DV and the Single Girl

Over the last 4 decades, feminists have made significant strides in getting society to realize and acknowledge the devestating effects of domestic violence. By 1983, 10 states recognized domestic violence as a criminal offense. Also by the early 1980s, 29 states began appropriating funds for services to survivors of domestic violence. By 1987 there were approximately 1000 domestic violence shelters opened across the country. In 1994, we won the hard-fought battle for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the first federal law to address the issue of domestic violence by providing funds for shelters, a national domestic violence hotline, rape education and prevention programs, training for federal and state judges, and new remedies for battered immigrants. In 2000, VAWA was expanded to include dating violence.

All of this is, of course, great. It shows that while we still have a long way to go in the battle against domestic violence (and abusers), we are making significant progress. But not all of these changes over the past few years have been for the better. The VAWA budget is currently before Congress, with both the House and the Senate proposing budgets that fall over $100 million short of the 2000 authorization [.pdf file].

One of the biggest shifts in domestic violence policy came about with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, HR 3734, also known as Welfare Reform -- or, as I prefer, the more accurately descriptive term, Welfare Deform). Prior to PRWORA, victims of domestic violence could receive financial aid through the Emergency Assistance (EA) Program, which provided up to $1,200 to be used for housing and/or moving expenses in order get away from an abuser and was a program independent of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or General Assistance (GA -- the public welfare program that provided cash assistance to poor individuals without children). In other words, EA was not considered "welfare." After PRWORA, GA was effectively dismantled (only allowing those adults with long-term disabilities to collect aid) the Assistance to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) became Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) which included new formulas for work incentives and time limits. Funds for domestic violence victims became part of the TANF program, now known as Temporary Assistance to Domestic Violence Survivors (TA-DVS) rather than the EA program. This means that only those women who qualify for TANF can qualify for TA-DVS (also known as the "domestic violence grant").

In many ways, the switch from the EA program to TA-DVS required few changes. Recipients still receive up to $1200 to be used to ensure safety. For those who are not familiar with the DV grant, the following is the description of "program benefits" as defined by Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS):

TA-DVS benefits will pay the minimum needed to stay safe, up to $1,200 maximum, for families fleeing abuse or to assist families in remaining free from abuse.

Benefits are used to pay for safety-related needs, such as:

• Payments for housing-related costs (rent, move-in costs, mortgage payments, utilities)
  
• Payments related to setting up a household (furniture, household items, etc.)
  
• Payments to increase safety (locks, post office box, etc.)
  
• Payments to replace personal items left behind when fleeing abuse, if not available from other sources (clothing, etc.)
  
• Other payments related to safety-focused case plan.

Note: benefits are generally paid directly to the landlord or service provider.

Payments can be made for child care, transportation, etc. to support completion of this case plan.

The program will remain open for 90 days to allow time for domestic violence survivors to stabilize their living situation and to address immediate safety concrs. Payments (up to $1,200 maximum) may be made at any time during these 90 days. In addition, domestic violence victims may access this program more than once per year if needed for safety.

While the general guidelines for qualifying for TA-DVS (in addition to being a DV survivor) are the same as the guidelines for qualifying for TANF, some elegibility requirements can be waived on a case-by-case basis. For example, some income may not be counted (for example, if the abuser has exclusive control over all finances). In addition, if the elibility requirement puts a person at risk of harm by domestic violence, those requirements will be waived (for example, the requirement to obtain a child support order or citizenship requirements for battered immigrant women).

But the one requirement that will NEVER be waived is the requirement that the beneficiary be pregnant or have dependent children in their custody. Unlike the former EA program, single women* are entirely ineligible for TA-DVS, regardless of their situation. And there is no other program out there that provides financial assistance for these women.** On top of this, getting safe housing can be a major obstacle for single women. Because they are viewed as less of a priority for social housing than women with children, they are less liely to be re-housed by local housing authorities. In addition, most domestic violence shelters provide mostly for families. Very few shelters have more than 1 or 2 spaces available for single women. (The shelter I currently work has space for up to 6 single women, by far the most space available in the state -- and that is divided between 2 facilities.) The majority of homeless shelters take only families. Of the few that take singles, they are often co-ed and can be as dangerous for women as living on the street.

Over the past few years, we have seen a number of programs for single women eliminated, while programs designed to promote and encourage marriage and motherhood are cropping up everywhere. Women who do not go this route, whether by choice, by chance, or simply because they have grown older are being pushed out to the margins more and more. Certainly helping children is of utmost importance. But it is imperitive that we do not make women invisible in the process.

While programs for domestic violence victims were orginally designed to help women (and by extension, their children, if they had any) escape and recover from domestic violence, examination of more current policies shows that these programs are designed to provide services primarily for children and only secondarily for mothers of those children.*** Under the current programs, single women who are survivors of domestic violence have become invisible, and this invisibility is producing dire consequences for these victimized women.

