner for Women's Health, has resigned. It's obvious why. She sent around the following email to her friends and colleagues:

I regret to tell you that I am leaving the FDA, and will no longer be serving as the Assistant Commissioner for Women's Health and Director of the FDA Office of Women's Health. The recent decision announced by the Commissioner about emergency contraception, which continues to limit women's access to a product that would reduce unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions is contrary to my core commitment to improving and advancing women's health. I have spent the last 15 years working to ensure that science informs good health policy decisions. I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overuled. I therefore have submitted my resignation effective today.

I will greatly miss working with such an outstanding group of scientists, clinicians and support staff. FDA's staff is of the highest caliber and it has been a priviledge to work with you all. I hope to have future opportunities to work with you in a different capacity.

Sincerely,

Susan

I'm sorry to see her go, but I wish she would have stayed to fight this out. Women's reproductive rights are too important to lose important people like her.

Sexist Corporations To Be Denied Contracts

If you are an employer in the U. K. who thinks it's okay to make sexist, disparaging remarks to female employees, you better rethink your comments. Sexist employers "will be denied lucrative public sector contracts under proposals being drawn up by the Prime Minister's advisers to stamp out prejudice against women at work."

Corporate clients are "alarmed by the number of women bankers suing for sexual harassment" and they have "threatened to withhold business from leading banks because of the negative publicity."

Oh, I like how they've threatened to withhold business not because it's wrong to make sexist remarks to women, but because they are receiving negative publicity. Apparently, sexist remarks have been commonplace, but no one was upset about it until there were reports of "negative publicity".

Two cases garnered special attention in the article:

Elizabeth Weston, who won £1 million from bankers Merrill Lynch over lewd comments made at a Christmas party

Schroder Securities analyst Julie Bower - dismissed in an email written by a colleague as 'had cancer, been a pain, got pregnant'

PM Tony Blair has set up the Women and Work Commission to "investigate why women still get a raw deal at work, is drawing up plans to tackle it by novel means. It believes the granting of state contracts worth millions of pounds, for anything from canteen catering to legal or financial advice, could be used to penalise firms reluctant to put their house in order. Under their proposals, public bodies would have to consider issues such as a firm's track record on equal pay or sexual harassment before giving them work."

I wish this commission would have been set up earlier because sexist remarks have no place in the workplace. It's telling that it took "bad publicity" to inspire the PM to form it.

Another Set Of Awards For Sexism - The Ernies

Most bloggers have probably already read Ellen Goodman's yearly roundup of neanderthal sexist comments and actions, but has anyone heard of the Ernies? The Ernie Awards are named in honour of former Labor Council president Ernie Ecob, who was known for his sexist remarks. The Ernies are in their thirteenth year. They are given to people whose public statements are viewed as most sexist. This year, they were held in the New South Wales, Australia, Parliament House.

The top Ernie - the Gold Ernie - was awarded to Sydney-born Sheikh Feiz Mohammad, of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool. He was also awarded the Silver Ernie.

The sheikh told the audience after delivering a speech at the Bankstown Town Hall in March that a rape victim has "no one to blame but herself". He claimed that women teased men and appealed to their "carnal nature" by the way they dressed in "nothing but satanic skirts."

There is also an award for sexist women - the Elaine - which is for the woman whose remarks were regarded as "the least helpful to the sisterhood".

This year the Elaine went to Australian author Colleen McCullough who, when commenting on the Pitcairn Island rape trials, said: "They are as much Polynesian as anything. It's Polynesian to break your girls in at 12."

Here are other Ernies:

Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson took out the political Ernie for his sarcastic response to fears that university services might disappear under voluntary student unionism.

"If they can afford to pay their academics nine months' maternity leave and if child care needs subsidising on campus, I would be most surprised if they weren't prepared to subsidise that in some way," Dr Nelson said.

The justice Ernie went to the president of the NSW Bar Association, Ian Harrison, SC.

When cross examining a teenage girl who had allegedly been pack-raped, he suggested that "to sit on a bar stool with a skirt as short as that takes a lot of confidence".

Eugenicist Claims Men Are More Intelligent Than Women

There is yet another "study" by two guys who claim that men are more intelligent than women. [via Atrios.] .

One of the researchers, Richard Lynn, was a source cited for the racist book "The Bell Curve".

Here's what Fairness In Accuracy And Reporting had to say about Lynn:

Among Lynn's writings cited in The Bell Curve are "The Intelligence of the Mongoloids" and "Positive Correlations Between Head Size and IQ."

Murray and Herrnstein describe Lynn as "a leading scholar of racial and ethnic differences." Here's a sample of Lynn's thinking on such differences: "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples.... Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." (cited in Newsday, 11/9/94)

Elsewhere Lynn makes clear which "incompetent cultures" need "phasing out": "Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization?" (cited in New Republic, 10/31/94)

Yeah, I'd believe a racist when it comes to determining the intelligence of men versus women. Did he measure men's head sizes versus women's? I thought phrenology went out with the planchette.

This kind of study is not new

Here's more on two earlier gender/intelligence studies by two researchers. This article was posted on a fathers' rights web site in 2002. The researchers were Paul Irwing, who co-researched the current study with Lynn, and Phillip Ackerman. Irwin said in this earlier study that "[a]ny piece of research on sex difference has to be placed in an overall context." Irwing is a psychology professor at the University of Ulster.

"In the real world, women are increasingly outperforming men. They definitely outperform men at university ... What one has to say then, is that if women are doing better in the real world, why then aren't they doing better on these tests?"

The article continues: "In the history of these kinds of tests, women have never fared well, but that has usually been attributed to a male bias in questions or format. Men typically did better than women in the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale of the 1950s, the granddaddy of these tests, but that test was a short one and so raised the possibility that the small selection of questions chosen just happened to favour male interests."

An Interesting Blogger Question

The Heretik asks an interesting question: "What women of the past would have been a killer blogger in her day?"

There have been all kinds of interesting answers. Dorothy Parker. Hedy Lamarr. Virginia Woolf. Bette Davis. Mae West. Here are my suggestions:

Queen Cleopatra
Queen Hatshepsut
Boadica
Jayne Mansfield - She would have put both Wonkette and The Washingtonienne to shame.
Sappho - Ditto.
Marie Curie
Rosalind Russell
Lauren Bacall
Anne Boleyn - I bet she'd have plenty to say about King Henry VIII.
Marie Antoinette
Frida Kahlo
Victoria Woodhull
Marie Laveau - the voodoo queen of New Orleans

What women of yesteryear would you like to read if she had a blog?

Female Professors More Stressed Than Male Professors

A new study has found that female professors feel more stress than male professors. [Via Feministing.]

Women in the professoriate are more stressed out than men. That’s probably not shocking to female professors (or many of their male colleagues). But a new study — based on both surveys and in-depth interviews and focus groups — attempts to provide new insights into that stress. And the study says that women are justified in their stress — answering strongly in the negative the question the study poses: “Are women faculty just worrywarts?”

The education professors who conducted the study — Jennifer L. Hart of the University of Missouri at Columbia and Christine M. Cress of Portland State University — write that answering that question is important because many in academe may believe otherwise.

The study — which has been accepted for publication in the journal Stress, Trauma, and Crisis — is based at a university whose identity was kept confidential. The researchers started by looking at faculty stress levels by going to the university’s data, as reported to a University of California at Los Angeles study on faculty attitudes.

---
Such data could, of course, be read as a comment on how women experience stress, not whether they are justified in feeling more of it. But the authors of the study then went to examine university records on teaching loads, and they found that women there, on average, are doing more teaching than are men.

The data found that female full professors taught more courses and independent study units than did their male counterparts. At the associate professor level, men taught more regular courses, but far fewer independent units. And at the assistant level, men and women were equal in teaching regular courses, but women taught more independent units.

In interviews, the researchers found that women cited a variety of reasons for their increased workloads and stress associated with students, and many women attributed much of the problem to sexist patterns or attitudes — from their colleagues or students.

Here are suggestions from the article about how to deal with this problem:

Create "critical mass" programs to hire more women in departments that have relatively few. The research suggested that stress levels went down when critical mass was achieved, and that after that, "the stupid, snide comments from male colleagues" diminished, in the words of one of those interviewed.

Educate review and search committees about new areas of research. One problem many women face is that their research areas, especially if they relate to issues of gender and race, are devalued, the report said.

Establish an annual review process to compare, by gender, teaching and service responsibilities, including independent academic work that appears to fall more heavily on female faculty members.

Provide extra release time and support for those with “extraordinary teaching and service responsibilities.”

Create a fund to provide extra research dollars to those who take on extra teaching duties.

"Coq Roq" Sexism... And That's Not The Ad's Only Problem

Jessica at Feministing had the same reaction to Burger King's "Coq Roq" ad that I had. When I first saw it, I thought it was stupid. Well, apparently, the ad is also sexist. Check out the picture at Feministing.

That's not the only problem with "Coq Roq". The heavy metal band Slipknot is suing Burger King because the band in the ad too closely resembles them. Slipknot members also use masks when performing, in particular one with dreadlocks. As usual, The Smoking Gun is on top of things.

Oh, What Fun. IWF Is Holding A Writing Contest

I have learned from Ampersand that those plucky anti-feminists at the Independent Women's Forum are holding an essay contest. Applicants must be female, and attending any college or university in 2005-2006. The essay is only to be 750 words. The topic is simple:

Please discuss your experience on college campus as an independent woman.  How has your college or university helped or hindered your intellectual and personal growth?  Please describe what you think it means to be an independent woman in the year 2005.

I agree with Amp that certain themes are likely to win the money. Here are some themes that I think would win:

1. Write about how you staged a "Take Back The Penis" rally in honor of all the white men who were denied entry into college because of that nasty affirmative action that allowed you, the conservative white woman, to attend. As everyone at IWF knows, white men are the most discriminated-against class in this country.

2. You attended a feminist club meeting, and managed to spout off a few words about how feminism is harming both men and women before being tossed out of the room on your ass. Your protest was attended by a half-dozen female anti-feminist protesters all dressed in black and carrying lit candles on the steps of the building hosting the feminist club meeting. There would have been more anti-feminiist women at the protest, but most of them instead went to a kegger party looking for their future husbands. Each candle stood for one long-suffering male who had suffered at the hands of feminism. You don't have to mention that the wind kept blowing the candles out.

I agree with Amp that it would be a hoot if feminists inundated IWF with essays showing how feminism has helped them. It wouldn't be hard to do. The word-count is low. There is no entry fee, and there is no limit to the number of essays you may submit. Since fact-checking probably won't be and has never been an issue for IWF, you can just make shit up. Being swamped with hundreds of essays touting feminism would really muss the hair and makeup of those anti-feminists. Plus, if a feminist won, she could donate the money to a feminist cause, in the name of IWF. Oh, joy!

I attended a couple of luncheons hosted by IWF in the 1980s, mainly out of curiosity. What was interesting was that the women at the table deferred to any men who voiced their opinions. The few men present monopolized the entire discussion, and they frequently interrupted any women who were speaking. These few men determined the course of the topic being discussed, and the women in the room deferred to them. It was interesting to see these "independent" conservative women sit meekly and quietly in their seats while the conservative men fluffed their feathers and took up lots of psychic space. Very eye-opening, to say the least.

Law Failing Rape Victims In The U. K.

Rape victims in the U. K. are seeing their sexual histories brought up in court, despite a new change in the law that is designed to boost conviction rates . Women are being judged on their past behavior. If she is sexually active, or had a previous sexual relationship with her rapist, she is not believed. It's assumed that she consented. This attitude has been especially hard to deal with on "date rape" cases.

"Just 5.3 per cent of rape allegations ended in a guilty verdict, according to the latest Home Office figures. And more than a third of cases sent to the Crown Court collapsed before the defendant reached the dock, often because victims were unable to face the ordeal of testifying.

The law was changed in 2000 to prevent women's sexual pasts being used to argue that they must have consented to have sex, after research showed that such details were often used to discredit victims. But Vera Baird QC, a Labour MP and leading criminal barrister, said a 'depressingly large' number of judges still considered sexual history relevant."

Are the only women who are to be believed in a rape case virgins or women who are not sexually active? It isn't right to judge sexually active women, and assume that they welcome every sexual encounter.

NARAL Pounces On FactCheck

So many other bloggers have covered the Roberts nomination so well that I saw no point in covering it myself. I'm sure he's going to end up on the Supreme Court. The Democrats are doing little if anything to prevent a virulently anti-choice judge from getting appointed, and some so-called liberal male bloggers are brushing aside abortion as an important issue - one that should be set aside for "more important things". Do these men really think that women are going to sit quietly and allow an issue of utmost importance to them be put on the back burner, and then when election time rolls around, vote for them while they pander to women on cue?

I saw this message from NARAL on Bitch Ph.D., and I thought it was worth repeating. While I'm glad to see NARAL squash everything claimed by FactCheck, I am concerned that so much attention has been shifted from the Roberts nomination and a woman's right to do what she feels is best for her own body. The talk has shifted from those important issues to the ad itself. We need to shift attention back to where it belongs.

On Monday, NARAL Pro-Choice America released our ad "Speaking Out" concerning John Roberts' record of siding with radical anti-choice groups in a critical Supreme Court case. By now you've likely seen an analysis of that ad from FactCheck.org. We wanted to share with you the attached document showing conclusively that their analysis was completely wrong. The basic fact about this case is incontrovertible: In his role as a top legal strategist for the first Bush Administration, Roberts put the U.S. Government on the side of individuals and organizations that had used violent tactics against women's health clinics -- in a case that was critical to efforts to curtail that violence.

FACTCHECK.ORG COULD USE A GOOD FACTCHECKER

Factcheck.org’s analysis of the television advertisement released by NARAL Pro-Choice America on August 8, 2005 is deeply flawed, and its conclusion that the "ad is false" is unsubstantiated and should be retracted. The analysis, written by Matthew Barge, identified as a recent college graduate(1), is riddled with legal and factual errors and in many instances virtually mirrors the White House’s talking points. One might disagree with the opinions stated in the ad or even have a different view of how John Roberts’ role in a particular case should be characterized; however, every factual statement made in NARAL Pro-Choice America's ad is completely accurate and supported by objective documents. The ad is not "false." John Roberts did indeed file briefs supporting violent fringe groups, with the effect of excusing their actions by helping to remove a crucial legal remedy that had been the most effective tool against them.

Some of the more glaring errors in Factcheck.org’s analysis are detailed below.

Factcheck.org Makes Factual Misstatement About "Clinic Bomber" Statement in Ad: Factcheck.org asserts that ad is false in part because Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic "didn’t deal with bombing at all." However, NARAL Pro-Choice America's ad never claimed that it did. What the ad did claim – and what is in fact true – is that John Roberts "sided with violent fringe groups, including a convicted clinic bomber." Long before Roberts involved himself in the case, Michael Bray, one of the named defendants in the Bray case, was convicted for his role in the bombings of several reproductive health facilities(2). John Roberts did, therefore, side with a convicted clinic bomber. He also sided with a violent fringe group - the violent history of Operation Rescue is well known.

Factcheck.org Falsely Suggests that Roberts Did Not Support Bray Defendants: In a puzzling statement, factcheck.org states that "the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber..." Mr. Barge further states that Roberts merely "made the same arguments as" the defendants. However, there is no question that Roberts sided with convicted bomber Michael Bray and the other defendants, and, in doing so, Roberts supported those defendants. The brief itself is titled "brief for the United States as amicus curiae supporting petitioners(3);" with the petitioners in this case of course being the defendants, including Michael Bray. The filing of an amicus brief is a discretionary act, and the office of the Solicitor General enjoys wide latitude in deciding whether to intervene as an amicus in any particular case. If the Solicitor General's office did not intend to support the Bray defendants, the office could have chosen to intervene on the side of the reproductive health clinics or not to intervene in the case at all.

Factcheck.org Makes Factual Misstatement About Timeline Used in Ad: Factcheck.org states that the "ad fails to mention that the 'court briefs' it mentions are actually from nearly seven years before the abortion clinic bombing talked about in the ad." As the sidebar to the factcheck.org article demonstrates, the date of the filing of the brief – April 11, 1991 – appears on screen as part of the overall image of the brief's cover. The year of the brief's filing is visible on-screen, as is evidenced by the date's inclusion in factcheck.org’s summary of the ad in its sidebar. Furthermore, the ad opens with the announcer stating that Ms. Lyons was injured in a bombing "seven years ago" and includes an image of the New Woman All Women Health Clinic and the date – January 29, 1998. There was no attempt by NARAL Pro-Choice America to misstate the timeline of events or to infer that Ms. Lyons’ injuries occurred as the result of the actions at issue in the Bray case.

Factcheck.org Makes Factual Misstatement About Roberts' Legal Argument: It is worth noting that even factcheck.org's legal description of the brief Roberts filed in the Bray case is not accurate. Mr. Barge states that Roberts argued that the act at issue in the case "applied only to conspiracies to deprive people of civil rights due to racial discrimination, not gender discrimination." In fact, that was not Roberts' position. Roberts actually argued that, regardless of whether gender discrimination was covered by the act at issue in the case, the clinic blockades were not gender discrimination at all. The brief states that the question of whether gender discrimination was actionable under the law was one that there was "no need to answer" in this case(4). The brief further adds that, even if the act at issue was "broad enough to reach gender-based animus, the actions taken by the petitioners are not a form of gender-based discrimination(5)."

Factcheck.org Minimizes John Roberts' Role in Filing of the Bray Brief: The ad states that "John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber." Mr. Barge states, without explanation but apparently in an attempt to minimize Roberts' role, that Roberts was "one of six Justice Department officials who submitted the brief." In fact, the ad is accurate when it says Roberts filed the brief – his name appears on the brief itself. Furthermore, Roberts was the second in command at the Solicitor General's office, a senior political appointee largely responsible for shaping legal strategy. Roberts appeared to have been the office's point person on its strategy around the clinic violence issue – appearing twice before the Supreme Court to argue the Bray case and making media appearances to defend his office's position(6).

Factcheck.org Minimizes Operation Rescue's Lawlessness: Factcheck.org paints a grossly misleading picture of the nature of Operation Rescue "protestors." At the time of Bray, reproductive health clinics were under siege by anti-choice extremists. In many cases, state law enforcement was outnumbered, overpowered, and overwhelmed, despite their best efforts. For example, in their amicus brief in Bray, the State Attorneys General of Virginia and New York pleaded to the Supreme Court to make federal civil rights laws and remedies available to reproductive health clinics and other victims of Operation Rescue's lawlessness. They insisted that "[n]o state, or group of states, is equipped alone to deal with and redress the deprivations of federal rights caused by the nationwide activity of Operation Rescue(7)."

