Feminism in News and Popular Media

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted

http://liberationcollective.wordpres...ge-1/#comments

... by allowing individuals to choose one of two pre-existing gender molds, while continuing to celebrate the existence and naturalism of “gender” itself, is not a progressive social goal that will advance women’s liberation. ...


The cis/trans binary does not, and cannot, account for the experiences of people with complicated, blended, or changing “gender identities;”...


By using cisgender to describe the gender of those who are not trans* we break down structures that posit cis individuals as “normal,” when neither is more “normal” than the other....

In reality, any person who significantly defies the gender norms for their apparent sex will be subject to negative social treatment because of their non-compliance. This will occur regardless of whether the individual applies the label “trans” to herself or not. Under nearly all circumstances, stealth trans* people will be treated by society as if they were cis; and gender non-conforming cis people who do not disclaim their reproductive sex–including butch lesbians and feminine males–will be treated by society as if they were “trans.*” Framing the politics of gender as a matter of self-perception rather than social perception evades the feminist political inquiry regarding why gender exists in the first place and how these gender dynamics operate, and have operated, for hundreds of years...


Cis privilege does not exist, man-privilege does.

Feminine gender conformity ala “cis” does not protect women (trans or not) from gendered oppression. ...

I call for trans* theorists, activists, and supporters to stop promoting the cis/trans binary, and instead, to incorporate feminist objections regarding gender-as-hierarchy[x] and the misplaced glorification of masculinity and femininity in the context of male supremacy into their explanations of “gender.”



___________________

Brilliant. The term 'cis' annoys the f**k out of me for all the above mentioned reasons, plus a few more. My first point is briefly touched upon in the above article, but isn't given nearly enough space. In the overly simplistic version of gender theory that renders a person as either 'cis' or trans, a butch woman would be labeled as 'cis' regardless of whether or not she identifies with butch AS A GENDER! This invisibilises butch women, and that's NOT OK with me.

Second, simplistically reducing the world into two choices of either 'cis' or trans leaves intersex people out altogether, as well as running roughshod over the IDs of Two Spirit Native people. That shouldn't be OK with anyone, and it's certainly not OK with me.

Finally, it creates a permanent division between women who have transitioned and those who have never been trans. One of my closest friends is a trans woman who is infuriated by the term 'cis'. She finished transitioning years ago, and is now a woman. Period. She does NOT wish to append either 'trans' or 'cis' to her or anyone else's identity of woman. She sacrificed a great deal to become a woman, and all she wants is to be recognised as a woman with no qualifications attached.

[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

Brilliant. The term 'cis' annoys the f**k out of me for all the above mentioned reasons, plus a few more. My first point is briefly touched upon in the above article, but isn't given nearly enough space. In the overly simplistic version of gender theory that renders a person as either 'cis' or trans, a butch woman would be labeled as 'cis' regardless of whether or not she identifies with butch AS A GENDER! This invisibilises butch women, and that's NOT OK with me.

Second, simplistically reducing the world into two choices of either 'cis' or trans leaves intersex people out altogether, as well as running roughshod over the IDs of Two Spirit Native people. That shouldn't be OK with anyone, and it's certainly not OK with me.

Finally, it creates a permanent division between women who have transitioned and those who have never been trans. One of my closest friends is a trans woman who is infuriated by the term 'cis'. She finished transitioning years ago, and is now a woman. Period. She does NOT wish to append either 'trans' or 'cis' to her or anyone else's identity of woman. She sacrificed a great deal to become a woman, and all she wants is to be recognised as a woman with no qualifications attached.

Cheryl,

I couldn't agree more with your post! Women who have had the experience of transitioning are WOMEN. Calling them Transwomen keeps them othered, and reinforces the hierarchy of 'born' woman/female vs. 'other female/woman. It's completely unacceptable. The Transgender movement ( rather than the movement created by the experiences of intersex and Transsexual people) has caused great harm to women with transsexual experiences and history by its insistence of blurring gender lines. Women with Transsexual histories didn't struggle their whole lives, have expensive and often inaccessible surgeries to come out as some 'other/third/fourth/fifth gender' They transitioned to become what they are, and always were, Women. Before anyone jumps on this as an anti trans-gender post, please don't-- I'm not talking about keeping the gender binary as it is, or suggesting that gender in and of it's self isn't fluid-- but women who are looking for community with women, services for women, health care for women, are interested in being seen, and included as a woman. This is why it's a deeply feminist issue. As always, when you boil it down, it's the voices of women in our most marginalized locations that get silenced and attacked.

