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

So that’s why I’m still single!

Gays, it’s all your fault.

Girls and women were hurt by males with increasing and heartbreaking frequency as the Sexual Adventurist Code of Values was progressively adopted since the 1960s as the norm among heterosexual males. No, we didn’t need homosexuals to teach us these things. It was old fashioned heterosexual adventurism. Many women are still paying the price.

But now gay activists want society’s seal of approval on their lifestyle, and it is, on average, far more extreme in its adventurism. And you think that will not encourage heterosexual men and boys to keep on hurting women as they do now, or worse? If homosexual males treat each other that way, with their activity officially endorsed by the government, why can we heterosexual males not relate to you, heterosexual women, in a similar fashion?

But it gets better! It turns out that women are also big whores.

Dan Savage, one of the gays who’s ruining marriage for chicks like me, responds appropriately.

Cirila Baltazar Cruz and The Plight Of The Unworthy

In recent weeks, the startling story of Cirila Baltazar Cruz has been stirring outrage and splitting spleens in certain corners of blogland, though it has yet to receive mainstream attention. Some details remain fuzzy, and we have yet to hear directly from the person at the center of the story, Ms. Cruz herself; and indeed we aren’t likely to hear from her anytime soon because her case is currently under a court gag order.

Here’s what we have so far: Cirila Baltazar Cruz gave birth to a baby girl, Rubi Juana, on November 16, 2008, at the Singing River Hospital in Pascagoula, Mississippi. It is, as you might imagine, a predominantly white area. The hospital provided Cruz with a Spanish interpreter. However, Cruz doesn’t speak Spanish; she speaks Chatino, an indigenous language from the Oaxaca region of Mexico. Two days after the birth, the hospital reported the baby as a neglected child to the Department of Human Services, after which Rubi Juana Cruz was promptly taken from her mother and placed in the custody of an affluent couple in Ocean Springs.

According to court records obtained by The Mississippi Clarion-Ledger, the child was deemed neglected in part because Cruz “has failed to learn the English language” which “placed her unborn child in danger and will place the baby in danger in the future”. In addition, the hospital report noted that Cruz “was an illegal immigrant” who was “exchanging living arrangements for sex”.

Of course, it’s a bit of a mystery how they were able to establish these facts when there were apparently no Chatino-speakers on hand. More to the point: it’s irrelevant. I’m no legal expert, but in my understanding, immigration status, language skills, and highly-questionable allegations of sex work are not grounds for snatching a baby from her mother and initiating adoption proceedings. But that’s exactly what’s happening. The case is currently in the Jackson County Youth Court, where Cruz is being represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center. As mentioned, the case is under gag order so it’s been difficult to get updates on the situation and the fate of Rubi Juana remains unknown.

Unfortunately, the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform’s Child Welfare Blog notes:

The case is not unique. In 2005, the Lebanon (Tenn.) Democrat, revealed that, at least twice, a local judge ordered Mexican mothers to learn English — or lose their children forever. […] In one case the child still lived with the mother, in the other the child was in foster care. In both cases, the mothers spoke an indigenous language rather than Spanish.

Over at Vivir Latino, Maegan La Mamita Mala places the story in the larger context of the “good immigrant vs. bad immigrant” narrative which has come to dominate mainstream liberal discourse in the immigration debate:

Quick. Choose. The house is burning and you have to choose. Your mother or your child? Who do you save?

Your mother, Maegan writes, “didn’t make it like Sonia Sotomayor. Didn’t graduate from college and in fact can’t even speak English”. On the other hand, your child has assimilated, can speak English, has received a formal education, and “won’t be a burden on the system”.

Is it the correct choice to abandon your unassimilated mother?

This is the morally untenable dead-end into which liberals propel themselves when they adopt tactical discourse which appeases the xenophobic forces of the right-wing for the sake of electoral expediency, rather than a discourse fundamentally grounded in universal human rights.

Now I’m not suggesting any less respect for the remarkable achievements of someone like Sonia Sotomayor. But when liberals hold her up as the shining example of The American Story — a model minority, a false compliment with which Asian Americans are all too familiar — they are actually Othering the majority of immigrants, ordinary hard-working people who have never had the opportunities or life situations or sheer good fortune to rise to such societal heights. The implication is that those less-accomplished immigrant stories are somehow less American, and therefore those other immigrants are unworthy of the magnanimous acceptance extended by the mainstream to a select few.

