Aug

31

Crisis Pregnancy Centers Regularly Engage in Coercive Adoption Practices

Filed Under anti-choice extremism, assholes, human rights, misogyny, patriarchy, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, slut-shaming, women’s health | 14 Comments

Almost two years ago, I wrote about a distressing and eye-opening book called The Girls Who Went Away, which is about the women who surrendered their children for adoption under coercion in the years before legal abortion and when single or unwed parenting was ostracized. Most of the women who surrendered their children were threatened, taunted, scolded and otherwise coerced by Catholic or otherwise Christian-affiliated adoption agencies and maternity homes. It’s an absolutely heartbreaking read, and an important one on the subject of reproductive justice that I couldn’t more highly recommend.

Now there’s a terrifying and depressing article in the Nation about how the period of coercive adoptions is not one merely relegated to our history. It’s happening today, and it’s happening via the ever-infamous, deceptive and also Christian-affiliated crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). If you thought that pretending they were abortion clinics and then admonishing women to not kill their babies was bad — and how could you not? — you ain’t seen nothing yet:

Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), the nonprofit pregnancy-testing facilities set up by antiabortion groups to dissuade women from having abortions, have become fixtures of the antiabortion landscape, buttressed by an estimated $60 million in federal abstinence and marriage-promotion funds. The National Abortion Federation estimates that as many as 4,000 CPCs operate in the United States, often using deceptive tactics like posing as abortion providers and showing women graphic antiabortion films. While there is growing awareness of how CPCs hinder abortion access, the centers have a broader agenda that is less well known: they seek not only to induce women to “choose life” but to choose adoption, either by offering adoption services themselves, as in Bethany’s case, or by referring women to Christian adoption agencies. Far more than other adoption agencies, conservative Christian agencies demonstrate a pattern and history of coercing women to relinquish their children.

Bethany guided Jordan through the Medicaid application process and in April moved her in with home-schooling parents outside Myrtle Beach. There, according to Jordan, the family referred to her as one of the agency’s “birth mothers”–a term adoption agencies use for relinquishing mothers that many adoption reform advocates reject–although she hadn’t yet agreed to adoption. “I felt like a walking uterus for the agency,” says Jordan.

Jordan was isolated in the shepherding family’s house; her only social contact was with the agency, which called her a “saint” for continuing her pregnancy but asked her to consider “what’s best for the baby.” “They come on really prolife: look at the baby, look at its heartbeat, don’t kill it. Then, once you say you won’t kill it, they ask, What can you give it? You have nothing to offer, but here’s a family that goes on a cruise every year.”

There is not much more to say other than go read the rest. Go read Jordan’s story, the story of other women like her, and the ways in which our government is supporting this absolute horror. And then share it with others. I did merely want to specifically highlight one more point:

Even as women have gained better reproductive healthcare access, adoption laws have become less favorable for birth mothers, advancing the time after birth when a mother can relinquish–in some states now within twenty-four hours–and cutting the period to revoke consent drastically or completely. Adoption organizations have published comparative lists of state laws, almost as a catalog for prospective adopters seeking states that restrict birth parent rights.

It’s desperately important to remember that when our government officials, including those who call themselves “pro-choice,” talk openly about “promoting” adoption, this, inadvertently or not, is precisely what they are supporting. “Promoting” one pregnancy option, any option, above another is not allowing women to make an objective decision based on unbiased facts and personal beliefs and circumstances. And I fervently believe that supporting adoption, the women who make the choice to put their children up for adoption, the families that adopt children, and the children who have been adopted, is a vastly different thing from promoting adoption to pregnant women as a more beneficial choice than abortion or parenting. The former is pro-choice and compassionate. The latter is anything but, and ought to be considered the nightmare that it is.

Aug

29

The Beatles: Rock Band: Top 10 Desired DLC Tracks

Filed Under Gratuitous Beatles Blogging, fun | 9 Comments

beatles rb lucy

With less than 11 full days to go until 09.09.09 (OMG!), you shouldn’t be surprised that I’m inundating you with The Beatles: Rock Band coverage. Especially having played the Best Buy demo on Tuesday (unfortunately only on guitar — stupid Best Buy only having one instrument), I’m more excited now than I’ve ever been. Because playing that demo Was. Fucking. Awesome. And, in fact, I’ve got a massive post coming at you on the last Saturday before the game’s release!