"Gender is a socially constructed power hierarchy that must be destroyed, not reinterpreted as consensual, empowering, individualized “gender identities” that are magically divorced from all contextual and historical meaning. Such a framing invisibilizes female and feminine oppression by falsely situating men-born-men and women-born-women as gendered equals relative to trans-identified people. Though possibly unintentional, “cis” now functions as a significant barrier to feminism’s ability to articulate the oppression caused by the socially constructed gender differentiation that enables male/masculine supremacy. Cis is a politically useless concept because fails to illuminate the mechanics of gendered oppression. In fact, it has only served to make things more confusing."

Love. It.

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ampaign=Buffer

'Sisterhood is powerful. It kills sisters,' noted a friend of Shulamith Firestone. In fact, we fight because we're not powerful enough




Shulamith Firestone, in 1997: according to Susan Faludi, the vicious enmities within radical feminism pushed Firestone toward mental and physical breakdown.
Photograph: courtesy of Lori Hiris

Is sisterhood sacred or soul-crushing?

Within the feminist movement, the answer is less clear than one might hope. Trashing each other and exclusion have been hallmarks since the movement began, and each generation of feminist activists seems to suffer the same in-fighting. But contrary to simplistic ideas about catty, back-stabbing women, feminists don't fight each other because women are uniquely competitive or cruel. Though we care about the movement, it happens because we've internalized a narrative of scarcity: we act as though we're fighting for crumbs.

In her recent New Yorker article about the life of the feminist pioneer Shulamith Firestone, Susan Faludi details how the Women's Liberation Movement of the 1960s and 70s fractured. She quotes a line from Ti-Grace Atkinson's resignation from a New York feminist group:

Sisterhood is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.

It seems that no one walked away unscathed, and today, little has changed. Online feminism faces many of the same challenges our foremothers faced: not enough support, too much attention for the dominant groups, vicious internal attacks, and bitter frustration and disillusionment. The same dynamics of "trashing" that Jo Freeman wrote about in 1976 are alive today. Trashing, she says, is not about opposition or critique:

"It is not done to expose disagreements or resolve differences. It is done to disparage and destroy."

That dynamic is, of course, not unique to feminism. Is there any social movement that hasn't had splits, arguments and active dissent?

Disagreement that escalates into attacks should be expected on the left, where we value dissent and diverse opinions. The right, too, sees its fair share of in-fighting, but – being conservative – it can be somewhat insulated from it by a resistance to change and a cultural deference to authority. Progressive movements lend themselves more readily to discord – which, in the big picture, is a good thing.

Identity-based movements may be particularly susceptible, precisely because of our personal investment in them. Feminism isn't just a general ideology for making the world a better place: it's a very specific ideology of liberation for the actors of the movement. It is personal by definition. Challenges to the movement, or the sense that other women are somehow doing feminism wrong, can feel like personal affronts. For feminists, your work often feels like a reflection of who you are, and the critiques even more so.

That passion and deep concern for a social movement are strengths. But women make up half the world – of course, our ideas vary wildly about what a representative movement should be. And while nearly all of us have good intentions, intentions don't make perfect outcomes. Feminist movements have, too many times, perpetuated existing hierarchies and certain bigotries – often lifting the experiences of the most powerful (usually upper middle-class, straight, white American women) while steamrolling the perspectives of the many women who don't fit that mold.

In a more perfect world – or at least, a more perfect movement – we could have a variety of feminisms, each serving a variety of women, and all recognizing the fact that "woman", as a category, encompasses all sorts of different human beings with different needs. We wouldn't need to draw exact lines around who is or isn't an acceptable feminist. "Feminism" would be big-tent: so long as you work to promote social, political and economic gender equality, you're in.

No one would be expected to speak for all of womankind. Sheryl Sandberg could write a book about gender in the business world without facing attacks from other feminists, criticizing her for having a nanny, for talking to male CEOs more than female domestic laborers, or for not representing working-class women – the takeaway being that Sandberg isn't enough of a caretaker, and therefore not sufficiently feminine. And in a more perfect world (or movement), a feminist book written by a female domestic laborer would get as much traction as one penned by the COO of Facebook.

The solution to those imperfections, though, is not to attack the women who do succeed or stand out. That only creates a movement of knee-jerk critics, who, when presented with a piece of feminist work, engage the "find what's wrong with it" mode.