The City of Falls Church, home to one of the plaintiff clinics in Bray that experienced clinic blockades on almost a weekly basis for five years(8), declared in its amicus brief that it could not effectively contend with Operation Rescue's "military-style tactics." During blockades that local law enforcement were unable to effectively handle, Falls Church reported that "[s]ome [patients] suffered physical injury, locked captive in cars that could not move through the parking lot, or bunkered inside the clinic from which medical personnel seeking to treat them had been denied access… It was only when the federal court in this case entered its injunction under §1985(3) against the blockades and those that would act in furtherance of them that these disturbances ceased(9)."

Factcheck.org Is Profoundly Misguided To State That Operation Rescue's Behavior Is Akin to the Civil Rights Movement: Mr. Barge states that Operation Rescue's actions "in some ways mirrored the non-violent tactics used earlier by civil-rights activists." This restatement of anti-choice extremists' talking points is clearly untrue. As Justice Stevens wrote in Bray, "the demonstrations in the 1960's were motivated by a desire to extend the equal protection of the laws to all classes – not to impose burdens on any disadvantaged class... The suggestion that there is an analogy between their struggle to achieve equality and these petitioners' concerted efforts to deny women equal access to a constitutionally protected privilege may have rhetorical appeal, but it is insupportable on the record before us...(10)" Justice Stevens also noted that Bray "presents a striking contemporary example of the kind of zealous, politically motivated, lawless conduct that led to the enactment of the Ku Klux Act in 1871 and gave it its name(11)." Similarly, Justice O'Connor likened Operation Rescue's behavior to the Ku Klux Klan, noting that "[l]ike the Klan conspiracies Congress tried to reach in enacting §1985(3), '[p]etitioners intended to hinder a particular group in the exercise of their legal rights because of their membership in a specific class(12).'"

Footnotes:
(1) Annenberg Political Fact Check, About Us Factcheck.org, (last visited Aug. 10, 2005); Chris Wooley, McCain Talks to WBTB, THE HOYA (last visited Aug. 10, 2005).

(2) Bray was convicted of two counts of conspiracy and one count of possessing unregistered explosive devices. The court sentenced him to 10 years in prison and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $43,782. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned his conviction on a technicality relating to jury selection. Before he was retried, Bray entered a plea that resulted in him serving 46 months in prison. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Extremist Biography: Michael Bray (Feb. 2, 2005) (last visited Aug. 10, 2005); National Abortion Federation, Anti-Abortion Extremists/The Army of God and Justifiable Homicide (last visited Aug. 10, 2005); National Abortion Federation, History of Violence/Arsons and Bombings (last visited Aug. 10, 2005); Sandy Banisky, Bowie Family Condones Anti-Abortion Violence, BALTIMORE SUN, Oct. 9, 1994, at 1A.

(3) Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, No. 90-985 (Apr. 11, 1991) (emphasis added).

(4) Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, No. 90-985 (Apr. 11, 1991).

(5) Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, No. 90-985 (Apr. 11, 1991).

(6) See e.g., Gwen Ifill, 1871 Law at Issue in Abortion Debate, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 11, 1991, at 16; MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour Transcript #4133, Aug. 7, 1991.

(7) Brief of the Attorneys General of the State of New York and the Commonwealth of Virginia as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, No. 90-985 (May 13, 1991).

(8) National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, 726 F. Supp. 1483, 1489 (1989).

(9) Brief for Falls Church, Virginia as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, No. 90-985 (May 13, 1991).

(10) Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 344-45 (1993) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

(11) Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 313 (1993) (Stevens, J., dissenting).

(12) Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 349 (1993) (O’Connor, J., dissenting).

Padlock A Guy's Balls, Panic. Padlock A Woman's Uterus, Make It Law

I lost a great opportunity in my post about the guy whose balls were padlocked to make a great point about women's reproduction. MediaGirl was way ahead of me.

You have to laugh, right?

So wait. Let's flip it around. Let's say instead of taking it off, the authorities are putting the lock on to the man's testicles.

Then let's say instead of a man's testicles, the lock is going on the woman's womb.

Oh wait, that is okay, right? Why?

She's right. In some states, women can't get their prescriptions for birth control filled at the pharmacy because the pharmacist has "ethical objections" related to abortion, even though birth control is legal in this country. Pharmacists are vetoing decisions made by a woman, with the help of her doctor. We have a possible new Supreme Court justice who may vote to repeal Roe v. Wade. The Bush administration has worked hard to prevent information about birth control and abortion from being given out freely in this country and oversees. We have an administration that values a vaguely defined "life" of a blastocyte over the livelihood of adult women. MediaGirl's analogy is very apt.

Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't

Amanda at Pandagon links to a post by Lauren at Feministe about the ageless double-bind working moms and stay-at-home moms are in. I've been both a stay-at-home and working mom while married and divorced, in varying degrees. Having a supportive partner goes a long way to making either working or staying at home with the kids a pleasant proposition. I did not have the support of my ex-husband no matter what I did. I have the support of my current husband, and it makes all the difference in the world. I've noticed that the political and media pundits act as if stay-at-home and working moms live in some kind of vacuum - that she alone is responsible for whether or not her kids turn out fine. Those pundits forget that raising children is supposed to be a group effort. While it can be done alone, it's great to have help. I am very grateful to my husband for doing his part in raising his stepson. My son knows who his dad is, and he knows that my husband is not replacing dad in any way. That's one criticism mothers in my situation often hear from fathers' rights activists - we supposedly want our new husbands to replace dad. That is most definitely not true. Any fathers' rights activist saying that either has some doubts about his own ability to properly raise his kids, or he's hiding some ugly secrets he conveniently leaves out when discussing what a great guy he is to his fellow fathers' rights activists on the Internet.

I'm tired of reading about how I am selfish if I work outside the home, and that I'm a leech if I stay at home to raise my son. I'm tired of reading about mothers who supposedly "let" day care raise their children, yet if they forego paid employment to raise their children, they are treated as if they have nothing of interest to add to a conversation. They're damned no matter what they do.

Those who criticize working mothers act as if all of these mothers are pursuing highly-paid careers, and would rather have meetings, business travel to exotic locations, huge McMansions, enough money to buy a new SUV, cell phones, cable TV, and other luxuries. The fact is that most people, male or female, don't have dream jobs. Most people don't have highly paid exciting careers you see in the movies. That's a fantasy. Most jobs are much more down-to-earth and mundane than that. I remember reading somewhere that feminism will achieve its goal when women have the same right as men to be paid the same amount of money to work at a dull job.

I've noticed that these articles point fingers at mothers who work to obtain "luxuries", all the while dumping the kids in day care. The moms, defensive, say they don't buy "luxuries" but "necessities". I don't think moms need to be defensive about this. I'm certainly not. I say, what business is it of some pundit or nosy neighbor to judge me for eating out, buying a new car, investing in collectibles, or buying a new DVD player? It's none of your fucking business. If you don't approve of buying "luxuries", than don't buy them. Just keep your snotty opinions to yourself.

On the other hand, mothers are urged to stay home to raise the kids - as long as they are not poor. Poor mothers who stay at home are called welfare queens. That term might not be said aloud in "polite company" today, but the attitude is still there. One reason welfare reform is successful because it plays on the ugly stereotype of the welfare queen. Taxpayers complain that welfare mothers should work because they - the taxpayer - doesn't want to pay for their children. Guess what - you already are. You're paying for children whose mothers are not on welfare, too. You're paying for their educations, science equipment, school books, teachers, adminstrators, transportation, and sometimes their meals. When those children begin working, they will begin paying towards Social Security that you will use. Maybe when it's time for you to go to Happy Acres Nursing Home, those children you refused to "pay for" should have the option of not putting any of their hard-earned cash towards Social Security. Then you'll see how it feels.

I admit that I prefer working motherhood to being a stay-at-home mom. When I was a SAHM, I was so bored I climbed the walls. I became involved in local theatre groups both before and after my pregnancy, and learned about lighting, scenic art, and makeup. It was due to this volunteer work while I was a young mother that I eventually earned money working on movies, concerts, television, and business conferences. I joined two unions. I commend SAHMs, but it just was not for me.

I have had mixed experiences related to working motherhood when I was a recent childless, unmarried college graduate. Back in the 1980s, I had worked for a company that wanted me to interview prospective employees for a clerical position, but my boss wanted me to find out if they had children. He didn't want to hire a woman with young children. This man's wife just gave birth to a baby girl, and he couldn't see the irony. I reminded him that what he wanted me to do was illegal, but he was adamant. I felt stuck. I was recently hired by the company myself, and I was very unsure of myself. I had interviewed one woman that I liked very much, but she had a young child. My boss didn't want to hire her. He chose a woman I really couldn't get along with, but she was childless. I was very young, naive, and too scared to do anything about this. I left the company soon after this incident. The company folded a few years after I left. I wasn't surprised. It turned out that the company played fast and loose with its accounting. This was years before Enron.

At my first job out of college, I worked with a woman who became pregnant, and she took full advantage over our boss's fear of a lawsuit to run roughshod over her co-workers, most notably me because when she wouldn't show up at work, I was stuck with all her work on top of mine. I had talked to my boss about this - we got along very well - but he was scared he'd face a discrimination lawsuit if he fired her. She did eventually clean up her act after a couple of chats, but I was still angry that she found a way to dump her work on me. She became pregnant again almost immediately after giving birth to her first child, and she quit her job a few months into that pregnancy. My work load immediately dropped to a more comfortable level, since my boss hired another secretary.

I've had my own experiences with motherhood while I was single and childless that left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Since having my son, my attitude has changed. I think with age, experience, confidence, and wisdom I would have handled those two situations much differently.

It seems that quite a bit of the motherhood discussion is due to boneheaded comments by Rick Santorum. He said that birth control is harmful to women and society and it's "not a healthy thing for our country." He recently wrote "It Takes A Family" and is presumably on a book tour. Sure, take away a woman's ability to decide when and if to bear a child, and once she bears the child, don't give her any social support. Don't give her adequate child care or maternity leave. The United States is one of the only countries (the other is Australia) that does not provide adequate maternity leave for mothers. According to media reports (see previous link for one), "The United States and Australia are the only industrialized countries that don't provide paid leave for new mothers nationally, although there are exceptions in some U.S. states. Australian mothers have it better, however, with one year of job-protected leave. The U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA, provides for 12 weeks of job-protected leave, but it covers only those who work for larger companies. To put it another way, out of 168 nations in a Harvard University study last year, 163 had some form of paid maternity leave, leaving the United States in the company of Lesotho, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland."

Vaginal vs. Oral Contraception

A preliminary study published in the July issue of Fertility and Sterility, as quoted by Reuters, indicates that "vaginal administration of emergency contraception might be an effective alternative to oral administration." [Via Jessica at Feministing.] This sounds like a good idea to me. Some women reported feeling nausea when taking oral contraceptives. I've never had that problem. Having an option regarding how to take the contraceptives is okay in my book.

Would A Repeal Of Roe Help Dems?

I'm not so sure that turning on women's right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is such a great thing for the Dems to do. I'm tired of being catered to by Dems during election time (because I'm female and I vote) only to be ignored the rest of the time.

Michael Stickings of The Reaction posted comments by a guest blogger, Morbo, who sees a repeal of Roe should Bush nominate an extreme conservative to the Supreme Court as a boost for the Dems. Here's what Morbo wrote:

Morbo: "[A] Bushified Supreme Court that starts trashing precedent in the area of reproductive choice might possibly provide the shock our political system needs to make people realize how scary the Republican Party's agenda really is... For too long, some moderates have felt they could vote for the GOP for fiscal reasons, even if they disagreed with that party's rigid stance on social issues... Perhaps when the Supreme Court can no longer be counted on to take a moderate course, [these moderates] will wake up, start living in the real world and confront the question they have so far evaded: What matters more to me -- my fundamental rights as a human being or a tax cut?" (Read the whole post. It's an interesting argument.)

In other words: In loss, Democrats will triumph. Well, maybe. I'm moderately pro-choice myself, and Morbo makes a good case that too much success will ultimately spell the Republicans' demise, but a) I still think Bush will nominate Gonzales; b) I don't think that Roe will ever be fully overturned -- there's no guarantee that a conservative like Luttig or McConnell would actually vote to overturn Roe (even if he or she would likely allow for further restrictions on abortion); and c) I've made the case -- to friends, if not yet at The Reaction -- that Republican over-reach on abortion, including a possible overturning of Roe by a more conservative Court, could blow the Republican "majority" to smithereens, but I'm awfully reluctant to take that risk for the sake of possible triumph down the road (after all, Morbo and I could be wrong).

Either way, it could be that Democrats/liberals will win... on abortion (if winning means maintaining Roe). And abortion is, to many, the key issue here -- for social conservatives and for many on the left. The problem is that an excessively conservative replacement for the moderate-pragmatic O'Connor would shift the Court's balance further to the right on many other issues. Abortion isn't the be all and end all of American jurisprudence, after all, and a more conservative Court -- a Court that embraces right-wing radicalism -- could end up wreaking havoc on American liberalism well beyond the single issue of reproductive choice.

And that's a bad thing.

I ask why can't the Dems see how bad the reactionary Republicans are now? Why would it take a repeal of Roe to get the Dems off their asses? I really don't like my reproductive organs to be used in this manner by politicians for political gain. Why wait until Roe is a thing of the past to take action? Abortion is legal, and I believe it should stay legal. I'm tired of seeing women's rights used to play political football this way.

Anti-Choice Adoption Agency Rejects Catholics

Update: Oops, my bad. Jill wrote that post at Feministe, not Lauren.

-----

Although I no longer practice the faith, I was raised Catholic. As far as I know, Catholics and evangelical Christians honor the same God. So why would an anti-choice adoption group turn away Catholics who want to adopt? I have heard of this kind of discrimination before, but I never understood it. Maybe it's the focus on the Virgin Mary, the saints, and odd practices such as confirmation, the May procession, and the Blessing of the Throats that places Catholics in a different realm than Christians (Protestants?). I have no idea. If someone reading has an answer, please post in comments.

I agree with Lauren. She went to the agencies web site, and found that it's mission statement included these words: "Members of the national board, local boards, staff and adoptive applicants indicate their personal agreement with Bethany's Statement of Faith". Lauren said that "this statement not only requires that potential adoptive parents be Christian, but that they be anti-choice as well. So the agency isn't just discriminating against Catholics, as the news article implied — they're discriminating against Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, pro-choice people, and anyone else who doesn't share their exact vision of the world, as dictated by their Bible. But I guess that's not news."

And evangelicals wonder why so many people are turned off by them. I can't stand that superior attitude. It's not like evangelicals honor a God different from Catholics. Last time I checked, they worshiped the same God. So why discriminate against Catholics?

Women Are Catching Up

Not only are women outpacing men in the fields of law, medicine, and clergy, they are better investors than men. According to BBC, "women investors are consistently better at investing in shares than men, a survey has said. The study, by financial website Digital Look, said women were more successful because they tended to back a balanced portfolio instead of more risky stocks. The average woman's share portfolio grew by 17% in the year to 27 May, the survey found, while the average man's rose by just 11%. Over the same period, the FTSE Allshare index climbed by 13%."

The survey found that women "built up balanced share collections, favouring leisure, food and drink, and utility firms." Men were more attracted to risky investment in fads, such as mining, oil, and gas. Those areas are very volatile, and recently they have lost ground. Women tend to not favor fads such as these.

[via Feministing.]

Genia Shockome To Be Released From Jail Tonight

I've just been notified via e-mail that Genia Shockome is going to be released from jail at about midnight tonight. She's being released now based on the 2/3 rule - 1/3 time off for good behavior. There will be protesters rallying in her support at the jail when she is released tonight.

If anyone reading has no clue who Genia Shockome is, just plug her name into my "search" engine in my sidebar to read more about her case.

You Have Got To Be Kidding Me

Update: Oh, darn it. It turns out that this is a hoax. I was hoping some low-life would waste a hundred bucks or more on granny panties, and find out that his wife wasn't cheating on him after all.

---

A commenter had alerted me to this. Apparently, a Japanese company has created a set of panties, "Forget Me Not" panties that have a tracking device for their wives and girlfriends that have a tracking device in them. The tracking devise is in the little flower embedded in the panties. That way, they can monitor their wives or girlfriend's activities, since these guys who buy them may think the women are cheating on them. What an invasion of privacy! Of course, control freak abusive guys often think their women are cheating on them when they don't know where they are every second of the day. These panties are insane.

They're not cheap. The "basic" pair costs $99.99. The "advanced" pair with heat and heart rate sensors (!!!) costs $179.99. Seven basics cost $650.00. Seven advanced pairs costs $1,190. Now rich men can violate their wive's and girlfriend's privacy by spending a wad of cash on these panties.

I don't know how well they sell.

Here's the blurb from the web site.

protect her privates
Ever worry about your wife cheating?
Want to know where your daughter is late at night?
Need to know when your girlfriend's temperature is rising?

This amazing device will answer all of your questions! These panties can give you her location, and even her temperature and heart rate, and she will never even know it's there! Unlike the cumbersome and uncomfortable chastity belts of the past, these panties are 100% cotton, and use cutting-edge technology to help you protect what matters most.

make sure you will never be forgotten

forget-me-not panties™ have built-in GPS and unique sensor technology giving you the forget-me-not advantage.

I'm just speechless. This is way over the top. If any women get a pair of white panties with a little flower embedded on them as a "gift," beware.

PZ Myers Just Slays Me

Update: PandaAmanda gutted the cretin with an ice cream scoop. Ha ha! That was loads of fun to read.

---

I just finished reading PZ Myers' hosting at Pharyngula of The Eighth Skeptic's Circle. The post itself was very interesting and informative, as I knew it would be.

What really amused me was the cretin who trolled his comments. I've had my own personal run-ins with this particular cretin, who engages in ad hominem attacks, baseless claims without any valid resource material to back them up, and loads of logic fallacies. I was a favorite target of his for a couple of years, before he started his blog. He came after me on my blog before, and I just laughed. He trolls to disrupt blogs, mailing lists, and bulletin boards. He also trolls to attract people to his blog. PZ figured him out real fast. He asked commenters to ignore him, but not until after he filleted him with a butter knife. I won't name him or link to him. Why give him the attention he craves? Just go to the Skeptic's Circle link. You'll figure out who it is right away.

One thing this guy claimed is that women and men earn about equal pay without stating the rest of the facts. That's a common lie told by anti-feminists, in particular the Independent Women's Forum. In fact, this guy cited IWF as his "source." That was laughable. I had to say something, since I was enjoying watching him getting keel-hauled so thoroughly. This is what I wrote:

I see you're enjoying yourself poking holes in RB's drivel, PZ (and everyone else here). I've known him for years, from his men's and fathers' rights nonsense. He's a gnat.

Check this out:

RB, citing the Independent Women's Forum (an anti-feminist group):

"A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job."

RB conveniently left out the fact that the 98% figure refers to recent college grads in low-paying, entry level jobs. These are people who have never married, with no children, and little job experience. In those kinds of jobs, women earn 98% of what men earn. As they progress in their careers, marry, and have children, women's wages drop to 76 cents to the man's dollar. This drop is due to both discrimination against women and women taking on the bulk of the responsibilities inherent in childrearing that men overall do not take on.

