Our Marriage Ended. Our Family Did Not.

IMG_9278.PNG
Children do not divorce their parents. This is a typical example of how most people who co-parent have to deal with real life after divorce. An excert from this article: http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/parenting/2014/11/23/our-marriage-ended-our-family-did-not/?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1&referrer

Divorcing felt like a death that deserved mourning. Yet we had no choice but to continue raising a child together in the aftermath. There was no space, no real distance, no time away for us to recover separately. We needed to heal, but our baby needed to be cared for; our most important job was to protect him from feeling our family’s collapse.

…………..

One weekend that winter, he called me to say that our boy had come down with the flu and was asking for me. I didn’t remind him that we weren’t on speaking terms but instead hung up and raced the 12 blocks between our homes.

When I arrived, our baby’s fever was high, his energy low. He was miserable and wanted nothing more than to be held. His father rocked him while he whimpered, soothing him with shushing. I quietly watched from the doorway as he softly stroked the little bald spot on the back of our son’s head. This was why I had chosen to have a child with this man. It was no longer important what kind of husband he’d been; that part was now past. As a father he was exactly the partner I needed: patient, present, committed in every way.

I took our son from his arms and gave my husband a break. Without speaking, I ran a lavender bath and warmed up a bottle. We spent the remainder of the weekend working as a team while we silently nursed our child back to health. Being together was no longer about us.

Later that night I softly sang as our son fell asleep between us. It was strange to feel equally heartbroken and happy. My husband reached out and put his hand on mine.

“Thank you for coming over,” he whispered.

“Thank you for letting me,” I whispered back.

Just because our marriage was broken didn’t mean that our family had to be.

Read the entire piece HERE

Family Law Is Broken, Let’s Fix It

An excerpt from this article: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6419862

I, like so many of my legal colleagues, are fed up. And you guessed it, we’re not going to take it anymore. I’ll explain how we’re turning this frustration into action in a moment. But first, let me explain to those who have not experienced the divorce industry why divorce must change:

1) Misaligned incentives (or at least the appearance of them). Most family law attorneys are honest, well-intentioned professionals. But this does not change the fact that the more conflict, questions and paperwork they generate the more money they make. Let me be clear: I don’t believe most attorneys are intentionally inflating bills. But even the appearance of such a situation hurts the chances of a peaceful solution. Let’s stop litigating emotion. It only leads to disappointed clients, drained savings accounts, and, even worse, kids who end up caught in the middle.

2) “Traditional” solutions in an untraditional world. According to Pew Research, less than half of kids live in a “traditional” family. Yet in many places, laws, courts and societal norms only provide “traditional” answers no matter how complex the puzzle. You can’t really blame the court system, it’s built to serve the masses. Divorcing couples — even if working with an attorney — must take ownership of their divorce and what their family’s unique situation requires.

3) Asymmetrical information. Most families entering the divorce process have no idea what they’re getting into. The courts do. Attorneys do. But since most of those who divorce will only divorce once, they have little understanding of how the process really works let alone how to shop for professional help. And since accurate data on the cost of divorce, settlement rates, etc. is normally not collected (for one reason, see #4) and certainly not conveniently available, it is nearly impossible to be an informed consumer when it comes to divorce.

4) Underfunded family courts. Most family law courts are drowning in red tape, unfunded mandates and over-flowing caseloads. Despite the rising costs inherent in points #1-3 above, funding simply has not kept up. The number of complicated cases continues to grow, but the resources to serve them do not.

5) We still think divorce is a legal issue. And to a degree, of course, it is. But is that what causes us the pain? Is it the legally-required paperwork that prevents people from having a calm, peaceful and thoughtful divorce? Nope. It’s usually the emotional issues — driven by Puppy Brain — that wreaks havoc on our lives, our finances and our relationships. Until we change this mindset that divorce equals law (and therefore lawyers, big legal bills, fighting, courtrooms, and so on), we don’t have a chance to change how divorce is done.

This list is nowhere near comprehensive. There are so many more issues. So many, in fact, that a feature-length documentary, Divorce Corp., was produced to catalog them. Even if we disagree on the finer points or causes, nearly everyone who interfaces with the family law system understands it’s not working.

So what are we going to do about it?

