News Flash!: Signourney Weaver is a FCP

In a recent interview with a Brazilian news site, Sigourney Weaver claimed that the reason James Cameron and his mega-blockbuster Avatar were beat out by Katherine Bigelow and The Hurt Locker, her production about the war in Iraq, was because Cameron was not a woman. Or, in her words, the reason Cameron could not snag the Best Director trophy was because ‘[he] didn’t have breasts.’ After reading Levy’s work earlier in the semester, these comments seem to shout ‘female chauvinist pig.’
Although Levy spends most of her book framing female chauvinism in terms of sexual exploitation—women who use their sexuality as a tool or who embrace raunch culture as empowering without fully considering its implications—she also argues that the lack of camaraderie among women only perpetuates their marginalization and subjugation. Levy delineates this phenomena into two components: women who have made it into the boys’ club and are hesitant to pave the way for more women and women who want to identify with a privileged (i.e. patriarchal) ideology. In a world where men still wield the power of the privileged it is often considered a shrewd move for women to align themselves with the boys’ club mentality.
Of course, this mentality runs counter to feminist ideals in a number of ways. According to Levy’s book, female chauvinist pigs achieve their brand of empowerment through eschewing traditional feminist notions of sisterhood, which undermine the established male-dominated hierarchy. This mentality, however, does not support other women and inhibits the formation of potentially powerful social collectives. Although Weaver’s comments seem pretty benign—after all, she did star in Avatar, so it is understandable that she would have been rooting for it—they still typify the chauvinist attitude that undermines women’s efforts to become equally valued contributors to the workforce as well as society at large.
Of course, the politics that go into awards show decisions have long been a subject of speculation. Even the recent expansion of the Best Picture field at the Oscars from five nominated films to ten was largely the result of frustration that certain types of movies were being underrepresented, not due to lack of achievement but because Academy voters have been notoriously prejudiced against certain genres of film. (In particular, the change was believed to be in response to the exclusion of The Dark Knight from the Best Picture nominees in 2009 and the widespread belief that that exclusion stemmed from Academy voter’s hesitance to recognize a superhero film, even an exceptional superhero film.) The politicization of Bigelow’s bid for Best Director, as the first woman in decades to be nominated and the first female director ever to win, was evident not only in the buzz leading up to Oscars night, but also in the ceremony itself.
Bringing Bigelow’s gender into the equation seemed to produce contradictory results. On one hand, it was a significant occasion and Bigelow’s recognition in a field that has been almost exclusively dominated by men was an important moment. However, the politicization of her nomination and bid for the statue also introduced speculation that she could not lose because of her gender and invited comments such as Weaver’s to undermine the quality of her work. The lack of female directors recognized by the Academy has given rise to comments about gender imbalance in the field and speculation over reasons women’s contributions were going unnoticed. To snub a female director whose work is worthy of the win, some argued, would only cement the Academy’s reputation as having a boys’ club attitude. As such voters’ hands were forced to vote for Bigelow and The Hurt Locker if they wanted to maintain some semblance of gender equality. Even Barbara Streisand’s comment upon announcing Bigelow’s win (“about time”) noted both the lack of recognition of women and the growing restlessness surrounding it.
The contentiousness of Bigelow’s win and the dual response generated by it only further highlight the ways professional women’s achievements are being downplayed because of the marginalization of women as professionals on a larger scale. In many ways the difficulties women face parallel the racial inequalities based on white privilege that Peggy McIntosh discusses in her essay White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. McIntosh argues that subordination of marginalized groups can be attributed not only to outright acts of racism (or in this case, sexism) but also to the more subtle privileges enjoyed by those in power. As a member of a marginalized group, Bigelow does not have the privilege of her achievements being recognized as a result of her labor and skill and they are instead attributed to her gender. In this way, even women who manage to break into male-dominated fields and triumph face subordination by virtue of the very obstacles they overcome. The subtext of Bigelow’s win can be interpreted as follows: her work was noteworthy for a woman’s work; the Academy could not afford to ignore a woman’s achievement even if it did not match that of men in her field; Bigelow won because the Academy felt they needed to honor a woman.
The double bind presented here is obvious and links back to Marilyn Frye’s discussion of the ‘birdcage’ of oppression in her essay Oppression. Frye argues that women’s subordination weaves a complex structure, and while it might be possible to tease out and analyze any one element of female oppression, they mesh together in so many inscrutable ways that they form an inescapable cage. In this case, Bigelow overcame the obstacle of being a professional woman in a male-dominated field, only to have the same issues she overcame be used by a fellow woman to undermine her work. Her status as a woman, which no doubt made earning recognition and respect harder, was also used to downplay those honors.
However, reducing Bigelow’s win to a token of gender neutrality ignores other key issues and reveals a continuation of long-standing patriarchal values. For example, it does nothing to address the very real fact that women have been sadly underrepresented in film awards outside of actress categories and categories more fit to typical female roles such as wardrobe design.
Furthermore, James Cameron’s loss to Bigelow (as well as Avatar's loss to The Hurt Locker), can be discussed in terms of other political issues that do not necessary have to do with gender. Avatar, while technically brilliant, was narratively simplistic with less fully-realized characters than those in The Hurt Locker. Furthermore, Avatar was essentially a sci-fi film, which is yet another genre that Academy members have been hesitant to recognize, and had some problematic racial undertones. In my mind, the choice to reward Bigelow rather than Cameron was a choice to represent story-telling over spectacle. Yet despite all these other factors, the race to for the Best Director statue became an issue of gender. As a patriarchal society, it was most important to undermine Bigelow’s achievement in terms of her gender and Weaver’s comments only further reveal the chauvinism behind that impulse.
The suggestion that Bigelow won Best Director because she ‘has breasts’ not only reveals the ways in which successful women are continually marginalized, but also underscores the lack of female camaraderie amongst professional females. Weaver’s comments dismiss Bigelow’s directing achievement while also realigning her with the subjugated position of sexual object by drawing attention away from her work and to her sexuality—i.e. she has breasts. In this way, Weaver posits herself as ‘one of the guys’—she does not feel an overwhelming urge to identify with and encourage other professional females and suggests her own willingness to be complicit in female objectification—and thus aligns with the hegemonic patriarchy. While this tactic might work for personal gain, it is a short-term solution to a problem that reaches back generations. It undermines the efforts of professional women and negates the possibility of genuine female empowerment through collective social movements.


