Newsflash #3- (the hardest one i've ever had to write)

Feminism fights to create equality for women so women can hold power roles in all facets of life such as business, the house, and especially in terms of their sex lives. “Where the Boys Are” by Molly Simms reveals problems of exploitation and contradictions for all parties involved not just the men who are selling their “services” to women. I feel as though I must preference firstly, the fact that this article is talking about a “cultural phenomenon” in Japan and I am critiquing it based on an American viewpoint and using American feminist theories that we have learned about in class. Secondly, I have to say that I found the article presenting such a multifaceted array of issues, each that I found to be problematic.

At first I found the article, which was published in Bust April/May issue, to be extremely interesting and problematic for the boys whose career choice was being addressed and given new attention to a new circle of people. This again, I realized was coming from an American standpoint, so while rereading I tried to put my immediate judgment to the side, but quickly realized that I could not. The article, whether intentionally or not, reveals that this line of work, not only hurts the men who choose to “sell their bodies” but also the women who chose to buy it.

At first glance this article describes a world of flashing lights where women seem to be in control. Simms is appropriate in saying, “In a fascinating twist on the centuries-old geisha tradition, Japanese women are shelling out big bucks for a night’s worth of attention from beautiful ‘host boys’.” Essentially what these young men’s job entails is to make women feel good. On the surface it is not the equivalent to what we would call prostitution or even escort service here in the US. In Japan there is a whole industry based on this line of work. Perhaps the seemingly acceptance of this work, comes from a long tradition in the form of geisha, yet it has transformed over the years. This industry evolved from geisha into a world of hostess at first and then eventually included hosts. A host does the exact same thing as hostess. “Hostesses cater to deep-pocketed businessmen who attend kyabakura, a Japanglish term that’s a blend of ‘cabaret’ and ‘club’. There are approximately 13,000 of these establishments in Tokyo alone, where men pay through the nose for top-shelf booze and the company of women who pour them drinks, listen to their corny jokes and offer hot hand towels as they leave the restroom. Modern hostesses can, and often must, boost their salaries with dohan, paid dinner dates that occur outside the club…it’s common for them to receive lavish gifts for sleeping with customers during off hours.” This is what the industry grew into and now the gender roles have been switched. Now instead, or more appropriately now there are both hostess and host. Women now are in some ways subordinating men.

The question on whether it is right for women to subordinate men as being right or wrong is a whole other question that I would have gone into, however, I found the article moved away from this and presented another problem-both sexes are being used. Again, I am not sure if the author recognized this problem or not; for she did not come right out and say these men are being treated badly and these women are not actually in control. Simms just lays out the picture of what is occurring leaving the questioning and investigation up to the reader. Yet, her use of language allows for the reader to really devolve into this multifaceted predicament of “hosting”.

Firstly I want to focus on why choosing to be a “host boy” is problematic for men. I already stated that some might find these men are being kept in a position where they lack the ability to express themselves. They are in some ways inferior; their feelings do not matter. Clearly the men who choose to do this line of work need the money (one would assume). Who knows if they have any other outlets and this job in some ways keeps them in an inferior position. Is this what feminism wants? I happen to think it is not the ideals of feminism, I believe feminism stands for equality for all. Women should not acquire power by keeping men down.

Yet, this is not the real issue of the article. Women are not keeping down these men; other men subordinate them. At these clubs there is a clear class distinction, the more time you serve the more you are respected. “Newbies have to pay their dues before ranking in the big bucks, by doing gruntwork around the club-scrubbing toilets, washing dishes, taking out the trash-and ‘catching’ new customers on the street.” There are many episodes where newer host suffer violence from senior host. The article provides first hand accounts from different men in the business. “One time, one got so mad at me that he almost hit me in the head with a bottle of Jack Daniels. It was for some very minor reason…I was too nervous to even speak…” Besides physical and demeaning demands placed by other men, these men are suffering from serious health problems. “The number of hosts who stay in the business more than a year is about 1 in 100, and the reason for the high turnover is most likely the booze.” These men’s’ job is to get their clients trashed and in doing that they themselves end up getting hammered. This is a requirement by the clubs. “Drinking such mass quantities of booze necessitates that they force themselves to vomit, sometimes a few times a night, so they can stay upright until closing.” This is a serious issue; alcohol poison results in death and these men are walking a very thin line. Based on these issues, it is clear that host boys are not necessarily being subordinated by women, but by the establishment with which they work. In the article, it appeared as though men own most of these clubs. Thus, men are subordinating other men.