Read more HERE

Rewatching ‘The Wire’: Classic Crime Drama Seems Written For Today

The Wire. The best show I’ve ever seen…

IMG_9270.JPG

Like many devoted fans, I jumped on the release of newly reconfigured, high-definition versions of HBO’s classic cop series The Wire, binge-watching much of the show’s five seasons on the HBO GO streaming service over the holidays.

And what I discovered — along with the sharper visuals — was the immediacy of the show’s themes. Every episode felt as if it had been written last week, despite the fact that it debuted more than a dozen years ago and finished its run in 2008. Nowhere is that prescience on better display than the ways The Wire talks about race, culture and class.

Series creator David Simon’s potent stew of on-point television offered a knowing take on the decay eating at Baltimore, and by extension, many American cities. The show highlighted the overly aggressive policing of poor black communities, the way drug-dealing became the only viable business in too many neighborhoods, the stigmatization of the poverty-stricken and the ways that middle-class black people often fell short in attempts to help African-Americans stuck in the underclass.

In fact, I’d argue The Wire has a greater resonance today than when it was originally broadcast, because so many of its messages about urban failure, policing and race have become a depressing reality.

Here are some examples of scenes that speak to issues we’re

……..

At a time when both incarceration rates and income inequality are reaching staggering levels, that seems to be yet another prediction Simon and The Wire nailed many years ago. Throughout the series, young people are taunted by career criminals, police and each other about the futility of pursuing education and legitimate work.

Simon has said often that The Wire is, in part, about the failure of institutions and the mediocrity of bureaucracy, even in the drug trade. But it’s also about how those failures work along fissures of race and class.

As books like The New Jim Crow and documentaries like The House I Live In argue that the war on drugs has become a war on the poor and the non-white, the case for The Wire’s view of an America hobbled by the desire for order at any cost — especially if that cost mostly falls on poor black and brown people — seems seriously prescient.

Read the entire piece HERE

What Is a Woman? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism.

An excerpt from this article in The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2

As transgender rights gain acceptance, radical-feminist views have been shunned. CREDIT ILLUSTRATION BY ALEX WILLIAMSON.

As transgender rights gain acceptance, radical-feminist views have been shunned.
CREDIT ILLUSTRATION BY ALEX WILLIAMSON.

On May 24th, a few dozen people gathered in a conference room at the Central Library, a century-old Georgian Revival building in downtown Portland, Oregon, for an event called Radfems Respond. The conference had been convened by a group that wanted to defend two positions that have made radical feminism anathema to much of the left. First, the organizers hoped to refute charges that the desire to ban prostitution implies hostility toward prostitutes. Then they were going to try to explain why, at a time when transgender rights are ascendant, radical feminists insist on regarding transgender women as men, who should not be allowed to use women’s facilities, such as public rest rooms, or to participate in events organized exclusively for women.

The dispute began more than forty years ago, at the height of the second-wave feminist movement. In one early skirmish, in 1973, the West Coast Lesbian Conference, in Los Angeles, furiously split over a scheduled performance by the folksinger Beth Elliott, who is what was then called a transsexual. Robin Morgan, the keynote speaker, said:

I will not call a male “she”; thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the title “woman”; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he dares to think he understands our pain? No, in our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.

Such views are shared by few feminists now, but they still have a foothold among some self-described radical feminists, who have found themselves in an acrimonious battle with trans people and their allies. Trans women say that they are women because they feel female—that, as some put it, they have women’s brains in men’s bodies. Radical feminists reject the notion of a “female brain.” They believe that if women think and act differently from men it’s because society forces them to, requiring them to be sexually attractive, nurturing, and deferential. In the words of Lierre Keith, a speaker at Radfems Respond, femininity is “ritualized submission.”

In this view, gender is less an identity than a caste position. Anyone born a man retains male privilege in society; even if he chooses to live as a woman—and accept a correspondingly subordinate social position—the fact that he has a choice means that he can never understand what being a woman is really like. By extension, when trans women demand to be accepted as women they are simply exercising another form of male entitlement. All this enrages trans women and their allies, who point to the discrimination that trans people endure; although radical feminism is far from achieving all its goals, women have won far more formal equality than trans people have. In most states, it’s legal to fire someone for being transgender, and transgender people can’t serve in the military. A recent survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force found overwhelming levels of anti-trans violence and persecution. Forty-one per cent of respondents said that they had attempted suicide.

