Did Marie Claire forget about non-custodial moms of color?
written by Anti-Racist Parent contributor Rebekah Spicuglia
Last week I was profiled in a Marie Claire article (August 2009 Issue) titled “Moms Giving Up Custody” or “What Kind of Mother Leaves Her Kids?” (http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/latest/mothers-giving-up-custody). I fit the model of what MC was looking for to challenge the stereotypes about noncustodial moms because I had willingly (albeit reluctantly) relinquished custody of my son without a court order because it was the right, loving choice in his best interest, the best choice I could make under the circumstances. As parents divorce every day, there is an inevitable division into custodial and noncustodial parenting roles, and unfortunately it is in divorce that the gendered expectations our society has around parenting are most obvious. If a woman does not have custody of her kids, the stereotypes are that she is an unfit mother (think Britney Spears) or that she is selfish in abandoning her kids for a new life.
MC’s article does a great deal to expand the narrative of noncustodial moms beyond the tabloid and really questioning our gender bias (the subtitle of the piece reads, “Divorcing dads give up custody every day. Increasingly, so do moms. So why are they judged more harshly for it?”) However, the article does not extend that stereotype-busting to women of color. In profiling three white women (and mostly white children, though my son is half-Mexican), it implies that noncustodial moms of color are “unfit mothers” (think Halle Berry in “Losing Isaiah”). By completely leaving out noncustodial moms of color, it implies they could not find any loving, responsible moms of color making this difficult decision. (It also, by extension, feeds into the stereotype of fathers of color as deadbeat dads.) In fact, I personally know at least one woman of color who was in a similar position as I was; she also happens to be quite beautiful, with a Cinderella story she was willing to share with the MC editor — but I don’t think she was never interviewed even though I forwarded her info.
I am grateful to MC for publishing this piece, but I wonder if MC played into the stereotypes about white women and motherhood having more choices. I don’t want to de-emphasize the validity of a woman’s choice to be a noncustodial mom, because that is a very important conversation that we need to be having as a society. But at least in my case, the MC piece over-emphasizes my “choice” in giving up custody (even using my desire for freedom in a pull-quote). It presents the challenges I faced as explanation for my decision but didn’t fully discuss the truth — that had I been able to retain custody, I would have. because there are also many related issues affecting custody that weren’t covered in the article – money, power, family ties, military service, domestic violence, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
In sharing my story, it is my hope that other noncustodial moms will read it and realize they are not alone, and that we all rethink gendered assumptions around parenting. The response to the piece has been incredible, reposted on many sites. But it is unfortunate that MC focused exclusively on white mothers — this conversation must be inclusive. Anti-Racist Parent is one of my favorite sites — would love to know what your readers think.
p.s. On my NonCustodial Parent Community website, I work to challenge biases about noncustodial parents and to raise awareness about the issues families are facing every day, getting beyond the custody battle and really about parenting – maintaining regular communication with our kids, getting informed about our parental rights, keeping an eye on media coverage of our issues. I created a 10-question, anonymous survey for noncustodial moms and dads that will help in this. The more respondents we can get the more useful the data. The survey can be found on my website: http://ncpcommunity.com/
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
maria housden wrote:
i don’t think Marie Claire intended to slight mothers of color. television producers and magazine editors have told me that it’s not easy to find mothers who willingly relinquished custody of their children for the reasons we did.
Posted 20 Jul 2009 at 7:00 am ¶
Kandeezie wrote:
I read the MC article. Wonderful stories. And I agree with you wholeheartedly that it lacks inclusivity. That would have made it 100x better.
Posted 20 Jul 2009 at 9:56 am ¶
Anon wrote:
“In profiling three white women … it implies that noncustodial moms of color are “unfit mothers”.
There’s a huge jump in your logic there. You’re reading WAY too much into it.
Posted 20 Jul 2009 at 10:45 am ¶
Mydria wrote:
I’m so glad you posted this, Rebekah. It’s given me a lot to think about. Maybe another publication can pick up the story from the moms of color point of view.
As a former journalist, I understand Maria’s point of view – publications don’t intentionally try to slight moms of color. It is hard to find people in general to share their stories, no matter what race, but that’s still no excuse. In my opinion, they need to TRY HARDER to be inclusive and represent AT LEAST one person of color!
Posted 20 Jul 2009 at 11:27 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Maria: television producers and magazine editors have told me that it’s not easy to find mothers who willingly relinquished custody of their children for the reasons we did.
I would respectfully consider that often the popular media does not really TRY very hard to find minority examples of what they consider to be majority issues, or issues that their majority audience is interested in.
