Quotes of the Day

An conversation between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Gloria Steinem?  Yes, please.

Just try to mostly ignore the male moderator.  At one point he references the blatant discrimination Ginsburg faced when law firms refused to hire her after she graduated from law school at Columbia first in her class. He says:

"You remind me of my grandmother’s line: Rejection is the best thing that can happen. It pushes us. There might not be a Ms. magazine or Notorious R.B.G. without it."

Hmmm, categorizing systemic discrimination against millions of women as simple "rejection" that "pushes us" to do better?  Gloria Steinem for the win:

"But there might not be a need for a woman’s magazine, and there might be a court that actually looks like the country. There’s no virtue in injustice."

Later, when talking about gender roles and marriage, Ginsburg makes a salient point about marriage equality's legacy to the women's rights movement:

"It’s a facet of the gay rights movement that people don’t think about enough. Why suddenly marriage equality? Because it wasn’t until 1981 that the court struck down Louisiana’s 'head and master rule,' that the husband was head and master of the house. Marriage was a relationship between the dominant, breadwinning husband and the subordinate, child-rearing wife. What lesbian or gay man would want that?"

In all, the interaction between Ginsburg and Steinem during the conversation is great, as they build each other up and compliment one another throughout.

Early on, the moderator asks Ginsburg if she was a Ms. reader, after which she responded, " I certainly was. From the first issue. I thought it was wonderful."  Later, Ginsburg mentions working on a book about civil procedure in Sweden, and Steinem chimes in: "For which she learned Swedish. Is that not incredible?"

Judge Disrupts Home Life of Child in Foster Care, Because Heterosexism

Can we get a big, loud *slow clap* for Team Bigotry?

According to Utah's Division of Child and Family Services (via Deseret News), a judge has ordered the removal of a 1-year-old child from the home of her lesbian foster parents.  

Rather than basing his decision on the content of the couple's parenting skills, the judge, Scott Johansen, purportedly based his decision on their sexual orientation.  In so doing, the various news accounts I've read claim that he referenced, but did not specifically cite, "studies" allegedly showing that heterosexual parents were "better" than same-sex parents (scare quotes mine). 

(Hmm, I wonder if Johansen had read the widely-discredited Regnerus study?)

The two women had the support of the child's biological mother to be foster parents, and Utah DCFS director Brent Platt is quoted in the Deseret article as follows:

"'There weren't any concerns about the family and no concerns about the placement, it sounds like [the judge] has concerns overall with same-sex couples being foster parents.'

Hoagland and Peirce have met every DCFS requirement to become licensed foster parents, including routine reviews with the division while they have been caring for the child, according to Platt. If the girl would have become eligible for adoption and the couple had expressed interest in taking her, the division intended to support them, he noted.

'It's my understanding they have a couple of older children, these are experienced parents," Platt said. 'As far as we're concerned, it was an appropriate placement. It was a placement that worked for the kid and worked for the family, so we were surprised the judge issued that order.'"

The child has been living with the couple for 3 months, and the judge has ordered her removal within a week to an as-yet-unidentified family.  Thus further disrupting the child's life. You know, because outcomes.

From her much-lauded 2014 dissent to the 6th Circuit opinion that upheld same-sex marriage bans, Judge Martha Daughtry's quote regarding the illogic of anti-gay advocacy seems apt:

"How ironic that irresponsible, unmarried, opposite-sex couples in the Sixth Circuit who produce unwanted offspring must be 'channeled' into marriage and thus rewarded with its many psychological and financial benefits, while same-sex couples who become model parents are punished for their responsible behavior by being denied the right to marry."

And, apparently, the ability to be foster parents. (Although I want to be careful to note that in this particular case, we do not know the circumstances of the biological parents. Unlike the "pro-family" crowd, I think people put their children up for adoption for a myriad of reasons, only one of which might be "irresponsibility.")

The facts about "pro-family" actually being pro-family speak for themselves.

Whether they're promoting fraudulent "ex-gay therapy" that does more harm than good, ripping children from stable homes, or running dehumanizing smear campaigns to deny trans* people access to bathrooms, Traditional Family Warriors ("TFWs"- let's make it a thing) so often prioritize their own selfish bigotries and prejudices over the actual best interests of children.

Christian School Denies Entry to Child of Same-Sex Couple

A Christian school in San Diego is not allowing a 5-year-old girl to attend kindergarten because she has two moms.

Via MSN:

"When asked by the news team if it was discrimination to stop the child from attending because of her mothers, a woman who described herself as the school's director, said, 'The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. We don't condone any sinful lifestyles.' 

KGTV got a copy of the school's parent and student handbook which was revised over the summer. Under the school's statement of nondiscrimination, the handbook declared the school's right to "refuse admission of an applicant or to discontinue enrollment of a student." 

'This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, living in, condoning or supporting sexual immorality; practicing homosexual lifestyle or alternative gender identity; promoting such practices; or otherwise having the inability to support the moral principles of the school,' the handbook continued, according to the news station."

I have two items of note here.

One, I highlight how the conservative National Review frames the situation only because it's indicative of a mindset held by many anti-LGBTs. There, David French asks, in a piece entitled, "Lesbian Parents Try to Force a Christian School to Educate Their Child":

"Here’s a question for the secular left — when religious liberty collides with the desires of LGBT citizens, is there any case where religious freedom should prevail? How about when a lesbian couple tries to force a private Christian school to educate their child?" (emphasis added)

Ah, note the use of the phrase "desires of LGBT citizens," a word that, oh, maybe suggests that a lesbian couples' simple, decent wish for their daughter to attend school is in some way related to sex.

But, more pertinently, notice how French centers the beliefs (and prejudices) of adults in this scenario when, in fact, it is the child who is actually most profoundly impacted by the discrimination. How different does it sound when we ask:

Here's a question for all - when religious "freedom to discriminate" collides with the rights of children to attend school, when should religious freedom to discriminate prevail?

This case isn't one of Christians v. LGBTs, or even the Christian right v. the secular left.  It's one of Christian anti-LGBTs v. children who happen to have same-sex parents. That is, grown-ass adults punishing a child because they disagree with the "lifestyle" of her parents.

Two, notice the moral code in the handbook which specifically calls out homosexuality.  Yet, does the school also prohibit children of divorced, adulterous, or single parents from attending the school?

Of course not. Nor should it.

But that's how it so often is with the Christian bigot crowd, isn't it?

In the debates about marriage, many opponents of allowing same-sex couples to marry held that marriage was about "procreation," yet they had no issue with allowing infertile heterosexuals to marry. It's LGBTs and same-sex couples who these sorts of folks so often single out for their special brand of entitled, discriminatory treatment that they rarely reserve for other groups.

Bigot Kim Davis doesn't deny marriage licenses to people on their third, fourth marriage. No, her hill to die on is same-sex marriage. For special lucky reasons, I guess.

Even as these folks wail that it's LGBT people who constantly seek "special rights," these are the folks who seek both the special right to discriminate against LGBT people without consequence and to in no way face public shaming (or being called a bigot) for doing so.

Equality Opponents Try to Keep Debate Alive

I haven't paid much attention to National Organization for [Male-Female] Marriage (NOM) since June's US Supreme Court marriage equality victory.

