In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Month: February 2007

If motherhood is so great, why don’t you do it?

This New York Times article about MomsRising is a good one. It profiles a feminist organization that is pushing for gender equality in the workplace, and specifically mobilizing for the rights of working mothers. My major quibble is that the article is in the Fashion & Styles section, when it should be in Politics, and that the title is pretty condescending. But that aside (and those are probably editorial decisions, and not the fault of the reporter), the article is decent.

What aren’t quite so decent are the follow-up comments. The very first one says:

Maybe women should stop griping about gender inequity and start fulfilling the roles in life for which God uniquely intended them, i.e., staying home and being mothers! There is no more important work than being a good mother and most women are failing because they’ve been brainwashed into thinking they need to do everything but be a good mother to feel fulfilled.

Society is a disaster because several generations of children have been sent into the world unraised because of these foolish notions. Our culture today says men need to support women as they run society off the proverbial cliff. I daresay sewer rats raise better offspring these days than humans.

I absolutely adore the “there’s no more important work than being a good mother,” because it usually comes from men who work. Motherhood is important, and should be more socially valued. But let’s not underestimate the intellect of mothers. Most women know perfectly well that when a wealthy, hard-working CEO says that his wife does “the most important work in the world,” he’s full of shit. Of course he thinks his work is more important than hers. He’s paid for it. He gets some amount of prestige from it. He’s “accomplished.” She’s a mommy.

That isn’t to say that this is how it should be. It’s complete crap that motherhood is as undervalued as it is. But let’s not fool ourselves: it is. And if the “motherhood is more important than the presidency” folks actually believed a damn word of it, they would be going out of their way to increase the social value of mothers by financially compensating them for their time, or providing for childcare for the mothers who don’t have the choice to stay home (and there are a whole lot of those mothers), or making sure that all women had full reproductive freedom so that motherhood would be a wanted and valued choice. Or, you know, they’d stay home themselves.

No, they’d rather deride women who don’t stay home, give those “superior” stay-at-home moms a nice pat on the head, and then continue on with their merry professional careers. And if, god forbid, divorce ever enters into the picture, he will have decades of work under his belt, while she will have been “doing nothing” by staying home with the kids. Men who work are exercising their basic rights as penis-owning human beings to be remunerated for their efforts, and to choose from a wide range of occupations the one which best suits them. Women, on the other hand, are totally selfish if we don’t dedicate our entire lives to baby-making and child-raising.

The biggest issue facing mothers today is whether they can set aside the personal selfishness and feminism relentlessly promotes to properly mother their children.

In the emotionally sterile babysitter and daycare environment children do not fully develop for empathy and love skill sets crucial to make successful marriages and effective parenting when their turn comes.

— Posted by MARK KLEIN, M.D.

I wonder how much time Dr. Klein puts in with his kids? And it gets better…

Read More…Read More…

HUHO — Finding Low-Cost Legal Services

This is my first entry for the second Help Us Help Ourselves carnival, which we’re hosting here on March 1. Seeing as how I’m a lawyer, I figured I might as well put my experience to use. This is by no means a comprehensive list, and I welcome any further suggestions in comments. But here are some ideas for finding cheap or even free legal services.

If you belong to a union, your dues may cover basic legal services, so check with your union rep.

The local bar association (and there may be more than one — New York City, for example, has City and County Bar Associations, a Federal Bar Association, etc) should be able to give you the names of attorneys willing to take on pro bono cases. Young attorneys in larger firms, especially, love pro bono cases because they help build practice skills that they can’t get at work, given the nature of their clients and the amount of money at stake. Individual law firms may also have pro bono programs (because they also like it when their associates get practice on nonpaying clients); you could always call to see if they have a pro bono coordinator.

Pro bono cases don’t have to be limited to litigation; you can also get tax advice or set up a corporation/nonprofit, if you can find an attorney willing to help you out. Arts associations are also a good source of legal referrals for artists; many attorneys donate their time to the arts.

