Women Fought Hard for the Right to Vote: Letter to the Editor in the Bismarck Tribune marking the 87th anniversary of the day that the U.S. Constitution was amended to grant women the right to vote.
Pro-babies politics: Grand Forks Herald column discussing declining fertility rates worldwide.
Emergency Birth Control Backed: Letter to the Editor in the Bismarck Tribune marking the one year anniversary of the availability of over the counter emergency contraception. Also, a letter to the editor in South Dakota on the same issue.
Shared Parenting Debate: Update on the petition drive in North Dakota as well as a letter to the editor in South Dakota that appears to be hinting at similar legislation there.
SD HPV vaccination goal falling short: About two-thirds of state-purchased doses of a vaccine for a virus that causes cervical cancer have been administered according to a Sioux Falls Argus Leader story.
County discusses maternity leave for fathers: Lincoln County Commissioners in South Dakota are being asked to clarify the policy on maternity leave for fathers.
Major religions have silenced and dismissed women: Letter to the Editor in the Rapid City Journal (scroll down to letter).
Anti-Choice Letters in South Dakota: See here and here and here.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Pregnant? Don't Show Your Belly in Fargo!
Some utterly ridiculous debate going on in Fargo about a wonderful story and photo which ran about a woman being a surrogate mother/gestational carrier for her friend. In response, those of us listening to the KFGO Ed Schultz Show the Monday following the original story were all treated to a male caller who claimed it was "disgusting" for the woman to have exposed her pregnant belly in public and that her belly should only be seen by her or her "husband" according to him. Two female letter writers to the Forum also stated that such a belly "exposure" was uncalled for - read here and here. Others disagreed including several callers to KFGO over the course of the day and a letter writer here. It's gotten to such a point that the Fargo Forum Editor had to respond.
The gestational carrier (Kate) points out in the editor's article that she didn't know she was being photographed at the time, but that makes little difference to me. I don't see a problem AT ALL. Pregnancy is a beautiful thing and we see all kinds of gals out there showing their belly and they're not pregnant so why go into hiding with mumus once you are? She was showing a friend, they were both excited and had a picture snapped. How many pregnant women have snapped photos during their pregnancy? I would bet this is a difference in the generations. The guy who called into KFGO definitely sounded older.
So watch out gals...if you live in Fargo, better cover up that disgusting bump or face the wrath of the Fargo self-nominated clothes police! Don't take any pictures either!
UPDATE: Some additional letters to the editor here and here and here and here and here strongly calling out those who are calling the photo disgusting. Great job.
The gestational carrier (Kate) points out in the editor's article that she didn't know she was being photographed at the time, but that makes little difference to me. I don't see a problem AT ALL. Pregnancy is a beautiful thing and we see all kinds of gals out there showing their belly and they're not pregnant so why go into hiding with mumus once you are? She was showing a friend, they were both excited and had a picture snapped. How many pregnant women have snapped photos during their pregnancy? I would bet this is a difference in the generations. The guy who called into KFGO definitely sounded older.
So watch out gals...if you live in Fargo, better cover up that disgusting bump or face the wrath of the Fargo self-nominated clothes police! Don't take any pictures either!
UPDATE: Some additional letters to the editor here and here and here and here and here strongly calling out those who are calling the photo disgusting. Great job.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Know A Woman Who Should Run for Public Office?
Received this from AAUW:
RESOURCES FOR ADVOCATES
Know A Woman Who Should Run for Public Office?
The Women's Campaign Forum has launched the She Should Run campaign, a comprehensive effort to gather nominations of 1,000 pro-choice women who should run for public office. WCF is committed to ensuring these women get the essential encouragement they need and to providing them access to key campaign education and resources. Do you know a woman who should run? Research shows women are much more likely to run if someone asks them to. Tell a woman she should run for office, share her story, and send her on her way toward becoming the civic leader she was always meant to be. For more information, visit http://www.sheshouldrun.org/page/content/nominatenotify/
AAUW encourages women to be active in and knowledgeable about the political process. She Should Run provides another resource towards that goal. To understand more about how you can influence the debate, visit the AAUW Voter Education Campaign.
RESOURCES FOR ADVOCATES
Know A Woman Who Should Run for Public Office?
The Women's Campaign Forum has launched the She Should Run campaign, a comprehensive effort to gather nominations of 1,000 pro-choice women who should run for public office. WCF is committed to ensuring these women get the essential encouragement they need and to providing them access to key campaign education and resources. Do you know a woman who should run? Research shows women are much more likely to run if someone asks them to. Tell a woman she should run for office, share her story, and send her on her way toward becoming the civic leader she was always meant to be. For more information, visit http://www.sheshouldrun.org/page/content/nominatenotify/
AAUW encourages women to be active in and knowledgeable about the political process. She Should Run provides another resource towards that goal. To understand more about how you can influence the debate, visit the AAUW Voter Education Campaign.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
August 25, 2007 in the News
Been out of town for work quite a bit so not much time for blogging. Here's an update of the news in the North and South Dakota papers from last week:
Hiding, secrecy indicates wrongdoing: From the Aberdeen News about the ruling that Sen. Hunt does not have disclose abortion ban donor. Favorite line: "Sen. Roger Hunt hid the identity of the $750,000 donor to the VoteYesForLife.com campaign. He said the donor was afraid of violence from the opposition, but that is not the side that bombs abortion clinics or shoots clinic personnel."
N.D. tops U.S. for working disabled: According to a Fargo Forum story, "North Dakota tops all states when it comes to people with disabilities who are working – 55.2 percent."
Rock station should be held accountable: A letter to the editor on the Rock 102 billboard controversy. See my previous post for more info.
Cohabitation Letter to the Editor: A letter to the editor disputing claims put forth that cohabitation leads to more domestic violence against women. To quote: "Domestic violence doesn’t happen because people cohabitate, it happens because abusers feel entitled to mistreat other human beings, whether married to them or not. " To see previous posts on cohabitation, hit the "cohabitation" link below.
Child custody ballot measure approved to get signatures: According to a Fargo Forum story, "Secretary of State Al Jaeger says the supporters of a child custody initiative can begin gathering signatures. " Also, see a similar Bismarck Tribune story but with reader comments which are of interest.
Hiding, secrecy indicates wrongdoing: From the Aberdeen News about the ruling that Sen. Hunt does not have disclose abortion ban donor. Favorite line: "Sen. Roger Hunt hid the identity of the $750,000 donor to the VoteYesForLife.com campaign. He said the donor was afraid of violence from the opposition, but that is not the side that bombs abortion clinics or shoots clinic personnel."
N.D. tops U.S. for working disabled: According to a Fargo Forum story, "North Dakota tops all states when it comes to people with disabilities who are working – 55.2 percent."
Rock station should be held accountable: A letter to the editor on the Rock 102 billboard controversy. See my previous post for more info.
Cohabitation Letter to the Editor: A letter to the editor disputing claims put forth that cohabitation leads to more domestic violence against women. To quote: "Domestic violence doesn’t happen because people cohabitate, it happens because abusers feel entitled to mistreat other human beings, whether married to them or not. " To see previous posts on cohabitation, hit the "cohabitation" link below.
Child custody ballot measure approved to get signatures: According to a Fargo Forum story, "Secretary of State Al Jaeger says the supporters of a child custody initiative can begin gathering signatures. " Also, see a similar Bismarck Tribune story but with reader comments which are of interest.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Spotchecking Ken Blanchard.
I read Ken Blanchard's recent post about controversial psychologist J. Michael Bailey with some interest.
My dear grandmother once told me: "If one or two people are upset by something you're doing, that's probably their problem. If a lot of people are mad at you, you may need to think about what you're doing and whether all these people have a reason to be upset." With this in mind, I wanted to know whether or not Ken's story of beleaguered academic vs. wild-eyed transsexuals was as simple as Ken seemed to portray it. It doesn't seem to me like it is.
First of all, it wasn't just transgender activists who criticized J. Michael Bailey and his work. Hundreds of the most respected researchers working with transgender people in the world sharply criticized his findings:
Furthermore:
So he's giving them something they need in exchange for their participation in his studies (and in his social life). I don't know for a fact that this is a violation of ethics, but it's a pretty sketchy way to treat people, at any rate. Dr. Bailey has the right to interview whomever he chooses for whatever type of research interests him. But if he wants to publish these findings as an academic, it seems to me that he has an obligation to document his claims and treat his subjects not as bar friends and dancing partners, but as research subjects.
