31.10.08

Take Back the Halloween!

From Racialicious. Check it out for pictures, links, comments and the rest of the article.

Mainstream North American culture likes to define itself as cultureless, but Halloween is a very cultural practice. Not only is it a little weird (Just look at it from the point of view of an outsider. Send your kids out to strangers’ houses and tell them to ask for candy? Decorate your house like a graveyard? Dress up like a sexy version of a public health worker?) it is also based on difference - the point of Halloween is to dress up as “something different.” So how do people who are often made to feel visually different - you know, like people of colour - experience Halloween? The average Halloween costume tells us a lot about what we culturally consider to be abnormal.

It tells us that dressing up in an overtly sexy way is taboo - in other words, that we’re a pretty sex-negative people. It tells us that we are obsessed with strict gender categories - because most little boys and girls have to choose very gender-coded costumes, but also because for many young people Halloween is the one time they can experiment with gender in a socially sanctioned way.

And if dressing up as “something different” can typically involve wearing geisha make-up, a Native headdress, bling, or a turban, Halloween tells us that our cultural norm is a middle-class, North American, white person.

30.10.08

The US Constitution-Free Zone

The American Civil Liberties Union http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifsays that border patrol has created a "constitution-free zone" over much of the United States. US Customs and Border Protection considers all land within a hundred miles of a border to be an extension of the border – and an extension of their powers. Tanya Snyder has more.


Listen to Free Speech Radio's 4 minute news segment.

ACLU highlights 'Constitution-Free Zone' 100 miles from border.

27.10.08

Restoration

It's like the pitter-patter of rain, the sound of their small feet rhythmically tapping, patting, stamping the ground, stirring up dirt in their enthusiastic rush to greet you and follow you around – a soothing, rustling, living sound. They follow you excitedly, flapping their wings, fluffing their feathers, craning their necks the better to behold you.

If you stop, they stop too and, with them, the sound. They surround you in expectant silence, their befeathered selves all aflutter with curiosity and excitement, billowing around you like a cloud – a radiant cloud of waking minds, throbbing hearts, hankering souls, living memories, passionately lived lives – riveting you at the center of their focused attention, lifted on almost tiptoes by the sheer force of their fascination with this new, rich feast of scents, sounds, shapes, colors, textures, thoughts, rhythms, and inner weather that you are to them.

It's hard to believe that these vibrant birds, crackling with life and wonder, are the same "free-range" hens who arrived at the sanctuary one year ago, bruised, battered, bewildered, disconnected from the world around them and from their own selves, unable or unwilling to inhabit their own lives (what was there to inhabit?).


Read the rest.

26.10.08

An Intersectional, Reproductive Justice Feminist Response to LaBruzzo's Sterilization Plan . . .

For those who are not aware, on Tuesday, September 23rd, Rep. LaBruzzo of Metarie, Louisiana (a suburb of New Orleans) made the statement that, so that Louisiana wouldn't be in an economic crisis, he's looking to propose a bill to "voluntarily" sterilize the number of people he feels are dependent on the government as a way to decrease the state burden.



The Women's Health & Justice Initiative[1] and the New Orleans Women's Health Clinic[2] condemn Representative John LaBruzzo's recent legislative plans to pay poor women to get sterilized and reward rich, educated people to have children. The sterilization policy currently being advocated by Representative LaBruzzo is a blatant form of reproductive violence and population control policies of blame and disenfranchisement, rooted in this country's long and continual history of eugenics. The legislation and criminalization of black and poor women's bodies, sexuality, fertility, and motherhood are being used as regulatory tools for economic and ideological justification for eugenics. If Mr. LaBruzzo is really concerned about ending poverty and reducing social burdens on the state, he would not be advocating punitive social polices that restrict women's reproductive autonomy, but instead would be focusing his attention on ending corporate welfare and holding the corporate giants of Wall Street accountable for the disastrous state of the country's economy. Stigmatizing and blaming the bodies and reproductive capabilities of black and poor women, and other marginalized communities, as the cause of poverty, mask Representative LaBruzzo's unwillingness to fully examine the complex structural causes of poverty and inequality in our society. Reproductive violence and sterilization abuse at the hands of elected officials should be challenged and condemned. Women receiving public assistance and housing subsidies have RIGHT to have or not have children, as well as the RIGHT to parent the children they do have and control their birthing options[3] without punitive racial discrimination and economic exploitation policies designed to denied their RIGHT to exist and achieve full protection of their human rights. All women, regardless of their race, sexuality, ability, household size, economic, housing, and citizenship status, have the right to live whole healthy lives free of control, violence, regulation, and coercive social policies designed to exploit their economic vulnerability for sterilization and contraception abuse.


Social justice organizations, activists, organizers, and advocates are encouraged to use the following as talking points challenging Representative John LaBruzzo's eugenic agenda.


Eugenics, Reproductive Violence, Population Control, and Sterilization Abuse



The sterilization policy currently being advocated by Representative John LaBruzzo is a blatant form of reproductive violence and population control policies of blame and disenfranchisement, rooted in this country's long and continual history of eugenics.

These reproductive modification tactics of Representative LaBruzzo are reminiscent, if not the same, of eugenics policies of the early twentieth century to forcibly sterilize thousands of people thought to be socially undesirable to procreate, particularly immigrants, the poor, people of color, people incarcerated, people with disabilities, and those with mental illnesses.

Eugenicists, like LaBruzzo, opposed social programs designed to improve the living conditions of the poor, arguing that adequate medical care, better working conditions, and minimum wages all harmed society because those measures enabled people with inferior heredity to live longer and produce more children[4]. These sentiments are directly related to LaBruzzo's statements that "mainstream strategies for attacking poverty, such as education reform and family planning program have failed to solve the problem," yet he wants to create incentives for college-educated, higher income people to have more children.

The measures Representative LaBruzzo are currently proposing is an example of controlled consent. There's nothing voluntary about using monetary incentives to exploit women's economic vulnerability.

The reproductive autonomy of women of color and poor women should not be compromised to support Representative LaBruzzo's eugenic policy to sterilize, blame, disenfranchise, and restrict the rights of women to control and care for their bodies, reproduction, and sexuality.

Mandating sterilization as a condition or punishment for receiving public assistance and housing subsidies is racist, sexist, and politically idiotic!

It is disturbing that reproductive modification policies and practices that disempower women because of their family size and economic status can receive such widespread support. It truly shows that eugenics lies at the heart of LaBruzzo's plans.

This is a direct reflection of the reproductive violence and sterilization abuse that women of color and poor women continue to face at the hands of the state.


Criminalization of Black Women's Sexuality, Fertility, & Motherhood



Policies that promote the control and criminalization of black motherhood have no place in our society.

