News Flash #3: My Parents’ Failed Experiment in Gender Neutrality

Today, identifying oneself as female, male, or other, is determined by an array of factors, which primarily fall under the categories of sex and gender. Historically, looking at the baby’s genitalia, or sex, made this determination. As time went on, another category, gender, entered the equation. The differences between sex and gender are thought to be fairly clear. Sex is thought of as “nature”: something innate we are born with that biology controls. Gender is thought of as “nurture”: something that is socially constructed and learned. The concept of gender fit into the first wave of feminism belief that women and men are created equal, and so, the reason that girls like pink frilly dresses is because feminine preferences have been socially constructed. The concept of sex as nature and gender as nurture has molded the way that society talks about issues of male and female identification. Yet recent literature such as Anne Fausto-Sterling’s book, Sexing the Body, and Jesse Ellison’s article, “My Parents’ Failed Experiment in Gender Neutrality” call the nature/nature paradigm of sex and gender into question. Therefore, sex and gender cannot be placed under separate nature and nurture distinctions. Fausto-Sterling’s research finds sex can be constructed and as Ellison’s childhood shows, gender can be innate.

Jesse Ellison (pictured at the left in overalls) was born in 1978 during the time of immense social change. In 1972, sexologists John Money and Anke Ehrhardt asserted “sex refers to physical attributes and is anatomically and physiologically determined. Gender… is a psychological transformation of the self- the internal conviction that one is either male or female (gender identity) and the behavioral expressions of that conviction” (Fausto-Sterling 3). This theory had a lot of influence on society, including Jesse’s parents. Her mother, a first wave feminist, “embraced the notion that gender roles were entirely rooted in the way you were raised” (Newsweek 1). The first fringe of first-wave feminists in the early 1970s fought for legal equality and women in the latter half of the 1970s, like Jesse’s mother, focused on personal equality. Personal equality meant believing that “it was nurture, not nature, that made women and men different” and in order to break free from gender oppression, one must “assert that there was absolutely nothing different about our biological makeup” (Newsweek 1). Girls acted like “girls” because of how they were raised, not because that is how they were born.

When Jesse was born, her parents decided to put this feminist belief into practice and raise Jesse without any type of gender construction. They named her “Jesse”, a name that could signal either a boy or a girl. Because the family lived in rural Maine, her parents thought they would be able to shelter Jesse from societal messages of how to be a girl. Her parents sported matching long braids one year and short haircuts the next. When she was a toddler, her parents dressed her in overalls and cut her hair into an androgynous haircut. Instead of playing with Barbies, Jesse played with wooden blocks.

Yet as time went on, Jesse’s parents discovered that their gender-neutral parenting method was not producing the expected results. Jesse mother recalls an experience when Jesse was two. Her parents were in the process of building a new house, and when the big trucks came to dig out the foundation, all of the neighborhood boys lined up to watch the commotion. Jesse’s mother tried to get Jesse to watch the trucks, but Jesse took a glance out the window and returned to play with her toys. Later, as Jesse grew up, she demanded that her parents replaced her overalls with a dress. Instead of being gender-neutral, Jesse was definitely a “girl”. As her mother recalls, “It was really a wake-up for me” (Newsweek 1). Jesse’s identity as a “girl”, despite her parent’s attempt to raise her in a gender neutral setting, caused her mother to rethink the first wave’s views on gender: “We all thought that the differences had to do with how you were brought up in a sexist culture, and if you gave children the same chances, it would equalize. It took a while to think, 'Maybe men and women really are different from each other, and they're both equally valuable.'” (Newsweek 1).

