A Step Backward for Puerto Rican Women

@PRDailysun

When it comes to ending violence against women, Puerto Rico has taken a giant step backward.  To be sure, the islands have had a comprehensive law to protect women and girls against domestic violence since 1989. But the Puerto Rican Supreme Court has blocked a lot of women from its protection.  

In a decision handed down in March, the Court upheld a lower court's ruling that a victim of intimate partner violence was not protected by Puerto Rico’s domestic violence law because she was not married to the man who attacked her.  The woman, who was separated but not yet divorced from her husband, was battered by her new partner.

The Supreme Court held that the historical background of the law indicated that the Puerto Rican legislature’s intent was to protect the integrity of the family and its members. So, it held, the law did not apply to extramarital affairs. The court did make clear that the assault violated other criminal law provisions.

The ruling has, understandably, outraged many people, as far away as New York, where city and state elected officials voiced their objections. For starters, Puerto Rico’s domestic violence law explicitly applies broadly to interpersonal relationships. It covers violence by someone with whom the victim lives or has lived or has had a consensual relationship and does not require a marital bond between the victim and the abuser.   In other words, the ruling imposes a perverse interpretation on a commonsense and literal reading of the law, based on far reaching assumptions about the intent of the legislature.

But more important, through this ruling the Puerto Rican Supreme Court is sending the message that some women may not deserve equal protection from the state.  This is the wrong message to put forward in a society where interpersonal violence is a serious problem.   

According to official sources, on average, 20,000 domestic violence incidents are reported every year in Puerto Rico, along with about 3,000 incidents of sexual violence.  Official sources estimate that, in the case of sexual violence, only about 15 percent of rapes are reported.   If the proportion is the same for domestic violence, approximately 130,000 women and girls are subjected to domestic violence every year, and 18,000 are raped, in a place with only 4 million people. Whatever the actual figures, violence at the hands of their partners and families is a serious problem for Puerto Rican women and girls.

Paradoxically, Puerto Rican women are far from disempowered. Women on the islands achieved the right to vote in 1935, before almost any nation in Latin America and the Caribbean (outdone only by Ecuador, where women have been able to vote since 1929). And Puerto Rico’s women and girls have long outdone their male counterparts when it comes to education: a century ago, nearly three quarter of the graduates from the University of Puerto Rico were women.  Today approximately 160 women are graduating from Puerto Rico’s higher education programs for every 100 men. 

So the reason for the high rate of interpersonal violence has to be found elsewhere.  Emerging evidence from across the world suggests that it’s not enough for women to be financially independent and educated for the incidence of domestic violence to drop—though those are  necessary conditions.  

 But because violence against women often is fuelled by deeply held notions of male dominance and entitlement, it doesn’t stop just because women, objectively, are as educated and employable as men.  Rather, successful anti-violence initiatives must engage men and boys as well as women and girls to do away with prejudices about what families “must” look like, and what women and men “should” do. 

The Puerto Rican Supreme Court’s ruling is particularly problematic because it does just the opposite. By suggesting that “integrity of the family and its members” trumps the right of certain women in certain relationships to equal protection against violence, the court undermines the many valid initiatives to stop violence against women in Puerto Rico.  And that’s indeed something to be outraged about. 

Gay Marriage: The Issue Is Respect

@HuffingtonPost

Earlier this year, a student in a human rights seminar I was teaching declared her conviction that gay parents damage their children by virtue of being gay. I explained as gently as I could why this is a discriminatory notion, incompatible with human rights standards, and moved on. My student sat as if stunned for two minutes, then gathered her books and left the class.

She later confronted me outside the classroom, and I was astonished to see just how fervently she insisted that her opinion was both based on science and respectful of rights. Neither is true. As New York State joins the ranks of countries and other jurisdictions recognizing same-sex marriage, it's worth reflecting on rights and respect.

The fact is that thousands of human beings are subjected to violence across they globe simply because they are suspected of being gay. In Brazil alone, over 2,500 men were murdered between 1997 and 2007, ostensibly for being gay. In the United States, the It Gets Better Project has highlighted the sustained violence and bullying young people suffer just because they aren't straight. This month, the United Nations Human Rights Council for the first time condemned violence and other human rights violations based on a person's sexual orientation or identity.

Of course, those who oppose same-sex marriage in New York State and elsewhere are not saying they support violence against LGBTQ people. Nevertheless, the same basic proposition lies at the root of both: the notion that you are somehow a different -- lesser -- type of human being if you are not, or are not seen to be, straight, and that society is justified in rejecting you.

For too many people it is only a short leap from seeing homosexuality as offensive to justifying physical harm. In this way, for example, the ban on inter-racial marriage in this country coexisted with societal acceptance of violence against people of color. Many times, inter-racial couples suffered violence precisely because they dared to break the ban.