As a result of punitive welfare reforms instituted during the Clinton Administration in the mid 1990s, the attacks and criminalization of women of color and poor women's reproduction and sexuality has continued unabated despite the fact that TANF/FITAP assistance has been steadily decreasing over the past decade in Louisiana.

Mr. LaBruzzo is reinforcing racial and gender stereotypes by using the bodies of poor black women and other vulnerable communities as a scapegoat to bolster his political career to win the hearts and minds of a conservative base that continues to restrict women's reproductive rights.

Mr. LaBruzzo and his conservative base advocate abstinence-only sex education in schools that don't work. Their refusal to support resources needed for comprehensive preventative reproductive health services, including abortion and safe birth control methods, makes it clear that they have no concern for poor women's economic health and well-being. Rather, their interest is in the control and criminalization of poor women's reproduction and motherhood.


Economic Myths - Falsehoods LaBruzzo's idea is based on



What he's basically proposing is an economic stimulus plan attacking poor black women. So, if you're a woman, poor, and black, get in line- you're about to be sterilized!

The aggressive promotion of sterilization as a condition and punishment for receiving public assistance, and the use of coercive social policies that threaten women's health and well-being like those currently being advocated by LaBruzzo have nothing to do with eradicating poverty in our society.

According to LaBruzzo, the solution to ending poverty in our society is to control and regulate the fertility and sexuality of black women – not the creation of comprehensive programs to improve health care access, our education system, housing affordability, and employment opportunities in the state. His plan pathologizes the reproductive capabilities of Black and poor women by proposing legislation to exploit the economic vulnerability of those who are socially stereotyped as burdens on the state.

Even if sterilization is voluntary, POVERTY IS NOT! Poverty, economic insecurity, and lack of sustainable livelihood can cause a woman to consider this aggressive sterilization incentive a viable option.

LaBruzzo talks about poverty as though it were an infectious disease—a though poor people will eventually make everyone poor—rather than a condition people are condemned to by Louisiana's lack of investment in education, employment, affordable housing, and quality health care programs, services, and resources.

LaBruzzo uses a myth of scarcity to argue that if economic resources are shared with everyone, no one will have enough. The reality is that if the lion's share of our economic resources stopped being used for unnecessary military spending and corporate welfare, such as the Wall Street bailout, then all our communities would have access to the resources and opportunities they need to survive and thrive!

Despite the reality of who's on welfare and the total number of families receiving FITAP benefits in Louisiana, welfare assistance is socially and politically associated with Black mothers who are, unfortunately, already negatively stereotyped in mainstream media as "lazy," "irresponsible," "overly fertile," and "welfare queens." Because of these stereotypes, LaBruzzo has been able to gain support for his aggressive eugenic sterilization initiative using monetary incentives.

The exploitation and regulation of Black women's bodies and our reproductive capabilities to solve the social problems of poverty and the financial instability of the county's economy through legislation designed to sterilize poor and working class women of color is a barbaric attempt on the part of Representative John LaBruzzo to increase his popularly among conservatives, and to create a distraction from the real problems associated with the country's current economic crisis.


Economic Realities – What really creates the conditions LaBruzzo is "concerned" about



When we let the numbers of people who are on welfare speak for themselves, it becomes clear that this is not about welfare at all – it's about politicians like LaBruzzo who are committed to controlling the reproduction of communities of color and poor people by attacking the bodies and reproductive decisions of Black and poor women.

We are basically witnessing a two front war against poor and working class black communities right now. On one hand, we have the Bush administration fighting to push an economic corporate welfare bailout plan to save Wall Street, and on the other, we have an elected official blaming the bodies and reproductive decisions of poor black women for the social conditions caused by corporate greed.

Advocating for the sterilization of poor black women, and publicly demonizing their motherhood under the cloak of reducing the number of people on welfare, masks the complex causes of poverty and inequality that permeate our society. If Mr. LaBruzzo is really serious about addressing the problems plaguing our communities right now, he would be focusing his attention on creating legislation to end corporate greed, end the War in Iraq, holding corporations accountable for the toxins that they continue to put into the environment, funding our failing education system, providing people the health care they need now, and supporting affordable housing initiatives in the city.

The current punitive welfare policies Representative LaBruzzo is considering will render women of color, poor women, and women with disabilities vulnerable to sterilization and contraceptive abuse because of racial and class assumptions that their fertility is out of control. In reality, the average number of children women on welfare have in the state of Louisiana is two – but the image of the over-breeding "welfare queen" is fixed in the minds of many Americans, including Representative LaBruzzo.

Over the past decade, the number of women receiving welfare assistance in the state of Louisiana has been decreasing. In the past three years, we have seen a 74.24 percent drop in women receiving welfare. According to the Louisiana Department of Social Services, families receiving assistance through the Louisiana Families Independence Temporary Assistance Program (FITAP) was down from 5764 recipients in July 2005 to 1485 as of July 2008.

This is a sexist, racist, and elitist attempt to distract the public from those who are really creating social burdens on society – the corporate welfare giants of Wall Street, the war in Iraq, the over production of unnecessary commodities that negatively impact our environment, and the wasteful spending of public resources on programs--such as abstinence only sex education in schools-- that don't work!

The low-income women of color LaBruzzo feels so comfortable scapegoating for Louisiana's economic conditions are those who support Louisiana's economy by doing its low-wage work. When LaBruzzo goes to his office, these women clean it; when he goes to a restaurant, they wash the dishes; and when he stays at a hotel, they turn down his sheets. Rather than this mean-spirited attack, he should call for an increase in the minimum wage that would make it feasible for poor women to survive economically.


What We Need - Strategies & Social Programs for Moving Forward


Instead of mandating punitive measures to modify and pathologize poor women's reproductive decisions, we need legislation to increase women's access to high quality, non-coercive, voluntary reproductive health services and information including access to safe birth control, comprehensive sexual health education, and abortion services that are unbiased, age-appropriate and culturally competent.

The misguided priorities of legislator's like Mr. LaBruzzo to create monetary incentives for poor women to become sterilized fails to acknowledge how our state should be funding initiatives that support preventative health care programs and social services that work to strengthen and build the health of our communities, not blame them for reflecting the social problems of this country.

All women, regardless of their race, sexuality, ability, household size, economic, housing, and citizen status, have the right to live whole healthy lives free of control, violence, regulation, and coercive social policies designed to exploit their economic vulnerability for sterilization and contraception abuse at the hands of elected officials.

All women, regardless of their race, sexuality, ability, household size, economic, housing, and citizen status, have the right to live whole healthy lives free of control, violence, regulation, and coercive social policies designed to exploit their economic vulnerability for sterilization and contraception abuse at the hands of elected officials.

