Follow Up on Constance McMillen

I have been following the case of Constance McMillen because I think that it is an extremely important issue in today’s society. Since McMillen was sent to a fake prom a few weeks ago, there have been one or two other events surrounding her and her stance on same-sex rights. As I had speculated in my previous News Flash, I suggested that McMillen would receive quite a bit a backlash over the cancelation of the original prom. I was right. However, I had never in a million years realized how bad the backlash might be. In today’s where social media networks and the Internet seem to be the center of the universe, McMillen’s classmates took to the infamous website, Facebook, and created a hate page. Yes, that’s right. There was an entire Fan Page dedicated to McMillen. While normal Fan Pages gain fans because they are followers and admirers of an individual or group (for example I am a fan of Bruce Springsteen on Facebook), the members of this specific page were all against McMillen. The page was filled with quotes like “Constance quit yer cryin’” (Miller 2010). Some of the comments are things that a high school senior, or any person for that matter, should never have to deal with in their lifetime. Some of the more serious comments include death threats. However, now the page seems to have taken a 360 turn. Supporters and fans of McMillen seemed to have overridden the page and have shown their support for McMillen and gay rights. McMillen though has come out and said that she not only does not support the original hatred of the page, but she also does not support the hatred that her fans have shown her classmates. Hate is hate. However since then, things surrounding her seemed to have quieted down a little bit until now.

According to an article in the San Diego Gay and Lesbian News “the Kansas hate group Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) says its minions will be picketing at the May 22 commencement at Itawamba Agricultural High School, when lesbian senior Constance McMillen is scheduled to graduate” (Staff 2010). So not only have I been appalled by the fact that a high school cancelled its prom over the issue of gay rights, but also I was disgusted by the Facebook group created against McMillen, which was aimed at her sexual preference, and now I am even further shocked by the fact that this high school senior is set to have her next memorable event ruined. WBC, which I must admit I do not know much about, seems to be an absolutely disgusting and inappropriate group. “ WBC is notorious for thrusting itself into the public spotlight at inappropriate moments, such as funerals for service members an gays, because its members believe that the deaths are God’s revenge against America for tolerating homosexuals” (Staff 2010). I am absolutely speechless. Really? We live in a country, where people have the audacity to protest at funerals, a moment when family members and friends come together to celebrate the loss of a loved one. They claim that the “biggest lie of all [is] that God loves everyone” (Staff 2010). Actually, this statement might be true because I think that it is safe to say that God does not like the WBC.

http://sdgln.com/news/2010/04/27/hate-group-westboro-baptist-church-picket-constance-mcmillens-graduation

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001910-504083.html

Connection between mohanty and shah

In class on Tuesday as we were discussing Chandra Mohanty’s article, “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,” I couldn’t help but think back to “Tight Jeans and a Chania Chorris” by Sonia Shah in Listen Up. Shah’s story about her sister now seems to represent kind of a microcosm of some of the concepts discussed by Mohanty, because at first, she did not employ cultural relativism to any extent. She initially tried to apply a Western feminist perspective, learned from an American university, to her sister who was grappling with her mode of expression, and quickly found that it was ineffective. In terms of Mohanty’s reasoning, Shah’s first attempts could be considered paternalistic because she tried to impose views derived from her Western schooling within her Indian family, yet wondered why her efforts to advocate (Western) feminism were not always accepted. Shah pointed out that white feminism does not recognize cultural duality, a fact that explains why her “interventions” were such failures in the context of her Indian household (228). She eventually realized that one’s identity does not have to be confined within just one culture’s patriarchy. Her initial adherence to white cultural norms clashed with her parents’ Indian cultural context, but when she wore a chania chorri, which blatantly displayed flesh but through a culturally appropriate article of clothing (to her parents), it dissipated the household tension. To Shah, this change symbolizes a middle ground between realms that symbolize cultural context that is exclusively white or Indian, and thus reflects a middle ground between being completely paternalist and completely relativis. She figured out how to draw a balance that reflected dualism, and more importantly, the interconnectedness of the Indian and white cultures in her life.

