HOLY FUCKING CRAP!!

Sorry, but that's all I can manage to say after reading this. Seriously, what else can you say?

But, a hearty thanks to Twisty for compiling all of this horrifying news and for the brilliant analysis.

I know what post I'm nominating for best post in the next Koufax Awards

And that would be Mandolin's brilliant post at Alas, where she is guest blogging this month. Expanding on Hugo's post from last year, Words are not fists: some thoughts on how men work to defuse feminist anger, Mandolin examines how this observation becomes even more true the less privilege the "attacker" is perceived to have.

But I want to take it farther than Hugo does. People don’t just say “don’t attack me” as a way of getting feminists to back down. They also say it because they have a sense of being attacked. Criticism is not fists, but people really seem to perceive it that way.

And the less privilege the person who’s making the criticism has, the more it feels like an attack. In this post, Ginmar quotes Amanda Marcotte: “The less right you have to talk in the eyes of the hierarchy, the louder you seem. Which is probably why black women are seen as the loudest people ever.”*

We see this in a lot of places, right? The common sense conviction that women talk more than men cannot be supported, and in fact, people find data that suggests that — in ordinary conversation — men talk more than women. If researchers externally impose a requirement that both men and women speak the same amount, then they both report that it feels like the men hardly got a chance to talk at all.

Women aren’t supposed to talk, so when they talk, they’re seen as talking A LOT. Black women really aren’t supposed to talk, so when they talk, they’re seen as talking REALLY LOUDLY.

Women aren’t supposed to criticize, so when they criticize, it’s not just words — the surprise of their criticism feels like fists. And when women of color criticize? Well, then it’s World War III.

No, really. World War III.

...I’m particularly disturbed by the escalation in the violent imagery that one sees when comparing the examples that Hugo brings up (men talking to women in a gendered environment) to the examples that I’m bringing up (white people talking about people of color in a racialized environment). Men are worried about being beaten up; white people are worried about crucifixion, World War III, having their feet blown off by landmines.

I'm trying hard to not just quote the whole damn thing. So, just go read it yourself.

Not For Ourselves Alone

Maia has a beautiful (albeit recycled) post at Alas in which she uses Jessica Valenti's new book as a jumping off point to discuss what it is that brought her to feminism.

I was once a middle-class girl who was too scared to call herself feminist, the audience of the book. But I didn’t change my mind because feminism seemed easy, but because I realised what how hard the women who had been before me had fought, and I wanted to honour that struggle.

[...]

My response to the stories of women’s lives, both fictional and real was: “I have to call myself a feminist, I owe it to all these women who went before me, who fought so hard and gained so much to become part of that struggle.”

And that was the beginning.

Maia contrasts her feminist click moment* with what Jessica is hoping will serve as young women's click moments. (Full disclosure, Maia admits that she has only read the excerpts from Amazon. In addition, I have not read Jessica's book -- so I am not trying to write any sort of review -- condemning or approving -- of the book, only what some of the discussions of the book have brought up in my mind.)

I think that for most women, especially young women, there has to be some balance between what Maia is talking about and what [people say] Jessica is talking about. For most people, there does have to be a personal investment in the issue for them to have any interest in joining up with a social justice movement. They have to see that it relates to them, that the injustices are harming them, that the movement will help them in some way.

However, I think this line of thinking can be taken too far. One commenter in Maia's thread wrote this:

Well, Jessica (and I, for that matter) choose to be feminist because it’s a good and needful choice for us. Oh, it’s nice to honor the feminists that have busted butt before. But that’s not the big reason for me, nor, I suspect, for a lot of people. Because we’re in this for ourselves, as opposed to being selfless and all that. That’s reality.

This kind of thinking is dangerous. Yes, people need to recognize how feminism (or any other social justice movement) relates to them. But I would hope that that recognition would lead to recognizing how we are inter-connected, and how what harms others directly can harm you indirectly. If your "big" reason is what you, personally, will gain from it, you are either not seeing or can't see that inter-connectedness. And it is precisely this sort of thinking that leads to the racism, classism, ableism , etc. that is so often lodged against feminism. If you're "in it for [y]ourselves," you are playing the exact same power-over games that patriarchy beneficiaries are playing.

Feminism is not about making things better for ourselves alone,** it's about making things better for all women. Yes, recognizing that we are a part of that group "women" and we will benefit as well is a great starting point. But it can never be the end all and be all of feminism. If it is, feminism will fail.

*that moment when you realize, "I am a feminist."
**Yeah, I guess that's why the title of the PBS Special on Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony is so apt.

What I'm Reading

Heart at Women's Space/The Margins: The 1st Carnival of Radical Feminists.

Ms. Jared at Sinister Sister: Mothers File International Human Rights Complaint Against United States. I got this in my inbox last week, too, and kept meaning to blog about it. But Ms. Jared actually did it. That's why she's a better blogger than me*.

Lost Clown at Angry for a Reason: Besides Bad Coffee. Here's another example of me being a bad blogger*. I've been meaning to write something about this post for almost a month now. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I like my drive-through coffee stands; not only does it provide me a local alternative to overabundance of Starbucks, Peets, and Tullys, but I can do so without leaving my car (when you have my kind of schedule, you need things to be as quick as possible). But "sexpresso?" No, thanks. But pimping out the baristas wasn't enough for one of these "sexpresso" joints -- they use high school girls as their prop (and I do mean that in the most literal sense of the word).

At Best Friend Espresso in Kenmore, baristas go thigh-high. An elevated service window offers customers a nearly full-length view of pretty, young baristas — some of them high-school students — in short skirts, tank tops and high heels.

[...]

Occasionally, Best Friend does theme days, such as "schoolgirl" or adding glasses for a sexy "secretary" look, manager Heather Bacon said.

[...]

When Ryan Reed pulled up to Best Friend Espresso for his usual, a 24-ounce iced vanilla latte, on a recent weekday afternoon, he knew what to expect.