We need legislators who are committed to supporting responsible, accessible, and affordable public services and resources such as safe and quality health care, schools, childcare resources, non-punitive reproductive health services, affordable housing, family treatment programs, mental health services, and non-discriminatory employment opportunities.





[1] The New Orleans Women's Health & Justice Initiative is a multi-dimensional community-based organizing project centered on (1) improving low income and uninsured women of color access to quality, affordable, and safe health care services; and (2) organizing women for sexual health and reproductive justice through community-based strategies to equip those most disenfranchised by the medical industry with the means to control and care for their own bodies, sexuality, and reproduction. WHJI is a local affiliate of INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence – a national activist organization of radical feminists of color advancing a movement to end violence against women of color and our communities through direct action, critical dialogue and grassroots organizing.

[2] The New Orleans Women's Health Clinic (NOWHC) is a grassroots community-based non-profit women's health clinic – operated by a radical, women of color-led, feminist health collective. The mission of the New Orleans Women's Health Clinic is to equip marginalized and underserved women with the means to control and care for their own bodies, sexuality, reproduction, health through a holistic, community-centered well women approach to health care which integrates sexual health and reproductive justice. NOWHC is a local affiliate of INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence.

24.10.08

On An Inconvenient Truth.

"If everybody in the Unites States did everything that Al Gore... suggested in that movie [An Inconvenient Truth -ed.], then that would reduce emissions by about 21%. The consensus these days is that for further disaster to be averted, emissions need to be reduced by 80%"- Derrick Jensen

21.10.08

FINALLY! Ex-Chicago cop Burge arrested in torture cases

Former Police Cmdr. Jon Burge - who has cast a long shadow over the Chicago Police Department because of accusations he tortured suspects for two decades - was arrested this morning on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.


Rest of the article from the Sun Times.

I find it interesting that they arrested him today, the day before National Day of Protest Against Police Brutality. I wonder how the rally will go tomorrow. I will, unfortunately, be at work.

This has got me thinking. I'm glad they arrested him, hopefully he will be punished- not enough for the pain he's caused, I'm sure. I'm amused by the cop in the video linked above goes one about not blaming cops now, this happened soooo long ago. I don't trust cops and I certainly don't believe that this was just a "bad apple." You put people in power, and they abuse that power.

However, in the past 2 months, my partner and I have had a few instances with the police. One where I was beaten up trying to protect a dog and one where he was beaten up on the street. Unfortunately, the people that beat me up (and the dog) plead not guilty twice so now it's possible jail time for them when we see each other next, in front of a jury. But I really don't think jail will solve anything. If the world was decent, I would have been able to make them volunteer at a dog shelter, take anger management and anti-domestic violence classes along with job training. I finally got anger management classes in the last court date plea, but they didn't take it. When my partner went to the cops, they just randomly rounded up some black kids and started spewing racist shit about the neighbor they were in (which is odd, because my partner is also of color).

There's also someone really close to me that, in my mind, needed to be punished for something they did several years ago. But they weren't, not by the government, they were punished by the scene they were in- and they actually changed. A lot from what I can gather. I plan on interviewing them at some point, but haven't yet.

Anyway, thoughts.

20.10.08

Historic “St. Paul Principles” Agreed upon by Key Twin Cities Groups

Very old news, but I was reading up on these principles, and I feel like it's a damn good page to read. From the RNC Welcoming Committee website.

At an anti-RNC conference held over the weekend of February 9th and 10th, a broad spectrum of groups revealed what are being called the “St. Paul Principles” of unity for resisting the 2008 Republican National Convention (RNC). Key organizations including the RNC Welcoming Committee and The Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War are signed onto the principles which seek to unite and strengthen the partnerships amongst those planning to confront the RNC. This is a departure from the sectarian squabbles that have plagued past years’ anti-convention organizing. Pitting groups of differing political beliefs against each other has been a frequent tactic of state repression since the days of COINTELPRO.

By drafting the principles together, the co-signing organizations are taking historic steps to actively extinguish divisiveness from their respective groups. The principles will ensure respect for the soon-to-be-permitted march on September 1 by people planning non-permitted activities, and in turn, participants in the September 1 march will adhere to the principles and do nothing to sow division among the many activists coming to the Twin Cities to protest the RNC.

The principles are:

1. Our solidarity will be based on respect for a diversity of tactics and the plans of other groups.
2. The actions and tactics used will be organized to maintain a separation of time or space.
3. Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events.
4. We oppose any state repression of dissent, including surveillance, infiltration, disruption and violence. We agree not to assist law enforcement actions against activists and others.

The RNC Welcoming Committee, The Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, The Anti-war Committee, SDS-U of MN, Communities United Against Police Brutality, The Welfare Rights Committee, and Unconventional Action – Chicago were among the first to sign on to these principles. As other groups sign on to these principles, a unified, effective, and radical front will form.

19.10.08

Against Backdrop of Sexual Violence, Ads, Too, Exploit Young Teens

From RH Reality.

The latest face of fashion in Jamaica is that of an innocent looking thirteen year old girl. Heavily made up and suggestively sporting a bikini, this pubescent girl was recently featured in local newspapers, touting her as the latest winner in the Pulse Jamaican fashion model contest. While it holds true that the fashion industry has long been centered on the bodies of under-aged girls, what is startling about this latest face of the Jamaican fashion industry is its'obvious youth. This youth, when combined with the not-so-subtle sexualization of the girl, paints a frightening picture of our society. No matter the justification, how does it become okay to feature a child, not even fully physically developed, in a bikini and wearing make-up?

As should be expected, the image of the girl has been met by some degree of public outrage. Interestingly enough, the moderate level of outrage seems to me to be in sharp contrast with the wide-scale public reaction, some months ago, to the proposed introduction of a school textbook that made passing mention of homosexual families. At that time, the collective national sentiment towards the text, which in defining family types made mention of those with same-sex parents, can be summed up as "Not in Jamaica!" The thinking and feeling seems to have been that condoning, even if implicitly, the normalcy of homosexuality would be a very un-Jamaican thing to do. Yet, this same level of nationalism does not surface when we see the body of a young girl being portrayed in such a manner.

The lack of collective outrage is an indictment on our society.

Against a wider backdrop of sexual violence being committed against, and perpetrated by, children and adolescents, the sexualization of an under-aged teenager is extremely problematic and potentially dangerous.

We live in a sexualized world. Companies use sex to sell the most random of products, from jump drives to cars. Rapid advancements in the media have made images and information accessible to almost everyone, easily bringing music and home videos, photos and advertisements directly into our homes, our phones, and our computers. The music we listen to; the movies we watch; the advertisements which inundate us; and the newspapers that we read are typically filled with references to, or explicit mention of sex.

