A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Rissan4ever]

It sounds like this is one A-hole judge being an A-hole. The New York appeals judge ruled the other way. I hope the woman gets her son back. This is nuts. Not only is it misogynistic, but it's harming the kid. The parents even call him different names. What the hell?

[tawelwch]

I think there's probably a lot more to this than the article!

What limit do you think a pregnant woman should have (if any) on their right to travel? Because if it's absolute what responsibility can you hold a father to if they may not have a defacto right to see their child?

There's an obvious balance here and dealing in absolutes doesn't help because both parents have responsibilites and rights, I think. Neither party comes out of this very well in my opinion.

[DarkLink]

WTF do you mean by 'what limits do you think a pregnant woman should have' in this context?

Ironically, there's normally heavy anti-male bias in custody battles, but replacing that with misogyny doesn't solve the problem.

[Nabterayl]

What limit do you think a pregnant woman should have (if any) on their right to travel? Because if it's absolute what responsibility can you hold a father to if they may not have a defacto right to see their child?

None. Remember the question on appeal here. This is not about child visitation rights. This is about which court will decide the custody question. It isn't a question of what, it's a question of where.

The New York Family Court referee whose decision was overturned stated that this woman who moved to New York while pregnant, enrolled in a New York university, gave birth in New York, and lived with the newborn in New York would have to travel to California to argue custody on the grounds that she only moved to New York in order to avail herself of New York family court, on the theory that it would be more favorable to her than a San Diego court would. Now, obviously that sort of thing does happen, and a court is totally within its rights to say, "You can't come into my court just because you think you'll do better here."

The egregious thing about this, to me, is that she was enrolled in Columbia at the time. It is not easy to get admitted to Columbia (about 7.4% of applicants get in), nor is it cheap (a little over $61,000 annually).* You don't move across the country to attend Columbia as a ploy to get a theoretically more favorable family court - you do it because you want to attend Columbia. And even if you were insane enough to plan attending Columbia as your smoke-screen for getting access to New York courts, the odds of it working are almost 13 to 1 against. Not to mention that if it does work you've got to come up with $61,000. The idea that a Columbia student would go to Columbia for the sole purpose - even the primary purpose - of getting access to New York courts is really ridiculous.

* Yeah, she's getting G.I. Bill support, but that's still money she can't spend somewhere else. If she didn't actually want to attend Columbia she'd be pretty stupid to squander her G.I. Bill benefits on it.

[Denzark]

You say that Nabby but over here it is a known fact that parents will buy a house in a certain area just to ensure their children are in the catchment area for a particular school. Given that is a six-figure cost just for education, it is therefore not inconceivable that it is a ploy - although admittedly at the lesser end of the likelihood scale.

[sickpuppy]

Not going to get tooo political before I have 5 posts and know people somewhat... but will simply say I identify as feminist and am interested in this thread. Thanks Eldargirl

I heard about Sarah McKenna briefly and was really surprised that her moving freely while pregnant was equated to something like absconding with this man's property. o_O Also was pretty appalled by the proposal of Zoe's Law (AKA foetal personhood).

[eldargal]

From what I've read the judge accused her of moving to NY to get a better chance of gaining custody (which is a legal right to do so, yes?) but then he also criticised her decision to leave the case in San Diego? Did I read that wrong or did he contradict himself?

WTF do you mean by 'what limits do you think a pregnant woman should have' in this context?

Ironically, there's normally heavy anti-male bias in custody battles, but replacing that with misogyny doesn't solve the problem.

Because patriarchy deems women as natural carers, regardless of how fit they are to do so. This is an issue often brought up by anti-feminist groups (not saying this is what you meant DarkLink, just wanted to point this out) and it is worth nothing that most feminists don't like it either as it is aforementioned patriarchal notion enshrined in law.

You say that Nabby but over here it is a known fact that parents will buy a house in a certain area just to ensure their children are in the catchment area for a particular school. Given that is a six-figure cost just for education, it is therefore not inconceivable that it is a ploy - although admittedly at the lesser end of the likelihood scale.

A house is something solid you can sell to recoup your investment, you can also live in it and potentially sub-let. You can do none of those things with a place at a university. Not to mention the odds of getting in as part of the ploy, not to mention I believe she planned the move before there was any whiff of legal issue, at that time the father had expressed no interest in the child.

[Deadlift]

That's Brilliant.

[Denzark]

A house is something solid you can sell to recoup your investment, you can also live in it and potentially sub-let. You can do none of those things with a place at a university. Not to mention the odds of getting in as part of the ploy, not to mention I believe she planned the move before there was any whiff of legal issue, at that time the father had expressed no interest in the child.

True, but if one accepts people will go to significant financial lenghts and personal inconvenience (buying a house is rubbish) just to secure a school place, I would reckon that it is not beyond contension that a parent would go to the wildest lengths to look after their child. And not unreasonably either - should a parent not do anything and everything to protect a child? And as you point out she hasn't even done anything illegal! Just saying it is not impossible - but the judge does seem to be an uber numpty.

As to Sir Patrick, I like him and what he says. But I have never gathered from dipping my toe in here, that my white male privilege has an age clause built in. Therefore because he dropped age in I am not taking it as seriously as I could.

[eldargal]

But in this case you are talking about a 1 in 13 chance of it working, it's just ridiculous. Not to mention that he later condemns her for leaving the case in San Diego, so she is condemned either way.

He is referring to the notion that prominent old white men are assumed to have a wealth of experience and knowledge which automatically makes what they say more worthy than, say, a thirty year old woman thus they are more likely to be listened to.