Posted 20 Jul 2009 at 11:41 am ¶
Rebekah wrote:
I don’t necessarily think it was purposefully exclusive… but it wasn’t purposefully INCLUSIVE either.
Posted 20 Jul 2009 at 11:50 am ¶
sallyjrw wrote:
White privilege anyone?
Posted 20 Jul 2009 at 5:17 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Exactly, Sallyjrw – white privilege means not having to INTEND to be racist to be.. well, racist.
Posted 20 Jul 2009 at 9:28 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
Maria Housden,
I don’t understand, how is it possible that they were able to find you and not one single woman of color? Is it really that hard to find women of color in the same circumstances?
Posted 20 Jul 2009 at 11:05 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
Also, many thanks Rebekah for choosing to discuss the lack of inclusion of women of color, despite the fact that you could have decided to say nothing.
Posted 20 Jul 2009 at 11:07 pm ¶
ann weller wrote:
Rebekah said, in her article, that she had passed along the name of a woman of color who was willing to be interviewed and that person was never contacted. I am weary of this “don’t know how to find someone of color” excuse. Why not? How narrow a world (read “white”) do the editors of MC live in?
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 6:31 am ¶
dersk wrote:
@Rebekah: but what about being inclusive of people from different socioeconomic classes? What about east / west coasters vs. flyovers? What about atheists vs. religionists (we atheists have been discriminated against in custody hearings)? Heck, for a non-trivial example: what about including any input from the fathers?
It seems ridiculous to me to call this article, which had basically nothing to do with race, racist.
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 6:51 am ¶
dersk wrote:
Oh, and do note that they do include people from different backgrounds – one of the women in the article is English.
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 7:07 am ¶
Tami Winfrey Harris wrote:
Dersk,
Really? Does an article have to be “about race” for one to expect women of color to be included? In the United States, the implications and expectations of motherhood play out differently across races. In an article that specifically addresses the shaming of non-custodial mothers, it makes journalistic sense to analyze how that might play out with, say, Hispanic and black women, who are often shamed merely for being mothers. These biases do not play out between coasts and flyovers, though I agree that socioeconomics also reveals biases, though I would point out that, in America, socioeconomics, too, is often tied closely to race.
Do you really believe that in an article that is expressly about the experiences of non-custodial MOTHERS, it is more relevant to include the voices of men than women of color. THAT, to me, is ridiculous.
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 7:46 am ¶
dersk wrote:
@Tami: Yes, an article should be about race for a reader to be upset that such a small sample size doesn’t include a member of what she’d define as a woman of color, or minority, or non-white, or whatever. And I’d still assert that the English woman counts, and you could even include Rebeka (I’m going out on a limb and assuming Rebeka is Italian-American?). Turn it around. Does every article have to mention race? People in these comments have labelled this as a racist article because it doesn’t mention race as a factor.
You’re asserting (well, the comments above are asserting) that race is the number one most relevant factor that should have been considered in the article; I’m saying that I disagree.
And sure, it’d be just as relevant to look at the fathers’ experiences as well; to see what kind of sexism is applied to them as single dads and what societal expectations they’re running up against. It’s just that it would be more personally relevant to me than to you.
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 9:07 am ¶
Janine deManda wrote:
@dersk – she’s not English; she’s an American living in England, and how that constitutes “diversity” escapes me.
Although the article is worthwhile in that it sheds some light on American schizophrenia about mothers and motherhood, it’s a big fail in that it is yet another media representation of this country that represents “American” as not only white and middle class, but also straight, able-bodied, et cetera.
And no, dersk, not every article has to or realistically could represent the rich complexity and diversity of American experiences, but
a} some effort to deviate from the obviously inaccurate “norm” can and should be reasonably expected without tolerance of cop-outs like “it’s just soooooo haaaarrrddd to find people who aren’t white, straight, and middle class in this country”;
b} if the journalist and/or periodical have any actual investment in improving their craft, they’ll be ready and willing to hear critiques on how the can do so, and
c} if we as consumers of media have any actual investment in engaging and improving media representations, we’ll be ready and willing to offer constructive criticisms right along with deserved praise.
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 1:11 pm ¶
Janine deManda wrote:
dersk wrote:
“It seems ridiculous to me to call this article, which had basically nothing to do with race, racist.”