Jesse’s story brings up two interesting issues: the nature/nurture debate regarding gender and sex and the differences between first-wave feminism and third wave feminism. First, just as Fausto-Sterling found that sex can be physically constructed, Jesse’s story illustrates one can be born with gender. It is interesting to think about what implications this finding may bring. Fausto-Sterling’s book discussed the common belief towards sexual anatomy corrective surgery was if a sex-ambiguous child was physically turned into a boy, then he would be treated like a boy, and then identify as a boy. However, if gender is innate (to an extent) then this practice can be faulty because when a child is born, there is a possibility that the child is truly a “boy” or a “girl”. Of course, discussion about whether gender nurtured will affect more than just the intersex community. Namely, the finding that gender can be innate gives women more freedom to choose how to express their femininity.

Jesse’s upbringing, while unique, is somewhat symbolic of the current ideology of third wave feminism. Specifically, if gender is not nurtured, there can be a new acceptance of embracing femininity and acknowledging that one can still be a feminist even if she likes to wear frilly dresses and paint her nails. As Jesse states, “By the time my generation came of age, women could call themselves feminists and also embrace the standard trappings of femininity. We could wear pink, spend money on fancy shoes, and simultaneously expect—no, demand—the same success as men. Femininity and feminism were no longer a contradiction.” (Newsweek 1). This sentiment relates to the current “girlie” feminist theory that Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner discuss in their book Manifesta. They state, “Girlie says we’re not broken, and our desires aren’t simply booby traps set by the patriarchy. Girlie encompasses the tabooed symbols of women’s feminine enculturation- Barbie dolls, makeup, fashion magazines, high heels- and says using them isn’t shorthand for ‘we’ve been duped’” (Manifesta 136). Girlie culture is not about regressing back to the 1950’s, but rather having the freedom to make a choice.

Today, in the third wave, there are women who identity with feminine culture and call themselves feminists. And while it may seem like a girl running around in a short skirt and heels calling herself a feminist is a far cry from the vision of the first wave feminists, the difference is choice. As Jesse states. “My generation is different from my mother's, in countless ways. But just because we chose high heels over Birkenstocks, it doesn't mean our commitment to equality should be any less than ardent… Ultimately, the whole point was to ensure that I had the freedom, and choice, to be whoever I wanted—which is, after all, what feminism is all about.” (Newsweek 1). The ever-changing concept of gender is inextricably linked to the ever-changing concept of feminism. Jesse’s story illustrates two important points: first, gender is not always a choice, and secondly, the ability of third wave feminists to choose, or not choose, to express femininity is a right earned by first wave feminists.

Sources:

"My Parents' Failed Experiment in Gender Neutrality" by Jesse Ellison.

Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling.

Manifesta by Amy Richards and Jennifer Baumgardner.

Late post about welfare

(I realized I had this typed up but forgot to post it before class).

In her article criticizing the enactment of the Personal Responsibility Act, Gwendolyn Mink provides a strong argument about the injustice against poor mothers who have been overlooked by privileged white feminists and undervalued by larger society. Poor single mothers are, according to Mink, pushed into a new caste and punished by the government through being forced to work outside the home.

I agree that the unpaid work of mothers should be given more value and recognition than it currently receives. This is true regardless of socio-economic status, because mothers of all classes and races carry burdens that are not only unrecognized and definitely unpaid. Mink argues that poor women are entitled to welfare as a basic right. While it’s easy to agree that women’s work is worth money, it’s hard to move from that abstract idea and value to enacting legislation to support that theory with tax dollars extracted from voters. While lawmakers and the public might agree that “what (some) domestic others do is not to pass time but work” the problem is the challenge of “policymakers to give poor mothers’ care giving work the dignity it is due by providing it an income”. (Mink 62). Is it the state’s obligation to provide financial support for women? The problem is that in a capitalist society, moral values are not always given fiscal reward. Such a universal welfare policy would be incredibly contentious and difficult to enact. Given the disagreement over the recent health care reform and the polarization between liberals and conservatives, I don’t think a welfare policy like what Mink suggests has much hope.