But perhaps the deepest-held notion is the one that was expressed so vehemently by my student: that all children brought up by LGBTQ persons are psychologically damaged. Fortunately, it is increasingly recognized that it is not exposure to diversity but rather to bigotry and prejudice that is damaging to kids. In 2008, the European Court on Human Rights held that France was not allowed to deny the adoption application of a women just because she was a lesbian. And in February, the High Court in the United Kingdom barred a couple from becoming foster parents because their anti-gay views were held to be potentially harmful to the children who would be in their care.

In fact, research shows that children with gay parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as children with straight parents, and that the key to childhood adjustment is good relationships between parents and children and between the parents themselves.

Marriage, of course, does not guarantee good relationships. But where family leave and other benefits depend on marital status, children are disadvantaged if their parents are not allowed to marry. The vote in Albany this week is significant because it is another step toward guaranteeing children and adults the rights and respect they are entitled to.

A Timely, and Perfect, Mother's Day Gift

(Originally posted on the Huffington Post)

Leading up to Mother's Day, the commercial world would have us believe that flowers and jewelry are the best gift a mother could receive. Yet most mothers I know (including myself) don't need roses or bracelets.

We need time.

Time to be with our children. Time to care for them when they are sick, or just take them to the doctor for routine check-ups. Time to participate in our children's education as active learning partners, and to be constructive members of Parent Teacher Associations.

Unfortunately, the United States provides few legal protections to enable women--or men--to have this much-needed time with our children. There is no law to guarantee paid sick leave or vacation, and as a result half of U.S. workers must pay for their own sick days, and one out of five lose pay if they take any vacation time. There is no law to require paid maternity leave, and there are no allowances for time off to breast-feed. Federal law provides eligible workers with 12 weeks of unpaid extended sick leave to be used as parental leave, but about 40 percent of workers don't even qualify for that.

In fact, American lawmakers are loathe even to contemplate paid maternity benefits. In 2002 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on whether the United States should ratify the international women's rights treaty (formally called the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the CEDAW). The alternative was to remain in the company of Somalia, Iran, Qatar and a few others as one of only 8 countries in the world that refuse to accept its provisions.

At that time the Senate Committee concluded that, yes, the United States should ratify, but only if we can opt out of the commitment to paid maternity leave or other maternity related benefits. An overcrowded fall Senate schedule prevented the treaty
from being considered by the full Senate, and the United States still has not ratified the treaty.

This contrasts sharply with other high-income countries--such as Canada, Denmark, Australia, and Spain, all parties to the treaty--where the law provides for paid parental leave without exception, often with the right to return to work gradually, on a part-time basis. Many high-income countries entitle parents to tailor parental leave to their needs, with options such as taking the leave in one block with a paid allowance, or working part-time over a longer period; reducing the working day during a set time period, or extending the paid leave period into unpaid leave, with job guarantees.

Not surprisingly, parents in other high-income countries tend to spend more time with their children. The percentage of families with two working parents who work 80 hours a week or more is twice as high in the United States as in the closest comparable European country.

What is perhaps less well-known is that many lower income countries have much stronger legal protections for paid parental leave and related issues than the United States. Most Latin American countries require employers to allow breastfeeding mothers the time and physical space to breastfeed for at least a year after childbirth. And paid vacation and sick leave are protected by law in most of the region.

Of course, legal provisions don't necessarily translate into effective protection. Many women in Latin America can't take advantage of their legal rights because they work in undocumented jobs or because they have to work several full-time jobs to make ends meet.

It is, however, noticeable that all the talk about family values in the United States doesn't seem to translate into actual legal protection, and that lawmakers in other countries--rich and poor--seem to have a much better grasp of what it really takes to be a good parent: time and support.

The good news is that our Senators soon get another chance to show they get it. The Obama administration has sent the women's rights treaty for review by various government agencies, and the Senate is likely to consider approving it by fall. When they do, they may look back at the 2002 transcripts and feel tempted to carve out similar exceptions on paid maternity leave and benefits. But when that time comes, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members should think about Mother's Day and ask themselves: what do mothers need?

Here's a hint: it's not flowers. It's time.

True Choices: access to safe and legal abortion is the end rather than the beginning of women's childbearing choices

(Originally published in Conscience Magazine)

FOR AN OUTSIDER, US POLITICS around choice seem oddly divorced from reality. At its most reductionist, choice in this country means merely that a pregnant woman can choose to buy herself an abortion. In a slightly more expansive line of argument, the cost and conditions related to the medical procedure are considered as limitations to choice. But rarely does the debate critically examine the other aspect of choice: whether actually having a child is viable, financially and professionally.

