Amos's River of Justice

Category: Reproductive Rights

It’s sad and shocking to realize that reproductive rights are even an issue. It is important to point out that those who want to deprive women of the right to control their own bodies are the rabble of the modern world. They include Supreme Court Justices who have been bought and paid for by ignorant children of wealth. The following is a paraphrase of a quote from the movie, The Man in the High Castle. This is what Rufus Sewell’s character, John Smith. said to himself In a flash of insight: “You could have been anything, but you chose to be this.”

  • Free Dorothy Lee Barnett

    February 22, 2014

    In this this article, I had two aims: to illustrate a principle about women and custody; and to help this woman avoid prison.  I’m still of the same mind, but I wish I hadn’t combined Barnett’s story with the source about battered women.  The source does describe what happens to women like Dorothy Lee Barnett in the courts, but it doesn’t fit Barnett’s case exactly, so I’ve deleted it. We shouldn’t demonize people who make mistakes. The culprits here are the court system and the judges, who should know better.   Family courts are influenced by the men who run Fatherhood Initiatives.  These men are also responsible.

    Dorothy Lee Barnett is awaiting trial for extradition to the United States. She is charged with kidnapping her own daughter from her estranged stockbroker ex-spouse. Almost two decades ago, her ex won sole custody, even though the child was only nine months old and still nursing at the time. She felt the child was in danger, so she took her out of the country. If extradited, she faces up to 23 years in prison. I just signed the petition “US Attorney Office in Columbia: Free Dorothy Lee Barnett – Mother of Savanna Todd” on Change.org.

    It’s important. Will you sign it too? Here’s the link:((http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/us-attorney-office-in-columbia-free-dorothy-lee-barnett-mother-of-savanna-todd))

    Updated, Feb. 20, 2014:

    Here’s the post of a signer of this petition, Bruce Michell of Australia:

    Dorothy Lee Barnett was let down by people within the system.  During her trial she was subjected to abuse and vilification, and the judge neglected, failed and refused to file his orders into court within the mandated 30 days and in fact did not file for 75 days.  During that period, and without the signed order, Lee was unable to appeal and was effectively locked out of the legal process which should be everyone’s right to access.  The evidence accepted by the judge upon which he wrote a scathing decision was in the main, based on the uncorroborated word of the father.  She was castigated as an untruthful person for denying that she had a mental disorder and all evidence supporting her and contradicting the father, was suppressed.  There is such a gulf between the evidence and the final order, coupled with the misconduct of the judge, that the influence of the father, his attorney and the Guardian ad Litem must be considered suspect and should be the subject of a proper investigation by the authorities.

    On the second visitation after the father had custody, whilst the judge had not filed the orders, the baby was injured whilst in the care of the father.  The injuries were consistent with those described by the father in his ‘autobiography’ during the hearing where he wrote that it was “OK to kick a baby in the face.”  Lee was extremely fearful for her baby given those circumstances, but could not appeal, given the lack of a signed order.  Lee waited another 6 weeks after this incident but still the judge refused to file the order.

    Locked out of the legal system, fearing for the safety of her baby she obeyed the fundamental law of humankind which was to flee to safety.

    These events are recorded in the chronology and the details are contained in the trial transcripts.  Lee was terrified of the power and influence of this man and remains that way today.  If he and his cohorts could influence a judge and subvert the judicial system, then the system of justice in South Carolina was corrupt and it is reasonable to question whether that power and influence still remains today.

    It seems that Barry Goldstein may have been too kind when he said the family courts were making mistakes.  It seems this judge was acting deliberately.  This is his own responsibility.

    Original Article:

    We recognize what Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote from a Birmingham jail as sound principle because it’s in our Declaration of Independence. “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…,”

    In King’s words:

    “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” ((Martin Luther King, Jr. Letter from a Birmingham Jail. April 16, 1963, African Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania.))

    Child custody law is broken, and American family courts are perpetuating injustice. Both mothers and their children suffer from this injustice, but it is the children who are in danger. Watch the video from the APN Newsdesk.((http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/mother-facing-years-jail-over-kidnapping-daughter/2153734/))

     

  • Reproductive Rights & Female Status

    The dialogue about women has not been flattering lately. Officially, it’s centered around reproductive rights, but in between the lines the brutal tactics convey something else. Most recently we’ve been confronted with callous hospital policy. One hospital risks a mother’s death from complications of pregnancy. The other keeps a dead woman on life support against her wishes. Supposedly the abortion debate is about protecting life, however these extreme cases represent a clear statement of low female status. How did it come to this?

    Status is the value of one person in relation to another. There is evidence that female status was high at one time. The belief in the gigantic size of the Amazons was probably based on a misunderstanding—they were depicted that way to indicate high status. By contrast, pictures of Hindu gods with their consorts, indicate low status for females.

    From Moor's Hindu Pantheon
    Vishnu & Lakshmi on Sesha or Ananta

    Unfortunately, because hospital policy is premised on the absolute equality of a woman’s life with the life of her fetus, women in the United States would have to be drawn no taller than a man’s ankle. This doesn’t seem consistent with our ideals, but we don’t realize what it means when the issue of status is built into the world’s three main religions. The Bible wastes no time in ranking the first two humans in relation to each other.

    We don’t know what factors were behind the high status of the Amazons. However, there is evidence in the custom of bride wealth that it had something to do with the female role in procreation. Defenders of patriarchy claim that this changed after the discovery of the male’s part in conception. However, that’s not supported by the evidence. In any case, the male part is minuscule compared to the female part, and this was recognized in the custom of bridewealth.