One way I think the government can address the economic disenfranchisement of caregivers is to make family planning and birth control available. Many poor women and men lack knowledge of birth control methods and the financial resources to acquire them. I think the birth control pill should be available over the counter, which would reduce the cost and difficulty of acquiring it because it would not require a visit to a doctor. If women had the knowledge and resources to make motherhood a choice in the first place, they would be able to enter into parenthood when they are financially stable and desire raising children.

Newsflash #3: Nebraska Law Sets Limits on Abortion

New Nebraska Law: A Dangerous Development in the Abortion Debate
Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman signs the bill:


On Tuesday the state of Nebraska passed a piece of legislature that banned abortions after 20 weeks on the basis that the fetus is able to feel pain at that stage of development. While there are still provisions which allow exceptions in cases for medical emergencies and threat to the mother’s life, this bill represents a fundamental shift in the abortion debate, from limiting abortion to when the fetus is viable outside the uterus to considering the pain of the fetus. This legal development is an indicator to how the issue has become over-politicized to the detriment of women, limiting their ability to make individual decisions for what is the appropriate choice for them and their baby. It sets a dangerous precedent for future abortion restrictions based on unproven medical findings. Anti-abortion groups can couple the idea of fetal pain with the concept of “post-abortion syndrome” to provide a convincing, emotional argument for the pro-life side. Additionally, restricting later term abortions places more of a burden on teenage mothers.

The law changes the cutoff point for abortions to make it earlier based on fetal pain stead of viability outside the uterus. Abortion is currently allowed until 22-24 weeks, this would ban them at 20 weeks. It marks a huge shift in abortion legislation because it infers that the state can protect the fetus before it is viable outside of the womb. Proponents of the law argue that new scientific information has become available since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade.

Abortion is one of the most polarizing, hot button issues in the United States and its over-politicization ends up overlooking individual women who are affected by the laws. In this case, one of the goals of the law is to prevent Dr. LeRoy H. Carhart from performing later-term abortions. Carhart worked with Dr. George R. Tiller, who also performed late term abortions but was murdered by a pro-life individual. Carhart is continuing in Tiller’s legacy, which concerns Nebraskan voters and legislators who worry that their state will become the “late-term abortion capital of the Midwest” (Davey 1). Instead of genuine concern for the welfare of women or their unborn children, this law reflects how politicians, concerned for their voter popularity, create laws for their own political gain instead of sincerely trying to protect reproductive health. The scientific evidence for fetal pain is unclear and scientifically unproven, which could mean that the fetal pain argument is simply a manipulative method for the pro-life movement to advance their cause. The Journal of American Medical Association concluded in 2005 that evidence “regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited” and that it is unlikely to occur before the third trimester. Blinded by pushing forward their side of the cause, politicians have resorted to medical information which is scientifically unproven.

Restricting abortion based on fetal pain sets a dangerous precedent because there is no clear cutoff point. It could mean a slippery slope as “pain” becomes “harm” and then abortion is banned completely. There is no clear scientific data for the time in which a fetus can feel pain and which a fetus does not have the physiological development. The pro-life argument for fetal pain is a poignant strategy, because it evokes a visceral, emotional reaction. It parallels their campaigns which show bloody fetuses with their limbs cut off, which are extremely effective at evoking an intense anti-abortion reaction. The pro-life side has the advantage of touching rhetoric which is heartfelt and emotional. Arguing that fetuses feel pain is not a new argument. 1984 President Ronald Reagan said in a speech, “When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing”. They have also used strategies such as The Silent Scream video, which is an ultrasound of a suction abortion, displaying a fetus dodging the instrument and being dismembered. Its mouth opens, as if in a silent scream. While many have debunked the video as inaccurate, regardless of its scientific truth it evokes an intense emotional reaction. They illustrate the procedure graphically and gruesomely, even in medical journals such as the British Medical Journal in 1980 which wrote: “It cannot be comfortable for the fetus to have a scalp electrode implanted on his skin, to have blood taken from the scalp or to suffer the skull compression that may occur even with spontaneous delivery. It is hardly surprising that infants delivered by difficult forceps extraction act as if they have a severe headache." (Valman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels”)