To me, this is the crux of the matter. I have never questioned that women are entitled to free and legal abortion as part of a continuum of necessary health care. But I believe it is tragic when women choose to terminate pregnancies they would have continued if society had provided them with the necessary support. But what would that support look like?

In Latin America there is a popular saying: "Every newborn comes to the world with a loaf of bread in their hand." Anyone who has ever looked at the cost of childrearing knows that this is not true. Apart from the basic supplies such as diapers, food and housing, children need care and education. At a minimum, women and children need access to prenatal health care, childbirth facilities with trained staff and infant health care. And there is a time issue too. Women need time off to give birth, and parents need to spend time with their children, to care for them when they are sick and to participate actively in their rearing and education generally.

The United States provides few legal protections for any of these--largely uncontested--needs. There is no law to guarantee paid sick leave or vacation, and as a result half of the US workforce must pay for their own sick days, and 20 percent for their time off for vacation.

There is no law to protect paid maternity leave, and there are no allowances for time off to breastfeed. Federal law affords 12 weeks of unpaid extended sick leave to be used as parental leave, and only for those who are eligible, which excludes about 40 percent of American workers.

There are no general provisions for health care--not even, in most states, for children. Today, some 8.7 million children in the US have no health insurance.

Childcare options are mostly private, at least until the child is four years old, and private infant-care options are limited. "The infant-care shortage in this country is amazing," says Veronica Arrealo, co-chair of the Now Mothers/Caregivers Economic Rights Committee. "As soon as that pregnancy test comes in with two lines, the first call you should be making really is to the infant-care facility, because it is generally about a nine-month wait to get a slot."

Money and time are probably two of the main concerns of those thinking of expanding their families. In most high-income countries, public policies recognize and support that. A 2008 publication from the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) in Washington, compares legislative frameworks on these issues in high-income countries to the United States, and looks briefly at their impact on key equality indicators. (Ariane Hegewisch and Janet C. Gornick, "Statutory Routes to Workplace Flexibility in Cross-National Perspective," Institute for Women's Policy Research, 2008)

The contrasts are sharp. In all countries examined--Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States--only the United States does not provide for paid parental leave. Most allow the right to a gradual return to work on a part-time basis. Many countries entitle parents to tailor the parental leave to their needs, with options such as taking the leave in one block with an allowance, or working part-time over a longer period; reducing the working day during a set time period or extending the paid leave period into unpaid leave, with job guarantees.

Not surprisingly, parents in these other high-income countries tend to spend more time with their children. Ariane Hegewisch, one of the authors of the IWPR report, notes that the proportion of married couples with children in the United States who work 80 hours a week or more is twice as high as in the next European country. "The question of choice really is a question of whether you have time to combine work with having a family," she says, "which is not really something you have in the United States."

Legislative protections for paid parental leave and part-time options, in fact, have a direct impact on women's choices because they don't force women to "choose" between being a mother and being a professional. The IWPR study shows that women with college degrees in the United States are less likely to have paid employment than women in any of the other 20 surveyed countries, implying at least in part that where more legislative protections are in place, more women get to take advantage of their education in formal employment.

What is perhaps less well-known is that many lower-income countries have much stronger legal protections for paid parental leave and options than the United States. Costa Rican and Salvadoran law, for example, provides for three months leave after an infant is born, at 80 percent and 75 percent pay respectively. Most Latin American countries require employers to allow breastfeeding mothers the time and physical space to nurse their children generally for at least a year after childbirth. And paid vacation and sick leave are protected by law almost everywhere in the region.

Having parental rights protections enshrined in law is no guarantee of time and support. For one thing, the protections are generally linked to continuous, fulltime employment, which has always been more common for men than for women. Perhaps more importantly, more and more workers--men and women alike--find themselves in more precarious situations, in part-time or temporary contracts, or are otherwise excluded from the statutory provisions that might protect their choices.

But in terms of societal understanding and support of parenting, the question is not to what extent legal protections are properly implemented, but rather if they exist at all. Few would contest that time and quality child- and health-care options are necessary for good parenting. The question is who we, as a society, believe should pay for them. It is this societal understanding of parenting responsibilities that is expressed in the law.

In the United States, the main cost of childrearing falls to the individual family or woman, because, in general, Americans think of parenting exclusively as a personal choice whereas European and Latin Americans do not. This fundamental difference in the way people think about children and families is what determines what real choice means.