Most cities and larger towns have Legal Services or Legal Aid offices, which provide cheap or free legal services to indigent clients. They’re a good resource, though their funding tends to get cut and their resources spread thin. It’s a good idea to consult them even if you think your income makes you not indigent; they can at least refer you to other legal resources.

Law schools are excellent sources of cheap or free legal services while school is in session. Most law schools have clinics in which students get to handle cases under supervision. And some of the cases get quite complicated — when I was in law school, for example, the UM family law clinic was handling the Baby Jessica case for the adoptive parents, who lived in Ann Arbor. There are a whole range of specialized clinics, from general litigation, landlord/tenant, immigration, criminal, family law, and on and on. I did a number of clinics and clinical components in law school, and I handled several landlord/tenant cases, an employment discrimination case, a criminal appeal, a collection action, and wrote a couple of wills. Just keep in mind that it’s best to get in closer to the beginning of the semester, especially if you have a more complicated case, so the students have adequate time to take care of the case. However, if you’re looking at summary eviction and it’s close to the end of the semester, call them anyway — with a compressed time frame, they can likely take you on (or refer you to someone who can).

Incidentally, the will-writing was done through a program at the local VA hospital for AIDS patients. If you’re a veteran, you might want to check with the VA to see if there are any programs that can help you as well.

If you have a claim that could result in money damages, it’s worth it to seek out an attorney who might take the case on a contingency basis, meaning you don’t pay unless you win. However, you will still probably have to pay costs, including filing fees (which are sometimes waived if you can show that you can’t afford them), court reporter fees for depositions, etc. This is where it pays to be realistic about your chances of success. If you’re not going to have a significant payout, and your case doesn’t have a high chance of success, you’re not likely to get someone interested to take the case on contingency. In that case, pro bono or law clinic might be the way to go.

For landlord/tenant cases, try your local tenant’s union. They will likely not be able to offer you legal representation or advice, but they can give you guides to understanding the local laws and any sort of eviction proceedings so you have a better shot of representing your own interests. Plus, they’ve got the inside dirt on the local landlords.

Community groups and neighborhood associations are good sources for information on how to locate attorneys for various purposes.

Also check with any kind of professional association or group you belong to. You never know who knows something you don’t.

Finally, certain types of federal claims — such as civil rights claims, excessive force, wrongful arrest, certain discrimination claims — include attorneys’ fees as part of the award, so it’s easier to find attorneys willing to take them on. There are also advocacy groups, like the Center for Constitutional Rights or the ACLU, which can either take on your case or help you find a good attorney.

But you don’t want bottom feeders representing you, so check with the bar association to see if the attorney you’re consulting with is peer rated. You can also look your attorney up on Martindale Hubbell to see if they’ve been rated (and also to check the bio). The bios on Martindale are self-written and paid for by the attorneys, so not every attorney will be on there. However, it’s a good sorting tool. You can also find attorneys on Findlaw or your state’s bar directory. Though you might not find it under “bar directory” — New York’s state attorney registry, for example, is under the Office of Court Administration. And it doesn’t tell you much, but it will tell you if an attorney is currently licensed.

Oh, and in certain cases, like simple uncontested divorces where there are no custody or property issues, you can get forms and do the work yourself. Should you decide to go to litigation while representing yourself, make use of the pro se office of the court. They’re there to help people representing themselves. But DON’T ask legal questions of the court clerks; they can’t give advice, and they can be a little tetchy because all day long they get people asking them stupid questions. It does, however, pay to be nice to them, no matter how bad YOUR day is.

Abortion is a Moral Good

I’m with Amanda on this one — abortion is, in fact, a moral good.

I’ll clarify a little bit. I don’t think that the people who make the “abortion is a tragedy” argument are always trying to undermine women’s rights. But there does seem to be a huge difference in how we discuss abortion and how we discuss all other medical procedures.