I’ll admit that I’m still a little hung up on songs that aren’t going to be in the game. But I’m also in high hopes that in addition to doing full album downloads, they’ll also do some plain old single song downloads and/or download packs! After all, that would be the smart thing to do, yes? So I’m giving my disappointment as positive a spin as I know how — by making a list not of songs that should have been in the game, but of songs that I desperately hope will eventually be available as downloadable content! It’s a bit heavy on early Beatles, even though when forced to choose I’m definitely a late Beatles kinda person, because I think that early Beatles songs totally got shafted in terms of song ratio. (Hey, something had to get shafted, but I’m just saying!)

Here we go:

1. She Loves You

Again, enormous sin to not have it in the game. As it was recorded on two-track tape, a part of me almost wants to say that Giles Martin implored them “please, no more than these five songs!” — but that’s hardly an excuse. Come on, now. If you are going to make time to separate out the tracks on Boys, you can do it for She Loves You. It’s one of the Beatles’ most signature tunes, and certainly one of the most exuberant, not to mention a great drum track from Ringo.

Read more

Aug

28

Does a Sexual Position Indicate Consent?

Filed Under assholes, bigotry, courts, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 8 Comments

Posts have appeared recently at both Abyss2Hope and SAFER on a rape trial in which the most egregious rape apologism was committed not by a defense attorney, who can and probably should be expected to engage in such behavior, but the judge. Even worse, the judge interrogated the victim not during the course of the trial itself, but during sentencing — after the defendant had already been convicted of rape by a jury of his peers:

Although the jury already had found Escobar guilty of aggravated sexual assault, Fine went on to challenge the victim’s version of events, doubting her truthfulness on details from her vague time line to the method in which her clothing was removed. Near the end, Fine remarked that “sending an innocent man to prison in the name of law and order is the greatest injustice this society can do.”

Obviously Judge Fine’s overall questioning was rooted in his own ingrained misogyny and disrespect for rape victims. But it’s his specific reason for distrusting this victim’s story that is particularly interesting, widespread, and in need of further discussion: he didn’t like the sexual position that was used throughout the rape.

What shocked the victim most was when the judge questioned whether she was really raped since he found it “odd” that was she was on top of Escobar during the assault. The judge required the victim to recount, in detail, her position during the rape and explain how Escobar, who maintained the sex was consensual, was able to force himself on her.

“I know these are tough questions and I don’t like to have to ask them,” the judge told the victim, according to a July 31 transcript, released late last week. “It’s just you understand that most rapes take place with the man on top so he has complete control of the female.”

The question drew an objection from Prosecutor Ed McClees, who questioned the relevance in a tense exchange. The judge argued the law allowed him to consider facts and circumstances of the offense to determine the appropriate punishment.

Read more

Aug

27

Defense Attorney Calls Rape Victims “Whores,” and Worse

Filed Under assholes, bigotry, courts, discrimination, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sex work, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 13 Comments

Trigger Warning

Every single time I argue that a rape apologist defense attorney has hit a new low, I speak too soon. This time, the evidence that there was still further to sink just came at a particularly rapid speed, and with a particularly hard impact.

Outside Charleston, West Virginia, a defense attorney defended a now-convicted serial rapist who specifically targeted prostitutes by repeatedly proclaiming the victims “whores,” and explicitly stating that their bodies and rights did not have the same value as those of non-sex working women:

Ed ReBrook, Gravely’s defense attorney, called no witnesses. But he summed up his case in a dramatic closing argument to jurors during which he called the victims “tramps” and “whores.”

“You cannot rape the willing,” ReBrook said. “They got in those automobiles with the intention of having sex for money.

“I would be horrified if any of the women in my life were raped, but I’m talking about decent, honorable women,” ReBrook said, and then dramatically raised his voice. “Not whores who have sex with many, many men for money.”

Assistant Prosecutor Fred Giggenbach immediately asked Kanawha Circuit Judge Tod Kaufman to stop ReBrook, but he did not.

“They are whores,” ReBrook persisted. “That is a perfectly usable word in the English language.

“Finding this man guilty of rape lessens the dignity of every other woman,” ReBrook said. “What they have done is turn sex into something disgusting.

“They are not like your wife, your girlfriend or your daughter,” he said. “They are street tramps. And what happened to them was, at least in part, their fault.