Secondly, the other problem I found was women are not actually in control. They are given the illusion that they are, but in fact are being taken advantage of themselves. The language of the article had a huge influence on my conclusion of this issue. First of all, it appears as though host boys are preying on women. They are required to stand outside and look for women to bring into the clubs. “When a girl in a thigh-length skirt totters unsteadily around the corner, the hosts walk toward her with a smile.” Also, these institutions, in some way, make women dependent on the host. It is explained as a drug.
“Much like drug dealers who give potential customers the initial hit for free, first-timers can expect to pay only about $35 for a night of drinks and flirty banter. Once she is hooked (italicized not included in the article) on the doting, however, to come back in the door she’ll pony up around $300 for a night of male attention and a couple of rounds of drinks, and that’s without any of the extras like private time or bottles of champagne, which can easily push her bill to four or five digits.…The girl who’s dropping the cash becomes the center of attention, with host circling her, changing her name on microphones and music pounds, and holding a damp towel under her chin while she downs alcohol. Host make a 50 percent commission on whatever their customers pay for in the club, so it’s in their best interest (not italicized in article) to keep the booze flowing and the ladies spending.”
I cannot read this and not think that these women are not being taken advantage of. Yes, they choose to go to these clubs, but they are being exploited. They are given individual attention and then pushed to intoxication levels that make their level judgment and competence questionable.

Thirdly, These clubs and relationship are based on lies. Hosts spend the majority of their time perfecting the ideal man. “The hosts style themselves to resemble their clients’ ultimate male fantasy. After that he is expected to understand and sympathize, to an extent, the women’s plight. “He has to understand how she is not being satisfied in her daily life and satisfy her.” Sociology professor Kyle Cleveland, at Tempel University in Japan stays, “What is being bought is a form of companionship.” Since it is being bought it is not genuine or real. It is a lie. Again, first hand accounts reveal the truth this truth, “I got so tired of lying to the customers… I had to praise them… everything was based on lies.”

Fourthly, another point that I had contention with is “70 to 80 percent of the host’s earnings come from prostitute clients.” The vast majority of women going to these clubs are prostitutes themselves! They are already involved in a business, which keeps them at a disadvantage. These social circles are playing off of each other.

This article revealed so many different issues it was hard to figure out what I was arguing for and against. I spent a lot of time to map out all of the problems and still feel as though I am not doing this article justice. And at the same time, I wonder if I am imposing my own ideas onto a culture that may not see an issue. I have to wonder if that is why Simms does not clearly articulate the problems, but uses strong words to depict that there is a problem.

April Levy, was the first theorist that came to mind when evaluating all the problems of hosting. I thought of her chapter pigs in training, and how she argues that these women are being lied to. Young girls believe that sex equates power. This on one level works directly due to sex being the issue in question, but on a deeper level it insinuates that both these men and women who participate in hosting, whether by selling or buying, believe that they are in control- they are buying into a system that actually gives them no power and instead keeps them inferior.

One more time, I have to wonder if I bit off more than I could chew. I tried to reveal my issues of contempt while realizing that I know nothing about this culture. Then I tried to support my argument with American theorists, who know nothing about Japanese culture. I have to admit that I feel as though I am being Eurocentric in my viewing of hosting in Japan.

News Flash : Home Economics For Everyone

When I began reading Emily McCombs’ article “Home Sweet Home EC: from feminist roots to gender role reinforcement and back again, the history of home economics might surprise you” I was sure I would vehemently disagree with her thesis. After the first paragraph it appears as if she’s advocating for women to stay in the home. But that is not the whole story. In McCombs’ article she relays the history of home economics—which was actually founded by some of the first women to receive college educations—as it begins and then how public school curriculums and the popular media diluted it until it became the image we have today. Many of McCombs’ points have merit; she conveys how important the work of the home is, and how uneducated people are on the subject. I agree with her opinion that more praise should be given to this work and I stand by the idea that college-aged kids should learn about these life-skills. But where my issue with this article lies in the fact that she is only advocating for women to be educated in the field of home economics. If this is important work, which it is, then men should certainly be educated in it too.

