"How Many Different Fathers?": On the Intersection of Classism, Racism, Polyphobia, and Sexism

At my agency, families are supposed to be our clients. However, since children are not expected to change their behavior (so long as they are under 16, I believe), the onus of responsibility in ensuring that a case closes generally falls on the mother. Almost always the mother. Regardless of whether the case opened because the father's neglect of the children, and even sometimes regardless of whether it opened because of his abuse of them. Which is a whole other enraging post.

I have yet to have a case where a single father is raising children with the mother out of the picture, whereas the majority of my cases are ones where a woman is raising her children on her own, sometimes due to death of the father, more often due to the relationship ending and the woman "naturally" being given responsibility to raise the children. I often have cases where the father, who is still with the mother, doesn't live with the children, and as such his participation is seemingly only "encouraged" rather than "required" by the Department.

But, I wasn't intending to talk about my feelings about the Department's sexism. Or at least not about that particular iteration of its sexism. Instead I wanted to talk about the judgement that my clients receive about how many different fathers of how many different children they have.

It is, frankly, infuriating that social workers give a rat's ass about some other social worker's client's number of current or former partners. It's bad enough when I have to hear about some other worker's client who *OH NOES!* has 3 children from three different relationships, but to have people begging to know the details of my clients' sexual relationships? IN. FUR. IATE. ING. As it is when I'm complaining about a case to someone other than a coworker, and totally unrelated to what I'm saying, they need to know how many kids/fathers there are in the picture.

The thing is, I seriously don't give a shit how many partners someone has had, other than to get important information about familial relations between siblings and their parents. It is very relevant to me when I find out that one child's father is in jail, but the other child's father lives nearby and comes over once a month. It is relevant to me when I hear that a father of one of the children says that he "wouldn't mind" taking the other children if custody is taken away from the mother. These things matter to me because they say something potentially about how each child feels cared for in their family. They don't matter to me so that I can judge the mother better.

You know what literally never crosses my mind when talking to a mother who has had multiple sexual partners, and children with more than one?

That she doesn't respect herself.
That she is promiscuous and therefore less moral.
That she is out of control.
That she is stupid.

I had trouble writing that list because a) since I don't think those things automatically, it's hard to dredge them up when I try to, b) I fucking hate that these are considered appropriate things to think about someone else's choices to have children or not (or more likely, sex or not, because lots of people would just as harshly judge a woman who has had 3 abortions due to multiple sexual relationships as they would a woman with three children from multiple partners).

But I can see these thoughts scurrying across the faces and hear them embedded in the tones of those who ask me salaciously for my clients' relational details. And you know what? My clients all know that people judge them for these things. I know they know because on the few occasions where I've been able to convince (through my tone, body language, and probably some verbal cues) a client that I am not judging them for their sexual choices (or their father's or mother's sexual choices), they have invariably opened up to me emotionally and physically (less guarded posture, giving me details of their family lives, etc.) more than they had before, and more than they have with other workers.

So, this happens. Where does it come from? Perhaps you've noticed that I titled this post "On the Intersection of Classism, Racism, Polyphobia, and Sexism".

Most of my clients are poor (ok, all of my clients are poor).
Most of my clients are people of color (I was going to get my first white family this week, but another case came back so I still have a history of only families of color).

In our culture, poverty and non-whiteness are treated as though they are synonymous. This isn't the case, but you'll notice that my clients are all poor and they have all been people of color, so they *are* linked.
In some ways, I think the judgement is mostly a facet of classism, because there is an assumption that more wealthy people's relationships have been deliberated on (regardless of how long they lasted prior to marriage or children), whereas there is an assumption (and I can't say whether it's based in fact at all) that poor people are less likely to be married when they have children (I could see this being based in fact because it costs money to marry, and costs even more to divorce), which codes as "less likely to have thought about the relationship, prior to having children" (regardless of whether they've been together for 10 years) according to our society.
However, at the same time, since whiteness = money in our culture, a white family is not assumed to be poor as readily as family of color is. So, when we talk about "poor people" having lots of children "recklessly," as a society we are to be more honest as to our underlying thought processes, talking about "people of color" having lots of children "recklessly." As such, a random family of color* will be more likely to be assumed to have been the product of multiple relationships, as compared to a random white family. Related to this is the fact that since the majority of clients at my office are families of color, a "default" family that is being talked about, unless specified as white, will be assumed to be black (or maybe latino, depending on the social worker's experiences), and as such questions about sexual histories will be mapped onto a "default" family of color.

