Advertisement
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
Feb
15
Book Review: Promises I Can Keep
Filed Under books, class and economics, feminism, media, parenthood, paternalism, reproductive justice, reviews | 1 Comment
I’m the kind of person who hoards books, and finds difficulty getting the the time to read them all within what most people would consider to be an even remotely reasonable timeframe. While that’s something I’m working on getting under control, the consequence is that I’m also the kind of person, who, if she ever actually writes a book review, writes it long after the book has been released.Such is the case with Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage, by Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas, released in 2005. As the title would suggest, this book is about low-income mothers who have had children outside of marriage, and why this often demonized (or pitied) demographic has grown.
The shortened conclusion is that low-income single mothers are overwhelmingly purposely choosing to carry pregnancies to term and desperately desire to have their children. Under the classist, and for women of color (the interview subjects were split evenly among women who are white, African American, and of Puerto Rican descent), racist, circumstances in which these women live, college and middle-class financial stability are not seen as attainable goals — or at least, not as attainable goals that having children will significantly hinder — and so choosing to wait until after these supposed milestones to have children frequently makes little to no sense.
Low-income single mothers being presented as rational decision makers, women who are making the choices best suited to their circumstances (rather than accident prone leeches on the system), is a rare thing indeed, and that’s why I was drawn to the book. To that end alone, I certainly thought that it was a worthwhile read, and would recommend it to others. But, at the same time, I also found that it had a few significant faults.
Feb
4
Court Ignores Man’s Domestic Violence Prior to Murder-Suicide
Filed Under courts, misogyny, parenthood, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 15 Comments
Via SAFER comes a really awful story about a man named Stephen Garcia who murdered his 9-month-old son Wyatt before taking his own life. Obviously any kind of violence like this is always horrible, but what makes it even more appalling is that the man’s actions were easily predicted by his previous threats and behavior, and evidence of that was presented by the boy’s mother Katie Tagle in court. And while it’s possible that a similar outcome might have unfolded had the court acted, the fact is that it did absolutely nothing (all emphasis mine).
Her family said Garcia abused [Katie] Tagle throughout their two-year relationship, which ended in August 2009, when, her family said, he punched her in the face, knocking her unconscious
…
On Dec. 15, Tagle asked for an emergency restraining order against Garcia, telling Judge Debra Harris in a Joshua Tree courtroom that Garcia had threatened Wyatt. “He had sent me text messages before that if his son was around certain people … that he would kill him,” Tagle told the judge, according to transcripts of the hearing. “And that if I wasn’t where I was supposed to be, he’d find me and kill me.”
“What about the threat to shoot you, where did that occur, to hunt you down and shoot you with a gun?” the judge asked. “That was in a text message, Tagle replied. When Harris asked for copies of the text messages, Tagle said she had no way of printing them out and her phone was shut off. The judge denied the emergency order and set a hearing.
At that hearing, on Jan. 12, Tagle went before Judge David Mazurek in the Joshua Tree courthouse to show cause for a restraining order. “…On Dec. 31, we were doing our exchange, and he proposed to me, and I said no. He got angry and stole my phone and pushed me down. I made a police report about that,” Tagle told the judge, according to a transcript.
Garcia told the judge the report was “falsely made up.” Mazurek denied Tagle the restraining order. “If I grant the restraining order, how do you think that’s going to help with respect to you two being able to raise Wyatt together or work together to make sure Wyatt grows up happy and healthy?” the judge asked, according to the transcripts.
Asked about an e-mail in which he confessed to hitting Tagle, Garcia told the judge he had slapped her during a fight, but it was Tagle’s fault for “pushing and pushing and pushing until she could get something from me.” Tagle pointed out she was nine months pregnant when Garcia hit her.
“I kind of get an idea of what’s going on,” Mazurek said. He denied the restraining order, saying, “I don’t think that Mr. Garcia poses a threat to Ms. Tagle.” Mazurek went on to suggest Tagle might have ulterior motives for alleging domestic violence. “I get concerned when there’s a pending child custody and visitation issue and in between that, one party or the other claims that there’s some violence in between. It raises the court’s eyebrows because based on my experience, it’s a way for one party to try to gain an advantage over the other,” he said, according to the transcripts.