    The value of the female role in procreation can be framed in the form of a cost analysis. Costs to the female include physical hazards as well as the time required for each pregnancy—9 months, not counting 2 or more years of breast feeding. Costs to males are non-existent.

    Consider also what bridewealth says about the value of females to their families. Bridewealth was a form of compensation to the bride’s family, especially to her mother, for the loss of her companionship and help. it was also compensation to the bride’s parents for the loss of her offspring. If not for the payment of bridewealth, her children would keep their name and remain with them.

    It was not the discovery of the male role in procreation that began the loss of female status. It was a philosophical attack on the relative contribution of the female. We know that Aristotle asserted the superior contribution of the male in the creation of life, and much later, Aquinas concurred. They claimed the father was the active agent and that the man’s sperm and the physical motion of intercourse ‘organized’ the lifeless matter in the menstrual blood. Further, both Aristotle and Aquinas said the ‘sensitive soul’ was entirely produced by the male. The semen is an instrumental cause, while the soul of the male parent is the principal cause.

    Aquinas added to Aristotle’s scheme by saying that the human soul was directly created by God. Nevertheless, he didn’t alter the superiority of the male’s contribution over the female’s. Theologians in the Middle Ages thought the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks.

    Later, Thomas Fieinus (1567-1631) argued that the soul is present from conception. The development of the fetus consists of successively emergent functions attributable to a single original principle brought to life by the motion of intercourse. Following Fieinus, Paulo Zacchia (1584-1659) argued that the soul which organizes the development of the ‘conceptus’ is internal to it.

    Finally, an 1879 article, Aquinas on Human Ensoulment, Abortion and the Value of Life, argued that the principle of formative development is ‘immanent’

    With the development of embryology, you might think the female role would be vindicated, but that was never in the cards. On the contrary, the fetus is now said to be a separate individual whose right to life rivals the mother’s.

    But what about the physical costs of each pregnancy? They can’t explain that away, can they? You will recall that in Eve’s case, marriage was a punishment, and according to Christianity, there is no value attributed to the female for her role in procreation. At best, it might redeem her from her wretched state! The strange thing is that we see the practice of bride wealth, or rather bride service, in the Old Testament. Jacob worked 7 years for each of his wives. Jacob and Adam seem to represent two entirely different cultures.

    We can’t improve things for women if we don’t understand the problem. The female role in procreation was the basis of female status, but the protections and privileges associated with it have been systematically removed.

    The President is currently talking about higher wages for certain groups of people. This would be an improvement, but the lower wage paid to women is a special case. It is a conscious statement of lower status. On the other hand, if you think that your becoming a priest will improve the status of women, you don’t understand your own religion. And the abortion debate? It’s simply the effort to close the last loophole available to the world’s perennial subject class. In the process, its extreme nature masks the attack on female status. Those who are fighting Roe v. Wade may not realize how this draws women into the debate who would never consider an abortion for themselves.

  • Onan and the Patriarchal Agenda (Updated)

    If I had to name one issue that is central to any discussion about political reform, it would have to be women’s rights. It can be argued that women’s rights are synonymous with human rights, or that repression of women is the foundation of all repression. Every repressive regime the world over has developed a rationale for limiting the freedom of the female sex. Unfortunately, there are ongoing influences that make women’s rights seem like a peripheral issue. Systems of male rule are conjoined with religion and accepted as proper, inevitable, and even moral. And they are sustained by claims to great antiquity. Until the eighteenth century, educated classes in Europe and the United States believed that Abraham established the patriarchal order and that his posterity carried it forward until the time when it radiated from the temple of Solomon to the rest of the world. Although the originality of patriarchy has been disproved by archaeological and historical scholarship, the belief persists that patriarchy was the original form of social organization. This belief is still used in defense of female subjection.

    My suggestion for self-governing, matrilineal communities was based on a pre-patriarchal model of society. I am aware that such a revolutionary change is improbable. However, I think it would be a waste of time to talk about reform without confronting the ideas that have made reform necessary. I will use the matrilineal model to identify the principles that lead to strong families and communities. I will also call into question the dogmas that obscure these principles.

    We haven’t yet had the discussion of Christianity that it deserves. We’ve talked about its Hermeticism and about the ‘heretical’ teachings of some sects, like the Dispensationalists, but our purpose was to analyze their influence on current events. In this post I want to expand on another troubling tendency that I have already mentioned, the tendency to disguise unrelated ideas as the religion of Israel. An example of this practice is found in the Biblical story of Onan, the son of Judah. Onan married his sister-in-law Tamar, but instead of fathering a child with her, he practiced the withdrawal method of birth control, after which he was killed by Yahweh for spilling his seed on the ground. This story is especially relevant today because the Quiverfull movement, which is the vanguard religion of America’s pronatalist agenda, rejects any form of birth control including the withdrawal method, which they call Onanism.

    Onan is introduced in the account of Judah and Tamar, in Genesis 38: 1-30. Immediately after Joseph is sold into slavery, Judah leaves the family to go and live in the Canaanite lowlands to the West.

    At about that time, Judah parted from his brothers and put in with a certain Adullamite named Hirah.

    There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her.

    She conceived and bore a son, who was named Er.

    She conceived again and bore a son, whom she named Onan.

    Then she bore still another son, whom she named Shelah; they were at Chezib when she bore him.

    Judah got a wife for his first-born Er, and her name was Tamar.

    but Er, Judah’s first-born displeased Yahweh, and Yahweh took his life.

    Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law, and thus maintain your brother’s line.”