So that takes care of the classism and racism aspects of what I see going on when people ask "how many fathers?" (incredulously or certain of the answer, take your pick).

What about the sexism and polyphobia?

Well, as mentioned above, the vast majority of childraising parents are women. So, while fathers do get judged for having multiple children, just as often, I hear the mothers being judged for being in a relationship with a man with other children. Additionally, fathers often visit their children at their children's mothers' houses. As such, they have an ability to deny certain children if they wish, and social workers have an ability to neglect to wonder about other children, since there aren't any children in front of them requiring explanations. It's like a magic trick: "No children to see here!" And of course, in those instances where a woman has had multiple children with multiple partners, I NEVER hear judgement of the father for getting involved with a woman with other children. Usually, so long as he doesn't treat the other children like crap, he's just about lauded as a hero for having the courage and kindness to be able to love a woman with other children. Or something.

I trust I don't need to say that women's sexuality is highly stigmatized and denigrated in our society, and that children are the ultimate proof of sexuality. Do I? Because it is. So of course, that's another layer on the judgment cake.

And lastly, the thing that all ties it together with a big fucking bow is the fact that as a society, monogamy is viewed as moral whereas anything else is not. There is a book called The Ethical Slut, which for some in the poly community was their first introduction into polyamory. There is no book that I have heard of (and certainly none which are known in the monogamous community with the same type of recognition) called The Ethical Prude. Because, *obviously* prudishness is ethical. It's like when I heard the criticism of the phrase "white trash" where someone pointed out that specifying someone is "WHITE trash" implicitly assumes that people of color are trash, so you don't even need to put an identifying marker when talking about them. Same goes for The Ethical Slut, but in reverse: in our culture there is no need to write a book about how to ethically be monogamous, because it is assumed to be the case by default(even though lots of mongamous people treat their partner's terribly, or hurt their partner in petty little ways without noticing).

A couple months ago, in a paper to talk about one of my cases, I chose one where I had fucked up. I had assumed that someone had been raised by hir mother, because I have had the privilege of having been raised by an intact family, and my parents never were in a situation where they were too poor to feed themselves and their children, my parents never *needed* to give me to someone else to raise in order for me to eat. My privilege got in the way of my discussion with that client.
With hir partner, however, I was immensely prepared, because as zie was telling me (somewhat shamefully) about hir father and his multiple children, and how zie had 12 half-siblings (or whatever the number was), I was able to to bypass the step my supervisor would have needed, of judging and then working around that judgment. Because that's the topping on the cake for me, while my colleagues might (and many don't) acknowledge that classism or racism play a role in how they treat their clients, NONE of them seem to acknowledge how monogamism** plays a role in how they treat their clients.

I have classism that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients. I have racist ideas that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients. I have ableist ideas that I have to conciously combat when working with my clients.

What I don't have? Polyphobia. And unlike my coworkers and peers, I know that it exists and that it hurts people.


*in this case I believe Asian families would be partially immune
** like it? I just made it up. Do people know of a better word?

Today In Things Any Disability Rights Activist Could Tell You

So, people are nosy assholes. Well, let me amend that. Many people think that your body (or your loved one's body) is totally their business, the second that you (or your loved one) have something that sets you apart from "normal."

Things that set you apart from "normal" include: being pregnant, having a visible disability, having an invisible disability (and telling people about it), being mentally ill (and telling people about it), being fat, oh, and getting one of the "big" sicks (including our good friend cancer).

Let me tell you a little story.
Once upon a time, there was a social work student (we'll call him GleeviantD) whose father had just been diagnosed with cancer, and who was understandably a little "not so happy" about this situation.
GleeviantD kept having the seemingly innocuous question: "hey, how're you?" asked by people that were somewhere between friend and acquaintance, though a little bit closer to "fellow students." GleeviantD was starting to loathe this question because answering honestly: "not too hot, actually" was sure to elicit the "oh, not too hot!? what's going on?" which, when answered honestly, brought the conversation to a screeching halt because cancer sort of does that to a conversation.