Unbelievably, the story gets even worse from here. The day after the hearing, Garcia sent Tagle a “story” about their relationship, which ended in him murdering their son and committing suicide. Tagle called the police and obtained an emergency restraining order, but a month later Judge Robert Lemkau not only refused to uphold it, but also ordered that Wyatt be handed over the Garcia for his scheduled visitation. A couple weeks later, Wyatt was dead.
Dec
23
Mother’s Disability Featured in Custody Dispute
Filed Under bigotry, courts, disability, discrimination, parenthood, reproductive justice | 10 Comments
Kaney O’Neill is a 31-year-old mother with a 5-month-old son. Her ex-boyfriend, and her son’s father, is now waging an ugly custody battle against her. So far, it’s an experience that countless parents have endured. What makes O’Neill’s story newsworthy, if not rare, is the fact that she has a disability — and her ex is using that disability as evidence that she is an unfit parent.
In September, Trais sued O’Neill for full custody, charging that his former girlfriend is “not a fit and proper person” to care for their son, Aidan James O’Neill.
In court documents, Trais said O’Neill’s disability “greatly limits her ability to care for the minor, or even wake up if the minor is distressed.”
O’Neill counters that she always has another able-bodied adult on hand for Aidan — be it her full-time caretaker, live-in brother or her mother. Even before she gave birth to Aidan, O’Neill said, she never went more than a few hours by herself.
The custody case, expected back before Cook County Judge Patricia Logue next month, raises profound questions about what rights disabled parents have to care for their own children.
Ella Callow, the director of legal programs for the National Center for Parents with Disabilities and their Families, said disabled parents are incorrectly “perceived as unable to perform to standard.”
“No judge wants to be the judge who sends a child home when the child gets hurt,” said Callow, of the Berkeley, Calif.-based advocacy group.
Callow said the bias against disabled parents is such that judges tend to grant custody to an able-bodied partner “even if they have a history that might usually be a heavy mark against them — not having been in the child’s life, a history of violence, etc.”
What Trais is attempting is repulsive, wrong, and inexcusable. But the bigger problem is that parents who try to pull this type of nonsense have a whole lot of backup. It ranges from the multitudes of ignorant online commenters who have agreed with him, to the judges who have ruled previous custody cases based on one parent’s disability, to complete outsiders who feel the right to speak on the matter as experts (emphasis mine):
But Howard LeVine, a Tinley Park attorney not affiliated with the case, said Trais’ concerns are legitimate and may hold legal weight.
“Certainly, I sympathize with the mom, but assuming both parties are equal (in other respects), isn’t the child obviously better off with the father?“
LeVine, who has specialized in divorce and custody cases for the last 40 years, pointed out that O’Neill would likely not be able to teach her son to write, paint or play ball. “What’s the effect on the child — feeling sorry for the mother and becoming the parent?”
Well here we see a bias exposed in all of its glory: you see, Mr. LeVine, all things being equal, the disability wouldn’t factor in to this decision at all.
Sep
30
The Today Show Uses Fear-Mongering to Demonize Midwives and Home Births
Filed Under media, misogyny, parenthood, paternalism, patriarchy, pregnancy, reproductive justice, women’s health | 7 Comments
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The embedded video above is a fairly recent segment from The Today Show on the rise in midwife-assisted home births. It’s called “The Perils of Midwifery,” and it’s a segment which, it should be noted, uses almost entirely men as reporters and experts. And as you can likely tell from the title, it’s a segment which demonizes home births and midwives as much as feasibly possible.
The segment features the McKenzie family, who have suffered a horrific tragedy — their baby, who was delivered at home with midwife assistance, did not survive. Their story is clearly a heartbreaking one, and there’s absolutely no reason that it shouldn’t be told. At the same time, though, it’s also incredibly unfair for their story to be used in place of facts, or held up as an example of common home birth outcomes. Because while it is in fact one outcome that actually occurred, it’s far from a representative one.