In 1899 a group of women, who were college educated, mainly in the sciences, gathered in Lake Placid, NY. From this meeting the term “home economics” was born. Eventually this small group expanded and by 1909 they formed the American Home Economics Associated (AHEA). The issue these women faced was they had all this knowledge, but weren’t getting jobs because of the male dominated work force. According to Virginia Vincenti, Family and Consumer Sciences professor at the University of Wyoming and co-editor of Rethinking Home Economics, “Many of them were trained in science with limited opportunity to use it because of prejudice against women. So they decided to create their own field”(p.1, McCombs). They began applying all their knowledge into daily tasks of the household. They “envisioned an academic program on the college level that would value nutrition and food science over cooking, textiles and clothing construction over sewing and bacteriology and germ theory over household cleaning”(p.2, McCombs).  They wanted to establish this field as something more than it was seen as by the majority of people. And at the same time wanted to improve the practices in a household; by making food healthier, advanced cleaning practices, and cutting down on waste in terms of water, electricity and food.

 

Many colleges and universities were open to this idea, however many male figureheads kept trying to package the course as something far simpler than what it was. “Martha Van Kensselaer, who developed Cornell’s home economics department, attempted to take a bacteriology course In order to explain the importance of kitchen cleanliness to students, the male professor told her, ‘Oh, they do not need to know about bacteria. Teach them to keep the dish cloth clean because it is nicer that way’”(p.3, McCombs).

 

Similar misinterpretations took place on a younger education level as well. The programs in public middle and high schools have taken an image of something stereotypical of this field that the women of AHEA had not intended. McCombs blames these skewed curricula for diluting the image of home economics in our society.

 

As well, this group received intense backlash from many radical feminist, who viewed housework and the study of it as the antithesis to women’s liberation. Famed feminist Betty Friedan made comments on this effort at a women’s liberation convention that “were so incendiary, no records of them remains”(p.3, McCombs).

 

The complaints of these radical feminists have substantial merit. This movement has implications that could potentially be impeding on women trying to enter the work force. Barbara Ehrenreich discusses in her essay “Maid To Order” how the fact that women are viewed as the only gender that can perform housework is a continuing issue. “And when the person who is cleaned up after is consistently male, while the person who cleans up is consistently female, you have a formula for reproducing male domination from one gender to the next”(p.61, Ehrenreich). I whole-heartedly agree with McCombs’ points that the work done in a household is profoundly important, doesn’t get the recognition it deserve and should be part of the curriculum in colleges and universities. But the language in her article seems to perpetuate the notion that these responsibilities are only under the jurisdiction of women. However, if these courses did become mainstream at universities, then they have the potential to become required courses and in turn exposed to male students who—now better equipped with the tools necessary—can take part in the household tasks.

 

The AHEA listened to what the radical feminists had to say. Since these conventions they’ve made strides to make this movement not seem as suppressive towards women, “that rethinking eventually led to the curriculum-wide name change to Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS) in 1992”(p.4, McCombs). According to the leaders of this program, the only hope for the future of this field is today’s college students. They hope this new title while help the course gain more approval and attract more students.

 

As a college student, I see the merit in a course such as FCS. Perhaps most importantly I can see how a course of this nature would positively impact the lives of many of my male peers who don’t see this type of knowledge as their responsibility.

 

News Flash: Nebraskan Law Restricts Abortion Based on Fetal Pain

There have been controversial and endless debates over a women’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Following the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, women, throughout the United Sates, gained the right to obtain an abortion. Over time, states have passed various laws that have restricted women’s right to choose. Monica Davey, in her article “Nebraska Law Sets Limits on Abortion,” discusses the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” an anti-abortion law that was recently passed in Nebraska. This is the first time that a law, regarding abortion, has been based on the fetuses’ ability to perceive pain. This law, which restricts women from having an abortion twenty weeks after gestation, separates Nebraska from all other state. It is time for the federal government to develop a comprehensive act that standardizes abortion in all fifty states. The laws must be clear and preempt states from placing excessive restrictions on abortions. The goal behind this federal amendment should be to remove the hurdles, which many pregnant women who seek abortion continue to confront.