The pro-life side has a strong argument when it couples the idea of fetal pain with the concept of post-abortion syndrome. While both are scientifically questionable, together they combine to paint abortion as a physically and morally horrible process for both the fetus and the mother. They depict it as a painful death for the fetus and a procedure which can cause in the woman “recurrent dreams of the abortion experience, avoidance of emotional attachment, relationship problems, sleep disturbances, guilt about surviving, memory impairment, hostile outbursts, suicidal thoughts or actions, depression, and substance abuse” (AbortionFacts.com). The pro-choice side can respond by arguing that many of these claims are factually untrue, and additionally, even if there is an emotional cost to abortion, a woman should be able to choose which life path would bring her the least emotional pain: having a child at point in life in which she is unprepared and did not intent to have a child, or the pain of an abortion.

Neither feminists nor the pro-choice movement ignore the pain that an abortion can cause. Igna Muscio is an example of this in her essay in Listen Up, in which she describes both the physical pain and emotional sorrow of the abortion process. However, portraying “post-abortion syndrome” and the idea of fetal pain when they are both scientifically unproven contributes to women being misled about what is actually occurring in their bodies. Instead of blind, aggressive attempts to advance one political side, the abortion debate needs to be grounded in sound, proven, peer-reviewed medical information. Coupled with science, women’s voices need to be heard, like Muscio’s. Then women can decide what the appropriate decision for them is, and the state can make legislature that accurately reflects the needs of the people and protects the unborn where necessary.

The Nebraska law places a greater burden on teenage mothers. While 88% of abortions in the United States are within the first 12-13 weeks of pregnancy, nearly 1/3 of abortions after the 12 week point are by teenagers, who face many obstacles in dealing with pregnancy. (ProChoice.org). For teenage women, it is difficult to initially recognize the signs of pregnancy because they are less familiar with their bodies and have irregular menstrual periods. They lack knowledge and information about birth control, and face difficulty with medical care. Often, they must keep it a secret from their parents or cannot afford medical care, which results in waiting until later in the pregnancy. Because of these factors, late term abortion is often needed for pregnant teens. Banning abortions after 20 weeks places another weight on these young women’s shoulders, who already face numerous obstacles.

The Nebraska law will definitely be challenged in the courts. Even if it is struck down as unconstitutional, it represents a new development in anti-abortion legislature which sets a dangerous precedent of limiting abortions based on fetal pain. More scientific research and awareness is needed to the law can accurately reflect both the biological aspect of the abortion procedure and the true emotional impact on women.

The movie poster for the Silent Scream Video:


Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/us/14abortion.html

http://www.abortionfacts.com/

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/index.html

http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/post-abortion-syndrome.htm

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/8/947?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=rosen+MA+2005&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Findlen, Barbara. Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation. Seattle, Wash.: Seal Press, 1995.

The Lady and the Tramp

Before discussing the issues brought up in Gwendolyn Mink’s article, “The Lady and the Tramp: Feminist Welfare Politics, Poor Single Mothers, and the Challenge of Welfare Justice”, I think some background information on the Personal Responsibility Act might be helpful. I read a book the welfare reform in one of my other classes, so I can shed a little light on the specific policies in the act. The Personal Responsibility Act was passed in 1996 after growing concern about the presence of “welfare queens”- lazy women who sat around all day and used the government’s money on unnecessary items. Although this wasn’t an accurate depiction of a person receiving welfare, the widespread belief that welfare made people dependent on the government led to the Personal Responsibility Act, which sought to restore America’s work ethic. Under this new welfare reform, one can only receive benefits for two years before working, and one can only receive benefits for five years total. To receive benefits, one must comply with rigid rules and regulations. There are many penalties for not adhering to all of the rules, and the strict guidelines of the program cause many women to become frustrated, drop out and disappear. When one enters the program, one must be looking for a job every single day, and if one is offered a job, he or she must take it, no matter what job it is. After the Personal Responsibility Act was passed, the amount of people receiving welfare benefits sharply declined. Some took this to mean the program was a success, while others took this to be a sign that the rules were too rigid and women were giving up and dropping out.