If only this controversy were as simple as Ken seems to think it is. Because academics have never used their positions of power and authority to further marginalize an already marginalized group of people, right?
My dear grandmother once told me: "If one or two people are upset by something you're doing, that's probably their problem. If a lot of people are mad at you, you may need to think about what you're doing and whether all these people have a reason to be upset." With this in mind, I wanted to know whether or not Ken's story of beleaguered academic vs. wild-eyed transsexuals was as simple as Ken seemed to portray it. It doesn't seem to me like it is.
First of all, it wasn't just transgender activists who criticized J. Michael Bailey and his work. Hundreds of the most respected researchers working with transgender people in the world sharply criticized his findings:
Ghent, Belgium -- The outgoing President of the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA) sharply criticized J. Michael Bailey’s recent book as an example of “bad science” about transgenderism.
Dr. Eli Coleman of the University of Minnesota made the remarks during his keynote speech at HBIGDA’s18th Biennial Symposium in Ghent, Belgium today.
Addressing an audience of the world’s foremost experts on gender identity, Coleman proposed a 10-point blueprint of current and future goals for the organization.
As he outlined the need to “promote sound and ethical research,” Dr. Coleman made a direct reference to The Man Who Would Be Queen by J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University. The book has been widely denounced as scientifically unsound and deeply biased.
Dr. Coleman urged members to work with the transgender community to “end antipathy and distrust of researchers.” To illustrate what Dr. Coleman called “unfortunate setbacks” to ending this problem, he displayed the Bailey book cover. The book’s provocative title and image of masculine legs and feet in feminine shoes are widely considered to be deliberately insulting.
Referring to Bailey’s shoddy scholarship and deeply flawed research methods, Dr. Coleman emphatically declared: “We need to challenge bad science.”
Furthermore:
Mr. Bailey's work on transsexuals, unlike his scientific research on gay men, is anecdotal, and his book doesn't cite any figures to back up his claims. In his defense, he says he "went every place I could think of that I'd find a decent chance of finding transsexuals" to talk to and observe. That often meant gay bars near his home, like the Circuit nightclub.
Mr. Bailey, who bites his cuticles and shifts in his seat during a dinner one evening with his children and a reporter, seems more comfortable later on at the Circuit. He mixes easily among the transsexual women he knows, and buys a round of drinks. Most of the women are what Mr. Bailey would call "homosexual transsexuals," and unlike their academic counterparts, they count Mr. Bailey as their savior.
As a psychologist, he has written letters they needed to get sex-reassignment surgery, and he has paid attention to them in ways most people don't.
So he's giving them something they need in exchange for their participation in his studies (and in his social life). I don't know for a fact that this is a violation of ethics, but it's a pretty sketchy way to treat people, at any rate. Dr. Bailey has the right to interview whomever he chooses for whatever type of research interests him. But if he wants to publish these findings as an academic, it seems to me that he has an obligation to document his claims and treat his subjects not as bar friends and dancing partners, but as research subjects.
If only this controversy were as simple as Ken seems to think it is. Because academics have never used their positions of power and authority to further marginalize an already marginalized group of people, right?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Okay, I lied.
I'm in the middle of one of those 'hurry up and wait' moments that happens so often when people (or at least when I) move, and I have internet access...so here goes.
I am not sure Ken Blanchard was really looking for a response from me to his most recent post about abortion, but what the heck.
Oh, Ken. If only the anti-abortion legislators here in South Dakota shared your opinion on their role in shaping abortion law. For those of you unfamiliar with the absolute mess we've created in Pierre with regard to abortion: the legislature authorized an Abortion Task Force in 2005 that was a complete fricking joke, made up primarily of committed anti-abortion activists. They heard testimony from pro-choice and pro-life doctors, scientists, religious leaders, and members of the general public. Amazingly, (except not amazingly at all) the anti-abortion members of the task force found only the anti-abortion doctors, scientists, etc to be credible, and so they produced a complete farce of a document (which they still use today) that states that all credible science and medicine is opposed to abortion. So they made up a document they can point to so they can say "science" and "medicine," amazingly, agree with every outrageous thing that comes out of their mouths! Good work, guys.
I think "the unborn" is a "moral person" when the mother (or in a best-case scenario, the parents) believe it is a person. In a wanted pregnancy, that would be pretty much immediately. For women facing an unwanted pregnancy, that becomes a little cloudier. It takes a lot of gall, I would think, to tell a pregnant woman how she ought to view her pregnancy. Legally, one is considered a person at birth - obviously. I celebrate my date of birth, as opposed to my date of conception, for example.
For that matter, I think there is a big difference between "opposition to abortion" and criminalization of abortion. Ken and I agree that abortion will continue regardless of its legal status (some further examples: 25% of out-of-wedlock pregnancies in Ireland end in abortion, four million Latin American women have illegal abortions every year). If you support the criminalization of abortion, that's your deal I guess, but don't pretend you're supporting anything other than putting yet another law regarding abortion on the books in South Dakota. A sincere desire to decrease abortion rates in this state would involve easily accessible birth control and family planning information - and the legislators in this state have proven time and time again that they aren't forward-thinking enough to support anything along those lines. Punishing women for having sex is enough for them.
I'll post this at KELO when I'm at my own computer again...
I am not sure Ken Blanchard was really looking for a response from me to his most recent post about abortion, but what the heck.
The question whether the law should protect a woman's right to an abortion, or the right of the unborn to life, is a human rights question and as such a public question. Courts and legislatures will decide it. No one needs any special sort of expertise, let alone Divinity, to have an opinion on that.
Oh, Ken. If only the anti-abortion legislators here in South Dakota shared your opinion on their role in shaping abortion law. For those of you unfamiliar with the absolute mess we've created in Pierre with regard to abortion: the legislature authorized an Abortion Task Force in 2005 that was a complete fricking joke, made up primarily of committed anti-abortion activists. They heard testimony from pro-choice and pro-life doctors, scientists, religious leaders, and members of the general public. Amazingly, (except not amazingly at all) the anti-abortion members of the task force found only the anti-abortion doctors, scientists, etc to be credible, and so they produced a complete farce of a document (which they still use today) that states that all credible science and medicine is opposed to abortion. So they made up a document they can point to so they can say "science" and "medicine," amazingly, agree with every outrageous thing that comes out of their mouths! Good work, guys.
Anna's arguments are plausible if, and only if, her underlying assumption is true: that the unborn (I am being very careful about the language here) is neither a moral nor a legal person. But that is precisely the point of contention. For those who see it otherwise, opposition to abortion is not a character flaw.
I think "the unborn" is a "moral person" when the mother (or in a best-case scenario, the parents) believe it is a person. In a wanted pregnancy, that would be pretty much immediately. For women facing an unwanted pregnancy, that becomes a little cloudier. It takes a lot of gall, I would think, to tell a pregnant woman how she ought to view her pregnancy. Legally, one is considered a person at birth - obviously. I celebrate my date of birth, as opposed to my date of conception, for example.
For that matter, I think there is a big difference between "opposition to abortion" and criminalization of abortion. Ken and I agree that abortion will continue regardless of its legal status (some further examples: 25% of out-of-wedlock pregnancies in Ireland end in abortion, four million Latin American women have illegal abortions every year). If you support the criminalization of abortion, that's your deal I guess, but don't pretend you're supporting anything other than putting yet another law regarding abortion on the books in South Dakota. A sincere desire to decrease abortion rates in this state would involve easily accessible birth control and family planning information - and the legislators in this state have proven time and time again that they aren't forward-thinking enough to support anything along those lines. Punishing women for having sex is enough for them.
I'll post this at KELO when I'm at my own computer again...
Monday, August 20, 2007
Oh my.
My internet is being disconnected momentarily in preparation for my move, so the next time you hear from me will be from my new home base outside of the Dakotas. (!!)
I am excited, sad, and terrified, all at once.
I am excited, sad, and terrified, all at once.
All abortion, all the time.
PP at South Dakota War College says he's heard through the grapevine about two different groups preparing anti-abortion bills for the 2008 legislative session. One is a constitutional amendment establishing "when life begins" and the other is a ban with exceptions.
We have a bunch of legislators who believe they're doctors, scientists, and God, all rolled into one. It stuns me to talk to some of these people - they absolutely believe that the good Lord put them on this Earth to be legislators in South Dakota and pass laws against abortion. They honestly think that in 100 years, children in history classes all over the world will be reading about their heroic deeds in Pierre.