Sex is not a bad thing; but by fostering societies in which it is encouraged to become a driving force, almost an entity of its own, we are engaging in a dangerous game of Russian roulette. We are paving the way for misplaced desire, in which desire becomes the be-all and end-all, and humanity in general, and the protection of our children in particular become secondary issues.

Calls have been made for local authorities to band together to tackle the growing wave of sexual violence that is threatening the lives of our children. While it cannot be stated that images such as that of the 13-year old model automatically trigger sexual violence against children, with burgeoning evidence of such abuse, it just seems like a risk we can no longer afford to take. As the saying goes, if we are not choosing to be a part of the solution, we must therefore be a part of the problem.

Any move, subtle or otherwise, which not only encourages us to look at under-aged girls as sexual objects; but by extension creates misplaced ideas amongst young girls of what it means to be sexy, is dangerous, and ultimately, our children are paying the price.

17.10.08

A Vegan Parent’s Survival Guide to Halloween!

From Ganymeder:

It’s that time of year again. Time to put up cobwebs instead of sweeping them away. Time to stay up late watching scary movies instead of going to bed at a sensible hour. And, of course, time to Trick or Treat!

Now, speaking as a rabid raving Halloween lover, I have to tell you that I’ve given this quite a bit of thought. At first, you might think that it’s nearly impossible for vegan kids to get (let’s face it) butt loads of candy and treats that they can actually consume - Not to mention what the beleaguered vegan can give to greedy little Trick or Treaters that come a knockin’ October 31st. But never fear, it’s not really hard. It just requires a little foresight and planning.

For one thing, if you want to try to avoid the whole “getting non vegan treats” from well meaning omni friends and family, you can always have a party in your home. That way you control the games and the types of treats the kids are given. One year we had a costume party for my son’s birthday, and it ran along the same lines as Halloween. For starters, I put out a large box full of dress up items like funny hats and plastic googley eyed glasses (which was a big hit)! To get their goody bags, they had to go on a scavenger hunt with lots of clues sending them all over the house.

It’s not expensive to create vegan goody bags filled with vegan jelly beans, assorted non chocolate candies and a few inexpensive toys. At party stores you can usually buy bags of toys to give away such as spider rings, bouncy balls, marbles, and mini card games. If you’re feeling especially generous, you could maybe buy a slave free chocolate bar (such as Newman’s Dark Orange Chocolate) for each child. Another time tested idea is to have your little ones Trick or Treat for a charity like UNICEF. Again, as long as they get goodies at home from you, they shouldn’t be disappointed.

The party idea might work for younger children, but once those vegan tykes are old enough to go to school I’m fairly confident they’re going to be besieged with treats that you wouldn’t want in your home. How do you deal with this tactfully? Do you make a point of returning the candy? That’s really up to you. Personally, I’d at least explain why the child can not have the intended treats, if possible before hand so as to avoid any hurt feelings.

Let’s just cut to the chase and say that, despite your best efforts, you’re child comes home with a bag full of non vegan candy and slave chocolate. What do you do? How do you handle this without the child being disappointed? I assure you, I’ve given this quite a bit of thought.

From my own experience and also that of some other vegan parents, the ol’ switcheroo seems to work nicely. Basically, your child brings home their “goodies” but you offer (give) them in exchange a much better bag of vegan ethical goodies that no kid in their right mind would refuse. The trick is to make YOUR goody bag much more appealing than anything they would bring home. So far this year, my son’s exchange-bag-o-goodies includes 3 of his favorite candy bars, some snack bars, a mini notebook (a guaranteed favorite as he loves to draw constantly), and a monster hand puppet. I plan on getting a few more things here and there over the next few weeks; Maybe some little bags of chips and some vegan jelly beans. I might even throw in a pack of Chaotic cards and a Tech Deck (he collects them). Whatever your child is interested in or collects that isn’t too pricey would be a good choice. And, of course, I will let him keep any vegan candies he does happen to collect. The exchange only applies to the non vegan ones.

So enjoy your Halloween without taking a “holiday” from your ethics. And, of course, have a BOO-tiful Holiday!

***
Some links for Fair Trade vegan chocolates and jelly beans.


**In the interest of full disclosure, the past Halloweens my son was vegetarian but not vegan. So he was able to “keep” a greater percentage of the candies he was given. This Halloween will be his first completely Vegan Halloween. I asked him about the exchange bag though,and he’s very excited about it! Also, the other vegan parents I’ve communicated with tell me this method works well for their own children. :)

16.10.08

Happy Feral Cat Day!

Feral Cats
Feral cats are the same species as companion cats—but they have no desire to snuggle with you on your couch. Feral cats aren’t socialized to people, and so they are fearful of humans and are not adoptable. They live healthy, natural lives on their own, content in their outdoor home. Well-intentioned citizens might think they should call animal control when they spot a feral cat.

Here’s the catch: In the current animal control system, the only happy ending for animals is adoption. So what happens to animals who aren’t adopted? In today’s system, animals who are not placed in homes are killed. This includes feral cats – and they don’t even belong in the shelter system.

Feral cats live outside, but are killed in pounds and shelters. Think twice before you call your local animal control.

The Reality of the Animal Control System
Over 70% of cats who enter our nation’s animal control pounds and shelters are killed—feral, stray, and companion cats. That number jumps to virtually 100% for feral cats.

Talking the Talk
Animal control pounds and shelters might call it “euthanasia.”

But an animal is euthanized when she is hopelessly sick or injured. A healthy animal is not euthanized. She is killed. For feral cats, its called “catch and kill”—and your tax dollars and donations are funding it. Catch and kill is an endless, costly, and cruel cycle.

The Vacuum Effect
Feral cats choose to reside in locations for a reason: there is a food source (intended or not) and shelter. When a portion of the cats are removed from a location, survivors breed to capacity. When all of the cats are removed, new cats move in to take advantage of the available resources. It’s a documented phenomenon called the vacuum effect, and it’s one reason that catch and kill is so ineffective.

Trap-Neuter-Return
Trap-Neuter-Return is a humane approach for feral cats. Through this program, outdoor cats are humanely trapped, brought to a veterinarian to be evaluated, spayed or neutered, vaccinated, and eartipped. Cats that are friendly to humans and kittens are adopted into homes. Healthy adult feral cats are returned to their outdoor home.

Want more information? Read up here.

15.10.08

Sunday's C-Span Opportunity: 3rd-Party Candidates Debate


From Common Dreams.

