Dibs on the Top Hat

Last week, the makers of Monopoly announced that they would be changing up the game pieces, replacing the iconic iron with a new, totally 2013 cat piece. The decision was left completely up to Facebook fans of the game who voted overwhelmingly voted for the cat over the other options – a robot, diamond ring, helicopter, and guitar.

Now, I am not a cat person. In fact, I am terrified of cats. There is a cat living in my apartment with whom I share a very estranged relationship – occassionaly, we will glance in each other’s direction, sometimes I will place a piece of chicken on the floor for her to eat if she meows at me really loudly while I’m cooking chicken, but we never share a couch and I lock my bedroom door at night so she can’t get  in because I have an irrational fear that she will steal my soul while I sleep. (Please, don’t judge.)

(not the actual cat from my apartment)

But lately I’ve been feeling like the internet WANTS me and every woman in the entire world to be a cat person. There’s no shortage of cat memes, from cats quoting Pablo Neruda to cats haz-ing things to really angry looking cats hating everything, and everyone is expected to love this. And ok, maybe I love an angry looking cat snarkily judging people from my computer screen but that cat doesn’t represent my life, right?

Or does it? The original Monopoly pieces were based on charms that would likely be found on a charm bracelet – representations of what life was like for the wearer. A wheelbarrow, a battleship, a racecar, a thimble, a boot, a scottie dog, a top hat, an iron… every day life in the 1940′s and 50′s, complete with gender expectations and dreams.

And those Monopoly piece options for today kind of sort of seem to represent every day live in 2013, huh? Robots because everything is run by computers now, a guitar because becoming a music sensation has become the new bootstrap myth, a helicopter and a diamond ring because we live in an increasingly consumer-driven society, and finally a cat because… the internet rules our lives?

Or is it because we had to replace that feminine token of an iron with another feminine token – the cat?

I know I’m overreacting. But sometimes its fun to overreact.

Meanwhile, I have dibs on the top hat. Don’t forget.

What’s your token of choice? If you had to create a Monopoly game piece for yourself, what would it be?

Girls v. Boys: Will the Boy Scouts ever be as awesome as the Girl Scouts?

Last year, I wrote about how much I loved being a Girl Scout (you can read about that here). It was such an awesome experience and now that I’m an adult, I love being able to look at the organization and support it’s message still. Empowering girls, teaching tolerance, and delicious cookies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After I wrote the article, I had a couple friends who were Boy Scouts saying the same things about their scouting days. For many of them, scouting was about empowering boys, teaching independence, and building friendships.

In fact, similar to my Girl Scout experience, sexuality was never discussed and exclusion was never an option. But for my Boy Scout friends, they can’t look at the organization as adults and be proud because the organization continues to support a shitty policy.

You see, in 2000, the Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts right to exclude members on the basis of sexual orientation in its Boy Scouts of America v. Dale decision . The court held that this right was found in the First Amendment, in the ability citizens have to engage in those rights that are protected under the First Amendment, like the right to associate

This freedom of expressive association also includes a freedom not to associate, as outlined in the Jaycees case in 1984. In the Jaycee’s case, the court outlines a whole bunch of requirements for protecting a group’s freedom to include/exclude persons but the main crux is that the group needs to engage in expressive association – basically, the group needs to have actual values that they’re furthering and control their membership based on those values.

In the Boy Scouts case, the court reaffirms this and lets the Boy Scouts choose to limit their membership to those who are furthering Boy Scout values. The Boy Scouts contended that, as a group, their official position was against homosexuality and that the purpose of the Boy Scouts was to “instill values in young people.” These values included the position against homosexuality. Accordingly, the court allowed the Boy Scouts to prohibit those who could not/would not further that position.

Recently, the Boy Scouts have come under fire for continuing to uphold this position. There have been multiple legal decisions furthering the rights of homosexuals, the mainstream media has embraced homosexuality as a sexuality and not as an aberration, and it seems like the Boy Scouts might soon be following suit.

On Monday, Deron Smith, a spokesperson for the Boy Scouts announced that after a two year investigation, the ban may be lifted noting that “[the decision] is a result of a longstanding dialogue within the scouting family. Last year, scouting realized the policy caused some volunteers and chartered organizations which oversee and deliver the program to act in conflict with their missions, principles, or ­religious beliefs.”

Sounds like progress to me.

What do you guys think of the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Boy Scouts to discriminate? What do you think of the Boy Scout’s hopefully progressive decision?

Wonky Wanking: Sperm Donors and Child Support in a DOMA State

Maybe one of my favorite things is when someone says “that sounds like a Liz case!” (or article, or poem, or whatever) because it’s really nice when someone thinks of me and also because they are usually awesome cases.

