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

links for 11-09-2011

Mounia

College midterms have finally released me from their clutches, so here is a long overdue link round-up !
Here is a mishmash of articles published over the last week you should read.

A review of a book by feminist Phyllis Chesler on how MRAs are eking into the family court system and changing the game for mothers

A primer over at the Root explaining why you should care about new voting laws.

Amanda Hess at GOOD talks about the gap between the perception of what makes a sexual harassment suit and what actually does.

When it comes to Herman Cain , the Root has a fairly extensive coverage. Check it out – starting with this, on why his use of ‘lynching’ is offensive.

On fat representation on TV : Not Settling for Chelsea Settles

In #Occupy-related articles :
Race and Occupy Wall Street at the Nation

Flavia at Tiger Beatdown details why the US Occupy rhetoric is problematic when used in Europe.
Occupy London (Ontario) has been dismantled by the police, but is moving to a new site. Occupy Vancouver is still in the midst of a legal storm.
“Jayna Brown and Jack Halberstam exchange ideas about the London Riots, Occupy Wall Street/Occupy LA, Anarchy, uprisings, looting and the folly of Zizek”

If you haven’t been following Occupy Writers, you should start.

Also ! In events you might want to check out : French filmmaker Celine Sciamma’s second feature Tomboy (after Water Lilies) is opening in select theatres across the US. It follows a child named Laure who starts introducing hirself as Michael when hir family moves – and the movie is absolutely gorgeous. Dates can be found here!
And if you are in NYC and can come to the hinterland of the Columbia campus, come listen to Samuel Delany, fantastic sci-fi author and critic this friday.

21 thoughts on links for 11-09-2011

  1. I think Flavia’s post was actually about the problems of “occupation” in relation to Europe, not the US. Really, colonialism and imperialism have touched every corner of the globe, so the language is problematic no matter where, but maybe if the Occupiers keep investing in explicit anti-colonial messages as well, as many have done, we will see a “reclaiming” or at least expansion of the term? It’s not my favourite language, but it’s logistically difficult to change up at this point.

    The first Occupy London, Ontario camp has been dismantled, but I’ve heard they are relocating to another site in the city, so the Occupation movement there is still strong.

  2. Major typing fail of my part – meant to say problematic in Europe, but had a brainfart. Corrected. Thanks for pointing that out, and thanks for the heads up regarding London – good to know it’s still going strong ! Post updated to reflect that.

  3. Londoner here — the alt site (St Paul’s Cathedral) abruptly withdrew its invitation to local occupiers yesterday (purportedly due to “insurance reasons”), prior to eviction from Victoria Park. No decisions on next steps (eg, retaking Vic Park, alt sites) have been made as of yet, but will be discussed today at the general assembly, which is happening as we speak.

    Full, unedited presser w/ London ON mayor Joe Fontana, for those who want the official spin.

  4. So shared custody is evil, and no man has ever sought it because he actually loves his kid, but only so he could save money. There is no such things as ‘fatherhood’ or ‘parenthood’, but rather only ‘motherhood’ and ‘father’s supremacists’. Women have a god-given right to ownership over their children that should never be abridged. Even if the father would honestly make a better parent, so long as the mother is ‘good enough’, she should get custody. It doesn’t matter if she’s mentally unstable, either. The best interests of the child – the very thing feminists have used to argue for the rebuttable presumption of custody – is now irrelevant. Also, courts don’t look poorly on accusations of abuse in custody cases because of the poor track record those accusations have of being true, but it instead hinted that they really do it because they want kids to get raped. Every accusation by any woman must be treated as if it were god’s own judgment. Women are blameless saints in all things, and men are nothing but petty, greedy and vindictive assholes.

    I can’t imagine how that could inspire a backlash.

  6. As a practicing family law attorney in Louisville, KY, I could write several paragraphs about how in my experience and in my jurisdiction, the premise of the book, at least as summarized by the reviewer, is crap and not standard. Instead, I would like to briefly defend the “cottage industries” of divorce: mediation and parenting coordinators. In my experience the two best things divorcing parties can spend their money on is mediation and parenting coordinators. Mediation lets the parties decide their own fate, versus a Judge who will have spent approximately 8 hours total with the parties over the course of many months, and who will have to sift through mountains of pleadings and recorded testimony before they make final findings regarding your children, your house, your furniture and your financial future, and who has 500 other cases on their desk demanding the same attention.
    Parenting coordinators, in my jurisdiction, are attorneys that the parties pay to make decisions when the parents can’t. If one party is controlling and abusive, the parenting coordinator is the one who tells them to back off, and they can act immediately and aren’t constrained by rules of evidence or civil procedure. Parenting coordinators are godsends, but paying a third attorney is cost-prohibitive, so most divorcing parties can’t afford the benefit. And in family law, the children are always the biggest losers.