WASHINGTON - Third-party presidential candidates finally will have their own debate: at 8 p.m. Sunday at Columbia University in New York.

The debate, which will be announced Wednesday, will include at least three of the four third-party candidates - independent Ralph Nader, the Green Party's Cynthia McKinney and the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin. Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr said he has a scheduling conflict, but debate organizers say he wanted to appear only with Nader. (Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain are also invited.)

Nader and Barr are on the ballot in 45 states, while the Green Party is on 31 state ballots and the Constitution Party is on the ballot in 37 states. Nader and McKinney also are on the District of Columbia ballot.

Organizers say the debate is an important exercise in democracy, especially because the debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (the last of which is Wednesday night) exclude candidates scoring below 15 percent in national polls. Nader, the best known of the candidates, has an average of 2.5 percent in recent national polls, according to realclearpolitics.com, while Barr averages 1.5 percent.

Nader maintains that if he could get into the debates run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, his numbers would immediately climb because "two-thirds of the people don't know we're running."

"It's a Catch-22."

Nader describes the debate commission as "a two-party dictatorial company that doesn't want anybody else on the stage." The commission, created in 1987, is a corporation headed by two former chairs of the Democratic and Republican parties.

But third-party critics of the system recently got some traction: the second of the presidential debates prompted a chorus of criticism of the "boring" format and the lack of follow-up questions.

Nader also will give the issue more visibility at a rally to open the debates Wednesday night at New York's historic Cooper Union Great Hall, where presidential candidates back to Abraham Lincoln have spoken.

The format for Sunday's third-party debate is still being finalized. It will be moderated by Pacifica radio host Amy Goodman. The issues promoted by the candidates strike a different chord from the major party standard-bearers - all four are against the $700 billion economic bailout and all oppose the Iraq war.

In addition, each has his or her own agenda: Nader rails against corporate greed while McKinney promotes environmental causes. The Libertarian Party is a critic of monetary policy and likes to invoke a return to the gold standard. Baldwin of the Constitution Party represents a conservative, small government, anti-abortion party that wants to "restore the government to its biblical foundations."

The third-party debate will be streamed at www.thirdpartyticket.com and will be shown on C-Span.

13.10.08

Will Allen: urban farmer, 'genius'

From Grist.

Fifteen years ago, a former professional basketball player named Will Allen made a most unlikely career move: he decided to launch a farm in a low-income neighborhood in Milwaukee. His farmhands would be un- or ill-employed neighborhood teens.

At the time, brutal economic conditions were pushing the nation's few remaining African-American farmers into bankruptcy; and the concept of "urban farming" seemed more like an oxymoron than an answer to the inner city's economic and public-health problems.

Since that time, Allen's organization Growing Power has established itself as a model for how urban resources can be used to grow delicious, healthy food and revitalize neighborhoods at the same time. Growing Power's model was so successful in Milwaukee that Allen's daughter Erika has established an equally innovative offshoot in Chicago (which I wrote about recently here.)

Today, the MacArthur Foundation announced it has awarded Allen one of its prestigious "genius" fellowships. I hope this award helps Allen spread his vital message: food need not be a vehicle for spreading poor health and sucking resources out of low-wealth communities. It can also simultaneously build health and wealth. Congratulations to the Allen family on this much-deserved honor.


More articles:

Chicago Sun Times
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
MacArthur Foundation

12.10.08

Financial crisis fallout.

"Across the country, authorities are becoming concerned that the nation's financial woes could turn increasingly violent, and they are urging people to get help. In some places, mental-health hot lines are jammed, counseling services are in high demand and domestic-violence shelters are full.

"I've had a number of people say that this is the thing most reminiscent of 9/11 that's happened here since then," said the Rev. Canon Ann Malonee, vicar at Trinity Church in the heart of New York's financial district. "It's that sense of having the rug pulled out from under them."

With nowhere else to turn, many people are calling suicide-prevention hot lines. The Samaritans of New York have seen calls rise more than 16 percent in the past year, many of them money-related. The Switchboard of Miami has recorded more than 500 foreclosure-related calls this year.

"A lot of people are telling us they are losing everything. They're losing their homes, they're going into foreclosure, they've lost their jobs," said Virginia Cervasio, executive director of a suicide resource enter in southwest Florida's Lee County."


Full article here.

11.10.08

Immigrant Women, Seeking Status Adjustment, Face Forced Vaccination

From RH Reality Check by Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas and Emily Alexander.

This July, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced new requirements, including five new vaccinations for individuals seeking adjustment of immigration status. One of these vaccinations is Gardasil, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Gardasil, manufactured by Merck, is the only HPV vaccine in the U.S.--also the most expensive vaccine on the market and the only vaccine to be approved for use in only one sex. The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is the only federal body that makes recommendations about immunizations; the committee's recommendations serve as the template that USCIS uses to determine immunization requirements for immigration procedures. These new requirements put increased barriers and additional burdens on women's access to adjustment of immigration status and applications for visas to enter the U.S. and stoke the already reverberating anxieties among communities of color about the HPV vaccine.

Most immigration applicants are currently required to undergo a medical exam by a certified "civil surgeon." These civil surgeons complete an I-693 medical examination and vaccination record. The new regulations that require the HPV vaccine apply to female applicants between the ages of 11 to 26. This is the only sex-specific vaccination requirement, putting particular burden on immigrant women applying for a visa or adjustment of status, further marginalizing a group that already has reduced access to health information and services that are affordable, accessible and culturally and linguistically competent.

According to the Census, there are approximately 17.5 million immigrant women in the United States today, 3 million of whom are undocumented, and 16 percent that live in poverty. These women encounter obstacles to employment and health access; they also face violence and discrimination. Immigrant rights and reproductive justice are intrinsically linked because the reproductive health of immigrant women is profoundly affected by immigration policy. For women seeking adjustment of status, the USCIS' additional vaccine requirements create tremendous barriers to one of the many steps towards a pathway to citizenship.

While women of color, many who are immigrants, face disproportionate rates of cervical cancer in the U.S. (Latina women get cervical cancer at twice the rate of white women; and Vietnamese women get cervical cancer at five-times the rate of white women), efforts should be made to increase access and education about HPV and the vaccine, rather than creating further impediments to the already onerous immigration process. The HPV vaccine is out of reach for many women with its high price tag: at a minimum, it costs $360 for the three shot regimen. Publicly-funded access to the HPV vaccine varies state-to-state, although all low-income adolescents between the ages of 9 through 19 who are either uninsured, Medicaid-eligible, American Indian, or Alaska Native, have access to the vaccine through the federal Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. Immigrant women over the age of 19 may have greater challenges in obtaining the vaccine. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and Uninsured and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), between 45% and 51% of immigrants lack health coverage in the US. The lack of health insurance, coupled with the high cost of the vaccine, limits access to the vaccine for low-income immigrant women. In addition, for immigration visa applicants abroad, the global availability and accessibility of the vaccine is questionable.