I keep the NOM blog in my newsfeed and occasionally scroll through its headlines, however.

Recently, I saw them promoting a new book by equality opponent Ryan T. Anderson, called Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom (I'm not linking to it, but it can be found easily enough). Released July 14, it's touted as the "first book to respond to" the Obergefell decision.

From its description, the point of the book seems to be to keep the marriage equality debate alive by informing people about what marriage "really" is and, of course, the threats posed to society by the acceptance of same-sex marriage.

How sad.

First and foremost, I have no idea if Anderson truly wrote the book as a "response" to the Supreme Court decision. I'll just say that whipping out a book in a mere 2 weeks seems quite fast.  How much "new ground" has been covered?  For that matter, how much new ground can even be covered in the conversation any more anywhere?

One fawning review states:

It is simply a must read all around. Anderson presents a well-researched and well-rounded argument for the continued importance of both traditional marriage and the strong protection of religious liberty. And he does all of this while being eminently respectful to those on the opposite side of the issue. Anderson’s work is the polar opposite of “hateful,” “bigoted,” or “homophobic.” It is a prime example of the Christian imperative to “speak the truth in love.”

Oh boy. Here we go again.

The notion that we, supporters of equality, just haven't listened, really really listened, to the intellectual, un-bigoted, and civil reasons for opposing equality and that if we just give it an honest-to-goodness chance always strikes me as…. really insular.  Have new arguments against equality, that no one has ever heard before, been invented in a matter of 2 weeks?

I mean, the conversation has been public and prominent, particularly since it was used as a wedge issue in the 2004 US presidential election.  The "civil" arguments generally go along these lines:

• Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and the purpose of marriage is to unite these complementary beings;
• Marriage is for heterosexual "responsible procreation"; 
• Same-sex couples cannot procreate together, therefore there is no reason for them to marry;
• Marriage was created by "God" and/or is a thing that exists in nature like, say, a flower or a tree and it's not for "man" to define and change it;
• Calling same-sex marriage marriage devalues it for couples who are actually married;
• Every child needs a mother and a father;
• Same-sex marriage turns children into commodities;
• Children raised by their married heterosexual parents do best (insert discredited study);
• Acceptance of same-sex marriage will lead to acceptance of other forms of marriage and/or polyamorous relationships;
• Religious people shouldn't have to "participate" in "gay marriage" by baking them cakes or taking their photos; 
• The Gay Mob is oppressing people who don't agree with LGBT rights, therefore LGBT people should not have equal rights.
• Religious people in general don't like living in a society knowing that LGBT people have equal rights. It is oppressive to them.

That about cover it?

Unfortunately, a key strategic failing of the movement against equality is that it allowed some of the most obviously bigoted voices - including politicians, preachers, and lay folk -  to dominate for so long, as these voices spoke to the rank bigotry of many US homophobes.  Indeed, it has been only recently, with their loss imminent, that equality opponents have toned it down and begun trying to popularize their so-called civil reasons against marriage equality, with an early apparently-earnest attempt by David Blankenhorn's 2007 publication of The Future of Marriage.

I think what equality opponents keep overlooking is that their position cannot be made prettier by painting "civil" reasons over a fundamentally uncivil proposition.

The Power of the Opinion

Well, Team Inequality is being reasonable about things:

"One can certainly understand the joy that LGBT Americans and their supporters feel today. But orthodox Christians must understand that things are going to get much more difficult for us. We are going to have to learn how to live as exiles in our own country. We are going to have to learn how to live with at least a mild form of persecution. And we are going to have to change the way we practice our faith and teach it to our children, to build resilient communities."

That's conservative Rod Dreher, blogging at Time.

Of course, at his regular domain over at The American Conservative, he regularly expresses his persecution complex much more dramatically, as well as his vitriol toward progressivism and, especially, trans people. That is, when he isn't pitching one of his books.

Nonetheless, I've been reading these musings by opponents of equality with some fascination.  Scalia, in one of the most petulant, infantile, and unprofessional dissents I've ever read, naturally set the tone for conservative man-babies everywhere. The outrage, the persecution complex, the calls to revolution. None of it surprises me - remember, these are the people we've tried, with varying degrees of success, to reach for the past few decades. I know their narrative framings well.

As a practical consequence, I doubt marriage equality would have much impact on Dreher or many conservatives, if they simply didn't know that it was legal. Same-sex couples would get married, all of Dreher's Gay Friends wouldn't invite him to their weddings anyway, and none of it would have any bearing on his or his family's daily life.

The chief harm to opponents of equality is not that it impacts their own rights or liberty, but that the state no longer officially agrees with their moral and/or religious views about the matter. The state not being a Christian one is framed, not as neutrality, but as aggression and unfairness. At the same time, by harping on a small handful of instances of equality opponents losing their job, or their bakery,  or their flower shop, because of, however tangentially, their opposition to equality, the situation is further exaggerated as though every opponent of equality is at dire risk of being imminently sent to a concentration camp.

It is fear manufactured by some of those in the most privileged classes in the US- cushy white heterosexual men who get paid to write blogs and books for a living about the very culture wars they are, via their writing, complicit in perpetuating.

This talk of revolution and exile, because they, this time, didn't get their way on an issue that doesn't really impact them but so intimately impacts others is the blustering of former overlords being brought down a notch, with the rest of us who have long accepted that we sometimes don't get our way and that's part of the political and legal process in the US. Yet, many equality opponents, long our tormentors, speak of persecution as though they have invented the suffering of it, when the reality is that they have long inflicted it upon us - the non-religious, the gender nonconforming, the LGBT - and would continue to do so if granted the power.

Of course, these loser blusterings are likely not intended to placate the masses, or least of all to appeal to pro-equality folks. I've seen precious little concession that we have had benign motives for being for same-sex marriage in the first place.

And so. Now that we have won, can I maybe forgive anti-equality folks for their tireless advocacy against my dignity and equality, even if they haven't really apologized and still frame themselves as victims? It may be too soon for that for me, friends. Yet, with the weight of the Supreme Court majority backing me up, I can now care less about these anti-equality voices than I used to.

For me, there's peace in that.

Thoughts on Marriage Equality Victory!

Holy shit!

"The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a mar- riage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawful- ly licensed and performed out-of-State." (Full decision, here, in PDF)

When I started Fannie's Room about 8 years ago, I more frequently wrote about marriage equality, regularly interacting with and, yes, battling it out with opponents of equality here and elsewhere on Internet. I sometimes wonder what various cast of characters are up to these days, as I've seen many anti-LGBT blogs come and go during this time: the various Digital Network Army blog group that was supposedly a "grassroots" blogging network dedicated to opposing marriage equality; the hateful little Opine Editorials; the Family Scholars Blog, where I used to guest blog until David Blankenhorn stopped opposing equality and the blog was later shut down.

Today feels good.

In 2008, when Proposition 8 eliminated the right for same-sex couples to marry in California, it felt devastating.  Likewise, I remember the couple dozen or so states that passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage between 2000 and 2008, most of which had implicit or explicit support from, at the time, President George W. Bush.