Apr
30
Pro-Choice Event in NYC
Filed Under events and excursions, feminism, parenthood, pregnancy, reproductive justice | Leave a Comment
I got an email about an event in NYC, apparently a part of a series being run by NARAL Pro-Choice New York, called “Choices.” Check out the info below:
Choices: Parenting
Thursday, May 7th
6:15-8:15 pm
Sistas on the Rise
835 Dawson Street
Bronx, NY 10459NARAL Pro-Choice New York presents “Choices”, a six-part series of events examining the full range of reproductive choices available to women.
The second installment of the series will be “Choices: Parenting”, a look at the work being done on the ground to ensure that parenting is an accessible and supported reproductive choice for all. Co-sponsors and presenters include Sistas on the Rise, Baby’s First Home, The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the Red Hook Initiative.
Free with RSVP to lhoward@prochoiceny.org or 646-520-3506.
Event is open to all and space is wheelchair accessible.
While the pro-choice movement does of course support the option of parenting, it’s often one that goes overlooked in our pro-choice discussions about reproductive options. I think we all know that coerced choice is not a choice at all, but still far too many women feel as though financial constraints leave them with no option other than abortion. Of course that option should be available to them — but so should the option of parenting when they would otherwise want to carry to term. It’s something that deserves our serious attention, and not the crisis pregnancy center “here’s some baby clothes, good luck!” kind. The structural, legislative and community-based “how are we going to make this world a more hospitable and just place for all women and their children?” kind.
So this event sounds really interesting and important, and I encourage people who are able to make it out to do so.
Nov
24
SD Anti-Choicers are Sad that Women Still Have Rights
Filed Under 2008 election, abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, legislation, misogyny, parenthood, paternalism, patriarchy, politics, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, sexism, women’s health | 18 Comments
I was at Planned Parenthood seven different times. I also was at the Campaign for Healthy Families’ place three times, where a young lady from Black Sheep Coffee shop brought me a cup of its great coffee on a cool day. She was a real sweetheart.
But all our efforts failed. The good people at Vote Yes For Life did the best they could but again were defeated.
The morals in this country have been on a slippery slope for many years and are getting worse, and with the liberal Democrats in full control, there is little chance of overturning Roe v. Wade for several years.
I have asked many people: “Did your Mother abort you?” Before they could answer, I answered for them, saying, “No, she did not. She gave you life.”
I have met many people who inspired me and also some who swore and gave me the middle-finger salute, but I expected that and remain fully committed that abortion is evil.
The end time is coming. The book of Revelation tells that all will be judged. The bad will be thrown into the fiery pit, and the good will live forever. I believe abortionists will be one of the first to go.
Well maybe if you weren’t wasting your time harassing people who are actually doing something — rather than, you know, convincing voters by knocking on doors and making phone calls like the people you harassed were — you might have had a better shot at winning. Not that I’m giving advice, mind you. Please, dear god, keep up your current dumbass tactics.
You know, I was posting this out of amusement to begin with, but I also just had a little realization. The “well your mother didn’t have an abortion” argument is a common one, and it’s dreadfully stupid. But the thing is, it also tells us an awful lot about how those who make it think about women.
The people who make this argument don’t consider that the woman wanted that pregnancy. Or that maybe the woman wasn’t able to access abortion and was miserable about having to carry the pregnancy anyway. There’s nothing in there at all about why the woman didn’t have an abortion, or it would ruin the whole already-miserable argument by suggesting that yes, the woman did have a choice. Being a woman, in these people’s eyes, has nothing to do with what we want. It has to do with what we do for other people.
My mother “gave me life.” She didn’t want children. She didn’t try to get pregnant and act excited because she always wanted to be a mother. No, she just did her womanly duty, all that she’s good for, according to this guy. Oh, he didn’t just insult me by saying that since I’m alive I have no right to an abortion or to support the right to abortion. He didn’t just heavily imply that a woman who gives birth can’t be pro-choice. He also insulted my mother by suggesting that her motivations for giving birth to me had jackshit to do with her. He said that my mother’s wishes, wants, happiness and very life don’t mean all that much so long as they support his agenda. And he said the same thing about your mother, too.
Of course, in the end, none of this matters. All us heathens ought to be concerned about is finding a way out of getting thrown into that fiery pit!