---

[NOTE: I would like to thank my coworker, C, for the research and work she has done on this issue, much of which I used in this post.]

*For the purposes of this post, the term "single woman" refers to women without dependent children (i.e. women who have never had children, women who do not have sole custody of their children, and women who have grown children).

**Much of what is discussed in this post refers to Oregon. These programs vary from state to state. For example, New York has established a form of Safety Net Assistance (funded through state and local sources) that provides emergency assistance to people who do not qualify for TANF, including benefits identical to TA-DVS. On the flip side, there are states that offer
far fewer benefits than Oregon, even to mothers.

***Since this is a post about single women, I haven't bothered to discuss the problems of even mothers of children obtaining the DV grant. But I should make a note that this can still be a difficult process. Some DHS workers refuse to acknowledge the economic abuse that exists in some families, thereby refusing to acknowledge that a woman may not have actual access to family money. In addition, there are far too many DHS workers who use the lame-ass excuse "well, you're in a safe place now, so you don't need the grant" when talking to women who are in a temporary shelter.

Privilege

A question in a different thread made me think of this, so I figured I'd just post it here for all to read.

Privilege

by D.A. Clarke

privilege is simple:
going for a pleasant stroll after dark,
not checking the back of your car as you get in, sleeping soundly,
speaking without interruption, and not remembering
dreams of rape, that follow you all day, that woke you crying, and
privilege
is not seeing your stripped, humiliated body
plastered in celebration across every magazine rack, privilege
is going to the movies and not seeing yourself
terrorized, defamed, battered, butchered
seeing something else

privilege is
riding your bicycle across town without being screamed at or
run off the road, not needing an abortion, taking off your shirt
on a hot day, in a crowd, not wishing you could type better
just in case, not shaving your legs, having a decent job and
expecting to keep it, not feeling the boss's hand up your crotch,
dozing off on late-night busses, privilege
is being the hero in the TV show not the dumb broad,
living where your genitals are totemized not denied,
knowing your doctor won't rape you

privilege is being
smiled at all day by nice helpful women, it is
the way you pass judgment on their appearance with magisterial authority,
the way you face a judge of your own sex in court and
are over-represented in Congress and are not strip searched for a traffic ticket
or used as a dart board by your friendly mechanic, privilege
is seeing your bearded face reflected through the history texts
not only of your high school days but all your life, not being
relegated to a paragraph
every other chapter, the way you occupy
entire volumes of poetry and more than your share of the couch unchallenged,
it is your mouthing smug, atrocious insults at women
who blink and change the subject -- politely -- privilege
is how seldom the rapist's name appears in the papers
and the way you smirk over your PLAYBOY

it's simple really, privilege
means someone else's pain, your wealth
is my terror, your uniform
is a woman raped to death here, or in Cambodia or wherever
wherever your obscene privilege
writes your name in my blood, it's that simple,
you've always had it, that's why it doesn't
seem to make you sick to your stomach,
you have it, we pay for it, now
do you understand

Choices or Otherwise...Why Does It Matter?

Ironically, I've already written about my thoughts on the "choice" of being gay -- back in the spring of 2003 (you'll have to scroll down to the post titled, "Random Thoughts").

Perhaps one of the more pertinent quotes from that long-ago post (IMHO) is from feminist humorist (aka fumorist) extraordinaire, Kate Clinton:

"So what if a gene or a gland causes gayness? Would that make the coming-out-to-parents conversation a health report? 'Mom, Dad, I've got the gay gene.' Would protest signs that say 'we're here, we're queer, get used to it' become apologies - 'we've got the gay gene, we couldn't be more sorry' or 'I wish my hypothalamus were bigger'?"

Is being gay a choice? I guess that's going to depend on individuals and exactly what is meant by "choice." But in the end -- why should it matter? Should the woman who makes a concious decision to become a "political lesbian" be deemed more worthy of discrimination than the girl who "knew she was a lesbian" at the age of 5? Should the bi-sexual who "chooses" to fall in love with another woman be less worthy of protection from discrimination than the bi-sexual who "chooses" to fall in love with a man?

In the end, we may never know if there is some sort of "gay gene" -- and even if there is, there will still be people who may "choose" to live a "straight" lifestyle even with the "gay gene," and those who may "choose" to live a "gay" lifestyle even without the "gay gene." It really doesn't matter.

The same goes for fat people. There are, without a doubt, some people who are fat because of a genetic predisposition to being fat. There are some who are fat because they eat too much. There are some who are fat because they've "dieted" their way up to their current weight (oh yes, they do exist). There are extremely unhealthy fat people and there are extremely healthy fat people -- and you cannot tell just by looking at the person which one s/he is.