I agree with Mink that when looking at the welfare reform through a feminist lens, it is clear that this in another example of minority, lower-class women losing out, while upper-class women are not affected: “The war against poor women was just that: a war against poor women. And it was a war in which many middle-class women participated on the antiwelfare side” (56). I also agree that this act does have a lot of implied messages about the right and wrong types of families. That being said, I think welfare is a more complicated issue than Mink makes it out to be. First, the problem is exacerbated by low-paying jobs. Even before the welfare reform, women had jobs that didn’t come close to supporting their families. When a women found a job, this meant extra transportation and childcare costs. Even when a woman wanted a job, it was less expensive for a woman to stay home and take care of her children and receive welfare benefits. Secondly, where are the responsible men in this situation? Thirdly, Mink argues that we should start recognizing motherhood as a payable job, but I wasn’t sure if she meant that all mothers should be paid, or just mothers in extreme poverty. If it is the latter, this line would be a hard one to draw. Lastly, Mink seems to argue that regardless of situation, anyone has the right to be a mother. While I agree with this to an extent, I also think that when one has as child, one needs to be able to provide the child with basic necessities. If the pregnancy is unplanned, then it should be expected that one will have to put in the extra time and effort to provide diapers and food. So, while I believe that “responsibility” is the correct end goal, I think the problem is a lot bigger than the Personal Responsibility Act.

News Flash #3: Rape on College Campuses: Who’s to Blame?

News Flash #3: Rape on College Campuses: Who’s to Blame?

Rape and other forms of sexual violence have been one of the latest topics of conversation and thought in class. Along these same lines, the Campus Climate Survey at Colgate has raised questions and concerns and shed new light on the prevalence of sexual violence here at our very small, interconnected, predominately homogenous, straight, white, upper middle class student body on campus. A recent article on ABC News takes a closer look at date rape on college campuses, specifically at American University, and how intoxication may or may not make the act of sexual violence excusable. Drinking is a Friday and Saturday night ritual for most college students, and while intoxication is no excuse for sexual misconduct, crying rape the morning after a regretful decision is equally problematic, and in cases of drunken date rapes, which this article refers to, it becomes both parties’ responsibility to act like adults.

http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinion/story/dealing-with-aus-anti-sex-brigade/ (Link to full column)

According to an April 1 article from ABC News, American University (AU) in Washington DC, is dealing with date rape on campus. The Eagle, which is the American University student newspaper, wrote a column titled “Dealing With AU’s Anti-Sex Brigade.” The column asserted that “some women who survive date rape invited it” (ABC News Article). This controversial comment was met with 300 online comments and significant rage from feminists and others on campus. Alex Knepper, the author of the column, states “Let’s get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI (fraternity) party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, ok?” (ABC News Article). The article refers to date rape on the college campus specifically with drinking involved at fraternity parties by the boy and or girl. Knepper continues to assert that “To cry 'date rape' after you sober up the next morning and regret the incident is the equivalent of pulling a gun to someone's head and then later claiming that you didn't ever actually intend to pull the trigger” (ABC News Article). Many students at other colleges hold this view. For example, Princeton University ran a similar story in their student newspaper (ABC News Article). A 20 year old female at Texas A&M was reported saying "Rape is always a touchy subject, but in this case, where you are drinking and letting your guard down, you cannot say you were taken advantage of unless someone drugged your drinks” (ABC News Article). However, these views are starkly contrasted by Katherine Hull’s perspective. (Hull is the spokesman for Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN)). Hull was reported in the article saying “It's not your fault. Even if you drink and wear short skirts -- that is not consent. If someone doesn't have the capacity to consent, they can't” (ABC News Article).