And there's the problem of scarcity. Feminist work is rarely paid, and when feminist writers and activists are compensated, it's not usually with much. In their new FemFuture report about online feminism (pdf), bloggers and activists Courtney Martin and Vanessa Valenti detail what they call a "psychology of deprivation":

"[It is] a sense that their work will never be rewarded as it deserves to be, that they are in direct competition with one another for the scraps that come from third-party ad companies or other inadequate attempts to bring in revenue. As a result, they are vulnerable, less effective, and risk burn out. Under these conditions, online feminism isn't being sufficiently linked to larger organizational and movement efforts and/or leveraged for the greatest impact at this critical moment."

As such, feminists routinely see their work immediately picked apart by other feminists. Much like the trashing Jo Freeman and Susan Faludi detail, inter-feminist discourse often dips into character assassination. But there's also personal attack masquerading as critique, and it's nearly impossible to draw a line separating the two (although Ann Friedman does a good job with this handy chart).

Thoughtful criticism meant to improve a project is a good thing. The explicit intent of finding fault in a work is not. Going a step further, and suggesting that a project's flaws and gaps reflect the motives of its creators – they're corporate sellouts, don't care about X group of women, just want to promote themselves – is what kneecaps activism. Why act at all if the social norm in your group is to chew up and spit out every new idea?

Unsurprisingly, the FemFuture report was met with the usual criticism-for-criticism's-sake – but also, thankfully, some thoughtful and cogent suggestions for improvement. Within the feminist blogosphere, though, a paper meant to make our work more sustainable was only lightly promoted. There was little recognition of its many strengths, and even fewer pledges to help make sustainable online feminism real. It's not because supporters don't exist. It's because many of us were scared to wade into a sudden conflict. We didn't want to be perceived as insufficiently critical, sellouts, or too aggressive. You know, not sufficiently accommodating. Too ambitious. Not sufficiently feminine.

That has real consequences. I have spoken to countless women who have ideas for books, blogs, campaigns or other projects, but are terrified to carry them out, lest they make a misstep and be branded a bad feminist, unworthy of support. They'd rather keep their heads down than put out new ideas. Better to join the chorus of critics, and position oneself as a "good" feminist, in opposition to those other, "bad" feminists.

That's not the sign of a healthy movement, but it is how one earns credibility in online feminist circles today – nothing looks better than pointing out how everyone else is doing it wrong. Bonus points if those other feminists have had a modicum of success, like a book, a highly-trafficked website, or getting paid for their work.

But it's not because we're catty or mean or somehow predisposed to cliquishness and competition. It's because we're starving.

Which is why I hope, despite the initial pushback, that the many suggestions for online activism presented in the FemFuture report materialize. I hope that the report is only one small piece of an enormous global movement of women, online and off, taking a look at their own communities and asking: "What do we need here? How can we make our work sustainable?"

There isn't a set pie of feminist support, attention, money and influence. The more wide-reaching our movement is, the more opportunities there will be for everyone in it. Most of us never chose feminism as a career choice; most feminists earn their salary in other ways. Even those of us who are paid for feminist work aren't exactly in it for the big bucks. But we all need some sort of support, whether it's financial, emotional, structural or something else. And too few of us receive it.

It's time we learned lessons that are now decades old, and have been faced by many other political movements. Feminism must be more genuinely egalitarian and representative. We need to understand that womanhood means very different things to the billions of different women on this planet. We must work against perpetuating the same inequalities we fight against.

And we need to do that not in competition with each other, but with the shared goal of improving the movement and world. We need to do it with the recognition that no perspective or solution will be universal, and no single woman will be anywhere near a perfect feminist.

Then, we can stop fighting for scraps, and instead, work on making a feast.

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...imony/2143027/

Ex-husband who raped stepdaughter wants more alimony


http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...n_who_molested

Mom Divorces Man Who Molested Her Daughter & Now She Owes Him Alimony!
by Jeanne Sager Wednesday at 11:58 AM

Usually alimony claims are pretty cut and dried. A judge said you have to pay, so you have to pay. But a California mom fighting for the right not to pay her ex-husband spousal support has one heckuva case. Carol Abar divorced Ed Abar because he'd been raping her daughter, his stepdaughter, since the girl was just 9 years old.

Can you blame her for not wanting to send him a check every month? It's like handing him an award for abusing her child.