Here's my cite: "The Pay Gap - Causes, Consequences and Actions New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women" (Canada). This is a PDF file.

Excerpt:

Both sexes begin their careers with similar, low, earnings. It is after their mid-twenties that the gap progressively widens. Canadian women aged 15 to 24 who worked full-time full-year in 1994 earned $19,269, 90% of what men earn, while women aged 55 and over earned $26,000, 65% of what men earn. As women age, their earnings remain almost static.

Marital status is another, related, factor. Never-married (single but not necessary childless) women who work full-time earn 92% of what never-married men earn: both earn a relatively low wage. Never-married men, never-married women and married women all earn approximately the same (in Canada, $28-30,000; in N.B., $22-23,000 in full-time annual earnings), significantly less than married men (in Canada, $43,300; in N.B., about $37,000). Married men have higher average earnings than all other groups of men and women. No group of women, whether never-married, married, separated, young or old, earn as much as married men.

The relatively small population of never-married women aged 35 to 44 who work full-time full-year earn $32,200, which is 85% of what never-married men their age earn and 72% of what all men their age earn; never-married women aged 45 to 54 earn $36,000, which is 93% of what never-married men their age earn and 78% of what all men their age earn. Higher levels of education correlate with higher earnings for both men and women. Women with post-secondary qualifications have higher average earnings than other women, but they have lower earnings than similarly qualified men. Canadian women with university degrees who worked full-time full-year in 1994 earned $40,252 or 72% of what men earned.

(Never-married, therefore mostly young, women with university degrees who worked full-time full-year earned $38,871 or 95% of what their never-married male counterparts earned in 1994. Married university-educated females, an older group, earned 68% of what their male counterparts earned.) A study of one class of university graduates revealed that the women's earnings were slightly higher on average than the men's, but even for these highly educated workers, the gap widened progressively over time.

As usual, RB plays fast and loose with the facts.

Just for kicks, everyone check out this page - The Pig Page. Scroll down to get a photo and some choice flotsam from dear old RB.

Fathers' Rights - In Their Own Words

PZ said "huh?" to an entry by Dean from Dean's World. Specifically, the entry was by Trudy Schuett, of the anti-feminist DesertLight Journal. Here is what PZ had to say about that entry:

However, this article from Dean's World on Men's Issues and Stats has but one virtue: irony. Look at these opening lines in disbelief.

It seems the ignorance of feminists is not only alive and well, but growing at an astonishing rate. Or maybe it’s deliberate, this dissemination of obvious untruth. I vote for the deliberate, as I’ve never met a feminist or women’s shelter advocate yet who could hold an entire conversation without resorting to at least one fabrication.

If you must read further, watch the phony strawman go up in the second paragraph, too. Ouch.

Schuett had cited a bibliography by Martin Fiebert as "proof" that men and women are equally abusive. That bibliography has been making the rounds of men's rights web sites for aeons. What its supporters don't say is that most of the "research" cited in that bibliography utilized the Conflict Tactic Scales (CTS) in order to come to their conclusions. The CTS is rife with problems, the least of which is that they isolate individual physical "hits" between men and women in a relationship without taking the hits within the context of the abusive incident or abusive relationship. They also don't consider other, existing problems of domestic violence, such as emotional, mental, legal, and economic abuse. They don't consider sexual assault or rape in their tabulations. They don't consider the severity of a physical "hit," counting a slap as the same as a hard punch that leaves bruising or worse. Strauss, Gelles, and Steinmetz are the researchers who created the CTS. Gelles himself has said the following regarding the CTS and men's rights types who take them out of context in their drive to "prove" that men and women are equally abusive:

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FACTOIDS
by Richard J. Gelles
University of Rhode Island Family Violence Research Program

[Excerpt]
MYTH: WOMEN ARE AS VIOLENT AS ARE MEN, AND
WOMEN INITIATE VIOLENCE AS OFTEN AS DO MEN.

"This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men."

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
NOT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD
By Richard J. Gelles

"[S]elf-described battered husbands, men’s rights group members and some scholars maintain that there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data."

[...]

"[W]hen we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of "battered" men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men."

Despite the fact that nowhere with any validity is it believed that men and women are equally abusive, men's rights types still like to trot out that nonsense. I wasn't surprised to see the "men and women are equally abusive" crap (and Fiebert's bibliography) mentioned at DesertLight Journal. That's where I expect to see it. All I did was roll my eyes when I saw the name "Fiebert." I knew right away what it was.

I haven't entered the Skeptic's Circle yet with a post, but I may enter one this week, as soon as I learn what the topics are. I've been lax in entering posts for Tangled Bank. It's time for me to enter that one again.

Feminism and Married Surnames

Eugene Volokh is asking married feminist women who had chosen their husband's last names to explain why, and if this contracts feminist thought. [Via Lauren at Feministe.] I don't think it contradicts feminism. Most of the women who had commented stated that they chose their husband's last names to allay any confusion regarding their children. A family with the same last name reinforces the family unit. Some women had maiden names they did not like, and chose their husband's names, which were easier to pronounce or not embarrassing, as their own last name.

I took on my ex-husband's last name as my last name, and I used my maiden name as my middle name. I liked the sound of it. If my husband's name was something dreadful like "Glotfelty" I probably would not have used it. I knew a guy in college named Dave Glotfelty. Once, when we were out buying ingredients for a pizza, he asked me what I wanted on it. I told him he'd probably gag, but I wanted anchovies. He froze, and stared at me. I thought he was going to go into a tirade about people who like to eat food that watches them while they eat it. I've heard that one before when I begged for anchovies on a pizza. Instead, he asked me if I played chess. I was thinking, "what the hell?" Yes, I played chess, although not very well. He then got down on his knees - in the middle of the refrigerated section in the grocery store - and asked me to marry him. I said "no," and told him to get up because he was embarrassing me. He then told me that he met women who liked anchovies, and he met women who could play chess. However, he had never met a woman who both liked anchovies and could play chess. He said that the moment he met such a woman, he was going to ask her to marry him, no matter where he was at the time. I gently turned him down (knew he was joking though), and we got our anchovies, ran back to my dorm room, and gorged on anchovy pizza. He begged me to play a game of chess with him, but I wasn't in the mood.

I would never have taken his last name as my own, even if I had married him, because it sounded dorky. Trish Glotfelty. Yuck.

I haven't taken my current husband's last name because I'm too well known in my professional circle by my first name and maiden name. Changing my name to include his last name would just make things confusing for me. However, I might take his last name for legal and purely vanity purposes, since he is descended from a Hungarian count. By marriage, I am a countess, even though the family lost its fortune years ago. The title is yet another one of those Eastern European worthless titles you've read about. It's a really cool name, too. With a cool accent over one letter. I'd pronounce it in Hungarian, not English.

Heh. I am a countess. Bow down and kiss my ring.

Attacking Women's Reproductive Freedom From All Sides

It's not news that abortion and contraception are under assault in this country. Everyone has already read the story of L.G., the 13 year old Florida girl who is being denied an abortion. The judge recently ruled in the girl's favor to have her abortion, but the State of Florida immediately appealed the decision. The idea is to stall a legal medical procedure to the point that she will be far enough in her pregnancy so that she will not be able to get her abortion.

Randall Terry recently emerged from obscurity to write to President Bush about L. G. Terry and other anti-choice zealots were sued by NOW in the Schiedler case. NOW v. Schiedler ruled that "three national leaders in the anti-abortion movement committed acts of extortion against abortion clinics and damaged their ability to do business." I wrote about NOW v. Schieder for Feminista:

"Named were Operation Rescue and the Pro-Life Action League (PLAN), as well as three top members of PLAN - Joseph Scheidler (founder), Timothy Murphy and Andrew Scholberg. Randall Terry (founder of Operation Rescue and former used- car salesman), was originally named in the lawsuit, but he settled with NOW in January because he was already facing $169,000 in court awards from two other abortion-related lawsuits. Part of the settlement included his agreement to not participate in any criminal activity against abortion clinics, their staffs or patients or belong to any group that does. If he would have violated that agreement, which he did not, the cost would have been an additional $15,000 on top of amounts he already owed as well as allowing NOW to reinstate him as a defendant. Now the the case has closed, the question remains whether Terry will go back to his abortion-related criminal activity. If he's wise, he won't."

I also wrote this about Terry:

Randall Terry in and of himself is an interesting figure to watch. Raised in the suburbs of Rochester, New York, he grew up around strong women. In the words of one of his aunts, Terry was "raised at the knee of feminists." Three feminists, to be exact: his aunts, Diane, Dawn, and Dale. They fought for civil rights, peace, and women's equality during the 1970s. They launched the first women's studies program at Buffalo State University.

More than any other issue, they focused on reproductive freedom for women. With a delightful sense of irony, it should be noted that Terry's aunt, Dawn Marvin, was a former communications director of the Rochester, NY chapter of Planned Parenthood.

In contrast to the gains being made by women in the 1970s, which were personified in Terry's mind due to the success of his aunts, Terry himself sold used cars (or "jalopies," to use Faludi's preferred word). He also scooped ice cream, sold tires, and flipped burgers. He had attempted to launch a career as a singer, but that dream fell through. This is a man who saw women (and other men) striving for and in some cases achieving their goals and dreams, whereas he could not pay his bills. His wife also worked, which probably further angered him that he could not make it without the assistance of a mere woman.

In the midst of his search for meaning in his life, he found God. He also found a way of denouncing feminism as responsible for the problems he was having, insisting that working women brought on the destruction of the family, even though his own wife worked. She had to work -- Terry was not making enough money to make ends meet. It wasn't until he founded Operation Rescue that the money -- in the form of donations -- began to pour in. At last, he found his calling in life, and it came with a regular, fat paycheck.

Faludi reports instances of Terry and a group of church-goers making daily visits to clinics in 1985, and spraying the locks with Krazy Glue. They would follow clinic employees to and from the building. "One day," Faludi wrote, "they stormed the clinic, smashed the furniture, ripped out the phones, and locked themselves in the counseling room. The police had to break the door down. During still another protest, one of the Operation Rescue activists, a young man, leaped in a window and punched a five-months pregnant woman in the stomach. She was taken to the hospital in an ambulance -- and miscarried three weeks later."

The RICO section of this ruling was later overturned, but it did push Terry far into the background where he belongs. Now, thanks to publicity from the Terri Shiavo case (Sorry, I'm violating my own "Terry Schiavo Free Zone" rule because it's relevant. Excuse the lapse.), Terry is back in the news. Now, he's going after a 13 year old girl whom a judge had ruled has a right to get an abortion. Terry's comments are indented. Mine are in blue.

Governor Bush, under no circumstances should LG's baby be killed by abortion. I am begging you to not allow a repeat of the Terry Schindler fiasco, which results in the death of another innocent person.
Please Mr. Governor, use every means at your disposal to ensure that this innocent unborn child is brought to full-term, and delivered alive. Pro-abortion zealots at the ACLU and pro-abortion judges must not be allowed to snuff out the life of this unique human being.

Terry's trying to regain his fifteen minutes of fame. A fetus is a "unique human being," but L.G. is nothing more than an incubator. That's what this line of thinking leads to.

Moreover, it is clear that LG is a deeply troubled young woman. God knows that she is probably the victim of multiple sexual crimes against her. If she is not already there, she is certainly on track for a long list of self-abusive and self-destructive behaviors which could (God forbid) bring her life to a tragic and premature end.

So Randall Terry knows L. G.? If he really cares about her, why hasn't he offered to adopt her child? Of course he hasn't. That's not his goal. His goal is to prevent women (and girls like L. G.) from making their own decisions about their reproduction. That's what anti-choice zealots like him do - they are "pro-birth," and once the birth is done, they wash their hands of the woman and the "baby" they were so eager to "save."

Conservatives love to blame unwed teen mothers for every social ill out there. You've seen "fatherlessness" statistics. They blame single mother homes for juvenile crime, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, school dropout rates, and alcohol and drug addiciton. You've seen the fake stats before. They go something like this:

Children born in fatherless homes are...

1. Eight times more likely to go to prison.
2. Five times more likely to commit suicide.
3. Twenty times more likely to have behavioral problems.
4. Twenty times more likely to become rapists.
5. 32 times more likely to run away.
6. Ten times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
7. Nine times more likely to drop out of high school.
8. 33 times more likely to be seriously abused.
9. 73 times more likely to be fatally abused.
10. One-tenth as likely to get A's in school.
11. On average have a 44% higher mortality rate.
12. On average have a 72% lower standard of living.

So, L. G. would get shit for getting an abortion, and she would get shit for having the baby. She's being condemned no matter what she does.

If she is permitted or pressured into having this abortion, it will be one more mountain of guilt that she will have to carry on her young back. This will be a horrifying, defining moment for her, which will bring no long term relief or solutions to her turbulent life, and will only compound her grief and the emotional crises she will face in the future.

I'm so thrilled that Randall Terry knows so much about a girl he's never met to make these kinds of patronizing judgments about her. He doesn't really give a shit. She is just a platform for him to stand on to spread his anti-woman views. He obviously doesn't know her at all. She made quite an impression on the judge, who, unlike Terry, had actually spoken to her:

L.G.: Why can’t I make my own decision?
Judge Alvarez: I don’t know.
L.G.: You don’t know? Aren’t you the judge?

* * *

Department of Children and Family Services: The Department of Children and Families has the custodial responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the child.
L.G.: I think if I want to make the decision, it’s my business and I can do that. It would make no sense to have the baby. I don’t think I should have the baby because I’m 13, I’m in a shelter and I can’t get a job. DCF would take the baby anyway [but] if I do have it, I’m not going to let them take it.

* * *

L.G.: Since you guys are supposedly here for the best interest of me, then wouldn’t you all look at that fact that it’d be more dangerous for me to have the baby than to have an abortion?
Judge Alvarez: A good point.
OBGYN: At her age and at her stage of gestation … her risk of death from an abortion procedure is about 1 in 34,000. The risk of death in pregnancy is about 1 in 10,000.

* * *

Judge Alvarez (paraphrase): Who is the father?
L.G.: That’s not really necessary.

She sounds like she is perfectly capable of making decisions about her body without the interference of snotty publicity-seekers like Randall Terry.

For whatever reasons that Providence has permitted, the eyes of the nation continue to focus on life and death issues in Florida, and hence on you as our Governor. I pray that you will be a stalwart champion for life and justice, unflinching in the face of criticism, a man equal to the battles the lie before you.
Please fight for this baby's life, and do not surrender this unborn child to the hands of his would-be slayers under any circumstances.

The judge in this case has just ruled in favor of L. G., permitting her to have her abortion. Of course, the State jumped in immediatey and appealed the ruling. Humping Jeb Bush's leg with flattery like calling him a "stalward champion for life and justice" is just Terry's smarmy attempt to force himself into the issue. What concerns me most is that this girl is going to see her case stalled indefinitely until she is unable to get her abortion. That's what anti-choice zealots do now - they know that abortion is a legal medical procedure, so they'll prevent women and girls from controlling their own reproduction by stalling their cases through the courts as long as they can, and by denying women and girls much-needed valid information about birth control and reproduction in favor of abstinence-only "education" (garbage) and by saluting pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Abortion is legal for the moment, but that hasn't stopped anti-choice zealots from doing everything they can to stall or disallow a legal medical procedure as well as preventing women from getting the health information and birth control that they need.

Abstinence-only education. Pharmacists and their "conscience clauses" that apply only to birth control pills but not condoms. Preventing a girl from getting an abortion she is perfectly capable of deciding about on her own.

Posted on May 3, 2005 at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack

April 30, 2005

It's "The Handmaid's Tale" Again

There is no doubt that women are being turned into incubators these days. This is what rape victims at Catholic hospitals in Colorado are going through: [Via Feministe.]

Imagine two rape victims taken to the same hospital emergency room. Imagine them put in adjoining examination rooms.

Let’s say they have identical injuries.

Presume everything about them is the same except for where they are in their menstrual cycles.

Do they deserve access to the same medical treatment?

At most Catholic hospitals in Colorado, they can’t get it.

The protocol of six Catholic hospitals run by Centura calls for rape victims to undergo an ovulation test.

If they have not ovulated, said Centura corporate spokeswoman Dana Berry, doctors tell the victims about emergency contraception and write prescriptions for it if the patient asks.

If, however, the urine test suggests that a rape victim has ovulated, Berry continued, doctors at Centura’s Catholic hospitals are not to mention emergency contraception. That means the victim can end up pregnant by her rapist.

Posted on April 30, 2005 at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack

April 29, 2005

Not Mature Enough For An Abortion, But Mature Enough To Have A Baby?

A social services agency in Florida was granted a court order to prevent a 13 year old girl from getting an abortion. The ACLU has filed an emergency appeal. [Via Bitch, Ph.D.]

Get a load of this: "The state agency argued the 13 1/2-week pregnant girl — described as L.G. in court documents — is too young and immature to make an informed medical decision, according to the ACLU appeal."

So she's too "young and immature" to get an abortion, but she's mature enough to have a baby? Give me a break. She's a girl, not a breed mare. This is just another attack on a woman's right to have a legal medical procedure, namely, an abortion.

In case you were wondering, in 2003, the Florida Supreme Court "struck down a law requiring parents to be notified if their minor daughters seek an abortion."

Posted on April 29, 2005 at 01:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack

April 28, 2005

Men's Rights Group Loses Final Attack Against Women's Shelters

I have written about Free Men's attacks against California women's shelters in the past. Mens' rights groups aren't interested in helping abused men. They attack women's shelters by getting an "abused" man to file a complaint that he was refused services, and then the men's groups attack the women's shelter, claiming it is biased against men. Men's groups also claim that women's shelters violate the Constitution. Courts have rejected their arguments each time.

Here are the previous posts on the subject:

Men's Rights Attack Against Domestic Violence Shelters Dismissed

Another Attack By Men's Rights Activists On Domestic Violence Shelters Unsuccessful

NATIONAL COALITION OF FREE MEN SUFFERS FINAL DEFEAT

(Los Angeles, CA) Today the California Supreme Court denied review to a men's rights group seeking to challenge the women only policy at several Los Angeles shelters for battered women and their children.

The lawsuit claimed that the shelters engaged in illegal sex discrimination. The shelters, however, receive gender specific funding from the state for very good reasons.

The Battered Women's Protection Act specifically funds shelters for women and children. The act is gender specific because women in crisis have particular privacy and safety needs. The shelters sometimes have communal bathrooms and bedrooms, many children with abusive fathers fear men, and batterers could easily find their victim if they were allowed access to the shelters.

The California Women's Law Center and O'Melveny and Myers LLP, representing the shelters pro bono, argued successfully to the California State Court of Appeal that the case had no merit.

