Mike L., the lead subject in Padawer's piece, found evidence of his wife's affair with a coworker and decided to have L., his 5-year-old daughter, take a DNA test. The results arrived in the mail: He was not the father. "I ran upstairs, locked myself in the bathroom and cried and dry-heaved for 45 minutes. I felt like my guts were being ripped out," he says. Mike separated from his wife, Stephanie, and began paying her child support because, he says, she claimed Rob, L.'s bio-dad, had refused. Things continued on this way for several years, until he got news that Stephanie would be marrying Rob, and that was too much to bear. He asked a Pennsylvania court to relieve him of parental responsibility, but a judge ruled that Mike was the legal father, not Rob.

Padawer explains, "Once a man has been deemed a father, either because of marriage or because he has acknowledged paternity (by agreeing to be on the birth certificate, say, or paying child support), most state courts say he cannot then abandon that child -- no matter what a DNA test subsequently reveals," she continues. "In Pennsylvania and many other states, the only way a non-biological father can rebut his legal status as father is if he can prove he was tricked into the role -- a showing of fraud -- and can demonstrate that upon learning the truth, he immediately stopped acting as the child’s father." In Mike's case, the judge ruled that he was the legal father because he stuck around even after the DNA test -- in other words, because of love, not fraud.

"I pay child support to a biologically intact family," Mike says. "How ridiculous is that?" Pretty ridiculous when you consider that Rob gets to live with L. and play the role of papa; and Mike only gets to see her on the weekend. As vexing as this case is, though, we hardly want courts to devalue the unbreakable bond that can develop even in relationships without genetic ties. At some point, DNA can become rather irrelevant. The truth is that Mike's utter adoration of L. jumps off the page; he is a doting, indulgent father. L., now 11 years old, still sees him as her daddy and he wants it to remain that way -- he just doesn't want to pay child support to the woman who cruelly cuckolded and defrauded him. As far as the law is concerned, though, he can't have it both ways. There are many different ideas for how to best address the issue -- from limiting paternity challenges to the first two years of the child's life to widespread DNA testing at birth (I picture Maury Povitch being wheeled from delivery room to delivery room: "You are not the father! You are the father!") -- but all are imperfect.

Paternal uncertainty is one of the many biological inequalities of reproduction (see also: pushing a human being out of your vagina) and, as evolutionary psychologists tell it, getting stuck raising some other schmo's kid is a hard-wired male nightmare. But if you had any doubt that we humans are more than our base evolutionary imperatives, this article should convince you: For all his rightful resentment, men like Mike show that family is thicker than blood.

There can be no doubt that certain language or behaviours are indeed cultural.  Who can forget the consternation on the part of White political pundits, when Obama answered “yeah we good,”  in response to a question regarding whether or not he wanted change back after paying a bill.  Prominent POC like Colin Powell, have commented on the phenomenon known as shifting, depending upon who you are in conversation with.  Language that would be understood as improper or even grammatically incorrect, is not deemed problematic by many members of the Black community. It instead infers a form of shared experience.

Subscribe

MUMBAI, India (WOMENSENEWS)--In her new play "I am an Emotional Creature: ,"The Secret Lives of Girls," which had its world premiere here on Nov. 12, playwright and activist Eve Ensler provides a global stage for the oppression faced by girls worldwide.

read more

In fact, the advance sales have been so overwhelming that MovieTickets.com and Summit Entertainment, the studio behind the film, stopped reporting sales data earlier this week, for fear of losing customers who assume there's no point in even trying to get into a showing of "New Moon" this weekend. Says NYT ArtsBeat blog, "It could dent the opening-weekend gross if consumers mistakenly think that no tickets are available. At a certain point, average moviegoers might skip the multiplex altogether if they think 'Twilight' hoopla has grown too insane."