What is the plight of the unworthy? Ask Cirila Baltazar Cruz.

Please consider writing, faxing, or calling the presiding judge in this case and asking that (1) Rubi Juana be re-united with her mother, and (2) all adoption proceedings against the will of the mother be stopped. Here’s the contact info:

Honorable Judge Sharon Sigalas
Youth Justice Court of Jackson County
4903 Telephone Rd.
Pascagoula, MS 39567
Call (228) 762-7370
Fax (228) 762-7385

ETA: Thanks to Maegan for sending me this radio interview, recorded on June 1, in which we hear from Cirila Baltazar Cruz herself (in Spanish and Chatino).

Cruz says she doesn’t know why they took her daughter, though she calls herself “ignorant” for not being able to speak Spanish or English (though she does speak some Spanish, as you can hear in the interview). She’s a homeowner in Oaxaca with two other children being cared for by her family there. She works at a Chinese restaurant in Biloxi and lives in an apartment owned by her employer — an arrangement which the hospital interpreter either misunderstood or misrepresented. Cirila says that the interpreter told her that she must leave her Chinese employer or lose her baby; furthermore, the interpreter offered her a job with a wealthy family who would take care of the child. When she refused the offer, the interpreter became irritated with her, and we know the rest.

Cruz says she wants her daughter back. All the information she receives from the court is in English. It was her cousin Esteban who implored the Mississippi Immigrants’ Rights Alliance (MIRA) to get involved, which is how we now know about this case. Vicky Cintra of MIRA (also interviewed) says red flags went up at the organization when they learned that Esteban had been barred from serving as an interpreter for Cirila at the hospital, even though he repeatedly offered; he was told he would be arrested if he didn’t leave. MIRA claims that the family that took custody of Rubi Juana are lawyers with connections to the judge; they threw a baby shower to greet Rubi’s arrival.

November 18 is the next court date. We’ll be keeping a close eye on this story.

An email

Upon reading your article “Palin’s anti-choice legacy,” I wanted to bring a particular point to your attention.

 

Your use of the term “anti-choice” is very misleading, and shows a significant misunderstanding of the term.

 

The term anti-choice by definition means “one who opposes ALL choices”, no matter what the topic of choice be.  The opposition to abortion does not stem from the opposition of choices in general (as the term anti-choice would lead one to believe).  Those who oppose abortion are against feticide and embryocide, thus making them anti-feticide, anti-embryocide, or anti-abortion.  Just as someone who opposes the choice of a man to hit his wife is not anti-choice, but anti-domestic-violence, the correct label for a person who opposes abortion would be anti-abortion (or anti-feticide, anti-embryocide, etc.)

 

I would invite you to visit the website www.notantichoice.com to review and read more information on this subject and on the use of the term anti-choice.

 

Thank you,

[name withheld]

Um, no.

I could probably just deal with this in a short response email, or even concede no response at all, but I prefer to direct public attention to a post I’ve written previously on this subject. My own words:

I am pro-life. I am completely in support of each person’s right to life – their right to go to school and grow up and decide what their favorite food is and ask questions and read magazines and get a job and dream about changing the world. That’s why I’m a pacifist. I want all of those things for every person on this earth, and I’m tired of being made to seem like I’m against life because I am pro-choice.

For me, being pro-life is being pro-women’s lives. It is one the most demeaning things in the world to feel that the government values the life of the fetus potentially living inside me more than my life. It will be a person. I am a person. It will have a life — a life that I’ll fight to protect — but I’ve already got one. It’s a goddamn group of cells. I’m a woman. I laugh at the idea of someone who believes in lives, who believes in autonomy and the right of every thing to exist, telling me how to live mine.

That’s why I much prefer the term anti-choice to pro-life, because that’s what this whole fuss is about: telling women what to do with their bodies, their futures, their lives, instead of letting us choose for ourselves. If anti-choicers were truly pro-life, they would give a shit once the fetus was born — which, you know, they don’t: anti-choicers are the ones who are cutting funds for child care and children’s hospitals. And if they really cared about reducing the number of abortions, they’d stop pouring millions of dollars into bullshit sex ed programs and limiting access to birth control. What they are actually interested in is limiting women’s choices — limiting women’s lives.