References:
Marilyn Frye. 1983. The Politics of Reality. Trumansburg, N.Y.,: The Crossing Press.

McIntosh, Peggy. 1997. "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." In Race: An Anthology in the First Person, ed. Bart Schneider, 120-26. New York: Three Rivers.

Jobs in the Home

As we near the end of our course, one of the most striking things for me has been the ways in which oppression of women is such a multifaceted issue. Reflecting on something that was said at the Manifesta! Talk—that, despite the lives of men and women being pretty well-protected and equalized on paper it’s crucial to realize that the very systems of our society are working to disadvantage women.

In particular, it seems that financial issues compound and intersect to guarantee poverty, especially for already disadvantaged groups like the single mother. As Mink points out, women, especially women with children, are doubly disadvantaged. Our last readings discussed the lack of available, affordable childcare that forces women into an either-or position. It’s difficult to both nurture a family AND hold a job when maternity leave and babysitting aren’t reliable options.

However, Mink points out that most mothers, by the very virtue of being a mother, are performing some of the most important work available in society. Raising children and nurturing a family is a full-time job, no doubt about it. It is labor that is often exported to nannys and daycare facilities, but it is labor nonetheless. And yet, this labor remains undervalued and unpaid.

The stereotype that women are more suited to domestic life than men therefore reveals itself as a doubly nefarious. Not only does it physically limit women, it also (conveniently) keeps their labor from being financially productive and thus keeps them financially dependent on their husbands or their families or the system. As such, welfare for single mothers could arguably be seen, not as a handout, but as due payment for their labor.

News Flash: Have Female Athletes Redefined Beautiful?