    But Onan, knowing that the seed would not count as his, let it go to waste on the ground every time that he cohabited with his brother’s widow, so as not to contribute offspring for his brother.

    What he did displeased Yahweh, and he took his life too.

    Whereupon Judah said to his daughter-in-law, “Stay as widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up” –for he feared that this one also might die like his brothers. So Tamar went to live in her father’s house.

    A long time afterward, Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua, died. When the period of sorrow was over, Judah went to Timnah for the shearing of his sheep, in the company of his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

    When Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah for the sheep-shearing,” she took off her widow’s garb, wrapped a veil about her to disguise herself, and sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the way to Timnah; for she saw that, although Shelah was grown up, she had not been given to him in marriage.

    When Judah saw her, he took her for a harlot, since she had covered her face.

    So he turned aside to her by the roadside, and said, “See now, let me lie with you” –not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law. She answered, “What will you pay me for lying with me?”

    He replied, “I will send you a kid from my flock.” but she answered, “you will have to leave a pledge until such time as you send it.”

    He asked, “What pledge shall I leave you?” She answered, “your seal-and-cord, and the staff you carry.” So he gave them to her, and lay with her, and she conceived by him.

    She left soon, took off her veil, and resumed her widow’s garb.

    Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite to redeem the pledge from the woman, but he could not find her.

    He inquired of the men of that place, “Where is the votary, the one by the Enaim road?” They answered, “there has never been here a votary!”

    So he went back to Judah and said to him, “I couldn’t find her. What is more, the townspeople told me, ‘there has never been here a votary.”

    And Judah replied, “Let her keep the things, or we shall become a laughingstock. I did my part in sending her the kid, but you never found her.”

    About three months later, Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; moreover, she is with child from harlotry.” “Bring her out,” Judah shouted, “and she shall be burned!”

    As they were taking her out, she sent word to her father-in-law, “It is by the man to whom these things belong that I am with child. Please verify,” she said, “to whom these things belong–the seal-and-cord and the staff!”

    Judah recognized them, and said, “she is more in the right than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Nor was he intimate with her again.

    There are several problems with this story, but the most obvious one would be the way in which Levirate marriage is portrayed. According to Yaffa Eliach, Levirate marriage simply didn’t work that way. The obligation to remarry belonged to the widow. This obligation was taken quite seriously and there were legal ramifications if it was breached. While the woman was obliged to remarry, her brother-in-law could release her from her obligation to him by providing a legal document relinquishing his claim. ((Eliach, Yaffa. There Once Was a World: A 900 Year Chronicle of the Shtetle of Eishyshok. Back Bay Books, 1999)) Yet, in this story we have Tamar mooning over Judah’s ‘seed’ as though she knows it represents a royal line, or as though these are the last men left on earth.

    It seems to me that if Levirate marriage obligated the widow rather than her brother-in-law this suggests a different dynamic than what we see in this story. It would make more sense if it were associated with the custom of matrilineal inheritance, and/or a payment made to the bride’s family by the groom. The Bible does not provide detailed information about Israelite custom in this matter, but according to Roland de Vaux, the mohar was a sum paid by the groom to the bride’s family, as compensation for the loss of their daughter. The bride’s father could use the profits from this payment, but the principal reverted to her at the time of ‘succession’ or her husband’s death. (This explains why Rachel and Leah complained in Genesis 31: 15 that their father ‘devoured’ their money after having ‘sold’ them. Apparently he used the principal of the mohar, rather than holding it in trust for his daughters.)

    The Palestinian Arabs of today have a similar custom, the makr, and part of it goes to the bride’s trousseau. In Babylonian law, the tirhatu was paid to the girl’s father, and was administered by him, but it reverted to her if she was widowed, or to her children after her death. In Assyria, the tirhani was given to the girl herself. There was a parallel in the Jewish colony of Elephantine, where the mohat was paid to the girl’s father, but was counted among her possessions.

    In Israel, parents might give their daughter gifts after her wedding, and these were considered her property. In Babylon, the father gave his daughter presents that belonged to her in her own right, but while she was married, her husband had the use of them. They reverted to her if she was widowed or divorced, without fault on her part. Assyrian law has similar provisions. ((de Vaux, Roland, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institution. John McHugh translation. William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co. Grand Rapids. 1997))

    You could argue that under such a system the groom’s family would have stood to lose their investment in the marriage if their son died prematurely. They would also lose any benefits that accrued from the bride’s property while the marriage lasted. Levirate marriage would protect this investment. This would explain why it was the man’s right to release the woman from this obligation and not the other way around. It also makes nonsense of Onan’s stated motive. He should have given Tamar a letter releasing her from her obligation.

    Of course, the story doesn’t attribute monetary concerns to Onan. It says he was reluctant to ‘raise seed to his brother.’ In my opinion, this presents its own difficulties. It seems to me that It implies either non-Hebrew religious beliefs or a non-Hebrew political organization. The following is my own speculation.  The belief that one could raise seed to a deceased brother is consistent with the belief in a fully functional afterlife. Unfortunately, the Hebrews didn’t have such a belief at that time.  But perhaps Onan’s reluctance was connected to a more worldly aspiration–to be the father of a dynasty. Maybe he resented the fact that the royal line would be attributed to his brother. Again, the Hebrews didn’t have kings in this period, not to mention dynastic succession.  On the contrary, the modes of inheritance mentioned above indicate a matrilineal system, although it takes a rare scholar to admit this. It is customary to call the inheritance a gift, but property belonged to the woman in her own right. It follows that any ‘seed’ would have belonged to Tamar’s line, regardless of who the father was, unless her father’s family had received bridewealth.