The twisted case is working its way through the courts where Ed Abar is asking a judge to force Carol to resume $1,300-a-month alimony payments she was making before he pleaded guilty last year to one count of rape (he was facing additional charges but pleaded down to avoid a harsher sentence). He even wants back support for the time period when he was in jail -- when a judge gave her permission to stop the checks.

What will happen is up to a judge, but it's sure to have repercussions for other divorce cases in the state, if not the nation.

Should criminal activity in the marriage make spousal support null and void? Should criminals be due money from their spouse simply because she (in this case) earned more during the marriage?

Traditionally, judges in family court look into claims of domestic abuse in marriages when determining alimony, but that hardly seems like enough. A rape of a child is beyond the pale and clearly impacts her mother.

In the Abars' case, it's why Carol says she filed for divorce. It took her 16 years to kick him to the curb because Ed Abar threatened the girl that he'd kill her mother and stepbrothers if she told on him, but as soon as Carol found out, she did what any mother would do: she got the sicko out of her house ASAP. How unfair is it that being a good mother is being held against her? That she's being punished when it was he who destroyed her family?

Cases don't even have to be this heinous. Surely when a spouse turns out to be a crack dealer or something equally illegal and harmful to a family, the responsible spouse who leaves to escape criminal activity should be given a chance to truly break free.

These cases can't be allowed to happen. Victims shouldn't be re-victimized because the law is inflexible.

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...imony/2143027/

Ex-husband who raped stepdaughter wants more alimony


http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...n_who_molested

Mom Divorces Man Who Molested Her Daughter & Now She Owes Him Alimony!
by Jeanne Sager Wednesday at 11:58 AM

Usually alimony claims are pretty cut and dried. A judge said you have to pay, so you have to pay. But a California mom fighting for the right not to pay her ex-husband spousal support has one heckuva case. Carol Abar divorced Ed Abar because he'd been raping her daughter, his stepdaughter, since the girl was just 9 years old.

Can you blame her for not wanting to send him a check every month? It's like handing him an award for abusing her child.

The twisted case is working its way through the courts where Ed Abar is asking a judge to force Carol to resume $1,300-a-month alimony payments she was making before he pleaded guilty last year to one count of rape (he was facing additional charges but pleaded down to avoid a harsher sentence). He even wants back support for the time period when he was in jail -- when a judge gave her permission to stop the checks.

What will happen is up to a judge, but it's sure to have repercussions for other divorce cases in the state, if not the nation.

Should criminal activity in the marriage make spousal support null and void? Should criminals be due money from their spouse simply because she (in this case) earned more during the marriage?

Traditionally, judges in family court look into claims of domestic abuse in marriages when determining alimony, but that hardly seems like enough. A rape of a child is beyond the pale and clearly impacts her mother.

In the Abars' case, it's why Carol says she filed for divorce. It took her 16 years to kick him to the curb because Ed Abar threatened the girl that he'd kill her mother and stepbrothers if she told on him, but as soon as Carol found out, she did what any mother would do: she got the sicko out of her house ASAP. How unfair is it that being a good mother is being held against her? That she's being punished when it was he who destroyed her family?

Cases don't even have to be this heinous. Surely when a spouse turns out to be a crack dealer or something equally illegal and harmful to a family, the responsible spouse who leaves to escape criminal activity should be given a chance to truly break free.

These cases can't be allowed to happen. Victims shouldn't be re-victimized because the law is inflexible.

I say we activate the women's mafia. Dead people can't collect alimony.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

I say we activate the women's mafia. Dead people can't collect alimony.

This is one of those news stories that makes me go hmmm. It also makes me have to separate out emotion from logic.

I understand when his lawyer says....

"Under the law, he is entitled to some relief from the higher income producing spouse, so that the marital standard of living can be maintained."

I also understand why the ex-wife would say.....

"The law makes no sense. He victimized a little girl all these years and I have to pay him for that behavior," she said.

My dilemma is alimony is about a financial obligation to a former spouse as part of a binding marriage contract which entitles them to compensation to maintain their style of living during the marriage. It is not about rewarding him for sexually abusing a child well into adulthood.

I am also concerned when there is talking about "conditions" whereby this marital obligation can be removed.

Remember the history of how alimony began....."Divorce law in the U.S. was based on English Common Law, which developed at a time when a female gave up her personal property rights on marriage. Upon separation from marriage, the husband retained the right to the wife's property, but, in exchange, had an ongoing responsibility to support the wife after dissolution of the marriage.

British law was amended by legislation including Married Women's Property Act 1870 and Married Women's Property Act 1882 which reformed females' property rights relating to marriage, by, for example, permitting divorced females to regain the property they owned before marriage."