I'm grateful for the sway in public opinion, and for the efforts of so many allies and advocates, that has occurred just in my lifetime.  In many ways, I think one of the great successes of the movement was to demonstrate the humanity of gay men and lesbians, work that is not as advanced and must continue for bisexual and trans people.

In my opinion, the anti-gay movement's great failing has been, actually, their insistence on acting like bigots while manufacturing outrage at being called bigots - a tactic that exposed them as both hateful and not credible narrators of reality.

I know there is still so much social justice work to be done, but today - hell, maybe all weekend! - I'm just going to be happy.

Oh yeah, and I'm once again feeling some big-time schadenfreude that the discredited Regnerus study on parenting did not sway the biggest court decisions on marriage, even though public records show it was released precisely to do so.

Anyway, anybody getting hitched?

Rome Hosts Conference on Complementarity

Last week, several offices of the Roman Catholic church held an event in Rome called The Complementarity of Man and Woman: An International Colloquium.

Many American opponents of marriage equality were thrilled by this conference and some, such as Rick Warren, were even speakers.

I guess, if you're looking to better understand what is meant by "gender complementarity" that is at the root of many people's opposition to marriage equality and, oftentimes, anti/non-feminism, the conference site would be good to check out.

What I'm so often struck by is the almost childish, emotional, romanticized way that complementarists talk about "man and woman." And yes, they often use the singular versions of these terms - which speaks to the belief that little variation exists within each gender category.

Anyway, from the conference's Affirmation about marriage and gender:

"See man and woman together. They are not just two people. He is for her, and she for him; it is inscribed in their bodies. Their union will bring life that binds and mingles families, encourages faith to flourish, and brings humankind and the world’s diverse cultures to flower again."

So, it's fine to be emotional about this stuff - but this Disney version of reality shouldn't be the determining basis for whether same-sex families deserve equality rights, protections, and dignity.  And, people are right to call out this thinking as irrational, unfair, and yes bigoted when it's consistently put forth to erase and marginalize non-heterosexual, non-cisgender, and gender non-conforming individuals.

A final note is that complementarists often talk about how "man and woman" are "different but equal."

7 out 32 speakers at this conference were women. Unlike their male counterparts, it is impossible for any of these women to be at the top of the hierarchy within the Roman Catholic church.

Just like within the US anti-equality movement, which is grounded in complementary thinking (at best), male voices, perspectives, and opinions are amplified and prioritized, even as they simultaneously tell us how important both "man and woman" are to life and marriage.

That is what gender complementarist "equality" looks like.

Quote of the Day

I've been catching up on news, and finally got around to reading the much-lauded dissent in the 6th Circuit's same-sex marriage case (PDF), authored by Judge Martha Daughtrey.  The 6th Circuit upheld (2-1) the bans on same-sex marriage in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

In addressing the "responsible procreation" argument that marriage defenders often deem to be a "civil," "rational" reason for banning same-sex marriage, Daughtrey observes:

"How ironic that irresponsible, unmarried, opposite-sex couples in the Sixth Circuit who produce unwanted offspring must be 'channeled' into marriage and thus rewarded with its many psychological and financial benefits, while same-sex couples who become model parents are punished for their responsible behavior by being denied the right to marry."

Yes.

The 6th Circuit's upholding of same-sex marriage bans represents a departure from the four federal appellate court decisions in favor of same-sex marriage, potentially leading to Supreme Court review that could lead to a ruling with nation-wide implications.

I'm glad appellate court judges are addressing and countering the "responsible procreation" argument, because it's, perhaps, the best argument marriage defenders have to assert any semblance of a rational basis for marriage bans. And, of course, this "best" argument isn't even good.

7th Circuit: Same-Sex Marriage Bans Unconstitutional

Bam!

As expected due to Judge Richard Posner's blistering, and quite wonderful, questioning of "marriage defense" attorneys during oral arguments, the 7th Circuit has found that Indiana and Wisconsin do not have a reasonable basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry (PDF of opinion).

I've read the entire opinion, of which no doubt NOM and company are already issuing their reactionary cries of judicial activism gone awry.  But, it's a paragraph at the very beginning that I want to highlight today:

"The argument that the states press hardest in defense of their prohibition of same-sex marriage is that the only reason government encourages marriage is to induce heterosexuals to marry so that there will be fewer 'accidental births,' which when they occur outside of marriage often lead to abandonment of the child to the mother (unaided by the father) or to foster care. Overlooked by this argument is that many of those abandoned children are adopted by homosexual couples, and those children would be better off both emotionally and economically if their adoptive parents were married."

This observation is, for me, what has always made "marriage defenders" seem particularly cruel and oblivious to the reality.

So many "pro-family" conservatives wring their hands about the hoards of purportedly irresponsible heterosexuals, particularly men, who have children out of wedlock and yet their top policy solution is, "I know, let's make life more difficult for a subset of the parents who adopt the resulting children!"

If these people were sincere in their desire to actually help the families that exist in the real world, they would be grateful to same-sex couples and looking for ways to work with us to provide the best environments for all families, not just those families they deem to be the bestest most supreme families of all.

In their zeal to prevent same-sex couples from marriage, they also present one of the worst PR campaigns for marriage ever:

Marriage: It's for pressuring straight men into sticking around and raising the unintended children that they don't even want!

Brilliant strategy, folks!  Put these people in charge of all the things!  /sarcastic thumbs up sign

But seriously, combined with their correlative opposition to abortion, same-sex adoption and parenting, no fault divorce, and sex ed, it's almost like some social conservatives are intentionally trying to create the world's most unhappy, miserable people. Or, at least, more babies in orphanages.

Yet, their policies they refer to as "good old-fashioned common sense."  And, policies that acknowledge the other families that exist in the real world, they dismiss as political correctness gone awry, as though we exist primarily to annoy them and not because we have life aspirations of our own.  This kind of self-centeredness of privileged folks is the worst.

Also, one of the plaintiffs in the above-cited case is named Virginia Wolf.  Which is awesome and why is no one talking about that?!

It's a Good Day For Marriage Equality

One of the biggest lies opponents of marriage equality tell themselves and the public is that their substantive arguments are rock solid and that people, wither willfully or ignorantly, misunderstand their arguments and therefore do nothing but unjustly call them hateful bigots.

That's why, whenever the substantive arguments of equality opponents get the smackdown in the public square and, specifically, in courts, it's always with much schadenfreude that I observe it.  I refer today, most recently, of Republican-appointed Judge Richard Posner's, of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, questioning of  the attorneys for Indiana and Wisconsin, who are defending their states' bans on same-sex marriage - via Slate, and 7th Circuit website. (See also Freedom to Marry, for more background on the case).

Many "marriage defenders" believe, especially when couched in people like prominent conservative "Robbie" George's intellectual-speak, that the purpose of marriage is responsible procreation - that is, they believe that marriage exists to (and because) heterosexual sex can result in babies and therefore heterosexuals need their own institution.