    According to the Anchor Bible, this episode is attributed to the Bible’s ‘J’ author, who had an interest in tracing the lineage of King David from the tribe of Judah. Unfortunately, the Judah of this story can’t be reconciled with the brother of Joseph. This Judah stays in Canaan long enough for his three sons to reach manhood, but when the story of Joseph resumes there has been no corresponding passage of time and Judah is still living with Jacob’s family. ((Genesis: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary by E.A. Speiser. Doubleday and Co. Garden City, NY. 1986))

    I conclude that the story of Onan is suspect. Perhaps it was never anything more than pro-patriarchy, pronatalist propaganda. After all, that is how it is used today. This isn’t the first time we have seen a ruling class agenda in the Bible and, as usual, it hinges on the subjection of women–especially of their reproductive potential.

    Recently, I found corroboration in Moor’s Hindu Pantheon for my theory that the story of Onan is an Indo-European idea.

    “To the four deities of purification, Maruta, Indra, Vrihaspati, and Agni, goes all the divine light, which the Veda had imparted, from the student who commits the foul sin avacirna.”–Ib. v. 122.

    According to this source, avacirna is a term for anyone who commits the sin of Onanism. Specific instructions must be followed in order to expiate this sin.

    “…sacrifice a black or a one-eyed ass, by way of a meat offering to Nirriti, patroness of the south-west, by night, in a place where four ways meet….Let him daily offer to her in fire the fat of that ass; and, at the close of the ceremony let him offer clarified butter, with the holy text Sem, and so forth, to Pavana, to Indra, to Vrihaspati, and to Agni, regent of wind, clouds, a planet, and fire.”–Ins. of Menu, Chap. XI. verses 119, 120.

    Israel has been held accountable for the imposition of patriarchy on the world, which is not surprising considering the effort that has gone into making it appear that way. However, the story of Onan is not evidence for a patriarchal system in Israel. It is only evidence that the ruling class has no shame.

    (I’ve edited this since it was first published.  The first version didn’t distinguish my arguments from the the cited material.  The custom of giving gifts to the bride’s family and the bride were described by Roland de Vaux.  The details about Levirate marriage were provided by Yaffa Eliach’s book.)

  • Nadya Suleman and the Dark Side of Reality

    Nadya Suleman’s story did not have to go in this direction. However, the headlines have chosen to paint a picture of Nadya Suleman and the Dark Side of Reality.

    In the last few years two diverse opinions were voiced. One was caring and the other was condemning. Condemnation has been the more constant presence in the headlines. They shout that her house is a mess; she spent $50 on a haircut; she pampers herself and neglects her children; she filed for bankruptcy; her bankruptcy was thrown out of court; she doesn’t really like babies; and her mother is fed up with her. These are only the opinions I’m familiar with and I haven’t really been paying attention.

    The Human Response

    The other sentiment is quiet by comparison. It is often found in the comments to online articles. People typically wonder how she’ll get by and whether someone can’t just give her a little help. This is a human response.

    The Headlines Are the Loudest Voices

    It seems to me the main goal of the headlines has been to deprive Suleman of the income that was beginning to come her way from donations. It wasn’t enough to demonize her, they demonized her doctor as well. Recently, the character assassination has really gained steam. For example, there is a petition online to boycott stores that make donations to her family. This is a direct threat to the family’s livelihood.

    The moment it was discovered that Nadya was single and had 14 children, which I admit is hard to defend, the attacks were venomous. In the view of her critics she suddenly became a gold digger who cared nothing for her children. It has come to the point where this woman is embarking on a pornography career.

    Do Her Critics Know Her Story?

    This problem began when Suleman’s inability to have children led to the breakup of her marriage. I can’t see anything in her story that would have predicted this treatment, except for perhaps her single state. Her mother and father are there for her and willing to help her. Even her ex-husband wants the best for her and worries about her.

    Compare the Duggars

    To gain perspective I want to compare another large family with the Sulemans, the family of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar. Their source of income in their early years was an auto body business, a used car company and a towing company. Then, according to various online sites, they went to Jim Sammon’s Financial Freedom seminar and learned how to live within their means. This enabled them to sell their businesses in 1990 and buy commercial real estate, which made it possible for them to live on rental income from their investments.

    Support from Christian Organizations and Homeschooling Conventions

    Rental payments were not their only source of income. During the same period they began traveling and earning money making speeches at Christian organizations and homeschooling conventions.

    A Political Career and a Reality Show

    Then, from 1999 to 2003 Jim Bob served in the Arkansas House of Representatives. Some websites claim the Duggars built their 7000 square foot house debt free. However, the house was finished by Discovery Networks. Its decorations and furnishings were given to them by Discovery Networks and other corporate sponsors. It is estimated that the Duggars make from $25,000 to $40,000 for each episode of their reality show.

    The commercial real estate market is volatile. It crashed in the late 80s, which probably led to bargain prices in the early 90s when the Duggars entered the market. However, there is no telling if it would have continued to provide sufficient income for such a large family in subsequent years. And rebuilding and selling cars is a living at best. It’s not the road to wealth.

    Suleman’s Education and Work Experience is Good Preparation for Motherhood

    Nadya Suleman graduated from High School in 1993 and worked as a psychiatric technician at Metropolitan State Hospital. In 2006 she earned a degree in childhood and adolescent development.