I hate to break it to nervous studio execs, but that ship has sailed. "Twilight" hoopla has been bonkers for years, and the "New Moon"-specific hoopla is really only noteworthy for being even more so. The L.A. Times article notes that "more than a week before its release, the film sold more than four times as many tickets as the original 'Twilight' at MovieTickets.com at the same point in the sales cycle." And it's not just teenage girls driving the frenzy; MovieTickets.com's latest data said 27 percent of the buyers were women between 25 and 34 -- the slightly embarrassed but no less addicted demographic Sarah Hepola reported on for Salon earlier this week.

Another 35 percent are women under 25, though, and altogether, 87 percent of advance ticket holders are female. That's no surprise, but a majority-female audience breaking sales records left and right certainly is. "Let's just think about that," wrote Melissa Silverstein at her blog Women & Hollywood last week. "A franchise fueled by girls and women has the potential of beating the machines for the box office record. This movie could potentially be 'guy proof' meaning they won't need guys to see it for it to kick some box office butt. Whereas the other franchises NEED women to make their numbers."

Having seen the first movie and read the first two books before officially determining that neither the lols nor the thought of blogging furiously about the wildly popular series' gender messages held my interest enough to continue, I never imagined I'd find a reason to see the "Twilight" phenomenon as a potential triumph for women. In the books, at least -- far more than in the first movie -- heroine Bella is spineless and infantilized, while dreamboat vamp Edward is stalky and emotionally abusive. The thought of the effect those characterizations might have on young girls who see it as a depiction of "true love" pained me. But Silverstein makes a great point: What about the effect the "Twilight" saga's success might have on Hollywood's confidence in female-oriented films?

"New Moon finally give us an apple to apples comparison with other types of fan-driven films," she told me in an e-mail. "The biggest films in Hollywood are the ones that come out of comic books, toys and books. Starting last year with 'Sex and the City,' 'Mamma Mia' (and both those can be dismissed because the targeted audience was older), but now with the two 'Twilight' films, it shows that female filmgoers can be as rabid in their fandom as male." The question is, will the powers that be recognize young women as a robust market that's been largely ignored and condescended to, or will they write it off as a limited phenomenon? "Studios should look at this as a golden opportunity and not a fluke!" writes Silverstein. But tapping into the passions of young female audiences means "working to try and uncover things that are bubbling in fandom and even trying to come up with exciting ideas to engage the audience," not just waiting around for the next runaway bestseller.

It might also mean sticking with what works, especially when it's a female director who's demonstrated a knack for understanding teenage girls. Unfortunately, Catherine Hardwicke, director of "Twilight," was replaced by Chris Weitz for the second installment, despite the first film's having grossed $383.6 million worldwide -- and the series seems to have suffered for it artistically, if not financially. Salon's Stephanie Zacharek enjoyed Hardwicke's movie as an "unapologetic, unembarrassed foray into teen-heartthrob territory, hitting the sweet spot where pop culture, teenage curiosity about sex, and vampire lore meet," but says Weitz's "offers few of the juicy, go-for-broke romantic pleasures of its predecessor." 

Zacharek's not alone in her disappointment. Granted, popular teen-oriented franchises hardly need critical acclaim to succeed, and the first film only earned 49 percent positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes -- but contrast that with the 30 percent rating "New Moon" has. Positive word of mouth may be no more than the icing on the cake for such a big movie, but it's nevertheless likely to be absent this time, even though Weitz had far more money and momentum going into the project. Says Silverstein, who saw an advance screening, "I think they really miscalculated in not keeping Hardwicke. The budget for this film was $50 million up from I believe $39 for the first one and one of the things that the studio and Hardwicke were fighting about was budget. She really seems to know how to tap into the teen spirit and that was missed here. She just knows how to elicit emotions from young people. It's her thing, and that's what worked best in the first movie and worst in this movie."

So even if the studios do learn something about the power of female audiences from the "Twilight" saga, they seem to have ignored any lessons the first film offered about the capabilities of a female director. Nevertheless, Silverstein is optimistic about "New Moon's" potential to improve women's lot in Hollywood across the board -- as long as executives recognize its tremendous appeal as more than a fluke. "Hopefully, this success will infiltrate the minds of Hollywood number crunchers and seek out products for the female audience," she says. "If people start thinking and making more movies that star women and are women driven, it can only help women at all levels of the business." 