NewsFlash: Nebraska Imposes New Restrictions On Abortion Rights

On April 13th, two laws were passed in Nebraska that put new restrictions on abortions. Republican Governor Dave Heineman signed two bills, one that bans any abortion at or after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and another that mandates that women intending to have an abortion must be screened for potential mental health and other issues that may become complications post-abortion. Taken together, these bills represent significant restrictions on reproductive rights in the state of Nebraska which if upheld in court threaten to influence changes of other states’ abortion laws. The first law, which is based on the claim that fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks, demonstrates state interest in protecting the fetus over the mother even though the fetus has not been considered viable at that point of the pregnancy and thus changes the justification for determination of the late-term cut-off.. The second law, though not elaborated upon in the article, can be interpreted as an attempt at upholding the best interests of the mother, though the manner in which this may occur is still restrictive by possibly limiting the choice of the mother through influence by medical personnel. Regardless of the rationale, these laws, specifically the “no-pain law” will almost certainly be challenged, especially since the “no-pain” law directly contests the traditional guidelines for determining abortion term cut-offs.

The “no-pain” abortion law sets a precedent for changing the justification for abortion limits from the idea of viability to one of pain and reintroduces a need for more scientific evidence surrounding abortion procedures. However, a strong criticism of the fetal pain basis for justification is that the “American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists … says it knows of no legitimate evidence that fetuses experience pain at that stage” (The Associated Press). Law professor Caitlin Borgmann thus counters that if the court upholds this law, it is “disregarding the importance of good scientific evidence” (The Associated Press). Mary Spaulding Balch, legislative director for National Right to Life highlights the big picture implication of such a policy by stating that it shows that “the state has an interest in protecting the unborn child before viability” (The Associated Press). Such legislation appears to follow from the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the 2003 ban on certain abortions that would be performed late-term because it implied that states do have an interest in protecting fetuses, at least by a certain point in the pregnancy.

The deadline imposed by the new “no-pain” law seeks to extend protection of the fetus to before the time at which it becomes viable, or able to survive outside the womb. The viability justification essentially delineates the deadline according to when termination of the pregnancy would mean termination of a life that otherwise could exist independently. In other words, without this new law, the right of the mother to choose is held above the rights of the fetus up until it has developed enough so that it can survive without being inside the mother. The new law restricts some of the mother’s freedom of decision by encroaching upon the timeframe during which she must decide and act.

The other law that requires screening of a woman for mental health status and other indicators of possible issues post-abortion can conversely be viewed as trying to protect the interests of the mother. However, a closer look suggests a similar potential increase in restriction, for if findings from such screens could exclude the woman from abortion eligibility, the state of Nebraska is imposing another serious threat on women’s reproductive choice. Even if any findings would not be exclusionary by law, the basis of the concept that the screening is to identify “risk factors indicating if women might have problems after having abortions” still introduces outside influences that could affect the woman’s decision (The Associated Press). None of this is explicitly stated in the article, but the implication can easily be drawn from the context of the proposal of these laws, for the Nebraska legislature clearly is seeking to impose more restrictions on abortion rights by holding the fetus’ interests above those of the mother by 20 weeks into pregnancy. Though not explained, the law seems to require the input of some medical personnel, which detracts from the choice as one that is personal. Allison Crews, a pro-choice woman, explains that to her, “being pro-woman, being pro-choice, means being supportive of any reproductive choice a woman makes for herself…we have the right to mother the way we want to, to ignore the ‘well-meaning’ advice and criticism of others” (Crews 148-149). Along with this vein, reproductive choice involves more than just the ability to make a decision regarding one’s own body and pregnancy, but also should feature an absence of coercion or outside influence that can sway one’s decision such that it may no longer be representative of one’s own opinions.