    After the birth of the octuplets Suleman was offered corporate donations but they dried up when the media coverage turned negative. Then Gloria Allred, who was supposed to be helping her, squashed her reality show prospects by publicly accusing her of using her babies to make money. I seem to remember that Allred volunteered her services; Suleman didn’t ask for her help. Allred seemed to base her indignation partly on her opinion of Suleman’s parenting skills. We weren’t given Allred’s parenting credentials.

    A Large Family Can Be Both a Boon and an Outrage

    By contrast, the Duggars are one of a number of families with a reality show, which they were given solely because of the number of children in their family. They have nineteen at last count. I suppose if the same mean streak were to find its way into their life someone could say Jim Bob is a freeloader. His wife had all the kids. Further, the Duggars not only use their kids to make money, they throw in Jesus for good measure.

    As for Suleman, apparently the pundits would rather she stayed on welfare, became a porn star and lost her house. While they proclaim concern for the children, their actions say to hell with them. I, for one, prefer not to witness the dissolution of Nadya Suleman. However, if it happens I’m sure it will make the headlines.

  • The Inhumanity of Patriarchy

    In the [intlink id=”904″ type=”post”]last post[/intlink] I talked about the controversial nature of the United States’ pro-natalist policies. Policymakers such as Phillip Longman have admitted that these policies will only be effective under the influence of patriarchal marriage. The implication is that patriarchal marriage eliminates a woman’s control of her own fertility. Patriarchal marriage is sexual coercion. In trying to address the hostility of recent events it has become clear to me that the attitudes about women demonstrated by David Albo, Darrell Issa, and Glenn Grothman, constitute common abuse. Abuse doesn’t deserve an explanation. However, it does have a purpose. The feelings experienced by victims of abuse include anger, sadness, depression, betrayal, hopelessness and helplessness. Victims tend to be distracted, they can’t think clearly, they have trouble sleeping. These feelings are useful to an abuser because they give him control over his victim.

    The tactics used by abusers include verbal abuse. Name calling–for example, calling someone a slut, a term applied only to women–is common. When a student was called a slut in the national news media it victimized everyone who heard it. Likewise, the denial of women’s rights by tyrants who use the occasion to act out their contempt, is emotional abuse. Finally, when someone with authority to make the law threatens women with involuntary vaginal penetration and then laughs about it on the evening news, that is an act of sexual aggression regardless of whether it ever becomes law. The fact that we have trouble seeing it that way reveals much about the nature of patriarchal society.

    Divide and conquer is a major tenet of patriarchal rule. The spouses of these legislators, among others, may feel they are exempt from hostility because they have been told they are morally superior to the unfortunate targets of the legislation. However, sexual morality is only part of it. According to the beliefs of Quiverfull, if a woman controls her own fertility she is somehow immoral. This belief is meant to influence married women. The fact that the policymakers don’t have large families is probably an indication of class division.  

    Contrary to patriarchal propaganda, victimization is not a natural part of human experience and like other humans on the planet, women resist subjection. However, public humiliation is a powerful method of control.  The perception that some of us are exempt is a dangerous delusion, if a very persistent one. The latest attack on reproductive rights should teach us that no one is immune, but perceptions are manipulated in powerful ways.

    The punch line of my life was given to me by a professor of humanities at Arizona State University. I assumed because of what I had seen in the national media that feminism had changed attitudes and earned respect for women, at least from men outside of my tradition.  So, I told this professor that I didn’t understand why the philosophers denigrate women, since they supposedly use logic to arrive at their opinions rather than religious dogma. I understand it better now, but this was in 1994.  Without hesitation he said, “They don’t want to be polluted by the world.”

    Like a fool I stayed and asked him another question. “Why are women treated so badly in Muslim countries?”

    He said, “Those governments know how to control their subject populations.”

    Apparently, governments that don’t execute women for minor offenses are failing to properly control their subject populations? More to the point, women are a subject population regardless of whether they are properly controlled. We should have known. When one human being serves another without compensation, and when cultural attitudes and customs and even the law make it difficult, if not impossible, for her to leave, that is bondage. The problem is, we don’t call it bondage. We call it patriarchy. We have seen that even single women are defined by patriarchal standards and subjected by the state.

    It is important to repeat that the subversive definition of reality often goes undetected and results in the loss of our humanity. For example, how many of us believed the things we were told about “Octomom”, Nadya Suleman? In retrospect, it seems this may have been a patriarchal hatchet job.  She is a poster-child for single motherhood. Recently it was reported that she has declared bankruptcy. In the accompanying picture of her family I imagined I could see in the faces of her children the effects of the harsh things said about their mother and the withdrawal of public affection and support. Ostracism is a vicious punishment but it is dished out to young mothers all the time. Children are an inevitable casualty of this treatment. They are a family in danger. They need help.  Hopefully they won’t get the kind of attention that the social workers offer.

    Another mother who needs support is the Texas women who was fired from her job for becoming pregnant before her marriage. [ref name=”Former Coach of the Year Fired from Christian School for Out of Wedlock Pregnancy”]Former Coach of the Year Fired from Christian School for Out of Wedlock Pregnancy. Yahoo! Sports. cited May 12, 2012. Available: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/former-coach-fired-christian-school-wedlock-pregnancy-145601399.html[/ref] Judging from the things I observed in my traditional ‘community’ she can expect shunning from her church congregation. She should also be made aware of the possibility of mistreatment when she gives birth.  This could be anything from cold indifference to physical and emotional torture. 