GleeviantD though also didn't like lying or pretending that nothing was going on because a) he wasn't that sort of fellow and b) he had a sneaking suspicion that at *some* point he'd slip up when talking to these not quite friends, not quite acquaintances, more like fellow students, and mention the cancer and then the conversation would still come to a screeching halt, only now it'd be months later and he wouldn't be in control of when it occurred.

So GleeviantD did what seemed right. He decided to tell a whole class at once about the cancer, right after a lunch break, so that he could not have the same damn conversation 12 times. In fact, it was Gleeviant's fondest desire that he wouldn't actually have to have a *conversation* about it at all, that if the information was given in announcement form, and he phrased it just right, he could preclude a discussion of the matter entirely and just get on with the damn lecture.

I'm sure, gentle readers, that at this moment you are ruefully chuckling to yourselves that GleeviantD was so naive as to assume that making an announcement whereby he said "I figured I'd tell everyone like this because it's tiring have to have the same conversation over and over again" would actually forestall anything. If you aren't, you may commence now.

So GleeviantD attempted to figure out just how to phrase the announcement in a way that indicated a) he did not want sympathy, and was in fact starting to get a bit sick of it, b) he didn't want to talk to people about it, and was in fact starting to get a bit sick of having heartfelt discussions with people about it and c) he was handling it just fine, he wasn't about to break down crying right then and there and was planning on continuing to attend classes and such. Something along the lines of "so, just wanted to let you all know that last week my family found out my father has cancer. I'm going to be the one driving him to chemo, I don't think this will affect me coming to class or anything, but I wanted to let you know so that you aren't surprised if I'm not all "whee! awesome" when you ask how I am. I figured I'd tell everyone like this because it's tiring talking about it again and again." Not perfect, but pretty close to achieving his communication goals. Or so Gleeviant thought.

Immediately, someone across the room decided to offer this helpful bit of advice: "I know a naturopath who cured herself of cancer naturally. I'll give you her phone number for your dad if you want," while someone next to Gleeviant offered this: "Do you have support structures for yourself? If you're going to be supporting your father you really need to get yourself a support structure." Gleeviant realized he may have created a monster that he couldn't control and tried as best as possible to (politely) discourage this line of discussion by telling everyone "right now I'm doing fine, if I need anything, I will be sure to ask."

After class, both people who had earlier felt the need to speak up, again came to GleeviantD this time to profer their advice and sympathy personally.
This time, when one of them just about tried to force the number of the woman who cured herself of cancer using herbs into the hands of GleeviantD, he had to bite back his tongue in order to not tell her "thanks, but we believe in science as opposed to miracle cures, what with replicable results" instead saying: "my dad seems pretty cool with the idea of chemo so I'm just going to follow his lead."

The moral of the story: people think that other people's bodies are their fucking business. They don't care if you've just said "I don't want to talk about it" they don't care to find out *what* you are doing as a caretaking method before telling you what you should do (or should want to do), and they certainly don't seem to care that it's none of their fucking business to offer help, unless you ask for help.

Let's all try to be less like those people in the future, ok? Or else we'll make GleeviantD quite pissy.

This has been a "Today In: Things Any Disability Rights Activist Could Tell You"

New and Improved Insights Upcoming: Bad News Edition

On Wednesday my father found out what type of cancer he has. As of Friday I didn't even know that he had *any* type of cancer (though he did, apparently he didn't realize that it might be a big deal to everyone else in the family). I tell you this not to gain sympathy points (and in fact, I request that people not comment to that effect).

I'm not even writing this to let you know that posts will be less frequent, because honestly, at this moment I don't believe this to be the case. While yes, I'll probably be the one to mostly be ferrying him to and from chemo and appointments (since I am nearby and my mother is already dealing with her step-mother and sister's cancers), I hope that this will not affect the amount of blogging I do.