The most striking part about this article is simply the implication of these new laws on the future of abortion rights – the state of Nebraska is increasingly siding with the rights of the fetus over those of the mother and so is imposing more influence on the reproductive decisions of the mother. Judith Arcana contends that “abortion is a motherhood issue” and that regardless of legislative or scientific determinations that “conception is the beginning of maternity” (Arcana 225, 226). An abortion decision thus is a life or death choice that to Arcana is to be made by a woman or girl “who is already a mother” (Arcana 226). Again, legal distinctions aside, Arcana’s argument is that abortion is a very personal decision, a “dreadful responsibility,” and one that women should regard as a choice that reflects what is best “for ourselves and our babies” (Arcana 226). This pro-choice reasoning is in conflict with the Nebraska laws, which if upheld side the state with the fetus over the mother and potentially allow for the state to influence the woman’s decision in the case of the medical screening law. The article mentions that “the law focusing on late-term abortions is designed to shut down one of the few doctors in the nation who performs them in Nebraska,” and by doing so highlights the fact that the state is trying to prevent the said doctor from performing late-term abortions for those who choose them (The Associated Press). Of course women who elect to have an abortion prior to 20 weeks into pregnancy will not be as directly affected by this change in legislature, yet the law imposes more limits on the time-frame for the decision. This can still affect the pregnancies of many women for a variety of reasons, whether it be identification of a disease or birth defect later on in pregnancy, or even a delay in a woman’s ability to have consultations about an abortion decision or a woman’s decision to make up her mind.

These changes to abortion laws in Nebraska will most certainly be challenged, based upon the commentary in the article. Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights likens the laws to “taking a huge hacksaw to [abortion] rights” and argues that such laws cannot possibly be upheld in the face of “three decades of court rulings” (The Associated Press). In the “Opinion of the Court” that outlines the Jane Roe v. Henry Wade ruling, the opinion of the court delivered by Mr. Justice Blackmun declares “with respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability…State regulations protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications.” The apparent lack of concrete research to support the basis of the “no-pain” justification seems like it could undermine attempts to uphold the law focusing on late-term abortions. Any change in the legal determination of the “compelling point” of a woman’s pregnancy should thus require an extensive body of evidence in order to have a change of overturning this provision of the Roe v. Wade decision. However, such a change in the justification from a question of fetus viability to a fetus’ ability to feel pain redefines the legal “compelling point” for a late-term abortion. Mary Spaulding Balch points out that “the law could lead to changes in state laws across the country if upheld by the courts,” again by setting a precedent of expanding the interests of the state of protecting a fetus prior to viability (The Associated Press). For pro-choice women like Allison Crews and Judith Arcana, encroachment on any decision concerning abortion, whether it be by setting more deadlines as in the “no-pain” law, or by requiring others to have some say in the process as in the medical screen law, the freedom of choice that some currently enjoy is definitely becoming more restricted. In sum, the new Nebraska abortion laws have the potential to trigger further changes to reproductive rights in other states, but will most likely not do so without sufficient attempts to contest the rationale that supports them.

Newsflash: Changing Your Last Name Might Hurt Your Chances in Getting a Job!

Attention All Girls:
The days of daydreaming in class
and doodling your first name with his last,
could be over!

On April 14th, 2010, The New York Times printed an editorial by Catharine Rampbell titled, "Women, Work and a Name Change" . In this article she delivers the message that, “Women who choose to adopt their husband’s surnames may be penalized in the job market”. Based on a study by a Dutch social psychologist, evidence suggests women who change their name will receive significantly lower salaries and are less likely to be hired at all. In addition, these women are viewed as more girly, thought to be “more caring, dependent, less intelligent, more emotional, less competent, and less ambitious in comparison with a woman who kept her own name”. In short, they are seen as less qualified for a position in the business world. Although the sample size limits the ability to generalize the study, it is intriguing to find out that women and men alike both deem women who take their husbands surname as less fit for the workplace. Judging from this new found evidence, it seems that feminists are making progress in their search for independence across the world, making steps away from the traditional role of women more appealing financially.


Although a certain shift sets apart the third wave from the second wave, the entire feminist movement is united by their goal to create new identities, different than the traditional housewife who lived to serve men. Under the leadership of strong women like Betty Friedan, organizations like NOW (the National Organization for Women) lobbied and found ways to achieve equal access to employment and basic rights. These strides prove to be significant when considering the results they produced, such as co-ed educational institutions, Roe v. Wade, accessibility of the Birth Control Pill to unmarried women, the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Rights Amendment, and workplace protection. Each of these accomplishments helped throw middle class, white women out of the house and into the workforce, side by side with men.


Although the third wave has not had as many stand out leaders like Betty Friedan, or impressive acts passed by Congress, this most recent wave is still influential. Instead of gathering around one single issue, feminists in this generation are actualizing the rights won for us by their mothers’ hard work, while setting themselves apart from their mothers in respectful ways. Second wave feminists won the right for middle class, white females to be in the work place. Now, the third wave women must find the best ways to occupy these new positions. As women take steps away from the household, feminism is being redefined by daily acts, exemplified by people like Manifesta authors, Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards.