Governor Dave Heineman, of Nebraska, signed a law on Tuesday, April 13th, that banned abortions after twenty weeks of conception. Nebraska’s state unicameral legislature passed this law with a vote of 44 to 5. Nebraska legislature purported that a fetus can feel pain after twenty weeks of gestation. This is the first law in the United States that restricts late-term abortions on the basis of fetal pain. The law further states that any physician who performs an abortion after twenty-weeks of conception has committed a felony. Nebraska’s quick action to enact this law is reflective of a fear that it may become the next “late-term abortion capital of the Midwest” (Davey A16). Dr. George R. Tiller, a prominent late-term abortion provider, was killed in Wichita, Kansas, on May 31, 2009. It is ironic to note that Scott Roeder, a pro-life advocate, murdered Dr. Tiller. How can a pro-life advocate justify murdering an individual? Following Dr. Tiller’s death, a friend of his, Dr. LeRoy H. Carhart, decided that he would perform late-term abortions at his clinic in Bellevue, Nebraska. Dr. Carhart’s decision was the impetus that caused Nebraskan lawmakers to hastily past this recent abortion restriction.



The previous law that was in place in Nebraska, and currently remains in many other states, banned abortions after the fetus reached viability. While this has been determined on an individual basis, twenty-two weeks has been the baseline criteria. Nebraska is unique in that it forbids abortion after twenty weeks because of a presumption that a fetus can then feel pain. The exception to Nebraska’s newly passed law is the case of a medical emergency. If there is a concern that a pregnancy will result in the death or harm a vital bodily function, an abortion can be performed. This law makes Nebraska’s abortion policy different and more restrictive than other states. Thirty-eight states have restrictions on late term abortions but none as early as twenty weeks.

Numerous abortion proponents are outraged by this new legislation. Nancy Northup, president of Center for Reproductive Rights, states that they are looking into all possibly routes to appeal the recent law passed in Nebraska. Ms. Northup explains that, over time, state legislation has placed varied restrictions on abortion that weakened the decision of Roe v. Wade. Ms. Northup further clarifies that the law that was recently passed in Nebraska was of a whole different magnitude. “If some of these other anti-abortion bills have been chipping away at Roe v. Wade, this takes an ax to it” (Davey A16). “But abortion opponents say a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding a federal ban on certain late-term abortions opens the door for such legislation because it suggests states have an interest in protecting fetuses. They also say the bill makes sense given what they say is new scientific evidence that fetuses feel pain” (Jenkins 1). The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist stated, during the trial, that it knows “no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain” (Harris, Khan, Vogue 1). The controversy over when/if a fetus feels pain remains unclear. Should medical and/or legal experts make this decision? Is this a question that anyone can answer with absolute certainty? It has been hypothesized that Nebraska hopes the current, more conservative Supreme Court will review their recent legislation. Pro-lifers believe that these judges would further restrict Roe v. Wade based on the presumption that fetuses can perceive pain after twenty weeks gestation. Whether or not a fetus is able to perceive pain at this point has not been scientifically established. The Supreme Court needs to both uphold Roe v. Wade and establish federal guidelines that ensure similar freedoms within all states.

Igna Muscio offers her thoughts regarding abortion within her article, “Abortion, Vacuum Cleaners, and the Power Within.” After Ms. Muscio underwent three abortions, she advocates against clinical abortions. She believes that women should look for alternative, organic abortions. Ms. Muscio would most probably oppose the recent Nebraskan law. Ms. Muscio supports a woman’s right to choose for or against abortion. She would though argue that individuals should search for alternative means of late-term abortions that move away from western medicine. “The squabble between pro-lifers and pro-choicers severs only to keep our eyes off the target: patriarchal society” (Listen up 117). Legislation needs to be passed that sets the same standards for all states and allows individuals to make their own, educated choices.

Allison Crew’s article, “And So I chose,” expands on her decision to be pro-woman and pro-choice. Ms. Crews believes that a woman should have the right to choose to have or not to have an abortion and be supported independent of her choice. Ms. Crew would oppose Nebraska’s new, more restrictive policy on abortion. Ms. Crew discusses that most second wave feminists do not remember the struggle of previous generations to obtain reproductive choice. “I doubt many of us, conceived after Roe v. Wade became law, remember a time when birth control pills had yet to be invented and diaphragms and condoms were not readily available to unmarried women. A time when a woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy could either give birth, or risk mutilation of her body and possibly death” (Listen Up 143). Individuals need to remember why certain rights were established and ensure that they are upheld.

The Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade left loopholes open that allowed states to establish restrictions regarding abortion. The Supreme Court needs to establish federal guidelines that resolve ambiguity and ensure women’s right to choose. No legislation is suggesting that a woman have or not have an abortion. A woman may choose to have an abortion because of an unplanned pregnancy, rape, positive amniocentesis, and/or exposure to harmful toxins. Similarly, no legislation should mandate that a physician perform or not perform an abortion. Some physicians have moral and/or religious beliefs that result in their decision not to perform abortions. The time for federal legislation to ensure a women’s right to choose and uphold Roe v. Wade is now.

Feminism hurting women

Gwendolyn Mink's "The Lady and the Trap" acknowledges the damages the US welfare system places on women who find themselves in need of that service. She does an excellent job of recognizing where the short falls come from.

Welfare in the United States has a very negative connotation. Women who end up needing to be on it are considered lazy and abusive of the system. "In the popular imagination, welfare participants are reckless breeders who bear children to avoid work. Such vintage stereotypes have bipartisan roots... Racially charged images of lazy, promiscuous, and matriarchal women have dominated welfare discourse for quite some time, inflaming demands that mothers who need welfare-although perhaps not their children-must pay for their improvident behavior through work, marriage, or destitution." As mentioned in the quote this stereotype is being used by both political parties, yet Mink recognizes that Feminism has allowed it to continue and has given these policy makers an excuse.

Feminism is predominately a one class one race voice, especially when it comes to policy on welfare. This feminism represents white- middle and upper class women. These woman's issues are quite different than the women who find themselves needing assistance. Feminism believes itself to be helping "women" but it is only helping a certain group of women and while keeping others down. Feminism, has placed a huge emphasis on work outside the home, to say women should be allowed to work outside of the home and this will create equality for women. Yet, this only creates equality for a group of women, if it creates equality at all. Most poor women have always worked outside the home, yet their work is not recognized or praised. Thus only certain types of work is seen as important. "Part of the problem, I think, is that white and middle-class feminists-who are the mainstream of the women's movement view
mothers who need welfare as mothers who need feminism. They see welfare mothers as victims-of patriarchy, maybe of racism, possibly of false consciousness. They don't see welfare mothers as feminist agents of their own lives-as women who are entitled to and capable of making independent and honorable choices about what kind of work they will do and how many children they will have and whether they will marry. As a result, when many white, middle-class feminists weighed into the welfare debate, it was to prescribe reforms to assimilate welfare mothers to white feminists' own goals-principally,independence through paid employment."

There needs to be a shift in how feminism thinks of equality. First, feminism needs to recognize not all women have the same issues and thus one group must not speak for another. Each group need to have her own voice. Second, there needs to be a shift on what type of work is considered respectable and worthy. All women are at a disadvantage if we continue to think that only work outside the home will give us equality. The truth of the matter is even if women work outside the home they are still doing the majority of the work inside the home. Now they have two jobs, one that may or may not be recognized outside the house and one that is for sure not recognized inside the house. We need not only focus on having a dual-earner policy but a dual-earner and dual-carer model. And even that language is discriminatory. Many women are single and will not have a second income or second hand to help in the house, yet with this language at least there could be recognition that both types of work-out of the house and especially in the house- are respectable and deserve attention and payment.

Higher Ed does not equate leaving poverty

The two readings from Listen Up yelled out that disadvantages still emanate for people seeking to improve their economic situations by attaining higher education. Both authors give first hand accounts of the struggles they faced while in college, and then after. These articles infuriated me because here are women working hard trying to change their situation but unable to escape the system to which they were either born into or for some unfortunate event found themselves in.

Aisha Hakim-Dyce's "Reality Check" expresses her difficult time trying to make money while at school to pay for all her expenses. Hakim-Dyce was seeking higher education but could not afford to live off of the work-study program. She seriously considered go-go dancing as a way to make fast money to pay off her debts and to be able to live.