Nov
21
Nixzmary Brown’s Mother Sentenced to Longer Term than Girl’s Actual Killer
Filed Under assholes, courts, discrimination, feminism, misogyny, parenthood, patriarchy, sexism, stereotypes, violence against women and girls | 12 Comments
I have previously written about the horrific crime that was Nixzmary Brown’s murder. Her killer and stepfather Cesar Rodriguez got the maximum sentence of 26 1/3 to 29 years in prison for the crime of which he was accused, manslaughter of the seven-year-old girl.
Now Nixzmary’s mother Nixzaliz Santiago has also been sentenced in the crime. To 40 to 40 1/3 years in prison. Or at least 14 years longer than her actual killer.
How do we explain this? Well, the NY TImes actually does a pretty good job:
As the prosecutor asked the judge to impose a long prison sentence, she used the word twice: “Mommy.”
The “mommy” she was referring to was Nixzaliz Santiago, who last week received a sentence of 40 1/3 to 43 years in prison, the maximum term, for her part in the death of her 7-year-old daughter, Nixzmary Brown.
The prosecutor, Ama Dwimoh, said Ms. Santiago was the “one person” who the little girl should have been able to count on. “She called her ‘Mommy,’ ” Ms. Dwimoh told the judge. The word weighed heavily on a trial already filled with horrific details of abuse.
[. . .]
Justice DiMango said that Ms. Santiago, who was convicted of manslaughter and two counts of assault but acquitted of murder, had ignored her lawful obligation as a parent to try to save the dying child. But the wide gap between the sentences raised questions about whether Ms. Santiago shouldered an extra burden as she faced judge and jury: the duty to be a good mother.
[. . .]
One of Ms. Santiago’s lawyers, Kathleen M. Mullin, called the sentence “fundamentally unfair” and said she had expected at most a sentence of 32 years — maximum terms for the manslaughter charge and one of the assault charges, with the sentence for the other assault to run concurrently. (Mr. Rodriguez was not charged with assault.)
That’s right — what it comes down to is that Ms. Santiago “ignored her lawful obligation as a parent,” even though as her stepfather, Mr. Rodriguez was Nixzmary’s parent, too. Oh, and Rodriguez wasn’t charged with assault even though there’s evidence that he assaulted and starved the girl for an extended period. The mother was.
So let’s be a bit more accurate: Ms. Santiago was punished more harshly because she was the girl’s mommy.
Sep
22
Judge Bars Woman From Having Children
Filed Under courts, parenthood, patriarchy, pregnancy, reproductive justice | 32 Comments
A Texas judge has set the conditions of a woman’s probation to include that she not have children.
The order was for Felicia Salazar, 20, who admitted to failing to provide protection and medical care to her then-19-month-old daughter last year. The girl suffered broken bones and other injuries when she was beaten by her father, Roberto Alvarado, 25, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Alvarado and Salazar relinquished their parental rights, and the child, who has recovered, was placed in foster care.
On Sept. 5, state District Judge Charlie Baird sentenced Salazar, who had no criminal history, to 10 years of probation after she reached a plea bargain with prosecutors. In Texas, judges set conditions of probation. In addition to requiring Salazar to perform 100 hours of community service and to undergo a mental health assessment and setting other typical conditions, Baird told Salazar not to have any more children.
In an interview Wednesday, Baird said Texas law gives judges the discretion to set any conditions of probation deemed reasonable. He also said that neither Salazar nor her lawyer, Kent Anschutz, objected.
“When you look her background, the circumstances of this case,” he said, “a reasonable condition of her probation was that she not conceive or bear any children.”
Anschutz said he is considering his options on behalf of Salazar. He described her as concerned about Baird’s order.
“Although I fully understand the sentiment and perspective of the judge in this matter, I question the enforceability of that particular condition,” he said.
The first thing I notice here is that this is yet another case of a woman being punished for failing to stand up to the actions of an abusive man. While it’s possible that Salazar is a sadist who enjoys the torture of children as much as the child’s father, it’s just as likely if not more so that the child’s father was also abusive to her and/or she was afraid of him.