Paradoxically, it may be precisely the culturally ingrained respect for seemingly free individual choices in the United States, without reference to contextual limitation such as money and time, which has led to a lack of political support for legally sanctioned parenting options. In her book, The Price of Motherhood, former New York Times writer Ann Crittenden exposes the myth of choice as one of the main reasons for the prevailing "hands-off parenting" policies in the United States: "The sidelined ambitions, the compromises mothers live with that their husbands never had to make, all justified on the grounds of women's choice ... It's their choice. No one 'made them do it,' so no one has to do anything about it."

But if you dig a bit deeper, perhaps the real opposition or political discomfort with regard to the provision of childcare and parental work flexibility options in the United States is linked to perceptions of who is seen to benefit from a stronger support network. And this, again, is closely related to how welfare policies and parenting choices are covered in the mainstream media.

Consider the case of Nadya Suleman. Ms. Suleman, already a mother of six children under the age of 7, gave birth to octuplets in January 2009 after in-vitro fertilization. Ms. Suleman's octuplets were the second full set of octuplets to be born alive in the United States and the birth was newsworthy because of that.

What is interesting is that the media coverage about the case, in particular as expressed in opinion pages and editorials, pits choice against choice. For some, Ms. Suleman is seen as epitomizing "good motherhood," making a disinterested choice to continue a multiple pregnancy that could have seriously and permanently damaged her health. For others, her choice is based on individual greed and an alleged desire to leech on society by having children she clearly can't afford to feed, clothe and house without support.

In contrast, the explicit reasoning behind European welfare policies that affect parental choice is rarely individual. Often, there is reference to a broader macroeconomic argument--that all economies need to produce the next generation of workers. At times, this argument is expressed as nationalism or poorly veiled racism: one way to reverse falling birth rates and prevent diversity in the workforce is to promote parenting through tax breaks, work-time flexibility and childcare options.

Interestingly, though, many of the basic parental support policies in Europe such as paid sick leave, paid paternity leave and caps on work hours precede the falling birthrates in the 1990s, and the corresponding concern with population composition and growth. Commentators link the motivation for these policy changes to a European notion of collective responsibility and to industry-wide union organizing that focused on establishing a social floor through permanent legislation instead of, as in the United States, through bilateral contractual obligations that can be and often are renegotiated in times of economic difficulties.

Which brings us back to the overwhelming American focus on individuality, and the resulting limited understanding of parenting as separate from a national interest in the new generation. Women's organizations in the United States have, in fact, long challenged the notion of Americans as naturally individualist. "I struggle with the word 'choice'," says Erin Mahoney, chair of the Women's Liberation Social Wage Committee. "When we emphasize the individual choice of parenting, we take away the fact that we, as women, are doing real work to rebuild society. Every child that's raised in this country is the next mailman, the next nurse. It's not the responsibility of individual women to do that work alone."

There have been times in American history where the national interest has superseded individualism, with direct consequences for the provision of childcare. In the 1930s, the federal government sponsored nursery schools under the Works Progress Administration program, which was expanded to cover daycare as a war-time necessity during World War II. Even now, women employed by the US military enjoy access to legally mandated quality childcare, a provision that, to a large extent, was motivated by a need to maintain trained personnel and prevent turnover in the military in the interest of national security.

Generally, though, in the United States children remain the exclusive concern and responsibility of their parents. And choice remains a codeword for legal but often inaccessible abortion services. Logically, one would therefore expect women in the United States to choose to have smaller families than in Europe. This is not the case. Though the birthrate has been declining in the United States, it remains higher than in most European countries. In fact, Japan and about 20 countries in Central and Eastern Europe are experiencing negative population growth (when we exclude the impact of immigration and emigration).

"The central question is why people continue to have children when it is so hard," muses Ariane Hegewisch. "And conversely, there is no evidence that everyone in Europe has 16 kids, just because they can."

One reason may be that while politics in the United States is traditionally unconcerned with women and equality, children are, at least in political rhetoric, a strong motivator for change. Just recently, the corporate bailouts and economic rescue plan, while seemingly inconsistent with American individualism, have been justified by reference to the next generation.

Perhaps the policies that protect women's choices as mothers would be more palatable to American policymakers and to the public at large if they were articulated as necessary for children. "When you deny support to mothers, you punish the children," says Hegewisch. Veronica Arreola from now agrees: "All of the things we advocate for: childcare, infant care, health care, sick leave, etc. All are things that, when it comes right down to it, are about caring for our children."

In my experience interviewing hundreds of women about their childbearing choices, access to safe and legal abortion is the end rather than the beginning of that choice. Women talk to me about food for their children, time to play and concern with paying for their children's education. They talk about expensive birth control and childcare and about limited healthcare options. They talk about how difficult it is to decide when and if to become a mother. And they talk about abortion as an option where other options have failed. Public policy on choice should reflect all of these essential concerns.