"The owner [Wayne Hembree] always hires super-hot girls," Reed said. "That's basically his philosophy." [emphasis added]

Rachel at Alas a Blog has a link to an interesting article about Leonard Nimoy's new fat nudes exhibit. In her post, Rachel also asks

While I remember my grandparents making comments about how fat people were, I don’t remember the ire associated with it that you see for so many younger people. It also seemed to me that their definition of fatness was different. . . Do you think there are generational differences around attitudes toward fatness? If so, what do you think they are?

Since I am no longer welcome to respond there, I'll go ahead and post here. My answer...depends on who you're talking about and what their background is, I suppose. As for my experience, well, I had a grandmother who constantly belittled my mother as she was growing up for being "too fat" (she was about a size 16, if that). I can also remember vividly a time when I was 12 -- at which point I was approx. 5'6" 120 lbs. with a 24 inch waist (yes, I did know that, and I do remember, because I was obsessed with weight at that age -- I think you'll be able to understand part of it after this post). My grandmother told me, "If you ever want to fit into my wedding gown, you'd better start losing weight now." I was 12! I was already thin, I didn't need to diet, and certainly not for some unforeseeable wedding that may never happen, and even if it did, would be years in the future!!! I still think that it was this very statement that had a huge impact on me not only becoming fat but never getting married.

Marc at Punkass Blog claims that it's the "patriarchs" who were offended by this billboard. Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm sure he's right. I'm sure there are men out there (including some of the more vocal ones that got the billboard pulled). Certainly there are patriarchal men out there who would feel the need to decry the "sanctity of marriage" upon seeing this billboard, not to mention reject it out of the pure need to express their heterosexual masculinity (read: fear of seeing a man's body). But are those the only reasons that someone could or would be offended by such a billboard. Fuck no. Look, "equal objectification" of both men and women doesn't make objectification any better. Never has. And I've always thought that was a bullshit argument for the over objectification of women (No, Peta's ads wouldn't more acceptable if they simply used more naked men alongside the women). And, hell, I'm right there with you when you want to argue that marriage is a heteronormative function of a heterosexist society. But, that doesn't change the fact that a number of people still form loving commitments to people and encouraging people to leave their partners for "better, sexier versions" is just wrong, to me, and is simply based on the same old misogynist notion that women are objects that can be exchanged and upgraded (and again, adding a man doesn't change that!!). Nod: Hoyden About Town.

Blackamazon has a scathing, but must-read review of Jessica Valenti's book, Full Frontal Feminism. I should say right now, I haven't read the book, so I can't testify to this review's accuracy, but I will say that none of it surprised me. While I do understand BA's reasons for turning away from feminism, it makes me sad that she has done so. I'm sorry that she has been confronted with a particular form of feminism, that while currently the most revered in the mainstream media, does not represent all of feminism or all feminists. I'm not going to pretend that us "other" white feminists aren't racist at times, but I'd like to think that many of us are willing to acknowledge that and to listen and learn from feminists of color so we can change, rather than just deny our racism. And that's why we need women like BA in the feminist movement. But then, that sounds like I want to use and exploit BA for my own purposes, and I don't mean that at all. Just...well...keep speaking, some of us are actually listening.

*In my defense, I am currently working 3 jobs (70 hours a week, not including travel time -- mostly graveyard) as well as volunteering 12 hours a month as a sexual assault advocate.

I'll be on the Today Show Tomorrow

The agency I work for is being featured, and the founder interviewed. The Today Show sent out a camera crew last week and got about 16 hours worth of film...which they will cut down to about 4 minutes. With any luck, I won't end up on the editing room floor.

If you can, please tune in and watch -- or set your tivo, dvr, or vcr. Even if I do end up on the editing room floor, it should still be a good segment (there will be a 3 minute interview with the founder and her sons after the 4 minute film segment, which includes an interview with one of our clients). This agency is the only one of it's kind, and it provides a much needed service for women (and men) who would otherwise have no one. And the founder, Paula, is amazing woman who, instead of getting mad at the injustice of not having anyone to help her, turned around and started providing that much needed service for other women. And she did so while still living in a domestic violence shelter. Not every woman has the vision, the courage, the strength, or the resources to do that. And that's ok. It's just all the more reason to celebrate the ones who do.

So, tune in tomorrow, Friday, May 11th between 8 and 8:30 am (Eastern and Pacific time) to check me and my workplace out.

Update: Yay! I thought they did a really great job. I am in there for a couple of seconds, but I don't say anything -- the focus was on my boss and the agency, which is fine by me. If you missed it, you can catch it here.

Why I don't care what men think of me

In the week and a half since I wrote the last post, I've received several emails from various bloggers (primarily, but not exclusively, men) telling me that they thought the post was interesting, infuriating, and, in general, good. Then they told me that they'd like to link to it, but only if I changed the title. Apparently, it's "too offensive." Whatever. I'd say it just goes to show that men just don't get it.

Why Men Just Shouldn't Post About the Rape of Women

Simon P. Green, a paramedic with American Medical Response in Portland, responded to a call from a rape survivor. He treated her and took her to the hospital, talking to her about the assault on the way. He then decided to post about it on his MySpace page, providing details just vague enough to not break any laws, but still detailed enough to allow reporters to find the woman and to potentially impede the police investigation.

The survivor, "Jane Doe," has filed a law suit against Simon Green and American Medical Response for violating her privacy. According to the lawsuit, Green posted details about the attack, including the approximate location of the attack (which took place in the survivor's apartment), what Jane Doe said about the knife-wielding attacker, and a description of the attacker. The post, written 2 weeks after the incident, "led TV reporters to her door, prompted neighborhood reconnaissance and may have impeded the police investigation."

