Russia–In this Russian Pepsi Light ad, the man is a jerk, and the sexy lady outsmarts him and leaves him dumbfounded and gawking.
Nothing new or outlandish here, but it’s a little annoying to see that American advertising agencies’ bad habit of portraying men poorly is being exported even to Russia.
To watch, click here.
Scottsdale, AZ–Last year I discussed the Cynthia Joyce Tureman case in this blog post. According to Police: Arizona Woman Drowned Her Newborn to Hide Pregnancy From Husband (Associated Press, 5/2/07):
“A Scottsdale mother accused of holding her newborn under water until the girl stopped moving says she didn’t know she was pregnant until just before giving birth, according to court records. “A police report filed in Maricopa County Superior Court shows that Cynthia Joyce Tureman, 28, told Scottsdale police she was trying to hide her pregnancy from her husband, who had a vasectomy five years ago. “The report says Tureman wrapped the baby in a plastic bag, stowed it in the trunk of her car and took her other three children with her to drop the newborn in a trash bin at a gas station. “Tureman told Scottsdale police that she gave birth in a bathtub filled with a foot of water in the master
bathroom of her Scottsdale home, according to the report. “Tureman was booked Friday on suspicion of first-degree murder. She was jailed without bond in a Maricopa County detention center.”
At the time I wrote:
Guess who’s about to be accused of being a wife-beater? Cynthia Joyce Tureman’s husband, that’s who. This is the story we get now. When we get closer to her trial the story will be more like this: “A desperate Scottsdale mother trapped in an abusive relationship was compelled to kill her baby in order to hide the child from the rage of her abuser. Cynthia Joyce Tureman, a battered mother, had fallen in love with another man and was trying to leave her abusive husband when she became pregnant by the other man.” Tureman will also probably get the standard kid gloves treatment the criminal justice system reserves for women.
A reader who says she knows all of the people involved in the case wrote in and says:
There is no excuse for what she did. My question is why hasn’t this case gone to court yet and why is she out on bail and having access to her children. She thinks she was the victim here but she forgets about all of the lives her chosen actions have destroyed forever. And let’s not forget about the one life that will never be. The girl is strange, to say the least, as many people who know her can testify. Her family is backing her 100%–wonder where she gets the craziness? I just want to know why they are dragging their feet on this–it was murder, she confessed, and they have evidence. Why does it keep getting put off? It’s not complicated. Oh, by the way, her husband was not abusive. She is totally passive aggressive and quite the martyr, as will no doubt come out in court–if they ever choose to prosecute.
Interesting perspective. To learn more about the kid gloves treatment women often receive from the criminal justice system, see my co-authored columns Scott Peterson in a Space Suit (Philadelphia Daily News, 2/26/07) and Suppose Roles Had Been Reversed in Clara Harris Case (Houston Chronicle, 1/27/07) and my blog posts Lisa Nowak, Clara Harris, Terry Barton, and an Incredible Omission and When a Woman Commits a Crime Against a Man, Make Excuses for Her and Undercharge Her.
Los Angeles, CA
Coshocton, MI–In 2004, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox sponsored a billboard contest wherein children would draw designs critical of noncustodial fathers who have allegedly not paid child support. Cox said the contest “encourages parent involvement in discussing the issue and assisting in crafting the message and visual representation…that clearly conveys the message of encouraging the payment of child support.”
I worked with other fatherhood activists in a campaign against this billboard contest. I explained:
In this campaign, custodial mothers are encouraged to coach their children to make designs critical of noncustodial parents behind on child support. And it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out which noncustodial father many mothers will be encouraging their children to criticize.
In fact, many divorce decrees specifically instruct parents not to denigrate or badmouth the other parent in the presence of the children. It is very inappropriate for the top law enforcement official in the state of Michigan to hold a contest which encourages parents to do this.
In the face of the protests, Cox, to his credit, canceled the contest. To learn more, see our campaign page here.
I was reminded of the Michigan events when I saw the recent article Coloring contest raises support awareness (Coshocton Tribune, 7/18/08). According to the article, “August is Child Support Awareness Month. The Coshocton County Child Support Enforcement Agency is sponsoring a Drawing & Coloring Contest as part of its 2008 awareness campaign.”
At first glance, I thought the contest would be similar to Cox’s billboards, or would at least utilize children as part of the effort to collect child support. I was wrong, and I am happy to be wrong.