Yet, when conversation with "marriage defenders" becomes a dialogue or a line of questioning, rather than a monologue where this "truth" is dictated to us from them (or "God"), two things becomes readily apparent. The first is that, when they're not actually outright explicitly hating on LGBT people and same-sex couples, they actually don't think much about us and our needs to protect our families at all. When questioned about the needs of our families, they callously show that they haven't sincerely considered the harmful impact their advocacy has on us, or the way their staunch advocacy contributes to more explicit hatred of LGBT people, or what protections, if any, we should have if not marriage.

Two, the conversations show the irrationality and weaknesses of this purportedly "civil" "definitely not bigoted" "responsible procreation" argument, from a substantive standpoint.  I've had these conversations, like many advocates of equality have, over and over and over again.

Any bigot can engage in Internet debate and do a touchdown dance declaring hirself the "winner."  I've seen it happen a zillion times.  The writers at the single-issue bigot blog Opine Editorials, for instance, used to regularly declare themselves "the best" and "undefeated" at debate about the issue - indeed, they were so confident in their position and writing about the evils of same-sex marriage that they inexplicably shut down and deleted their entire blog awhile back.

Thus, it's refreshing, and extremely validating, that those with more power to declare intellectual and legal winners in the public sphere - such as judges - agree that "marriage defense" arguments lack rationality.

I LOVE seeing "marriage defenders" stammer, unable to adequately answer a judge's simple questions about the very crux of their position, and the exceptions they, for instance, create that allow sterile heterosexuals to marry but not same-sex couples if, after all, marriage is all about the babies. I LOVE seeing judges tell them that they must answer certain questions - no evasions allowed, no really- we'll all wait. I LOVE when so-called experts in this debate are declared by courts to not actually be experts at all - because oftentimes, they're not.

The "marriage defense" movement in the US is best characterized by hunches, lazy appeals to what they call "common sense," and a buncha people who are hyper-concerned with, first and foremost, whether or not people think they're bigots.

History will show equality advocates to be winners for these reasons, not because of some invented figment-of-their-imagination "PC gone awry" society.

#NotAllMen: Conservative Academic Edition

Brad Wilcox and Robin Frewell Wilson have a gross, notorious piece in the Washington Post about violence and marriage.

For some brief background on Wilcox, Sarah Posner has a round-up of some choice quotes of his promotion of traditional gender roles in marriage. And, I've previously noted his ethically-questionable involvement in the tainted Regnerus study conservative use to denigrate same-sex marriage and parenting. Meanwhile, Wilson is a conservative law professor, not a sociologist, who has also published hand-wringing pieces about "religious liberties" in the wake of same-sex marriage.

In this latest piece, Wilcox and Wison riff off the #YesAllWomen hashtag many women used in response to the UCSB shooting to communicate their experiences living in a world in which men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, threats, and acts.

Giving feeeeeeeeemales some pro Safety Tips, Wilcox and Wilson opine:

"Marriage is no panacea when it comes to male violence. But married fathers are much less likely to resort to violence than men who are not tied by marriage or biology to a female*. And, most fundamentally, for the girls and women in their lives, married fathers provide direct protection by watching out for the physical welfare of their wives and daughters, and indirect protection by increasing the odds they live in safe homes and are not exposed to men likely to pose a threat. 

So, women: if you’re the product of a good marriage, and feel safer as a consequence, lift a glass to dear old dad this Sunday."

As Echidne notes, the authors fail to acknowledge, let alone address, causality and its direction: "Which comes first, domestic violence or the dissolution of marriage (or the decision not to marry someone who is violent in the first place)?" Or, other causes: maybe violent men are less likely to marry. Maybe women who are married are less likely to report their spouse for violence than are unmarried women. Maybe the criminal justice system is more lenient on married men than unmarried men.

My point here is that we see once again how gender traditionalists like neat, easy-peasy solutions for real-world problems, starting with the original URL of this article, which barked at women to get married if they don't want to get themselves attacked. It's a worldview that accepts "females" as the victim class and "males" as the murderer-rapist-abuser class, and commands women to work within that framework to marry men, tame the "beasts," and limit our behavior and movement in the world because Men Cannot Be Trusted and, meanwhile, the low bar of human decency for men is set at "don't rape, attack, or kill someone unless you have a good enough reason" (and man oh man authority has thought of lots of ways to give men what it deems good, justifiable reason for these things, yeah?)

Meanwhile, real-worl reality has a lot going on in it that the gender traditionalist narrative doesn't account for. To them,  and we largely see this perspective in the article above, the world is divided into two classes of men: Good Protector Men and Evil Violent Men. It's a narrative that fails to recognize that some men can be protective of "their" women while violent toward others.  It fails to acknowledge that people are not binary either 100% Good or 100% Evil.

So-called "Men's Rights Activists," of course, rarely if ever take issue with this gender traditionalist worldview of men, which of course underscores that movement's true motivation: putting uppity women back in their/our place. So, on that note, I've answered my own question on my why MRAs rarely critique gender traditionalists. They're mostly on the same wavelength.

(*Note too, of course, the authors' use of "females" as a noun as though it's the proper analog to the term "men.")

Thing I Like: American Horror Story

For 2014, I want to try to remember to do some more "positive" posts.  Not sure why I'm using scare/sneer quotes there, perhaps I have a general aversion to all things toxic-forced-optimistic/positive.  It's my blog and I'll cry if I want to, dammit!

But seriously, many things in life make me happy and are pleasing to me and I want to start a somewhat-regular series talking about those things.  I should note that the media, people, articles, and things I choose for this new series may indeed be, and probably are, problematic in some ways - and I may point those things out (and feel free to do so also). It's a fact of life for me that enjoyment in life often comes with having to compartmentalize racist, sexist, homophobic, and otherwise-problematic elements from entertaining things.

So, that being said, I've been binge-watching all of the seasons of American Horror Story.  I've long been a fan of the horror genre and, actually, began reading Stephen King novels at the probably-too-young age of sometime in grade school.

Growing up, I was bored by the Friday the 13th type of slasher shows, and was more drawn to books like Misery where it seemed like the plot could maybe happen in real life or movies like the Nightmare on Elm Street series that, although slasher-y, also contained a scary psychological element.  Like, how awful would it be to be scared to go to sleep because of this scary dude who might kill you in your dreams?  Nightmare also had some pretty badass female characters, too.

*Spoilers and discussion of events on American Horror Story, all seasons; also content note for racism and general horror show stuff*

All of the seasons are remarkable, to me, for having a variety of female characters in addition to their subtle and sometimes-more-explicit critiques of traditional narratives about gender and family. The cast is mostly white, although that somewhat changes in Season 3, yet the female characters include those who are old, young, queer, disabled, mentally ill, thin, fat, and in-between.

While the beginning of Season 1, Murder House, might initially lead viewers to think that Ben, the adulterous, murderous husband, would be the main protagonist, he quickly - in my opinion - becomes supremely unlikable and secondary.  It's largely his wife Vivian, and those who are often mired in "supporting character" roles to the "Ben" roles, who end up as the (anti?)-heroes of the show.

One of my soundbite take-aways from that season is that family success and happiness are not obtainable by simple equations like "1 man + woman + their biological children," but rather honesty, openness, and trust. By the end of the series, the protagonist nuclear family doesn't seem to start effectively functioning as a family until they're all dead, there are no more secrets between them, and they're Beetlejuicing potential new homeowners away from the residence.