Alimony was a hard fought right.

As societal circumstances changed so did the alimony laws. Amounts and duration limits have been enacted which have been sometimes a help and sometimes a hindrance for women. Most states still have provisions to prevent an ex-spouse from becoming dependent on state assistance.

Alimony is taxable for the recipient, a tax deduction for the payer. Who makes more money? Who is the likely recipient?

I am reluctant to say criminal activity should factor into alimony. Most recipients of alimony are still women.

This gets to be tricky shit.

In this particular case, at 1:30 in the morning, I am thinking this woman is not potentially going to be paying alimony to her ex-husband victimizing her child for 16 years. She would be paying alimony as it is prescribed by law. It is unfortunate she chose to marry a douchebag.

He pleaded guilty. He served his time under the law. Society says he paid his debt.

On the other hand, her daughter, who is now an adult, should have legal recourse to file a civil suit against her stepfather who pleaded guilty to raping her.

[femmeInterrupted]

Originally Posted by Kobi

This is one of those news stories that makes me go hmmm. It also makes me have to separate out emotion from logic.

I understand when his lawyer says....

"Under the law, he is entitled to some relief from the higher income producing spouse, so that the marital standard of living can be maintained."

I also understand why the ex-wife would say.....

"The law makes no sense. He victimized a little girl all these years and I have to pay him for that behavior," she said.

My dilemma is alimony is about a financial obligation to a former spouse as part of a binding marriage contract which entitles them to compensation to maintain their style of living during the marriage. It is not about rewarding him for sexually abusing a child well into adulthood.

I am also concerned when there is talking about "conditions" whereby this marital obligation can be removed.

Remember the history of how alimony began....."Divorce law in the U.S. was based on English Common Law, which developed at a time when a female gave up her personal property rights on marriage. Upon separation from marriage, the husband retained the right to the wife's property, but, in exchange, had an ongoing responsibility to support the wife after dissolution of the marriage.

British law was amended by legislation including Married Women's Property Act 1870 and Married Women's Property Act 1882 which reformed females' property rights relating to marriage, by, for example, permitting divorced females to regain the property they owned before marriage."


Alimony was a hard fought right.

As societal circumstances changed so did the alimony laws. Amounts and duration limits have been enacted which have been sometimes a help and sometimes a hindrance for women. Most states still have provisions to prevent an ex-spouse from becoming dependent on state assistance.

Alimony is taxable for the recipient, a tax deduction for the payer. Who makes more money? Who is the likely recipient?

I am reluctant to say criminal activity should factor into alimony. Most recipients of alimony are still women.

This gets to be tricky shit.

In this particular case, at 1:30 in the morning, I am thinking this woman is not potentially going to be paying alimony to her ex-husband victimizing her child for 16 years. She would be paying alimony as it is prescribed by law. It is unfortunate she chose to marry a douchebag.

He pleaded guilty. He served his time under the law. Society says he paid his debt.

On the other hand, her daughter, who is now an adult, should have legal recourse to file a civil suit against her stepfather who pleaded guilty to raping her.

There’s a problem with Societies definition of ‘paid his debt’.
The gender-based inequalities are blatant, because yes, you are quite right—Most recipients of alimony/child support are women, which nicely supports the tax break (for mostly males) AND tax payable (mostly women—and mostly women in precarious tax brackets to begin with).
This particular story has the smack of a double handed bitch-slap.

The reward that he received for sexually abusing a child was exactly in society claiming that his ‘debt was paid’. Did he have to cough up a few cows or a flock of sheep or an acre of land? In what way has his debt been paid? That’s what makes me nuts.

As for her daughter’s recourse: Shitballs.

Other than the recourse of dealing with the residual and long lasting effects of sexual abuse in childhood, and into her adult life, I suppose she could set forth the arduous task of squeezing blood from a stone. I’m sure Mr. Ed is in the perfect position to set immediately forth amassing a fortune, of which his daughter can see the ‘justice’ of via a civil suit against said Asswipe. THIS is also what makes me nuts.

Abuse, including Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, Sexual Abuse, (Woman Abuse) are all criminal activities. Assault, n’est- ce pas? At that point, all bets should be off. As a Perpetrator you (should) immediately loose all rights to any assets associated with the victim/spouse/non-offending parent, all rights to the matrimonial home, all rights to any possible support of any kind, of any nature. Let’s just go so far as to say “All rights rescinded on account of your undeniable, sociopathic, sadistic sad shit”. And since I’m now in the land of Unicorns fluffing out the skittles of restorative justice, it wasn’t the State nor the Crown that got raped for 16 years of her of her quarter century of age. Three quarters of her life experience spent being abused. It was a nine year old girl .