As someone who works daily with survivors of domestic and sexual violence, I've debated the merits of posting anything about the stories I've come across. I've debated this with myself and with colleagues. I would never post details (even vague details) about a survivor, or even an abuser. But I've thought about writing about some of the situations I've run across, by changing some of the details and/or writing vaguely enough that even the survivor herself probably wouldn't know for sure if I was talking about her. I haven't done it yet, because I haven't really come to a clear conclusion about the ethics of it in my own head. But I've known colleagues who have written about their experiences with clients, residents, and survivors on their blogs. And I do think it can be both cathartic for the writer and enlightening/educational for the reader. So, yes, I do understand why someone would want to post about this sort of thing. But, IMO, there are limits.

According to Green, he didn't post this to share a vicarious trauma he experienced. He didn't post this because he learned something valuable from the experience. No, he posted this to "'get the word out' so other women would have an opportunity to protect themselves." How paternalistic of him. But his ignorance and appalling lack of understanding doesn't end there.

On his MySpace site he suggested victims should fight off attackers if confronted by a knife or carry a gun.

"My advice: fight. It's only a knife, and any rapist is a coward who will probably turn tail at any resistance," his posting read.

It's only a knife. Seriously? And what exactly, Mr. Green, is your experience with rapists that you can be so "knowledgeable" as to know what the best response for a rape victim should be? And where do you get off, Mr. Green, espousing what a rape victim should do?

Portland Police spokesman Sgt. Brian Schmautz summed it up best:

There's no crime in what this guy did, it's just morally reprehensible.

Fat Rant

Don't have time to blog much right now, but I needed to post about this video. You must watch this video -- it's brilliant. Joy Nash, I love you.

Freedom of Religion...so long as you're Christian

I've never laughed so hard at a letter to the editor before in my life. I mean, you have to laugh right? Otherwise you start to remember that there really are people out there who believe this crap.

I'm not sure which is funnier -- that this person actually uses the fact that our money mentions god as proof that we should all believe in this concept, or the fact that this person seems to think "baptist, catholic, methodist" constitutes a range of religions contained within the concept of "freedom of religion."

via ms. jared
Original photo from styro on flickr

And yet another way to help out via the web

At ReZoom.com, they are collecting votes for "A Better World" Awards. You can vote once a day (every day) until March 31, 2007. More than 20 charities will win $5,000, with the grand prize winner winning $100,000. You can check to see if your favorite charity is already nominated and vote for them. If it's not, you can nominate them by filling out the on-line submission form and writing an essay that states why that charity is making the world "A Better World."

At this point, I will take the time to try and persuade you to vote for the charity of my choice. Why should you vote for this one over all of the other deserving charities? Well, besides the fact that it could actually help me out, personally (ahem), The American Domestic Violence Crisis Line is the only crisis line of its type in the world. It is the only service available to US women, men, and children, living in foreign countries who are trying to escape domestic violence and child abuse. US crisis lines, including the National Domestic Violence Crisis Line, can only help those currently living in the US. And DV agencies in other countries (if they exist at all) can only help in very limited ways (if at all), and probably have no way of helping these women (and men) relocate back to the US (and the financial assistance is only one aspect -- the legal issues are even more complex). The US Embassies may be of some help, but that will partially depend on the particular workers that are currently working in that location and how much they know or care about domestic violence.

From the essay posted on ReZoom:

The American Domestic Violence Crisis Line, (ADVCL), 866-USWOMEN, operates the only international toll free domestic violence hotline serving abused American women and children living in foreign countries. The line is currently toll free from 175 countries. Our target population is the estimated 6 - 7 million American civilians and military living in foreign countries. Officially 4.2 million civilians are registered with American Embassies along with ½ million military personnel and their families. To give a perspective of the size of the civilian population we serve, if the number of Americans registered with embassies were placed in one state, it would be the 25th most populous state in the nation. Although no statistics exist for abuse in this population, applying abuse statistics in the USA to our target population, an estimated 57,000 women and 45,000 children are abused annually.

ADVCL began crisis line operations in April 2001 just two years after Paula Lucas, Founder and Executive Director, finally escaped a foreign country with her three children to flee 12 years of domestic violence and child abuse. Frustrated at the absence of services for her and her children while overseas, and shocked at the legal obstacles she encountered upon her return home to be able to keep her American children in their own country, Paula was determined that other American women & children would not need to suffer the same fate. Paula first founded the non-profit organization as an online resource for abused Americans living in foreign countries in September 1999. At that time, she and her children were still homeless themselves, living in a domestic violence shelter.

Since 2001, the organization’s crisis line advocates have served an estimated 1,000 families on the crisis line providing crisis intervention, domestic violence advocacy, case management, safety planning, information & referral. Also since 2001 the organization has provided danger to safety trans-national relocation to 26 families back to the USA, paid 13 legal retainers to enable battered mothers to file for custody of their children in the USA, provided professional counseling to 19 abuse survivors and placed 3 families into a one-year transitional housing program.

In 2006 alone, crisis advocates received 1158 crisis calls and emails, providing services to 248 families in 47 countries. Collectively volunteer advocates volunteered 3,849 hours on the crisis line in 2006. The crisis line currently operates continuously from 9am Monday PST through Friday 11pm PST.

And here's something else to consider, something that separates the needs of this charity from just about every other charity on this list. This valuable and much needed service takes significant amounts of funding (the phone bills alone can cost thousands of dollars every month). At this point in time, due to the inability to provide a concrete "population" (many of the numbers are estimates -- and the exact percentages of DV may vary from county to country), we are unable to gain access to government grants and funds. All of our funding comes from private grants and donations.

If you already have a local charity that you believe is truly deserving of this award, by all means, vote for them. But, please consider voting instead for the ADVCL. Or, perhaps you could switch back and forth each day (again, you can vote once a day, everyday, until March 31).

A Generational Divide?

There's been a lot of good responses to Jessica's feminist sorority post. Upon reading it, my first impulse, frankly, was to laugh my ass off. Not because Jessica's post was funny, but because it reminded me so much of my own feminist writings and arguments from just 5-10 years ago (well, except for the "sex-positive" angle, that is). In fact, I was so committed to this fight at the time that I even started to do write my Master's thesis on this very topic.