That sounds like just the opposite of pro-life to me.

Anything to add, commenters? Does someone with more time than I’ve got at the moment want to take on the troubling parallel this emailer draws between abortion and domestic violence? Do you prefer the label pro-life, instead of anti-choice? Have at it in the comments.

Cross-posted at Women’s Glib.

Private club boots kids who might “change the complexion” of the pool

Guess what color the kids are.

More than 60 campers from Northeast Philadelphia were turned away from a private swim club and left to wonder if their race was the reason.

“They just kicked us out. And we were about to go. Had our swim things and everything,” said camper Simer Burwell.

The explanation they got was either dishearteningly honest or poorly worded.

“There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club,” John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.

The East, the West and Sex: Author Richard Bernstein responds

Apparently Richard Bernstein read my non-review of his book and didn’t find it particularly flattering. You can read his comment here. He’s right that I haven’t read the book, and did draw most of my conclusions from various reviews (the Slate review specifically), and from my own experiences with men who have made similar arguments. I still don’t plan on reading the book, but I’ll direct you to a very good review by someone who has and leave it at that.

What does feminist urban policy look like?

Yesterday I posted about Wonder Woman’s campaign for DC Mayor, and asked you all for feminist urban policy suggestions. There are some good ones in the comments, but I thought I’d get the ball rolling a little more by throwing out some of my own ideas. Add yours in the comments.

1. Comprehensive eviction prevention programs. This article is admittedly New York-centric, but I’d imagine there are similar patterns in DC. And as young, relatively wealthier people continue to move into cities, landlords have strong incentives to push out long-term lower-income tenants. Often, women are the heads of the low-income households that suffer most from gentrification. Establishing safeguards so that low-income tenants can maintain their residences is a crucial aspect of any progressive urban policy.

2. Health care. Well-funded, inclusive and sensitive community health centers that provide an array of services to patients regardless of immigration status or ability to pay are sorely needed in many urban areas. Centers that provide reproductive health care — including but certainly not limited to contraception, abortion, well-baby care, STI prevention and treatment, sexual health education and neo-natal care — are the obvious feminist focus, especially when they’re sensitive to the needs of all patients and can comprehensively serve immigrant and LGBT populations.

3. Violence prevention. More specifically, violence prevention that focuses on community-based solutions rather than just increased policing. Organizations like Day One in New York reach out to youth to both prevent violence and to help victims of violence get the legal help they need. Groups that focus on working with men to prevent violence are scarce but incredibly important. The already stretched-thin shelter system always needs more resources to help women and men escape violence. And we need more creative solutions that don’t put all the onus on women to leave, and that give women options other than calling the police.

4. Employment and public assistance. Helping local businesses stay afloat in tough economic times also helps to keep more women employed. When that fails, a public assistance system that has less red tape and bureaucracy is crucial in helping families — many of which are headed by women — to put food on the table.

5. Food policy. We hear quite a bit about the “American obesity crisis” and the negative effects that processed and unhealthy foods have on us. While I’m of course skeptical of the “obesity crisis” fat-shaming language, it is true that the cheapest food is often the worst for us, and that low-income and urban populations have a particularly difficult time accessing affordable, healthy food. That lack of access does have serious health consequences. Like the suggestions above, much of the problem comes from federal government policy — here in the form of farm subsidies, among other policies. But city governments can help by promoting local food production and garden-sharing, and by building more public spaces (and green spaces in particular). They can create incentives for local markets to serve low-income communities. They can do what Scott Stringer has tried to do in the Bronx — create a food infrastructure requirement as part of local Environmental Impact Standards. Again, it’s women who are often in charge of feeding their families, and who bear the burden of stretching a tight budget to make sure that there’s food on the table. It’s also women who are the most likely to forgo healthy food for themselves so that they can give it to their children and their partners. Fresh, affordable food in urban “food deserts” would help women and families to be healthier.

What else would go on your feminist urban policy wish list?

Wonder Woman for DC

The New Organizing Institute is running some superheroes for DC mayor. As a feminist, I of course am throwing my support behind Wonder Woman. Check out her website, and follow her on Twitter.