The “I think abortion should be legal but I would never have one” argument grates on my nerves. You don’t know what you would do if faced with an unwanted pregnancy. You don’t know how the circumstances of your life will change, and what will influence your future decisions. Saying that you think the little ladies should have the right but you are morally superior enough to never terminate a pregnancy is condescending and completely unhelpful to the abortion rights movement. It feeds into positioning the conversation around fetal rights rather than women’s rights. It supports the idea that abortion is more an issue of personal morality than one of medical access.

There’s a difference between the circumstances under which a woman goes in for an abortion and the abortion itself. The circumstances that lead to abortion are almost always bad ones. Unwanted pregnancy. Fetal abnormality. A wanted pregnancy gone wrong. Economic status. Rape. Incest. Intimate partner violence.

Abortion itself, though, can be a savior for women, and a positive choice. Abortion is a medical procedure and, like most medical procedures, is preempted by some sort of negative event. And yet the discourse around abortion is focused on how “tragic” it is. Is open-heart surgery “tragic”? Is an appendectomy “tragic”? Obviously the circumstances leading up to open-heart surgery and appendectomy are bad. But the procedures themselves, I would argue, are good responses to bad situations. As is abortion.

Some on the Pandagon thread argue that procedures like heart surgery are morally neutral. I don’t think so. Having access to that surgery in the first place is a moral good. Deciding to take the course of action that is best for you is a moral good. That’s true whether the issue is terminating a pregnancy or fighting cancer.

Choosing to have a baby is just as much of moral good. In contrast, I’m not so sure that being legally forced to carry a pregnancy to term is morally good at all (just as being legally forced to terminate a pregnancy would not be a moral good). We can’t evaluate the morality of an individual’s choices if they don’t have agency. Abortion rights offer individual autonomy to give birth or to not give birth. The right of an individual to make their own choice about whether or not they will offer their body in the support of another organism is a moral good. The individual making a choice which will be most beneficial to them is a moral good, whether that choice is abortion or birth or both (and most women who have abortions, it should be noted, make different choices at different times in their lives). The abortion procedure itself, like most other medical procedures, is a moral good. And like most other medical procedures, it is bad when done without consent, or when coercive. As is childbirth.

Followup on the Women’s Ski Jumping Mess

Remember how we discovered last year during the Olympics the real reason why there’s no Olympic women’s ski jump? That the IOC and the Ski Federation think that women jumpers’ girlie bits are going to get jostled right out of their bodies?

Well, Vanessa at Feministing has a followup: the athletes have mobilized for action in advance of the 2010 Vancouver Games:

They have filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the basis that not allowing them to jump is gender discrimination, which should be prohibited at a venue that’s being constructed with millions of Canadian money. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) are now saying the reason is that there aren’t enough pro female ski jumpers to compete in the games, but female ski jumpers say it’s a crock.

While there are predictions that the complaint won’t amount to much considering the fact that the IOC had already made its decision, I have hopes; after all, it is Canada.

Canada has particular reasons for wanting to see women’s ski jumping allowed into their home games:

Women’s ski jumping is one of only two events in the Winter Olympics that do not include women – the other is Nordic combined, which includes ski jumping and cross-country skiing – and the Canadians, along with the Americans who live and train in Park City, are particularly good at it. Seven of the top 18 female ski jumpers in the world rankings hail from the two nations, including Park City’s Lindsay Van, Jessica Jerome, Alissa Johnson and Abby Hughes.

“If they get away with this, it diminishes the whole idea about the Olympic Games and fairness and equality,” Johnson has said.

Yet the IOC ruled last year that women’s ski jumping would have to wait until the 2014 Winter Games because not enough women or nations compete in it, and the organizing committee in Vancouver is going ahead with its plans not to include the sport.

Come on, people. You added CURLING. A sport that uses BROOMS.

And the jumpers argue that they have more international competitors than does the skicross event, newly added to the lineup. And even the International Ski Federation is relenting, adding women’s individual ski jumping to its World Championships for 2009.