Academia and the working world is often a confusing place for women. For many, it is confusing how to go after success in a feminine way. On one hand, feminists like Ariel Levy believe women must act like men to achieve power. It is important to mimic tactics that have been successful in the past, which have all been used by men. In this way, a huge handful of women choose to go after career ambitions in ways normally seen as masculine. Exhibiting these trait to the men occupying these powerful positions serve as proof that women can also be worthy of climbing the latter. Over time, the more ruthless in the work place, the less womanly someone is seen. Eventually, the more success achieved, the less feminine a woman is. Gaining status in the business world decreases femininity and increases masculinity. Women who gain success in the business world sacrifice traits that preserve and confirm their identity as a feminine woman.



Considering this perspective, it logically makes sense that accepting a husband’s name in place of a woman’s own last name takes away from someone’s potential in the work place. Taking the name of a husband is a very old tradition that is only questioned occasionally today. Some think the trend could symbolize the feeling of men who used to claim they owned their wives, while others believe it represents the extension of one man, or the combination of two people. Either way, taking a man’s surname can be seen as a standard way of submitting to a man’s dominance. Allowing, accepting, or embracing the name change can be linked to the stereotypical image of a housewife that the feminist movement has worked so hard to escape. In turn, knowing a woman has changed her name can similarly evoke the characteristics the research produced; “caring”, “dependent”, “less intelligent”, and “emotional” females, all stereotypical characteristics deemed unfit for a career outside of the home… at least according to the standards that second wave feminists dealt with.



Now that we are in the third wave of feminism, there are a few different issues to deal with. Like mentioned before, feminist leaders such Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards offer a new way to think about women’s issues. According to these authors, it is no longer necessary to sacrifice feminine qualities in order to be successful. Instead, they deem “girly” qualities in themselves powerful. They suggest that a new part of feminism should include finding out who you are as a female, and being proud of it. If you want to embrace certain qualities that are seen as traditionally “girly”, it will not make you any weaker of an individual. Instead of striving to fit in with men seamlessly, and minimizing the differences between men and women, Baumgardner and Richards claim that maximizing the differences between genders is a powerful movement and highly encourage the act. Therefore, it is somewhat unclear whether Baumgardner and Richards would support a woman changing her last name to her new husbands. On one hand, it could be seen as an empowering act, because it shows a female embracing a traditionally “girly” quality. However, although adopting the spouse’s last name has been a female’s responsibility for some time, the act ultimately puts the man’s desires above the woman’s. I believe Baumgardner and Richards would promote keeping a maiden name over adopting a husband’s surname. In fact, judging from their personal choices, I would imagine they would be some people who would employ a woman who kept her maiden name over one who changed her name in marriage. In this way, these two women find their own ways of promoting feminism, by rewarding the ones they support more with financial stability.


Considering these two different viewpoints of minimizing and maximizing the gender differences to gain power, provide an interesting new conflict for feminists to attack. While it may be easy to assume there is nothing we can do to defeat the complicated web of patriarchy and claim that men are actively holding women back, the issues of patriarchy run deeper than that. Johnson and Frye point out that patriarchy is simply a system or set of ideas that we are all programmed to perpetuate. Over the years, men and women have both played a part in allowing male dominance. This even means that women have allowed themselves limited rights in the past. According to this viewpoint, Johnson and Frye may believe that a woman’s choice to change her last name to her husbands is a symbol of allowing herself to be dominated by a man. As a result, this small allowance could also relate to the assumption that she should also serve him in the home, or perhaps she is less deserving of a job in comparison to a woman who shows no signs of giving in to male’s supremacy.


