http://www.newsweek.com/id/236384
In the present day Queer movement, same sex marriage remains one of the key struggles that activists battle in the movement-and so is same sex divorce. In the article The Right to Love- and Loss, Eve Conant (1989) claims that while same sex couples are struggling with the right to marry they are also struggling with the right to divorce. In terms of marriage, only a handful of the civil states legally recognize same sex marriage. When divorce comes into play the statistics are about the same or less. While the struggle for same sex marriage is a hardship among same sex couples, same sex divorce presents even more hardships for same sex couples that decide to separate. I argue that same sex marriage-and divorce-is challenged due to the fact that the history behind the traditional marriage intended between a man and a woman is at the root of the many struggles that same sex couples face in marriage and divorce.
Conant (1989) discusses the issue that a lesbian couple in Dallas, Texas is facing in receiving a divorce. Since the state of Texas does not recognize same sex marriage as a legal status, the state will not grant the couple a divorce. Since the couple married in Massachusetts, the state argued that they would have to move back to Massachusetts to receive a divorce. This presented a dilemma because the couple had established themselves in Texas and to move would have been costly and unnecessary. Also, for them to receive a divorce in the state of Massachusetts, they would have to be residents of the state for al least six months (Conant 1989).
Same sex marriage as become one the most politically charged issues within our country. As the opponent side of same sex marriage argues, marriage is traditionally meant for a man and a woman. Looking at history, one cannot deny that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman. However, this can, and should, be analyzed and explored to further understand the reasoning and purpose of a traditional marriage being defined between a man and a woman. I propose the question as to why is it traditional for marriage to be between a man and a woman. From what I understand, much of it rests on the socialization of gender roles within our society.
In her article, Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation, Paula Ettelbrick (1989) states that the institution of marriage is “one of the most vulnerable, impenetrable institutions in modern society,” (Ettelbrick 1989: 305). She goes on to claim that marriage is an institution that gives those who marry a powerful status. However, it is important to realize that the institution of marriage is embedded deep within a patriarchal system. Ettelbrick (1989) describes it as a system where men are given power over women and women are the property of men (Ettelbrick 1989: 306). Women are forced into a subservient role as wife and mother while men are granted power and control over them. It is for these reasons that Ettelbrick (1989) challenges the notion that marriage is liberating and denotes that same sex marriage will solve all of the problems that same sex couples face.
Ettelbrick (1989) offers valid points in her argument. For one, marriage is deeply rooted within the patriarchal system. As tradition has it, the man is suppose to propose to the woman and the father of bride is suppose to give her to the husband at the wedding. Ideally, the wife should seek to bear children and then become a stay at home parent, while the husband maintains a job and it titled as the head of the household. Same sex marriage challenges this system established upon gender roles and forces society to rethink the function gender roles play in our society. Based on these notions, I can understand Ettelbrick’s argument that marriage is not liberating after all.
While Ettelbrick (1989) makes a good argument against marriage, I argue that for same sex couples, it can be liberating, whether it be in marriage or divorce. As it stands, same sex couples are denied many of the rights and protections that are established and offered to opposite sex couples. For example, opposite sex couples that are married are given tax incentives, both by the state and federal governments and can file jointly. They can receive their partner’s social security, pension, and have visitation rights for hospital visits. Same sex couples are not offered this protection. Divorce can be just as messy. In a divorce, same sex couples experience hardships when it comes to dividing assets and tax consequences are very high, all because they do not enjoy the protections established under marriage (Conant 2010).
Based on the stated facts, it is hard to completely agree with Ettelbrick (1989). Her view that marriage is nothing more than a product of the heterosexist and patriarch system is understandable and recognizable. It is valid to rally for a move to oppose marriage. Yet, one cannot deny the many protections and rights that same sex couples would gain in a marriage and in divorce.
Another issue that traditional marriage proposes to same sex marriage is child rearing. Many believe that child rearing should be done only in a marriage that is between a man and a woman. Once again, gender roles can be said to play a major role in this ideology. Women are supposed to be the caretakers of children, not men. There are also false beliefs that if same sex couples are allowed to raise children, that the children will turn out “gay” and abnormal. Statistics and studies show that this is not the case and that children raised by same sex couples are just as normal as children raised in a traditional marriage. Same sex marriage challenges the establishment of children rearing between man and woman. As Nancy Naples (2004) states in her article Queer Parenting in the New Millennium, queer parenting challenges the heteronormativity of child rearing by heterosexual couples.