Time to get with the times, IOC. Though any organization that calls its head “Excellency” has a few issues.

Canadians — what do you think of the potential for success of this complaint?

New Fascination

For some reason, I’ve been getting really into Cash in the Attic on BBC America. I do love Alistair Appleton (he’s my gay BBC boyfriend), but I think it’s the stuff that really draws me in. Brits have the coolest crap lying around the house.

You know you’ve been watching for a while when you start to recognize the auctioneers from earlier episodes.

Tea and Crumpets

I saw this earlier today at Feministing, and I had mixed feelings about it at first. Participants in the Miss Hartford High pageant were being taught etiquette — including six proper seating positions and how to be quiet and wear makeup and act properly at a tea service — on the theory that learning manners and etiquette was something that would help the contestants when they enter the business world. And that, for some reason unknown to me, the business world is apparently having tea a lot these days.

Jessica was fine with the etiquette, but thought the lessons went too far into enforcing proper gender roles:

“Elegant” sitting positions, not talking, wearing makeup: clearly the recipe for a lucrative career.

I wasn’t willing to get too down on the program, given that these girls already have so many strikes against them in terms of how they’re perceived by people who can give them entree into the business world — most of Hartford High’s students are poor and black or Hispanic, and will undoubtedly be trying to get jobs in insurance companies run by white people from the suburbs. What harm, I figured, could come from giving them the tools to increase the chance to be taken seriously as a job candidate? After all, I knew from observing my best friend from law school interact with potential employers at the dog and pony shows recruiting programs put on that white people will regard even a very well-educated, “articulate” black woman with impeccable manners and perfect grammar and crisp enunciation as just one “aks” away from the ghetto. If she experienced slight stiffening and frozen smiles and evident watchfulness, how would a poor kid from the North End fare? Is it worth focusing on the gender stereotyping when it might help her get a job?

But then I looked a little more closely at the article, which I hadn’t had time to read earlier. And the first thing I noticed* was that my assumption that this whole pageant was a school-related thing wasn’t quite right:

The pageant isn’t until the spring, but throughout the school year the 11 contestants are learning the behavior and etiquette that transforms a girl into a young lady. Mastering the poise to carry themselves at a tea party, such as the one Sunday, is a primary goal of the program run by Catholic Charities with a 21st Century state grant.

Um, exactly why is Catholic Charities in the business of running high-school beauty pageants?

And why are they getting government funding for it?

While looking for information on the 21st Century grants, I came across this and this, which described the grant program:

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program is a nationwide program of the U.S. Department of Education to provide learning and recreational opportunities for children and adults during non-school hours in a safe and drug-free environment.

If teaching kids etiquette is a worthy goal — and it is — then why is it tied into a) a Catholic Charities grant and b) a beauty pageant? Because it’s nice that there are a select group of young women learning to take small bites and use the right fork at a business lunch, but you’d think it would be a skill many of the students might want some instruction in, given the reaction of local business leaders to Hartford High students:

Three years ago this month, I. Michael Borrero, a former school board chairman, gathered Hartford business leaders for a lunch and asked them what they thought the school system should teach students to help them succeed in the business world.

Teach them etiquette, the business leaders said.

Throughout most of the lunch, employers talked about the woeful table manners, style of dress, speech, attendance, punctuality and overall behavior of many Hartford teenagers that made it hard for them to succeed in internships or entry-level jobs. The business leaders said they wanted employees who know how to work as part of a team and can fit in with the dominant business culture.

Leaving aside the question of just how many actual Hartford teenagers these business leaders know well enough to know that they’re not punctual and don’t work as part of a team, this little snippet illustrates what these kids are up against before they even get in the door. If this religious group is going to be getting government grant money to teach kids etiquette, they should make the program available to anyone who’s interested.

____________
* Actually, my first thought was, “Ohmigod! Rachel! She’s still at the Courant!” I worked with her on another newspaper a hundred years ago.