At first I was appalled that she would only believe this was her only option. She states, "None of my attempts at self-development translated into employment opportunities. I was constantly depressed and often thought of dropping out of school in order to hold down a full-time job to cover my living expenses." This is extremely sad. Education is suppose to offer a way out of poverty a way to better your life, yet here she is unable to even pay for food. The reason I was appalled by her decision to seriously consider go-go dancing is because it is "depleting experience... demoralizing and dehumanizing work." I did not understand why she did not try to be a waitress. The hours are flexible and depending on the establishment you can make some serious money through tips. You would not be selling you body (to an extent) to make a quick buck. However, by the end of the piece I stopped judging her and realized she felt this way for only reasons she knows. This saddened me. The challenges the poor must face are completely unfair.

Maria Cristina Rangel's "Knowledge Is Power" is just as depressing. Her situation is a little different. She was untraditional student going to Smith to try and get out of her unfortunate situation. "I wanted a better life for myself and wanted to ensure that my daughters would know more than the rural, misogynistic, racist, homophobic area of Washington state I grew up in, where the only options for an uneducated Chicana single mother seemed to be migrant farm labor, factory work and marriage." She had two kids already and was overwhelmed by the expectations put upon her. As an untraditional student she did not get the same grants or work-study opportunities as a traditional student. This in itself does not seem fair. Also, "under welfare reform, recipients of TAFDC, which she was on, are able to receive only two years of benefits within a five-year period. Recipients are required to enroll in training or job-preparation activity in exchange for their benefits, and the pursuit of higher education does not qualify as valid training." This is just one of the problems she face. She realized that reform was needed and set her sights on this goal.

This last essay really pushed me over the edge. I wanted to shout, WE MUST HELP THOSE WHO ARE TRYING!!!!!! We cannot continue to say that these women on welfare are lazy and only give them some help while at the same time limiting their chances of succeeding. Welfare, is not something someone wishes to be on and I feel as though our system says they are "helping" they are actually hurting people who find themselves in need of real help. We must acknowledge the realities and set up programs that allow people to make a better life for themselves and to finally be able to get off welfare. We must stop thinking and assuming "that you (people on welfare) are trying to scrw the DTA over..."

Do Weddings Offer Equality?

Paula Ettelbrick examines and discusses reasons against same-sex marriage within her article, “Since When I marriage a Path to Liberation.” Ms. Ettelbrick sees marriage as an ineffective institution. The author explains that some individuals marry to gain approval from society. She explains that marriage maintains the patriarchal system, which supports continued male dominance over women. The author argues against same-sex marriage until innovative changes have been made within the institution of marriage. To date, marriage too often does not offer equality to both partners. While Ms. Ettelbrick explains that gay and lesbians should have the right to marry, she argues that marriage is not the panacea that these groups believe. Marriage will not solve many of the problems and biases that continue to exist. “Rather, a simple certificate of the state, regardless of whether the spouses love, respect, or even see each other on a regular basis, dominates and is supported. None of this dynamic will change if gay men and lesbians are given the option of marriage” (308 Ettelbrick). Marriage has often lost the meaning that it once may have possessed. The concept of marriage needs to be reexamined prior to allotting this legal option to all individuals. On the other hand, gay and lesbian couples who have been living together for years should be provided the benefits of shared health insurance and decreased taxes that married couples enjoy on a daily basis. One needs to remember that offering the legal right to marry is an option and never mandatory. It should be an option for all committed couples who are interested. Cohabitating couples, who are in a committed relationship but chose not to marry, should have the right to share benefits, such as health insurance and tax deduction.

Nancy Naples’ article, “Queer Parenting in the New Millennium,” nicely accompanies Ms. Ettelbrick’s discussion on same sex marriage. Ms. Naples introduces the struggles of same-sex parenting and the legal conflicts that arise. The complexity of gay and lesbian legal rights was examined. This has raised awareness to the cost and benefits of same-sex marriage within the gay and lesbian community. There needs to be general guidelines for all individuals: heterosexuals, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians, who choose to adopt orphans. Recognizing the number of parentless children in the world, it is important to identify capable adults who want to adopt. Today, witch medical advances in fertility treatment individuals have increased options for birthing children. The same guidelines should apply to heterosexual and same-sex couples. With respect to Eteelbrick, while same same-sex marriage is not the solution it should be an option for gay and lesbian couples who choose to partake. More importantly, legislation should be developed that allows all cohabitating, committed couples to share work benefits for themselves and their children. While there is a risk that certain individuals will take advantage of the system, the option needs to be allotted. Therefore, criminal action should be taken when false claims for benefits are made. Inequality will continue to exist until all individuals are offered the same rights. Civil rights should never be restricted from individuals due to sexual preference.