“If stupidity was a crime, my client would be a three-time loser,” ReBrook told the jury. “He may be guilty of assault, but he is not guilty of sexual assault.”

I had to read all of this over several times, feeling more and more nauseated upon each read, just to verify that yes, this article is recent, and no, it is not written on some kind of horrifically unfunny “spoof” site.

The idea that a woman who has sex for money is physically and emotionally incapable of being raped is absolutely nothing new. It has been around since the dawn of rape itself. The idea that a woman’s inherent human worth is tied to her sexual purity, and that any woman who has sex willingly — hell, who has sex willingly or not — has therefore given up her human right to say “no” in the future, is a basic staple of misogyny. It is used against all women, each and every one of us. But it is quite logically used most harshly, regularly, and despicably against sex workers — some of the very most despised women in a world that determines a woman’s value based on what she does or doesn’t do with her genitals.

Read more

Aug

24

Defense Attorneys Want Victim to Act Out Alleged Rape in Court

Filed Under assholes, courts, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 14 Comments

I’ve written about more disgusting instances of defense attorneys pulling all kinds of bizarre, misogynistic and unethical stunts during rape trials than I could even begin to count, let alone want to. But just when I think it’d be close to impossible for an attorney to sink even lower, such an instance arrives in my inbox.

In Athens, OH, Charles H. Nguyen is charged with breaking into the home of a woman who he met on the internet, restraining her, raping her, and threatening to kill her nephew if she didn’t comply. Nguyen’s defense attorneys have started the bullshit off by trying to get the prosecution to agree to a lie detector test, and have charges dropped if Nguyen passes — knowing full well, of course, that  polygraph tests are unreliable and therefore inadmissible court evidence. But it was the next request that took things from obnoxious to grotesque and cruel:

Defense attorneys Farmer and Christopher W. Chan have also made a request – which appeared to raise the judge’s eyebrows a bit – to be allowed to set up, in front of a jury, the bed in which the rape allegedly took place, and then to require the alleged victim to physically demonstrate how her body was situated when she claims the assault occurred.

“So, you want her to assume different positions on the bed in front of the jury?” Ward asked. He suggested there’s some question as to whether he would allow this.

Read more

Aug

22

Bill in the Bahamas Attempts to Outlaw Spousal Rape

Filed Under International, feminism, human rights, legislation, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 4 Comments

Until the 1970s, spousal rape (or marital rape) was legal in most of the United States. It wasn’t until 1993 that the last U.S. state (North Carolina) made spousal rape a crime, and there are still numerous states that treat spousal rape as a lesser crime than rape committed by anyone else. Given this history and these current attitudes in a country that is often portrayed as some kind of bastion of women’s rights, it’s wholly unsurprising that many women around the world are still fighting for their right to not be legally raped by their husbands.

One such place where women do not currently have the right to bodily autonomy in marriage is the Bahamas. And women attempting to reform the law are sadly and predictably facing steep opposition:

The bill, which is designed to outlaw marital rape, was tabled in the House of Assembly last month.

However, many Bahamian men, like taxi driver Pemmie Sutherland, say the bill is “simply unnecessary.”

“It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?” asked Mr. Sutherland.

Elvis Russell told the Journal that he does not support the bill either because there is no such thing as rape within a marriage.

“Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can’t be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said ‘I do,’ so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn’t rape,” he said.

The article then continues by reminding us that misogyny and patriarchy upholding are not the sole domain of men, by quoting several women who oppose the law by expressing similar views to the ones above.

Read more

Aug

20

A Crime of Opportunity

Filed Under assholes, courts, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 12 Comments

Fernando Manuel AlvesTrigger Warning

Three years ago in B.C., Canada, a woman woke up in the bed of the man in the image to the left. She was bleeding and bruised, and though she remembered going out for a night on town, she didn’t remember how she got in this bed, or what had happened to her. Medical examinations determined that a man had vaginally penetrated her, and also found sedatives in her system.

The man’s name is Fernando Manuel Alves, and he pleaded guilty to sexual assault in the rape of this woman. He was initially charged with sexually assaulting three other women, and administering a noxious substance, though those charges were eventually dropped.

Despite pleading guilty, though, to the rape of a woman who has described since feeling the loss of both her will to live and ability to feel safe, Alves is not going to spend a single day in jail. No, instead, he received a 9 month conditional sentence, and placement on the sex offender registry.