The contest actually seems to have something to do with genuine child support, meaning the love and guidance mothers and fathers give their children. In the contest, children are urged to draw a picture of various ways parents and children spend time together, including reading together, doing school work, chores, hobbies, athletic events, family outings, etc.
I’m still not thrilled about child support enforcement involving children in any way, but the Coshocton County Child Support Enforcement Agency should be given some credit for making an effort to do something positive.
The full flyer for the contest can be seen here.
Santa Clara, CA–From Misconduct charges for 3 prosecutors (California Bar Journal, July 2008):
Santa Clara County deputy district attorney Benjamin T. Field currently is on trial, facing 22 counts of misconduct in four matters…Half the charges against Field resulted from his actions in an appeal filed by Damon Auguste, one of two men Field prosecuted in 1998 for sexual assault on a 15-year-old girl. Auguste was sentenced to prison for eight years, eight months but later filed a habeas petition based on a claim that Field did not disclose exculpatory evidence.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Emerson overturned the conviction in 2004 based on prosecutorial misconduct; he said Field did not disclose DNA lab notes and new evidence indicated false testimony affected the outcome of the case. Auguste was freed and the charges were reduced to a misdemeanor.
With his petition, Auguste filed a declaration by Stephen Smith, a boyfriend of the victim, whom Smith claimed had fabricated the rape because she stayed out past curfew and feared she”d be caught by her parents.
Although prosecutors are prohibited from obtaining search warrants to defend against habeas proceedings, Field — in an effort to locate Smith — obtained six search warrants and had three sealed. Emerson testified in the bar court that he had ordered Field, during a meeting in his chambers, not to obtain any search warrants without his permission. Field did not apply to Emerson for any of the warrants.
He located and interviewed Smith, who confirmed that the victim had fabricated her allegations of sexual assault. Despite Field”s obligation to disclose that information, the bar charges that he committed acts of moral turpitude by withholding the information from Auguste. He also gave the court the impression that he had not located Smith, the bar charges.
Also testifying early in the trial was Sandra Coke, an investigator for the defense, who said that she lost touch with Smith after initially interviewing him in 2002. She said she spent months in a fruitless search for Smith in 2003 and was surprised to learn Field had already interviewed him. Field”s attorney, Allen Ruby, suggested that Coke and Auguste”s attorney knew Smith”s whereabouts at the time of a key hearing.
I wonder how many other men are sitting in prison in similar situations but didn’t have the money or friends or luck to get the help they needed.
The full article can be seen here. Thanks to Michael Robinson for sending it.
Australia–Looks like child support enforcement in Australia will soon be gearing up to go after lesbian noncustodial mothers. Soon some Aussie lesbian NCPs will have the joy of paying money to finance mothers who prevent them from seeing their kids, move their kids far away, or poison their minds against them.
Good luck, ladies–I’m sure you’ll enjoy this as much as guys have…
From ‘Give lesbian mothers child support’ (Australian Associated Press, 7/22/08):
The Federal Government should amend laws to ensure the children of lesbian couples get proper financial support when their parents’ relationship breaks down, the New South Wales Government says.
The State Government is lobbying Canberra to amend the Family Law Act so lesbian mothers can access child support payments.
NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos said the change would complement the Federal Government’s efforts to change commonwealth laws that discriminate against same sex couples.
It would also complement NSW law changes, which gave equal rights to children of lesbian couples conceived by artificial insemination, he said today.
“Now that NSW has taken steps to establish the parenting presumptions of mothers in same sex de facto relationships, it makes sense to have a system whereby children are protected if the couple splits,” Mr Hatzistergos said.
“Under current provisions of … the Family Law Act, co-mothers are not recognised as a legal parent in child related proceedings in the Family Court.
“It is important that we work together to ensure legal recognition is provided to all families, that the interests of all children have economic security regardless of family make-up.”
Hartford, CT–One of the worst injustices modern fathers face is false allegations of molestation used by mothers as part of custody battles. Courts usually “err on the side of caution,” and falsely accused fathers usually must fight a long, hard battle in order to clear themselves and get back into their children’s lives. Mothers who make these allegations are playing a game they rarely lose — if they can make the false allegation stick, they win child custody. If they can’t, they still usually keep child custody or at worst have joint custody.