States also use the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations when developing their own vaccine requirements for school entry. Calls for state school mandate bills for this vaccine seem to have calmed down, allowing advocates the opportunity to provide much-needed education and advocacy around HPV and cervical cancer prevention. Now this new requirement threatens that critical work.

Instead of mandating vaccines for immigrant women's bodies, the U.S. government should increase access to health information and services that are unbiased, age-appropriate, culturally-competent and non-coercive. Mandating a vaccine that specifically targets young non-citizen women is both sexist and xenophobic. It will only add to the current anxieties among many communities of color about the vaccine and the government's interest in vaccinating a particular community, in this case, immigrant women.

10.10.08

On Bullshit (by Dan Savage)

In case you don't know, Dan Savage is an amazing sex and relationship advice columnist. I particularly appreciated this response, so I'm reposting it here. Question is in italics, his response is the rest.


I feel ridiculous e-mailing you, but I figure that if anyone has heard of all manner of ass-hole behavior during sex, it would be you.

I'm a 17-year-old girl, and I've only had one boyfriend—who was, at the time, 21 and, I thought, perfect. The only thing that's still bothering me is the reason we broke up. After promising that he would never hurt me, and reassuring me that he was SO passionate about contraception, I agreed to have sex with him and lose my virginity. And in the middle of fucking me, he removed the condom without a word! He was hoping I wouldn't notice! I did notice—and I kicked his ass to the curb. He cried, he sent stupid gifts, and still calls. At least he didn't get me pregnant.

How upset should I be about this? Or is this something that horny males do? I'm not traumatized. I could nominate him for "Crappy Boyfriend of the Year," but surely someone else's boyfriend has done worse. I really just don't know how to feel about this.

[signed,] Just Confused


How upset should you be? Very. Did you do the right thing? Absofuckinlutely.

Hell, JC, you did precisely what I would have urged you to do had I been in the room. Of course, the second-to-last thing a straight girl needs in the room with her when she's losing her virginity to some asshole straight boy is a gay man twice her age desperately trying to get out. But if I had been there, JC, and I realized what was going on, I would've stopped trying to break down your locked bedroom door long enough to give your boyfriend—aka the last thing you needed in the room that night—something to cry about for real.

You consented to intercourse with protection, and that asshole deceitfully initiated unprotected intercourse. When a fucker removes a condom during intercourse—gay or straight, vaginal or anal—it invalidates the fuckee's consent to the fucking. (And what is sex without consent, class?) So your "more experienced" boyfriend sexually assaulted you, JC, and placed you at risk of an unplanned pregnancy—and for what? An ever-so-slightly enhanced orgasm for him?

What.

An.

Asshole.

This isn't something that decent guys do at all, JC, much less "all the time." He's an abusive douchebag, and you're well rid of him. Here's hoping his next girlfriend takes proactive steps to make sure the condom stays securely on—I'd suggest staple-gunning the thing in place.

8.10.08

"They hate our freedom!"

“You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.” — Clarence Darrow

6.10.08

On being an energy-efficient renter

From Grist:

Renting is a blessing and a curse: little control, and little responsibility. You don't get to make long-term, expensive investments, but you can certainly undergo behavior modifications to reduce your energy bills. I've offered the generally recommended steps over the years, and I'm happy to collect them all here. We might as well go room by room.

In the KITCHEN, our main hope for energy savings is in reducing hot water use in the sink and dishwasher. Install low-flow attachments on the sink -- and, in fact, on all the faucets in your apartment. If you have a dishwasher that's not a dinosaur, use it; the newer models are more efficient than cleaning dishes by hand. Run it only when full, and don't use the "heated dry" setting. Use a dish tub if you do have to lave the old-fashioned way. Keep the fridge and freezer relatively full and at 36 to 38 degrees Fahrenheit for the main compartment and between 0 and 5 degrees for the freezer. Turns out, cleaning the coils doesn't make a big difference in fridge energy use. Phew. (As an aside, replacing an old refrigerator with an Energy Star model is good, so if you can persuade your landlord ...) Microwaves and plug-in kettles are more efficient than using the stovetop and oven.

Over in the bathroom, we can continue our crusade to get in less hot water. We've already installed a flow restrictor on the faucet, and now we can put a low-flow head on the shower. Take short showers and fewer baths if you can bear it (I personally find bath restriction an onerous duty).

In the bedroom, a major help is to have an ample comforter, so the thermostat can be turned down as far as possible at night. The overall goal, of course, is to keep the thermostat as low as you can when it's cold outside, and as high and un-air conditioned as you can when it's warm. If you or the landlord can pony up the dollars for a programmable thermostat, it may be worth it. They're fairly cheap, and they always remember to lower the heat while we're at work -- something we ourselves might forget. It takes less energy to reheat or re-cool the apartment when you get home than it takes to keep it toasty or cool while you're away.

Throughout your dwelling, replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents, and turn off lights when you leave a room. Turn off your computer if you're not going to use it for an hour. Unplug electronic devices that come with LED lights or standby functions: These draw small amounts of power that add up over time. The same goes for "wall warts" such as cell phones and iPod chargers -- even when they're not charging anything, they're drawing phantom energy. Power strips are a handy way to turn off a whole bunch of the suckers at once.

There is also a lot you can do with your windows, which can be huge panes in the glass (sorry). Windows, seriously, are a major source of excess heat loss and heat gain, but here I'll refer you to a previous column that examines the problem in detail. Suffice it to say that key items for window efficiency include curtains, caulk, and glazing. As to doors, if your apartment has one leading to the outside, you might consider putting weather-stripping around the jamb.

What else? Laundry should be washed in cold water and hung dry when possible. If you're doing all these things already and have rooms and quandaries I haven't imagined, then I have failed you today. Write back and let me know, and I'll see if I can dig a little deeper.

Guaranteedly,
Umbra

5.10.08

More on children and veganism.

The full article can be read here.

Let me start by saying this: if you decide not to have kids, that’s completely cool. I fully understand the reasons and respect all of them, whether it’s concerns about overpopulation, not having the maternal/paternal instinct, not being comfortable around kids, or just plain old not wanting kids messing up your well-organized collection of vintage LPs. I promise you I’ll never tell you, “Oh, you’ll change your mind” or say anything like “You never know real love until you have your own child” because that’s just obnoxious. Parenthood isn’t for everyone and I think we are each fully capable of making the decision to parent or not to parent for ourselves.