"The Legislature has recognized that women and children need private shelters during this time of crisis in their lives and provides funding accordingly. In the event that the National Coalition of Free Men wish to open their own shelter, they are free to do so," said Katie Buckland, Executive Director of the California Women's Law Center.

State Senator Sheila Kuehl said, "I am pleased with today's court decision. Battered women shelters have been designed for women and their children for very good reasons- the preservation of safety, privacy, and peace, as well as the numerically greater need for places for women and children."

Posted on April 28, 2005 at 08:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Canadian Govt. Approves Plan B For OTC Sale

Canada does the right thing, while American women have to suffer through pharmacists and their "conscience clauses." Pharmacists continue to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, thereby discriminating against mothers and disobeying a doctor's orders. Birth control and abortion are legal in the United States, but both are getting to be harder to come by.

Canadian Government Approves OTC Status for Emergency Contraception

Canada's federal government announced on Tuesday that it will now allow emergency contraception (EC) to be available over-the-counter (OTC) to women for the prevention of unwanted pregnancy. EC, sold under the name Plan B and distributed by Paladin Labs Inc. in Canada, will be kept behind the counter and dispensed without a prescription from a pharmacist.

"Given the significant psychological, social and economic impact of improving access to emergency contraction for women across Canada, this is a significant step forward in women's rights and health," Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada said, reports the Canadian Press. According to the society, one in two pregnancies in Canada is unintended.

EC has previously been available over-the-counter in three Canadian provinces British Columbia, Quebec, and Saskatchewan. The Canadian Pressreports that the number of women who used EC in British Columbia per year more than doubled after it was made available without a prescription in 2000, preventing hundreds of abortions.

In the United States, US Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) have vowed to block the confirmation of Lester Crawford, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner nominee, until a decision is made on granting over-the-counter status to emergency contraception (EC).

Crawford, who is currently serving as acting commissioner of the FDA, would not commit to when the FDA will resolve the issue of over-the-counter (OTC) status for Plan B.

The Feminist Majority Foundation leads a national drive on college campuses to increase the availability of EC for young women. The accessibility of EC has become all the more dire due to nationwide controversy as pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions on so-called religious grounds. EC is exceedingly safe and effective if taken within 5 days but it is most effective (95 percent) if taken within 24 hours after any unprotected sexual intercourse, when a condom breaks, or after a sexual assault. EC has the potential to cut in half the 3 million unintended pregnancies in the United States each year and prevent thousands of abortions a year.

Posted on April 28, 2005 at 08:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 25, 2005

Australia: Domestic Violence "Greatest Challenge"

Domestic violence 'greatest challenge'

23 Apr 5

AUSTRALIA is facing a great challenge from rising levels of domestic violence amid increasing fears over the breakdown of the family, says Justice Minister Chris Ellison.

Senator Ellison told a United Nations congress on crime prevention and criminal justice in Bangkok that the Federal Government was also to apply greater resources to indigenous communities facing family violence and child
protection.

"Domestic violence is perhaps one of the great challenges facing us in Australia and surveys have indicated that one in four women will be subject to domestic violence," Senator Ellison said.

In an address which largely outlined Australia's strategy on battling drug trafficking through both law enforcement and at the community level, Senator Ellison said the Government was looking to support local communities as well as capacity building.

"Australia attaches a high priority to combating domestic violence and sexual assault," he told congress delegates.

He said the Government's response was to increase community education and awareness programs, providing better training for community support groups and to improve the judicial system.

"Targeting family violence and child protection in indigenous communities is also a key priority," he said.

The "focus within safer communities" included family and domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, law and order, substance misuse and community governance and leadership.

In the work with indigenous communities include looking to create "safer communities and promoting coordination across levels of government and flexibility in the delivery of services that exist".

Senator Ellison said Australia was also continuing to attach high importance to addressing the problems of international illicit drug control.

His comments came a day after the release of the Australian Crime Commission's Illicit Drug Data Report on drug trends and seizures that pointed to increasing abuse of methamphetamines despite a fall in use of heroin in recent years.

The rise of methamphetamine abuse was also contributing to violent crime and domestic violence.

Posted on April 25, 2005 at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Equal Murder Rates Between Intimates? I Don't Think So

Barry at Alas A Blog has an excellent post up about men's rights claims that women murder men as much as men murder women. Apparently, men's rights activists who make this claim cite very old research from 1988 as their "proof," without noting that since the introduction of protections for abused women, such as domestic violence shelters and centers, that the rates of women murdering men has dropped significantly over the past seventeen years.

How did I know? Because I've read a lot of men's rights articles about "intimate partner homicide" (that's murdering a spouse, a girlfriend or a boyfriend), and nearly all of them use pre-1990 data. For instance, a quick search of two MRA (men's rights activist) websites - Men's Network.org and MenWeb - found seven articles arguing that women are about as likely as men to commit intimate murder. All of them used data from before 1990 to make their case. In fact, almost all of them used the same data set - a Bureau of Justice Statistics study of intimate homicide in 33 of the 75 largest-population (i.e., urban) counties, which was published in 1994 but used data gathered in 1988. The BJS has published more recent work - so why do the MRAs return to this one source over and over? (Or, if not this source, sources that also used urban data from before 1990?)

Because they want to prove - despite clear data, like these recent FBI figures, showing men are far more likely to murder wives and girlfriends than vice-versa - that men are "equal victims." (This relates, I believe, to a larger project of trying to show that patriarchy doesn't exist, women have nothing to complain about, etc.)

Go to Alas A Blog and read the rest of the post. Barry includes charts and lots of information about how the use of this old data is misleading. Women do not murder men in nearly equal number as men murdering women today.

Posted on April 25, 2005 at 08:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (123) | TrackBack

April 21, 2005

Women's Lives Aren't As Important As Gamecocks

Update: I Like *Nice* Men has also commented on this sordid business.

-----

I had read about this in e-mail this morning, but Sheelzebub also wrote to me to tell me about her post on this infuriating subject. In South Carolina, at this moment, cockfighting and beating women are both misdemeanors. However, a bill just passed that now makes cockfighting a felony. A bill that would have made beating women a felony was tabled. So, you will get five years in jail for cockfighting, but beating a woman remains a misdemeanor that will get you only thirty days in jail.

Over the past few years, "South Carolina has either led the nation or ranked in the top six in the rate of women killed by men." The domestic violence bill was introduced by Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter (D-Dist. 66-Orangeburg). It would have "increased the penalties for domestic violence offenders and required judges to complete annual training in domestic violence issues. Advocates said they had offered amendments to remove sections that committee members had objected to, such as one that expanded the definition of "physical cruelty," a grounds for divorce. But the amendments never got introduced. Instead, advocates said, committee members joked about the title of the bill and then tabled it with little discussion."

There has been plenty of outrage over Rep. John Graham Altman's (R-Dist. 119-Charleston) comments about the domestic violence bill.

Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter (D-Dist. 66-Orangeburg) says of the two bills, "What we have said by the actions of the Judiciary Committee is we aren't going to create a felony if you beat your wife, partner. But now, if you've got some cockfighting going on, whoa! Wait a minute."

Rep. Altman responds to the comparison, "People who compare the two are not very smart and if you don't understand the difference, Ms. Gormley, between trying to ban the savage practice of watching chickens trying to kill each other and protecting people rights in CDV statutes, I'll never be able to explain it to you in a 100 years ma'am."

The problem is that now if a man participates in cockfighting, he can get five years in jail. If the same man beats his wife, he'll get only thirty days. Where are you priorities, Mr. Altman?

News 10 reporter Kara Gormley asked Altman, "That's fine if you feel you will never be able to explain it to me, but my question to you is: does that show that we are valuing a gamecock's life over a woman's life?"

Altman again, "You're really not very bright and I realize you are not accustomed to this, but I'm accustomed to reporters having a better sense of depth of things and you're asking this question to me would indicate you can't understand the answer. To ask the question is to demonstrate an enormous amount of ignorance. I'm not trying to be rude or hostile, I'm telling you."

Answer the question, Mr. Altman. Telling a reporter she's "not very bright" is avoiding the question. Yes, with the tabling of the domestic violence bill, it's clear that women's lives are not important to some legislators in South Carolina, especially when they crack prejudicial jokes about it. Especially taking into consideration your dreadful comments about abused women you make later in this article.

Gormley, "It's rude when you tell someone they are not very bright."

Altman, "You're not very bright and you'll just have to live with that."

Yeah, she's just another bitchy women whining about wife-beating.

In the follow-up interview, Rep. Altman commented, "I wanted to offend that snippy reporter who come in here on a mission. She already had the story and she came in with some dumb questions and I don't mind telling people when they ask dumb questions."

Rep. Cobb-Hunter says, "The reality is the law says domestic violence regardless, first, second or third offense is a misdemeanor, and what they passed yesterday says cockfighting is a felony."

And the question remains unanswered - why does South Carolina value a gamecock's life over that of an abused woman? Mr. Altman, there have been lots of angry communications from people who are offended and outraged over your comments, the jokes, and the fact that the domestic violence bill has been tabled.

Rep. Altman spoke about domestic violence, "There ought not to be a second offense. The woman ought to not be around the man. I mean you women want it one way and not another. Women want to punish the men, and I do not understand why women continue to go back around men who abuse them. And I've asked women that and they all tell me the same answer, John Graham you don't understand. And I say you're right, I don't understand."

Now we get down to it - he's another guy who blames abused women for returning to their abusers. He's not very bright. Doesn't he know that most women leave their abusers, but it takes them a few tries to get out of the relationship? It took me three tries. I had a child to worry about, I had nowhere to go, and I had no social or financial support to leave the first two times. By the third time, I had support groups and my friends behind me. I also finally had financial resources to get out of that hellish situation. Women often love the men, and believe them when they say they'll never do it again. That's called the Honeymoon Period, and anyone who has worked with abused women should know that. The abuse doesn't automatically stop once the woman leaves, either. It usually escalates because the abuser realizes he's losing his power grip over his victim. He ups the ante. It escalated in the months after I left, plus he used the court system to continue to abuse me. This clown would blame me for not leaving for good the first time. He isn't very bright when it comes to the realities of the hell abused women go through.

Gormley, "So it's their fault for going back?"

Altman, "Now there you go, trying to twist that too. And I don't mind you trying. It's not the woman's fault, it's not blaming the victim, but tell me what self respecting person is going back around someone who beats them?"

That's right. Blame the stupid bitch for going back. You don't have one word to say about why these men are allowed to continue to abuse their wives and girlfriends.

Bourus says there a number of reasons, "She may have children with that person, and she may fear that it will harm them to live without their dad, or she is majorly financially dependent on his check to feed her children."

Bourus adds another reason women sometimes stay, "After an incident a violent incident, quite often the batterer will say I'm so sorry, it will never happen again."

Rep. Altman has worked with abused women, and in a second interview with a lowcountry station he said he tells them not to go back, and when he does, "They listen to me, they don't don't go back."

When asked whether he was sure, he said, "At least not while I'm representing her."

Here we have another man thinking he can tell women how they should conduct their lives. How does he know they never went back? He doesn't. Chances are they did a couple of times, and on the last try to get out they stayed out for good.

During the same interview, he responded to the reporter's question, "You seem to be drawn to this fixation that women have to go back. I don't think that speaks highly of women. I think women can think and be responsible for their own actions. Woman are not some toys out there, drawn back to the magnet of the man a lot of these men are bums and creatons and they have to be punished but I think women are independent enough to not go back to the men who beat them. And we have a lot of men who are abused by women, but they are too ashamed to admit it."

He's the one who doesn't have a very high opinion of women. He's so full of himself that he thinks every woman he had ever "helped" never went back. Women are responsible for their own actions. They go back because the available alternatives at that time were not much better. He acts as if women can't think for themselves. Despite his claim that he has "worked" with abused women, he doesn't understand them. He goes as far as to ridicule them. And notice he had to tack on the "abused men" business there, too. The bill's name is "Protect Our Women in Every Relationship (POWER)". Mr. Altman had wondered why only women were mentioned, and not men. This isn't about abused men. It about abused women because the vast majority of domestic violence victims are female.

One of the jokes committee members made had to do with the title of the bill. Judiciary Committee chairman Jim Harrison wanted to change it from "Protect Our Women in Every Relationship (POWER)" to "Protecting Our People in Every Relationship" Act, or "POPER." A voice on the tape can be heard pronouncing it “Pop her.” Another voice then says, “Pop her again,” followed by laughter." Harrison said the advocates for abused women were "overreacting" and the comments weren’t intended to diminish the gravity of domestic violence. "If you take it that way, you're overly sensitive," he said.

Geez, you dumb bitches, can't you take a joke? No wonder South Carolina has one of the highest rates of abused and murdered women in the nation.

Rep. Cobb-Hunter explained her bill, "The question that needs to be asked is this. Should a woman because she decides to go back for whatever the reason to return to an abusive relationship, does that mean it's Ok to beat her, to kill her, for her to lose her life, for her children to witness the violence they witness?"

Rep. Altman, "I know you are after a story. And it's kind of a nice story, that we've tabled a CDV bill. Because then you can talk about the insensitive man, the insensitive legislator, but it's not the case. But I don't know why a woman, there would ever be a second offense."

So, if an abused woman returns to her abuser and is beaten again or killed, and if her children witness more violence, it's her fault for returning? Doesn't Mr. Altman know that the most dangerous time for an abused woman is immediately after she leaves her abuser? Leaving alone doesn't guarantee that she and her children will be safe.

Cobb-Hunter admits there was a lot of information in the bill, which she co-sponsored, but she is already working on breaking it down, "One of the things I've learned, having been here as long as I have, is that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

Rep. Altman spoke out against a number of items in the bill, including dealing with restraining orders and training judges, "Clearly this bill is drawn by people who don't know what is going on out there."

I couldn't find any news reports that explained what his problems were with restraining orders, but I suspect it has to do with that myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse. As I have repeatedly proven here, that is not true.

Rep. Altman doesn't agree with the training, "What are you going to tell a family court judge that a family court judge doesn't already know about domestic violence?"

Vicki Bourus helped draft the bill, and what she calls a key item in it, the training of family court judges and magistrates, "There is very little if any training in domestic violence for them on a mandatory basis."

Bourus says, "You may know that many magistrates are not trained as attorneys so they wouldn't even have that piece of it that attorneys might get."

Judges and magistrates are often uninformed about the dynamics of domestic violence, and they need to be educated. It's clear that Mr. Altman is in dire need of education.

Speaker David Wilkins issued the following statement Wednesday regarding this story, "Criminal Domestic Violence (CDV) and animal cruelty are both critical issues that this body takes very seriously. The House is working diligently to improve the language on the CDV bill and pass meaningful legislation. That is our goal. In its present form, the bill has a number of legal and technical problems that would have made it very difficult to pass. We intend to fix those problems and get a bill to the floor of the House."

While Bourus doesn't agree with what Graham Altman has to say, she is happy that people are starting to talk about the issue of domestic violence, "Is Graham Altman alone in his way of thinking? Oh, no, no, no. I think he's a very vocal rep, resistent to really seeing domestic violence as the serious crime that it is, but we know that sentiment is runs throughout the House and Senate as well. But we also know there are some very valiant allies."

Wednesday, Rep. Altman told the lowcountry television station that he didn't mean to offend victims of domestic violence, but had no apology for the interview.

Cobb-Hunter plans to reintroduce the bill in January. If you want to voice your opinion on these bills, you can call the House Judiciary Committee at (803) 734-3120. Rep. Altman's office phone number is (803) 734-2947 and you can contact Rep. Cobb-Hunter's office at (803) 734-2809 or you can email Cobb-Hunter at gch@scstatehouse.net

Posted on April 21, 2005 at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack

Appearance-Based Discrimination Suits Are On The Rise

Appearance-Based Discrimination Suits Are on the Rise
Tresa Baldas
The National Law Journal
04-20-2005

Companies that regulate a worker's appearance -- from banning tattoos to mandating makeup -- are facing a growing risk of lawsuits, employment lawyers assert.

Appearance-based discrimination lawsuits are being filed more frequently, involving everything from eyebrow rings to sexy clothing, employment attorneys say.

"It's not the IBM loose white shirt world anymore," said attorney Henry Perlowski, who chairs the employment law practice group at Atlanta's Arnall Golden Gregory. "I think that as more and more people look different and are entering the work force, the tensions between culture and policy are going to escalate."

A cultural shift is taking place in which managers are struggling to control a younger generation of workers who are more culturally and racially diverse than before -- and more resistant to rules regulating their personal appearance.

Attorneys note that in recent years there's been a rash of image-based lawsuits, including:

In Nevada, a female bartender is challenging a recent court ruling that upheld a casino's right to fire her for refusing to wear makeup.

In Massachusetts, a former Costco employee is challenging the retailer's prohibition on facial jewelry.

Most recently, a jury on April 4 ruled against a Harvard University librarian, Desiree Goodwin, who alleged that she was denied promotions because she was too attractive and did not fit the image of a librarian. Goodwin v. Harvard College, No. 03-11797JLT (D. Mass.).

"Our claim was that she was told that she was considered to be just a pretty girl who wore sexy outfits, and that's why she wasn't getting promoted," said the attorney for the librarian, Jonathan Margolis of Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz in Boston. "This was a case where she didn't fit the stereotype of the librarian." Margolis said he has not yet decided whether to appeal.

Harvard's lawyer, Judith Malone of Boston's Palmer & Dodge, could not be reached for comment.

Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles, is representing Darlene Jespersen in an ongoing sex-discrimination case against Harrah's Entertainment Inc. over a "personal best" policy that required women to wear makeup. Jespersen v. Harrah's, 392 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2004).

Jespersen, a 20-year employee and bartender at Harrah's, was fired in August 2000 for refusing to comply.

On Dec. 28, 2004, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Harrah's "personal best" policy, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the policy imposed unequal burdens on male and female employees. The policy required male bartenders to keep their hair short and their nails trimmed and to appear neatly groomed.

Jespersen has requested a rehearing by the entire court. "Our argument here is that the policy is more burdensome on women," Pizer said.

Harrah's spokesman David Strow noted that Harrah's personal-best standards no longer exist, and have been replaced by modified standards that require makeup to be tasteful and not excessive but not mandatory. Strow stressed that Harrah's did not change its policy because of Jespersen's lawsuit.
The courts have long upheld grooming policies as long as they're rationally related to business objectives, noted employment law specialist Lynn Kappelman, who is defending Costco in a suit involving an employee's fight to wear an eyebrow ring to work. Cloutier v. Costco, 390 F.3d 126 (1st Cir. 2004).

On Dec. 1, 2004, the 1st Circuit upheld Costco's firing of a woman who refused to remove or cover an eyebrow ring on religious grounds. The court held that Costco had a legitimate interest in mandating a professional appearance by workers and held that it would have created an undue burden for Costco to have accommodated the employee.