When women first really started to get involved in sports they were often labeled as manly and unfeminine. Rarely were women athletes thought of us beautiful; in fact, probably the farthest thing from it. But as the years passed and sports became more and more popular with girls and women, the image of the female athlete changed. When we look at the Williams sisters, Amanda Beard, Dara Torres, and Mia Hamm the first thing we see is not their muscles, but rather strong, beautiful female athletes. However, all of these female athletes that I named are heterosexual women who many think are physically attractive. When one looks at Brittney Griner, a 6-foot-8 basketball player for Baylor University, people either see a woman who they think is a lesbian, a man, or a woman who is redefining what it means to be beautiful and has the potential to be a model.

Has beauty really been redefined at all? Or are people just saying that beauty has been redefined because Griner deviates from the traditional definition of beautiful? Appearance really doesn’t matter; we should not be so concerned with Griner’s physical appearance but more with her skills on the court. It seems that the most important thing to our society is the way we physically look. Joan Brumberg, author of “Body Projects” writes, “Today, many young girls worry about their contours of their bodies—especially shape, size, and muscle tone—because they believe that the body is the ultimate expression of self.” It doesn’t seem like Griner cares all that much about her appearance, but more about how she performs on the court. And if she is expressing herself through the way she looks then she is telling us all that she is a strong, powerful woman who is not afraid to play rough and show people what a woman is capable of. In my opinion, Griner is redefining what it means to be a female athlete rather than redefining what it means to be beautiful.

Griner is an incredibly talented basketball player with large muscles and manly features. She has a strong torso, quick and muscular legs, and short hair. There was once a time when these features were solely looked down upon; is that no longer the case today? Some people say yes and others say no. Guy Trebay, a writer for the New York Times, writes, “Feminine beauty ideals have shifted with amazing velocity over the last several decades, in no realm more starkly than sports. Muscular athleticism of a sort that once raised eyebrows is now commonplace. Partly this can be credited to the presence on the sports scene of Amazonian wonders like the Williams sisters, statuesque goddesses like Maria Sharapova, Misty May Treanor and Kerri Walsh, sinewy running machines like Paula Radcliffe or thick-thighed soccer dynamos like Mia Hamm.”

So if beauty truly has been redefined, why is there so much talk about Brittney Griner and her appearance? Is she a little bit too manly to be as beautiful as the other athletes that were mentioned? If we’ve really totally redefined beauty, shouldn’t the discussion of Griner’s manliness be mute? Sadie Stein responds to the New York Times article in her piece on the Jezebel website titled “Androgynous Athletes Not Exactly 'Revolutionizing' Beauty Standards,” saying, “So in purporting that standards of beauty have changed, the author objectifies a teenage athlete, subjects her to conventional standards, and then makes it clear that, in fact, no one has redefined their notions of beauty at all — although maybe they could make use of her, since they like novelty. Reductive? Check. Offensive? Check, check.”

Brittney’s shoe size is more than twice the size of the average woman’s, she is taller than 99.35 percent of all Americans, she has the “wingspan of an albatross,” and she can dunk (Trebay). it now acceptable to play like a man when you are a woman? Griner is showing everyone what it means to be a female athlete, one who is redefining how females play sports. Trebay writes, “As these women and their sisters took home trophies and stockpiled medals, they also helped reset the parameters for how feminine beauty is defined. It has been a century since women athletes were first released from chaste and restricting sports 'costumes' and began flaunting their athleticism and muscularity. A lot happened in that time, not least the political awakening that provoked shifts in both consciousness and standards of what it meant to be a woman and play like a man.”

But why do we need to discuss Griner’s physical appearance when she has so many other talents? Our society is still so focused on what people look like rather than what their talents are. And just because Brittney is not the stereotypical pretty girl from next door does not mean that her looks always need to be discussed and that she needs to be labeled as a man or a lesbian. It doesn’t really seem like Griner is redefining beauty standards at all. It just seems like the media want to convince people that she is. Stein writes, “According to this piece, we define 'beauty' as marketability now? And for that matter: What 'changing standards' are we talking about? Tall and thin have been the standard of at least high-fashion beauty (which is how the author seems to define it) for the past few decades. And by any standard, Griner is a conventionally pretty woman—is this radical new paradigm shift an acceptance of...tall women?"