I don't know if it was the research I did on the topic, or if it was just getting older, or just realizing that there were so many more important things to worry about, but I lost interest in the argument. But that doesn't mean I don't still have opinions on the topic (even if they are a bit different than they were 10 years ago).

One of the more interesting aspects of this on-going argument is the constantly changing aspect of it. In 2002, about the time I lost interest in the whole topic (as something to fight for or about), I was 31. Younger than Rebecca Walker (arguably one of the leading founders of the Third Wave Feminist movement, and, at the very least, the founder of the Third Wave Foundation). During the peak of this time for me, I was clearly in the "young feminist" category. And yet, now, Ariel Levy, who is 3 1/2 years younger than me, is called out as one of the "older generation." (No, Jessica doesn't specifically refer to Levy as "old," but the inference is clear, after all, she is using Levy as an example of those opposed to the "young feminists" like herself.)

In that since-abandoned thesis, I wrote:

Much of what has led to this hostility seems to be a mixture of truth and fallacy on both sides, the fallacies often generated by a lack of knowledge about the Wave the feminist is not a part of. Second Wave feminists often see Third Wave feminists ignoring their feminist history, eschewing theory and even going against that which many Second Wave feminists had fought for. Third Wave feminists often see Second Wave feminists as being too enmeshed in academic feminism, steeped in identity politics and unaccepting of a broader focus of feminist politics. While all of these assertions hold a certain level of truth, they are too broad to generalize to all feminists within their respective Waves.

While many of my opinions on this subject have changed over the years, the above has not. I know younger feminists haven't completely ignored their own feminist history. Whether through Women's Studies courses, discussions with their mothers and grandmothers (both literal and metaphorical), and their own readings, young feminists have, by and large, made a point to know their history. On the other hand, it has to be more than a little aggravating for older feminists to read younger feminists opining on the "new" internecine feminist battles as though they aren't the same damn battles that have been going on for the last 30 years. The current battles between the "sex positive" feminists and the "anti-porn" feminists have got nothing on the Sex Wars of the 70s and 80s. And sure, there was a lot of exclusion of women of color in the early days of the Second Wave -- but to ignore the incredibly important contributions of women of color in those early days is to also engage in the same exclusion (not to mention the many critiques of racist exclusion that takes place today, even among young feminists).

What it comes down to, in my opinion, has far less to do with a generational divide than with simple ideology. Fact is, when it comes to the never ending Sex Wars, Jessica will have far more in common with Patrick Califia than with Samantha Berg, and that clearly has nothing to do with age.

Speaking of charity...donate while sitting on your ass

Want to donate to charity (and actually know which one), but don't want to take the time away from surfing the net? Everyday there are more and more ways to help with this dilemma. I think by now most people are already aware of The Breast Cancer Site, The Hunger Site, and the other similar sites where you can donate by simply clicking on the designated spot.

And in that same vein comes a new and much needed clicking for charity opportunity: Tamponification!

Women’s shelters in the U.S. go through thousands of tampons and pads monthly, and, while agencies generally assist with everyday necessities such as toilet paper, diapers, and clothing, this most basic need is often overlooked. You and I may take our monthly trips down the feminine care aisle for granted, but, for women in shelters, a box of tampons is five dollars they can’t spare. Here’s some good news: you can help us contribute to rectifying this situation by making a virtual donation below! For each virtual donation, Seventh Generation will send a pack of organic cotton tampons or chlorine-free pads to a shelter in your state.

If actually going to a site and clicking on a link is too much work, how about donating while doing what you would be doing anyway? The next time you need to do a websearch, instead of using Google, use GoodSearch instead.

How does it work?

• On the GoodSearch homepage, choose from thousands of organizations or add your favorite cause to our list.
• Search the Internet just like you normally would — the site is powered by Yahoo!, so you'll get the same high-quality search results you're accustomed to.
• Fifty percent of the revenue generated from advertisers is shared with the charity, school or nonprofit organization of your choosing.

Are the search results going to be as good as the search engine I am using now?

Absolutely. GoodSearch.com is powered by Yahoo! so you'll get the same high-quality search results that you're currently used to — or better!

How much money could this generate for my charity or school?

We estimate that each Web search will generate approximately $0.01 for the designated charity or school (image, video and news searches are not included). If you think about how many times you search the Internet each year, and then add in all the searches from the supporters of your organization, it quickly adds up!

You can designate a local, national, or international organization to be the recipient of the donation.

Now I can feel good about wasting my time looking up ex-boyfriends and finding out what they are doing now, or, even better, finding out that losing that demo tape from that other ex-boyfriend's band no longer has to stop you from getting all nostalgic.

Charity for Charity's Sake

The other day I got an email from my bank (a large national chain) asking me to take an on-line survey about their on-line banking services. The subject line of the email said: Share your opinions with **** Bank and help donate $12,000 to charity! I thought, well, hey, this could be an easy way to donate money. Intrigued, I opened the email and read:

If you qualify and complete the survey, we will make a $2 donation to charity up to a total of $12,000.

I wasn't sure what it meant to "qualify" and if I would do so, but again, how hard it is it to take a survey. And I'll be able to give free money to charity. But what charity? I read further. Nothing. Nowhere in the email did it indicate what charity, or even what kind of charity this money would be donated to. I clicked on the link to the survey thinking there might be more information there. Nope.

There was a phone number given for those who wanted to verify the validity of the survey. I doubled checked with the bank's webpage, and sure enough, it was their customer service number. So I called. I gave them the reference terms I was told to give in the email. The service rep pulled up the appropriate page on their computer. I asked them, "What charity would I essentially be donated to?" The guy had no idea. But he tried (I have to give him credit, he did seem to be as interested in the question as I was and seemed to really work at finding out the answer). Alas, he could not find anyone or anything that would give him the answer, other than "Charity."