This would be kind of sad and hilarious if they weren't so successful, and so ignorant of the realities of women's lives when abortion is illegal. Abortion has existed through virtually all of recorded history, through virtually all societies. In South Dakota, Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota women can tell you about the elder women in their communities, who knew about the herbs needed to end a pregnancy. Nurses who worked in emergency rooms in South Dakota in the 40's, 50's, and 60's can tell you about the women who presented themselves in the hospital after a botched abortion (as at least two women told me when I gathered signatures to refer the original abortion ban to the ballot in 2006).
UNFPA states that 68,000 women die every year in developing nations as a result of unsafe, illegal abortions. If we're seriously discussing making abortion (and birth control, if the legislature is successful in passing the amendment about when life begins) illegal in this state, I think it's important to understand that it's not a question of if - but of when, and under what circumstances - women in this state will die as a result of illegally obtained abortions.
We have a bunch of legislators who believe they're doctors, scientists, and God, all rolled into one. It stuns me to talk to some of these people - they absolutely believe that the good Lord put them on this Earth to be legislators in South Dakota and pass laws against abortion. They honestly think that in 100 years, children in history classes all over the world will be reading about their heroic deeds in Pierre.
This would be kind of sad and hilarious if they weren't so successful, and so ignorant of the realities of women's lives when abortion is illegal. Abortion has existed through virtually all of recorded history, through virtually all societies. In South Dakota, Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota women can tell you about the elder women in their communities, who knew about the herbs needed to end a pregnancy. Nurses who worked in emergency rooms in South Dakota in the 40's, 50's, and 60's can tell you about the women who presented themselves in the hospital after a botched abortion (as at least two women told me when I gathered signatures to refer the original abortion ban to the ballot in 2006).
UNFPA states that 68,000 women die every year in developing nations as a result of unsafe, illegal abortions. If we're seriously discussing making abortion (and birth control, if the legislature is successful in passing the amendment about when life begins) illegal in this state, I think it's important to understand that it's not a question of if - but of when, and under what circumstances - women in this state will die as a result of illegally obtained abortions.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
A Sunday Funnie
There's an email making the rounds with some old ads in them, so I'll post a few this week. Here's the first above.
August 19, 2007 in the News
Prevention first before birth: Letter to the Editor in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader on supporting birth control.
Nursing Home Worker Found Guilty of Sexual Assault: According to the Grand Forks Herald, a Cando, ND man has been found guilty of sexual assualt against an 85 year old nursing home resident under his care.
Shared Parenting Effort in North Dakota: Letter to the Editor in the Bismarck Tribune in support of the shared parenting effort.
Former lawmaker doesn't have to give name of contributor: According to the Aberdeen News, "A circuit judge ruled Monday that state Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, does not have to disclose a $750,000 contributor to a failed election effort to ban most abortions in South Dakota."
Passport Rules Snag Child Support Cash: Interesting AP story about how the new passport rules restrict the issuing of passports to non-custodial parents who owe more than $2,500. The article notes: "In all, states have reported collecting at least $22.5 million through the program thus far in 2007. The money is then forwarded to the parent to whom it is owed..."For us, it's been amazing to see how people who owe back child support seem to be able to come up with good chunks of money when it involves needing their passport," said Adolfo Capestany, spokesman for the state of Washington's Division of Child Support. "Folks will do anything to get that passport, so it is a good collection tool.""
More on our Supreme Court
Interesting Law.com/Legal Times article about a recent panel discussion about the first full year of the Roberts' court and the major rulings on school segregation, reproductive rights, etc. As someone who enjoys reading about the dynamics of the court, especially in these depressingly changing times, the comments are more of what we already know.
Here's the section on the discussion of the SCOTUS choice decisions:
Read the entire article if you're interested...also check out this posting on Feministing regarding a billboard on the loss of reproductive choice that's been getting some attention.
Here's the section on the discussion of the SCOTUS choice decisions:
MAURO: Now Eve Gartner, on the abortion cases in which you argued [Gonzales v. Carhart, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America], how do you see that decision fitting into this overall theme and how this Court is dealing with precedent?
EVE GARTNER: Just to give you a little background: The Court decided two of the three challenges that had been filed challenging a statute that Congress passed in 2003, the federal ban on so-called partial-birth abortion. All three of the cases that were filed were successful in all of the six lower courts in having the law enjoined and found unconstitutional. This was in large part because the statute that Congress passed is virtually identical to a statute that the Court had struck down only seven years ago in 2000 in a case called Stenberg v. Carhart.
In that case, which at this point we are calling Carhart I, the Court, by a 5-4 vote with Justice O'Connor at that time in the majority, found the Nebraska ban on so-called partial-birth abortion unconstitutional for two reasons. One, because the statute lacked a health exception [for the mother] and two, because the law was found to be so broad as to ban virtually any second-trimester, pre-viability abortion method.
The federal law that Congress passed in 2003 suffered from the identical constitutional flaws that the Court found in the Nebraska law, and, in fact, Congress passed the law very pointedly to create a vehicle for the Court to reconsider its Carhart I decision. So the abortion case, in addition to all the other ways that it presented very interesting constitutional issues for the new Roberts Court, it presented really a kind of test case to see how this Court was going to treat its own recent precedent ... The Court, as we know, came out the other way, saying, "Yes, Congress can ban so-called partial-birth abortions, even without a health exception." So this shows us where the Court .... that at least in this particular context, the Court completely disregarded its precedent.
A lot of the commentators have talked about how the Roberts Court is taking an incremental approach and they are not going as far as Justices Scalia and Thomas would necessarily like, but at least in this case, this wasn't an incremental approach, even though the Court didn't use the word "overturn."
The other really interesting part of this ruling, and, from our perspective, [a] very problematic part, does relate to what are these state interests that can justify trumping a woman's interest in protecting her own health. For the first time, the Court identifies two interests it has never used before to justify a restriction on a safe pre-viability abortion method. It says the ban can be justified because of the Court's moral and ethical concerns about the use of this procedure. But this moral and ethical concern rationale flies in the face of Justice Kennedy's own opinions in both Lawrence v. Texas and in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 case where the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade as the law of the land despite the view at that point of many that the Court was on the cusp of overturning Roe. In both cases, Justice Kennedy had written that the job of the Supreme Court is to define the liberty for all, not to state the moral code of a few. But now we have the moral code of five justices, the current five justices, trumping the woman's interest in her own health. And there is no real limiting principle to this moral and ethical concern rationale, because if the moral and ethical concerns of these five justices that voted in the majority today can justify a ban on one method of abortion, well why can't the moral and ethical concerns justify a ban on all abortions? There is just no
limiting principle there whatsoever.
Read the entire article if you're interested...also check out this posting on Feministing regarding a billboard on the loss of reproductive choice that's been getting some attention.
Those crazy poor people
You know, this kind of thing really gets on my nerves.
This guy at a new SD conservative blog hates going to the store because of all the poor people using food stamps to buy things he disapproves of, and I'm like, really? Did you follow these people around the store to count what they bought? Do you think this anecdotal information about people you cluck at in the store is really representative of everyone in the country? This story is almost kind of funny to me, as I picture some random guy following these people around and tsk-tsking them, taking notes to post about their irresponsibility on the Internet. I do think it is the height of idiocy to assume that FEDERAL POLICY regarding aid to the poor in purchasing food should be changed as a result of one blogger's judgmental investigative reporting.
I mean, I disapprove of yuppies in SUV's using three parking spots and going into Hy-Vee to buy a seven dollar cup of Starbucks coffee and crates of bottled water that just come from a tap anyway, but I manage somehow not to post my contempt for them on the internet.
I do the bulk of my grocery shopping at the Sunshine in downtown Sioux Falls (which we in the neighborhood affectionately call 'Slumshine'). I would almost guarantee that store does more business in food stamps and WIC than anywhere in town. And I can tell you in my anecdotal experience, I see people buying milk, bananas, ground beef, oatmeal, and generic brand breakfast cereal with food stamps.
So I guess we're both seeing what we want to see, aren't we?
This guy at a new SD conservative blog hates going to the store because of all the poor people using food stamps to buy things he disapproves of, and I'm like, really? Did you follow these people around the store to count what they bought? Do you think this anecdotal information about people you cluck at in the store is really representative of everyone in the country? This story is almost kind of funny to me, as I picture some random guy following these people around and tsk-tsking them, taking notes to post about their irresponsibility on the Internet. I do think it is the height of idiocy to assume that FEDERAL POLICY regarding aid to the poor in purchasing food should be changed as a result of one blogger's judgmental investigative reporting.