But I’m going to set that aside. Why? Because it’s not about how sympathetic the woman in question is. It’s about whether or not this is constitutional, and whether or not it is a violation of this woman’s inalienable rights.
Jul
17
Immigrant Woman Abused By Government While Giving Birth
Filed Under human rights, immigration, misogyny, parenthood, politics, pregnancy, race and racism, reproductive justice, women’s health | 8 Comments
Juana Villegas DeLaPaz’s story is, sadly, not particularly unusual, but it is gut-wrenching and outrageous. (h/t brownfemipower)
Authorities identified Villegas DeLaPaz as an undocumented immigrant and begin deportation proceedings in such a way that violated ICE’s own procedures. She did not pose a threat, and was in the advanced stages of pregnancy. Then she went into labor.
Villegas DeLaPaz was arrested, incarcerated and forced to go through labor under armed guard handcuffed to by her wrist and ankle to a hospital bed. When she arrived at the hospital, the nurse asked the accompanying officer to step outside while Villegas DeLaPaz changed into her hospital gown – he refused, forcing Villegas DeLaPaz to unclothe before him. Then she was shackled on her legs whenever she went to the bathroom. The nurse asked that the shackles be removed because she wanted Villegas DeLaPaz to be able to clean up after childbirth and do other hygiene to prevent infection. Again, the attending officer refused. Her newborn was taken from her and did not receive needed breast milk for several days. She was re-jailed and denied a breast pump to express her milk. Nurses attending her were crying. She could not sleep in the jail because of the intense pain from her swollen breasts. She was not allowed to call her family so her husband could be with her for the birth.
Apr
24
Why We Need to Stop the Democratic Infighting
Filed Under Democrats, Republicans, assholes, class and economics, discrimination, legislation, misogyny, parenthood, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, sexism, work | 13 Comments
Because John McCain is a misogynist nutbag. As are his fellow Republicans.
Yesterday, Republican Senators successfully filibustered — that’s right, not just voted against but fucking filibustered — a bill that would provide those who have been the victims of discriminatory pay with more legal recourse. In other words, they filibustered a civil rights bill. Because Republicans have so learned the error of their prejudiced ways.
Republicans said the proposal to ease the time constraints would prompt more lawsuits and lead to litigation over outdated cases. “This debate today is not about allowing, favoring or supporting discrimination,” said Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia.
[. . .]
Mr. McCain, who was campaigning in Louisiana, skipped the vote but told reporters he would have opposed the bill since it could contribute to frivolous lawsuits harmful to businesses.
Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, accused Democrats of unfairly trying to paint opponents of the bill as unsympathetic to victims of salary discrimination. “The only ones who will see an increase in pay are some of the trial lawyers who bring the cases,” he said.
Um, what exactly, Senator Hatch, is being unfairly represented? Victims of unfair pay discrimination need a recourse, and you are actively denying it to them. You’re openly protecting companies who have a history of discrimination. And you are allowing, favoring or supporting discrimination, Senator Isakson, by refusing to hold those corporations who have engaged in it responsible for their actions. This is pretty fucking simple.
John McCain didn’t show up to vote — but did support the “it would provoke lawsuits” argument (um, assholes, that’s the point), and had this to say:
“They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else,” McCain said. “And it’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them.
“It’s a vicious cycle that’s affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least,” he said.
Oh, I see: so Senator McCain, you’re going to start supporting flexible work schedules and reduced working hours for both parents? You’re going to promote men taking a more active role in child-rearing and support social services that help women with child care? You’re also going to support those who are genuinely stuck in low paying jobs because a lack of educational opportunity with resources, and work to improve school systems and economic equality?
Um . . . no. McCain supports the “free market” — the very same free market that allows employers to discriminate against women, racial minorities, the disabled and LGBTQ individuals. He’s just using an opportunity to remind everyone that women belong back in the kitchen with a child on each hip. He also needed to point out that women are only paid less is because we just can’t stop popping out the kiddies, are uneducated and don’t do equal work — even though the Ledbetter case shows that this argument is a bunch of shit.
Below the jump, what I think of McCain and the Senate Republicans (all but six of whom voted to block the measure).
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