Actual Liz cases

Last week, two of the attorneys in my office joyously presented me with the following Liz case: 

At the beginning of January, the Department of Children and Families in Kansas sought child support payments from William Marotta for the three year old child he fathered through sperm donation. Through a private agreement with Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, a committed but unmarried couple, Marotta donated his sperm on three separate occasions. On the third attempt, Jennifer became pregnant and Jennifer and Angela raised their daughter as a couple without any involvement from Marotta.

In fact, before donating his sperm to Bauer and Schreiner, Marotta signed a Sperm Donor Contract relinquishing his parental rights to any child conceived through his donation. Though the contract purports to sever Marotta’s rights, it is unsigned by Jennifer, the biological mother, and is neither notarized nor witnessed. Based on these two facts alone, the contract is suspicious, but ultimately served its purpose for three years until the Kansas court stepped in.

You see, in 2010 Bauer and Schreiner separated, but maintained joint parental responsibilities for their child. When Bauer lost her job and was unable to provide health insurance coverage for the child, Schreiner sought health insurance through Medicaid. But before the Kansas Department of Children and Families would approve the application, they requested information about the father of the child and slapped Marotta with a lawsuit for child support payments. Bauer, the non-biological parent of Schreiner’s child attempted to step in and explain that she was the other parent, not Marotta, but the Department of Children and Families and the Kansas court wouldn’t listen.

In fact, the Kansas court is allowing the DCF’s petition for child support payments from Marotta, totaling over $6,000, to go forward.  Seems a little wonky, right?

It is. And there’s an explanation for this mess, but it’s a pretty crappy one. Here’s the deal: Kansas expressly prohibits same-sex marriage in its Constitution, so Bauer and Schreiner couldn’t get married. This means that any child born to the couple would not be presumed to be a child of both parties of the couple. (In most states, a child born to a married couple is presumed to be the child of both parties and parental rights are established through this presumption.)

In addition, Kansas has no existing legal avenues for second-parent adoption. Second-parent adoption is a fairly common process allowed in 23 states, whereby the second parent of the child would formally adopt the child with the consent of (or at the same time as) the custodial parent.

So, even though Bauer wanted to provide for and continue to parent the child born to Schreiner, she is kind of unable to under Kansas law. And even though she’s trying to tell the court she’s the other parent… it doesn’t matter, the DCF looks to Marotta for support.

Any state Department of Children and Families, not just Kansas, is going to exhaust all legal possibilities for providing support for a child before issuing any aid. And since Marotta is the biological father of the child and there’s a ton of legal precedent that says you can’t just contract away your parental responsibilities (off the top of my head, see In the Matter of Baby M but there is a plethora of case law to that effect in every state) his Sperm Donor Contract doesn’t work.

Bottom line? Kansas wants to ignore same-sex families and deny them a whole bunch of rights, so the court is unlikely to extend parental rights to a same-sex partner. This means that Marotta will probably be on the hook for child support even though he was never a parent to the child.

Nonsense.

What are your thoughts? Should the sperm donor be on the hook for child support payments? Should the Kansas court deem Bauer the second parent? Does this make you think twice about donating sperm or eggs?

Related articles

• State trying to make sperm donor pay child support (kansascity.com)

Resolution Remix

Happy 2013, lovers!

I hope everyone had a joyful New Year’s Eve and enjoyed some time of rest before jumping into the new year. As for me, I’ve been resting and recharging my batteries for the past few weeks, soaking up some intensely appreciated vacation time and cherishing just how rad my family and friends are. (Except for Bernice. Good riddance.)

Anyway, during this time of rest, I noticed that a whole hell of a lot of people are still doing that whole New Year’s Resolutions thing and telling the world (read: facebook) about their resolutions. Most of the resolutions I saw were things like “I’m going to get my butt to the gym in 2013!” or “Cutting out junk food for the new year!” and… I dunno… that just seems kind of uninspired to me.

So I’m proposing a new New Years Resolution tradition: Resolution Remix: 12 Good Deeds. Or something. I’ll come up with a prettier name later.

Here’s the deal with this brand new tradition – instead of resolving to do something to better yourself, resolve to do 12 little somethings (one a month) for other people.

Why? Because:

1.) Your old resolution is weak. You know as well as I do that you will stop eating junk food until February 13th when your special someone or your stalker gifts you a gorgeous box of Godiva chocolate.

2.) Your old resolution just helps you. And as much as people pretend to be excited that you’re going to lower your sodium intake, they really don’t care. They’re just thinking how to get rid of the chips and salsa they brought to your Super Bowl party.

3.) Doing something nice for other people feels WAY better than anything. Ever.

4.) A monthly self-acknowledgment of that one nice thing you did for something else will keep your spirits up throughout the year AND will probably confirm that you do a bunch of nice things for others.

5.) You’ll feel better about yourself in a way that no old resolution could make you feel. Because losing weight or quitting smoking or cutting out the cussing are great but telling yourself that you’re a good person… that’s a pretty great gift to give yourself.

So, folks, what do you think? Will you join me? Do you have an even more spectacular resolution? What is it?

Baby you can drive my car...