The plaintiff, Kimberly Cloutier, claimed that one of the tenets of her church, the Church of Body Modification, was to wear piercing. Her lawyer, Mike O. Shea of the Law Office of Michael O. Shea in Wilbraham, Mass., declined comment, saying only that he has filed for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Kappelman, of Boston's Seyfarth Shaw, would not comment on the suit.

Posted on April 21, 2005 at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 19, 2005

Supremes Uphold Women's Right Not To Be Harassed

Via Feministing, I have learned that the Supreme Court has declined to consider "the constitutionality of state laws that regulate speech and activities within a buffer zone around abortion clinics."

The case allowed a Massachusetts law about buffer zones to stand. This law came to be after John Salvi shot and killed two Massachusetts women's health clinic workers in 1994. He wounded five others. He was later arrested in Norfolk after a shooting at the Hillcrest Clinic. According to the New York Times, "[t]he law, which creates a six-foot buffer zone around patients within an 18-foot radius of a clinic entrance, prohibits anyone from approaching without their consent for the purpose of passing leaflets or ''engaging in oral protest, education or counseling.''

Of course, anti-choice advocates aren't happy about this ruling. "Massachusetts Citizens for Life, an anti-abortion group, had argued the law denies protection to women and their unborn children. Women considering whether to have abortions benefit by having information distributed to them outside clinics, the group said."

Yeah, right.

In other words, anti-choice activists do not have the right to harass women seeking services from women's health clinics. I'm glad to hear it.

Posted on April 19, 2005 at 08:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack

More On Pharmacists Discriminating Against Women

Jaye Ramsey Sutter at BlondeSense is pissed about the entire issue of pharmacists being permitted to discriminate against women by refusing to fill their birth control prescriptions and refusing to dispense drugs related to abortion. This is a sampling of the anger.

At current rates, about one in three American women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age 45. Where the hell are these women and why aren't they in the streets over this issue? You got yours, do you care if anyone else can have one?

Do pharmacists mourn for the fertilized egg that my uterus may shed without my being aware that I was pregnant?

These pharmacies that won't carry the morning after pill and or fill prescriptions for birth control pills--do they have ads for Viagra? Do they care those "male enhancement" drugs? Do they allow men with criminal records for rape and sexual assault purchase those insurance covered drugs? If women must be pregnant, men who rape their wives, girlfriends, and strangers must not be allowed to purchase drugs that enable them to use their penis to rape. Why aren't pharmacist working to stop rape? Why aren't they as angry about rape as I am?

How much longer are we going to allow our right to control our bodies slip from our grasp? What have you done today to fight this violence you and other women? Boycott those stores that won't stock or won't fill prescriptions. It is the store that is hiding behind the pharmacist's so-called conscious. What if the pharmacist refused to fill black people's prescriptions? They would violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The pharmacist could not refuse to serve black people so they would be fired. So why not sue the pharmacies and the pharmacist for violating women's civil rights by refusing service to her?

If these pharmacies won't carry birth control for women, demand that they stop carrying condoms, too. Demand that they stop carrying Viagra. That way cheating men will impregnate their mistresses and we can all go down to the court house and argue about the child support for these unwanted children.

Do you really want Hell-Mart to ensure unwanted pregnancies? Do you really want them to make your choice for you?

NARAL includes a protest letter on its web site. It is aimed at the following pharmacies whose policies permit pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions:

CVS Pharmacies
Eckerd Pharmacies
RiteAid Pharmacies
Wal-Mart Pharmacies
Walgreens Pharmacies

Go there and make your displeasure known now. Discrimination against women must stop.

Posted on April 19, 2005 at 07:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack

Regarding Emergency Contraception...

As I mentioned in my previous post about Wal-Mart pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control, Attack of the Tiny Purple Elephant quoted the form letter from Wal-Mart on the subject, which included this statement: "Wal-Mart does not carry emergency contraceptives."

Actually, Wal-Mart probably does, but it doesn't know it. I know "emergency contraception" is referring to things like RU-486, but you can use regular birth control pills as emergency contraception. Of course, the problem with Wal-Mart is that its pharmacists probably won't fill the prescriptions.

I have posted about emergency contraception before, and I thought this was a good time to repeat that post.

-----

It's about time women learned how to use emergency contraception.

In light of the huge backlash against a woman's right to decide when and if she will bear children, I decided it was a good time to dig this information out of my archive and post it here. Please feel free to spread this information far and wide.

According to the Emergency Contraception Website, "both the contraceptives approved by the FDA for emergency contraception and those used for ordinary birth control can legally be used for emergency contraception. Any clinician authorized to provide prescriptions may prescribe an approved drug for an unlabeled purpose; the most common example is prescribing oral contraceptives to regulate menstrual periods, or to reduce menstrual cramps. The FDA has explicitly declared ECPs to be safe and effective. If widely used, emergency contraceptives could substantially reduce unintended pregnancy and the need for induced abortion."

Using birth control pills in this manner eliminates the middle man. A woman may take these pills in the privacy of her own home, thereby placing her out of the range of the picketers and the men with hard-ons for a woman's private medical records. She of course should keep in touch with her physician. Despite the ability for pills to be used in this manner, most women and most clinicians don't know about it. It wasn't until recently that pharmaceutical companies even marketed or advertised about emergency contraception. I suspect that emergency contraception and the privacy it gives women may be one big reason that those who are against abortion are also against the use of birth control pills. Some of them know that the pills may be used as abortifacients, and they don't like it.

That's why I'm posting the information here for women to read and use when necessary.

Here is the link to Princeton's Emergency Contraception Page. It includes a directory of providers and a FAQ.

Here are instructions for using progestin-only emergency contraception pills.

Reproduced here in full are instructions for using combined emergency contraception pills.

[Note: One of the birth control pills mentioned below, Preven, is now off the market. Thanks to Ema from The Well-Timed Period for the update, in my comments.]

Instructions for Using Combined Emergency Contraceptive Pills

There are several choices for combined ECPs listed below. You need to take only one type of pill, not all of them. For example, if you use Ovral, you do not need Nordette. If you are getting your ECPs from a regular pack of birth control pills containing 28 pills (one for every day), remember that the last seven pills do not contain any hormones. In a 28-pill pack of Ovral, Ogestrel, Alesse, Levlite, Lo/Ovral, Low-Ogestrel, Nordette, Levlen, or Levora, any of the first 21 pills can be used as ECPs. If you are using Triphasil or Tri-Levlen, the first 21 pills have three different colors, but only the yellow pills can be used as ECPs. If you are using Trivora, the first 21 pills have three different colors, but only the pink pills can be used as ECPs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brand of Pill
Click on brand names to see illustration of pills.

* Preven (blue pills)
* Swallow 2 pills as soon as possible
* Swallow 2 more pills 12 hours later

* Ovral (white pills only), Ogestrel (white pills only)
* Swallow 2 pills as soon as possible
* Swallow 2 more pills 12 hours later

* Lo/Ovral (white pills only), Low-Ogestrel (white pills only), Nordette (light-orange pills only), Levlen (light-orange pills only), Levora (white pills only), Triphasil (yellow pills only), Tri-Levlen (yellow pills only), or Trivora (pink pills only)

* Swallow 4 pills as soon as possible

* Swallow 4 more pills 12 hours later

* Alesse (pink pills only), Aviane (orange pills only), Levlite (pink pills only)
* Swallow 5 pills as soon as possible
* Swallow 5 more pills 12 hours later

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Swallow the first dose as soon as possible. ECPs are more effective the sooner after unprotected sex they are started.

2. Take the second dose 12 hours later. It is not even known what is the optimal timing between doses, much less whether the second dose is even necessary. All research on the efficacy of emergency contraceptive pills has used the 12 hour time frame, but it may not need to be so rigid. Taking the second dose a little early or late (+/- two hours, for example) will probably not make a difference in how effective the pills are, but we really do not know for sure.

Do not swallow any extra ECPs. More pills will probably not decrease the risk of pregnancy any further. More pills will increase the risk of nausea and vomiting.

If you have nausea, it is usually mild and should stop in a day or so. If you vomit within one hour after taking a dose, call your clinician. You may need to repeat a dose. You may need some anti-nausea medicine.

Watch for pill danger signals for the next couple of weeks. See your clinician at once if you have:

* severe pain in your leg (calf or thigh)
* severe abdominal pain
* chest pain or cough or shortness of breath
* severe headaches, dizziness, weakness, or numbness
* blurred vision, loss of vision, or trouble speaking
* jaundice (yellowish discoloration of the whites of the eyes, skin, and mucus membranes)

7. Your next period may start a few days earlier or later than usual. If your period doesn't start within three weeks, see your clinician for an exam and pregnancy test. If you think that you may be pregnant, see your clinician at once, whether or not you plan to continue the pregnancy. ECPs may not prevent an ectopic pregnancy (in the tubes or abdomen). Ectopic pregnancy is a medical emergency.

8. Get started as soon as you possibly can with a method of birth control you will be able to use every time you have sex. ECPs are meant for one-time, emergency protection. ECPs are not as effective as other forms of birth control. If you want to resume use of birth control pills after taking ECPs, consult your clinician. Protect yourself from AIDS and other sexual infections as well as pregnancy. Use condoms every time you have sex if you think you may be at risk.

Preven has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use for emergency contraception. Ovral, Lo/Ovral, Ogestrel, Low-Ogestrel, Nordette, Aviane, Levlen, Levlite, Triphasil, Tri-Levlen, Levora, Trivora and Alesse have been approved by the FDA as regular birth control pills. These products have not been submitted to the FDA for use as ECPs, but clinical research studies have shown that ECPs are safe and effective. The FDA has explicitly declared all brands of birth control pills listed above to be safe and effective for use as emergency contraceptives.

The accompanying table has more details about the brands of oral contraceptives that can be used as emergency contraception in the United States.

Doses of the brands of oral contraceptives that can be used for emergency contraception.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have questions about emergency contraception, please visit our page on frequently asked questions.

Posted on April 19, 2005 at 07:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

Dear Fornicating Harlot

I saw this first at Bitch, Ph.D.. Attack of the Tiny Purple Elephant directly quoted the form letter Wal-Mart is sending to people who have written in protest of Wal-Mart's position of allowing its pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Of course, Wal-Mart doesn't even have the cojones to admit this outright, even though the scads of letters it has received has been about pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control. Gee, I expect nothing less from a company that already has a terrible reputation regarding the way it treats its female employees. I'm not surprised it extends this abyssmal treatment to all women. The letter says that Wal-Mart's pharmacists may decline to fill prescriptions "based on personal convictions."

Within the form letter is this statement: "Wal-Mart does not carry emergency contraceptives." I have something to say about that, but it's too long to go into in this post, so I'll save it for the next one.

Tiny Purple Elephant took care to translate Wal-Mart's impersonal form letter from Customer Servicese into plain English. It's delightful. Here is an excerpt:

Dear Fornicating Harlot,

Shut up about the birth control already. Your comments and concerns are so very important to us, that we responded to your questions about our policies with an uninformative form letter.

Walmart believes that the “Emergency” in emergency contraceptives is ridiculous hyperbole. How could the possible pregnancies of adulterers, fornicators, monogamous heterosexual married couples, and rape
victims be anything but a joyous occasion and source of future cheap Walmart labor? If you want to go against God’s will, you can always go to one of the many nearby pharmacies that we haven’t yet driven out of business.

Go to Attack of the Tiny Purple Elephant to read the rest. (God, I love these blog names...)

Posted on April 19, 2005 at 06:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 13, 2005

Putting "Conscience" Into Perspective

From Body & Soul, Kylene, and Jesurgislac in Body & Soul's comments.

Posted on April 13, 2005 at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack

More On Andrea Dworkin

I found this at Google News. It's not an obituary, but it provides some more information about Dworkin and her death.

Andrea Dworkin Dies at 58

"In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve," fellow feminist Gloria Steinem said in a statement. "Andrea is one of them."

Feminist writer and antipornography campaigner Andrea Dworkin died Saturday at her home in Washington, said her husband, John Stoltenberg. She and Stoltenberg, who were openly gay, began living together in 1974 and married in 1998. Dworkin was 58 and had been ill for several years from ailments including osteoarthritis. Dworkin wrote openly about the experiences as a prostitute, rape victim and battered wife that led her to become a crusader against pornography and violence against women.

Originally from Camden, N.J., Dworkin graduated from Bennington College in Vermont in 1968 with a degree in literature.

She was called the "eloquent feminist" by the syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman.

Her many books included "Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel, and Women's Liberation," which in 2001 won an American Book Award, given to honor cultural diversity in American writing. She was writing a book with the working title "Writing America: How Novelists Invented and Gendered a Nation," when she died, Stoltenberg said.

Though some critics dismissed her work as unreasoned diatribe, Ms. Dworkin remained an outspoken champion of the causes in which she believed.

"I am not afraid of confrontation or risk," she wrote in "Letters From a War Zone," "also not of arrogance or error."

A public memorial will be held in New York, said Stoltenberg. Arrangements were incomplete.

Posted on April 13, 2005 at 09:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 10, 2005

R. I. P Andrea Dworkin

I just received word in e-mail that Andrea Dworkin has died in her sleep. I was never a fan of Dworkin's, but I know from reading a couple of her books that her comments about rape and marriage have been taken out of context. I really don't have much more to say about this than to let my readers know she has died. I figured that was newsworthy enough.

Posted on April 10, 2005 at 05:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (120) | TrackBack

April 08, 2005

A Wall Street Sex Bias Case

$29M in Damages Awarded to Former Wall Street Executive in Sex Bias Case
The Associated Press

A federal jury awarded $29 million in damages Wednesday to a former Wall Street executive who sued UBS AG, alleging the bank discriminated against her because she was a woman and then retaliated when she complained about her treatment. Laura Zubulake, a former director for the bank's Asian equities sales desk in Manhattan and Stamford, Conn., said she was gratified and relieved by the verdict in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Posted on April 8, 2005 at 08:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 05, 2005

If A Mother Would Have Done This, The Barking Heads Would Be Mouthing Off On TV

Where's the outrage? Where's the news coverage?

Why is it that Susan Smith and Andrea Yates garner lots of public outrage and media attention, but nary a peep is made when Marcus Wesson and Adair Garcia murdered their children?

Who?

That's what I thought you said.

I've already posted about Marcus Wesson, including a link to the blog of the trial. Wesson murdered his nine children.

Is Adair Garcia's name drawing a blank? I'm not surprised. Here's what I wrote in a previous blog post about him: "He murdered five of his six children with the toxic fumes of a barbeque while they slept. He had attempted to kill all of them and himself. He and the children were found by their mother, his estranged wife. He murdered them only eight months after the Yates case monopolized headlines and Internet message boards nationwide."

I have learned today that Garcia has been found guilty of murdering his children. He is eligible for the death penalty. According to the article I linked to, "prosecutors alleged that Garcia wanted to kill himself and his children as a way of punishing his wife for ending their marriage days earlier."

This case and the Wesson case are not getting the attention mothers get when they kill their children. As I said earlier, where's the outrage? Where are the media pundits wringing their hands over the heinous acts committed by these fathers? I bet if they were mothers we'd never hear the end of it.

Posted on April 5, 2005 at 08:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack

April 02, 2005

Coming Soon To A Town Near You: Female-Friendly Porn

I was very happy to see this post at Feministing about female-friendly porn. An article in Washington Square News described an event held by the National Organization of Women for Women at NYU, which included news about female-friendly porn. Here's what Jessica had to say:

Held at NYU last night, the speakers were Candida Royalle, the president of Femme Productions Inc., and Jayme Waxman, a Playgirl columnist and freelance pornographer who are trying to bring their feminist ideology into recent porn projects. “I wanted to give the genre a woman’s voice,” said Royalle. “It didn’t have to be something you would look at and feel dirty about.”

The event included screenings of some of Royalle's flicks, which featured more realistic-looking women and more sophisticated plotlines that appealed to female sexuality. Some of the films like “One Size Fits All” and “Studhunters” include a comedic tone that parodies the over-the-top cheesiness that typical porn flicks tend to have.

Although the event was a celebration of sorts, with a naked torso cake for the audience (yum!), Royalle and Waxman stress that female-friendly porn still has a ways to go. One problem with this type of porn is that it’s often difficult to get funding, as most mainstream movies typically appeal to heterosexual men. Rayelle and Waxman also feel there's a need for more women’s voices in the industry.

“If women don’t seize control of the reigns of production, men will continue to do it for us,” Royalle says.

One person in the audience asked about how Royalle would respond to the argument that all porn is wrong, she said, “It’s not going to go away, so let’s take it back and do it the way it should be done.”

Good job, ladies!

Even if I knew about this event I wouldn't have been able to attend it. I write female-friendly erotic short stories, as my regular readers know. I've had three stories accepted so far. Three more are in the queue at two publications, and I'm waiting to hear if they've been accepted. The money is good - much better than the pay you get for writing horror/dark fiction/fantasy/science fiction and feminist articles. I hope to continue to write female-friendly erotica. I'm working on a novel now that is supernatural romance erotica. Cheers to Candida Royalle!

Posted on April 2, 2005 at 09:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack

Smith Barney Sued For Sex Discrimination

Lawsuit Claims Smith Barney Discriminates Against Women
The Associated Press

Four female financial consultants sued Citigroup Inc.'s Smith Barney division on Thursday, accusing the brokerage firm of systematically denying equal opportunities to women employees. The suit seeks class
action status for possibly as many as 5,000 women and asks for an end to gender discrimination at the firm, back pay and related damages. The lawsuit puts the spotlight back on a firm that has tried to rebuild its image after settling a damaging gender-discrimination case several years ago.

Posted on April 2, 2005 at 09:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 31, 2005

What Runs Through A Woman's Mind When She's Worried About Being Pregnant

Anti-abortion activists act as if women who get abortions treat their abortions like taking out the trash. No, it's not a light decision. She has her health, her life, her income, and her job to worry about. Read Cameron Hurley's post about a recent pregnancy scare she had to see what really goes through a woman's mind when she is contemplating an abortion. Luckily, Cameron did get her period, so she's relieved that she wasn't pregnant.

Posted on March 31, 2005 at 09:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack

The Moral Police Are At It Again

From Amanda at Panagon: get married or lose your job.

WILMINGTON, N.C. -- A former sheriff's dispatcher who quit her job after her boss found out she lived with her boyfriend is challenging North Carolina's law against cohabitation.

Debora Hobbs said she was told to get married, move out, or find another job after her boss found out about her living situation. The legal arm of the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina filed the lawsuit Monday on her behalf.

Posted on March 31, 2005 at 07:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

March 30, 2005

Fill Out My Prescription, Dammit!

Bitch Ph.D is one of many bloggers writing about pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. She quotes a Washington Post article:

"He's a devout Roman Catholic and believes participating in any action that inhibits or prohibits human life is a sin," said Aden of the Christian Legal Society. "The rights of pharmacists like him should be respected."

What about my right to have my prescription filled? Your "moral issues" end where my health care begins. If you have a problem in your job filling out prescriptions because you find the person who wants to have the prescription filled "morally objectionable," get another job.