I mean, I disapprove of yuppies in SUV's using three parking spots and going into Hy-Vee to buy a seven dollar cup of Starbucks coffee and crates of bottled water that just come from a tap anyway, but I manage somehow not to post my contempt for them on the internet.
I do the bulk of my grocery shopping at the Sunshine in downtown Sioux Falls (which we in the neighborhood affectionately call 'Slumshine'). I would almost guarantee that store does more business in food stamps and WIC than anywhere in town. And I can tell you in my anecdotal experience, I see people buying milk, bananas, ground beef, oatmeal, and generic brand breakfast cereal with food stamps.
So I guess we're both seeing what we want to see, aren't we?
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Four score and seven years ago...(response to SDP)
Ken Blanchard responds.
Much as I thought, I was confused:
I think it's important first of all to point out the fact that Ken's example, while eloquent and a nice idea, was in fact a total lie for anyone who wasn't white, male, and of a certain class.
Secondly, there are all kinds of words that we once used and don't anymore (at least in polite company) because we as a society decided those words weren't appropriate. While I am not convinced that words like 'manning' should be drummed out of our vocabulary, I don't think we've lost much of import through that process.
Ken also scoffed at the idea of female firefighters, so I'll share this statistic with him from Women in the Fire Service, Inc.:
In the U.S., around 6,200 women currently work as full-time, career firefighters and officers. Several hundred hold the rank of lieutenant or captain, and about 150 are district chiefs, battalion chiefs, division chiefs, or assistant chiefs. [All of these numbers increase every year; for the most recent available statistics and a state-by state breakdown of the numbers, see our Status Report]. While accurate figures on volunteer firefighters are difficult to obtain, it can be estimated that 35-40,000 women are in the volunteer fire service in the U.S.
Much as I thought, I was confused:
My comment about the "evisceration of language and reason" referred solely to the idea that someone's personal sense of being offended was good reason to purge the language of certain terms. Anna didn't so much miss the point as confuse one point with another.
The most basic functions of language are communication and persuasion. A set of words that gets a point across and convinces a reader or an audience is well composed. The higher function of language is eloquence: using words as a painter uses color and texture. Eloquent language not only communicates and persuades, it fashions new architecture in the souls of those who appreciate it. Consider the following example:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
I humbly submit that it is impossible to appreciate the grandeur of that sentence without carving out a new space in one's own soul. Now it might be possible to replace the chauvinist "fathers" with some gender neutral equivalent. But at that point the perfect becomes the enemy of the good.
I think it's important first of all to point out the fact that Ken's example, while eloquent and a nice idea, was in fact a total lie for anyone who wasn't white, male, and of a certain class.
Secondly, there are all kinds of words that we once used and don't anymore (at least in polite company) because we as a society decided those words weren't appropriate. While I am not convinced that words like 'manning' should be drummed out of our vocabulary, I don't think we've lost much of import through that process.
Ken also scoffed at the idea of female firefighters, so I'll share this statistic with him from Women in the Fire Service, Inc.:
In the U.S., around 6,200 women currently work as full-time, career firefighters and officers. Several hundred hold the rank of lieutenant or captain, and about 150 are district chiefs, battalion chiefs, division chiefs, or assistant chiefs. [All of these numbers increase every year; for the most recent available statistics and a state-by state breakdown of the numbers, see our Status Report]. While accurate figures on volunteer firefighters are difficult to obtain, it can be estimated that 35-40,000 women are in the volunteer fire service in the U.S.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Yeah, I sold out.
I am a part of the big secret that a few bloggers have been talking about lately.
I'll be posting here and at KELO.
I'll be posting here and at KELO.
Wow
Some remarks from the Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, former president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, at the end of Operation Save America's attack on a clinic in Birmingham, Alabama on July 21, 2007:
When doctors and pharmacists try to opt out of providing medical care, claiming it’s an act of conscience, our work is not done.
Let me say a bit more about that, because the religious community has long been an advocate of taking principled stands of conscience – even when such stands require civil disobedience. We’ve supported conscientious objectors, the Underground Railroad, freedom riders, sanctuary seekers, and anti-apartheid protestors. We support people who put their freedom and safety at risk for principles they believe in.
But let’s be clear, there’s a world of difference between those who engage in such civil disobedience, and pay the price, and doctors and pharmacists who insist that the rest of the world reorder itself to protect their consciences – that others pay the price for their principles.
This isn’t particularly complicated. If your conscience forbids you to carry arms, don’t join the military or become a police officer. If you have qualms about animal experimentation, think hard before choosing to go into medical research. And, if you’re not prepared to provide the full range of reproductive health care (or prescriptions) to any woman who needs it then don’t go into obstetrics and gynecology, or internal or emergency medicine, or pharmacology. Choose another field! We’ll respect your consciences when you begin to take responsibility for them!
Here’s another sign. Did you notice the arguments that were being shouted at us in front of the clinic? They’ve been trying for years, and seem to be pushing especially hard now, to position themselves as feminists – supporters of women. You heard them – yelling that they understand that it’s all men’s fault. That men must do better at supporting women and children so that women, presumably, won’t feel the need to abort. They yelled that they understood that the women going into the clinic had been hurt by men and were reacting to that pain and betrayal. They pledged to help men be more responsible so that women wouldn’t want abortions.
Let me tell you something. Any argument that puts men alone at the center – for good or for bad -- any discussion of women’s reproductive health that ends up being all about men, is not feminism. Nor, for that matter, is it Christian, or reflective of any God I recognize. And as long as anyone can even imagine such an argument, our work is not done.
And while we’re at it, as long as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States can argue, as Justice Kennedy recently did, that women are not capable of making our own informed moral decisions, that we need men to help us so that we won’t make mistakes that we later regret; as long as a Supreme Court Justice can deny the moral agency of women simply because we are women – and can do it without being laughed off the public stage forever – our work is not done. What has happened to us that he could even think he could get away with publishing such an opinion? Our work most certainly is not done.
Finally, the last sign I want to identify relates to my fellow clergy. Too often even those who support us can be heard talking about abortion as a tragedy. Let’s be very clear about this:
When a woman finds herself pregnant due to violence and chooses an abortion, it is the violence that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.
When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion – often a late-term abortion – to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.
When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.
And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.
These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
When doctors and pharmacists try to opt out of providing medical care, claiming it’s an act of conscience, our work is not done.
Let me say a bit more about that, because the religious community has long been an advocate of taking principled stands of conscience – even when such stands require civil disobedience. We’ve supported conscientious objectors, the Underground Railroad, freedom riders, sanctuary seekers, and anti-apartheid protestors. We support people who put their freedom and safety at risk for principles they believe in.
But let’s be clear, there’s a world of difference between those who engage in such civil disobedience, and pay the price, and doctors and pharmacists who insist that the rest of the world reorder itself to protect their consciences – that others pay the price for their principles.
This isn’t particularly complicated. If your conscience forbids you to carry arms, don’t join the military or become a police officer. If you have qualms about animal experimentation, think hard before choosing to go into medical research. And, if you’re not prepared to provide the full range of reproductive health care (or prescriptions) to any woman who needs it then don’t go into obstetrics and gynecology, or internal or emergency medicine, or pharmacology. Choose another field! We’ll respect your consciences when you begin to take responsibility for them!
Here’s another sign. Did you notice the arguments that were being shouted at us in front of the clinic? They’ve been trying for years, and seem to be pushing especially hard now, to position themselves as feminists – supporters of women. You heard them – yelling that they understand that it’s all men’s fault. That men must do better at supporting women and children so that women, presumably, won’t feel the need to abort. They yelled that they understood that the women going into the clinic had been hurt by men and were reacting to that pain and betrayal. They pledged to help men be more responsible so that women wouldn’t want abortions.
Let me tell you something. Any argument that puts men alone at the center – for good or for bad -- any discussion of women’s reproductive health that ends up being all about men, is not feminism. Nor, for that matter, is it Christian, or reflective of any God I recognize. And as long as anyone can even imagine such an argument, our work is not done.
And while we’re at it, as long as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States can argue, as Justice Kennedy recently did, that women are not capable of making our own informed moral decisions, that we need men to help us so that we won’t make mistakes that we later regret; as long as a Supreme Court Justice can deny the moral agency of women simply because we are women – and can do it without being laughed off the public stage forever – our work is not done. What has happened to us that he could even think he could get away with publishing such an opinion? Our work most certainly is not done.