That said, I think one important thing to remember is that the kids are on our side. They shouldn’t be viewed as enemies and even if you’re staunchly anti-breeding, don’t hate the kid. it’s not their fault they were born. You don’t have to be their best friend or even talk to them, but reserve your hate for something else. Honestly, as a parent, I’d rather you hate me and snub me for having a kid rather than taking it out on my daughter. Thankfully, I’ve never had to deal with that, but then again, I’m not really around vegans very often.

Another thing to keep in mind is that these kids are at a point in their veganism that most of us didn’t reach until high school or much later. I look at 5-year-old kids that are happy vegans and have a grasp of animal rights concepts that I didn’t have when I was in college and it’s amazing to me. Kids deal with much more peer pressure than we do as adults, and if they can keep their vegan edge at a point in their lives where all they want to do is fit in, more power to ‘em.

I’m also constantly amazed (and inspired) when I hear about kids that aren’t even teenagers that decide to give up meat even when no one else in their family does. Often, these kids get their friends or families to go veg with them. That’s some realness right there.

Kids are a huge influence on other kids. Strong, confident vegan kids are going to influence their peers over time. So, maybe it would be better to think of those kids you “hate” as advocates for the future generation. We’re going to have a tougher time as adults reaching eight-year-olds than one of their classmates is, so let’s give those vegan kids all the support we can. And if “support” for you just means showing a little more tolerance to a kid and not hating him based solely on the fact he’s a kid, that’s fine by me.

3.10.08

Follow-up to "Air Freshners: Not so good for you"

Indoor Air Clean-Up

There's perhaps no month as filled with ritual as October. As we make our annual journey across the weeks between summer and winter, there are gardens to put to bed, leaves to leap in, pumpkins to carve, and homes to ready for the coming cold.

For many of us that means sealing windows, adding weatherstripping to doors, and adopting other strategies that tighten our dwellings to better hold their precious warmth. That's a good thing where energy conservation is concerned, but a well-sealed home traps more than heat ― it can trap odors, stale air, and other olfactory nuisances, too.

To mask the smelliness, we often turn to air fresheners. From aerosols and plug-in units to potpourris and scented candles, fragrance products are a $9 billion a year industry. Yet researchers sniffing out the truth about them have found that such products frequently contain more than a pleasant scent.

According to the Children's Health Environmental Coalition, the fragrance products industry relies on over 3,000 different chemical compounds to create its olfactory wonders. These include flammable propellants like butane and propane; terpenes, xylene, benzene, and other volatile organic compounds; petroleum distillates like naphthalene; and chemicals like phenol, cresol, and paradichlorobenzene. Recently, a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation investigation of air fresheners found that nearly a third of the samples tested contained phthalates.

These and other ingredients are combined in air freshener formulas to create products intentionally designed to fill our homes with invisible airborne fumes that linger in the air where they can be repeatedly inhaled. And manufacturers aren't required to tell us exactly what's in the air fresheners we buy. Instead, most hide their ingredients behind generic label terms like "fragrance" and "scent agent." When we use these products, we have no way of knowing what we're really breathing, and in winter's sealed-up homes, our exposure to them can be nearly constant.

For a safer choice, stick to natural air freshening strategies. Here's a list of our favorite ways to deodorize your domicile:

* First, track down and eliminate the sources of any persistent bad odors in your home. Since many foul smells are the result of molds or microbial action, spraying or scrubbing trouble spots like trash cans and compost collectors with undiluted 3% solution of hydrogen peroxide will often remove the foul smells. Vinegar is another useful natural antifungal and antibacterial agent.

* Use natural mineral borax and/or baking soda to deodorize surfaces and other places in your home. Because baking soda removes acid odors and vinegar takes care of alkaline smells, a combination of the two is often all you'll need to deodorize as you clean. Lemon juice is another great deodorizer.

* Open windows and doors for a few moments now and then during winter to replace stale indoor air with a fresh supply from outside.

* If odors persist, make your own air freshening spray by combining 5-10 drops of an essential oil like lavender, lemon, peppermint, bergamot, balsam, eucalyptus, tea tree, or sweet orange in a spray bottle with two cups of water.

* To scent indoor air, place a drop of your favorite essential oil on a light bulb prior to turning it on or add a dozen drops to a bowl of water placed on a radiator. Fragrant dried herbs, cinnamon sticks, or cloves boiled in a pot of water will also release a fresh smell.

* Place a couple of drops of essential oil on your vacuum cleaner's exhaust filter to freshen exiting air. A few drops of lemon juice on your vacuum cleaner bag will do the same trick.

* If you burn candles to scent air make sure yours are made natural waxes like soy rather than petroleum-based paraffin wax. Choose candles with lead-free wicks and naturally-derived scents. And use them sparingly ― natural candles may be safer but they're still filling your air with small amounts of combustion byproducts.

* Problem situations can sometimes be helped by an air purifier that contains an activated charcoal filter. Don't use devices that generate ozone, which is a hazardous pollutant.

2.10.08

On Children and Veganism.

From the guy that brought you Herbivore magazine and clothing line.

There is no "U" in "Community." Well...there is but...

understand that children are a contentious topic in our movement. I understand the argument that we should not be breeding because the planet cannot support more humans. I understand a lot of people are afraid of children. I understand there are a lot of bad parents out there whose children do not ever see limits imposed on their behavior and they run wild in the streets, drenched in the blood of the infidels and burning the villages in their wake, waving sticky hands in the air and drooling from their sticky mouths, spilling every cup in sight.

I didn't really understand or feel completely comfortable around kids until I became a father. I still get nervous around other people's kids sometimes, actually. And I get hyper sensitive sometimes if Ruby is having a hard time in public or things aren't going her way and I want to make sure we aren't bothering people around us. This rarely happens as Rubes is a pretty mellow kid.

I have heard, more times than I care to count, otherwise sensitive and intelligent people say "I hate kids."

I've had people in this movement say to me "Why do I have to try and like your kid?" I've seen people in this movement get up and move when a vegan mom sat down next to them with a vegan baby and say something rude. I've had people say to me "I usually hate kids, but yours is cool!" (Uh...thanks?) I've seen people in this movement list "Kids" in their list of "disklikes" right next to meat eaters and smokers. (Oddly, in their "likes" list they will have "vegans." My kid is a vegan. Do you hate her or like her?)

Here is what you need to understand. Children are as nature made them. You dislike them, not for choices they have made (like religion or politics), but for things beyond their control. You "hate" them because they do not act like you and are outside your group. This makes you a bigot.

Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group...and is intolerant of those who differ.