All in all, although the study that the New York Times is limited by its small sample size, analyzing three perspectives in the feminist movement suggest that these findings could easily be replicated in a larger population. Although I doubt any of these scholars would admit this thought process consciously, Levy, Baumgardner, Richards, Johnson and Frye all have their own reasons for viewing a woman’s acceptance of her husband’s surname as a sign of inferiority. Where Levy may believe accepting a part of a man’s identity may help gain power in the workplace, she would definitely hesitate to support the sacrifice of the feminine identity. Likewise, although Baumbgardner and Richards support females feeling empowered by almost any act (as long as they have valid reasons), I believe they would also ultimately choose a female with enough independence to only rely on herself for personal fulfillment. Last, Johnson and Frye would not solely victimize women, instead they would place blame on both genders. Although the reasons behind the decisions are not exactly united, the end decision always comes down to the same conclusion. In the end, even though the third wave of feminism doesn’t have a clear spokes person like Betty Friedan, this trend of valuing an independent woman over a traditional woman shows that the third wave of feminism is still effective.

News Flash: The Right to Attend Prom

(http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-10-noprom_N.htm)

“It is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers.” This might be one of the only things that former President George W. Bush and myself would agree on. However, while Bush probably used this statement to garner supporters for his infamous “War on Terror”, his quote can also be applied to the gay rights movement. As far too many of Americans know, there are many loop holes in and around the legal system. Thus, in order for legal actions to be carried out, especially in the case of gay rights, there also needs to be an overall sense of awareness and support by members of the community. The case of McMillen versus Itawamba Agricultural High School clearly shows that legal action alone is not sufficient enough to increase the rights of same sex couples.

For any high school senior there is one school function that seems like the quintessential event; it is prom. However, for high school seniors in Fulton, Mississippi, this be-all-end-all event no longer is viewed in the same exciting and bright light. Recently, a Mississippi county school board announced, “that it would cancel its upcoming prom after a gay student petitioned to bring a same-sex date to the event” (Joyner 2010). If someone were to ask any of the students at Itawamba Agricultural High School why their prom was cancelled, it is safe to assume that they would respond in two words: Constance McMillen. McMillen, an 18-year-old female senior, not only petitioned the school to allow her to bring her sophomore girlfriend as her date to her prom, but she also requested that she be allowed to wear a tuxedo. Itawamba is just one of many schools that has anti-gay prom policies in place. According to USA Today journalist, Chris Joyner, McMillen and “the Mississippi chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union urged school officials to reverse the policy both on McMillen’s choice of date and attire” (Joyner 2010). The ACLU claimed that prohibiting same-sex dates at prom was a violation of an individual’s rights. This lawsuit, which brought about significant media attention and school disruptions, led to district officials cancelling the prom (or so they say). Despite the fact that the prom had been cancelled, McMillen went on to win her lawsuit. The judge ruled that the school’s anti-gay policy violated the First Amendment. However, Joyner’s article “Miss. Prom canceled after lesbian’s date request” goes on to show that even government legislation and rulings cannot change anti-gay mindset that is held by the majority of the South.

Thus, despite the fact that McMillen won her lawsuit against Itawamba, she ultimately did not win. While the courts ruled that the school had violated her rights, the Court did not require the school to reinstate the prom, for the Court assumed that McMillen would be invited and would attend a prom that was being put together by the parents of the students at Itawamba. However, while McMillen’s classmates danced the night away at the prom that was hosted by the parents, McMillen spent her “prom night” with seven other people, two of whom had learning disabilities. “To prevent Constance McMillen from bringing a female date to her prom, the teen was sent to a ‘fake prom’ while the rest of her class partied at a secret location at an event organized by parents” (Broverman 2010). According to McMillen, they had two proms and she was only invited to one of them. “The one that I went to had seven people there, and everyone went to the other one I wasn’t invited to” (Broverman 2010).

While McMillen acknowledged that she was upset about the way the school handled this situation, she still managed to keep a positive attitude. “Two students with learning difficulties were among the seven people at the county club event…they had the time of their lives…that’s the one good thing that come [sic] out of this, [these kids] didn’t have to worry about people making fun of them [at their prom]” (Broverman 2010). McMillen’s unwavering attitude has not gone unnoticed. In fact, famous talk show host and member of the LGBT, Ellen DeGeneres, awarded McMillen with a $30,000 scholarship because of the courageous action that she took to challenge her school district. Most recently, McMillen has been asked to be one of the grand marshals at this years’ New York City Pride Parade.

Thus, all in all, the school won, for the school followed the courts orders while still accomplishing their main goal. Itawamba was able to follow the courts order, which stated that McMillen had the right to bring a female as a date to her prom, while still not allowing her and her same sex date to attend the prom. Technically, Itawamba did not violate the courts order because they had cancelled their prom and replaced it with another “prom”.