One of the largest assumptions I have learned is that my class status is understood to be decidedly poor.   I am not one for affectations or obvious displays of wealth.  This means that I don’t wear jewellery or brand label clothing.  I could certainly afford to walk around with these shiny baubles, but I refuse to take part in these systems because they are based upon the impoverishment of others.  As a Black woman in a small town, this would be enough for some to read me as poor but it was never a constant label.  I have been offered layaway at stores, when I had more than enough money to pay for the item I was shopping for.  Of course it was also assumed that I didn’t have a credit card.  Everyone knows that all Black people have bad credit. It has even been openly assumed on several occasions, that I rented rather than owned my home.

I am by no means a rich woman but my family and I are comfortable.  We live within our means and occasionally splurge on comfort items.  I see no shame in poverty because I understand that were that to be the case, it would be result of the capitalist mode of exchange, which is designed to enrich some while leaving a vast majority of the population impoverished.  How or why should one feel shame for existing in a system that one has no control over?

Subscribe

On Wednesday, "Modern Family's" Sofia Vergara prompted nervous titters on "The View" when she dropped an off-the-cuff joke about being "raped" at 13 to explain the existence of her teenage son. She didn't clarify for Whoopi whether it was rape or "rape rape."

But stand back and learn from the masters, "View" ladies, because you've got nothing on conservative commentators. And lock up your women and your borders, because as Media Matters for America demonstrates, Limbaugh, Beck and Steele know that Obama and his progressive agenda are coming to forcibly penetrate the flag. If that's possible.

Mental rape! Pocketbook rape! Government-sanctioned rape! Values rape! Private sector rape! Statue of Liberty rape! Behold and prepare for the liberal rapeocalypse.

Who is being mourned is the most important question of all. 160 estimated deaths of trans people, and the vast majority in Central and South America (75% according to Transgender Europe). So it seems to me that to unite all trans people under one banner ignores the specifics of death --  sex (the majority are trans women), race (Latina and black), class and occupation (sex work) are as important factors as transness.

A look at the list of those who have died since the 2008 day of remembrance -- which can be found at the TDOR website or in the video below -- makes that clear, along with a couple of other things. Like the number of victims of anti-transgender hatred whose names are unknown, and how extraordinarily brutal their deaths often are. According to the Human Rights Campaign, such crimes "tend to be particularly violent." Just last week in Puerto Rico, 19-year-old Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado was decapitated, dismembered and burned by a man who thought the gay teen was a woman when he picked him up for sex, and became enraged upon learning that he was wrong. Jos at Feministing points out that we don't know how the victim self-identified, but "Lopez Mercado's murder reflects those of too many others killed when presenting a gender other than that assigned to them at birth. Some may not have identified as trans but all were killed because of hatred directed towards those who break the strict rules of the compulsory gender binary. They were killed because they did not conform to what someone else thought their gender should be."

In an interview on the GLAAD blog, trans man and activist Ethan St. Pierre, whose transgender aunt Deborah Forte was murdered in 1995, says, "Transgender Day of Remembrance is a day when we come together to remember those that we've lost, but it also reminds us of how unsafe we are and how we are targets of violence -- and that nobody is really safe from it. If you're a trans person, especially if you're an unemployed trans person out on the street, there's a really good chance you're going to lose your life. It reminds me how unsafe we are. And it reminds me how much work we have to do to educate people so that it doesn't keep happening."

Grandpa’s a grouch, but shouldn’t we try to get along? Margo Howard’s bright advice …

“According to the family care plan of the U.S. Army, Hutchinson was allowed to fly to California and leave her son with her mother, Angelique Hughes of Oakland. Angelique says she realized she could not care for her grandson, since her other duties include caring for a daughter with special needs, her ailing mother, and an ailing sister, and working long days running a daycare.

The Army then gave Hutchinson an extension of time to allow her to find someone else to care for Kamani. Meanwhile, Hughes brought Kamani back to Georgia to be with his mother.