According to Department of Justice, “in more than three-quarters of all college rapes, the offender, the victim or both had been drinking, which impairs good judgment” (ABC News Article). If both parties are intoxicated, this lack of good judgment can be attributed to both victim and offender and creates for a gray area because information about the incident could be missing and no one else is there to fact check. “Though laws vary from state to state, a person's consent can be compromised because of age, mental disability and lack of consciousness (under drugs or alcohol) or even a state of duress, according to Katherine Hull.

Alex Knepper from American University did clarify that "While it's not a woman's fault, it's incredibly stupid behavior to go to that party, knowing what you are getting yourself into is what being an adult is, knowing the risks and the signals beforehand."

So the question is cast: are girls partially responsible? Part of being an adult is making responsible decisions and being smart about the decisions you make and not drinking from a punch bowl where you don’t know the ingredients. While intoxication is never an excuse for any sort of violence, physical or sexual, when both parties have been drinking and to an unknown degree, it creates a gray area for blame to be laid and for consequences to be given. While it is probably a very small percentage, it is possible that some girls could cry rape because they regret their decision the next morning, which would not actually be rape. Similarly, it is possible that if the girl is drunk to the point that she cannot clearly remember all aspects of the previous night but in the morning thinks that she would never have had sex with that boy and calls rape, that is not in fact rape either. It then becomes very difficult to have enough evidence to assign a consequence to the offender. At that point it is one person’s word against another’s. Furthermore, consensual but unwanted sex which Levy describes in her “Pigs in Training” chapter is not the same as rape. The fact that there is such a sentiment on college campuses about girls crying rape after a regretted decision is incredibly problematic on a broader level. Is the prevalence of girls crying rape after a regretted decision so great that it has generated this kind of sentiment? If so, this kind of “crying wolf” undermines the seriousness of the crime and most likely contributes to women not reporting a real case of rape. It also can make the woman feel that she is responsible when she is not. That isn’t to say that she should run around in a bra and underwear and not expect to get unwanted attention from men, which Levy would criticize, but that type of behavior does not explicitly mean she is giving consent for sex. Steinem argues in “Supremacy Crimes” that everyone is implicated in this. It is not just the offender’s problem. It is not just the victim’s problem. It is not just both of their problems. Everyone is playing into this system by letting issues such as rape and other forms of sexual violence and the motives behind those crimes fester. This can be very much applied to these cases of date rape when both parties have been intoxicated. It is not just the offender’s problem or the victim’s problem. It is the problem of those who ignore it, those who falsely cry rape, those who don’t report rape cases, those who demean the severity of the crime, and those of us who just read about it and write our responses to it.

The line seems to be blurred in cases of drunken college rape cases because of the unreliability of both sources. Colgate’s campus has seen a large enough presence of sexual violence on campus to warrant mandatory sexual misconduct meetings and an update to the sexual misconduct policy, and an administration crackdown. The girls who stumble downtown in 30 degree weather with skirts that barely cover their butts and make other irresponsible decisions are not asking for rape and certainly do not deserve it. However, both parties involved need to be making more responsible decisions and learning to behave like adults. It is hard to take one person’s word over another in the case of a drunken rape because there is the potential that someone innocent gets punished and the risk that you are not punishing someone who deserves to be punished. A more open sex culture where the topic is not so touchy and suppressed would help people to understand this from an earlier age and be more informed about rape. With this, there would be a more serious understanding of rape and a reduced sentiment that women cry rape after regretted decisions.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/date-rape-firestorm-erupts-american-university-student-newspaper/story?id=10254150&page=1

http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinion/story/dealing-with-aus-anti-sex-brigade/

Gloria Steinem, “Supremacy Crimes”

Ariel Levy, “Female Chauvinist Pigs”

"Mommy Tax" and "Maid to Order"