And filed under things that make me go “Huh?” is : Most states still have provisions to prevent an ex-spouse from becoming dependent on state assistance.

It should be the DUTY of the State to see her transition from abuse (victimization) to supported survivor, without forcing her into contact for the 200.00 bucks a month the court would order he pay. Child support comes first. (Is that stone bleeding yet??? This should not be the community’s answer to violence against women and children. “If you break, you bought it—we ain’t takin’ care of anything” mentality. If you want to send him the bill via an asshole tax for the rest of his life, great.

Crime and Punishment, right?

[stepfordfemme]

Originally Posted by femmeInterrupted

Can you blame her for not wanting to send him a check every month? It's like handing him an award for abusing her child.

Should criminal activity in the marriage make spousal support null and void? Should criminals be due money from their spouse simply because she (in this case) earned more during the marriage?

Traditionally, judges in family court look into claims of domestic abuse in marriages when determining alimony, but that hardly seems like enough. A rape of a child is beyond the pale and clearly impacts her mother.


Cases don't even have to be this heinous. Surely when a spouse turns out to be a crack dealer or something equally illegal and harmful to a family, the responsible spouse who leaves to escape criminal activity should be given a chance to truly break free.

These cases can't be allowed to happen. Victims shouldn't be re-victimized because the law is inflexible.

I am sorry to snip a brilliant post but this is something really interesting and relevant to what I am involved with personally and professionally.

I am also only going to post from a Canadian perspective as that is the nature of my knowledge.

In Canada, spousal support (aka alimony) is used to adjust for "standard of living", based on disparity in income for two former domestic partners. For the most part, it can be a fairly dated law-- it was *mostly* used in circumstances where there was a partner that did not work outside the home.

Please keep in mind that there are many circumstances where spousal support is necessary to offset a difference in income due to such instances as long term disability, chronic health issues (ie big medical expenses),inability to find full time employment, students...

To say that spousal support is an "award for abusing her daughter" also lends itself to the logic that "spouse x is a cheater/liar/lazy/uneducated/scumbag/drug addict/etc" and therefore should not receive spousal support.

I don't agree that the guy should receive it, the thought makes me *CRINGE*--but I also don't want to see spousal support be attached to conditions.

In an already patriarchal malfunctioning system to tie more caveats to spousal will only harm people (particularly women) already with economic disparity and often people with disabilities.

Put women further into further into economic stratification post divorce? Lower their standard of living? No, thank you. It's a slippery slope I want to avoid.

I also would like to point out that spousal support in Canada is never punitive or based on criminal activity. It's a calculation based on previous three years of taxes. If a judge ever made something like that punitive , it would be a case for appeal and a miscarriage of justice.

I also want to speak finally to parental alienation:

Parental rights are linked/tied to all legislation around Divorce Acts/Family Law Acts. With support ($) there is also a tie to custody/access/parental time. These are usually "rights" (I use that term loosely) that people view around both divorce and parenting.

Ask any mental health/ social worker/ social justice professional that works with families frequently and they will likely tell you that children will *WANT* and *NEED* attachment to both parents developmentally. (Barring extraordinary cases of neglect) I can probably provide 100s of sources on this. Parental loyalty and attachment is REAL. Foster parenting is a prime example, children often can be moved into "better" homes and would still choose and love their attached/bio parents unquestionably. Age of the child and trauma are two easy factors to point out.

There are shades of grey and factors--please do not read this as an absolute. But we try to act in the best interest of children. I realize in THIS case --the system is failing this poor traumatized girl and I would never advocate for re-victimization. Gosh, talk to me for five seconds and you will know my stance.

But I also look at it from family justice as I work for children's rights. And in that circumstance, I don't want parental rights (whether they be $ or access to children) --to be tied to criminal activity. Sometimes supervised visits are mandatory. Sometimes it is letter writing/phone calls only. But criminals can be good parents. People with criminal records can be good parents. People with a history of domestic violence can be good parents.

Parents are gods/goddesses in the eyes of children and no matter how immoral or wrong their actions are-- their children often love without that societal judgment. Try and protect children and victims to the best of society's ability.

Justice is flawed, but I don't see the need to "throw the baby out with the bath water" for lack of a better phrase.