While McMillen has received what seems to be a tremendous amount of support from the outside public, she seems to have been locally supported by only one group, the ACLU. The ACLU claims that they receive requests every year to help students who face anti-gay prom policies (Joyner 2010). The geographical location were the majority of these policies are in effect, are in the South. This should come as no surprise. While other geographical locations are taking steps toward improving the rights of gays and lesbians, the South is trailing far behind. However, the southern states, which include Mississippi, are often referred to as the Red States because the majority of people living there are Republicans. As a result, the South is much more conservative when compared to other sections of the United States.

Presently, same sex couples have virtually no “rights” in the South. Not only are same sex couples not allowed to get married, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships are not recognized. (Peterson 2004). In fact, Mississippi is one of many states to have adopted a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Mississippi’s DOMA law is a state law that defines “marriage as the union between a man and a woman”(Peterson 2004). Mississippi was not the only state to adopt a DOMA law. Other states that have DOMA laws that explicitly state that marriage is between a man and woman include, Georgia; Louisiana; and Utah. Thus, it is not surprising that McMillen faced such opposition when she petition to bring her girlfriend to her prom since her state has a DOMA law. Mississippi’s DOMA law shows the extent to which the state is against same sex couples. This anti-gay philosophy was put to the test in the case of McMillen vs. Itawamba. For despite a court ruling that McMillen had the right to bring a member of her same sex to a school function, members of the community found a way around this ruling.

In her article, The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House, Lorde argues that differences are essential in a community. These differences that she refers to include homosexuality. Thus, in order for a society to flourish, members of the community must accept these differences, even if these members do not exhibit the traits themselves (Lorde 2). Thus, in regards to McMillen’s case, if other members of the community accepted her difference, homosexuality, the community would be strengthened. Lorde states that people’s “personal visions help lay the groundwork for political action (Lorde 2). In other words, if people of the Fulton community had united around McMillen, the policy that the Court put into action would have held true. Thus, McMillen and her girlfriend would not have been sent to a “fake prom”, and instead they would have been invited to the real prom with the rest of the student body. However, the community recognized her sexuality and instead of “defining and empowering” it, the community chose to “divide and conquer” (Lorde 2). This, approach that McMillen’s peers took, ultimately led to her being ostracized from her community.

In conclusion, the conservative states of the South are still heavily populated with people who are against any sort of same sex couples or rights. Thus, this anti-gay attitude has been the barrier for the overall advancement of gay rights in the Red States. Even despite some small legal action to promote and protect gay rights, same sex couples have not been able to garner many rights. McMillen’s case shows how legal action is not enough to help promote the rights of same sex couples. One can only hope that as other states move towards increasing the rights of gays and lesbians, the South will follow suit.

Bibliography:

Lorde, Audre. The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-10-noprom_N.htm

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/05/ACLU_Investigating_Fake_Prom/

http://sdgln.com/news/2010/04/13/choi-shepard-mcmillen-named-grand-marshals-new-york-city-pride-march

Welfare?

I immediately find respect for Gwendolyn Mink in this week’s reading, “The Lady and the Tramp”. As I started reading the paper, I wasn’t quite sure why welfare is seen as a “woman’s issue”. Admitting some ignorance, I figured that I didn’t understand welfare because I had never experienced living in that position. It was refreshing to read that Gwendolyn Mink didn’t pretend to have experienced it either, with her statement, “We mobilized not to speak for poor mothers but with them--- to speak for ourselves as feminists frustrated by the absence of women’s voices and by the lack of gender equality concerns in the welfare debate” (3). After reading this statement I respected Mink for straying away from the normal issues of second wave feminists who rarely addressed lower /minority issues, and for acknowledging her place in the situation as well. She feels that, “The new welfare law distinguishes poor single mothers as a separate caste, subject to a separate system of law” (5). Although Mink acknowledges that she is not the same as the “poor” mothers who actually need to struggle with welfare laws, she does not believe they should be subjected to an entirely separate system of law. This separate system of laws stipulates that, “Poor single mothers are the only people in America forced by law to work outside the home. They are the only people in America whose decisions to bear children are punished by government. They are the only people in American whom government may demand the details of intimate relationships” (5). Even with recognizing that welfare was not exactly an issue that directly affected her, “welfare [was] a women’s issue” and “a war against poor women is a war against all women” (3).