The main issue that I take with the “mommy tax” article is that it address the issue that these women choose to leave the workplace. I don’t think that you can look at this issue from an entirely economic standpoint. I think that these women also gain other aspects of their life that cannot be measured by their potential earning wages. These women who leave the workplace are no longer working there, but that does not mean that they are no longer working. I think it’s more important for women to have the freedom to choose at the junction in their life what they want to do. For the women who do choose to leave the work place, their work is not invaluable. Maybe it cannot be measured in money gained, but I think there is a valid point in saying that these women do save a great deal of money for their family overall in costs such as childcare, laundry, cleaning, or food that would otherwise be more expensive because it could not be done by themselves. I really think this point relates to the point made in the manifesta lecture, where one of the woman’s mother would go on strike from her responsibilties in order to show her family that the work she did was really valuable to the function of the overall family. I think the “maid to order” article really discounts how valuable housework really is, and I think that it is necessary for men, and society in general, to recognize it’s overall function.

Women with children generally cant work the same as women without children- it’s not exactly something they are giving up but I think that its something that is added to their life that prevents them from working at the same pace or for the same hours as younger, single women without children. I don’t think the argument should be that they should just be paid the same, but I think that we should focus more on why they CAN’T work the same. I don’t think their pay should be equal, but I think that they should have the opportunity to work just as hard.

Also, if a mother does work, it also puts a strain on the father’s work situation so that could put a toll on his income and ability to work. If a child gets sick, the stay at home mother can easily fufill the role of taking care of the child, but if both parents work, accommodations have to be made. I know that I have personally seen this in my corporate experience. Those with children had to make accommodations for those children and were unable to make the sacrifices. It’s true that their lives aren’t as free as those that are single, but I think its important to not neglect the fact that this can affect the father as well as the mother, especially if the mother is working.

Ellen and Portia Wedding photos

Homosexuals and Marriage 4/6

For today's readings the Paula Ettelbrick article discusses the institution of marriage and how gaining rights is not the same as gaining justice. I want to focus on one of the several problems I found with this article. She says “Justice will be achieved only when we are accepted and supported in this spcoety despite our differences from the dominant culture and the choices we make regarding our relationships" (Ettelbrick). You can’t force people to support you. You don’t have to support the institution of marriage and those who participate in that institution don’t have to support you and agree with your choices, but you do deserve the same entitlements and privileges of marriage that heterosexual married people enjoy. This quote of hers and my reaction to it then made me think that I am playing into working “within the system” as opposed to outside the system, and while I don’t know which one is correct, it was a thought that crossed my mind, making the problem even more complicated.

In the Naples Article "Queer Parenting in the New Millenium," I thought it is telling that these women partners did not receive more opposition from the Catholic Hospital where they are going to give birth to twins. Catholics have very strongly rooted anti same sex marriage views and for them to have encountered the least amount of problems at this hospital is indicative of slowly changing views and a growing acceptance of same sex parenting. Similarly, I’m shocked that in Norway, which is essentially a welfare state and incredibly tolerant of homosexuality gave a questioning look to this couple.

On a related note, I couldn't help but think back to Yoshino's lecture and whether marriage for homosexuals is covering or passing. I suppose it could be both, but I would like to think that homosexuals, like heterosexuals are marrying for the same reason, love.

Personally, I think it would be hard at this point in time with the socially constructed views that we have and with the minority of homosexual parents, to have that child have to explain at school to their friends that they have same sex parents. Sadly, I think that if the media and Hollywood, such as Ellen and Portia, had children, it could be come trendy which would make it appear "more normal and acceptable." And along that thought, I think that is sadly where the power lies, with those who are celebrities or incredibly wealthy or powerful. People like Ellen and Portia have a great deal of influence in America. That being said, I don't think same sex couples should be forced to wait for that to happen because that is silly. So while I would think it would be very hard for that child at this point in time, same sex couples should definitely by no means be denied that right, and they aren't which I was pleased to see. My question is who are we looking out for in that situation? The hypothetical unborn child? Or the same sex parents?