Reblogged from feministlawprof:

• 

My very first car was a Volvo. But before you send Muffy and Buffy over to play tennis, you should probably know that the car had the same date of birth as I did.

I lovingly plastered bumper stickers all over the back of that car that expressed my personality. I had a peace sign, an ACK sticker, and the Sublime sun.

Read more… 830 more words

A federal judge in North Carolina ruled Pro-Life license plates unconstitutional on Friday, holding that Pro-Life plates violate the First Amendment. But that's not the end of the argument. Check out my blog post from this summer explaining the issue.

Hugs for Everyone!

Hello lovers,

I just wanted to take a minute to say THANK YOU for all of your kind words, thoughtful responses, and for sharing your own stories with me. I was apprehensive when I Make it Rain was selected for Freshly Pressed – scared that the feedback would be overwhelmingly critical or that it would incite anger from parties on either side of the abortion debate.

I’ll admit, I was overwhelmed. But not by criticism or vitriolic messages – by all of your carefully crafted responses. Regardless of where people stand on the issue, everyone has made such thoughtful points and I am truly appreciative.

For those of you wondering, I have not had to filter out a single comment. Everyone who has taken the time to respond has been respectful. And that might be the very best part of this whole thing.

So, thank you for reading and subscribing. I’m excited to continue our awesome dialogue and can’t wait to hear more from you. Hugs for everyone!

 

Related articles

• I Make it Rain (Mostly on Abortion Access Non-Profits) (feministlawprof.wordpress.com)

I Make it Rain (Mostly on Abortion Access Non-Profits)

Thanks to Maya at Feministing, I now know that today is Giving Tuesday. Maya shared her reasons for giving to abortion access groups and inspired me to talk about why I give. So here goes…

I give because I can.

And I give to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the National Network of Abortion Funds because access to reproductive health care is a big fucking deal and too many women are losing that access because of systems of inequality in our lives.

If this is your first time reading the blog, I feel like I should give you the quick and dirty of my background.  I’m white, middle class, cisgendered, and educated – especially when it comes to issues of access to reproductive health care. In short, I get to carry a freakin’ Prada backpack of privilege around with me wherever I go.

A few months ago, me and my knapsack o’privilege made an appointment at the Planned Parenthood in downtown Boston for routine STI testing. In addition to being a vocal proponent of routine STI testing, I had just capped off a week of lecture on access to birth control and abortion in light of Supreme Court decisions and figured that I might as well practice what I preach.

On the Saturday in question, I bop over to the PP center, park my car, grab a coffee, and meander on down the street blithely oblivious to my surroundings. As I walk towards PP, I notice a bunch of people outside. I think to myself someone must be selling Girl Scout Cookies.

Seriously. This is my exact thought at this moment.

It wasn’t girl scout cookies. In fact, all of those people who I assumed were queuing up for cookies are pro-life protesters.

They have signs. They are yelling. Granted, they are not yelling at any particular person but they are still there.

I pause at the corner of the street and think about calling the police.

I pull out my phone to google “Massachusetts abortion clinic buffer zone”.

I frown at the protesters.

Two women in neon yellow vests are standing in front of the protesters. I walk towards them, they escort me in.

After I hand off my giant purse and jewelry to the security guard, I start to shake. I’m mad at myself for being hesitant. I’m mad at the protesters for breaking the 35 foot buffer zone law. I’m suddenly feeling very slut-shamed for even wanting to get tested. I start to worry whether anyone saw me walking into the center – do they think I need an abortion? I start to worry about my worrying about people thinking I’m having an abortion – what does that say about society’s view of abortion? About me and the way I let society influence my thoughts?

My artistic rendering of me and my thoughts.

I set off the metal detector with my giant watch.The security guard and I laugh.

The appointment itself is uneventful. I hand over my health insurance information which I’m lucky to be able to afford, speak with a doctor and nurse who look just like me, pocket all of the free condoms, and go on my way.

When I leave, the protesters are gone but all those feelings aren’t. I’m completely shaken by the experience and if I’m shaken, I can’t imagine what people who don’t have my shield of privilege must have felt like this morning.

How many women didn’t show up for their appointments because they were afraid the protesters would harm them? Or shame them? Or recognize them?

How many women left their appointments when asked for health insurance information because they didn’t have any? How many women didn’t bother to make an appointment because they knew they couldn’t afford the care?

How many women sat in the exam room unable to communicate with their doctor or nurse because they didn’t speak the same language? Or failed to share important information because of a cultural barrier?

I get it. Throwing money at a problem this vast, with so many intersecting issues, isn’t the whole answer, but it’s part of it.

So to help those who can work at coming up with answers, I donate.

To NARAL, so they can lobby Congress to support women’s right to choose.

To Planned Parenthood, so they can continue to provide a wide range of health services, including routine screenings for breast cancer and STI testing.

And to the National Network of Abortion Funds, so they can help fund abortions for women in need who cannot afford one.