June 2009 – Page 3

I think you’re confused as to the meaning of “child support”

Oh ScienceBlogs, you’re usually so great, but this post made me want to die of teh clueless. It’s about a “man’s rights” to abortion, and basically argues that since women have the right to terminate pregnancies, men should have the right to refuse to support the children they beget. The author even includes a handy poll, which asks, “What should a man’s legal obligation be when he impregnates a woman?” and offers the following as options:

1. Should be responsible for paying half of whatever the woman chooses.
2. Should only be responsible for half if both choose to have the kid.
3. Should never be responsible for half.
4. Should be allowed to force the woman to abort.

…none, of course, which represent the current law. Men are never on the hook “for paying half of whatever the woman chooses.” They typically pay whatever they choose, and sometimes are ordered by a court to contribute what the judge deems to be a fair amount. The post concludes with these two paragraphs:

Now, mind you, I think that the choice of whether to have the kid or not should always lie with the woman (it’s her body), but I think the man should be able to choose whether he wants to be a dad or not. I think that if she chooses abortion, it’s his responsibility to pay half. But I think that if she chooses to have the child, with or without him, he should have the right to say, “without me, please.”

Right now, the courts always place the welfare of the child first. Is this the right thing to do in this day and age? What do you think?

See, that’s the thing with child support: It’s for the child. The court places the welfare of the child first because the child is dependent on financial contributions from its parents and/or the state. No one is legally obligated to be a dad in terms of providing the kind of emotional support that parents should ideally provide; the state, however, does have an interest in making sure that children are fed and financially provided-for. That’s where child support comes in. The courts can’t force you to be a decent human being, but they can make you pony up a little cash to make sure that the kid you helped create has something to eat and some clothes to wear.

Child support is a separate animal from reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are fundamentally about bodily automony, and they begin and end with your own body. The right to abortion isn’t a right just because we think women should be able to opt out of parenthood; it’s a right because forcing a woman to maintain a pregnancy for nine months against her will is an impermissible infringement upon her physical being. The fact that a desire to opt out of parenthood may be a factor in some women’s decisions to have abortions doesn’t change the reality that abortion rights are based on the right to control your own body. When there’s another person involved — a child — your obligations and freedoms change.

Is it unfair that once pregnancy occurs, a man does not have the right or ability to end it? I guess, in the same way that it’s unfair that women have to carry a pregnancy for nine months, or undergo an invasive surgical procedure to end it. That sucks. It’s not “fair.” But by virtue of having to bear that burden for nearly ten months after intercourse, women also have reproductive rights that are different from men’s. Those rights extend through pregnancy.

It may not feel “fair” to be on the hook for child support when you don’t want a kid. But children still need to be cared for, and it strikes me as pretty unfair to demand that a woman undergo a surgical procedure which she may believe to be morally wrong or be stuck with the full financial responsiblity of raising a kid by herself.

And what happens if a woman doesn’t want to remain pregnant, but the man wants the child? Should he have the legal right to force or economically coerce her into giving birth?

I understand that some dudes are really put off by the idea that there’s one thing they may not have full control over. But as long as there are differences in reproductive capabilities, there are going to be differences in the rights that come along with those capabilities. And insofar as children are distinct human beings with the right to be financially cared for, the men who helped create those children should be partially responsible.

Thanks to Texas Reader, who really held her own in the comments, for the link.

Marrying for Money

There’s apparently a new book coming out called Smart Girls Marry Money: How Women Have Been Duped Into the Romantic Dream—And How They Are Paying For It, by Elizabeth Ford and Daniela Drake. The reviews actually make the book sound slightly less awful than the title, and it seems to have some vaguely feminist undertones:

In June, the prime month for weddings, it may seem heretical to suggest that romantic love is not the only requirement for a successful marriage. But that’s what the authors of a provocative new book advocate. In Smart Girls Marry Money,Elizabeth Ford, a news producer, and Daniela Drake, a physician, argue that despite the gains women have made in the last few decades, we still earn considerably less than men (especially if we are mothers). A husband’s paycheck is still critical. “We gals just haven’t come far enough or fast enough,” they say. “We know it’s important to take the long view of things, but as we’ve heard said, in the long view, we’ll all be dead.”

Then there’s divorce. Ford and Drake say that since women suffer economically much more than men when they get divorced, snagging a good provider is ultimately critical to an equitable settlement. And if current statistics hold, half of new couples are likely to eventually split up. Given that depressing reality, Ford and Drake say that a husband’s earning power is a more important indicator of a woman’s future happiness than his cute smile. “If the marriage crashes,” they write, “it’s the women who are exposed to an extremely high risk of poverty.” They urge their readers to look for a Mr. Right “who just happens to be Mr. Rich.”

Supreme Court rules strip-search of child was illegal

Good news:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school’s strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford.

Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills — the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

This one seems like a no-brainer to me, but Clarence Thomas apparently disagrees — he was the one (unintentionally hilarious) dissenting voice:

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas found the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials “considerable leeway” under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.