I chose not to do the survey. I won't go so far as to suggest that this bank's charity of choice was "Help the Poor Millionaire Bankers Union." And I'd guess that they probably wouldn't go with something controversial (like Planned Parenthood or Operation Rescue). But do they really think that "charity" is all that matters? That the actual recipients of the charity make no difference?

It's possible that I would have found out at the end of the survey what the charity was. Or, maybe I would have even been given a choice. But, seeing as how no one in their customer service department (who was specifically listed as being a place to call to ask about the survey) could even tell me if I'd be given a choice or an answer at any point, I saw no reason to waste 10 minutes of my time on them.

It should also be noted that the bank in question is not the only (or possibly even primary) party responsible for this fiasco. The survey was administered by Rockbridge Associates, an "independent market research firm." They are the ones responsible for the wording of the email, the wording of the survey, and the implementation of the survey. I spent 10 years (off and on) working for my uncle's market research firm, and I know how much time is spent on every single word of these surveys, esp. the parts that are trying to solicit the responses. I don't believe for a second that leaving out exactly which (or what kind of) charity was just missed in editing. Which just makes me all that much more curious about the whole issue.

FATASS PDX on German Television

Unless you know me personally (separate from the blog), you probably are not aware that I am also a part of FATASS PDX -- a group of fat activist radical cheerleaders (FATASS stands for Fat Action Troupe All-Star Spirit Squad). Well, now not only do you know this, but you can also see us in all our glorious cheering fashion, as seen on German Television.



The 5 minute 21 second clip is what's left after editing down about 12 hours of filming. The "crew" (which consisted of the host/interviewer and a cameraman) filmed us as we practiced, then did some interviews with us, and then filmed us performing at Cupcake, a monthly fat-positive dance party/social gathering. Alas, none of the interviews with me ended up in the final version, so you won't see much of me in this clip -- but that's ok, it's still pretty good. Oh, also, we don't have the voiceover, which kind of sucks (even if it was in German), but at least we have this.

Also thanks to Big Fat Blog for linking to the film clip.

The International Marriage Broker Act and U Visas

Last week, as many of you know, VAWA was reauthorized (with no time to spare). What many of you may not know, however, is that the International Marriage Broker Act [pdf file] has been attached to VAWA. Some of you may remember that I first wrote about this Act back in 2003, when it was first introduced by Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Representative Rick Larsen (D-WA).

The IMBA will now help foreign brides (aka mail-order brides) gain a bit of control over their future. This law does not ban the existence of these mail-order bride agencies. What it does is help to ensure that such transactions will be somewhat safer for the women involved. In essence, the new law requires (from The National Immigration Project [pdf file]:

• Requires U.S. citizen filing K petitions to disclose criminal background information. Mandates that U.S. citizens filing K visa petitions disclose criminal background information to international marriage brokers and to DHS/CIS. Relevant crimes include domestic abuse crimes, other violent crimes, and multiple convictions for substance and/or alcohol abuse. DHS will be required to transmit this criminal history information, along with results of any database search, to the foreign fiance or spouse [Section 832(a)].
  
  
• Prevents abusive U.S. citizens from sponsoring multiple foreign fiances and/or spouses. DOS cannot issue a K visa (unless DHS grants a waiver or the domestic violence victim exception applies) if the U.S. citizen has previously filed two K visa petitions, and less than two years have passed since the date of filing of the most recent K visa petition. DHS can waive this bar, but not when the U.S. citizen has a history of committing domestic abuse or other violent crimes [Section 832].
  
  
• Government tracking of serial K visas. Creates government database to track serial K petitions filed by same U.S. citizen petitioner and to notify foreign fiance or spouse of prior K petitions. Notification requirement triggered after petitioner has filed three K petitions within the past 10 years [Section 832].
  
  
• Domestic abuse pamphlet to be distributed to all foreign fiances and spouses. DOS, DHS, and DOJ shall create pamphlet on domestic abuse laws and resources for immigrant victims in the U.S. The pamphlet must be sent to all foreign fiances and spouses. DHS shall also send results from any criminal background checks conducted in the course of adjudicating the K visa petition, along with the petitioner'’s disclosure of any criminal history. U.S. consular officers shall orally inform foreign fiances/spouses of the petitioner's criminal history. DOS and DHS cannot disclose locational or personal information about prior victims of the U.S. citizen petitioner.
  
  
• International Marriage Broker (IMB) Duties. IMBs are prohibited from sharing any information on minors with any person or entity. IMBs cannot give U.S. clients information on a foreign national until the IMBs have searched sex offender registries, collected criminal and family background information, provided background information to the foreign national, given the domestic abuse pamphlet, and received written consent from the foreign national to share her contact information. Violation of these requirements can result in civil penalty up to $25,000.

This law is most definitely a step in the right direction, and will certainly help prevent some of the more serious atrocities some of these foreign brides might otherwise experience. However, as I wrote in my previous post on this subject, it will not prevent or stop all abuse against foreign brides. Many men (and international marriage brokers) will, no doubt, find ways around the law. And, not all abusive men will necessarily have a criminal record. And, or course, some women may still believe his claims that he has changed, or that the charges were due to lies (after all, why should we believe that women from the former Soviet Union or SE Asia are all that different in their desire to believe men who say they love them than American women are?).

Fortunately, there are some other legal recourses that these women can access should the need arise. Immigrant women who are married to an American citizen and experience domestic violence in that marriage can self-petition for legal status through VAWA.

The enactment of VAWA in 1994 has helped thousands of immigrant women (not only mail-order brides) who were experiencing domestic violence. Unfortunately, there were still thousands more women who were not eligible to access these benefits. Women who were not married to their abusers and/or women whose abusers were not US citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) did not qualify for VAWA.

In 2000, it seemed as though there was hope for these women, though. That was the year the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 created two new nonimmigrant visas for noncitizen victims of crimes.