That’s why it was gratifying to see the story below, where the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that a mother must pay her child’s father $3.5 million in damages for falsely accusing him of sexually abusing their daughter. The couple had joint custody of the five-year-old-girl when the mother made the allegations.
I do want to criticize the father’s comments below on one point. The father seems to be convinced that part of the reason why the allegations ruined his life is race. He is an immigrant from India, and he believes the American courts sided with the mother because she is white.
While I have no doubt that people from India suffer racism in the United States, I think the father is wrong on this one. All other factors being equal, white fathers generally get treated just as badly in these false allegations cases as nonwhite fathers. As I once said in a speech I made at a father’s rights rally here in Los Angeles, “Family Court is one place where race doesn’t matter — white, black, Latino, Asian, it makes no difference — fathers of all races are treated like second-class citizens.” The mother did not receive preferential treatment because she is white as much as she received preferential treatment because she is the mother.
From Supreme Court: Mother must pay ex-fiancé $3.5m for sex abuse claim (www.indianewengland.com, 7/16/08):
The Connecticut Supreme Court has upheld a superior court”s decision that a mother must pay her ex-fiancé $3.5 million in damages for allegedly falsely accusing him of sexually abusing their daughter. But the girl”s mother says she still believes her former lover is the guilty one.
In the June 24 decision, the court affirmed that Marlene Debek must pay Ajai Bhatia $3,544,500 in damages, including $2.5 million for emotional distress, loss of reputation and humiliation; $500,000 for loss of income; $540,000 for attorney”s fees; and $4,500 for his bail bond premium.
The case goes back to 2001, when Bhatia and Marlene Debek had joint custody of their daughter, who was then 5 years old. In October of that year, Debek reported to a supervisor at a mental health center for children that her daughter had told her that her father “held her shirt and touched her … for a long time,’ according to court documents. But following the trial, Bhatia was acquitted of sexual assault in the first degree.
Bhatia said that he has suffered extensive damages as a result of the accusations, and has since filed a lawsuit against Debek, accusing her of maliciously inventing her claims.
Bhatia gave up custody of his daughter. He lost his $100,000-per-year job and his $1.7 million home and had to make money by holding unskilled jobs such as shoveling snow. He also said that his father and brother in India were impoverished because they sent him money for his six attorneys in the United States.
In a telephone interview with an INDIA New England reporter, Bhatia, who emphasized that he is an American citizen, said that he was angry at what “white people’ have done to him.
“White people get away with garbage,’ he said. “Indian people didn”t do this to me, white people did this to me. They destroyed my life.’
Bhatia also accused Debek of bribing his daughter by promising her trips to Disneyland if she told the court that her father abused her. He said that he feels she should go to jail because — he says — she lied under oath.
“She should be basically jailed, but yet she didn”t [go to jail] because white people protect one another,’ he said.
Read the full article here.
Los Angeles, CA–
“Basically throwing me out on the street.” Yup. Getting $750,000, as agreed in their prenup, is being “thrown out into the street.”
You remember Tricia Walsh-Smith–according to the AP, she vilified husband Philip Smith in a “furious YouTube video, which has attracted more than 3 million hits. She makes embarrassing claims about their intimate life and then calls his office to repeat those claims to a stunned assistant.
“On the video, Walsh-Smith also goes through their wedding album, describing family members as ‘bad,’ ‘evil’ or ‘nasty,’ and expresses concern about eviction from the couple’s luxury apartment.”
Her routine was so over-the-top that the judge actually sided with the husband, criticizing Walsh-Smith for “a calculated and callous campaign to embarrass and humiliate her husband” in order to extort more money out of him than was in the prenup.
They were married in 1999 and, luckily for Smith, they had no children. If they had, I’m sure by now Smith would be a “child molester,” a “wife-beater,” and a bunch of other things.
Read the full Associated Press story here. The two are pictured.
London, England–A perhaps unlikely source has struck a blow against a female-only workplace benefit. In a major speech last week, Nicola Brewer, Chief Executive of the UK”s new Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the three-fold expansion of paid maternity leave in the UK over the last decade has “entrenched the stereotype’ of women as the primary caretaker of children. And that, she explained, has led to increased discrimination against mothers by employers, whether intentional or not.