However, only a few days before Hutchinson's original deployment date, she was told by the Army she would not get the time extension after all, and would have to deploy, despite not having found anyone to care for her child.

Faced with this choice, Hutchinson chose not to show up for her plane to Afghanistan. The military arrested her and placed her child in the county foster care system.”

According to a story on NPR, the estimated 85,000 people in the Army who are single parents are required to have a caregiving plan, for when the custodial parent is deployed or unavailable to care for a child. When Alexis Hutchinson’s learned her mother was unable to be Kamani’s backup caregiver, Hutchinson says she advised her Commander of the change in her care arrangements and asked for time to figure out a new plan. Hutchinson states her Commander basically said to figure it out in the next 24 hours, because deployment had been moved up to November 5. If she couldn’t find an alternative in time, Kamani would have to go into foster care.

How does a parent of a baby weigh the decision whether to break the law, or leave her child in a dangerous situation? It’s an unconscionable decision, and I imagine must have been a lonely one.

The blog for the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform writes,

“the only thing unusual about this case is the fact that this single mom's job was about to be moved to Afghanistan. There are, in fact, thousands of children of civilian parents trapped in foster care when their parents didn't abuse them or neglect them either. Many of these parents, mostly single mothers – have what amounts to the same problem as Spec. Hutchinson.

“These are the mothers who are told: "We don't care if your child is sick, show up for work or you're fired." Mom knows if she's fired, she won't be able to pay the rent. She'll be homeless and child protective services can take the child because of lack of housing. So mom shows up for work. Someone calls child protective services. The child is taken away on a "lack of supervision" charge.

I know that I have had days where I have had up to three caregivers on call to fill in for childcare while I travel. Anyone who has experienced the anxiety of being without childcare, even for an hour, can viscerally feel the panic Hutchinson must have felt as she weighed her options the night before her planned deployment.

The Army says it is exploring all options and will "do right by the situation." I hope so. But what Hutchinson faced is what so many women deal with daily: a boss who doesn’t get it, or just doesn’t care. A lack of options for an affordable, trustworthy place for your baby to go while you’re at work, a family far away, and zero options to work and have a baby. No mother should have to choose between providing for her family and foster care. It just plain sucks.

I left my job to return to school, as did my colleague. Over the years, I lost track of him. Then, many years later, I was at LaGuardia Airport when I noticed my former friend's face on the cover of one of New York City's tabloid-y newspapers. "City's Worst Deadbeat Dad!" the headline screamed. "WTF?" I thought to myself. I bought a paper.

Long story short, eventually Bob (not even close to his real name) became upset with the way his ex was raising their kids. He went to court to get them back. He lost. Bob was also ordered to pay more child support, although his ex had a very high salary herself. Rather than give her more money, Bob quit his job and moved into his mother's basement. The article portrayed Bob as a horrendous person and his wife as a victim of a petty man. I felt awful for Bob and the children; the media coverage relied heavily on the stereotypical idea that men cannot possibly be as good caregivers as women.

It seems, however, that Working Mother magazine readers disagree:

A new survey by Working Mother magazine shows that 74% of respondents believe a mother’s nurturing is essential to a child’s development, but at least 50% of custody cases now end with the father gaining primary custody, and this figure looks set to rise.

Here's what I say to that: so what? Of course, I'm not in favor of the idea that working mothers should be punished for doing so by losing their kids. But if we are asking fathers and other partners to step up and do their part in caring for and raising children - as they should - then we also have to acknowledge some stereotypes that have traditionally worked to the benefit of women and we have to be willing to give up those privileges.

I'm not saying that there are not scary issues that this raises. Clearly, we do not yet live in a world where people understand that a mom who works is as devoted to her children as a mom who does not. The idea that women might be losing custody of kids merely because working women are seen as less devoted to their children is horrifying. And I also know a woman in the midst of a terrible divorce whose powerful, working-long-hours husband filed for sole custody, saying his wife neglected their school-age kids because she opted to go to night classes in a master's degree program two nights a week. That is evil.