T visas are available to individuals who are victims of "a severe form of trafficking in persons." This includes sex trafficking of persons under 18 years of age, or recruiting or obtaining persons for labor or services through the use of force, fraud, or coercion "for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery." Those who qualify for T visas may have nearly all grounds of inadmissibility may be waived, and can adjust to LPR status (Legal Permanent Resident)after three years. The original law stated that an applicant for a T visa willing to assist in every reasonable way in the investigation and prosecution of trafficking perpetrators (although neither actual cooperation nor even the existence of an investigation is required; the victim must merely show willingness to cooperate). However, the latest version of VAWA allows "trafficking victims whose physical or psychological trauma impedes their ability to cooperate with law enforcement to seek a waiver of this requirement." [Section 801(a)(3)].

U visas are available to immigrants who are either victims of or who possess information concerning one of the following forms of criminal activity: rape, torture, trafficking, incest, domestic violence, sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, prostitution, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation, hostage holding, peonage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment, blackmail, extortion, manslaughter, murder, felonious assault, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, perjury, or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit one of these offenses. The applicant does not have to be married or related to the person committing or soliciting the crime.

However, in the 5 years since The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Act was passed (and U visas were created), the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS, formerly known as INS) has yet to publish regulations governing these visas. Which means that no one can actually apply (let alone receive) a U visa yet. CIS has implemented U visa interim relief, which allows an immigrant crime victim to be granted temporary legal status for one year (applicants can reapply on a yearly basis until the regulations have been published, although, there is no guarantee that their applications will be accepted every year).

In October 2005, lawyers for the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles filed a federal lawsuit in October on behalf of nine illegal immigrants who were victims of violent crimes, demanding that regulations for the U visas be put in place.

"It was filed because the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is failing to provide victims of crime and people who are cooperating with law enforcement investigations with the immigration benefits Congress five years ago said they should have," Carlos Holguin, general counsel for the center, said of the lawsuit.

"What they give is deferred action, a work permit which is not the same as a U visa, which leads to permanent status," he said. "We've yet to get an explanation as to why they've failed to implement a law that's 5 years old.

Things are getting better for immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence. But there's still a long way to go.

Lousiana DV Shelters Need Your Help

We have all been hearing about the great number of tragedies going on in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately, on-going tragedies like rape and domestic violence do not take a break during natural disasters, and, in fact, can be made worse in some situations. But the natural disaster may make it harder to help those victims. Due to the hurricane, a number of DV shelters and non-residential programs in Louisiana have been closed, and a couple may have been destroyed. The Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence (LADVC) is asking for your help.

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AUGUST 31, 2005

Louisiana Domestic Violence Victim's Hurricane Relief Fund

The Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence (LCADV), a private 501c3, not-for-profit organization incorporated in 1982, is establishing a Louisiana Domestic Violence Victim's Hurricane Relief Fund to assist victims of domestic violence and child victimization who are displaced and affected by Hurricane Katrina.

LCADV is a network of 20 domestic violence programs/shelters throughout the state. Four of our shelters and two nonresidential programs are completely closed at the time and two or three may be completely destroyed. Sad to say, domestic violence and child victimization are social problems that do not stop during this natural disaster we are experiencing and with cessation of all direct services in the gulf coast region, the increased need for relocation and basic monetary assistance is essential for these women and children.

LCADV is accepting donations that are specifically earmarked to assist battered survivors and their children who have been directly affected/displaced by the hurricane. The donations will be used to assist battered victims from the following parishes in Louisiana: Orleans, Jefferson, St. Tammany, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines.

The donations will be used for the following purposes:

1. Relocation of domestic violence victims.
2. Purchasing of basic needs, i.e. baby formula, diapers, food, clothing, etc. that could not be met elsewhere.
3. Deposits on houses, electric bills,
4. Car repair, gas, public transportation
5. Medical/prescription needs,
6. Other basic, life sustaining needs

All donations go directly to victims of domestic violence affected by this hurricane and will not be used for any administrative or other purposes.

The Louisiana Domestic Violence Hurricane Relief Fund Account is setup with AmSouth Bank which is located in the following states: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee. If you live in one of these states you could make a donation at the local AmSouth Bank Branch to the LCADV Domestic Violence Hurricane Relief Fund Account number: 0020085338. Donations from other states can be made through wire transfer to this account.

If you would like to make a donation using MasterCard or Visa, you may contact the Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence office at 225-752-1296 with your credit card information. Donations may also be electronically deposited into our account by faxing a voided check with the amount of the donation to (225)751-8927. LCADV will setup an electronic deposit and you will receive confirmation of your donation with the tax-deductible receipt.

Abortion on TV

33 years ago, a strong, determined, and independent female character on TV had an abortion -- with no regrets, no devestating consequences. Maude (and the writers, directors and producers of the show) were definitely ahead of the times -- remember, this episode aired in November 1972, 2 months before the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade (Maude lived in NY, where abortion was already legal).

33 years later, it still seems as though those writers, directors, actors, (and characters) are still "ahead of the times." It took 32 years before another character on network television even had an abortion (all the other "accidental" pregnancies ending in adoption, deciding to keep the baby, or the "lucky break" miscarriage) -- but even then, they had to tack on some corny "confession" scene for the doctor.

I remember when that episode of Everwood aired. I had never watched Everwood, but even I knew what happened. Everyone seemed to be talking about it.

Which makes it even more surprising that I have seen so little mention of the recent "abortion episode" of Jack and Bobby. In fact, I only found out about it on "accident" -- I was watching a tape, which ended about 10 minutes before Jack & Bobby ended, so I was able to see the last 10 minutes of the episode. I figured out what was going on fairly quickly, and was intrigued. So, I watched the rest of the episode. Sure enough, the girl (who I later found out is named Missy) went to Jack's & Bobby's mom for help (apparently, her parents had kicked her out of the house for getting pregnant). The mom takes Missy to the clinic and waits for her until after the abortion, and they walk out together -- end of episode.