I'm currently engrossed in Season 3, Coven, and here are my somewhat random thoughts on it:

• By my calculations it seems as though Coven has the incredibly rare honor of not passing a reverse Bechdel Test.  That is, I have yet to think of any one scene that exists in which two men talk to each other about something other than a woman! I'm okay with that, too. And, I'm going to justify me being okay with that by only noting that I've endured more than 3 decades of movies and TV shows failing the Bechdel Test, so yes, I can be happy about this one of the few things in the media that is so explicitly female-centric.
• Jessica Lange is amazing. She's great in all 3 seasons, actually, I think.
• Likewise, with Kathy Bates, Angela Bassett, Francis Conroy, and upcoming Stevie Nicks cameos, I find it difficult to think of a TV show or movie that features multiple women aged 55 or over that isn't called Cocoon.
• I find myself more drawn to the older and middle-aged female characters, but of the "young witches," it's Queenie, portrayed by Gabourey Sidibe, who so far is perhaps the most decent witch of the bunch.  She has every reason to hate the racist Delphine LaLaurie, and maybe she does, but she's largely been compassionate. And, the scene in which she forced the body-less Delphine to watch Roots to overcome her racism was bizarrely moving. 
• And, the finality of that scene, in which the white Cordelia's witch-hunter husband opened fire in Marie Laveau's salon, seemed to be a powerful statement about white women's alliances with white men. Until she lost her vision, Cordelia had been oblivious to her husband's membership in a patriarchal "brotherhood" of men who hate, hunt, and kill witches. Ultimately, Cordelia's husband whatever-his-name-is, ends up killing Marie's allies not only because he fears for his own life but because he loves Cordelia and wants to protect her.
• I'm also intrigued by portrayals of female leaders. In Coven, we see several models of female leadership. Fiona was strong, for instance, but seems to have squandered her strength and ability to mentor other women by being selfish and absent. Cordelia is soft-spoken and the acting head of the witch school. Although she seems hesitant to see herself as a leader, others come to see her as one perhaps because she shows a quiet strength.  Marie is the leader of the voodoo practitioners and, through flashbacks, we see that she leads by providing a sanctuary from racism and by seeking revenge on the racists who have harmed her allies. 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing where Coven will go in the remaining episodes, particularly the potential alliance between Marie Laveux and the Salem witches.  I wish I cared more about what happened with the Frankendude Kyle plot, but I don't. And the zombies? Please tell me zombies will be "out" by the time 2014 ends.

What do others think - are you watching this too?

NOM Offended By Legal Realities

The increasingly-irrelevant National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage (NOM) has its knickers in a twist over a rather benign article that merely reports how the US Department of Education will now treat same-sex married couples the same as heterosexual married couples on student loan applications.

NOM snarks:

"On the one hand, this isn't really 'news.' It's a natural progression required by the Supreme Court's decision in June to strike down part of DOMA. On the other hand, it's an opportunity for the media to keep advancing the same-sex marriage agenda by keeping it in the spotlight and giving it undue attention. Harken back to the study from this past summer showing extreme media bias in coverage. This is just another example."

What a remarkably privileged and self-centered claim to say that the Department of Education's statement isn't "news" and that this sort of article constitutes excessive reporting about same-sex marriage.

The legal realities for same-sex couples are still quite complex with some government agencies recognizing our unions and some of this recognition depending upon what state a couple was married in and whether their state of residence recognizes such unions. For instance, the Social Security Administration will grant benefits to a married same-sex couples if they were married in a state that recognizes same-sex unions AND if they live or lived in a state that recognizes their union. However, the IRS will allow same-sex married couples to file jointly if they were married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage.  The couples do not also have to be residing in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage.

These legal realities are complex and varying in part because the federal government now recognizes same-sex marriage while many states do not - a situation that NOM helps to perpetuate through its opposition to same-sex marriage.

To many same-sex couples, the sort of clarification offered by federal agencies about how they will treat same-sex couples is a welcome source of information.

NOM's snide anger here is actually a good example of what I like to call the "conservative politically correct mindset" that chalks up to conspiracy what is actually reality.  That, of course, and undiluted, unexamined privilege and assholery.

Marriage Equality Passes Illinois House and Senate

Woo-hoo!!!!

Illinois, which passed a civil union law a couple of years ago, is poised to allow marriage equality for same-sex couples. Yesterday, the bill passed 61-54 in the Illinois House and has already passed in the state Senate. Governor Pat Quinn has indicated that he will sign the bill into law.  The law would go into effect June 1st of next year.

This is a big loss for the New Jersey-headquartered National Organization for Marriage, which has involved itself in advocating against the Illinois law.

It's also a big loss for some pretty vocal, prominent Illinois-based anti-gay voices, who are among some of the most virulent in the nation. Laurie Higgins' Illinois Family Institute has been monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center  and Right Wing Watch for, among other things, comparing homosexuality to Nazisim.

And, of course, Peter LaBarbera's organization Americans for Truth [sic] About Homosexuality is headquartered in Naperville, Illinois. LaBarbera has also been monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center and has been a notorious, vocal opponent of LGBT rights for at least the past 20 years. [Update: LaBarbera tweeted his reaction to yesterday's news: "Arrogance of Liberals: #Illinois becomes 15th state to defy God by creating legal "marriage" based on the perversion of homosexuality. #tcot." -- Just putting LaBarbera's note in here for the historical record, for when Team Anti-Equality tries to whitewash the bigoted history of their movement.]

How sad for them that they're on the wrong side of history and so damn self-righteous and unapologetic about it.  When same-sex couples won equality through the courts, the big comeback of bigots was that judges were imposing their will on "the people" and that it was so tyrannical that it wasn't legislatures that were passing marriage equality laws.

I'm sure a new talking point will be how awful it is that legislatures are imposing their will on "the people" and how it's so awful that every marriage law in the nation isn't decided by a voter referendum.  These people just constantly adapt to try to make themselves relevant and enriched by their advocacy.

But, lest you think I end on a sour note, most importantly, congrats to same-sex couples and allies!  Time to convert my separate-and-unequal civil union into a marriage!  I believe my feelings at this time can best be expressed by a gif of Tina and Amy:

Did you know that studies indicate that you improve your celebration of LGBT-related victories by pressing the "cornify" button in Fannie's Room and watching some magical things happen?  I highly recommend it, and bonus points if you know what I'm even talking about.

Preferably a Boy

I've seen a lot of people post this article on various social networking sites.

In it, Ben Shapiro takes issue with the Christian anti-vaccine crowd. Or something, I stopped reading after this:

"If Fred Phelps wants to believe that vaccines violate the word of God, thats fine. It's no skin off my back if the evangelical community wants to believe that God doesn't trust them with their own bodies. The problem for me is that someday I plan on impregnating a woman with my penis. Nine months later, we’ll be blessed with a little wriggly child (preferably a boy), and I want to make sure that he grows up big and strong and doesn’t accidently contract an old disease—especially one that most doctors don’t know how to treat anymore—because my neighbors decide not to vaccinate their child."

Too bad for his daughter, I guess, if she ever googles her dad's name and reads about his child preferences.