Finally, the last sign I want to identify relates to my fellow clergy. Too often even those who support us can be heard talking about abortion as a tragedy. Let’s be very clear about this:
When a woman finds herself pregnant due to violence and chooses an abortion, it is the violence that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.
When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion – often a late-term abortion – to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.
When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.
And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.
These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
Gender-neutral language.
I'm for real moving out of the state in just under a week, and honestly, I haven't had much to say about anything lately. I could talk for hours about moving plans, long-distance driving, or the surprising lack of dead-tree newspapers in the lives of everyone I know (making it really hard to pack dishes), but I haven't been thinking much about gender politics.
I was, however, interested in Ken Blanchard's recent post on gender-neutral language. A writer to the Boston Globe criticized the paper for using the term "manning" instead of "staffing," or some other term (I guess) not involving the word "man."
I think that the language puritans are kind of a minority among feminists. I, at any rate, am not one. I spell "woman" without a y, I refer to the ladies on my favorite soap opera as "actresses," and I use "she" or "he" to refer to general people doing traditionally gender-specific jobs (when a semi driver acts like an idiot on the road, I say "what's he doing?," and I referred to the admin in my new history department as "she" before I actually knew her - for example). I wouldn't have thought twice about the article in the Globe that so upset the letter writer.
To me, though, this is proof that sexism is a pretty pervasive and crazy thing. Why is it shocking and awful and the way to "evisceration of language and reason" to say "mail carrier" or "fire fighter" or "police officer"? Maybe I'm missing the point, here...it's happened before with me and my pal Ken.
I was, however, interested in Ken Blanchard's recent post on gender-neutral language. A writer to the Boston Globe criticized the paper for using the term "manning" instead of "staffing," or some other term (I guess) not involving the word "man."
I think that the language puritans are kind of a minority among feminists. I, at any rate, am not one. I spell "woman" without a y, I refer to the ladies on my favorite soap opera as "actresses," and I use "she" or "he" to refer to general people doing traditionally gender-specific jobs (when a semi driver acts like an idiot on the road, I say "what's he doing?," and I referred to the admin in my new history department as "she" before I actually knew her - for example). I wouldn't have thought twice about the article in the Globe that so upset the letter writer.
To me, though, this is proof that sexism is a pretty pervasive and crazy thing. Why is it shocking and awful and the way to "evisceration of language and reason" to say "mail carrier" or "fire fighter" or "police officer"? Maybe I'm missing the point, here...it's happened before with me and my pal Ken.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Dear Anonymous Commenters:
You're cut off. Put a name behind what you say. It doesn't even have to be your own name.
Also, I am pretty sure from now on I am going to delete comments referring to me or anyone else posting on this blog as a "baby killer." Because that's just idiotic.
xoxo,
Anna
Also, I am pretty sure from now on I am going to delete comments referring to me or anyone else posting on this blog as a "baby killer." Because that's just idiotic.
xoxo,
Anna
Sunday, August 12, 2007
August 12, 2007 in the News
Sexual Assault Response Team program deserves support: Staff editorial in the Jamestown Sun supporting this important program in their community.
Board defers Frokjer decision for now on sexual harassment claims: Couple updates on this pending case alleging a dentist inappropriately touched female patients. Stories from the Grand Forks Herald here and here.
Rock 102 Fargo Billboard Controversy Continues: Here are some recent news stories here and here and here out of the Fargo Forum to catch you up. Also, Hear Me Roar has had a couple posts as well as far as how she sees it so you can get her take. I haven't posted on this over the last two weeks because I have real mixed feelings about how much of a controversy it really is to me. I honestly don't see it as that controversial. There are so many other things within the community which are similar in magazines ads, tv and radio promos, movies, etc. If they had a guy showing his six pack right next to the gal, I would have not had any issues with it. Let's get some equal time, only minus the pending wedgie. Nudity doesn't bother me and she's got more clothes on than what one sees on the beach and even in some gyms nowadays. Is it sexual? Yes. I don't deny that but sex has sold for decades and it's no secret so why take on this billboard? Let's be honest here, there's a reason I buy magazines when George Clooney, Daniel Craig or The Rock are on the cover half clothed or in a dazzling suit. It sells for me as a woman as well. So, should I be protesting that if I protest this? I certainly see what the people upset at the billboard are talking about, especially those with young children having to explain the meaning. That part is what bothers me. How do you explain "turn you on" to a 6 year old. But then I always wonder how parents explain erectile dysfunction ads during football games to their kids as well. I truly do understand what they are saying, it's just the billboard picture is not a big issue for me and I'm not offended. I'm interested in hearing your comments.
Board defers Frokjer decision for now on sexual harassment claims: Couple updates on this pending case alleging a dentist inappropriately touched female patients. Stories from the Grand Forks Herald here and here.
Rock 102 Fargo Billboard Controversy Continues: Here are some recent news stories here and here and here out of the Fargo Forum to catch you up. Also, Hear Me Roar has had a couple posts as well as far as how she sees it so you can get her take. I haven't posted on this over the last two weeks because I have real mixed feelings about how much of a controversy it really is to me. I honestly don't see it as that controversial. There are so many other things within the community which are similar in magazines ads, tv and radio promos, movies, etc. If they had a guy showing his six pack right next to the gal, I would have not had any issues with it. Let's get some equal time, only minus the pending wedgie. Nudity doesn't bother me and she's got more clothes on than what one sees on the beach and even in some gyms nowadays. Is it sexual? Yes. I don't deny that but sex has sold for decades and it's no secret so why take on this billboard? Let's be honest here, there's a reason I buy magazines when George Clooney, Daniel Craig or The Rock are on the cover half clothed or in a dazzling suit. It sells for me as a woman as well. So, should I be protesting that if I protest this? I certainly see what the people upset at the billboard are talking about, especially those with young children having to explain the meaning. That part is what bothers me. How do you explain "turn you on" to a 6 year old. But then I always wonder how parents explain erectile dysfunction ads during football games to their kids as well. I truly do understand what they are saying, it's just the billboard picture is not a big issue for me and I'm not offended. I'm interested in hearing your comments.
Friday, August 10, 2007
We're volunteers
A couple of us at Dakota Women are putting in some time at the Voices for Choice booth in the expo building at the Sioux Empire Fair in Sioux Falls. If you're going to be at the fair, whoever is staffing the booth is always happy to talk to friendly types.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Final word to SDP....this time. Muahaha.
Response here.
I agree that if Jon Schaff wants to turn this into a discussion about abortion (which was not my intent, btw) that would be beating a dead horse.
I will say, though, that in that entire post, Jon Schaff never once used the word "woman," which tells me a lot about his mindset. I suppose this is one of those 'agree-to-disagree' moments.
I agree that if Jon Schaff wants to turn this into a discussion about abortion (which was not my intent, btw) that would be beating a dead horse.
I will say, though, that in that entire post, Jon Schaff never once used the word "woman," which tells me a lot about his mindset. I suppose this is one of those 'agree-to-disagree' moments.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
August 8, 2007 in the News
Where are the missing women?: From the Rapid City Journal, a column about international "honor" killings.
Abortion Letter: This time out of the Rapid City Journal. Scroll down to "Aborted children may hold answers to world problems"
Cohabitation in North Dakota: Couple follow-up articles to my previous posts on the cohabitation debate in North Dakota. Changes in cohabitation law undermine marriage, family in today's Fargo Forum and UND to reconsider cohabitation policy from yesterday's Grand Forks Herald. The debate rages on...
Abortion Letter: This time out of the Rapid City Journal. Scroll down to "Aborted children may hold answers to world problems"
Cohabitation in North Dakota: Couple follow-up articles to my previous posts on the cohabitation debate in North Dakota. Changes in cohabitation law undermine marriage, family in today's Fargo Forum and UND to reconsider cohabitation policy from yesterday's Grand Forks Herald. The debate rages on...
You're Going to Love This
From today's Rapid City Journal - Mommy shock: Are daughters prepared for motherhood? I know, the title's a dead giveaway that this isn't going to be about equal parenting. A few highlights from this male columnist:
That's real nice. And a final blow from this so-called clinical psychologist:
Bleh. Hey, if women want to stay home to raise their children, I fully support it. I also fully support a woman choosing not to stay home or her husband or significant other choosing to stay home to do so. I want them to have the CHOICE to do so. I know women AND men who would love to be able to stay home to raise their children but cannot afford to do it. I know women AND men who don't want to stay home to raise their children and believe that their professional development make them a better parent. Columns like these irk me when the burden is always on the woman to make these so-called personal sacrifices and find balance yet the same burden is not placed upon their partners.