I sat there thinking, huh, wow. But then...(and you knew it couldn't last long, right?) I see the previews for the next week's episode. Seems that a bunch of the characters (high school students) all go out partying after prom, and [dum dum DUUUMMMM] one of them will die.

I knew it, I just knew it, right then and there that the girl who got the abortion was being killed off.

I didn't tune in to witness it, but I kept an eye out on various websites, and sure enough, Missy is killed in a drunk driving accident.

When will these TV characters ever learn -- in this day and age of right-wing conservative thinking, if you do something like get an abortion, you will suffer the consequences -- like being killed off by the writers.

On Roosters and DV

Sheelzebub and Pseudo-Adrienne have already written about the hullaballoo over the South Carolina Senate's decision to make cockfighting a felony while once again tabeling a bill to protect DV victims (and the resulting altercation between SC State Rep. John Graham Altman III and reporter Kara Gormley). I could go on and on about how horrifying and disgusting I find the whole matter. I could go on and on about how Rep. Altman's views on DV are so distorted and based in mythology that he is a harm to women everywhere. I could, but I won't, because, frankly, Sheelzebub and Pseudo-Adrienne already did that and said everything I would have said.

But perhaps we can look beyond the blatant sexism and victim-blaming that is so evident in this whole issue (after all, Sheelzebub and Pseudo-Adrienne have both covered that ground quite well). Let's examine why the legislature felt it so important to make cockfighting a crime. Is it because they felt the urgent need to protect all these roosters? Somehow I doubt it -- after all, it was specifically targetted at cockfighting, not dog fighting or any of the other brutal-to-animals acts that are going on. So, why cockfighting? My guess? It's not the roosters they're concerned about, and it has nothing to do with "protection" of anyone (or anything).

To see why this law was deemed so important for the legislature to deal with, one only needs to ask, "Who is it that generally participates in cockfighting?" (and I do mean besides the roosters). The answer: Latinos.

I'm sure that has nothing to with the need to change this law, though. Nothing at all. Just as I'm sure that there really is no connection between this and their tabeling of the DV legislation. Uh huh.

I am no longer a wanted woman

It's all done and over with. Finally!

I have to say, despite the fact that I had to go all the way out there to take care of this (something I still find utterly ridiculous), everyone involved (directly and indirectly) was extremely kind and accomodating, and I am very grateful for that.

I arrived in Manchester on Sunday afternoon, and had to take a cab to Salem (because there are no buses or trains going there). After checking into my hotel, I spent a relaxing evening watching TV and reading and preparing for the next day -- while I knew everything was pretty much all set, I was still a bit stressed and a little scared about the whole thing.

It turns out that my hotel was just about a half a block from the restaurant where all this started. I was sorely tempted to treat myself to dinner there -- but I just couldn't bring myself to actually do that.

The next morning, I walked the 1/2 mile to the police station and explained why I was there. Of course, no one had prepared any of the officers for this, so they had no idea what I was talking about. But, they got the paperwork and brought me back to the booking room -- which smelled disgustingly like fish. Now, as just about anyone who has ever gone out to dinner with me knows, the smell of fish is just about the worst smell in the world to me. The smell alone is enough for my gag reflex to go into full operation, and it took nearly all of my willpower just to not throw up all over the officer. I swear, if I had a mind for conspiracy theories, I'd think this was intentional torture.

The booking took about an hour -- I had to get mug shots and have my fingerprints taken and entered into AFIS, which was a pain in the ass in itself -- it took an average of 4 tries for each finger just to get the computer to accept them.

The officer then took me over to the court. He explained that after booking me, he couldn't actually release me without bail (which would have been $500), so he had to take me himself. Frankly, I was fine with that, after all, I didn't have a car so getting a ride was actually helpful. He kept saying to me that while he would have to make me sit in the back, he wouldn't handcuff me. Believe me, I was grateful for this, but he kept pointing it out to me so many times I began to think he wanted some special thanks for this (not that kind of "special thanks"...get your head out of the gutter).

Anyway, so we pull up in front of the court house, and the prosecutors (there were 2 of them) came over to the car. Apparently they had called over to dispatch and told them to tell the officer to stop booking me and bring me over to court (he could finish booking me after court) because the judge was about to hear a long trial. Unfortunately, the message was not passed along to the officer, and we got there after the long trial started. The cop asked him what he should do, and the prosecutor said, "bring her back at 1:30." The cop pointed out that that was 2 1/2 hours away, and what was he supposed to do, "make her sit in a jail cell for that time...that doesn't seem right."

So the prosecutors went inside to check on something, and then came out and said I could wait in the court house (they would wait with me). I had to sit in the back row of the courtroom during the trial that was going on. At first, I thought that all sounded like hell. But, it turned out that it was rather interesting. It turns out that, coincidentally, it was a Domestic Violence case being heard. It was just a procedural hearing, so the victim wasn't there, and we didn't hear from the defendant. But listening to the defense attorney was extremely interesting (in a humorous and infuriating way). I won't go into details about the case here (for the sake of confidentiality -- I know I wasn't sworn to confidentiality, but I still feel the need to do so), but I will say that I have to say, the defendant and his attorney both had gumption -- they tried every trick in the book, and a few I don't think most rational people would ever have thought of. Of course, the tricks didn't work, but it was amazing to watch them try.

The hearing took about an hour, after which I was called up in front of the judge. He read the charges and noted that I was pleading guilty. He confirmed that I was aware of my rights and what I was doing, and asked the prosecutors what they were asking for. They said a $200 fine (which we had agreed to on the phone) and restitution to the restaurant (which we had not agreed to on the phone). I thought (and still think) that it's somewhat unfair that I have to pay the full restitution for the unpaid bill (which came to $73.37) seeing as how there were 4 of us, and why should I have to pay for everyone else. But whatever, I wasn't going to fight it.

So, after that, I had to pay the fine and the court costs and then we agreed that I would go pay restitution to the restaurant and bring the receipt back to the court and then everything would be done. The problem, of course, was that I had no ride to do this. I didn't really think about it at the time, because I figured that I'd just call a cab and have the cab drive me around. It wasn't until I was ready to go that I found out that there aren't actually any cabs in this town.