And I’m wondering, are you actually saying that those of us who aren’t white or straight or able-bodied or who deviate in whatever way from the generic “norm” have to wait for special interest stories about our particular difference{s} before we have any right to expect inclusion of our own American experiences in mainstream media? Does that mean that we just need to quiet down and accept that we won’t see any mainstream media portrayals of our lives except those that focus on our otherness? I guess we should just count our blessings that we have our various media ghettoes and be done with critical engagement of mainstream media ‘cuz it’s just not their intent to elide our experiences, and if they didn’t set out to erase us, then it’s all good, right?
This may seem like a leap, but I’m wondering if you have any familiarity with tort or criminal law? In both areas of law, there are separate legal consequences for those who do harm with intent and those who do harm through negligence, but – and this is important – there are legal consequences for causing harm BOTH when it’s intentional and when it’s negligent ‘cuz in both instances, harm has been caused. Can you see the analogy there, dersk? ‘Cuz it’s pretty damn obvious to me, and I had been under the mistaken assumption that it would be pretty damn obvious to anyone who engaged anti-racist spaces, but I’m thinking I may have been mistaken.
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 2:09 pm ¶
Janine deManda wrote:
Again @ dersk, ‘cuz this mess is just stickin’ in my craw. In addition to all I wrote above, the assertion that the absence of non-white folks in media representation is unproblematic so long as said representation “has nothing to do with race” is deeply problematic because it implies that white people are the raceless norm and can be expected to be present and represented in a variety of forums while non-white and therefore raced people can expect to be present and represented only in those forums that expressly address race. Is that really what you intended to assert, dersk? And if so, in short, wtf?!
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 4:53 pm ¶
Janine deManda wrote:
Please repeat above re: deeply problematic with regard to the sexlessness of men and the classlessness of the middle class and the sexual orientationlessness of heterosexuals, et cetera.
Posted 21 Jul 2009 at 4:55 pm ¶
Kristen wrote:
Though I understand the frustration about the lack of diversity in this article, I have a feeling this is not the first time a popular magazine failed to include a person of color in a sample size of three. This probably happens in every single issue of Marie Claire AND its competitors. I think it says more about the magazine in general and less about the particular topic of non-custodial parenthood. Most of them are severely lacking in diversity. But if we are going to call every periodical that does this “racist”, it will be a very long list.
Posted 22 Jul 2009 at 2:29 am ¶
dersk wrote:
@Janine: Yes, I’m saying it’s silly to call an article about THREE people racist because it doesn’t include a racial minority. If it had interviewed ten people, then I’d expect to see a broader range of interviewees.
By the way, I would ABSOLUTELY say that introducing the multiple nationalities aspect makes for a more interesting article and a more diverse sample. Don’t know if you’ve ever lived overseas or know many non-Americans, but in my experience white and black Americans have more in common than English and American whites.
What if there had been one person interviewed? Would you be offended if that person didn’t match whatever you consider your profile to be?
And I really have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say in comment 19.
By the way, for a bit of context – we’re talking about a magazine whose feature articles include “Brides on the Run,” “5 New Beauty Rules,” “Sex Diary: My Dream Guy,” and “Decode Your Boss: How to Work for a Diva.” Not exactly Pulitzer material, here…
Posted 22 Jul 2009 at 7:00 am ¶
dersk wrote:
@Janine – Oh okay, read through it again and I see what you mean. Let me try to rephrase my assertion:
In an article that is not primarily about a differentiator (e.g., race, gender, sexuality, religion, nationality) that has a sample size (i.e., the number of interviews) of THREE, it makes no sense to be upset that whichever differentiator you’re interested in isn’t included.
You can say that the article would have been better (i.e., more relevant to you) to include people of color; I can say it would have been better had it focused on more international issues; Dan Savage could say that it would have been better had it looked at a gay couple (or ex-couple). But it’s just not true to say the article’s racist, xenophobic, or homophobic.
Totally agree that it starts getting iffy if the sample size goes up and the article is meant to be more of an overview and not anecdotal.
Posted 22 Jul 2009 at 7:22 am ¶
Evanlee wrote:
I found the article disturbing bc the stories made it look like there was a better life for women after they gave up their kids. All the moms seemed happy to give up their kids, and their marriage. The psychologist featured in the article, Judith Sills, promotes the idea that women gain sexual freedom and experience a rebirth after divorce–that marriage and motherhood are oppressive. Maybe this is true for some but not for all, and we should consider a variety of perspectives and experiences.
On the other side, there are many mothers that give up custody bc they are forced–they are intimidated by their ex, abused by the system, or lacking financial resources to fight for custody. Their choice is taken away. It is agonizing to loose your children this way.
I think the article should have been more balanced, and included stories from all sides of the spectrum
Posted 11 Aug 2009 at 5:50 pm ¶