I also think of the two alumnae who came to visit Colgate recently. Yana Kadiysha and Jennifer M. Colon are self identified lesbians and mothers of two young healthy boys. In a Brown Bag, they discussed the challenges and hardships, as well as the triumphs that they faced as lesbian mothers in America. Throughout their talk, it was clear that they were breaking down the many barriers of heteronormativity and traditional marriage. However, they were more focused on whether or not the young two year old needed his diaper changed.
As the struggle for same sex marriage-and divorce rights continues, it will be interesting to see how the traditional marriage is challenged and disfigured. While I do agree that marriage is a hetero-normative institution, it cannot be denied that it offers great status and privilege to couples. Instead of denying the institution all together, I believe that the movement should work to reform it through challenging the traditional heteronormativity. It is clear that the institution has its inherent flaws. However, as established earlier, there is much to be gained.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Newsflash: Porn, Good for Us?
Would you agree with a person who told you pornography is good for us? Well after reading Milton Diamond’s "Porn: Good for us?" in The Scientist, you might question your original beliefs about porn. Diamond’s article examines the common beliefs “that ready access to pornography disrupts social order, encouraging people to commit rape, sexual assault, and other sex-related crimes. And even if pornography doesn’t trigger a crime…it contributes to the degradation of women.” However, even though the social research is purported to show evidence for the “goodness” in porn, the degradation and objectification of women overrides these findings.
Diamond throughout his article tears a part many of the common assumptions regarding the porn industry. To demystify the belief that watching porn leads to violence, especially since many of the videos and movies show violent acts, Diamond counters by saying some believe watching porn is a way to satisfy sexual arousal, thus becomes an alternative to sexual aggression. All of the studies that analyzed the correlation between porn and sex crimes have found that an increase in availability of porn corresponds to decreased or constant levels of sex crimes. This holds up in studies in Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Finland, the Czech Republic, and the United States. Another interesting finding is that rapists and child molesters, when compared to a group of “normal” males, use less porn; which is a surprise because some rapists and molesters recreate a fantasy and act in a similar fashion. Finally, Diamond cites that “calloused attitudes toward women” do not correlate to one’s exposure to porn. The whole article is brought together at the end, when Diamond mentions that there is no evidence supporting the claims that porn causes the above behaviors made by women’s shelters and other venues.
Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs is the perfect starting point for providing evidence to Diamond’s contrary. One of the strongest points Levy makes in her book occurs early on, “How is resurrecting every stereotype of female sexuality that feminism endeavored to banish good for women?” (Levy, pg4) This quote directly relates to porn and the broader category of raunch culture, in which it falls, because porn is basically female performance of sexuality for the pleasure of men. In addition, raunch culture is the mainstream appearance of women exposing their bodies in order to gain some type of liberation and confidence. Many women cite empowerment, gaining approval, and desire not to be excluded as reasons they participate in something so demeaning to their sex. Levy goes on to say that "it is not enough to be [a] successful, rich and accomplished" woman anymore (pg33). Even if women believe they are showing how confident they are in their own skin, they are actually neutralizing the talent and power they possess. This is further supported by the fame women get when they pose in Playboy or other magazines aimed at men’s pleasure. Amanda Beard is now more popular for her center page spread, than her swimming abilities. Is this what women have come to in order to get similar attention as men do without exposing their downstairs? Women are basically being encouraged to transform themselves into what mainstream society wants, instead of being themselves.
The fact that the sexual revolution, also known as raunch culture, coincided with the women’s liberation is interesting because both movements were fighting to liberate woman, but did so in conflicting ways. Feminists used tactics that didn’t involve using the female body for the pleasure of men, while those involved in the sexual revolution took full advantage of a naked woman. They believe this revolution displays their freedom; they are able to do whatever they desire with their bodies. One of the initial goals of women’s liberation was advancing “women’s sexual pleasure and satisfaction” (Levy, pg54) , which brought a completely different perspective to the 2nd wave of feminism and allowed Hugh Hefner to use them to create the sexual revolution, a movement that “seemed to apply only to men” (Levy, pg58). Hefner’s influence was greatly felt as a fraction in the women’s liberation movement formed; anti-porn vs. the freedom to look at or partake in porn. Even though the feminism movement became torn, there was still strong support against the porn industry because of how it simplifies a woman into what she will do for man’s attention.
The statement porn decreases rape and other sexual assaults against women is alarming. Rape culture, a culture in which rape and other forms of violence against women are common and tolerated, as well as involving the presence of images depicting sex and violence, is a major issue affecting our society today. Today’s advertising uses scenes that show a woman being gang raped or her crotch positioned directly over a target. How do these images represent anything besides violence against women? Any porn video would easy display similar scenes and ideas involving aggressive and violent actions towards. The fact that rape has decreased ever since porn has invaded our country is skeptical. Rape is one of the hardest crimes to convict, if not the hardest, because it typically involves the victim’s story vs. her/his attacker’s. The conviction rates for this crime are awful, thus many women these days feel that the pain and embarrassment that coincides with reporting a rape is not worth it. Thus, Diamond’s statement that porn is good for us is debatable on this aspect as well.