I went to the security guard, thinking he might know of a cab company in the area that wasn't in the phone book or something. He didn't (although he also tried calling the cabs listed in the phone book, but got the same disconnected numbers I did). He called the cops and told them that they should have someone drive me around on these errands. I thought it was great that he was trying to do this for me, but I could understand the dispatchers point about the cops being rather busy. Then the court clerk overheard and said that if I had the cash for the restitution, she'd just give me a receipt saying I had paid it and would take the cash over there herself when she got off of work. I was amazed at the generosity and concern of these people, but unfortunatley, I didn't have that much cash on me. At that time, a woman asked me if I knew how to drive. I said I did, but I was worried she would offer me her car to do all this stuff -- which is incredibly nice, but I wasn't sure I'd feel comfortable with that. But, it turns out that she just needed me to move her car to the back of the court house, and in exchange she would drive me around. (Another guy standing there also offered, but I decided to take the woman's offer, because she also needed the help). She explained that there were some people outside that she didn't want to see her car.

So, she gave me her keys, described her car and told me to meet her around back. When I went outside, sure enough, there were 2 women sitting right by her car. And, as it happened, I recognized the women as the attorney and the sister of the defendant in the DV case I had just sat through. Now, they were sitting at the only picnic table in the area, so while it does seem strange that they were hanging around for so long (and the defendant wasn't even there), I don't think they were actually staking out this woman's car. Nonetheless, I can understand her concern and her desire not to let them know what her car looks like. She did make sure that I wasn't there for stealing cars before she gave me her keys. :p

After I pulled around to the back and got into the passenger side, she said, "this probably all seems strange, but you see, I work in the Domestic Violence field..." I said, "so do I!" I told her that I had also sat through the hearing, and recognized the women sitting out front and completely understood why she didn't want them to see her car. We had a nice chat about our work and the case that was going on. She dropped me off at the restaurant and said she was going to KMart (in the same plaza) to buy mulch and would meet me out front.

I went in to the restaurant and asked to speak to the manager. When the manager came, I explained the situation and gave him a copy of the court paperwork. Yes, I felt very stupid standing there saying, "Yeah, uh, I have to pay restitution for an unpaid tab from 14 years ago." He was cool about it, though, and after making a phone call (probably trying to figure out how to ring this up), he rang me up and gave me a receipt.

I got out of the restaurant just as the DV woman (for lack of a better name) was pulling up -- good timing! She dropped me off at the court house (the 2 women were still there!). I went in and finalized the paperwork. The court clerk offered to fax the paperwork up to Concord, NH for me, so that I could get the ball rolling on removing the suspension from my NH driving record (still think it's unfair that they can suspend a license that I never had in a state I never lived in -- but, oh well). I then walked back to the police station to drop off the receipt there for the prosecutor. (It wasn't really a long walk -- probably about a mile -- I just hadn't wanted to do that 3 times on a time limit in 80 degree weather.)

I still had plenty of time. In fact, it was still so early that I could easily have made it back up to Manchester for my flight out -- if only I hadn't decided to give myself an extra day in case anything went wrong. Dammit. So now I had well over 24 hours to kill. Since I hadn't eaten all day, I went out for lunch. And yes, I did pay. :p I hung out in Barnes & Noble for a while, and then hung out in my hotel room for a while.

The next morning, I left the hotel at 11:00 (check out time) and lugged all my stuff around with me -- going to breakfast, hanging out at Barnes & Noble until 3:00 when my cab came to take me back to Manchester and the airport. I was still at the airport about 2 hours before my flight time. Of course, I had a long layover in Minneapolis, which was made even longer because the flight was late. Which meant I didn't get into Portland until about 11:30. By the time I got home and unwound and got to sleep, it was about 1:00 am -- which meant I had exactly 4 1/2 hours to sleep before I had to get up for work. (Needless to say, I was way too tired yesterday to even attempt to write this update.)

Now that I have all this stress out of the way, I should be able to get back to more regular blogging -- at least, that's my intent. We'll see.

I will say, though, that I learned a valuable lesson. Don't let your legal cases get dragged out like this. Make damn sure that everything is taken care of -- especially if you ever plan to move to the other side of the country. Not only does it cost way too much money to take care of it all (all in all, after plane tickets, taxis, hotel, fines, etc, I spent about $1,000 getting this taken care of), but you never know the kinds of technological advances that will be made in the intervening years. Had I taken care of this back in 1991, it would not be in the computer -- it would be stuck in the basement archives. Also, back then they didn't have the whole computerized fingerprinting thing -- it was the old-style ink and paper. Now my fingerprints are on file in AFIS. Oh, well, what's done is done.

An Update

I know it's been a while since I've really done any blogging. I've been sick with a cold for a week, and before that, well, I just wasn't much up for being on the computer. Anyway, I figured I'd at least let you all know what's been going on.

Regarding the mice: We've had an exterminator in, and he laid a bunch of poison out in the walls and crawlspaces. Since then, we haven't seen any (or many) mice, and the exterminator said (just yesterday) that he didn't even see any sign of activity in the crawlspaces off my room. So yay!!

Regarding my legal issues (that I wrote about here): The NH prosecutor finally got back to me after I sent the letter to him. He was actually quite nice and cool about the whole thing (with the exception of making me go all the way out there, he wouldn't budge on that). So, we've set up a date (April 18) for me to turn myself into the police. I'll be going to court that afternoon. The prosecutor is going to ask for a much smaller fine than I was expecting (only $200 instead of the minimum $500 I was expecting).

I will be flying into Manchester on Sunday, taking a cab to Salem (since, as it turns out, there are no busses or trains that go anywhere near Salem -- and the private transportation services are, according to one place I checked out -- more expensive than a cab). I'll be flying back to Portland on Tuesday, a free woman at last.