Mink pointed out the differences between where she stood as a welfare activist and where the second wave feminists often stood. The second wave of feminism was all about gaining equality in the workforce, and becoming as economically independent as men are seen to be. In short, “From this perspective, the home [was] the site of oppression for women, while the labor market [was] potentially liberating” (7). Following this train of thought it became clear that all women should pursue work outside the home, no matter what. Even if that meant they should give up caring for their own children in order to care for someone else’s (8). Therefore, it seems like second wave feminists think of women who receive welfare as “reckless breeders who bear children to avoid work” and basically oppress themselves with their bad decisions of having children and staying in the home to care for them (6). Yet, Gwendolyn Mink offered a new perspective. Instead of condemning these women who benefit from welfare, and saying they depend on the money they could receive from the service, she suggests we should think of welfare as “insurance for the rights that comprise independence” (6).

Once Mink gets into more of her argument and some of her solutions, she kind of loses me. I understand that the welfare system probably needs to be reconsidered, but I am not ready to say stay-at-home mothers deserve an income based on what day-care services and Nanny’s for other families earn.

On a side note, I think it is valuable to have read the short essays from “Listen Up” prior to reading Mink’s paper. If I had not read about the struggles of someone getting an education, and making a living while raising a child, I would have been much more quick to judge anyone needing welfare as a “reckless” breeder.

What has come of American society?

What makes men so special? From the days of Adam and Eve to modern society, it seems to be that men are viewed as supreme beings. Is this because men are from Mars and women are from Venus? It must be. Clearly being from Mar gives one the power of being superior to other beings, which includes being pardon from household duties. This answer is about as ludicrous as the real answer. The fact is that women earn less money than men because they are mothers is preposterous. Mind you, men wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for their mothers, but this fact seems to slip their minds. This slight detail is something that is just ignored by men. I just do not understand how in the 21^st century men earn far higher incomes than women, especially women that have the exact same or even better credentials then them. It is beyond frustrating to read that “the average earnings of all female workers in 1999 were 59 percent of men’s earnings” (Critenden 93). Also, it is frustrating to still read how a woman’s world is seen inside the household and not outside of it.

In her article “The Mommy Tax” Critenden cites one unbelievably scary statistic, which is the fact that a couple that makes a combined income of $81,500 per year will lose $1.35 million if they have a child (Critenden 89). That’s not exactly pocket change. “People need to know that once you have a child you’ll definitely be poorer” (Critenden 93). This clearly entices me to want to have kids. I mean it is not rocket science to understand that children are expensive. However, Critenden is not talking about spending money on a child and his or her necessities in life such as clothes, education, food, etc. What Critenden is referring to in her article is the fact that children can make a mother poorer because, as a result of having a child, a woman will most likely not be able to earn the income that she was making prior to having that child. If a woman decides to have more than one child, forget it, the working world is even less accommodating.

All in all, it is disheartening to read all the statistics to show how the odds are really stacked against women. For women “the price of success included the lack of parental obligations” (Critenden 108). Why should women living in the United States have to deal with an either/or scenario? One would assume that the United States would be more children friendly. However, clearly it is not. After realizing that the United States’ Mommy Tax is almost 20% and reading that France has the lowest Mommy Tax, roughly 8-10%, I am considering relocating (Critenden 90). I mean why not live in the land of baguettes, brie and a low Mommy Tax.

However, besides the fact that I enjoyed Critenden’s article, even though it was somewhat depressing, I also found Barbara Ehrenreich’s article “Maid to Order” to be a great read. Similarly to Critenden, Ehrenreich shows how women are more or less oppressed by men. Not only am I a fan of hers (I thoroughly enjoyed Nickel and Dimed), but I think that she paints household duties of women in an interesting light. She makes many points that I find fascinating. It is true that women perform various household duties i.e. cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc, without ever getting a dime for it. Even when children perform household chores, they generally get some kind of allowance. But mothers do not get anything. I mean maybe they get a thank you or a hug, but they definitely do not get any monetary rewards. Thus, I find it interesting how she shows that women have had enough of taking care of the household and picking up after men and wanted some equality within the household. While middle to upper class women win and are alleviated of some of their household duties, this help is not coming from their husbands. Let me remind you, that men are clearly too good and almighty to pick up socks and scrub floors. Thus, rather than splitting the duties between a husband and wife, it seems that society went in a different direction and decided to bring in a third party: cleaning services. Ehrenreich shows how cleaning services just reiterate the fact that household work is a woman’s duty. Thus, while housewives no longer perform the majority of household chores, that does not mean that women are still not doing these tasks. At the end of the day women are still cooking and cleaning.