The employers” bias is not because the workers in question are women – it”s because employers” self-interest is to prefer workers whose focus is solely their job, not their family. And because of the mom-as-primary-caregiver stereotype, women get the brunt of this. This is just as true in the US – just think of the stereotypical technology professional: young, unmarried and childless, who can work countless overtime hours with neither spouse nor child to interfere with the needs of the enterprise.
So, employers are less likely to hire, less likely to promote, and less likely to offer in-house training to women seen to be on the “baby track.’ And, because the best jobs aren”t friendly to families, recent mothers themselves choose lesser positions upon returning to work. Out of necessity, they value “flexible’ work schedules over compensation and long-term advancement.
In light of this, Brewer actually took a stab at the feminist notion of a male-female gender gap, stating, “Women and men are not being paid different rates for the same job – they are taking different jobs after they have children.’
Brewer”s solution is for men to, “take a bigger role in parenting.’ Her implication is if men and women ultimately took parenting leave equally, the gender effect would disappear. But the UK only recently began offering 2 weeks” paternity leave, paid at 117 pounds (approximately $245) per week. Brewer pointed out that only 20% of British men even take advantage of the provision. Yet, rather than bash the dads, Brewer again pointed back to the mom-as-primary-caregiver stereotype.
Much to our amazement, Brewer quoted US “post-feminist’ pundit and author Kathleen Parker, from Parker”s book Save the Males, “We regard the contribution of fathers as optional seasoning, as though children are little casseroles, especially tasty with a pinch of Dad, but guests will hardly notice if you leave him out.’
Making sure no one missed her point about the workplace, Brewer said, “The economic penalty for fatherhood is too high,’ and – debunking notions of irresponsible fathers – she said, “most men feel acute pressure to increase their household income (…) in fact, their working hours and pay rise.’
And what does the employer see, as a result of the new dad”s increased productivity? A male worker more “dedicated’ to the job. Thus, we get a “self-fulfilling prophecy’: gender bias: bias perpetuated by “pro-woman’ parenting stereotypes and by female-only “benefits.’
On a local note, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) recently announced it will apply the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act (MMLA) to both women and men. MCAD does not directly set policy – that”s the legislature”s job – but judges discrimination complaints. The Commission indicated it will hear applications from men alleging denial of maternity leave.
Interestingly, the Commission came to this decision because of Massachusetts” relatively recent legalization of same-sex marriage. Explained MCAD Commissioner Martin Ebel, “If two women are married and adopt a child, then they are both entitled to leave under the [MMLA], and yet if two men are married and adopt a child, they would be entitled to no leave under a strict reading of the statute.’ (…) “That result was troubling to us, and we didn”t think it was in keeping with our mandate by statute, which is to eliminate, eradicate and prevent discrimination in Massachusetts.’
Regardless of what motivated Ebel and the Commission to come to their decision, the potential effect could benefit far more heterosexual fathers than anyone else.
Our hats off to Nicola Brewer and Martin Ebel for their all-too-rare intellectual honesty.
Boston, MA–A shared parenting bill, supported by Fathers & Families and more than 40 legislators, has been stuck in committee for months. Within a few days, the legislative session will be over and this bill will wait to be filed again this fall. This is no surprise.
Over the past couple weeks, members of Fathers & Families and other advocates for kids, shared parenting and fathers have been attending Governor Deval Patrick”s series of “Town Meetings’ across the state, asking the Governor to do more to get the bill “unstuck’ in the Legislature. The Governor has–when pressed at these meetings and other forums–stated his support “in principle’ for a legal presumption of shared parenting. But he has remained completely passive, putting the onus on the legislature.
We also note that each of these “Town Meetings’ has typically been attended by at least five local legislators. Surely they are not deaf.
What caught our attention this week is what the state legislature did see fit to act on in their waning days: The House passed bills that would ban pet-rental companies, and protect women who breast-feed in public.
Let”s be perfectly clear: we”re not against pets. Our kids love them. And, the medical evidence on the benefits of breast-feeding is clear. But surely, isn”t the right of kids to both parents as important – dare we say more important – given the societal impact?
In the case of the pet-rental bill, it was filed largely in response to one company – “Flex Petz’ that has yet to open a Massachusetts branch. According to the bill”s sponsor, “It”s a kind of business model that fosters disposable pets.’
What kind of civics lesson is this for kids? Disposable pets are a no-no. How about “disposable dads’?