Yet, at the same time, the trans-rights movement is growing in power and cachet: a recent Time cover featuring the actress Laverne Cox was headlined “THE TRANSGENDER TIPPING POINT.” The very word “transgender,” which first came into wide use in the nineteen-nineties, encompasses far more people than the term “transsexual” did. It includes not just the small number of people who seek gender-reassignment surgery—according to frequently cited estimates, about one in thirty thousand men and one in a hundred thousand women—but also those who take hormones, or who simply identify with the opposite gender, or, in some cases, with both or with neither. (According to the National Center survey, most trans women have taken female hormones, but only about a quarter of them have had genital surgery.) The elasticity of the term “transgender” has forced a rethinking of what sex and gender mean; at least in progressive circles, what’s determinative isn’t people’s chromosomes or their genitals or the way that they were brought up but how they see themselves.

Having rejected this supposition, radical feminists now find themselves in a position that few would have imagined when the conflict began: shunned as reactionaries on the wrong side of a sexual-rights issue. It is, to them, a baffling political inversion.

Read the rest HERE

The great campus rape hoax

An excerpt from this article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/12/14/campus-rape-uva-crisis-rolling-stone-politics-column/20397277/

Americans have been living through an enormously sensationalized college rape hoax, but as the evidence accumulates it’s becoming clear that the entire thing was just a bunch of media hype and political opportunism.

No, I’m not talking about the Rolling Stone’s lurid and now-exploded fraternity gang-rape story. Whatever the truth behind that story, it’s now clear that basically nothing that Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely told us happened, actually happened. But the hoax is much bigger than one overwrought and perhaps entirely fictional tale of campus goings-on.

For months we’ve been told that there’s a burgeoning “epidemic” of rape on college campuses, that the system for dealing with campus rape is “broken” and that we need new federal legislation (of course!) to deal with this disaster. Before the Rolling Stone story imploded, Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., were citing the Virginia gang rape as evidence of the problem, but now that the story has been exposed as bogus, they’re telling us that, regardless of that isolated incident, there’s still a huge campus rape problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

And that’s the real college rape hoax. Because the truth is that there’s no epidemic outbreak of college rape. In fact, rape on college campuses is — like rape everywhere else in America — plummeting in frequency. And that 1-in-5 college rape number you keep hearing in the press? It’s thoroughly bogus, too. (Even the authors of that study say that “We don’t think one in five is a nationally representative statistic,” because it sampled only two schools.)

Sen, Gillibrand also says that “women are at a greater risk of sexual assault as soon as they step onto a college campus.”

The truth — and, since she’s a politician, maybe that shouldn’t be such a surprise — is exactly the opposite. According to the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of rape and sexual assault is lower for college students (at 6.1 per 1,000) than for non-students (7.6 per 1,000). (Note: not 1 in 5). What’s more, between 1997 and 2013, rape against women dropped by about 50%, in keeping with a more general drop in violent crime nationally.

Upshot: Women on campus aren’t at more risk for sexual assault, and their risk is nothing like the bogus 1-in-5 statistic bandied about by politicians and activists. So why is this non-crisis getting so much press?

It’s getting press because it suits the interests of those pushing the story. For Gillibrand and McCaskill, it’s a woman-related story that helps boost their status as female senators. It ties in with the “war on women” theme that Democrats have been boosting since 2012, and will presumably roll out once again in 2016 in support of Hillary Clinton, or perhaps Elizabeth Warren. And University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan hasn’t apologized for her action in suspending all fraternities (and sororities) on the basis of a bogus story in Rolling Stone. Nor has she apologized for the mob mentality on campus that saw arrests, vandalism and protests at a fraternity house based, again, on a single bogus report. Instead, she’s doubling down on the narrative.

This kind of hysteria may be ugly, but for campus activists and bureaucrats it’s a source of power: If there’s a “campus rape crisis,” that means that we need new rules, bigger budgets, and expanded power and self-importance for all involved, with the added advantage of letting you call your political opponents (or anyone who threatens funding) “pro rape.” If we focus on the truth, however — rapidly declining rape rates already, without any particular “crisis” programs in place — then voters, taxpayers, and university trustees will probably decide to invest resources elsewhere. So for politicians and activists, a phony crisis beats no crisis.

Read the rest HERE