If you'd like to change your sentence from "I hate kids" to something more accurate, like "I am uncomfortable around children because I do not know any" or "I have had bad experiences with children in the past" please do so now and you are off the hook, sort of.

If you want to stick with the "I hate kids" line, what is the difference between "hating" kids (I keep putting this in quotes because I don't believe people actually hate kids, I just think they are irresponsible with their language.) and "hating" any other group of people for who they are instead of for choices they have made? Like the elderly? Or people of color? Or the differently abled? What exactly is the difference?

The times I confronted people in the animal rights movement with this question who professed to hate kids I got no response. Does anybody know how "hating" kids would be different than "hating" the differently abled or "hating" the elderly? I am willing to be corrected on this because I just called a whole bunch of people bigots and hope I'm wrong.

Here is what I also want people to understand, people who want this movement to grow and for less animals to suffer and die and end up as food, entertainment, clothing, etc:

Vegan children need vegan role models or they will not stay in this movement.

Kids know when they are unwelcomed in a place or situation. If I take Ruby to a vegan event and she gets nasty looks or hears rude comments about children, why would she ever want to hang around that group of people or believe those people's beliefs are kind and something she should try and adopt? If I sit down next to someone at a vegan event and the person next to me gets up and moves to the other side of the table, why would my daughter want to stick around or get involved? If I keep dragging her to events and she keeps feeling shunned and unaccepted, as soon as she is able to go elsewhere, she will. She needs adults, other than her parents, to help her understand these values.

It is our responsibility to create a movement that is inclusive and welcoming and supportive of people already involved and those looking to join us. This includes children. It includes EVERY group of people.

I am not telling you that you have to take my kid to the bathroom. I'm not telling you you have to be all smiles if Ruby loses her cool and throws a fit. I'm not asking you to hold her or teach her to read. I don't need you to babysit some time. If she spills something, don't worry, you don't have to clean it up.

What I'm asking is that you think about your behavior and how it affects this community, the members of it who you might not be the most comfortable with, and by extension, the animals you care so much about.

I'm asking you to understand that some people in this community might require you to take one step outside your comfort zone every once in a while. I want you to know that if you try a little harder and focus on the movement as a whole, instead of yourself, we will all be a little stronger. If Ruby sees smiles and hears the occasional "Hi there" from you, it will go a long way in making her feel accepted in the community she is involved in. And if she feels accepted and supported, she will stick around and become a powerful activist herself one day.

1.10.08

November is Domestic Violence Awarness Month.

Myths and Facts about Domestic Violence

MYTH #1: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AFFECTS ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION AND IS RARE.

FACT: National studies estimate that 3 to 4 million women are beaten each year in our country. A study conducted in 1995 found that 31% of women surveyed admitted to having been physically assaulted by a husband or boyfriend. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in our country, and the FBI estimates that a woman is beaten every 15 seconds. Thirty percent of female homicide victims are killed by partners or ex-partners and 1,500 women are murdered as a result of domestic violence each year in the United States.

MYTH #2: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OCCURS ONLY IN POOR, UNEDUCATED AND MINORITY FAMILIES.

FACT: Studies of domestic violence consistently have found that battering occurs among all types of families, regardless of income, profession, region, ethnicity, educational level or race. However, the fact that lower income victims and abusers are over-represented in calls to police, battered women's shelters and social services may be due to a lack of other resources.

MYTH #3: THE REAL PROBLEM IS COUPLES WHO ASSAULT EACH OTHER. WOMEN ARE JUST AS VIOLENT AS MEN.

FACT: A well-publicized study conducted by Dr. Murray Strauss at the University of New Hampshire found that women use violent means to resolve conflict in relationships as often as men. However, the study also concluded that when the context and consequences of an assault are measured, the majority of victims are women. The U.S. Department of Justice has found that 95% of the victims of spouse abuse are female. Men can be victims, but it is rare.

MYTH #4: ALCOHOL ABUSE CAUSES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

FACT: Although there is a high correlation between alcohol, or other substance abuse, and battering, it is not a causal relationship. Batterers use drinking as one of many excuses for their violence and as a way to place the responsibility for their violence elsewhere. Stopping the abusers' drinking will not stop the violence. Both battering and substance abuse need to be addressed separately, as overlapping yet independent problems.

MYTH #5: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS USUALLY A ONE TIME, ISOLATED OCCURRENCE.

FACT: Battering is a pattern of coercion and control that one person exerts over another. Battering is not just one physical attack. It includes the repeated use of a number of tactics, including intimidation, threats, economic deprivation, isolation and psychological and sexual abuse. Physical violence is just one of these tactics. The various forms of abuse utilized by batterers help to maintain power and control over their spouses and partners.

MYTH #6: MEN WHO BATTER ARE OFTEN GOOD FATHERS AND SHOULD HAVE JOINT CUSTODY OF THEIR CHILDREN IF THE COUPLE SEPARATES.

Fact: Studies have found that men who batter their wives also abuse their children in 70% of cases. Even when children are not directly abused, they suffer as a result of witnessing one parent assault another. Batterers often display an increased interest in their children at the time of separation, as a means of maintaining contact with, and thus control over, their partners.

MYTH #7: WHEN THERE IS VIOLENCE IN THE FAMILY, ALL MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE DYNAMIC, AND THEREFORE, ALL MUST CHANGE FOR THE VIOLENCE TO STOP.

FACT: Only the batterer has the ability to stop the violence. Battering is a behavioral choice for which the batterer must be held accountable. Many battered women make numerous attempts to change their behavior in the hope that this will stop the abuse. This does not work. Changes in family members' behavior will not cause the batterer to be non-violent.

MYTH #8: BATTERED WOMEN ARE MASOCHISTIC AND PROVOKE THE ABUSE. THEY MUST LIKE IT OR THEY WOULD LEAVE.

FACT: Victim provocation is no more common in domestic violence than in any other crime. Battered women often make repeated attempts to leave violent relationships, but are prevented from doing so by increased violence and control tactics on the part of the abuser. Other factors which inhibit a victim's ability to leave include economic dependence, few viable options for housing and support, unhelpful responses from the criminal justice system or other agencies, social isolation, cultural or religious constraints, a commitment to the abuser and the relationship and fear of further violence. It has been estimated that the danger to a victim increases by 70% when she attempts to leave, as the abuser escalates his use of violence when he begins to lose control.

MYTH #9: MEN HAVE A RIGHT TO DISCIPLINE THEIR PARTNERS FOR MISBEHAVING. BATTERING IS NOT A CRIME.

FACT: While our society derives from a patriarchal legal system that afforded men the right to physically chastise their wives and children, we do not live under such a system now. Women and children are no longer considered the property of men, and domestic violence is a crime in every state In the country.