I haven't heard any cases of pharmacists objecting to fill prescriptions of Viagra. Why not? How do you know these men aren't cheating on their wives? There have been reports that men taking Viagra have cheated on their wives. What about men who buy condoms? Will the pharmacist demand to see a marriage license to be sure these men aren't having affairs or sex out of wedlock? Is the pharmacist going to grill these men to find out if they are being unfaithful, and then refuse to fill the prescription or hand over the condoms on moral grounds?

I don't think so.

The bigger issue of pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions is really about men taking control of women's reproduction. The "moral police" are doing that by rolling back the availability of abortion as well. Welcome to "The Handmaid's Tale."

Posted on March 30, 2005 at 08:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack

March 29, 2005

Irony Alert

Office of Attorney Ethics Sued for Sex and Race Bias in Employment
New Jersey Law Journal

Three female lawyers who investigate ethics complaints for New Jersey's Office of Attorney Ethics have accused the lawyer-disciplinary agency of gender and racial bias. The complaint, filed in federal court last week, alleges a "caste system" where women are routinely hired in a lower job classification and assigned to a "holding pen," while less-qualified men are routed into a higher pay grade, with bigger salaries, easier promotions and better equipment.

-----

This article could explain some of the salary discrepencies in my post about the differences between salaries between women, female minorities, and all men.

Posted on March 29, 2005 at 09:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 28, 2005

Pitting Women Against Each Other Again

Sheelzebub at Pinko Feminist Hellcat cuts to the chase on an article discussing differences in pay between white women, black women, Asian women, and Hispanic women. The article begins with these two paragraphs:

Black and Asian women with bachelor's degrees earn slightly more than similarly educated white women, and white men with four-year degrees make more than anyone else.

A white woman with a bachelor's typically earned nearly $37,800 in 2003, compared with nearly $43,700 for a college-educated Asian woman and $41,100 for a college-educated black woman, according to data being released today by the Census Bureau. Hispanic women took home slightly less at $37,600 a year.

Buried in the article is this tidbit:

A white male with a college diploma earns far more than any other similarly educated man or woman -- in excess of $66,000 a year, according to the Census Bureau. Among men with bachelor's, Asians earned more than $52,000 a year, Hispanics earned $49,000, and blacks earned more than $45,000.

That's the real story, not pitting women against each other based on their respective salaries. Sheelz doesn't mince words:

The stories feature a shoddy theory: being a minority and a woman is a "great commodity" to employers, and may therefore be worth, oh, four thousand dollars more than a White woman.

But you're not worth $25K more. Which is how much more a candidate would get if she were a White guy. But that's not featured in the story. The news is more interested in a battle over crumbs.

So let's be realistic about who is considered to be a real commodity here, and cut out the media distortion and patronizing drivel.

Posted on March 28, 2005 at 01:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Judge Rebuked Over Conduct Toward Women

Judge Rebuked Over Conduct Toward Women
The Recorder

A retired Los Angeles judge accused of making inappropriate comments to and about women has received a public admonishment from California's Commission on Judicial Performance. The commission cited instances where Judge John Harris met privately with sexual assault victims, even inviting one of the victims to dinner. Prejudicial misconduct was also found in an instance where Harris "thanked counsel at sidebar for not exercising a challenge against a female juror because she was nice to look at."

Posted on March 28, 2005 at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Subvert The Dominant Link Paradigm

It's time for my weekly "Subvert The Dominant Link Paradigm" post. If you can't decide what to read, I highly recommend these blogs written by women:

A Wicked Muse

Big Brass Blog

Bitch, Ph.D.

bloggg

Blog Sisters

Brutal Women

Elayne Riggs

Fatshadow

Mad Kane

One Good Thing

Pinko Feminist Hellcat

Pseudo-Adrienne

Respectful of Otters

Sappho's Breathing

Shakespeare's Sister

The Well-Timed Period

Tild

What She Said

XX

Posted on March 28, 2005 at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 26, 2005

Yee-Ha!!

Katha Pollitt likes me. She posted this over at Washington Monthly when asked which blogs she reads. I'm glad I finally got my blog fixed so Safari readers can read it.

Scott, some blogs I like are feministing.com, echidne of the snakes, mediagirl, mousewords, Bitch Ph.d, trish wilson. I also dip into Alas, A Blog, which is (I think) a group blog captained by a man. I'm new to blogs so these are just the ones I know. I ended up not mentioning particular ones because I feared I would leave out lots of great ones. but I do like these ones. and you did ask...

I like blogs that have a lot of news and information I don't see in the regular press, with discussion of those items. For example, today I learned on feministing that a judge has ruled that Ohio's antigaymarriage law means cohabiting heterosexual couples are no longer covered by domestic violence laws. To me, that's news!

Posted on March 26, 2005 at 08:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 20, 2005

If A Man Asks You If You Want Children On The First Date, Run Away Fast!

Amanda and Echidne don't think this article is accurate. I disagree.

It's about "wife shoppers," men who grill women on their first dates to see if they are marriage material. I know this is not a new phenomenon. I met a "wife shopper" when I was in college. He professed his undying love for me and showered me with way too much attention shortly after our first date. He was always writing sappy love poems and giving me so many bouquets of flowers that I ran out of vases. The more he pushed me, the farther away I ran, but I liked him so I kept going out with him. It became clear to me by the third party both of us attended (we had mutual friends who held frequent parties.), that he was itching to give me a wedding ring. I finally broke it off. Within a year he was married - to a Jewish woman. He was Protestant. I don't know if he asked her to convert, or if he converted. One thing brought up in the article I linked to is that these men ask women on their first dates if they are willing to convert to their religion. Reading it gave me the willies.

I created a character just like him for a short story that I wrote. I'm waiting to hear back from the publication to see if it was accepted. The only good thing about meeting a guy like that was that he provided fodder for my writing.

I also know another man in his 50s who has never been married, and he has "desperate" written all over him. He actually told a woman on his first date with her - he hooked up with her via a dating service - that he was in therapy and then proceeded to tell her in great, bloody, gory detail about surgery he had - over dinner. While I have a cast-iron stomach about gore, it was very inappropriate to discuss something like that with someone you don't know while you are trying to force down grilled veal. He is looking for a permanent relationship, preferably ending in marriage, and he has always become too quickly involved with women because of it. He can't understand why they stop seeing him after three dates. Talk about laying it on thick. And he is thick - he thinks the problems are with the women not with him. That's why when I read this, goosebumps broke out on my arms:

Reports of these kinds of encounters -- with men who investigate your family's disease history over a get-to-know-you beer or decide after two dinners to invite you on vacation with their college roommates and their wives -- have become increasingly common among my female friends, urban women often assumed to be husband-hunting themselves. In some cases, the men we're meeting are more interested in settling down than we are -- almost as though they have their own internal biological clocks.

Thank God I'm already settled down with a good man. We met at a science fiction convention, and he never cornered me in this fashion. If any women reading this are seeing flashing red "warning" lights when they read that article, they should know to get away from the guy as quickly as possible.

Posted on March 20, 2005 at 03:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack

March 18, 2005

Political Discourse and Women

Kevin Drum wrote two thoughtful posts about the women blogger question. I think he sincerely wants to get to the bottom of the issue. However, other male bloggers may not be all that interested. Roxanne had the same thoughts I had until she read Shakespeare's Sister, who had heard off-blog some anonymous off-putting comments by male bloggers.

We’re not going to get anywhere as long as the male bloggers who post about this issue continue to do so with such appalling intellectual dishonesty. In private emails, male bloggers who publicly wring their hands about how to solve the problem of the dearth of women bloggers in the upper echelon, will admit that the reality is the difficulty of finding women worth linking to.

Women don’t give me much linkable material.

Women write on subjects that don’t interest me.*

Women don’t know how to compromise on abortion rights.

Why don’t women post about Social Security? It affects them, too.

Women don’t write commentary, don’t come up with new ideas.

Gender politics is all secondary issues.

Comments such as these are intellectual dishonesty at its worst. Pretend to be concerned with the women blogger question on-blog, but off-blog, admit that you don't really think women have much to offer. I don't think that Kevin wrote any of those comments, but it does make me wonder which male bloggers have been talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Three comments into this post by Kevin, we get this beaut by a male commenter:

Fact is women will always mostly be uncomfortable in a world created by men, and men frankly are mostly not interested in (or are unaware of the existence of) an alternative world created by women. Seems pretty obvious. Can we stop with all the circuitous analysis now?

If women would step up to the plate and create an alternative to the violence dominated, competitive, social darwinistic world we have today we'd all be better off. But unfortunately, so far, its nowhere to be seen. I see far more moronic women buying into the republioservativereligofundamentalist model of women as servant to men, then women offering up a coherent alternative that we could all rally around. As mothers to humanity, women have the best opportunity of anyone to instill in humanity a far less violent competitive outlook than we've had through history, but they just aren't getting the job done. Way, way too many little hitlers, husseins, and bushliar's running around.

That's exactly the sort of dismissal Shakespeare's Sister is talking about. No wonder women get angry.

Roxanne also made a good point that these same bloggers who in reality don't care what women have to say were falling all over themselves a few months back trying to attract young women's attention because they wanted votes for Kerry and support for Democrats.

Now travel with me, if you will, back to last summer when we heard stories in the media and commentary on liberal blogs about how young women were disconnected from the political process and had no plans to vote in November. You know, those dastardly Sex in the City non-voters. "They don't care about politics!" "They don't read my big-ass influential blog!" "How could they not support John Kerry?"

Boy, something sure was wrong with those dumbasses! Or was it?

Maybe those young women are smarter than me and sensed the bullshit. Why should they listen to you, care about things like social security, the bankruptcy bill, medicare, etc. when you don't give two shits about them? I know. I know. The election was over months ago. We sure could have used some of those votes, though. Especially in close local and statewide races. Might have made a difference. Oh, well. Whatever.

Why would women want to pay attention to top-tier male bloggers when the male bloggers in question really don't have any interest in what they have to say? And they wonder why young women show little interest in them. What goes around, comes around, guys.

I had already written about Deborah Tannen's article about whether or not women like argumentative political debate. I personally don't like it on the air, but not because I don't like to argue. As I had written in my previous post on this subject, I can dish it out with the best of them in writing. I don't like radio and TV debates because I think they are a set-up. There is no "fair and balanced" reporting. You will not see two sides be given a fair and accurate chance to air their views. A feminist would not be brought on such a show in order to have a valid debate. A feminist is brought on to be attacked and ridiculed; a straw woman to be kicked and knocked down. That is not debate. It is a set-up meant to debase feminism, and I won't play a part in that. Some of my colleagues have been burned by print media when their comments have been taken out of context and misrepresented. That's not valid political discourse. It's political subterfuge. Those who are quoted have no control over how their statements are presented. Why agree to appear on a radio or TV talk show when the show is designed from the get-go against you? That is also not valid political discourse. It's a three-ring circus designed to debase an opposing point of view. I won't have anything to do with that kind of "debate." I think the nature of the "debate" needs to change.

Here is what I wrote in Kevin's comments. In this particular post he linked to me.

I did write on my blog that "I don't like the combative nature of talk radio and TV talk shows. I don't think it's very productive, I don't like being attacked." However, that doesn't mean that I don't like a good, spirited debate. Anyone who reads my blog knows that. Anyone who has been around me on mailing lists, bulletin boards, and Usenet definitely knows that. There are plenty of women who like a good, spirited debate. Rather than go down the road that "women don't like the food-fight nature of discourse," which I think isn't really all that accurate, question the food-fight and why it is accepted as the "natural" method of discourse. I don't think the food-fight nature that is accepted as the "right" way to debate is the most effective way to debate. There needs to be more intelligent discourse and less head-banging and name-calling. I don't want to go on radio and TV talk shows because frankly I consider them a waste of time. They are often set-up beforehand to attack especially left-wing points of view. They are definitely out to attack feminist points of view. Why would I want to waste my time in that kind of atmosphere? Change the tenor of the debates to bring in more varied and intelligent debators. Don't blame women who don't want to waste their time with the debates as they are currently set up.

I told Kevin in comments that women do not have to get over their dislike of this kind of political squabbling - the "food fight," as I've heard it described. It's the food fight that needs to change. There are many more reasonable and effective means of discussing political issues that don't involve telling guests to "shut up" or turning off their mike while they are in mid-comment. That is grade school playground bantering, not valid political discourse. Change the medium, and the message will get through.

Another "new" question that isn't new is "what are women's issues?" Kevin was sincere when he asked that question, but I think it means falling down a slippery slope to answer it. By labeling something a "women's issue," it implies that anything outside the answer is a "real" issue - a "men's" issue. As one of the top-tier bloggers had told Shakespeare's Sister, "gender politics is all secondary issues." I for one don't want to go there. Here's what I wrote in his comments:

[What are women's issues has] already been asked and answered. I'm afraid that defining an issue as a "woman's issue" will marginalize those issues where the primarily white, middle class men in charge will deem them less important. The problem with labeling an issue a "woman's issue" is that it will be seen as "not a men's issue," and therefore not "important" enough to discuss. There are many, many political issues outside the narrowly accepted Bush administration discussions. Health care, family, social security, health in general, marriage, divorce, custody, childrearing (yeah, men do it too. Whodathunkit?), economic issues as they affect people personally (not only the graphs and charts), feminism, pay equity, employment, balancing career and family, gender equity, education, the environment. There are many, many issues that are not being discussed. Broaden the view from that narrowly accepted definition of "political discourse" to include all of these issues, and you will have a healthier and more well-rounded debate.

While I have my disagreements over the women and debate issue, I'm glad that it is still getting attention. Kevin Drum, at least, seems to be seriously considering it.

Posted on March 18, 2005 at 08:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack

March 16, 2005

Thoughts On Menstruation

Alphabitch sent this post to me after my birthday, so I wasn't able to put it on my birthday post. It's bound to perk up the ears of those A-list pasty white dude bloggers that say women only blog about tampons.

She has some of the same reactions to menstuating that I have. I sometimes experience mood changes right before I get my period, and I don't always remember that my cycle is behind the bad mood. Then I realize what's behind it, and I hear a *ding* go off in my head. When she brings the issue up with her mother, her mom reminds her that menopause is just around the corner.

I'm 45, and I haven't had any symptoms of menopause yet. Great. Something else to look forward to.

Posted on March 16, 2005 at 01:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack

The Feminine Technique

I'm not so sure how much I agree with this, but it was interesting. Deborah Tannen has written an article about the combative vs. cooperative styles between men and women. She wrote this article in light of Maureen Dowd's recent column about wanting to be "liked" that has made the blogosphere. She also referenced Lawrence Summer's comments about women not being at the highest levels of science as well as opinion writing in general. The Los Angeles Times was criticized for not having more women opinion writers.

Here is some of what Tanner had written:

No one bothers to question the underlying notion that there is only one way to do science, to write columns "the way it's always been done," the men's way.

There is plenty of evidence that men more than women, boys more than girls, use opposition, or fighting, as a format for accomplishing goals that are not literally about combat a practice that cultural linguist Walter Ong called "agonism," from the Greek word for war, agon.

Watch kids of any age at play. Little boys set up wars and play-fights. Little girls fight, but not for fun. Starting a fight is a common way for boys to make friends: One boy shoves another, who shoves back, and pretty soon they're engaged in play. But when a boy tries to get into play with a girl by shoving her, she's more likely to try to get away from him. A recent New Yorker cartoon captured this: It showed a little girl and a little boy eyeing each other. She's thinking, "I wonder if I should talk to him." He's thinking, "I wonder if I should kick her."

Older boys have their own version of agonism, using fighting as a format for doing things that have nothing to do with actual combat: They show affection by mock-punching, getting a friend's head in an armlock or playfully trading insults.

My readers may have seen me mention that I have been invited to speak on talk shows, but I turn down the requests. I was once asked to speak on Hannity and Colmes, but I turned it down. The reason is what Tannen described - I don't like the combative nature of talk radio and TV talk shows. I don't think it's very productive, I don't like being attacked, and I don't see the point of being part of a gaggle of barking heads so busy yelling over each other that no one can hear what anyone says. On the other hand, I do like to argue in writing very much, but not in person. I think I would do fine with an opinion column. I have enjoyed written sparring in Usenet, the familylaw-l mailing list, and on AOL message boards, and I am proud to admit that I frequently won. Those debates and dealing with stupid trolls really got my adrenaline going. I enjoy the disagreements and discussions I'm having with the folks at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler Yes, I hang out there. Talk about mixing apples and oranges. It's fun to have spirited discussions with people who are my polar opposite politically. All of this put me in mind of the following, written by Tanner:

Arguing ideas as a way to explore them is an adult version of these agonistic rituals. Because they're used to this agonistic way of exploring ideas "playing devil's advocate" many men find that their adrenaline gets going when someone challenges them, and it sharpens their minds: They think more clearly and get better ideas. But those who are not used to this mode of exploring ideas, including many women, react differently: They back off, feeling attacked, and they don't do their best thinking under those circumstances.

At the same time, I learned the value of playful punching when I was a kid. Most of my close friends in grade school were boys. I remember the "I'm going to shove you" form of introductions, and I played right along. My favorite cousin was a boy, and we used to build cities with housing blocks and his army trucks when we were kids. When it was time to stop, we had a great time destroying each other's projects by pretending an earthquake or typhoon came in and wiped out the entire city. We threw blocks at each other and threw the people toys up in the air as the bad-weather-of-the-day destroyed them. We made booming sounds as the houses crumbled, and shrieks for the poor people washed away in the tidal waves. If it were about ten years later, we probably would have had alien abductions, but that wasn't in vogue yet. I remember when during Thanksgiving, while we were watching The Wizard of Oz that came on every year, we'd reinact the scenes during the commercials, and there was lots of playful punching. We always fought over who got to play The Wicked Witch of the West. Both of us wanted to, so we switched off. I admit he was a much better and funnier Wicked Witch than I was. I thought of all this when I read this portion of Tannen's article:

Here's an example that one of my students observed: Two boys and a girl are building structures with blocks. When they're done, the boys start throwing blocks at each other's structures to destroy them.

The girl protects hers with her body. The boys say they don't really want their own creations destroyed, but the risk is worth it because it's fun to destroy the other's structures. The girl sees nothing entertaining about destroying others' work.

I found Tanner's article to be very interesting, mainly because of the memories I have of sparring with boys and sparring with men and some women on the Internet. There are women who like to do this but many of them don't. I've noticed that the women who sparred were actually acting more like cheerleaders, leading the guys on. They weren't taking a real opposing view. They wanted to be "liked," and they received strokes from the guys. A lot of women have written to me saying that they didn't want to post in Usenet, on the AOL message boards, and even my blog because they were afraid of being attacked. That coincides with what Tanner had written.

While I'm sure some may make valid disagreements about what Tanner had written, I nonetheless found it interesting based on my personal experience.