As Elkins said earlier:

There's nothing wrong with encouraging people to take better care of their health, but I don't think that's really what anti-fat discrimination is all about. It is an appearance-based prejudice, and it has far more to do with fat itself than it does with "health."

The fact is, when you look at a fat person, you have no way of knowing if that person is healthy or not. Similarly, you have no way of knowing whether a random thin person is healthy or not.

When you see a fat person in McDonalds, you have no way of knowing whether that is the first time s/he has eaten at McDonalds in a year, or whether s/he eats there every day. Same with the thin person who is next in line.

When you see a fat person walking down the street, you have no idea how much they eat or how much they excercise. For all you know, they may have just lost over half their body weight over the course of the previous several years. Maybe they do weigh 250 lbs., but maybe 3 years ago they weighed 500 lbs.

When you see a person -- fat or thin -- you have no idea what their blood pressure or cholesterol level is.

If it's really about a concern over "health" -- shouldn't the emphasis be on whether that person is eating a healthy diet and getting enough excercise; whether their blood pressure is through the roof or at a healthy range? There is absolutely NO WAY to know this by looking at the person.

Shouldn't you be more concerned about the 145 lb. athlete who eats nothing but saturated fat and simple carbs and has a cholesterol level of 300 than the 300 lb. person who eats balanced meals, excercises regularly, has a cholesterol level of 100 and a blood pressure of 100 over 80?

Of course, in the end, you can advocate a healthy lifestyle as much as you want -- but it still doesn't matter. It's not your health or your life.

Quote of the Day

I may be the only person in the world who has ever traded the writings of Dworkin for pornography.

Thanks, flea. I nearly ruined the keyboard with the coffee I spit all over it. And it's not even my keyboard, it belongs to my workplace. That's ok -- it was worth it.

Europe's reaction to the election

It's not just the liberals in America who are feeling depressed, angry, disappointed and/or disgusted this week. Apparently, these are common feelings around the world.

Bush Makes Not-So-Good Headlines in Europe

Thursday November 4, 2004 7:01 PM

LONDON (AP) - The re-election of President Bush dominated British newspapers Thursday, and many cast impartiality aside in reporting the result.

"How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?'' the liberal Daily Mirror asked in a Page One headline. Inside, several pages of coverage were headed "U.S. election disaster.''

The Independent bore the front-page headline "Four more years'' on a black page with grim pictures including a hooded Iraqi prisoner and an orange-clad detainee at Guantanamo Bay.

The left-leaning Guardian led its features section with a black page bearing the tiny words, "Oh, God.'' Inside a story described how Bush's victory "catapaulted liberal Britain into collective depression.''

Across Europe, many newspapers expressed dismay at the prospect of another term for Bush, a president often regarded as inflexible and unilateralist.

"Oops - they did it again,'' Germany's left-leaning Tageszeitung newspaper said in a front-page English headline. The cover of the Swiss newsmagazine Facts called Bush's re-election "Europe's Nightmare.'' "Victory for the hothead: how far will he go?'' asked another Swiss weekly, L'Hebdo.

Feminist Bookstores

Amp's post that included his wish list reminded me of an important issue -- Feminist Bookstores.

Feminist bookstores (along with other independent bookstores) are closing at an astronomical rate. At the moment, there are just over 50 feminist bookstores left in the entire country, and more are closing every year. Large corporate chain stores and web-based stores are growing larger, and local independent booksellers are being forced to close their doors.

Feminist bookstores have long been an important part of the feminist community. Most of these stores offer far more than "just" books. They also serve as resource centers and gathering places for community groups. They often host a number of events -- from book readings to support groups to local activist meetings and a myriad of other types of events. My local feminist bookstore, for example, just hosted a class on "how to draw comics" led by local comic artist, Nik Arnold (you can also buy some of her artwork at the store). If the bookstore were to close, we would lose a lot more than a place to buy books, we would be losing one of the cornerstones of the feminist community.

The three main arguments I usually hear about using on-line or large chain stores rather than feminist bookstores are convenience, selection, and price.

Convenience: many feminist bookstores also have web shopping and shipping available. It really isn't any more difficult than buying your book at amazon or bn.com. Of course, one of the nice things about amazon.com and bn.com is the ability to design a wish list -- but you can always use one of these sites as a wish list, but enourage people to buy the book at a feminist bookstore.

Selection: most of these bookstores feature feminist books, for obvious reasons. But that doesn't mean that they can't order just about any other book you want. If you don't see what you want in the store, just ask for them to order it.

Price: as a smaller store, it's true that these places can't offer as many discounts. They aren't buying in bulk the way larger stores are. One thing you can do is see if there are any volunteer opportunities -- by volunteering a mere 6 hours a month at my local feminist bookstore, I get a 20% discount on every purchase. In addition, most of these bookstores also sell used books. And, in the end, one should think about where their money is going. I realize that there are some people out there who really, really cannot afford to buy anything but used books, and the selection of used books may be greater at amazon.com or bn.com. But for those who can afford it, isn't it worth it to spend a little bit more on preserving an important part of your community?