I actually did read the entire article, and found it mostly bad. Like maybe he thinks he's a lot of funnier than he actually is by, say, erroneously or willfully conflating autism with mental retardation.

To a larger point here, anti-religion dudes often paint religious women as being stupid and duped for being a part of sexist religions.

But, really, how many non-religious men and male critics of religion offer women ways of thinking about gender that are significantly better?

Schadenfreude Moment of the Week

As I've continued to mull over the recent gay-related Supreme Court victories regarding DOMA and (sorta) Prop 8, I've gotten a bit of satisfaction about how the Regnerus study did not successfully sway the Court's majority even though public records show that the study's release was timed to influence major Supreme Court decisions.

According to The American Independent, the conservative Witherspoon Institute paid about $700,000 for the study.

Gosh, that must be really sad for the study's biggest fans.


Related:
The Regnerus New Family Structure Study 
American College of Pediatricians Misuses Regnerus Study in Amicus Brief 
Journal Audit Finds Severe Flaws in Regnerus Study 
Regnerus Speaks at Ruth Institute Conference

Scholars Critique Regnerus Study
Regnerus: Same-Sex Marriage Will Change Heterosexual Marriage
Fischer: "Underground Railroad" Needed to Rescue Children in Gay Families

Same-Sex Marriage, Feminism, and Women

Over at The Feminist Librarian, Anna ran a live-blog series on David Blankenhorn's book The Future of Marriage, in which he laid out his case against same-sex marriage (before he changed his mind, obvs).

Her whole series is a great analysis of the book, and I wanted to especially highlight Anna's postscript in which she examines Blankenhorn's treatment of male versus female scholars he disagrees with on the same-sex marriage issue. She provides a side-by-side comparison of the words and phrases Blankenhorn used to describe his male opponents compared to his female opponents.

As a few examples, he describes Evan Wolfson as "my friend," says that Jonathan Rauch "argues convincingly," calls history professor Stephanie Coontz "a prominent activist" with "Marxist" views who "rarely bothers with detail," and kinda mocks Judith Stacey:

 "...[Stacey is] formerly the Barbra Streisand Professor of Contemporary Gender Studies at the University of Southern California -- I'm not making that up -- Stacey is an activist as well as an intellectual. Her main project is to combine socialism with women's liberation."

It's perhaps difficult to tease out whether Blankenhorn was chiefly uncomfortable with his female opponents' gender, their leanings toward feminism, or their purported Marxist and socialist ways. Possibly it's all of these. Possibly it's none.

Nonetheless, regardless of Blankenhorn's intent, when I read his book I too noticed the dismissive, disparate way he treated the two female scholars compared to his relatively tame treatment of the male scholars, as he expressed near pain at having to disagree with the men at all, claiming of Rauch, "How I wish he were right!"

I find that many same-sex marriage opponents, especially men, don't deal especially well with progressive feminists, especially female ones. There seems to be a taking for granted of the "fact" that feminists, and feminist arguments, are irrational and thus not worth fairly addressing. Earlier this week, I noted Mark Regnerus' treatment of progressive (especially) female scholars in his same-sex-couple-smearing opinion piece over at The Witherspoon Institute's Public Discourse forum.

The approach to "dealing with" progressive feminist-leaning scholars, among some same-sex marriage opponents, seems to be to emphasize their real or imagined "socialist" leanings so as to passive-aggressively red-bait and discredit the entirety of their work, respond to caricatures of their arguments, mock their scholarship and titles of their works and seminars, and suggest that they are activists and therefore that their scholarship is suspect.  Unlike, I suppose, the work of Evan Wolfson. You know, the attorney and founder of Freedom to Marry, that organization that campaigns for the legal right to same-sex marriage. 

As same-sex marriage becomes more of a winning cause in US politics, and as more conservatives ally themselves with the cause, I think it's going to be important for feminists to remain vigilant about the potential non-feminism and anti-feminism of these new allies - allies who are often themselves threatened by feminist critiques of marriage's history of inequality and female subordination. Being a new supporter of same-sex marriage, indeed being gay, doesn't mean that one will also be a supporter of, or even receptive to, feminism.

The most prominent national conversations about same-sex marriage are, with the exception of Maggie Gallagher, largely also same-sex conversations among (white) men often talking to other (white) men, but sometimes also to the American public, about the topic.  Jonathan Rauch. David Blankenhorn. Brian Brown. Evan Wolfson. Dale Carpenter. John Corvino. Robert George. Andrew Sullivan. Dan Savage. Peter LaBarbera.

I know that many people are doing important advocacy work in less prominent ways that don't get them attention, recognition, and credit. Yet, it's problematic to me that I can think of no feminist progressive women of the prominence and platforms of any of these men, even though what, like 96% of feminist progressive women likely support same-sex marriage?

I'm also personally appreciative of Elizabeth Marquardt, of Blankenhorn's Institute for American Values (IAV), invitation to me to blog at the IAV's Family Scholars Blog (FSB) about a year ago.  The issues I raise in this post are also largely why the IAV's decision to abruptly close the blog with little explanation or engagement with its invited guest bloggers has, quite honestly, stung.

Not I only do I feel I'm missing some backstory there, it's a rare thing for progressive feminists, especially queer ones who support LGBT rights, to have the opportunity to engage with a somewhat conservative, largely non-feminist audience whose exposure to feminism is largely filtered through non-feminist, often-conservative interpretations, such as Regnerus' and Blankenhorn's treatments of feminist scholarship. Indeed, I often felt that some of the most contentious conversations I was involved in at FSB were feminist ones, rather than pro-gay ones, as I found myself even arguing against  other gay people and those who were otherwise supportive of same-sex marriage.

The voices of progressive feminist women remain marginalized, appropriated, and often mocked in the national discourse, even within conversations about a purportedly liberal/progressive issue like same-sex marriage.

At the same time, my support of same-sex marriage is deeply tied to my feminism. Even as I critique the history of marriage for what it often meant to women, my position is certainly more nuanced and thoughtful than to be hand-waived away as irrational or dismissed as "socialist" or "radical" without its merits being addressed. I think that's true for many feminists.

And, I further think the same-sex marriage movement is indebted to many other movements, including feminist scholarship, the civil rights movement, and queer/gender studies.  Many in the movement do not seem aware of that as they assume a non-intersectional, gay-centric approach to the issue. Many do not understand complementarist arguments against same-sex marriage. They don't always understand why some people believe all children need a male and female parent. The movement, on the outspoken pro-gay non-feminist side, often seems bizarrely, simultaneously all about gender while also being nothing at all about gender.

So, when I think about how progressive feminist women are implicitly and, oftentimes, explicitly treated as less authoritative and credible than male advocates on the issue, I have to admit that these new shifting alliances, these new friendships between former opponents of same-sex marriage and prominent gay men, give me pause.

For, "if your revolution doesn't implicitly and explicitly include a rejection of misogyny and other intersectional marginalizations, then you're not staging a revolution: You're staging a change in management."

Regnerus: Same-Sex Marriage Will Change Hetero Marriage

Fresh off his speaking gig at the anti-equality Ruth Institute, Mark Regnerus has written a bizarre opinion piece over at The Witherspoon Institute's online Public Discourse forum.