Posted on March 16, 2005 at 08:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack

March 14, 2005

The "Subvert The Dominant Link Paradigm, Trish's Birthday" Edition

Today is my birthday! I am 45 years young. In celebration of my birthday, when I tend to celebrate all month, I am hosting a "Subvert The Dominant Link Paradigm" women bloggers edition. I share a birthday with actor Michael Caine, which ain't too shabby. Eli Whitney received a patent for the cotton gin in 1781, on my birthday. Lucy Hobbs Taylor, who was the first woman dentist in America to graduate, was born on my birthday in 1833. Danish archeologist Jens Jacob Asmussen Worsaae was born on my birthday in 1821. He was the founder of prehistoric archeology. I've long been interested in archeology. George Eastman, founder of Kodak, died in 1932, on my birthday, In 1964, Jack Ruby was found guilty of killing Lee Harvey Oswald on my birthday, and he was sentenced to death.

Even though this post is up now, if anyone wants to have their posts added to it, please e-mail. I'll update this post with new posts.

Below are links to posts that people have submitted in honor of my birthday.

Hats off to PZ Myers at Pharyngula for giving me this idea.

I'm not sure what inspired Lauren from Feministe to post a disclaimer describing what she wants from commenters and readers of her blog, but her suggestions are must-reads for all bloggers. Especially the stuff about how name-calling slides off her like Teflon. I had recently linked to this post in another post of mine, so I chose to add Lauren's thoughts on teaching Prufrock as well as teaching in general. Prufrock is an interesting one to teach, considering the affluence of the students in question.

Kathy from What Do I Know described her own birth experience. Her daughter is now twenty years old, and recently celebrated her own birthday. Sure are a lot of Pisceans out there.

Jam has an unusual way of linking to items that interest her - she posts thumbnail snapshots. There are all sorts of great things to choose from. Here are a couple: a profile of blues singer Nina Simone, Elizabeth Sulston can taste the musical notes she plays on her recorder, and an article about the smallest star ever detected.

AldeaMB posted about how the NIH Sexual Health Web Site is selling out on posting accurate information about health. It includes a link to the National Cancer Institute that includes this statement: "abortion, miscarriage and breast cancer risk." That's contrary to a previous report by the National Cancer Institute that found that abortion does not increase the risk for breast cancer. She also is a bit perturbed that her daughter and her friends are budding fashionistas who pay a little too much attention to labels like Prada, Kate Spade, and Chanel. That stuff doesn't come cheap.

Mad Kane has submitted her hilarious "The Wonderbra Song." It's sung to the tune of "Miracle of Miracles," from "Fiddler On The Roof." She has also submitted Nothin's More Revoltin' Than Dub's Nominee John Bolton, sung to the tune of "Carolina In The Morning."

Fortuna asks if women sometimes have a Cinderella complex, where they want to help people. She likes to help her friends. She wrote, "I often have thoughts of saving people I know, or helping to make them more secure, especially my female friends."

Sheelzebub at Pinko Feminist Hellcat submitted three posts; the first on sex work and double standards, the second on on the same topic, but more from the economic side of things, and the third on a bit of snark on her new welfare reform plan. Here's a hint: it's about unemployed men and working things like the pole for money.

Shaula Evans wants everyone to meet her favorite new blogger, Janet Oleszek, who is, to her knowledge, the first candidate blog in the history of Virginia state-level politics. Oleszek is "a school board member, and has been a local education activist for over 20 years, and her blog is full of informed opinions and current information about education issues in her community."

Helen at Blogger On The Cast Iron Balcony described her experience with a drive-by mom. Her daughter wanted to play on the monkey bar - the one that looks like a ladder suspended just over adult head height - and after about a half hour of pestering, Helen gave in. As she hoisted her three-year old to the ladder, an annoying drive-by mom said, "I do hate these pushy mums who force their toddlers to do things they're not ready for!" The talk on the blogosphere about drive-by moms came from reading a post at Chez Miscarriage, in which Getupgrrl reacts to a writings about motherhood by Judith Warner. Helen thinks Chez Miscarriage is wrong to interpret Warner's article as a criticism of mothers rather than an analysis of social pressures. her post to get a clearer idea of what I'm talking about. [Trish's update: I edited this post to make it more clear.]

Cruella wrote about "funny women, sad men," in which a study found that "for a woman, a GSOH means someone who makes her laugh. For a man, it means someone who laughs at his jokes."

Pepper gives her opinion of the new SAT, especially class issues inherent in the test.

tz at HeartOfCanada refers to herself as "an androgynist." She launched off of Lauren's post about trolls (See above in this list. I link to it for my birthday.) to discuss the consitions under which women are called feminists, even if they don't see themselves as feminist.

Posted on March 14, 2005 at 09:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack

March 10, 2005

Subvert The Dominant Link Hierarchy!

Taking my cue from PZ Myers from Pharyngula, who asked for science-related posts in honor of his birthday, I'd like to propose a special something for my birthday, which is on March 14. I'll be 45. In honor of my birthday, I'd like to do a special something related to women bloggers and women's issues. E-mail me your posts, with links, and on my birthday I will link to all of them in one post. Either post about a women's issue, or if you are a woman blogger yourself, write something that is meaningful for you. Or both. My e-mail address is on the top of my left sidebar.

This could be fun, and it's a great way to get more exposure for women's issues and women's blogs.

Posted on March 10, 2005 at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack

March 09, 2005

Oregon Bill Seeks To Protect Victims Of Domestic Violence

Bean has posted good news about a bill from Oregon that seeks to expand unemployment benefits for victims of domestic violence.

SALEM — Rep. Paul Holvey (D-Eugene) introduced a bill Thursday that would help victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. The bill, HB 2662, would expand current laws to allow such victims to collect unemployment benefits if they leave work to protect their safety or the safety of their families.
Presently, the law provides that unemployment benefits are available only to people who must quit for “good cause.” Holvey’s bill would provide a legal framework to ensure that only victims can decide what steps to take to protect themselves from physical harm.

“Though threats of violence are not always specific to the workplace, they may be so insidious that a victim’s only safe alternative is to quit work and physically relocate,” Holvey said. “These victims are already under terrible emotional stress. We should not force them to choose between employment and safety.”

Without the legal protections offered by HB 2662, victims are less likely to leave work to seek safety, Holvey added. The availability of benefits enables victims to take the steps they need to protect themselves and their families without risking homelessness or bankruptcy, he said.

Violence between intimate partners is pervasive in Oregon, Holvey said. The Eugene Democrat referred to the findings of a current study conducted by in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Human Services. The study concluded that one in 10 women between the ages of 20 and 55 in Oregon had been physically or sexually assaulted by their current or most recent partner in the five years preceding the study.

Posted on March 9, 2005 at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 06, 2005

Teen Charged With Murder For Inducing Miscarriage

Lindsay from Magikthise, who is hosting at Pandagon this week, wrote about the Texas case where an 18 year old man has been charged with murder for helping his 16 year old girlfriend miscarry.

An 18-year-old boy from Lufkin, Texas has been charged with capital murder for helping his 16-year-old girlfriend induce a miscarriage. The girl faces no charges.

The case is considered a test for a new Texas law that criminalizes injuries to fetuses. [AP]

While this case is being used as a test case for the state's new law protecting "the unborn," it needs to be pointed out that fetal deaths may be considered murder. One of the commenters at Pandagon had written "I was thinking about the practicing medicine angle, too. But doesn't the law consider all fetal deaths to be murder if they happen as a result of some other crime? "

Yes, fetal deaths are considered murder but the fetus isn't given personhood.

A fetus is not a "person" under the law. It does not have rights as an individual or as a person.

A fetus is generally considered by the law to be a "human being," i.e. a being that is human. That does not imply rights as an individual, or that a fetus is a "person" as opposed to "chattel," property.

"Homicide" only means the killing of a human being by another human being. The word does not even imply a criminal killing. "Homicide" does not require a killing of a "person," but of a "human being."

It's clear that this new law seeks to give fetuses personhood. That said, a fetus is a "human being." That does not mean it is a person. Current law declares it the property of the woman.

Still, this new law seeks to elevate fetal personhood above that of the pregnant woman's personhood. That's bad news.

Posted on March 6, 2005 at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack

Random Ten - The Subvert The Dominant Paradigm Edition

Random Thoughts has started a new Friday Random Ten. She posts ten links to posts written by women. So, here's my random ten:

1. Amanda takes on another bone-headed advice column in which the guy recommends idiotic things like ignoring women and talking about how much they masturbate as if that will inspire women to be happy about dating them. I think not.

2. Sheelz at Pinko Feminist Hellcat links to a post by Riverbend which shows how things don't bode well for women in Iraq.

3. Media Girl is just as annoyed as I am with men who say they don't support women's rights, but they support "human rights." Every time I hear that, I hear some guy whining "me too! me too!" out of an overblown sense of entitlement.

4. Feministing is disgusted with the "gross, misogynistic behavior" of "Pimp My Ride."

5. Natasha at Pacific Views writes about how social security has benefited her family. In particular, she discusses how "Social Security functions as a life insurance plan for people who leave families behind."

6. Pseudo-Adrienne praises how "the U. S. delegation at the UN removed a section of its proposed amendment that would have not recognized and practically deny women's reproductive rights abroad and here at home." Have a feeling Bush is not going to support this, and he doesn't - Adrienne said that "the U. S. delegation still refuses to acknowledge women's reproductive rights and joint the UN in protecting, and ensuring women's right to control their bodies."

7. Sappho at Sappho's Breathing turned 35 on March 1. Go wish her a belated happy birthday. My birthday is on the 14th, and I'll turn 45. I plan to celebrate hard.

8. A Wicked Muse is experiencing blogger burnout. I know how that feels. Head on over, wish her well, and tell her to not give up blogging.

9. Mac Diva, writing at Silver Rights, has an update on the Marcus Wesson case. I wrote about that one on my blog awhile ago. Wesson killed nine of his own children. It didn't get the publicity of mothers who kill their children, like Susan Smith, whom men's rights types always bring up to show that mothers are dangers to their children.

10. Avedon Carol at The Sideshow critiques bias in the media, especially the charge that the media is left-biased. She writes, "I have never understood why this should be a criticism of the media, anymore than it makes sense that this is a negative trait of academe; if the people who are best educated and most aware of what is going on are more liberal, maybe that's because you have to be ignorant to swallow conservatism. What is really suggested by this "criticism" is that the alleged "bias" isn't bias at all, it's just a recognition of what is, and that bias is required to lean to the right of this "liberal" position. Indeed, the behavior we're seeing from the administration is fairly explicit in that we are told that simple facts are "biased". The news media are not supposed to tell the public the truth about anything because that would bias us against the administration. The real question is not, then, about a bias toward liberalism or conservatism, but rather a belief that "news" should make some attempt to serve the public rather than just the corporate hierarchy."

Posted on March 6, 2005 at 08:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 05, 2005

Why Doesn't She Just Leave?

Bean has two great posts up about violence against women. In the second one, she talks at length about why it takes women several tries to finally leave an abusive relationship. She quotes Sarahlynn, from Yeah, But Houdini Didn't Have These Hips, who had discussed how abusers are often charismatic and charming men - men many would not believe would hurt their wives. Abusers are "very smart, very talented, and very convincing." She's right. Bean is also right that the abusive behavior doesn't start right away. It grows over time to the point that the woman finds it difficult to leave. She also points out that abusers aren't abusive all the time. At certain periods, they can be quite loving and attentive, especially after an abusive incident. This period is known as "the honeymoon period," and an abused woman often feel guilty about leaving at this point because (1) she believes his heart-felt pleas that he'll never abuse her again and (2) she loves him.

I don't like to talk about my personal life very much, but I'll put that aside and talk a little about my own abusive marriage. My ex-husband was not abusive all the time, and he was never physically abusive until the final incident which caused me to leave the marriage for good. It took me three tries to finally leave. The first was when I was with my family and my ex's family at the beach. I had asked my mother if I could move in with my son because I couldn't take it anymore. She turned me down, because my grandmother was living with her at the time and there was no room. Plus, she had her hands full. I was quite angry about it because I knew there was room for me in the house and I was in a lot of trouble. Nonetheless, I retreated and stayed with my ex.

I can't remember exactly what incident had caused me to leave the second time, but I took my son and went to a domestic violence shelter. I stayed for four days. Leaving at that time would have meant going on welfare, and I couldn't handle it. I wasn't ready to leave. So, I returned to him.

The third time I left due to a marital rape. It was the only time my ex had been physically forceful with me. This time, I stayed away for good. I filed for divorce. I was lucky that the court saw what was going on and made orders that protected me and my son. If I were to divorce today, I'm afraid that the influence of the conciliation courts and fathers' rights thinking that has permeated far too many U. S. courts would have made a divorce very difficult for me. I won a move-away from Maryland to Massachusetts five years ago. I know that in today's political climate I would not have been permitted to move with my son if I asked the court for permission to leave today.

So, I do understand how difficult it is to leave an abusive marriage. Staying away is harder than making that first move to be on your own away from an abuser. I think that people need to give abused women more credit for having the courage to leave their abusers. It's much more difficult than a lot of people think.

Posted on March 5, 2005 at 02:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack

Call For Papers - Panel: Women Writing On/In Academe

I saw this at Bitch, PhD..

Hi: I'm currently looking for submissions for an MLA panel on women writing on/in academe. Originally I was looking for analytical papers on memoir and memoir-writing, but I think the most interesting writing
on/by women in academe is being done on blogs. Would you be interested either in submitting something to be considered for this panel, or perhaps mentioning something about it on your blog so other interested parties might send something? Feel free to use my name and e-mail address.

Thanks for your time.

Janine M. Utell, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of English
Widener University
Humanities Division
One University Place
Chester, PA 19013
610-499-4527
jmutell@mail.widener.edu

Posted on March 5, 2005 at 01:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 04, 2005

Women Said Worse Off Now Than 10 Years Ago

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Many women are worse off today than they were 10 years ago, women around the world say in a new report that accuses governments of failing to keep their pledge to achieve gender equality.

Governments worldwide have adopted a "piecemeal and incremental" approach to women's rights that cannot achieve the goals in the landmark platform of action adopted at a 1995 U.N. conference in Beijing, it says.

The report is the work of women's rights activists in 150 countries. Compiled by the Women's Environment and Development Organization, an international advocacy group based in New York, it was released Thursday to coincide with a high-level U.N. meeting on implementing the platform.

The message was clear, starting with the title: "Beijing Betrayed."

"The women of the world don't need any more words from their governments -- they want action, they want resources and they want governments to protect and advance women's human rights," the report said.

The women's report sounded very different from the speeches this week at the U.N. conference, where governments have been touting their records on women's rights.

"The realities women document often contrast sharply with the officials' reports," June Zeitlin, the executive director of Women's Environment and Development, said.

"What we see are powerful trends -- growing poverty, inequality, growing militarization, and fundamentalist opposition to women's rights," she said. "These trends are harming millions of women worldwide."

"Governments need to respond very strongly to counterbalance these trends and push the Beijing platform to further women's rights,'' Zeitlin said.

Nonetheless, she said, "there is still some cause for celebration."

Advocates of women's rights have stepped up their activities around the globe and have pressed governments to change some discriminatory laws. The number of countries that ratified the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women rose from 146 a decade ago to 179, though the United States has still not done so.

The goal of giving every girl and boy an elementary school education by 2005 is likely to be met everywhere but sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, the report said.

But despite these and other gains in the Beijing platform, "and despite a decade-worth of efforts ... many women in all regions are actually worse off than they were 10 years ago," the report said.

Violence against women remains an "acute problem" affecting some two-thirds of women in relationships worldwide, the report said.

For example, in Kazakhstan, over 60 percent of women have suffered from physical or sexual violence at least once in their lifetime. In the United States, 31 percent of women report being sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend. And in 2000, 44 percent of married women in Colombia suffered
from violence inflicted by a male partner, the report said.

While trafficking of women and children into bonded labor, forced marriage, forced prostitution, and domestic servitude has become a global phenomenon, governments don't appear to be making significant efforts to combat these crimes.

According to the report, up to 175,000 women from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are being lured into the sex industry in Western Europe every year, and there has been "a dramatic increase" in the number of Soviet bloc women trafficked to North America.

One goal of the 10-year-old platform was to make reproductive health services available to women everywhere. But access and affordability are still obstacles, "compounded by cultural and religious fundamentalism," the report said. Women and girls also face the highest risk of getting
HIV/AID, "primarily because of continued patterns of sexual subordination."

Governments had also pledged to put women in decision-making positions and set a target of having 30 percent of government and public administration jobs filled by women. But the report said 10 years later "not much" has happened, noting that only five countries had reached 30 percent in 1995,
10 in 2000, and 15 in 2004.

The report listed what it called "the dirty dozen" countries that have no women in parliament: Bahrain, Kuwait, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates and Guinea-Bissau.

"Across all regions, women are often still considered unequal to men -- in the workplace, at home, in government -- and assigned roles accordingly," it said.

The majority of the world's poor are women, and since Beijing "women's livelihoods for the most part have worsened, with increasing insecure employment and less access to social protection and public services," the report said.

------

On the Net:

Women's Environment & Development Organization: http://www.wedo.org

Posted on March 4, 2005 at 03:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 01, 2005

What Will He Suggest Next? Take Away Women's Right To Vote?

NTodd from Doyihi Mir alerted me to this bone-headed article by David Brooks, who thinks that married couples with separate banking accounts are teetering on the edge of disaster. Mustang Bobby from Bark, Bark, Woof, Woof also wrote about the same article.

Brooks wrote:

It also illustrates how the family is a countervailing force in society. Public life is individualistic. It's oriented around goals like self-development, self-advancement and personal happiness. (This is, of course, even more true in America today than in the Russia of the 19th century.) The goal of family life, on the other hand, does not revolve around individual choices but around the unconditional union of souls. When we get married, and then when we have kids, we learn, sometimes traumatically, to say farewell to the world of me, me, me.

He's not talking about "family life" or "couples." He's talking about the "danger" of married women having bank accounts separate from their husbands. He wrote, "I'm not saying that people with separate accounts have marriages that are less healthy than anybody else's. I'm saying we should pause before this becomes the social norm. Private property is the basis for our market democracy. But private property in the home is an altogether trickier proposition."

It's the old slur - women are selfish! They're too concerned about their own selfish indulgences "individual choices" and that kind of concern leads to his unspoken conclusion - divorce. It's a well-known fact that women file for the most divorces, and that makes Bobo unhappy. So, to keep women from leaving bad marriages, he proposes that she lose control of her finances - keep them in the hands of husbands who can keep these wayward women in line, just like the good ole days when women "knew their place."

Of course, he doesn't quite phrase it that way. His true feelings would be too harsh to put in print. Instead, he channels Leo Tolstoy. He quotes Tolstoy's novella "Family Happiness," in particular a mushy part where a married woman expresses chagrin at the dying down of the courtship period. She waxes eloquently, saying, "That day ended the romance of our marriage; the old feeling became a precious irrecoverable remembrance; but a new feeling of love for my children and the father of my children laid the foundation of a new life and a quite different happiness; and that life and happiness have lasted to the present time."