However, it may be changing some of my focuses. My grandmother died of cancer when I was 2, so I never really knew her, nor did I really have a conception of what a struggle with cancer might look like. Likewise, due to my aunt and grandmother being neither nearby nor people who I want to spend copious amounts of time with, especially when they are needing a lot (and rightfully so! what with the whole "cancer" thing), I haven't really had to deal too strongly with what it is like to be a close family member of someone dealing with hospitals all the time, or that pesky "survival" business. I have some assumptions that this time will make me more aware of classism and how it affects access to treatment, and also how the medical profession can fail or succeed to treat patients with respect, though I can't be certain (I might be too distracted by the situation at hand to look at the larger systemic issues).

So, if it is the case that by being a caretaker of my father I encounter new situations which make me think new (and improved?) thoughts about marginalization and oppression, it is quite possible this will be something I will start writing about with more frequency.

Also, since cancer (and my father's ability to survive it) will be something that I will be dealing with on a regular basis, it is likely that even on posts that are not explicitly about oppression or marginalization, or cancer, that mentions of it will slip in. So... don't be surprised?


Already I have new insights. For instance: there is no fucking easy way to tell someone that your dad has cancer. It's frustrating when you don't want to sidetrack an entire conversation but you also don't want to tell a big ole lie of omission by being all "oh life's good" when the usually innocuous question of "how are you?" comes up. Do you send out massive emails? Do you put up a blog post and tell everyone to read it? Do you tell people individually? Do you casually slip "chemo" into conversation? I will find out the answers to this, and more! in the coming months.

Hopefully my further insights will be a little more... insightful.

Apologies

I've been feeling sort of guilty because my resurgence of blog activity is so me, me, me focused. Which is silly, because who else would write this blog if not me? (If I were cool, right now I'd introduce a new guest blogger/co-blogger, but I'm not, so.... life sucks and then everyone dies, eh?)

I guess I mean that recently most of my blogged about thoughts have been about straightness and queerness, transness and cisness, and well, that's about it. But actually I've been spending a whole lot of time thinking about able-ist crap (Amanda Palmer's new project comes to mind, as do the awesome writings of FWD/Forward), and some racism stuff (I have thoughts about why Tiger Wood's whatever has become such a big fucking deal, and guess what, they relate to him being a person of color), and then of course there are other thoughts, like my incessant nagging depression, and the fact that the house needs to get cleaned, and what's going on with the dog, and how the hell do I expect myself to be a good social worker/foster parent/force for social justice/insert positive thing here, when I'm plagued with a constant hatred of myself and the idea that I'm basically a pretty worthless person who might be better off if I were, say, non-existent (oh hey, I just repeated myself, this is my depression in a nutshell!), and what to make for dinner.

I'm also spending a good chunk of my time thinking about all the things I want to do once I get my (apparently magical?) Masters in Social Work, like: set up a kitchen where people who are homeless/temporarily homeless can cook their own food free of charge and eat a meal without it being this big deal (because generally food that is easy to eat standing up/while moving/without a stove or even a microwave isn't all that healthy/nutritious, and while some people who can prove they are homeless can get "special" food stamps benefits letting them buy premade warm mac & cheese or mashed potatoes, lots of people can't and therefore can only buy needing-to-be-boiled pasta, even though they don't have a stove/running water), or set up a "pro-bono" type of thing where licensed therapy type people go into jails where mentally ill criminals are basically just stored, and give them real honest to goodness therapy to help them, and having a really good home-based therapy program especially for people suffering from PTSD and those who are dealing with sexual assualt/rape, (because hey, I know I won't be a victim blamey jackass, unlike apparently the vast majority of other therapists in the world), and how about a really actually non-judgmental drop in place for pregnant people who may not have intended to be pregnant where we'll give totally even-handed information about adoption and abortion and keeping a child, (and regardless of what you choose we'll help you do it, including months of therapy after whatever decision you make comes to fruition, and if you want to give a child up for adoption we'd also help you find prospective parents and be non-classist and not transphobic and ok with polyamory and such, and if you want to keep the child and funds are a problem we'll work our asses off to find you clothing and services and food and housing and, and if you want an abortion we'll drive you to the place), and yeah, I have a lot of ideas.

I just sort of want to fix the world and be perfect. Which, I've been told is not possible, and hoping/expecting that from myself may in fact be a problem.

So, I guess this is a "sorry" for not writing enough about racism and able-ism.

And even though I know you think is silly: sorry for not being perfect and fixing the world.