The participation by women in porn, whether watching or flaunting their naked bodies, has allowed the porn industry to become as profitable as it is nowadays: it even “makes more than the top technology companies combined, including Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon.” Thus, porn is more of a part of mainstream culture than many would think. Furthermore, 9.4 million women logged onto porn websites in one month alone. This is alarming because we cannot say that men are the only ones to blame for the existence of porn, women are fueling this industry’s existence as well. The involvement of women watching porn on such high levels brings in the topic of patriarchy because one’s identity is defined through this system. Therefore, porn is considered acceptable to all women, despite only a fraction of us participating in objectifying our sex. Even though many women disagree about what porn represents, they still take part, further supporting the inferiority of women. As Allan G. Johnson points out in “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” in order to change the way porn shapes our society, we have to first acknowledge that it exists, which can be hard since we are used to porn being a part of our culture.
Other critics of porn could reside in the middle by considering the context in which porn is viewed. Some couples or individuals watch porn—maybe not the violent type—to get aroused. However, others view it to get themselves aroused in order to rape or degrade women because believe women are inferior objects used for whatever a man desires. Furthermore, porn that involves violent acts against women, whether it is watched only to excite or as a stepping stone to rape, is wrong no matter the reason. Even though this stance takes elements of both anti-porn and pro-porn, this position still agrees with pro-porn advocates roughly half the time, thus is considering the context even a justification for participating in an industry so demeaning to women?
Even the thought of porn being good for society should immediately raise eyebrows. Some may find Diamond’s evidence convincing, but the evidence he provides does not acknowledge the extent of porn’s impact on the objectification of women, the role of a man in creating the sexual revolution, the commonplace of porn in today’s society as shown through advertising, or the role patriarchy plays in accepting it. Until supporters of porn consider the above aspects, there is no way watching women participate in sexual exploitation for the sole purpose of male pleasure is good for society!
Diamond throughout his article tears a part many of the common assumptions regarding the porn industry. To demystify the belief that watching porn leads to violence, especially since many of the videos and movies show violent acts, Diamond counters by saying some believe watching porn is a way to satisfy sexual arousal, thus becomes an alternative to sexual aggression. All of the studies that analyzed the correlation between porn and sex crimes have found that an increase in availability of porn corresponds to decreased or constant levels of sex crimes. This holds up in studies in Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Finland, the Czech Republic, and the United States. Another interesting finding is that rapists and child molesters, when compared to a group of “normal” males, use less porn; which is a surprise because some rapists and molesters recreate a fantasy and act in a similar fashion. Finally, Diamond cites that “calloused attitudes toward women” do not correlate to one’s exposure to porn. The whole article is brought together at the end, when Diamond mentions that there is no evidence supporting the claims that porn causes the above behaviors made by women’s shelters and other venues.
Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs is the perfect starting point for providing evidence to Diamond’s contrary. One of the strongest points Levy makes in her book occurs early on, “How is resurrecting every stereotype of female sexuality that feminism endeavored to banish good for women?” (Levy, pg4) This quote directly relates to porn and the broader category of raunch culture, in which it falls, because porn is basically female performance of sexuality for the pleasure of men. In addition, raunch culture is the mainstream appearance of women exposing their bodies in order to gain some type of liberation and confidence. Many women cite empowerment, gaining approval, and desire not to be excluded as reasons they participate in something so demeaning to their sex. Levy goes on to say that "it is not enough to be [a] successful, rich and accomplished" woman anymore (pg33). Even if women believe they are showing how confident they are in their own skin, they are actually neutralizing the talent and power they possess. This is further supported by the fame women get when they pose in Playboy or other magazines aimed at men’s pleasure. Amanda Beard is now more popular for her center page spread, than her swimming abilities. Is this what women have come to in order to get similar attention as men do without exposing their downstairs? Women are basically being encouraged to transform themselves into what mainstream society wants, instead of being themselves.
