Megan has had several good posts on chick stuff this week: a great old Folger’s commercial, which I found some weak excuse to show in class today; how billable hours work against women; the continual problem of blog commenters making low blows about female bloggers’ appearance.
I’ve been fascinated and puzzled by the Mormon response to recent Texas raid. See Russell, Times and Seasons, and Rod Dreher.
Most offensive art project. Ever.
Zoom in on this map to find all the local farms that grow organic produce in your area. I’m thinking about joining this food co-op.
Apt. 11d 
It’s looking like the Yale products-of-abortion-as-art thing was a fraud. This stunt is going to follow that young woman her whole life.
Speaking of local food, I recently saw a book at the university center entitled “Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal: War Stories From the Local Food Front.”
LikeLike
Most offensive art project. Ever.
Is there more you can say about it? I’ve seen a lot of pearl-clutching, but no one really bothering to articulate their concerns.
One of the worst criticisms I’ve seen of the project is that it might “make infertile women feel bad”. Uh, ok.
LikeLike
Up till now I have refrained from commenting on the FLD raid in Texas. However, I am a Catholic who is horrified by the raid. What could possibly justify traumatizing 400+ children by taking them away from their parents? Because they choose to live a different life style than is currently in vogue? Less than 150 years ago it was the norm for parents to choose your spouse, for marriages to be among teenagers and for clothing styles to be modest. These people are in some ways similar to the Mennonites and Amish. They have chosen a different life style which is modest, simple and where children assume adult roles earlier in life. Where are their rights for religious expression? I may not agree with their choices, would not want to live their lifestyle but do believe they have the right to do so. Government needs to stay out of people’s homes and family issues.
LikeLike
The Mormon response to the FLDS raid hasn’t been monolithic, of course. To my knowledge there has been no official comment; here are two bloggers(among others, I presume) who seem to be basically in favor of the way the raid was conducted.
Laura, I read your comment on Russell’s blog. You wrote: I have to admit that I’m puzzled by the commentary at Times & Seasons. If the media accounts are true, then TX had every right to take those kids away from the women. If the accounts are false, then that’s another story, but let’s just assume that they are true for the time being. If there was a widespread practice of marrying off teenage daughters, then that’s child abuse. If other women knew about these practices, but did not call authorities, then they are a party to the crime. In all child abuse cases, the kids are removed immediately and promptly. Even the kids who were not directly abused. The trial comes later. I’m a little confused about the controversy.
I appreciate your spelling out the argument in that way; it helped me to understand your position much better. But your argument—that it is standard protocol to remove all the children of parents who are party in any way to abuse, even though all of the children may not be in imminent danger—seems not to be valid in Texas CPS. In any case, that’s not the argument that’s being made in court.
As reported in courtroom transcripts here, the CPS official in charge of the raid is arguing that the young children were removed because they were indeed in direct and imminent danger of abuse. Not of sexual or physical abuse, however. The money quote: “The attorney wants to know whether the mothers are seen as victims or perpetrators. ‘In my investigation at this point, I see them as both,’ the CPS supervisor says. ‘They have been raised – and they are raising their children – in the belief that it will be OK for their children to have babies when they are just adolescents.’ ” In other words, the direct and imminent abuse to which very young children are subject (as opposed to teenage girls) is religious indoctrination. I’m not a family attorney, and I have no idea whether there’s legal precedent for this argument or not.
(Can I tell you how angry and uncomfortable it makes me feel to defend, in whatever way, the FLDS? I find their way of life dysfunctional, even repugnant; I find the practices of coerced underage marriage and polygamy in general to be perverse and sometimes predatory, and I have no problem being “judgy” in that way. I hate that it feels necessary to side with them at all, even in a very partial and qualified way.)
One of the repeated concerns I hear about the proceedings is the fear that given the deep-seated and long-lived bias against Mormons in general and FLDS in particular, CPS workers will be unable to objectively interpret ambiguous evidence. And I think there’s some evidence that that may be the case. For instance, there was a piece in which Baptist caregivers cooperating with CPS were describing the detained children’s behavior—among other things, a caregiver described how the children had never seen crayons and didn’t know how to color, as part of an implication that their home environment was unfit. In the AP slideshow attached to the same piece, however, was a photo clearly showing drawing made by FLDS children hanging in their school. So in this small way, a pre-existing bias appears to have compromised the caregiver’s interpretation of the children’s behavior. (The caregiver also reported, aghast, that the children shunned white bread and soda, preferring yogurt and fruit, and didn’t wear clothing with characters or patterns. Horrors!) To use English-major speak for a moment, this group’s radical otherness—the fact that they are weird and “gross,” as you put it, Laura—make it very, very tricky to evaluate their condition objectively. So far, some of the reports I have read out of Texas are worrisome, some are reassuring. Here’s desperately hoping for wisdom in the judge.