Does there need to be change in the family justice system? Oh heck yeah!!!!
Is there always a need for change in child protective custody? Oh heck yeah!!
Do we always need to be vigilant and advocate for women and children's rights?
Core value for me right there.

The MAJOR problem for the law is *CASE LAW & PRECEDENT*
In most circumstances this becomes the basis for future law, decisions and legislation.

If the courts rule, against this awful heinous abuser, it can be a future slippery slope for the law to be twisted against women again and promote further power loss for those already victimized by a system that works against them.

I would love to share more thoughts on this subject

[Kobi]

CINCINNATI (AP) — For more than 100 years, the Anna Louise Inn in downtown Cincinnati has been a safe, serene place that thousands of struggling women came to know as home.

But after losing a two-year fight with a Fortune 500 company determined to buy their beautiful, 104-year-old property and turn it into a boutique hotel — even though it wasn't for sale — the women of the Anna Louise Inn have to leave the neighborhood.

While most of the 60 women living there are relieved that the fight with Western & Southern Insurance Group appears over, they can't help but also feel sad and angry.

"I'm upset with them that they would be that greedy to take away what's been here for so long for women," said Robin Howard, 55, who has lived at the Anna Louise for more than two years after fleeing an abusive relationship. "We have rights, too. This is home. It's a safe haven."

For Wendy Gonzales, 25, the Anna Louise has allowed her to escape an addiction to methamphetamine and an abusive husband who she said forced her into prostitution.

"I thank God for the Anna Louise Inn. Without it, I don't know where I would be," said Gonzales, who now works as a housekeeper at a hotel within walking distance. "It's quiet, it's peaceful. Looking out here, you don't see your average thugs walking down the street. ... It's just nice to walk out and know that you're safe."

The Anna Louise has been housing women since 1909 in the same charming, dormitory-style building that looks like a plantation home. Although it began by helping young, ambitious types who were pouring into then-booming Cincinnati, it later became geared toward women who needed a fresh start; some have left abusive husbands, others are transitioning from foster care to adulthood while others are recovering prostitutes and drug addicts.

The historic downtown Cincinnati neighborhood where the women live, known as Lytle Park, became an important part of their recovery, since most were coming from dangerous parts of the city where it'd be easier to slip back into their former ways of life.

Western & Southern executives, whose headquarters sit across a park from the Anna Louise, offered to buy the Anna Louise for $1.8 million several years ago, less than half its value. The Anna Louise declined and won $12.6 million in federal and state tax credits to renovate the home, where some rooms are smaller than 100 square feet and all the women have to share bathrooms and one kitchen.

Days before the renovation was to begin, Western & Southern sued over a zoning issue and a judge ordered an immediate construction halt until the legal fight was resolved. The Anna Louise and its supporters didn't back down, vowing to fight Western & Southern with everything they had — until last week when they inked a deal with the company to sell the home for $4 million.

Leaders at Cincinnati Union Bethel, the nonprofit that runs the Anna Louise, said they sold reluctantly because they couldn't afford to fight any longer.

Under the deal with Western & Southern, the women living at the Anna Louise will stay there until a new building for them is finished, in about two years. It will be located in a shabby neighborhood on a busy street 2 miles north of where they are now. The nearest park is a 1.5-mile walk away, over a freeway.

"Western & Southern had the money to fight and the Anna Louise Inn didn't," said Howard, who is about to receive a degree in social work, which she wants to use to help women flee abusive relationships. "When you have that much money and you want something, eventually you're going to get it."

The Anna Louise will now be among a bevy of properties in the neighborhood owned by Western & Southern, which developed Cincinnati's tallest building in 2011 and has renovated a handful of historic properties in the area, including an upscale hotel.

Company CEO John Barrett has long said it was time for the women at the Anna Louise to leave the neighborhood to make way for economic development. He plans to turn the building into a boutique hotel and envisions transforming the neighborhood into a hub of activity with restaurants and bars.

"This truly is a win for everyone and will make Lytle Park a destination like no other," Barrett said in a Monday news release announcing the Anna Louise sale.

Barrett, who has repeatedly declined requests for an interview, has become a loathed figure at the Anna Louise, not only for his tireless efforts to acquire the property but also for the way he has talked about the women living there, repeatedly referring to them as recovering prostitutes and saying they just don't belong in the neighborhood.

"That hurt. To be categorized," said Sherene Julian, 48, who escaped decades of drug addiction and prostitution when she moved to the Anna Louise. "It made me feel that I was lesser than."