The fact that the sexual revolution, also known as raunch culture, coincided with the women’s liberation is interesting because both movements were fighting to liberate woman, but did so in conflicting ways. Feminists used tactics that didn’t involve using the female body for the pleasure of men, while those involved in the sexual revolution took full advantage of a naked woman. They believe this revolution displays their freedom; they are able to do whatever they desire with their bodies. One of the initial goals of women’s liberation was advancing “women’s sexual pleasure and satisfaction” (Levy, pg54) , which brought a completely different perspective to the 2nd wave of feminism and allowed Hugh Hefner to use them to create the sexual revolution, a movement that “seemed to apply only to men” (Levy, pg58). Hefner’s influence was greatly felt as a fraction in the women’s liberation movement formed; anti-porn vs. the freedom to look at or partake in porn. Even though the feminism movement became torn, there was still strong support against the porn industry because of how it simplifies a woman into what she will do for man’s attention.
The statement porn decreases rape and other sexual assaults against women is alarming. Rape culture, a culture in which rape and other forms of violence against women are common and tolerated, as well as involving the presence of images depicting sex and violence, is a major issue affecting our society today. Today’s advertising uses scenes that show a woman being gang raped or her crotch positioned directly over a target. How do these images represent anything besides violence against women? Any porn video would easy display similar scenes and ideas involving aggressive and violent actions towards. The fact that rape has decreased ever since porn has invaded our country is skeptical. Rape is one of the hardest crimes to convict, if not the hardest, because it typically involves the victim’s story vs. her/his attacker’s. The conviction rates for this crime are awful, thus many women these days feel that the pain and embarrassment that coincides with reporting a rape is not worth it. Thus, Diamond’s statement that porn is good for us is debatable on this aspect as well.
The participation by women in porn, whether watching or flaunting their naked bodies, has allowed the porn industry to become as profitable as it is nowadays: it even “makes more than the top technology companies combined, including Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon.” Thus, porn is more of a part of mainstream culture than many would think. Furthermore, 9.4 million women logged onto porn websites in one month alone. This is alarming because we cannot say that men are the only ones to blame for the existence of porn, women are fueling this industry’s existence as well. The involvement of women watching porn on such high levels brings in the topic of patriarchy because one’s identity is defined through this system. Therefore, porn is considered acceptable to all women, despite only a fraction of us participating in objectifying our sex. Even though many women disagree about what porn represents, they still take part, further supporting the inferiority of women. As Allan G. Johnson points out in “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” in order to change the way porn shapes our society, we have to first acknowledge that it exists, which can be hard since we are used to porn being a part of our culture.
Other critics of porn could reside in the middle by considering the context in which porn is viewed. Some couples or individuals watch porn—maybe not the violent type—to get aroused. However, others view it to get themselves aroused in order to rape or degrade women because believe women are inferior objects used for whatever a man desires. Furthermore, porn that involves violent acts against women, whether it is watched only to excite or as a stepping stone to rape, is wrong no matter the reason. Even though this stance takes elements of both anti-porn and pro-porn, this position still agrees with pro-porn advocates roughly half the time, thus is considering the context even a justification for participating in an industry so demeaning to women?
Even the thought of porn being good for society should immediately raise eyebrows. Some may find Diamond’s evidence convincing, but the evidence he provides does not acknowledge the extent of porn’s impact on the objectification of women, the role of a man in creating the sexual revolution, the commonplace of porn in today’s society as shown through advertising, or the role patriarchy plays in accepting it. Until supporters of porn consider the above aspects, there is no way watching women participate in sexual exploitation for the sole purpose of male pleasure is good for society!
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Anti - Choice
No matter what the context, abortion is always a touchy subject. You always have those who are extreme pro - choice, extreme pro - life, or the people that are wavering in the middle. Various laws have been passed throughout history that have either legalized abortion or put some type of restriction on it. The article we read for today was about strong anti - abortion laws being put into place in Nebraska. In my opinion these laws that are being proposed are completely ridiculous. Im not sure what all goes through the mind of a woman that is getting an abortion, but I assume that they are probably confused and might not be completely certain about their decision. The laws that are being proposed would require doctors to give the women an evaluation about their mental health and decide wheter or not the women could undergo the abortion. Basically the doctors are boing forced to persuade the women into not gettin the abortions done. If nebraska is going to have abortion clinics I think it is absolutely ridiculous that they are forcing the doctors to persuade their clients into not going through with the act. In no way whatsoever am I rooting for abortion right now, but I also don't think its right that the doctors would try to influence their clients.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
On Ehrenreich and Critenden
Reading Barbara Ehrenreich's and Ann Critenden's articles were very informative and educated me on the struggles that women still endure in the labor market and in domestic life. Ehrenreich's article discussed the issue of domestic work being attributed to women. I found it interesting when she stated that it was belief that housework was a relationship between a man and a woman. I attribute this belief and stereotype to the fact that women are often seen as inferior to men and that they are often viewed as being incapable to to the jobs that are assigned to men. Thus, they are forced into domestic life to clean and care for home and family.