  7. Just wanted to say that I saw Tomboy last week at the Brisbane International Film festival in Australia and it’s a brilliant movie. The kids’ acting in particular was amazing, very realistic, and very touching. Definitely worth seeing!

  9. I strongly disagree with the post on child custody: mothers “losing their children” to joint custody agreements is addressed with sympathy, but the same for fathers is lauded. W.T.F.

  10. I’m not a fan of MRAs, but the Phyllis Chesler link is just sitting on the other end of the see-saw. It’s really not fair to dismiss men seeking joint custody as doing it primarily for money or control. Calling joint custody “post-divorce patriarchy” is out of line in all but a few cases. The same goes for the comment on surrogacy as rich women not wanting to “lose their youthful figures”.

    I’m torn about the idea of mothers losing their children if they are mentally ill. Women certainly get painted with the crazy brush much more than men. However, as a child of someone with an undiagnosed mood disorder whose rapid mood swings made life chaotic growing up I would have wanted the court to take their mental state into account, no matter what their gender is. On the other hand, parents who are managing their illness should not be penalized.

    But that doesn’t sound fair, does it? Would it be reasonable to take into account the management of a chronic illness like diabetes in custody proceedings? I guess this is why the court system is handled by (mortal, fallible) people and not a computer program.

  12. The Chesler article didn’t sit well with me at all. All I have is anectdotal evidence on my end, but as someone who is voluntarily in a shared-visitation, no-monetary-support situation I have to say that I have a really hard time with painting shared custody as a loss, unless there is abuse or neglect involved. The way custody is set up now seems to be an adversarial system that is set up to pit parents against each other, even when both parents can be seen as perfect fit to raise children. I found there were a lot of assumptions made re: fathers of the sort that people would take and go ‘See, feminists are a bunch of man-haters’. The MRA’s are going to eat that shit right up as evidence to their cause.

  14. In cases of abusive relationships, however, automatic 50/50 custody is not a good thing. There is backlash against mothers who bring up abuse in custody cases (they are accused of trying to alienate the kids, even if there are police records/charges that show her ex was abusive). I know a lot of women–and their kids–who’ve gotten fucked over by this. I know a lot of kids who were pretty screwed up after being made to spend time with a known abuser thanks to shit like this.

    Couple this with the blame mothers get for not leaving an abusive situation, and you end up with a big bag of cannot fucking win.

  15. Most custody arrangements are worked out by the parents. The ones that go to court overwhelmingly involve abuse. The situation as it is prevents women and children from getting free of that abuse. I wouldn’t have believed how bad it can be unless I new the stories first hand. It’s a real nightmare. Kudos to Ms. Chesler for telling this story.

  17. Re: “Mothers on trial”…

    I had to have a bit of a laugh when I read about how joint custody is really “post divorce patriarchy”, or about how all those dads wanting to see their children are really just after the money.

    Well, I’m not surprised that it would be portrayed that way, or linked that way on this site. Considering the way that the father’s rights movement has been portrayed as a zero-sum game of misogny and violence by the feminist movement, it is no shocker that men who DO want to break down gender barriers and spend more time with their kids will be demonized.

    Bravo Mounia, for linking a stupid, hateful, regressive article.

    1. Bravo Mounia, for linking a stupid, hateful, regressive article.

      Actually, I sent Mounia the article and asked her to link it, so you should blame me and not her. And I asked her to link it not because I endorse its conclusions, but because I thought it would be good fodder for discussion. You know, how adults usually do.

      So bravo to you, sir, for this comment.

  18. Jill: Actually,IsentMouniathearticleandaskedhertolinkit,soyoushouldblamemeandnother.AndIaskedhertolinkitnotbecauseIendorseitsconclusions,butbecauseIthoughtitwouldbegoodfodderfordiscussion.Youknow,howadultsusuallydo.

    Sobravotoyou,sir,forthiscomment.

    As in:

    “Fathers are evil, abusive, distant, money grubbing assholes. Discuss.”

  19. Eh, it might be good fodder for discussion but it’s not fodder for good discussion. The only thing you can really say, “Oh fuck that’s asinine”. I tried to write more than that today and got nowhere.

Comments are currently closed.