It seems to me that we are not moving forward in society at all, that we are not even close to redefining what it means to be beautiful. Yes, some female athletes are no longer looked down upon, but Brittney is a clear example of a female athlete who is. Society is instilling this idea that there is only one correct definition of beautiful. Brumberg writes, “Cultural pressures have accumulated, making American girls today, at the close of the twentieth century, more anxious than ever about the size and shape of their bodies, as well as particular body parts.” People aren’t contemplating her Griner’s skill level on the court but whether or not she is a male or female. So she’s a strong, sturdy female who can dunk. Were only discussing her because she’s not what a “normal” female looks like. She doesn’t have a slender figure, small feet, thin arms and legs, or a bobbing ponytail. She’s a muscular, toned woman who kicks butt on the basketball court. Only when we don’t need to be constantly discussing the physical appearance of a female athlete will we have started to redefine beauty.

The fact that Griner’s appearance is even being discussed clearly demonstrates how our society and the definition of beautiful have not really changed at all. Society is still so caught up in looks that we’re overlooking Brittney Griner’s basketball aptitude and focusing on her physical appearance. I believe that people are simply saying that Griner is redefining beauty because it makes them feel better when the truth is that beauty should not have to be defined, and it should not only apply to a specific type of person, but rather all people .

Newsflash: A Failed Experiment in Gender Neutrality

From the moment we are born, or perhaps even before, we are labeled “male” or “female.” This initial determination of sex is based on scientific measures: chromosome analysis, external genitalia, physical markers, etc. We generally assume that every individual determined to be a boy or a girl according to these indicators will then identify as such. However, gender and sex are not necessarily the same. Traditionally, sex is considered a biological phenomenon and gender a more social or cultural one; gender can be viewed as the self-expression of sex. Gender is thus something that we construct for ourselves: we are socialized to act in accordance with the stereotypes of our gender. We perform gender through our style of dress and hair, our preferences for toys, sports, hobbies, television shows, and music, and in subtle mannerisms such as how we walk or sit. These concepts and shared ideas about what is male versus what is female are so pervasive throughout society that we accept them as true and begin to assume that they are inherent and unchanging. We then act in accordance with these stereotypes, and in so doing, perpetuate the system. When parents give their daughters baby dolls to play with, they are reinforcing the belief that girls are more nurturing. When parents discourage their sons from crying, they are reinforcing the belief that boys are more rational or unemotional.

These distinctions between what is masculine and what is feminine become increasingly problematic in the context of a patriarchal society. Patriarchy can be defined as the deeply engrained beliefs, symbols, and ideas about men and women that permeate and structure our culture. Distinctions based on sex and/or gender become equated with different qualities and different levels of worth: masculinity is viewed as the norm and traits associated with masculinity are seen as more valuable. Femininity is seen as deviant and consequently devalued. The oppression and subjugation of women that is so prevalent in our society is thus a product of divisions based on gender. Is it possible to resist the influence of the stereotypes present in society? Can we raise our children in a gender neutral fashion and then accept those who no longer fit perfectly in the box of what is male or female?

These are the questions considered by Newsweek contributor Jesse Ellison in her narrative “My Parents’ Failed Experiment in Gender Neutrality” (click here to read her story!). Jesse explains that she was born in 1978, a year that embraced “the notion that gender roles were entirely rooted in the way you were raised.” The feminist movement of the 1970s was in full force at the time. Ellison describes it this way: “the feminist fringe was giving up bras, shaving and diets; they were lighting their own cigarettes and opening their own doors. It was the “new feminism,” and where the first movement was concerned with legal equality, like the right to vote, these women were focused on de facto equality: asserting that it was nurture, not nature, that made women and men different.” If nurture was the answer to the nature-nurture debate, then women could theoretically gain equality by refusing to participate in typical gender norms and denying the traits that made them traditionally female.