Just as a reminder, The Witherspoon Institute is the conservative think tank that opposes same-sex marriage and recruited and funded Regnerus to run the notorious New Family Structures Study, which purports to study "gay and lesbian families." (Spoiler alert: sketchiness ensued).

In his recent Public Discourse piece, Regnerus begins:

"Will same-sex marriage cause harm to opposite-sex marriage? It’s one of the most enduring questions surrounding state and national legal decisions about marriage."

Now here it's good to remember that Regnerus is a relative New Guy when it comes to writing publicly about same-sex marriage, having only become somewhat of a household name after publishing his widely-critiqued study a little over a year ago.

So, first note the phrase "opposite-sex marriage." The phrases "different-sex marriage" or "other-sex marriage" seem to be more accurate and therefore apt than "opposite-sex marriage," as men and women as a whole aren't actually categorical, essential opposites.

That topic is beyond the scope of what I want to talk about today, so my point here is that throwing around the phrase "opposite-sex marriage" often suggests to me that maybe a person hasn't thought super critically about gender issues, that they're unthinkingly parroting a common phrase, and/or that they believe in often- religiously-based "gender complementarism" and that "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" sort of mythology.

Secondly, he goes on to immediately claim, of his question:

"But the question itself is empirically unanswerable any time soon."

Of course, he then goes on to immediately "hypothesize" an answer to this purported unanswerable question.

Indeed, the very title of his piece (which he may or may not have been responsible for), is "Yes, Marriage Will Change - And Here's How."  Ker-pow! As though, wow, no one's ever predicted that, hey, you know what? That whole same-sex marriage thing? It will likely change "opposite-sex" marriage for the worse.

Third, he proceeds to, for some reason, support his conclusion by (a) citing statistics that he claims show that lesbian relationships break up more frequently than gay male and heterosexual ones (by citing a non-random sample, one lesbian's anecdote, and referencing a couple of reports he doesn't link to), (b) to reference purported "lesbian bed death" and then gay male non-monogamy, and (c) to claim that acceptance and popularization of same-sex marriage has put men in charge of the marriage and sex markets... um.... somehow? (Instead of "same-sex marriage" giving men power in sex and relationships, maybe Regnerus actually meant "rape culture, patriarchy, and sexism"? Damn you, autocorrect?)

Alas, he ends:

"This, I predict, will be same-sex marriage’s signature effect on the institution—the institutionalization of [gay male] monogamish as an acceptable marital trait. No, gay men can’t cause straight men to cheat. Instead, the legitimacy newly accorded their marital unions spells opportunity for men everywhere to bend the boundaries."

Um.... again.... somehow? He doesn't really spell out how the relationship agreements that a relatively small percentage of the overall population engage in will have more of an effect on the majority than vice versa.  He says some stuff about how men these days are pressuring women into anal sex, because gay men have made the practice popular. So, um. There's that, I guess?

The overall piece, and Regnerus' arguments within it, are disjointed and somewhat desperate-seeming. It's a "throw scary-looking opinions and numbers at people and see what sticks" approach to making the legalization of same-sex marriage look like a Really Bad Idea. But, well, I like to make predictions too, and I predict that it's going to be funny as hell to read pieces like this in about 20 years. Have fun staying on the anti-equality bandwagon, bro!

On the "disjointed" and "desperate" point, while Regnerus partially fixes his gaze on lesbian relationships, which is different than the usual anti-gay approach of fixating solely on gay men, it's not clear what his purpose even is in talking about lesbians at all, given gay men's supposed disproportionately powerful influence on sexual norms than lesbians'.

In fact, as an actual lesbian, and a civil union'ed one at that, it is extremely odd to me to be talked about in a context of the forum of a conservative, anti-equality "think tank" for kind of no reason at all other than to list Bad Things About Lesbians, rather than having our ideas and arguments engaged with in a more fair, representative manner.

For, when talking about lesbian relationships, Regnerus takes the approach of citing a handful of more radical queer scholars and thinkers, like Judith Stacey, making statements that might sound scary to a conservative, reactionary crowd. His citations, therefore, read to me mostly as cheap point-scoring "gotchas." For instance, he describes Stacey:

"The elevated breakup rate among lesbian couples has been an open secret for a long while. Even NYU sociologist Judith Stacey—no fan of marriage in general—noted it back in 2000 in small, nonrandom studies of upper-middle-class, educated white lesbian parents, demographic factors historically associated with stability rather than dissolution."

Oooooh, an "open secret"! Wow, a link to the Heritage Foundation citing one-liners from a Judith Stacey talk! And ahhhhhhh, Stacey is "no fan of marriage in general" (which has to do with what now? Oh right, we are to presume she's a Very Bad Person now!)

Regnerus' approach does not seem especially targeted to a skeptical, progressive, pro-equality, or LGBT audience.  I'm to believe Mark Regnerus has his finger on the pulse of lesbian relationships better than, say, actual lesbians do? Sure.

Yet, with the phrase "open secret," Regnerus frames himself as an anthropologist of sorts, as though he's super "in the know" about what lesbian relationships are really like, as he assumes a mansplaining air of merely translating this information to a largely ignorant audience that, unlike him, doesn't yet know the "open secrets" of lesbian couples or indeed the entire set of real goals of the Queer Agenda.

Further, Regnerus' main point is that it's the alleged Great Power of gay male relationship- and not lesbian ones- that, in the end, are going to change heterosexual people's marriage and sex norms. So including lesbians in his article only to list the purported shortcomings of lesbian relationships seems to be a distracting sneer, and fodder for the anti-gay audience who already believes in the supremacy of heterosexual relationships.  It's like, hey, here's this bad thing about lesbians, and this thing too. And pssst, did you guys know this, as well? 

Besides, if Regnerus understood the relevant legal issues involved, he'd know that from a legal standpoint, the fact that some lesbians break up and don't have sex as much as some other couples is not a legitimate reason to deny all lesbian couples marriage rights.  

One final note. Within the article, Regnerus claims:

"Sex is a common 'love language' for men, pop psychologists are quick to assert. It should be noted, too, that egalitarian couples tend to report less frequent sex—and women report lower sexual satisfaction—than couples who exhibit 'more traditional household arrangements.' Perhaps sameness and fairness, however represented, have their unintended consequences."

The file he tries to link to which purports to be evidence for this claim, unfortunately, "cannot be found" (whoooops). Nonetheless, it's a telling Traditional Marriage admission.

Inequality is hot! Sexy! Especially for the ladies! (I guess we'll just take this dude's word for it. After all, it is a man speaking). Here I'll just end by noting that the traditional marriage crowd tends to skew toward opposing, and indeed greatly disapproving of, consensual sexual activities in which participants engage in roles that portray and suggest inequality.  In which case, some of them try to suddenly act all pseudo-feminist and What About the Wimmenz (See also when Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann is attacked, and anti-feminists are opportunistic feminists for like 3 seconds).

I'm thinking of the recent hubub in which a group of conservative men essentially had a convo amongst themselves about purported "uncivilized" and "degrading" S/M sexual activities that a woman chose to engage in.  Seems lots of guys can handle gender inequality in their religions, marriages, society, families, and politics because Men Are From Mars And Women Are From Venus, but when a woman explicitly chooses to portray it in her sex life, "inequality" suddenly gets very threatening to them.