Check out the full read. Also, check out Mr. Farmer's (the columnist) web site and peruse his topics to get a good eyeful of what he thinks on a host of subjects.
Before motherhood, educated women spend their adult lives very much like educated men. They have absorbing work and personal freedom. Like many men, they identify their self-worth with their on-the-job performance. They depend on pay-and-promotion recognition that provides a tangible measure of their value as workers. Outside work, they spend their time in ways that are personally satisfying and intellectually fulfilling. They “own” their time and their life.Motherhood is an abrupt departure from this pattern. Their time and life are no longer their own. They can’t pick up and go wherever and whenever they want. Everything that once seemed so easy to do on their own now requires advance planning, lining up a babysitter, checking in at home while you are out, and famously, feeling guilty about the time spent away from children and spouse.Ok, how is this only the woman's problem? Why isn't he complaining about men acting "like men"? Why is the woman the one who faces the "abrupt departure"? Another fave:
Some women are afraid that child bearing will cause them to lose their shapely appearance.
That's real nice. And a final blow from this so-called clinical psychologist:
To their credit, many women with professional careers and dynamic lives fall in love with their new baby, understand their responsibility and powerful influential role, and find joy in mothering even though their backgrounds may not have prepared them for motherhood. They turn their backs on their professional pursuits and embrace the stay-at-home mom role with enthusiasm. Others don’t. They juggle daycare, full time careers, marriage and motherhood with varying degrees of satisfaction. They choose to have just one or possibly two children. There is too much personal sacrifice to have it any other way. Mommy shock.
Bleh. Hey, if women want to stay home to raise their children, I fully support it. I also fully support a woman choosing not to stay home or her husband or significant other choosing to stay home to do so. I want them to have the CHOICE to do so. I know women AND men who would love to be able to stay home to raise their children but cannot afford to do it. I know women AND men who don't want to stay home to raise their children and believe that their professional development make them a better parent. Columns like these irk me when the burden is always on the woman to make these so-called personal sacrifices and find balance yet the same burden is not placed upon their partners.
Check out the full read. Also, check out Mr. Farmer's (the columnist) web site and peruse his topics to get a good eyeful of what he thinks on a host of subjects.
And in San Diego...
Four firefighters are suing the fire department for sexual harassment after being forced to participate in a gay pride parade.
The ludicrous thing about this is that their complaint is essentially "Everyone thought we were gay, oh noes!!" It is kind of obvious this is being pushed by a crazy right-wing group - if only because of the fact that the firefighters' beef should be with their colleagues who harassed them for being involved in the parade, not with the paradegoers themselves. The fire department's involvement in the parade certainly shouldn't be the issue - if they march in St. Patrick's, and Cinco de Mayo parades, they're obligated to march in the gay pride parade as well.
The ludicrous thing about this is that their complaint is essentially "Everyone thought we were gay, oh noes!!" It is kind of obvious this is being pushed by a crazy right-wing group - if only because of the fact that the firefighters' beef should be with their colleagues who harassed them for being involved in the parade, not with the paradegoers themselves. The fire department's involvement in the parade certainly shouldn't be the issue - if they march in St. Patrick's, and Cinco de Mayo parades, they're obligated to march in the gay pride parade as well.
Me vs. SDP again.
Jon Schaff is even reading the comments.
I think it's pretty obvious from the substance of the post and the comments that I wasn't talking about "choice" broadly in every aspect of life (like wearing seatbelts or smoking, as Jon mentions in his post), and that's not a discussion I'm interested in having because it is beside the point.
In another attempt to be very clear about what I am saying: it seems to me that someone faced with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy has three options that have been available in some form and were at least somewhat socially acceptable and/or legal in recent history. Those are: 1. terminating the pregnancy 2. carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the child for either an open or closed adoption 3. carrying the pregnancy to term and raising the child. People can argue about the morality of any of these options (or of the absence of any of those options) all day, but that's basically what they are and women have utilized all of them. The best situation for women facing unwanted pregnancies is to have access to all three of these options, and to be able to freely choose which is best for them. If women are forced into situations they don't want to be in (i.e., giving a wanted child up for adoption, which was the subject of the book that started this), they suffer as a result.
Do you care to address this at all, Jon? Oh and p.s.: "They should have kept their legs shut" is not a useful response.
I think it's pretty obvious from the substance of the post and the comments that I wasn't talking about "choice" broadly in every aspect of life (like wearing seatbelts or smoking, as Jon mentions in his post), and that's not a discussion I'm interested in having because it is beside the point.
In another attempt to be very clear about what I am saying: it seems to me that someone faced with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy has three options that have been available in some form and were at least somewhat socially acceptable and/or legal in recent history. Those are: 1. terminating the pregnancy 2. carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the child for either an open or closed adoption 3. carrying the pregnancy to term and raising the child. People can argue about the morality of any of these options (or of the absence of any of those options) all day, but that's basically what they are and women have utilized all of them. The best situation for women facing unwanted pregnancies is to have access to all three of these options, and to be able to freely choose which is best for them. If women are forced into situations they don't want to be in (i.e., giving a wanted child up for adoption, which was the subject of the book that started this), they suffer as a result.
Do you care to address this at all, Jon? Oh and p.s.: "They should have kept their legs shut" is not a useful response.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Legal Loophole Allows Non-Indians to Victimize Indians on Reservations
Saw this on Feministing:
A legal loophole allows non-Indians who victimize Indian women and kids on reservations to escape justice according to a LA Times article. (Warning: the article is graphic)
A telling line:
This makes me sick. See previous posts on related topics on this site here and here. I need to go post on something happy now.
UPDATE: This story was published in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. Titled "Picture of abused child continues to haunt woman," it discusses some of the issues noted above.
A legal loophole allows non-Indians who victimize Indian women and kids on reservations to escape justice according to a LA Times article. (Warning: the article is graphic)
A telling line:
The bottom line is that Indian women and children are denied any meaningful protection under the law, and the criminals know it.
This makes me sick. See previous posts on related topics on this site here and here. I need to go post on something happy now.
UPDATE: This story was published in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. Titled "Picture of abused child continues to haunt woman," it discusses some of the issues noted above.
Another Try at Shared Parenting in North Dakota
Today's Grand Forks Herald and Bismarck Tribune both ran stories about another attempt at a Shared Parenting Initiative in North Dakota. In 2006, enough signatures were obtained to get it on the 2006 election ballot where it was defeated 56% to 43%. This new effort changes the language and now also seeks enough signatures to get it on the ballot. They have a year to gather the needed signatures. (Read the Grand Forks Herald story for the most information.)
I'll say this. I'm really confused. As someone who's not an attorney but has to read a lot of legislation and legal briefs, I had to read it several times this morning when I first saw the press article and still don't understand its intention (at least by what is printed). What I especially don't understand is how the system is currently broken. I need that explained better to me because I'm not seeing how joint custody when there are two caring and able parents is not currently already possible.
The potential legislation would apparently require automatic joint legal and physical custody in divorces or separations when requested by either parent unless a parent can show the other as unfit. This was all over the ND radiowaves this morning. Debora Vaagen was on KFGO Radio today explaining the initiative and indicated that it does not change child support which would continue to be paid by either parent based upon their income. I'm not reading that clearly in the initiative like she claims.
Also, I see with this legislation, as I saw last election when it was tried, is the potential for it to be extremely difficult to show a parent as unfit particularly in the case of victims of domestic violence. Typically, these victims are under threat of physical and mental harm and do not have access to credit and money which is part of the power asserted over them. So how are they going to challenge the system against an abusive spouse or partner to show they are unfit?
The NorthDecoder has a post on this topic (much better than what I can write). Also, be sure to take a look at the posted comments to the Bismarck Tribune story to really get a feel for what folks are thinking (at least those reading the story). The North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative is heading the effort. I'm sure there'll be more to come.
I'll say this. I'm really confused. As someone who's not an attorney but has to read a lot of legislation and legal briefs, I had to read it several times this morning when I first saw the press article and still don't understand its intention (at least by what is printed). What I especially don't understand is how the system is currently broken. I need that explained better to me because I'm not seeing how joint custody when there are two caring and able parents is not currently already possible.