As a result, Jesse’s parents decided to ignore gender stereotypes in raising their daughter, who they intentionally gave an ambiguous name that could fit either a boy or girl. Jesse describes her “gender-neutral” childhood: “as a toddler, they dressed me in overalls and cut my hair in an androgynous bowl cut. I didn’t have Barbies; I had wooden blocks.” However, Jesse quickly notes that her parents “little experiment” was a failure. As soon as she was able to speak, she requested pink dresses instead of her standard overalls and refused to show any interests in trucks or construction, despite her mother’s persistent urging. Interestingly though, Jesse does not analyze why this experiment failed. Is it because gender is biologically engrained? Or was it due to outside social pressures? Jesse’s parents could not possibly have sheltered her from the stereotypes perpetuated by the greater culture; she was sure to see little girls hosting tea parties in pastel colored dresses and braids and little boys running around wild covered in dirt. In considering her childhood, Ellison quotes her mother: “we all thought that the differences had to do with how you were brought up in a sexist culture, and if you gave children the same chances, it would equalize. It took a while to think, ‘Maybe men and women are really different from each other, and they’re both equally valuable.’” This recognition is in line with the second wave feminists known as “difference feminists” or “maximizers.” Maximizers maintain that there are meaningful biological differences between men and women that cannot be ignored. However, most importantly, difference does not have to mean that one is superior to another. What is masculine is not necessarily the “norm” and what is feminine “deviant.”

This idea of gender neutrality is often broached in discussions of individuals with intersexed conditions, who are also classified as “deviant”. These individuals may have any type of abnormality involving the reproductive organs or endocrine system and thus cannot be easily classified into our binary system of sex and gender. Anne Fausto-Sterling, author of Sexing the Body, writes that these dualisms create a very limiting either-or choice for individuals and creates a hierarchy where one identity is more palatable than another. Suggestions have been made to raise these individuals as gender neutrally as possible so that they can decide which gender they associate or identify with. However, this suggestion often seems impractical. How can a child navigate the world without a definition of self that includes gender? Can children, or anyone truly, resist the norms and stereotypes that are so widely spread? Can other people accept individuals who do not fit neatly into our binary system? Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myrhe describes herself as an “androgynous young feminist” and admits that “people are uncomfortable around me because I do not, at first glance, it easily into a gender category” (Findlen 86) and furthermore that confused strangers “believe that they have the right to pass judgment on my appearance and thus on my person” (Findlen 84). The example of intersexed individuals is perhaps more drastic than the case that Ellison shares but illuminates similar ideas that gender is socially constructed and that differences, while present, should not be seen as inherently negative. The experience of intersexed individuals also seems to demonstrate that it is impossible, for practical reasons, to resist stereotypes of the greater society and live in a gender neutral fashion.

So, Ellison writes that, as her generation matured, “women could call themselves feminists and also embrace the standard trappings of femininity. We could wear pink, spend money on fancy shoes, and simultaneously expect—no, demand—the same success as men. Femininty and feminism were no longer a contradiction.” While this freedom to be classically feminine but still demand equality seems like progress, Ellison warns that this attitude may have been taken to an extreme. She describes our society’s current obsession with Paris Hilton and all that glitters, quoting well-known feminist Susan Brownmiller: “There’s so much emphasis on appearance that is part of what women have to do today…You have to be a babe, in addition to everything else. Looking like a sex object but also claiming the rights of women who are not sex objects—that’s tricky.” This analysis is reminiscent of Ariel Levy, author of Female Chauvinist Pigs. Levy describes the new raunch culture that has consumed our culture, citing examples such as Girls Gone Wild and the Playboy Enterprise. While feminism asserts that women should have the choice to dress or act as they choose, Levy also worries that the choice to act in certain ways is tainted or otherwise influenced by the surrounding patriarchal society. Is it truly empowering to wear the shortest dress possible or flash a group of men? Levy quotes Erica Jong, “I think we have lost consciousness of the way our culture demeans women..let’s not kid ourselves that this is liberation. The women who buy the idea that flaunting your breasts in sequins is power—I mean, I’m for all that stuff—but let’s not get so into the tits and ass that we don’t notice how far we haven’t come. Let’s not confuse that with real power. I don’t like to see women fooled” (Levy 76). In regards to this, Ellison suggests that the current generation has “swung too far” in the direction of raunch culture and writes that by rejecting the gender-neutral ideals of their mothers, the women of the current generation are assuming that the fight has been won and that sexism no longer exists, which, unfortunately, far is from true.