The campaign isn’t entirely real (although you can and should vote on Friday!), but here’s a serious question for you all: What policy posititions should Wonder Woman take? What does feminist urban policy look like?

Shocking news of the day: Cats are useless.

It’s true. I am a notorious cat-hater who also happens to be a cat owner, and I think I can confirm that they have no actual utility beyond sleeping and pooping twice their body weight. Luckily, Percival is half puppy — he follows me around and always wants to cuddle — so I enjoy his company. I don’t think I’ve put up pictures since he was a wee kitten, so re-meet him:



Percy’s spot, originally uploaded by JillNic83.

As you can see from the picture, he has bigger boobs than me. Ah, they grow up so fast!

When he isn’t sleeping on the stairs, he also enjoys sending me into hysterics by poisoning himself with lilies, incurring potential kidney damage, nearly averting death and leaving me with a $1,300 vet bill.

Read More…Read More…

Perfect

I, and others, have been mulling over how to refer to people who are not disabled. Roughly, our options seem to be:

* normal, or non-marked identity: centering a certain body/mind as “normal” necessarily implies that any difference makes a person less than. It tends to imply that “normal” is accepted as good, whole, while non-normal is bad, wrong, diminishing.

* able-bodied, which seems to be the settled-upon term: excludes people with non-physical disabilities — and I have had so many people write me expressing that they feel their non-physical conditions didn’t “count” as disability, and it just makes my heart cry.

* temporarily-able-bodied: I love this term, because it makes clear: at any time in life, you may become disabled, due to age, injury, late-manifesting genetics, or social barriers. Your privilege will not always be with you, so pay attention, because you might find yourself on the other side of the fence at any point. But this still centers physical disability and excludes non-physical disability.

* neurotypical, physiotypyical: NT is a term used in the autistic community to describe persons whose neurological makeup conforms to the expected norm, but it doesn’t describe conditions which are not neurological in nature. Physiotypical might cover those conditions, but it requires using both terms, and still may not be truly comprehensive. I can’t come up with any good, comprehensive word to describe the range of disability (mental, physical, neither/both) to use as a prefix in place of “neuro-” and “physio-“.

* normative: I like this term because it emphasizes the social conformity rather than some inherent difference; think heteronormative. I just can’t find a good word to combine it with to describe the category of ability rather than heterosexuality.

* non-disabled: functional, but we tend to want a specific term to describe the privileged category — which is why trans community members came up with “cis” to describe people whose gender identity is consistent with their assigned gender.

* abled, fully-able: I have been leaning on these terms as the most neutral of the set of options, but they still just don’t seem to describe what we’re trying to describe — and referring to an able-privileged person as “fully able” may be inaccurate; ability is not a binary.

I think, though, I’ve finally settled on the term I’m comfortable with: Temporarily Non-Disabled.

This harnesses the power of temporarily able-bodied but without excluding non-physical disabilities. And it is a longer term but easily condensed to TND. We’ve got enough acronyms going, so why not? And I’m actually rather excited — this is a language quirk that has bothered me for some time, so having a term that seems to fit right is a considerable comfort to me.

Thoughts? People with disabilities — of any sort — please feel free to comment. Does TND seem like the best choice to you? Do you see any problems with it? Do you prefer something else? What makes the most sense to you?

(Cross-posted at Three Rivers Fog.)

ETA: Anna points out in comments that this is somewhat US-centric: UK disability advocates tend to use “disabled person” and “non-disabled person” as opposed to “person with a disability” or “person without a disability” (people-first language). And other countries may have different approaches as well. Something to keep in mind.

ETA 2: Many people in comments bring up the word “currently” in place of “temporary” and most people seem much more comfortable with this terminology. Currently Non-Disabled/Currently Able? It fits just as well for me – read through the comments to see what other people are saying. It’s a great thread so far.

ETA 3: anon in comments: “So it seems to me we are often referring to segments of population that are not merely “undisabled” — they are actually ENabled by the social constructs that are not merely neutral but support their particular conditions.”

I want this to be a safe commenting space for people with disabilities. Non-disabled people, please respect the words of PWD and avoid denying a person’s feelings and experiences. You carry privilege, so step carefully, and listen carefully to what people are telling you. I’m not afraid to break out the pandas again for unacceptable comments. Thanks.