Critenden's article discussed the financial burden that was placed on women who were housewives and mothers. Interestingly enough, I found it intriguing how the whole family was affected and not just women in particular. If a wife was to leave her job and take care of the children as a housewife, the whole family would lose a considerable amount of income-the mommy tax. This can have burdening effects of the financial future of families.
One thing that I wished both authors would have gone into further detail about is how all of this really affects women within socioeconomic statuses. They touched briefly on it, but I think that if there was a more in depth analysis, then lines of comparison could have been drawn and we could more clearly see how women, particularly of the lower and working classes, are heavily burdened with the responsibilities of being a mother and maid/housewife.
Critenden's article discussed the financial burden that was placed on women who were housewives and mothers. Interestingly enough, I found it intriguing how the whole family was affected and not just women in particular. If a wife was to leave her job and take care of the children as a housewife, the whole family would lose a considerable amount of income-the mommy tax. This can have burdening effects of the financial future of families.
One thing that I wished both authors would have gone into further detail about is how all of this really affects women within socioeconomic statuses. They touched briefly on it, but I think that if there was a more in depth analysis, then lines of comparison could have been drawn and we could more clearly see how women, particularly of the lower and working classes, are heavily burdened with the responsibilities of being a mother and maid/housewife.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Marriage For All
Despite being written over 20 years ago, Ettelbrick’s “Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?” brings up a couple good points about this “institution.” I thought her strongest points were that marriage will “force our assimilation into the mainstream” and it further provides distinctions “between those who are married and those who are not married.” These points struck me because marriage is the traditional thing to do in order to begin a family. However, maybe this will change since our society’s divorce rates are increasing and less people are married overall. The second point was the most interesting because they are really a lot of differences when a couple who is married and one who has been together just as long, but hasn’t tied the knot yet. Why does our society see the need for a couple to go through this institution in order to get these benefits? Maybe we are trying to create relationships in which people are committed to each other. Ettelbrick stated that “gay liberation is inexorable linked to women’s liberation. Each is essential to the other.” This statement caught my attention as well, but I am still a bit confused as to all of the connections. I understand that women in our society are not yet equals to men and maybe Ettelbrick is trying to say that our society can kill two birds with one stone in the sense that if women gain more equality than people’s minds will be more open to gays as well.
Moving on to Naples’ “Queer Parenting in the New Millennium.” I was surprised to read that her partner and Naples picked a lesbian nurse midwife that worked in a Catholic Hospital. I always thought that Catholics and other religious groups were very anti-gay, so this point seemed a bit out of the ordinary. I was also shocked to learn about the process Naples would have to go through in order to adopt her partner’s child. No matter the sex and identity of a couple, if they want to raise a child in a healthy environment, all power to them. Where do people in our society feel the right to restrict what others can and cannot do? Every couple should be able to receive the same benefits after they get married or live together for a set period of time. It should not matter whether they are hetero- or homosexual.
Lastly, the FAQs about Same Sex Marriage mentioned many differences between marriage and civil union that I did not know existed. Basically, civil unions are a label and do not offer those have them really any extra benefits. The list of what same-sex couples lose out on because they can’t get married was appalling. They should have the right to everything on that list.
These articles were very eye-opening. I never considered that same-sex couples lose out on a lot of benefits that heterosexual couples take for granted! I think anti-gay groups should be exposed to information like this because is it really worth they fights to prevent citizens of our country from having benefits that others already have?
Moving on to Naples’ “Queer Parenting in the New Millennium.” I was surprised to read that her partner and Naples picked a lesbian nurse midwife that worked in a Catholic Hospital. I always thought that Catholics and other religious groups were very anti-gay, so this point seemed a bit out of the ordinary. I was also shocked to learn about the process Naples would have to go through in order to adopt her partner’s child. No matter the sex and identity of a couple, if they want to raise a child in a healthy environment, all power to them. Where do people in our society feel the right to restrict what others can and cannot do? Every couple should be able to receive the same benefits after they get married or live together for a set period of time. It should not matter whether they are hetero- or homosexual.
Lastly, the FAQs about Same Sex Marriage mentioned many differences between marriage and civil union that I did not know existed. Basically, civil unions are a label and do not offer those have them really any extra benefits. The list of what same-sex couples lose out on because they can’t get married was appalling. They should have the right to everything on that list.
These articles were very eye-opening. I never considered that same-sex couples lose out on a lot of benefits that heterosexual couples take for granted! I think anti-gay groups should be exposed to information like this because is it really worth they fights to prevent citizens of our country from having benefits that others already have?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)