Related: My Thoughts on the New Conversation

My Thoughts on the New Conversation

I was reading some of the posts and resulting blog conversations following the Institute for American Values' Valentine's Day Symposium on their New Conversation on marriage, when I noticed that many of the discussions were not new at all.

Today, I give my tongue-in-cheek contribution for your consideration, brought to you by jurist William Blackstone:

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture.

Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage.

....

The husband (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehavior, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his servants or children; for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases to answer....

These are the chief legal effects of marriage during the coverture; upon which we may observe, that even the disabilities, which the wife lies under, are for the most part intended for her protection and benefit. So great a favorite is the female sex of the laws of England."

To what extent should a married couple be considered one unit or one citizen?

Should a married couple get just one vote, or does each individual get their own vote?

What is the proper way for a husband to give his wife correction? Should he punish her exactly as he punishes his servants and children, or are more (or less) harsh measures necessary for her rehabilitation?

How might the diminishment of coverture in US law have led to a weakened marriage culture, a destabilization of society, and other social ills?

And finally, since coverture was "intended" to protect women as the "favorite" of English law, will men ever be able to overcome their long history of oppression at the hands of traditional marriage?

Okay, in all seriousness, I've been holding off sharing my thoughts about the IAV's New Conversation on marriage. While I probably disagree with many signatories about the extent to which marriage can, should, or is a (or "the") solution to a host of social problems, I do believe that the national conversation on same-sex marriage is oftentimes toxic, hurtful, and polarizing.

Even as I continue to support marriage equality, I am frustrated at the way mainstream LGBT organizations (which are largely dominated by gay men and, to a lesser extent, lesbians) seem to have a monomanic focus on marriage equality as though that's the golden ticket to our full acceptance in society. To me, this focus parallels a conservative focus on marriage generally as a solution to many social problems, at the exclusion of contemplating issues at a more systematic, nuanced, and complex level.

Once marriage equality or a stronger marriage culture are achieved, I sometimes wonder where these well-funded liberal and conservative marriage movements will leave the more vulnerable and marginalized members of our community for whom marriage is not their most pressing issue, for whom marriage is not their "solution," or who do not fit the model of Acceptable Real Family (in either its heteronormative or gay version).

LGBT people will continue to be marginalized, in ways less visible and obvious to the mainstream, after marriage equality is achieved, but marriage equality is largely perceived as being LGBT people's Big Issue. So, when we "win," will it no longer be convincing for LGBT people to claim that bigotry, harassment, or discrimination still exists-  in the way that racism, to some, apparently no longer exists in the US because we have a black President? So, part of the New Conversation maybe involves some bridge-building, helped along with means of civility and understanding, where maybe the end goal isn't to completely agree on everything, but to at least better understand one another.

Secondly, I am not sure at this point if discussing same-sex marriage is "off the table" in the IAV's New Conversation. Jonathan Rauch suggested that the Institute is breaking new ground by being a pro-family organization "recognizing that gay marriage is here to stay as a permanent feature of the American family landscape." Yet, from what I've seen so far, many posts about it seem to be a re-hashing of rather old conversations that existed prior to the same-sex marriage debate.

Heather MacDonald blames feminism. Maggie Gallagher tells us that "men and women are quite different." Lawrence Mead favors restoring some of the stigma to divorce and unwed parenting.

These are not new arguments or discussions. They are also not accepted by many feminists as being true or convincing.

So, while Ron Haskins tells us "the pro-marriage argument is powerful and potentially persuasive to young adults," a pro-marriage New Conversation comprised of these arguments, to many people (especially feminists and progressives) is going to appear as out of touch as re-considering the pros and cons of bringing coverture back.

Indeed, the New Conversation has barely made ripples in the feminist blogosphere, perhaps owing to, as feminist Jill Filipovic demonstrates, its appearance as a conservative, outdated, and simplistic approach.

After much thought and consideration, however, I have decided to sign on to the New Conversation not because I agree with the folks at the IAV, or its signatories but rather because, in large part, I know I do not and will not agree with many of them. The signatories thus far seem to be somewhat intellectually diverse, but I did not see many progressive feminist voices, voices that I believe must be represented in these types of conversations, in the conversation so far, pushing back against outdated, inaccurate notions of gender, sex, and gender roles.

I also respect what the IAV is trying to do and appreciate its commitment to civility. Several participants in the Valentine's Day Symposium also expressed a commitment to civility. I hope that's one value we can all agree on, despite our disagreements about much else.

[Cross-posted: Family Scholars Blog]

Most Women Prefer Working

Over at Sociological Images, Sociologist Lisa Wade reports on some data from Kathleen Gerson's book The Unfinished Revolution:

"Here’s some great news.  The vast majority of young people – about 80% of women and 70% of men across all races, classes, and family backgrounds — desire an egalitarian marriage in which both partners share breadwinning, housekeeping, and child rearing....

...Gerson asked her respondents what type of family they would like if, for whatever reason, they couldn’t sustain an equal partnership.  She discovered that, while men’s and women’s ideals are very similar, their fallback positions deviate dramatically.

Men’s most common fallback position is to establish a neotraditional division of labor: 70% hope to convince their wives to de-prioritize their careers and focus on homemaking and raising children.  Women?  Faced with a husband who wants them to be a housewife or work part-time, almost three-quarters of women say they would choose divorce and raise their kids alone."

Traditional gender narratives usually posit that men are naturally geared toward "breadwinning" while women are naturally geared toward child-rearing.

I wonder what people who believe in traditional gender narratives, theories of "gender complementarity," and pseudo-scientific theories about "man's preference for hunting and gathering while the woman stays home with the kids" think about these findings?

Are such people surprised that most women, too, express a preference for work rather than unpaid child-rearing? Do they believe women today have been "brainwashed" by feminism?

And what to make of men saying they desire an egalitarian marriage while falling back on non-egalitarian model? Have they been influenced by narratives telling them that the most authentic way to be a man is to be a provider for women and children?

These aren't particularly new questions to ask.

Yet, I do think an interesting point is that data like this could suggest that many narratives about traditional heterosexual marriage, premised upon gender complementarity, often serve as the worst PR campaigns for marriage today.

Secondly, what I appreciate about being in a same-sex union is that the gender roles for my partner and I are not written in the way that they largely are with different-sex couples. In our vows, neither of us promised to "obey" the other and we did not have that historical baggage. No default position existed for whether or not I would (or should) take her name upon marriage. No default position exists for which of us will be more expected to continue (or stop) working when we have children.

Different-sex couples often can and do work out these issues in the context of their own relationships, but many people often still speak of the unspoken pressures and judgments that are made based upon their choices, pressures and judgments that exist precisely because people are not following the "proper" gender scripts. A benefit of same-sex marriage is, I believe, that it can serve as a model for negotiating some of these choices in relationships in a more gender-neutral way.

I also reckon that that's not such a great PR campaign for same-sex marriage in some gender traditionalist crowds, though.

[Cross-posted: Family Scholars Blog]