  • New America Foundation, Quiverfull and the Attack on Reproductive Rights

    On March 31, an opinion was published on the Yahoo Contributor’s Network concerning a Tennessee mother who had her son baptized without the permission of her estranged husband. in this man’s opinion she should go to jail. ((Poupard, Vincent L. Mother who baptized children without consent needs to go to jail. Yahoo Contributor Network. March 31, 2012. Cited April 6, 2012. Available: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/30/mother-faces-contempt-jail-for-baptizing-children/)) In light of the ongoing attacks on women’s rights, this suddenly seems like a real possibility. ((Indiana’s Judge Christopher B. Haile Inflicting Maternal Deprivation abuse. Fathers Winning Custody. March 6, 2009. cited April 6, 2012. Available: http://fatherswinningcustody.com/indianas-judge-christopher-b-haile-inflicting-maternal-deprivation-abuse/)) ((Armstrong, Ken and Maureen O’Hagan. Seattle Times Special Report: Twisted ethics of an expert witness. Indiana Mothers for Custodial Justice. June 26, 2011. Cited April 6, 2012. Available: http://imfcj.blogspot.com/))

    The political environment has become decidedly hostile to women, and current legislation only reinforces the trend. Rude remarks about female sexual morality have been a strange part of this entire process. I have already said these pieces of legislation represent [intlink id=”849″ type=”post”]the effort to own female reproductive potential[/intlink]. All things considered, it can be argued that the insulting rhetoric is calculated to obscure the real purpose. These things are typically associated with a natalist policy. Apparently, the government of the United States is attempting to increase the birthrate. Therefore, the ‘slut’ remarks are probably a smokescreen. A chaste population is the last thing they want to see.

    And the lawmakers continue their assault. Since November’s election in Mississippi, Republicans have been in charge of both chambers of the house and have used their position to target abortion. First, the “Heartbeat Bill” was introduced, which would have required doctors to look for a fetal heartbeat before performing an abortion. The detection of a heartbeat would make it illegal for the doctor to continue. Although this bill never made it out of committee, more recently a measure was proposed that will probably cause Mississippi’s only abortion clinic, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, to shut down. House Bill 1390 would require doctors working at abortion clinics to be Ob-Gyn certified and have admitting privileges to a local hospital. It has passed both houses and Republican Governor Phil Bryant is expected to sign it into law in a matter of days. ((Schmitt, Barbara A. Controversial Measure Would Essentially Shut Down Mississippi’s Only Abortion Clinic. ABC News. April 7 2012. Cited April 7, 2012. Available: http://abcnews.go.com/US/controversial-measure-essentially-shut-mississippis-abortion-clinic/story?id=16088001#.T4CKKe0SHzI))

    The Think Tank, the Church, and Public Policy

    New America Foundation

    In addition to the obvious concerns about women’s rights, there are at least two important directions for this conversation. First, the decision to increase the birthrate is controversial in itself. Second, the methods reveal much about the country’s current direction and those who lead the way. Apparently, a relatively small group of organizations and churches are at the helm, and for quite some time they have been arguing that a higher birthrate is good for the nation’s economic and political future. The New America Foundation is a key player in this effort and is part of a wider cooperative network. The New America Foundation is a ‘non-partisan, public policy institute’ founded by Ted Halstead in 1999. It is headquartered in Washington D.C. and also has a ‘presence’ in California. Phillip Longman is a demographer and a Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow at the Foundation. Longman claims to be a political centrist, however he is influenced by Rick and Jan Hess, promoters of the Quiverfull Movement. Longman has also endorsed Allan Carlson’s views as put forth in his pro-Quiverfull treatise, “The Natural Family: a Manifesto”. Quiverfull is not centrist. Its political persuasion is conservative evangelical. Allan Carlson is a paleoconservative.

    Quiverfull

    The name ‘Quiverfull’ is taken from Psalm 127: “Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.” Quiverfull parents often have more than six children; they are home-schoolers, members of fundamentalist churches, and believers in male headship and female submissiveness. The movement began with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess’s 1989 book, A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ. In this book the Hesses argue that God is the “Great Physician” and sole “Birth Controller”. Therefore, a woman’s attempt to control her own body is a seizure of divine power. The movement’s core ideas can be tied to conservative Protestant critiques of contraception. Many conservatives believe that when mainline Protestant churches accepted birth control in the 1950s they opened the way for the sexual revolution. Yet, the feminists don’t escape blame–in this view, feminism is a religion that is incompatible with Christianity.

    Population is a big concern for Quiverfull believers; the recent decline in the birthrate of some European countries inspires great fear, and the world’s political turmoil is said to be a consequence of this tendency. Some beliefs will sound familiar to anyone following the current presidential campaigns. They say the pill is an abortifacient and so they support pharmacists who refuse to distribute birth control on moral grounds. Of course, they extend this right of refusal to corporate entities such as insurers.

    Phillip Longman

    In 2006 Longman’s article “The Return of Patriarchy” was published in the March issue of Foreign Policy, a publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Longman predicted that falling birthrates throughout advanced societies will lead to financial, political, social and demographic decline and argued that the return of patriarchy is essential to the recovery of higher birthrates and reproduction. He claimed that the cause of falling birthrates is often the loss of social cohesion and he held the feminists and members of the counter-cultural movement of the sixties and seventies to blame for the childless segment of the population. People naturally avoid the costs of parenthood, he said, and the only reason the human race has not gone extinct before now is, patriarchy. Longman was quoted in an interview published in the Christian Post:

    Patriarchal societies come in many varieties and evolve through different stages, he explains. What they have in common are customs and attitudes that collectively serve to maximize fertility and parental investment in the next generation.