Let me just say that after reading Ehrenreich’s article, I realized that I never want to employ a cleaning-service. Not only does she show how it is somewhat degrading, she always explains how these services do not really clean. Nevertheless, I think that it is interesting to see how she describes America’s obsession with cleaning services as disturbing. “Almost everyone complains about violent video games, but paid housecleaning has the same consequence-abolishing effect: you blast the villain into a mist of blood droplets and move right along; you drop the socks knowing they will eventually levitate, laundered and folded, back to their normal dwelling place” (Ehrenreich 12). Overall, I think that Ehrenreich’s article is interesting and puts things in a different perspective, which seems to be the nature of her writing.

Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting

Same sex marriage. This has been one of the most controversial and talked about topics in recent years. However recently, it seems to have gained more press than ever before. Today’s three readings focused on the on two topics: same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting.

I think that the same-sex marriage FAQ document clearly lays out what same-sex marriage actually entails and how it is very different than just a same-sex union. I think that this is very important and interesting reading because I believe that a lot of people do not understand why same-sex marriage is so important to gay couples and also, how different civil unions are from marriage.

Naples article focused more on the issue of same-sex parenting. This was another very interesting article because I feel that same-sex parenting is a subject that is not often addressed. It seems that people tend to focus more on same-sex marriage, rather than parenting. Since my family is very good family friends with a gay couple who has gone through the adoption process, I have heard some of the horrors that gay men face when trying to adopt a child. Thus, Naples article seems to reiterate what I have heard firsthand. It is my hope/belief that as same-sex marriage becomes legalized in more states and countries throughout the world, same-sex parenting will hopefully become easier.

However, Ettelbrick’s article “Marriage and Liberation” differed from the other two articles. Ettelbrick, a lesbian, did not support this effort to legalize gay marriage. “For two major reasons. First, marriage will not liberate us lesbians and gay men…it will constrain us…and undermine the goals of gay liberation. Second, attaining the right to marry will not transform our society from one that makes narrow, but dramatic distinctions between those who are married and those who are not married to one that respects and encourages choice of relationships and family diversity” (Ettelbrick 2). I think that this is a very unusual and almost unheard of standpoint for a lesbian to take. I disagree with Ettelbrick. I believe that legalizing gay marriage will help society become more accepting. For example, when same-sex marriage is legalized, same-sex couples will also be granted legal protections and rights under state and federal law (FAQ 2). Thus, in my opinion, that in order to take steps towards liberation, a group must gain rights along the way. Thus, same-sex marriage will not constrain, but rather will help liberate gay men and women. Ultimately, it seems that Ettelbrick is more against the institution of marriage more than anything else.

We currently live in a society that is dominated by the idea that families must be heteronormative. In other words, the majority of society believes that a family must be a nuclear family, which is composed of a mother, father and children. These people tend to consider same-sex families as unacceptable and even offensive.

For example, Heinz created a Deli Mayo commercial that shows a same-sex family. This commercial, which shows two men sharing a kiss, received so many complaints, that it was pulled off the air in less than a week. It is my opinion that if same-sex marriage was legalized and thus, had the same federal and state rights as heterosexual couples, than this commercial would not be pulled off the airwaves. This would then further gay men and lesbians’ liberation. Thus, this further exemplifies why I disagree with Ettelbrick’s stance on marriage.

Despite the fact that throughout the three articles there were examples of the status of same-sex marriage in certain states, there was not a list of all the states individual stance on same-sex marriage. I wish that there was a list of all the legal recognition of same-sex couples in the United States and the rest of the world. For I feel that, despite my knowledge of this subject, states are constantly changing their stance on this issue.