The potential legislation would apparently require automatic joint legal and physical custody in divorces or separations when requested by either parent unless a parent can show the other as unfit. This was all over the ND radiowaves this morning. Debora Vaagen was on KFGO Radio today explaining the initiative and indicated that it does not change child support which would continue to be paid by either parent based upon their income. I'm not reading that clearly in the initiative like she claims.
Also, I see with this legislation, as I saw last election when it was tried, is the potential for it to be extremely difficult to show a parent as unfit particularly in the case of victims of domestic violence. Typically, these victims are under threat of physical and mental harm and do not have access to credit and money which is part of the power asserted over them. So how are they going to challenge the system against an abusive spouse or partner to show they are unfit?
The NorthDecoder has a post on this topic (much better than what I can write). Also, be sure to take a look at the posted comments to the Bismarck Tribune story to really get a feel for what folks are thinking (at least those reading the story). The North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative is heading the effort. I'm sure there'll be more to come.
First Ever GLBT Presidential Forum
Received the following announcement and thought some of our readers may find of interest. Note there is a web stream for those not in Minnesota.
On August 9th, for the first time in history, leading presidential candidates will participate in a televised forum on issues of importance to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. Co-presented by Logo and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the 90-minute event will be broadcast live, without commercial interruption, exclusively on Logo's cable television channel as well as through live streaming video at LOGOonline.com.
Confirmed candidates scheduled to appear are, in alphabetical order: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.; Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.; Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. The candidates will appear sequentially and engage in conversation with co-panelists Melissa Etheridge, performer and advocate, and Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. The panelists plan to cover a range of issues including: relationship recognition, marriage equality, workplace fairness, the military, hate crimes, HIV/AIDS and other important issues.
OutFront Minnesota is co-hosting an event with the Twin Cities Human Rights Campaign to watch this historic forum. Join your friends in the local GLBT and allied community to learn more about the candidates' positions on issues of importance to the GLBT community. GLBT Presidential Candidate Forum Watch Party Thursday, August 9th - Forum begins at 8pm - Pi Bar and Restaurant, 2532 25th Avenue South Minneapolis MN - Hosted by OutFront Minnesota and the Twin Cities Human Rights Campaign. This event is free of charge!
Monday, August 6, 2007
August 6, 2007 in the News
Guests study N.D. domestic violence issues: A Grand Forks Herald article notes that an out of state group is in town "to view firsthand how local entities have joined together to address domestic violence issues in rural areas."
'Cohab' policy to get another look at UND: A Grand Forks Herald article states that "the legislature's elimination of a state law banning cohabitation has prompted UND housing officials to look at its policy to see if it might be antiquated or too restrictive." A previous blog of mine discussed North Dakota's cohabitation law change.
Abortion Letters: The South Dakota letter writing machines are up and running. See letters here and here and here. On a related note: Judge to rule if Hunt must reveal donor-Sioux Falls Argus Leader story indicates Judge will rule in two weeks if Hunt must reveal the $750,000 donor of the campaign to ban abortion.
Churches feed from fed trough: And finally...a Lloyd Omdahl column about the separtion of church and state and the growing number of churches which accept federal funding. He makes some very good points, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling which limits a taxpayer's ability to sue the government in such cases where the separation lines get very blurred. Another column on this case is here.
'Cohab' policy to get another look at UND: A Grand Forks Herald article states that "the legislature's elimination of a state law banning cohabitation has prompted UND housing officials to look at its policy to see if it might be antiquated or too restrictive." A previous blog of mine discussed North Dakota's cohabitation law change.
Abortion Letters: The South Dakota letter writing machines are up and running. See letters here and here and here. On a related note: Judge to rule if Hunt must reveal donor-Sioux Falls Argus Leader story indicates Judge will rule in two weeks if Hunt must reveal the $750,000 donor of the campaign to ban abortion.
Churches feed from fed trough: And finally...a Lloyd Omdahl column about the separtion of church and state and the growing number of churches which accept federal funding. He makes some very good points, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling which limits a taxpayer's ability to sue the government in such cases where the separation lines get very blurred. Another column on this case is here.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
The Girls Who Went Away
I've been reading an incredibly heart wrenching book, Ann Fessler's The Girls Who Went Away (Amazon, New York Times book review). It's the history of unwed pregnant women in the years between World War II and the legalization of abortion. While many of the women who found themselves in this situation quickly married the father and settled the matter, others were unable or unwilling to marry, and "went away" for a while to have the baby and put it up for adoption, thereby saving the family's honor.
The author does a fine job of providing background information - how the professionalization of social work led to BS psychological studies that labeled women who got pregnant out of wedlock as "neurotic" and therefore unfit to parent, how a more permissive attitude toward sex coupled with total ignorance of birth control caused huge numbers of out-of-wedlock births, how the conformist mindset of the 50s caused infertile couples to seek babies to adopt - but the heart of the book, and the part that was really difficult to read, was the stories of hundreds of women who surrendered children for adoption after spending time in institutions for unwed mothers. The author chronicled their stories and published dozens of them in full in the book. Nearly all of the women talked about how helpless they felt, being forced into a situation in which they had no voice and no option but to place the child for adoption. Particularly because of the 2006 election, when Leslee Unruh went on television and told South Dakotans basically that placing a child for adoption was no more difficult than giving up some old clothes to Goodwill, these women's stories were heartbreaking to me. Some quotes from the women in the book:
I guess I'm throwing all these quotes up there because I want to make it very clear that people in this state who want to ban abortion want to go back to this way of life. When state Rep. Mary Glenski says at a public meeting that "people will take care of" girls who would find themselves pregnant in South Dakota when abortion is banned, she is talking about institutions for unwed mothers, just like the ones discussed in Fessler's book. That is what these people want the world to look like. They don't care what this does to birth mothers, because the woman shouldn't have been having sex, right? Same shit, different decade.
I highly recommend the book to anyone who cares about these issues. Keep some tissues handy, though.
The author does a fine job of providing background information - how the professionalization of social work led to BS psychological studies that labeled women who got pregnant out of wedlock as "neurotic" and therefore unfit to parent, how a more permissive attitude toward sex coupled with total ignorance of birth control caused huge numbers of out-of-wedlock births, how the conformist mindset of the 50s caused infertile couples to seek babies to adopt - but the heart of the book, and the part that was really difficult to read, was the stories of hundreds of women who surrendered children for adoption after spending time in institutions for unwed mothers. The author chronicled their stories and published dozens of them in full in the book. Nearly all of the women talked about how helpless they felt, being forced into a situation in which they had no voice and no option but to place the child for adoption. Particularly because of the 2006 election, when Leslee Unruh went on television and told South Dakotans basically that placing a child for adoption was no more difficult than giving up some old clothes to Goodwill, these women's stories were heartbreaking to me. Some quotes from the women in the book:
Nobody ever asked me if I wanted to keep the baby, or explained the options. I went to the maternity home, I was going to have the baby, they were going to take it, and I was going to go home. I was not allowed to keep the baby. I would have been disowned. ... I was made to feel very ashamed of the situation that "I had created for myself" and for my mother and family and friends, so I felt all those avenues were closed.
The surrender was the beginning of a long cycle that colored my entire life. Your identity is formed during your teen years and if you take on this identity of a worthless, horrible, guilty person, then that's going to affect you your whole life. Guilt was always such a pervasive part for me. Not that I was sexual, or not that I was pregnant, but that I let somebody take my child.
You know, a few years after I was married I became pregnant and had an abortion. It was not a wonderful experience, but every time I hear stories or articles or essays about the recurring trauma of abortion, I want to say "You don't have a clue." I've experienced both and I would have an abortion any day of the week before I would ever have another adoption - or lose a kid in the woods, which is basically what it is. ... It overshadows my life...It's unnatural to be separated from your child that way. And if it happens when you're fourteen, fifteen, sixteen years old, and it's your first experience of motherhood, it makes you a little crazy.
[At the maternity home, a] retarded woman threw herself down the stairs to try to kill her baby. She was only mildly retarded, but that was a time when if you had a freakin' learning disability you were labeled retarded. I think that was the case with her. She really could have been anything. It was also that time period of a lot of meanness - if you looked different, if you had curly hair like I did, if you were anything but a stupid blond, blue-eyed, tall slim cheerleader...If you looked different you were ostracized. If you were retarded on top of that, you were really ostracized. So she wasn't getting much warmth or compassion from the other girls. She was treated badly and she threw herself down the stairs to try to kill the baby because she was so bad. Because she was so bad.