Women can continue to embrace their femininity and choose to express themselves however they see fit. However, they still need to be cognizant of the patriarchal and sometimes oppressive society that surrounds them; women must remain committed to demanding equality. Gender neutrality may not be necessary, but the intent behind it is still worth considering. Ellison concludes her narrative perfectly with this comment: “Now that I'm older, and a little bit wiser, I love that my parents were so consciously trying to foster androgyny. Ultimately, the whole point was to ensure that I had the freedom, and choice, to be whoever I wanted—which is, after all, what feminism is all about.”

Moms in the Workplace

Is a woman truly capable of being a good mother while also being in the workforce? I cannot answer yes fast enough. Just because a woman has a baby, or numerous children at home, does not mean that her career should be jeopardized. In the world that we live in women are a large part of the workforce.

The National Women’s Law Center provides statistics. 7 percent of American women with children under age 18 take part in the workforce. 77 percent of women with children ages 6 to 17 also participate in the workforce. 64 percent of women with children under age 6 are in the work field, and 56 percent of women with infants (under age 1)—are in the labor force.

Women join the workforce for numerous reasons—because they love their occupation, because they need the money, because they need health insurance, along with many other motives. But no matter the reason a mother wants to work, she should not be discriminated against solely because she has children. In fact, having children will most likely make a woman very tough and hard working. The workforce should be happy to have mothers in the field.

Ann Critenden, author of “The Mommy Tax," writes, “The Independent Women’s forum was comparing young childless women to men and declaring victory for all women, glossing over the real news: that mothers are the most disadvantaged people in the work place. One could even say that motherhood is now the single greatest obstacle left in the path to economic equality for women.”

Just because a woman has a child does not mean that she is not fully capable of having a job and succeeding at it. If a woman has to leave a little bit early to pick up her kid from school, or leave because her kid fell off the jungle gym and has to go to the hospital, she should be allowed to do that. It would be inhumane to not let her, or to punish her for it. Women almost always make up the time; many women are on call for their employers at night and on weekends. So if a woman misses an hour of work here and there, she almost always makes up for it.

Mothers should practically be rewarded for being a mom and a career woman. They have to care for their kids while also maintaining a career. I can’t imagine anything more difficult; being a working mother is a 24-hour job. Men who discriminate against working mothers should take a walk in their shoes. I bet they won’t be discriminating after that, if they can survive it. I say the more mothers in the workforce, the better.