Officials had searched the girl’s backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. “It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place should thought no one would look,” Thomas said.

Thomas warned that the majority’s decision could backfire. “Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments,” he said. “Nor will she be the last after today’s decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school.”

Thomas only restates what high school girls everywhere have always known: Your panties are the safest place to secrete.

FNTT Season 5 Round 2, the All Up In Your Blog, Breakin’ Your Feminist Ideology episode

More Feministe’s Next Top Troll, Round 2. Troll comments below the fold. Vote for your Round 2 favorite.

FNTT Season 5, Round 2 – the Bulldyke Lesbian Sex Sells episode

Feministe’s Next Top Troll is still going. We’ve narrowed down the competitors from 24 to 14, and now it’s time to narrow even further. This edition only has two competitors, but future editions in Round 2 will pit three trolls against each other. Vote below the fold.

Right-Wing Hate Apparently Knows No Bounds

The family of Ana Fernandez, one of the people killed in the DC Metro crash, has been receiving harassing phone calls about their immigration status. The whole post:

Well this is the most disturbing thing I’ve run across today, and I watched that entire Mark Sanford press conference debacle. WTOP reports that the family of Ana Fernandez, one of the victims of Monday’s fatal Metro crash, has been getting hate-filled phone calls from people questioning whether she and her family are legal immigrants. No one has ever questioned Fernandez’s immigration status, and a family member has already told the media that all six of her now motherless children were born in the United States and full U.S. citizens, but still, the sort of people who watch Lou Dobbs are calling their home and harassing them, just because their last name is Hispanic. Here’s hoping the people making those calls never have to deal with a terrible family tragedy. Jackals.

“Jackals” is a nicer word than I would have used.

Email From a Mom

Good lord I love my mother and her take on current events:

YUCK! Is life worth living now??? Can’t even eat cookie dough anymore! How did poo poo get into cookie dough????? Ponder that question.

Women faces five years in prison for drinking while breastfeeding

A woman was arrested after police officers saw her drinking while breastfeeding her baby. They say she was “extremely intoxicated,” but as far as I can tell, there isn’t much evidence to back up that contention. She apparently pleaded guilty to a Class C felony:

Officers responded to an unrelated call at a Grand Forks residence in the early morning of Feb. 13 and saw 26-year-old Stacey Anvarinia slurring her speech and breastfeeding, prosecutor Meredith Larson told the judge.

Citing a police report, Larson said officers were concerned about the infant’s welfare, so they called Altru Hospital and were told that breast-feeding while intoxicated was not good for the child.

“Ms. Anvarinia was notified of that, and she continued to make attempts to breast-feed,” Larson said.

Anvarinia, who no longer is in custody, is slated to be sentenced on the Class C felony charge Aug. 7.

This is one of those situations where bodily autonomy arguments get a little fuzzy (although either way, child neglect is a pretty severe crime to charge her with). If she was pregnant, I think it would be pretty clear that this would be a serious violation of her rights — after all, she has a right to consume legal substances like alcohol, pregnant or not. But things get tricker when they involve another human being, who cannot care for itself, being fed potentially dangerous substances — even if those substances are made dangerous by someone else engaging in a perfectly legal activity.

That said, there’s some question as to how dangerous alcohol consumption while breastfeeding actually is. Common belief seems to be that drinking while breastfeeding is a no-no, but from what I’ve read, moderate alcohol use poses virtually no harm to a breastfeeding infant. Whether the woman in this incident was consuming alcohol in moderation is clearly up for debate, but I can’t help but suspect that this case is more about what the police perceived as a Bad Mommy and less about any actual harmful effects on the baby.

While I’m often not a fan of slippery slope arguments (mostly because societies around the world have managed to draw reasonable legal lines), I do worry that this is another step towards policing “imperfect” motherhood. Is there all that much of a difference between charging a woman with a felony for drinking while breastfeeding and charging her with the same crime for smoking with kids in the house? (The difference, I suppose, is that men can smoke too, so they probably won’t start prosecuting parents for it).

The whole case just seems problematic to me. While of course children deserve protection from neglect and abuse — and I’m of the mind that children are afforded too few basic rights in our society — I have a hard time swallowing the argument that this qualifies as felony child neglect.

via The Frisky.

Richard Nixon: Still a jerk after all these years

Tricky Dick: Abortion is bad because it encourages sexual permissiveness and breaks up the family, but it’s ok in really terrible circumstances. Like interracial pregnancy. Or, oh yeah, rape:

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding: “Or a rape.”

Now there’s a guy who isn’t missed.

What are your favorite summer recipes?

This article in the Times is inspiring me to create some delicious summer drink concoctions — and I’m particularly excited that they include the recipe for my favorite drink from my favorite tequila bar (Phil Ward, you are a god among men).

But I should probably eat something along with these drinks, no? I can’t cook for the life of me, but since I’m taking a stab at domesticity this summer with my roof garden and all, I figure I’ll throw out another question to the peanut gallery: What are your favorite simple, tasty summer recipes? I pretty much eat pasta or cheese every night and it’s getting old. Any new ideas?