But back to the idea of sharing and working toward a better world. It turns out, contrary to popular belief and strange excuses, that men are actually capable of nurturing and raising kids. Some do it on their own when their wife dies or leaves them. Others have male partners and no women in the household. Another group shares responsibility with the children's mother. When men care for their own children, they do not "babysit" any more than mothers do when they care for their kids. If a man is a stay-at-home dad, why shouldn't he have any less of right to custody than a stay-at-home mom? That is insulting and absurd.

In the past, it was thought that a father's role in child rearing was to earn some money so that the kids had a house and food and clothing. That was pretty much it. Maybe he was also expected to discipline the kids or show the kids what the proper role of men was, but when couples got divorced under this rubric, it made sense to automatically grant custody to the moms. At the same time, the mom and kids were usually plunged into lower economic circumstances for a variety of reasons, one being that she had been out of the work force for a while, another being that women are paid about 25% less than men for doing the same job, and a third that alimony doesn't really add up to enough to support a family. Plus, men got remarried and had new families to look after. Really, when I think about it, the old system kind of sucked.

Since I don't want to live in a world where women are made to feel guilty if they work and men are not expected to have real responsibility in raising the kiddies, I'm down with the idea that more men want to share custody of their kids. The key is to make sure that women are not punished for working while men are rewarded for changing an extra diaper or two every week. But a knee jerk reaction to news that dads want custody and that women must do everything they can to prevent this from happening is wrong. It doesn't serve working parents, stay-at-home parents, or most importantly, the kids.

Those are my two cents. There's a very interesting discussion over at the Feministing Community on custody and whether courts favor mothers. Back in 2006, Ampersand at Alas, a Blog offered an excellent analysis of custody decisions and the stat that men get custody 50% of the time. On a related topic, Hannah "might mouth" Wallen shares her frustrations over Sexism in Divorce law and Child Support enforcement. Cafe Cynthia at Cafe Mom looks at both sides of the Working Mother article. Finally, Deesha at Co-parenting 101 looks at the original article and few other blogs and concludes, "we believe that joint custody should be granted except in situations where such an arrangement is detrimental to the kids."

Suzanne also blogs at Camapign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and is the author of Off the Beaten (Subway) Track

(WOMENSENEWS)--Elizabeth Kissling, president of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research, says she's used to people saying: "You study what?"

Since the 1980s she's researched the social and commercial treatment of menstruation and has written one book and numerous articles on the topic.

read more

If one is a wheelchair user, it is impossible to see over the rink to actually watch the game.  There are no play by plays and therefore; if one is blind, accessing the game in any form is impossible.  Due to Sarcoidosis and Fibromyalgia, I have limited mobility.  This means that I have the option to stand for over an hour in pain to view the game, or struggle to sit in the stands that were not built with a modicum of comfort in mind.  I have tried alternating between standing in pain and then missing a few minutes of the game to rest in my scooter and standing for the whole time in order not to miss the game.

Due to the weather and being forced to stand, the pain was so terrible I was literally weeping silently.  I walked into the office and asked to speak to someone in charge.  I explained the issue and suggested that they install a platform, which would allow scooter and wheelchair users to watch the game.  Like any other parent, I paid for my child to have this experience and it is completely unfair, that I should be forced to suffer, so that I can participate. 

Subscribe

When Universal decided to market Couples Retreat in the UK, it removed the Black actors from the both the poster's photo and the list of stars typed out. Of course, Universal did not mean any offence by this action. The Mail on Sunday reports:

The studio said it regretted causing offence and has abandoned plans to use the revised poster in other countries... A Universal spokesman said the revised advert aimed 'to simplify the poster to actors who are most recognisable in international markets'.

“Simplify” is a very interesting word to describe the racism that Universal employed to market this movie.  Considering that the U.S is where it is economically because of the the free labour of African Americans, to ignore the work  of Black actors, is simply building upon the exploitation that has been commonplace in U.S. history.  Many still function under the myth that the U.S. gained economic dominance through citizens pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.  In truth, each and every single one of those citizens stood on the shoulders of African American slaves and their descendants to reach economic dominance.  This is what is known as an internal colony. 

Subscribe