Newaflash: Being "Open" to Gay Marriage

Same-sex marriage has been, and will continue to be a hotly debated topic for many years to come. Many reasons are behind a gay couples’ desire to enter into marriage. Some may seek more legal rights that are granted only to married couples, such as hospital visitations. Others are granted virtually the same rights in a civil union as those couples who are married (particularly in New Jersey), but seek the title of “marriage” and the commitment and fancy ceremony that accompanies it. Whatever the reason, same-sex couples and those that support them are fighting hard to be granted the right to marry in all states. Meanwhile, Scott James’s article, “Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret” discusses how many gay couples have open relationships. While steering away from the conventional rules of marriage may make relationships better for same-sex couples (and heterosexual couples, for that matter), the idea may work against them and only strengthen the desire for heterosexuals to keep marriage an institution solely between a man and woman.
James talks about Ray and Rio, a lesbian couple who married in 2008 during the brief time that same-sex marriage was legal in California. The couple chose to omit the words “fidelity” and “monogamy” from their wedding vows; they instead describe their relationship as “open.” The couple acknowledges that despite the fact that they chose marriage, their bond is “forged on their own terms” (James). Many people who supported proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, see same-sex couples as trying to rewrite the rules and ethics that marriage has stood for throughout history. When Massachusetts decided to permit-same sex marriage, people were worried that it would “spread through the nation and undermine traditional marriage” (Naples).
A recent study shows that many gay couples do not value monogamy. James describes how couples feel as though their relationships are stronger, more long lasting, and more honest because of their ability to have sexual relations with other people. And this is not limited to just a few; James says, “The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners” (James). The principle of the study described how infidelity simply does not have the same negative connotation in same-sex relationships that it has in heterosexual relationships.
Research showed that these couples are just as happy as any other, despite their outward infidelity. Many couples even last longer with a less rigid system of rules. There are, however, rules that go along with open relationships. For Chris and James, a couple since 2002, that means complete disclosure, approval in advance, and no sex with strangers.
Joe Quirk, author of the book “It’s Not You, It’s Biology,” stated, “The combination of freedom and mutual understanding can foster a unique level of trust” (James). He describes how traditional American marriage is in crisis and needs some new innovation in order to survive. While open relationships are not characteristic only of same-sex couples, it seems to be more common practice than with straight couples.
As Joe Quirk described, it is no secret that traditional marriage is in trouble. Divorce is as common as changing your shoes, and with recent media coverage of failed marriages like those of Tiger Woods and Sandra Bullock, many more women are starting to realize that their husbands have not been faithful. When the all-American golfer can’t make marriage work with a beautiful Swedish super model-who can?
It is not all that hard to believe that many same-sex couples experience happier, longer lasting unions as the result of open relationships. After all, same-sex couples face a level of discrimination and difficult challenges that straight couples simply do not, which may lead to a stronger bond and a stronger sense of trust that allows them to “play” with other people without causing controversy. On the other hand, as far as marriage goes, it is safe to say that most people still want a monogamous relationship, at least when they first enter into marriage. It is likely that most women (and hopefully men) enter into heterosexual marriages with the understanding and expectation that their spouse will remain faithful to them. That is exactly why marriage is an “institution,” and one that should be taken seriously. If two people in a relationship or marriage agree that monogamy is not in the rules, then that is absolutely their prerogative and right. Nonetheless, the idea of the “innovation of marriage” and changing its overall meaning does seem to undermine traditional marriage and the idea of total commitment that is so appealing and cherished by many people.
Whether open relationships are characteristic of same-sex marriages or not, it does not mean that same-sex marriages as a whole are against monogamous relationships. Similarly, this does not mean that all straight couples are monogamous and never experiment with open relationships or “swinging.” Nonetheless, the idea that marriage may be completely redefined in the future is one that makes many people uncomfortable, and same-sex couples are an easy target for blame. This is likely why so few people in the gay community are willing to speak openly about open relationships, as Scott James described. They worried that “discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage,” and that worry is not unjustified.
Paula Ettelbrick brings a different perspective to the table. Ettelbrick discusses the patriarchal and dominating aspects of the marriage institution, and is not shy in expressing her disgust in the tradition or the fight for same-sex couples to be able to take part in it. She states, “It will constrain us, make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream, and undermine the goals of gay liberation” (Ettelbrick). Unlike many same-sex couples who fight to prove that they are the same as any other couple, Ettelbrick believes just the opposite. She outwardly stresses the fact that she is not the same, and by mainstreaming same-sex couples into the marriage system, gays and lesbians are going against their overall goal. “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society” (Ettelbrick). Ettelbrick explains how gay and lesbian couples are not placing themselves in a position of power when they downplay their differences to conform to society. She also describes how their movement is one that works to recognize many different types of relationships as valid and respected.
Most would agree that opening up the definition of “relationship” would not be a bad thing. Relationships do not include simply a man and a woman, or monogamy, or certain races, or classes, or ethnicities. Relationships are different in an endless variety of ways, and all should be valued and respected.
Marriage, however, involves certain values that need to be upheld before it becomes just another fun activity for people to do on their day off. Those who enter into a marriage, whether they be black, white, gay or straight, all go into it with a mutual understanding of what that relationship entails. If a same-sex couple wants to get married and have an open relationship, more power to them. Nonetheless, the very definition of marriage as a commitment to one person for the rest of your life should remain unchanged, whether or not that holds true for each couple.
Ettelbrick describes marriage as “a simple certificate of the state, regardless of whether the spouses love, respect, or even see each other on a regular basis…” There is no doubt that the traditional American marriage has its faults and is in trouble, perhaps exactly for this reason. Maybe people are marrying for the wrong reasons and putting things like love and respect on the backburner. Even so, decreasing the divorce rates in our country will not necessarily result from an overhaul of the system and re-definition of marriage. All relationships need to focus on love and respect, and take those two aspects with them down the aisle, so to say. But this is not a problem that needs to be on the shoulders of same-sex couples; we cannot view the problems that married people face in today’s society as the result of allowing same-sex marriage (or trying to), but instead as the fault of society as a whole and the lack of values in many relationships. Whether or not open relationships are a solution to the problems in some relationships is irrelevant to the legalization of gay marriage.