Bobo chastizes independent women, saying that "the difference between romantic happiness, which is filled with exhilaration and self-fulfillment, and family happiness, built on self-abnegation and sacrifice."

The thing is, it's the woman, not the man, whom he expects to build her marriage based on self-abnegation and sacrifice. That means doing away with her financial independence by closing those separate bank accounts.

He wants to set women back to The Time That Never Was.

Gimme a break. I'm sorry that financially independent women scare him. I wonder if he's married, and if he is, does his wife have a separate bank account? Especially one of which he is not aware? That'll show those uppity women - take away their control of money so they can't leave his controlling ass if they've had enough of him.

Posted on March 1, 2005 at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBack

Why Are Mothers So Cruel To Each Other?

Thanks to Lauren at Feminist, Alas A Blog, and Stone Court, I have discovered a great new blog - Chezmiscarriage. Chezmiscarriage has a great series of posts about drive-by mothering, which every mother has experienced and possibly even done herself. Drive-by mothering is those rude, nasty comments mothers throw at each other, such as a perfect stranger, friend, acquaintence, or even family member yelling at you to "Get rid of that bottle! If you don't breastfeed you are guilty of child abuse!" and "Why isn't that child wearing a hat and mittens?"

I luckily have not had much experience dealing with drive-by mothering because I tend to be a loner. That said, I have experienced it a few times and it's nerve-grating. About a month ago, when I was coming back from a day speaking at the World Science Fiction Convention, I ran across one of these drive-by mothers on the train. She was an elderly woman who was tut-tutting a family at the front of my car whose kids were a bit rambunctious. They were noisy and climbing on the seats; i. e., they were acting like kids. Granted, they shouldn't have been climbing on the seats, and the conductor had to tell them to sit down so that they don't end up getting hurt. However, this woman moped her way back to my seat and sat next to me. She complained about certain "parents who can't keep their kids in line," obviously begging for me to agree with her. I was annoyed. I didn't want to talk to anyone, let alone this old bat. I told her I didn't know what she was talking about. She nodded in the direction of the family, and said that parents don't know how to raise their children these days. Those kids are making too much noise. I said I don't see what the problem is and that they weren't bothering me. She just wouldn't let up. She kept criticizing their parenting skills even though she didn't even know them. I turned away and looked out the window, but she wouldn't take the hint. Eventually - thank God - she moved to the next train car ahead.

She complained about the kids after whining about a young couple who kissed in public. She complained about the young woman "having her hands all over" the young man she was with. As before, I said I didn't see what the problem was. She just wanted to tut-tut and complain in that whiny, holier-than-thou way drive-by mothers complain.

I was glad she moved to the car in front of me. To my horror, she came back in about ten minutes later and sat in the seat in front of me. This time, she complained the other car was too cold.

I should have braved insane Boston traffic that day and drove to the convention. You know it's bad if I'm willing to risk my sanity and drive in Boston just to avoid an annoying drive-by mother.

To my readers, have any of you ever experienced drive-by mothering? Have you, to your shame, ever engaged in the practice yourself?

Posted on March 1, 2005 at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack

Warren "Positive Incest" Farrell Speaks About Women For The New York Times

Warren Farrell is no friend of women. From Feministing I have learned that Farrell is blaming women yet again for any problems they experience in an article he wrote for the New York Times. It appears he's on yet another book tour, so it's time to speak the truth about that man.

Laryn at Feministing criticized Farrell's woman-blaming opinions, quoting the Times article:

"Women, he believes, methodically engineer their own paltry pay. They choose psychically fulfilling jobs, like librarian or art historian, that attract enough applicants for the law of supply and demand to kick in and depress pay. They avoid well-paid but presumably risky work - hence, the paucity of women flying planes. And they tend to put in fewer hours than men - no small point, he says, because people who work 44 hours a week make almost twice as much as those who work 34 and are more likely to be promoted."

Ummmm, yeah. But where is the analysis on how women are pushed out of partnerships and senior level positions when they become pregnant. Or how women are *still* left tending to the majority of childcare and house work. And how no matter how many hours we put in, we will still *never* be eligible for the boys club. I don't care how you spin it, it is just plain *wrong* to blame women for their lower pay. (sigh).

Warren Farrell has no business speaking about women and children. Despite the way he waves around his allegedly feminist credentials, such as his stint on the board of the New York State chapter of NOW, in reality he has long been associated with anti-woman fathers' rights groups the National Congress for Fathers and Children and the Children's Rights Council (which is a fathers' rights group, not a child-welfare group). He was on the Advisory Board for Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange (F.R.E.E.). He is also highly supportive of the American Fathers' Coalition (AFC often cites Farrell as an "expert"). These groups are of no service to women, and they don't do men and fathers much good either. They serve children the least.

What Farrell has been trying to keep quiet for twenty years were statements he made supportive of incest for a 1977 issue of Penthouse. He has threatened to sue anyone who brings up this article. I have been threatened but never sued. I am not afraid to bring this issue up when necessary. If he wanted to sue anyone he should have sued Penthouse and writer Philip Nobile for any problems with the article, but he has never done that. He made excuses for his pro-incest statements. For example, saying that he meant "gently caressing" rather than "genitally caressing." He then later changed that statement to meaning "generally caressing." He can't dance his way out of what he said.

I own my own copy of this particular issue of Penthouse. My statements aren't rumors found on the Internet. I found it at a collectible comic book store. Vintage issues of Penthouse and Playboy are considered collectibles, so sometimes they may be found at collectible book stores or comic book shops.

Farrell's book on positive incest, "The Last Taboo: the Three Faces of Incest," was never published. He had placed ads in the "Village Voice," the "New York Review of Books," "Psychology Today," and the "New Republic" seeking, for research purposes, people who had committed incest. 200 responded.

The article is reproduced at Elizabeth Kate's web site - she owns her own copy of the issue, too. It is Incest: The Last Taboo. Previously Suppressed Material From The Original Kinsey Interviews Tells Us That Incest Is Prevalent And Often Positive. The statements below are quoted verbatim from the article, and they are available on one of my web pages about Warren Farrell. To read all of my web site pages about Warren Farrell, go to this link. It's a one-stop portal.

Everything below quoted is verbatim from the original Penthouse article. Bold is my emphasis.

"When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200," says Farrell, "the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in."

"... [M]illions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. ... [T]housands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence, that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. ..."

"[Dr. Paul Gebhard, then director of the Institute for Sex Research in Bloomington, Indiana] is releasing Kinsey's startling incest material for incorporation in Warren Farrell's work-in-progress, The Last Taboo: the Three Faces of Incest. According to the cultural gatekeepers in New York publishing, America still wasn't ready to hear about positive incest in the mid seventies. Farrell's impressive credentials - a Ph.D. in political science from N.Y.U., former board member of the National Organization for Women, and author of a book entitled Beyond Masculinity -- counted as nothing. His forty-one-page outline (including two sizzling case histories -- one with a New York Writer who has intercourse regularly with his seventeen-year old daughter, occasionally supplemented by threesomes with the daughter's girlfriend, and another with a Notre Dame graduate who made love to his mother for ten years) was returned by twenty-two houses last fall..."

"NBC's "Weekend visit to the Santa Clara County Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Center in San Jose will not help Farrell and [Dr. James Ramey, a sociologist who has also written positive incest material] convince anyone that incest is less than a scourge."

"Although Farrell has personally familiarized [Hank Giaretto, director of the Santa Clara Abuse Treatment Center] with his findings on positive incest before the "Weekend" taping, Giaretto failed to temper his apocalyptism on camera."

"Warren Farrell admires Giaretto's rehabilitative mission among legitimate victims, for his own investigation of positive incest allows for considerable negativity, particularly in the father-daughter category. But he faults "Weekend" for its skewed perspective. "It was like interviewing Cuban refugees about Cuba. "Weekend" recorded sexually abused children speaking about their sexual abuse, which is valuable, but the inference is that all incest is abuse. And that's not true."

"The idea for the book struck him after reading a Times article about incest early last year. According to the piece, only a tiny fraction of the cases ever reaches the courts. In 1976 New York City police received merely one incest complaint and no arrests. Farrell wondered if perhaps some incidents weren't reported because the relationships went smoothly. Since nothing had been written about nonpatient-nonoffender participants, he decided the gap was too large to ignore."

"...[H]is preliminary data suggest that the taboo needs severe overhauling. Breaking down the effects into positive (beneficial), negative (traumatic), and mixed (nontraumatic but not regarded as beneficial) categories -- the three faces of incest in his subtitle -- he says that the overwhelming majority of cases fall into the positive column. Cousin-cousin (including uncle-niece and aunt-nephew) and brother-sister (including sibling homosexuality) relations, accounting for about half of the total incidence, are perceived as beneficial in 95 percent of the cases. ... Farrell points out that boys don't seem to suffer, not even from the negative experiences. "Girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt."

"Farrell also hopes to change public attitudes so that participants in incest will no longer be automatically perceived as victims. 'The average incest participant can't evaluate his or her experience for what it was. As soon as society gets into the picture, they have to tell themselves it was bad. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.' "

"Warren Farrell prophesies that incest will be a major social issue in the eighties. If so, the debate will be bloody and presumably unproductive. Those who accept the original sin of incest, the great Judeo-Christian majority, will not be dissuaded by anyone's case studies. The last taboo could become the last straw as the Save Our Children movement heads closer to home."

Here are more of my links about Warren Farrell, if you don't want to go to the one-stop page linked above. Read them in this order. I highly recommend them so you get the entire gist of this issue and so that you can see how bad Warren Farrell really is.

Trish Wilson Responds To Warren Farrell: That Danged Penthouse Article Just Won't Go Away

Who Is Libeling Whom: More On Warren Farrell and the Penthouse Business

Warren Farrell, "Empowerment Feminism," and More Penthouse Backpedaling

Trish Wilson Reviews Warren Farrell's "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say: Destroying Myths, Creating Love." Also available at XY Online

I also recommend you read this page by Elizabeth Kates, WARREN FARRELL'S TOP TEN HOLIDAY SUGGESTIONS for a parent who wants to learn or teach stalking behavior?

Posted on March 1, 2005 at 09:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

February 27, 2005

Juan Cole Makes A Good Point About Women In Iraq And In The U. S.

From Juan Cole:

Amnesty International reports that the women of Iraq have suffered substantial setbacks in their rights since the US invasion, and live in a condition of dire insecurity.

The suggestion by some that the guarantee of 1/3 of seats in the Iraqi parliament to women might make up for the situation described by Amnesty is of course absurd. Iraq is not the first country to have such a quota. It was put into effect in Pakistan by Gen. Pervez Musharraf. The move was meant to weaken Muslim fundamentalists, on the theory that women members of parliament would object to extreme patriarchy on the Khomeini or Taliban model. In fact, the Jama'at-i Islami, the main fundamentalist party in Pakistan, was perfectly capable of finding women to represent it in parliament. (US readers should remember Phyllis Schlafly!) Moreover, the 1/3 of MPs who are women can fairly easily be outvoted by the men.

If the Republican Party in the US is so proud of putting in such a quota for Iraq, they should think seriously about applying it in the United States Congress.

' . . . there are larger disparities between the Congress and the general citizenry in term of sex and race. In the House, there are currently 372 men and 63 women. In the Senate, there are 14 women and 86 men. '

Might not the US be a better country if there were 33 women senators and more like 120 congresswomen? If your answer is that it wouldn't matter, then you cannot very well insist that it does matter in Iraq. If you think it would be important, then if you support it in Iraq you should support it in the United States.

Posted on February 27, 2005 at 01:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack

More Estrogen Blogging

Leslie at Plum Crazy has an excellent list of links to issues women are blogging about this week. She included my post about Wade Horn drumming up grants for abstinence-only education. Go read them all.

Posted on February 27, 2005 at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Martha Stewart Getting Out Of Jail

Missouri Mule at BlondeSense has some insightful things to say about Martha Stewart, who is about to be released from jail.

The trial was a witch hunt. Prosecutors brought out testimony of Martha "yelling" at people on the phone, trying to make it seem that Martha wasn't a "nice" woman. What the hell does that have to do with the charges? Do you think for a Missouri moment they would have done this if she had a penis? Stewart is a powerful woman; she probably does yell from time to time.She's the boss Queen too. Donald Trump yells at somebody every damn week on national television and fires them too. Chit, we love it.

They sacred Martha to death. During that season entire companies come out of hibernation just to teach the public how to lie to the government. But do we prosecute them? Hell no. See, I think they went after Martha because they were pissed off about all the things she can make out of everyday items that they can't. I know Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have a clue what to do with a skein of maple weaver's yarn/ But should Martha have be reviled and punished because she can make a damn quilt, a hammock, and truss turkey out of the same skein? I think not. Maybe I'm just starting to identify with rich women more these days. I used to identify only with poor women. Thank Gawd money cured me of that sickness.

While everyone was dissing Martha Stewart, I wondered when the big whigs from Enron were going to fall. That sure hasn't made the news or the tabloid pages, not to the extent that pillorying Martha did.

Posted on February 27, 2005 at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Most Japanese Women Prefer To Remain Single

A new poll found that "most single Japanese women prefer not to marry and believe they can live happily alone for the rest of their life." This gells with two earlier posts I made about Japanese women balking at marriage. Here's the second post on the subject, in which I wrote about a Foreign Policy article that "described the growing dissatisfaction Japanese women have about their second-class status and dreadful treatment when it comes to marriage -- dissatisfaction so pronounced that many of them have chosen to forgo marriage and childbearing. Japanese wives are expected to shoulder the household chores, wait on their husbands (including peeling his apples for him), and raise the kids. Japanese men poo-pooed their complaints, calling them "the twittering of birds."

I wrote that back in December, 2003, and it seems that things aren't much better several months later.

Posted on February 27, 2005 at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 26, 2005

Oh, Never Mind

"Virus" with Jamie Lee Curtis is on now, and that movie sucks, so I'm going to blog for awhile. I can't believe I just sat through "Xtro II: The Second Encounter." I saw "Xtro I" years ago. In that one, the alien impregnated an au-pair. A true low moment in movie watching.

I'm mad at The Sci-Fi Channel anyway because I think it cancelled "Ghost Hunters." That show was a cheap thrill. I'm not surprised if it was cancelled, though, because those guys couldn't get their act together. One of them was fired from his real life job on the first episode because he missed too much time from work doing his ghost hunting. The two main guys work for Roto Rooter, plus they leave their wives at home taking care of young children while they galavant all over the place hunting ghosts. One guy's wife is very mad at him for this. The guy who lost his job lost equipment, too, so the head guys have to dip into their pockets to replace the stuff. Granted, they debunk most of the cases they go on. I was hoping they'd go to a place I recognize, since they're in New England. They did go to a restaurant/bar/inn in western Massachusetts, the John Stone Inn, but they didn't find anything. One time they turned down a woman who thought her cat saw ghosts. That was amusing. On one of their cases, one of the guys was freaked out when he kept hearing a strange noise in a bedroom. Turned out it was the lazy cat snoring. I loved watching that show because it was so ridiculous. I'm going to miss it. I never get enough of that stuff.

While cruising the blogosphere I found a bunch of links from women worth reading. After all, this is Estrogen Week, and I'm participating.

Adrienne talks about the African American blogger thing. Her battle cry was worth repeating:

When we discuss the importance of recognizing women bloggers we must put a diverse face on the phrase. Women Bloggers are White, Black, Jewish, Hispanic, Asian, Arab, Native American, Biracial (such as moi, I'm half-Black, half-White), Multiracial, Lesbian, Bisexual, Islamic, Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, and so on. Women bloggers may share a common interest of speaking their minds and views, independent of others' influences and intimidation,--such as certain backward thinking men who have a problem with women with opinions, voices, and minds of their own and have no need of some guy telling them what to think or say. Women bloggers make up the diverse realm of the blogsphere and we all come from different walks of life. We must remember that not all women are same pasty-face image of a stereotypical woman-blogger that unfortunately automatically pops into one's head. We look, feel, and speak very differently from one another. But we all have many but certainly one thing in common--we speak our minds no matter what some idiot has to say or thinks about us. So hear us shrill and bitch, blogsphere!

Random Thoughts has some not-so-random thoughts about the Social Security "crisis."

Roxanne won the More Sizzle Than Steak Perranowski award. Go congratulate her.

I'm a sucker for the latest "Virgin Mary Grilled Cheese" story, and Avedon Carol has fed my fix. I haven't read Fortean Times in ages, but I regularly check Paranormal News and, as a chaser to cancel out that nonsense, A Skeptical Blog and CSICOP. Pharyngula also serves as an effective antidote. Avedon talks about some dreadful nightmares she used to have. I wonder if her nightmares are really hypnopompic or hynogogic sleep? Here are some letters addressing a Skeptical Inquirer Magazine article called "The Aliens Among Us: Hypnotic Regression Revisited," by Dr. Robert A. Baker. I couldn't find the article online, but I didn't really take much time to look for it. If Avedon has access to SI she might want to read it.

I learned a few unpleasant things about PETA this week. I wanted to point out Volsunga's post because she laid out the criticisms of the group in one paragraph: "PETA are consistently sexist, have been known to be anti-semitic, push body-image fears on young women, promote alcohol "chugging" on campuses rather than milk, and target the soft option of rich white women rather than pouring paint over that scary biker guy with the leather jacket, not to mention supporting the mainstream porn industry by advertising in Playboy." I've never been particularly impressed with the way PETA operates, but all of this was new to me. My local vet donated some money to an organization that studies cancer in cats when one of my favorite cats died from cancer about three years ago. I think supporting local feral cat groups and local shelters would be more effective than sending money to PETA.

Mary Beth at Wampum criticizes Autism Speaks for speaking for families with autistic members, especially the most vulnerable - children with autism. She thinks the families should be the ones to decide who "speaks" for autism, not this particular organization. She says that other organizations are more appropriate because they have more time and experience under their belts. She is especially concerned with Autism Speaks intention of creating a national registry of autistic patients, due to existing fears of how such a registry would be abused. She links quite a bit to autism posts by Moi at Bloggg. All of these posts are well-worth the read. Moi is a friend of mine. I'm the one who talked her into starting her own blog. Heh heh, Beeyatch!!!

Morgaine from What She Said! has quite a bit to say about the "women bloggers" firestorm. Start with this post, and then go to her main page and read the rest. She started "What She Said" as a way to answer the guys when this stupid meme pops up every two or three months.

Echidne is trying not to snicker when she tells us that dear old Jeff Gannon has a blog. It's called - get this - A Voice of the New Media. Snort. She also has a post about how Robin Givhan of The Washington Post has described Condoleeza Rice's choice of clothing as if she is one of the characters in The Ma