The most profound thing I remember is the nun at St. Andre's telling me that it was God's will. It was God's will. We were fulfilling the needs and the hearts of these women who couldn't have children. And therefore God chose us to bear these children for these women who couldn't have any. I was so susceptible to this thinking: I must accept God's will. I could have more children, so what's one child to be given away? I would see this child in heaven.
Nobody ever said, "What do you want, Karen? What do you want? Do you want to keep your baby?" Even though our bodies were telling us that baby was ours, they were counteracting all those natural feelings with "Don't even think that because it's not your child. It's these people's child over here. It's been promised to them." They were always real to us. This baby was to go to them and they deserved it. "They can't have children. You should be happy you're giving your child to someone so wonderful who has so much to offer that child. You should be grateful for that. You should be grateful we're solving your problem. You made this mistake. You caused this problem for everyone." ... There was such emotional and mental damage done by that.
I guess I'm throwing all these quotes up there because I want to make it very clear that people in this state who want to ban abortion want to go back to this way of life. When state Rep. Mary Glenski says at a public meeting that "people will take care of" girls who would find themselves pregnant in South Dakota when abortion is banned, she is talking about institutions for unwed mothers, just like the ones discussed in Fessler's book. That is what these people want the world to look like. They don't care what this does to birth mothers, because the woman shouldn't have been having sex, right? Same shit, different decade.
I highly recommend the book to anyone who cares about these issues. Keep some tissues handy, though.
Friday, August 3, 2007
A better image for Mt. Blogmore and RCJ
Bill Harlan, lead reporter for the Rapid City Journal,
the other day introduced us to Mt. Blogmore's new
blogger, yet another white middle aged male reporter for the
RCJ, with a little snap of Scott with Paris and Nicole somewhat,
well, cute, Bill thought. But sexism, as a blogger inferred?
From South Dakota?
Horrors! Bill said.
It didn't take me long to find a replacement for the RCJ pinups
that apparently are no big deal over there in the cubicles at RCJ
news central.
Bill's up at Sturgis by now, awaiting the piercings and well,
you know, but I thought in his esteemed absence we could
offer up a few women who are so much better role models for
the Mount and heck, RCJ editors, publishers (and interns) in
general.
Didn't you love seeing Shannon do what we all know women do,
put themselves out there to get the job done, time after time?
Letter time.
Dear Ken Blanchard,
It is extremely difficult to respond to your most recent post because of the fact that you totally misrepresented (purposely or otherwise) the meaning of the quote you cited. When Meston referred to "huge differences" among older people, she did not mean that there would be huge gender differences among older people's reasons for having sex. She meant that there would be huge differences between college students' reasons and older peoples' reasons (i.e., people in their 30's might cite 'reproduction' as a reason to have sex at higher rates than college-aged men and women). If you don't believe me, read the study.
Your pal,
Anna
It is extremely difficult to respond to your most recent post because of the fact that you totally misrepresented (purposely or otherwise) the meaning of the quote you cited. When Meston referred to "huge differences" among older people, she did not mean that there would be huge gender differences among older people's reasons for having sex. She meant that there would be huge differences between college students' reasons and older peoples' reasons (i.e., people in their 30's might cite 'reproduction' as a reason to have sex at higher rates than college-aged men and women). If you don't believe me, read the study.
Your pal,
Anna
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Shocking news
A new study shows that college-aged men and women have sex for the same (fairly shallow) reasons, which I think is sort of good and sort of depressing news all at once.
The Ken Blanchards of the world, no doubt, will be surprised to hear that women aren't necessarily having sex because they're deeply in love, and men aren't having sex because of an innate biological impulse to exert dominion over women. Men and women both report having sex because they're attracted to their partner, they like the physical pleasure of sex, and "it feels good":
I don't really think physical attraction and wanting to feel good by themselves are good reasons to have sex. In fact, they can be pretty damaging reasons to have sex in the long run. But I am always interested to read all these studies (and there are a lot of them) that seem to indicate that a number of the differences between genders are, guess what, a product of the world in which we live.
The Ken Blanchards of the world, no doubt, will be surprised to hear that women aren't necessarily having sex because they're deeply in love, and men aren't having sex because of an innate biological impulse to exert dominion over women. Men and women both report having sex because they're attracted to their partner, they like the physical pleasure of sex, and "it feels good":
"It's refuted a lot of gender stereotypes ... that men only want sex for the physical pleasure and women want love," said University of Texas clinical psychology professor Cindy Meston, the study's co-author. "That's not what I came up with in my findings."
Forget thinking that men are from Mars and women from Venus, "the more we look, the more we find similarity," said Dr. Irwin Goldstein, director of sexual medicine at Alvarado Hospital in San Diego. Goldstein, who wasn't part of Meston's study, said the Texas research made a lot of sense and adds to growing evidence that the vaunted differences in the genders may only be among people with sexual problems.
I don't really think physical attraction and wanting to feel good by themselves are good reasons to have sex. In fact, they can be pretty damaging reasons to have sex in the long run. But I am always interested to read all these studies (and there are a lot of them) that seem to indicate that a number of the differences between genders are, guess what, a product of the world in which we live.
Fargo YWCA Full and in Need of Help
From a Fargo Forum story:
And the numbers:
How to help:
Read the whole story. I wish this was a unique situation but we all know it isn't. How sad. Although it's positive for every woman who takes that step in getting herself and/or her children out of an abusive situation, it's so sad that there are so many seeking this help which is probably a small number who actually do need it. Try to help if you can. And those who need the help, I hope you are able to seek it.
The local YWCA currently is housing the highest percentage of women and children trying to escape domestic violence the shelter has ever had, officials say, putting the facility over capacity. As of Thursday, all but four families staying at the facility are there because of domestic violence, according to YWCA Executive Director Judy Green. The shelter normally has a mixture of women and children who are challenged economically, homeless or fleeing domestic violence, Green said, adding that the current percentage is “concerning."
And the numbers:
This past June, police responded to 120 complaints of domestic violence and took 50 reports on the incidents. In June 2006, police responded to 118 complaints and took 46 reports, Claus said. As of Wednesday morning, 66 women and children were at the Y, Green said. Green spread the word last week that the shelter needed help, sending an e-mail to a small group of people asking for supplies and food. At the time of the e-mail, 73 women and children were residing at the facility, which Green said “really threw us over the top.”
How to help:
- A list of the shelter’s needs and information about how to volunteer can be found at http://www.ywcacassclay.org/.
Read the whole story. I wish this was a unique situation but we all know it isn't. How sad. Although it's positive for every woman who takes that step in getting herself and/or her children out of an abusive situation, it's so sad that there are so many seeking this help which is probably a small number who actually do need it. Try to help if you can. And those who need the help, I hope you are able to seek it.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
No more possibility of jail and fines for cohabiting in North Dakota
Whew. Guess those 23,000 cohabitating couples can now breathe a sigh of relief that some nosy neighbor or ticked off ex is going to turn them in. Effective today, North Dakota's outdated, intrusive, century old, hasn't been prosecuted, you can't live with the opposite sex law is officially off the books. The law hadn't been enforced since the 1930s, although there had been some attempts in the last 10 years at filing police reports by ticked off exes but most were thrown out or chosen not to pursue. By the way, it took 4 sessions before there were finally enough votes in the Legislature to repeal it. Thanks to Senator Tracy Potter for having some common sense and working to get it repealed.
See today's Fargo Forum for more information. Or, you can view Bismarck Dems Forum Posts for what I posted during the session as the bill advanced.
So...to clarify...it is now LEGAL for people of the opposite sex to live together in North Dakota unless they commit fraud (by claiming to be married to reap benefits when they are not in fact married). They can no longer be threatened with jail time or fines. Landlords; however, can still deny unmarried couples from rental housing (if they want to) due to a different law which remains on the books and makes that legal. Yeah, I know...
See today's Fargo Forum for more information. Or, you can view Bismarck Dems Forum Posts for what I posted during the session as the bill advanced.
So...to clarify...it is now LEGAL for people of the opposite sex to live together in North Dakota unless they commit fraud (by claiming to be married to reap benefits when they are not in fact married). They can no longer be threatened with jail time or fines. Landlords; however, can still deny unmarried couples from rental housing (if they want to) due to a different law which remains on the books and makes that legal. Yeah, I know...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