Marriage: romantic or political institution?

After reading these articles, I was surprised to discover a movement against the pro same-sex marriage initiative that has taken root in the LGBTQ community. On one hand, it seems strange to me that marriage is denied to loving couples on the basis of gender or sexual orientation when marriages are repeatedly doled out to loveless, neglectful or even abusive couples. This fact undermines the argument that same-sex marriage will destroy the sanctity of the institution. Furthermore, this contradiction reveals the ways marriage is used as a tool to perpetuate a heterosexist norm.

However, I had perceived this problem to lie in the exclusivity imposed on marriage by outside forces, rather than a hierarchy inherent in the institution itself. If, for example, we waved the heterosexual requirement for marriage, wouldn’t we remove some of the exclusivity? In this sense, I have to disagree with Naples’ assertion that the fight for same-sex marriage is essentially a “normalizing goal [that] would lead inevitably to further assimilation into a heterosexist regime” because I think the heterosexism of marriage is not necessarily inherent to the institution. I don’t think a same-sex marriage would undermine the institution and I don’t think the institution undermines the goals of gay rights movements, if the privileges contingent within it can be expanded to apply to non-heterosexual couples. And I think recent steps towards the expansion of marriage to include same-sex couples prove that they can.

And yet, even after we make marriage inclusive of gay and lesbian couples, it still allows an insider /outsider dichotomy to exist. As Ettelbrick points out, because marriage, a civic institution based on one’s personal life, confers rights and privileges it will always “[create] a two-tier system that allows the state to regulate relationships.” Even if same-sex marriage became accepted, there would still be those whose relationships are not recognized by the state. For example, polygamous relationships or non-romantic partnerships are essentially denied the rights conferred by marriage. Even heterosexual individuals in monogamous relationships who, for whatever reason, have decided not to get married are not protected.

I think these oversights fail to take into account the inevitable co-dependence any long-term relationship likely creates and thus puts the non-protected individuals at risk. Whether straight, gay, romantically linked, monogamous or simply lifelong friends, the strength and importance of these partnerships should be acknowledged, especially in times of crisis such as the death or injury of an individual or in regards to life-changing decisions such as the adoption of a child. Our society is structured around the family unit, and as such I think undermining the relationships that make up the fabric of families is detrimental to the stability of society itself. The problem, of course, is that until recently the uncontested definition of family typically included a wife and a husband.

Theoretically, extending the rights given by marriage to other domestic partnerships would allow more individuals to enjoy greater financial and familial stability. Of course, some of those rights and protections are privilege-based, and therefore would do little to help already disadvantaged groups. As Naples points out, it will be “primarily white, middle-class lesbians and gay men who will reap the benefits of marriage.” However, by easing the restrictions on these benefits, more people will enjoy the stability that has hitherto been restricted to married couples.

Returning to the issue of same-sex marriage, I can see how marriage as an institution is problematic politically because it will always perpetuate a hierarchy between the married and the unmarried. Theoretically, decoupling benefits from marriage (as it is defined as a heterosexual, monogamous romantic union) may help alleviate this disparity. However, as a personal statement of love and devotion, I think romantic marriage should be available to those who want to celebrate a relationship and declare their intentions in front of friends and family. If marriage can escape politicization by being decoupled from the benefits system, its meaning will be distilled in such a way that the sanctity of marriage—a term often used as a tool in a heterosexist agenda—can be preserved. Furthermore, by extending marriage benefits to other kinds of domestic relationships, the financial and personal privileges associated with them will provide more people with more stable partnerships.