Julian, who recently moved in with her boyfriend but still gets medical services at the Anna Louise, said a part of the women's home will always be with her.

"To me it's sacred ground because that's where I was able to turn my life around," Julian said. "I know for a fact if the Anna Louise did not intervene in my life I would probably be dead."

Tatiana McCormick, 24, who lived at the inn after leaving Ohio's foster care system six years ago, said she's angry about the home's sale.

"A lot of these ladies now have to worry about their living situation," she said. "This was something that was going well for people and it's been there for three generations. To have it happen like this, it's just outrageous."

http://news.yahoo.com/women-sad-angr...152229520.html

[femmeInterrupted]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400...st-of-them-all



http://www.express.co.uk/search/Paul...ula+Murray&b=1

The recently-opened Shimmy Club has installed the spyglass – normally associated with police interrogations – in two of its £800-a-time private function rooms.

A spokesman for the Glasgow venue, owned by millionaire entrepreneur Stefan King’s G1 Group, insists it does not allow male or mixed-sex groups to hire the rooms.

However, the Scottish Sunday Express has seen photos showing a group of young men with a clear view of women using the bathroom.

There is no sign in the toilets or anywhere else on the premises alerting female clubgoers to the fact they can be observed.

One horrified young woman contacted this newspaper to complain about the venue, saying: “I was completely shocked to discover that the mirror in the ladies’ bathroom is a two-way mirror facing out onto the club.

“I find it absolutely outrageous that a club can get away with this, it is a complete invasion of privacy of the unsuspecting girls.

“Nowhere is it made clear that this is the case so when visiting the bathroom for the first time, there are women bending over the sink, pouting into the mirror to redo their lipstick, adjusting themselves whilst unknowingly being watched by people on the other side.”

The clubber, who asked not to be named, said she was “deeply disappointed and disgusted” when she discovered what was happening.

She added: “The fact that these two-way mirrors only look into the ladies’ bathrooms and not the men’s makes it clear that the intention is to sexualise women as objects, allowing men to make inappropriate gestures and leer disgustingly at them.

“It is completely sexist and immoral that this is allowed in a club and it is evident that they have a complete lack of respect for women and their privacy.”

Another two female clubgoers also separately confirmed they had come across the “strange system” during a night out.

When the Sunday Express contacted the venue posing as potential clients, we were told the ‘Smoke and Mirrors’ booths, which can cost up to £800 to hire, had two-way mirrors into the bathrooms.

We were advised that “for the time being” the rooms were not available for male only or mixed groups.

I find it absolutely outrageous that a club can get away with this, it is a complete invasion of privacy of the unsuspecting girls.
An outraged young woman
However, a photograph on the venue’s own Facebook site shows two young women in a bathroom while a man looks on from the other side of the mirror.

Women’s organisations were aghast to learn about the “perverted” gimmick and also questioned its legality.

In the past clubs in Estonia, Austria and the USA have also fitted mirror glass into the ladies’ bathroom but it is believed this is the first example in the UK.

Because the venue, which opened earlier this month, has no seating apart from the private booths, revellers queue up to hire them for the night.
On Thursday, its Facebook site read: “Booths are nearly full for this weekend so get your requests in quick.”

Ellie Hutchinson, chair of the Scottish arm of sexual harassment group Hollaback, said: “We’re so shocked to hear that a club in Scotland thinks this sort of thing is acceptable – andthe fact that it’s up and running shows there’s a demand for it.

“At Hollaback, we know that every day so many women are subjected to being watched, judged and having their personal space invaded without their knowledge or consent.

“The fact a club is profiting off this often intimidating and frightening behaviour is gob smacking. You have to ask, why on earth would anyone think this form of non-consensual voyeurism is OK?”

Women’s charity Object was also shocked and called for the club to be reported to the police.

Last night Gary Hall, of G1 Group, said it was “definitely not the case” that the women’s toilets were fitted with two-way mirrors.

However, he asked us to email our enquiry to his colleague, who failed to respond. Our subsequent phone messages were also left unanswered.

There was nobody at the club who could comment either, and we were referred back to the group’s head office.

[Hollylane]

Originally Posted by Kobi

CINCINNATI (AP) — For more than 100 years, the Anna Louise Inn in downtown Cincinnati has been a safe, serene place that thousands of struggling women came to know as home.

It probably won't amount to a hill of beans, but I just sent Western & Southern a scathing email...