    A culture of patriarchy directs men to their responsibilities as husbands and fathers. Men who fail in these responsibilities are seen as inferior to those who are both faithful and effective. Furthermore, a patriarchal structure holds men accountable for the care, protection, discipline, and nurture of children. In such a society, irresponsibility in the tasks of parenthood is seen as a fundamental threat to civilization itself.”

    (He) quotes feminist economist Nancy Folbre, who observed: “Patriarchal control over women tends to increase their specialization in reproductive labor, with important consequences for both the quantity and the quality of their investments in the next generation.” As Longman explains, “Those consequences arguably include: more children receiving more attention from their mothers, who, having few other ways of finding meaning in their lives, become more skilled at keeping their children safe and healthy.” ((Mohler, R. Albert, Jr. Fatherhood and the Future of Civilization. The Christian Post: Opinion. June 13, 2008. cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://www.christianpost.com/news/fatherhood-and-the-future-of-civilization-32799/))

    It seems clear that these ideas provide motive for the laws that restrict birth control and ‘encourage’ marriage. The headline on the cover of that issue of Foreign Policy was “Why Men Rule – and Conservatives Will Inherit the Earth”.

    The Policy Making Network

    As Wikipedia’s ‘Patriarchy’ discussion evolved in 2009, biological determinism was a major argument of the pro-patriarchy editors. At the time I assumed that they represented a minority faction. The individuals and organizations promoting natalism seem to be the missing link.

    Allan C. Carlson

    Allan C. Carlson is president of the Howard Center, a director of the family in America Studies Center, the International Secretary of the World Congress of Families and editor of the Family in America newsletter. He is also former president of the Rockford Institute, where he was a member since 1981. He believes that the post-World War II baby boom in the United States was a Catholic phenomenon, a “heroic” flowering of Catholic family life in America, and he has criticized the impact of feminism on women’s roles in society as disastrous for the family. ((Wikipedia: Allan C. Carlson. cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_C._Carlson))

    The Rockford Institute was founded by Rockford College president John A. Howard in response to the social changes of the 1960s. Allan Carlson was president until 1997 when he and Howard left to form the Howard Center for Family Religion and Society. In 1989, the Lutheran pastor, Richard John Neuhaus and his Religion and Society center were evicted from the Rockford Institute’s New York office after he complained about what he said were racist and anti-semitic tones in the Institute’s Chronicles magazine. Other leading conservatives supported this charge but it was denied by the Institute. Neuhaus’s eviction was interpreted as a division in the conservative movement between paleoconservatives and neoconservatives. ((Wikipedia: Rockford Institute. Cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockford_Institute))

    Richard John Neuhaus

    As a pastor in the 1960s Neuhaus addressed civil rights and social justice and spoke against the Vietnam War. He was active in liberal politics until Roe v. Wade was handed down. Then he became part of the neoconservative movement. He became a Roman Catholic priest in 1990 and was an unofficial advisor of President George W. Bush. In later years he likened the pro-life movement to the Civil Rights struggle. ((Wikipedia: Richard John Neuhaus. Cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_John_Neuhaus))

    The New Biological Determinism

    Allan Carlson, true to his paleoconservative views, uses [intlink id=”6″ type=”post”]sociobiology in the development of policy[/intlink]. ((Wikipedia: Paleoconservatism. cited April 5, 2012. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism)) The argument provided by sociobiology goes something like this: Because women are biologically different from men, they have different roles. A woman’s place is in the home. A woman’s most important role is the bearing of children. We have seen that in Longman’s view, patriarchy provides the necessary assurance for this type of social arrangement.

    In Christopher Wolfe’s “The family, civil society, and the state” Carlson argues that while several American political factions uphold family values, they do not have the same definition of family. The type of family structure that Carlson promotes is ‘rooted in human nature: in our genetic inheritance; in our instincts; in our hormones’. He disagrees with those who say the family is changing into new forms better suited to modern life, and claims that the only free cultural choice is between monogamy and polygamy.

    “The so-called ‘changes’ we observe in family living are either deterioration from a natural order, or restoration toward that order: decay or renewal. Holy scripture affirms these truths, and so do the modern sciences of sociology and psychology, sociobiology and paleoanthropology.”

    Religion, History and Dubious Science: the Politics of Birth Control

    Again, this definition of the problem depends on a very selective history. Longman and his fellow pro-natalists insist that everything was fine until the 1960s. This has allowed the pro-natalists to pose as allies of the Libertarians and to blame the feminists and counter-culture movement for any supposed population decline. No one mentions that by the sixties the writings of Thomas Malthus had been widely accepted. Malthus argued for a low birthrate as a response to a limited food supply and a fragile environment. The part played by feminists in this debate differs from the paleoconservatives’ version of it. The people who were fighting for birth control, like Margaret Sanger, were virtually alone in supporting people’s right to have as many children as they wanted.

    The Catholic hierarchy’s position in the birth control debate was resistance to the idea of people having sex without becoming pregnant. Church leaders also worried that if women controlled their own bodies they would be less likely to obey their husbands and the Church. Communists opposed Malthusianism for their own reasons, but were willing to change their population policies depending on the needs of the state. The government of the Soviet Union was the first to provide birth control and abortion, but in the face of war with Germany they banned birth control and paid women to have large families.

    The definition of the problem provided by Longman, Carlson and Quiverfull is criticized for another reason as well. In an essay by Matthew Connelly, author of “Fatal Misconception: the struggle to control world population”, it is argued that predictions about population are a poor guide for policy making. Although the predictions may not come true, they will probably lead to terrifying reactions.