(sorry for the long comment, and thank you for providing a forum in which I can post it.)
LikeLike
Very well said, Cates; thanks for taking the time to contribute this comment.
But your argument…seems not to be valid in Texas CPS. In any case, that’s not the argument that’s being made in court….[the argument which is being is that] the direct and imminent abuse to which very young children are subject (as opposed to teenage girls) is religious indoctrination.
Right. Or rather, this is the right thing to be looking for, to be careful about and watchful of. When Texas authorities originally entered the FLDS ranch, I was simply grateful: considering Texas’s past experiences with cultists, there were so many worse ways it could have turned out! And, at bottom, I’m still pleased that Texas had the means and the willingness to respond to an allegation when one came in (but also the civic judgment not to do so before). But now we’re on to a different question; since the actual accuser is still unaccounted for (though it’s possible a href=”http://origin.sltrib.com/news/ci_8969094″>she’s been exposed as a prankster), the state of Texas is not investigating any specific allegations of abuse, but rather conditions of living which many intelligent people would consider to be naturally abusive, whether or not religion is involved. And interrogating believers, and breaking up families, in order to investigate a lifestyle…well, as I said originally, sometimes it probably needs to be done. But it’s a very different matter than just serving a warrant.
I find their way of life dysfunctional, even repugnant; I find the practices of coerced underage marriage and polygamy in general to be perverse and sometimes predatory, and I have no problem being “judgy” in that way. I hate that it feels necessary to side with them at all, even in a very partial and qualified way.
My feelings exactly.
LikeLike
(heh. Things are getting confusing. I just let a comment on a previous post. OK. Let me sort things out.)
There’s polygamy and underage marriage. On polygamy, I have no problem saying that I’ve got major problems with the lifestyle. I think even in the best of circumstances, it leads to power imbalances. But if it’s all consenting adults, whatever. Adults do all sorts of stupid things.
As annoying as it is, teaching kids that polygamy is a great thing isn’t child abuse either.
But if there was a practice in the community of having underage girls get married to older men, if this was an overt doctrine taught in schools, and if the dozens of other accounts are true, then the state has every right to take those kids away. I don’t care if they have that “sarah” or not. They do have a bus load of pregnant teenagers. I’ve been listening to testimony from women who had escaped the ranch and it seems like they have a lot of evidence.
If those stories are untrue, then that’s another story entirely. As a regular church going Catholic, I wouldn’t be happy about the state interfering with religion. I just think that this group crossed the line from unique lifestyle choice to criminal behavior.
LikeLike
no kidding. i’m shocked and horrified at what i’m reading all over the interwebs where people are saying the FLDS are being picked on because they’re “different”. um, yeah, they’re different.
they’re PEDOPHILES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and can we please please please stop calling what is going on here marriage? marriage is something that occurs between two consenting ADULTS, or near-adults.
children cannot get married. they just can’t. what’s happening here is rape.
call it what it is and suddenly the “alternate lifestyle choices” don’t seem quite so valid.
LikeLike
I also think that the paranoia about the state cracking down on alternative religious communities is unfounded.
I lived for years in the shadow of Yeshiva University. There were many Hasidic families in the area. My kid played with their kids. The women liked that I named my son, Jonah, and chatted with me in the playground. My brother is a reporter in Orange County, NY which has a large Hasidic community. For the most part, people live and let live. The state leaves them alone, unless there’s some election tampering. The Hasidic community has unusual dress styles and usual family dynamics, but nobody cares.
LikeLike
Question: Would the polygamist communities be healthier (less closed off, less likely to marry off young girls and run off adolescent boys) if they could be out in the open? The shortage-of-women/expelling-boys thing could presumably be reduced if one could advertise openly for wives. (MWM patriarch looking for fifth wife. Must be slender, look good in pastels, and be good at sharing.)
LikeLike
honestly, i doubt it.
LikeLike
I believe that one of the reasons those communities are so closed is to keep the young girls from having any other options. Open up the communities, the girls see that they can marry a guy their own age for love instead of being forcibly married to an older, abusive and physically repulsive man – or for that matter show them that they can attend college and delay their marriages – they’ll leave in droves.
LikeLike