Marriage for all does not mean equality

Paula Ettelbrick's essay, "Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" shocking. Before reading this essay I never questioned that some gay or lesbians may not want marriage. I did not that there were some gay and lesbians that felt that marriage instead of creating equality just points out the obvious differences and keeps some who chose marriage more marginalized than before, if not keeping those who chose not to wed extremely marginalized. Ettelbrick example of the women who chooses to have sexual relations outside of marriage facing stigma really took home her point. That those men and women that may not choose to get married but still pursue their sexual relations, will continue to face the old stigmas they faced in the past as well as new ones.

She raises great points that some would still not receive the benefits of marriage and it keeps those people-minorities and working class- at a clear disadvantage. Yet, I wonder with the new health care bill if she would change her mind. No longer does a women or a man have to depend on his or her spouse for health insurance. Would she look at marriage differently? I have a feeling she would not. She does not seem to be happy about the fact that through marriage are men and women accepted for themselves. Yet, she acknowledges that we all feel a need to be accepted. So her argument raises many important points and gives a voice that I have not heard before. However, in light of recent legislature I wonder if her argument would change.

On this note I am also curious to what Kenji Oshino would say. I think he would agree that she should not have to confirm, but isn't he married? Doesn't the being able to have the choice of marriage mean in some part finally being seen as equal? The more I think about all the other sides of the coin and the arguments that I have heard in pro-gay marriage, Ettelbricks argument is in some ways lacking. Her fears are getting the better of her. I am not saying she does not have a right to feel this way, but wouldn't part of being accepted as being equal mean having the same rights as heterosexual men and women? Perhaps she is right that we still need to change our legislation so that this is not the only option. There are many heterosexual men and women who are not married, have kids, who for some reason or another chose not to marry. Are they not facing the same legal standing as homosexual men and woman?

inequality

In Paula Ettelbrick's essay on marriage, she concludes that marriage is not a path to liberation for anyone; whether your gay or straight. But in fact that marriage as an institution creates a division between the "have's" and the "have nots" as our legal system and system of benefits favors those who have chosen to marry over those who have not. I agree with many of the points Ettelbrick makes. I have been taught about the benefits of marriage throughout my life, but never was it clear to me how these benefits marginalized those who don't "fit the bill." Her point about how the legalization of gay marriage will do nothing but reassert these imbalances that are in place really helped me understand the unfair qualities of this institution. As well, her example of a lesbian woman who is not allowed to be with her wounded partner in a hospital room because she is not "family" is clearly bureaucratic  cruelty. As well, when she compares this situation to that of affirmative action, her point became even clearer.

"will result, at best, in limited or narrowed 'justice' for those closest to power at the expense of those who have been historically marginalized." One area of her essay that I found a bit confusing was her opinion on our legal system. She states that the laws in the US have a concept of equality that does not support differences, it supports sameness. But she also notes the need for all relationships to be recognized legally. So does she believe our society can change its ways through an alteration of the laws? Or that we as people have to change and the laws will follow suit?

What I found most interesting in Nancy Naples essay was the bit about a co-mother's relationship to her daughter, given birth to by her lesbian partner. The partner who gave birth to the child feels suddenly more accepted in conventional society, as her role of "mother" suddenly trumps her sexual orientation. However the co-mother, who did not give birth, finds herself at a loss for explaining her relationship to her daughter, which is entirely equivalent to that of a father, but somehow our language doesn't permit this relationship justice. 

The very notion of "labels" is very prevalent in our society, as we have noted throughout this course. Be it an infant who is ambiguously gendered, or a two people who have an ambiguous relationship, it appears our society is obsessed with making things clearer for strangers. Why does everyone have to understand everyone else's business? is it central to a functioning society? How can a society function without labels?