    For most of recorded history population growth has been seen as proof of prosperity and also a measure of sound laws and good government. Based on the birthrate in his time, Teddy Roosevelt was certain America was committing race suicide. As a result, political and religious authorities worked together to deny access to contraception and keep abortion unsafe and illegal. (See link to page 2 below footnotes.)

  • Fatherhood Initiatives and Grothman’s Senate Bill 507

    Senate Bill 507 introduced by Wisconsin Republican Senator Glenn Grothman is the last in a series of outrageous attacks on the rights of women, and it signals a clear trend. Senate Bill 507 moves to amend existing state law by “requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize (non-marital) parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.” In addition, Grothman thinks that the food stamp program makes single motherhood more attractive to women than marriage, so he would like to restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped, limit applicants’ value of assets owned to $2000, and eliminate school choice.

    These attempts to legislate a repressive agenda are shocking, but such tactics have historical precedents. John Locke, for example, thought it was only right that women should have no property rights. He thought it would ensure their cooperation. In other words, it would make them unable to survive outside of a patriarchal marriage. This effort has at its core the determination to own female reproductive potential, but since this is a well-kept secret it is usually called something else, even among the liberal media. For example, some have attributed the latest tactics to a ‘fear of women’s sexuality’. But it is being called by other names as well. I recently read an article on an ACLU page where a professional black woman complained that she was treated disrespectfully at her OBGYN’s office. She insisted it was racism. I would wager that a few million white women could prove her wrong, if they cared to. But if women possess such a valuable resource, bad behavior on the part of doctors and legislators seems to make no sense. In the next few posts I will attempt to make sense of this. The discussion will begin with a look at the implications of Grothman’s bill for Wisconsin.

    Some have observed that the Republicans’ woman-baiting can only help Obama in the coming election. But aside from a secret pact to help Obama, is there anything else that could make elected representatives act in ways that are contrary to the interests of their constituents? Lobbies would probably be at the top of the list.

    Already many onerous pieces of legislation have been enacted at the state and local level. Both David Albo’s trans-vaginal sonograms idea in Virginia and Glenn Grothman’s Senate Bill 507 in Wisconsin were proposed to state legislatures. It turns out that fatherhood organizations are active in both states and these organizations have an active and energetic lobby. Although Wisconsin has strict laws against politicians benefiting personally from lobbyists’ gifts, their presence provides an important piece of the puzzle–a source of funding.

    One question that arises in light of Grothman’s proposal has to do with the potential of an increased work load for social workers in Wisconsin. Social workers are traditionally over-worked and under-paid, and yet this bill would force them to red-flag families who have no history of problems. In other words, even if families don’t require intervention, this law would require Wisconsin’s social services to add them to their work load. Therefore, Grothman can’t be serious, right? On the contrary, there seems to be a good chance that this bill will become law.

    On October 7, 2011, the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel reported that “Milwaukee County will receive up to $5.4 million over three years, through a federal grant program aimed at boosting marriage rates, reducing the number of unwed births and helping men find jobs. The county’s award through the Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood program, announced Friday by County Executive Chris Abele, will be disbursed through a variety of community groups. The county will hire the Center for Self-Sufficiency, a Milwaukee-based nonprofit, to help evaluate local program proposals. The fatherhood initiative is expected to help about 2,000 families a year.” ((Schultze, Steve. “County to Receive $5.4 Million for Fatherhood Initiative”. March 11, 2012. Available: http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/131333099.html October 7, 2011)) Note that this is a federal grant program.

    Maybe it is just a coincidence, but there are several pages of job openings with Wisconsin social services. ((indeed.com. March 11, 2012. Available: http://www.indeed.com/q-Social-Worker-l-Wisconsin-jobs.html))

    On June 21, 2010, Obama announced a new fatherhood and families fund at an event in Washington D.C. He said it was part of a ‘nationwide fatherhood initiative’. The fund is titled, the Fatherhood, Marriage and Innovation Fund and will “scale up effective fatherhood and family strengthening programs across the country.” It is part of a White House effort to bolster fatherhood, part of which is run by its faith-based initiatives office. ((Fabian, Jordan. “Obama Announces Fatherhood Initiative”. The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room. March 11. 2012. Available: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/104421-obama-announces-fatherhood-initiative-))

    On the same day the Washington Post reported Obama’s intention to ask Congress to move on his $500 million budget request for a Fatherhood, Marriage and Families Innovation Fund, which would give grants to nonprofits that support fathers and families, including job training programs and economic incentives for dads. (my emphasis) According to Obama, economic support for fathers is nothing new, but the marriage building efforts were previously ‘undernourished’. This article ends with a quote from the president.

    “Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a stepfather, a grandfather, or caring guardian.”

    Note that in this list he includes: a father and mother (father listed first), a single father, and two fathers, but he does not mention a single mother.

    Also in the Washington Post article, Roland Warren, President of the National Fatherhood Initiative, praised Obama’s leadership. Warren’s organization was founded in 1994 and recently contracted with the federal government to produce public service announcements promoting fatherhood.((Washington Post, Post Politics. March 11, 2012. Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062100006.html))

    Maybe the Republicans will manage to drive voters to Obama after all. Apparently, they are on the same team. Unfortunately, we have seen that one aim of fatherhood organizations is to help fathers wage persistent court battles that eventually deny mothers guardianship of their children. They have been successful the majority of the time, even when the fathers have a history of abuse. ((Wilson, Trish. “How Can a Good Enough Mother Protect Herself”.©1996 March 11, 2012. Available: http://abatteredmother.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/mothers-under-siege-tactics-of-the-fathers-rights-movement-how-can-a-good-enough-mother-protect-herself/))

error: Content is protected !!