The Feminist Bookstore Network has an up-to-date list of feminist bookstores around the country (and Canada). When websites are available, those URL's are also given. Check to see if there is a feminist bookstore in your neck of the woods -- and if there is, consider supporting it. If not, consider supporting one in another area that has web shopping available.

It's beginning to look a lot like donation time

In the next month or so, many people are going to begin giving and making donations to various charities, food banks, and shelters. As someone who works in a shelter, and therefore gets the donations to the people they are intended for, I'd like to make a few suggestions when you're deciding what to give.

Now, let me start by stating that donations are always needed and always appreciated. If the only thing you can afford to give happens to be listed in this post, by all means, give it anyway (with a few exceptions).

I should also state that every place you may be thinking of giving a donation to probably has different needs, so it's always best to check with them to see if they need that particular donation. Most places even have their "wish lists"(or something comparable) on their websites. Keep in mind that most of these places may have limited storage space, so having "too much of a good thing" is simply not always possible. If one place doesn't need your donation, another place might need it.

With that said, here are some (very general) guidelines you may want to think about when deciding what to donate. [NOTE: If you are donating to a food bank, these guidelines won't necessarily be the same, I'm talking more about donating to shelters or other such programs.]

FOOD:

• The vast majority of donations we get come in during the holiday season. While there are a few (very much appreciated) people who will give donations throughout the rest of the year, most of the donations we live on throughout the year are given to us during November and December. So milk, eggs, cheese, fruit, and meat are always appreciated -- but we also need things that are still going to be good next October.
  
  
• If the expiration date has already passed, please don't donate it. I know Kraft Mac & Cheese never really goes bad. And I know the people who use the donations are often in a desperate situation. But no one really wants to eat Mac & Cheese that was supposed to be used by May 2001.
  
  
• Mac & Cheese and Top Ramen can be good food -- they last a long time and they're cheap. But people like variety. Try to be a little different when thinking of donations. When everyone gives the same thing year after year, it leaves people with very little choice and very little variation in their meals. Their lives are already in crisis, we shouldn't force them to eat such a limited menu on top of everything else. And, btw, milk and butter may be hard to come by in these situations, so boxed Mac & Cheese will only get someone so far.
  
  
• Sugar is good -- it can be used on cereal or in coffee or what have you. Flour, not so good. Let's face it, these people are in crisis, most of them are not going to be baking. Besides -- in order to bake, they'll also need milk and eggs, and the proportion of flour to eggs and milk is incredibly skewed.
  
  
• Speaking of coffee -- coffee and tea are always good. Those are probably the most used donations we get. Also considering adding some non-dairy creamer to that list.
  
  
• Canned goods are a good donation. But again -- variety!! Most people don't want to eat canned beets every night.
  
  
• Baby formula is always good. But, maybe mix it up with different types of formula (I don't know why, but we seem to get an exorbinant amout of soy formula). Also, other kinds of baby food would be nice once in a while.

CLOTHING:

• Used clothing is always good. It doesn't have to be trendy or expensive. But please, stained clothing and clothing with holes is really not needed. Women in crisis are not going to want to sit down with a needle and thread and mend clothes; nor are they going to want to walk around with stained clothing. And please, always wash the clothes before you donate them.
  
  
• Socks and underwear: always needed, rarely given. Now, used socks are okay (so long as they don't have holes in them). Used underwear -- think about it -- would you want to wear underwear that has been previously worn? EWWW! Also, if you are donating to a women's shelter, think about donating women's and children's underwear; we really don't need men's underwear.

TOYS:

• Stuffed animals can be okay, but please, they should be new. We really can't use someone's childhood boo-boo bear.
  
  
• Games are even better. Or play-dough. Or paint sets. Things that older children can actually use.

Most importantly, think about donating at other times of the year. We greatly appreciate the huge number of donations we get during the holidays. But by summer, it's slim-pickins.

UPDATE: Now that I'm here at work, there are a few other things I thought of, and figured I'd go ahead and them here, since I'm sure that most shelters around the country are also in need of similar types of products.

Things that we are always in desperate need of, but never (or rarely) seem to get them as donations:

• African-American hair care products (shampoo & conditioner made for A-A hair, straightening or curling products, etc.)
  
  
• Toiletries, such as tampons and pads, deoderant, toothpaste, toothbrushes
  
  
• Gift cards for grocery stores, Target/K-Mart/Wal-Mart, etc.
  
  
• Movie passes
  
  
• Passes for the zoo
  
  
• Bus tickets
  
  
• Cell phones (even without a service plan, they can be used to call 911)