Why, exactly, is Alves not being sent to jail for his violent crime, when non-violent criminals are sent there all the time? Well, that would be the point of particular interest:

In sentencing, the B.C. provincial court judge said Alves was not pathologically dangerous but had committed a crime of opportunity.

The judge ordered that Alves be placed on the sex-offender registry for the next 20 years but that he not spend time in jail.

Yes. Seemingly, since the judge felt the need to express as much during sentencing, Alves is not going to jail because he is believed to be not pathologically dangerous. And the way we know he is not dangerous is because his crime, his rape, was one of of opportunity.

Read more

Aug

19

New TSA Requirements Pose Risks to Trans Travelers

Filed Under LGBTQ, bigotry, discrimination, gender, human rights, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny | 10 Comments

Those of us who have been to the airport in recent years know that it is a much larger hassle than it was in pre-9/11 days. (Remember back when friends and family could come with you and see you off at the gate?) But as is usually the case, it’s a much bigger hassle for some people than others, and the increased frustration and outright harassment tend to fall along lines of oppression. If you breastfeed, you may be harassed about your pre-pumped milk. If you have a disability, you may be harassed about medical devices that are unfamiliar to screeners. If you have a certain national origin or heritage, or dress in accordance with certain religious customs — meaning, if someone could read you as Arab and/or Muslim — you may be harassed on the basis of racial profiling.

And if you’re transgender, you might be harassed on the basis of your government-issued identification, and whether or not it “matches” with your gender identity and presentation. Thus, the very real fear surrounding new regulations being implemented by the TSA:

Airlines this week will begin requiring some people making reservations for domestic flights to submit their dates of birth and genders as part of a screening process aimed at keeping boarding passes out of the hands of suspected terrorists, the Transportation Security Administration said.

The agency said the screening would all play out behind the scenes, meaning there should be no additional delays for passengers at airport terminals. The change will be phased in starting Saturday. Not all airlines are fully participating yet and might not request the data.

The TSA said it would be up to individual airlines or travel agents to decide how to collect the required information at the time a reservation is made. The program, called Secure Flight, is aimed at meeting congressional mandates, including those passed in 2007 to put into practice recommendations from the commission that investigated the 2001 terrorist attacks. The government’s goal is to vet all passengers on domestic commercial flights by early next year.

Several others have already written about these new requirements: I strongly recommend checking out Helen, Monica, Jos, and Belledame.

Read more

Aug

17

Anti-Sex Worker Bigotry Makes Its Way Into Rape Trial

Filed Under assholes, bigotry, courts, discrimination, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sex work, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 7 Comments

Rape shield laws exist in the United States to prevent a defense attorney from questioning an alleged rape victim about her (or his) previous sexual history. And they exist for a damn good reason — because a sexual assault victim’s sexual history has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she was actually raped. The only reason, in fact, that an alleged victim’s sexual history would be “useful” to the defense in a rape trial is the hope that a jury’s prejudices about a woman’s previous sexual history will cause them to declare her unrapeable.

And so, exceptions to rape shield laws are very rarely made. And you can bet than when an exception is made, it’s very regularly for a bigoted reason. Suddenly, an alleged victim’s sexual history is deemed relevant after all, because this victim is black, a gay man, a drug addict, a transgender person, a person with a disability, an immigrant, etc. … (and/) or a sex worker. The last one is what a defense team in Philadelphia is counting on in their plea for a court to ignore the rape shield law.

Read more

Aug

15

The Beatles: Rock Band Track List Reactions

Filed Under Gratuitous Beatles Blogging, fun | 10 Comments

beatles rb pepper4

In the past several weeks, and with a mere 24 days left until the release date, we’ve received a whole ton of information about The Beatles: Rock Band. We’ve seen a preview of story mode, and learned some more about the drums and vocal trainers. We’ve seen some extra graphics, which just keep getting better. We’ve received the awesome news that in addition to Abbey Road, Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band and Rubber Soul will be eventually available for full album download, with the implication of more to come. We’ve been floored with the reveal that the entire very rare The Beatles’ Christmas Album will be an unlockable bonus.

And we now know 44 of the 45 on disc songs. The list has been released through Game Informer magazine, and confirmed, though it’s still not posted on The Beatles: Rock Band official site.

If you don’t want to see it, I strongly suggest that you don’t go past the jump.

Read more

Next Page →