Patrick Campbell
A common theme that I have witnessed throughout the readings in this course is that these feminist authors tackle issues that occur in heir patriarchal social structures one or few-at-a-time. The assigned reading for this blog discusses the issue of marriages, whether it be gay, straight, or lesbian marriages. It is obvious to me that Paula Ettlebrick and the author of “Same Sex Marriages” differ on their reasoning for gay and lesbian couples’ intentions to marry. This type of confusion could be a pertinent reason as to why social confusion and misunderstandings occur so often in today’s society regarding these issues in focus. Ettlebrick states that “lesbians and gay men among us look to legal marriage for self-affirmation,” and to “transform from ‘outsiders’ to ‘insiders,’ because we have a desperate need to become insiders” (pg 306).
I believe the “Same Sex Marriages” document takes a stronger approach to the reasoning behind gay and lesbian marriages. That is said because this author aims to understand this social struggle from the broad perspective. By looking at the full picture, one is able to determine the most logical and rationale solutions or practices that must be created to further or improve their ultimate cause. This type of action needs to be taken by feminists of today, instead of looking at one or two issues at a time, they must analyze the whole picture into one. From this point, these people will be able to articulate the most effective and rationally sustainable model for society going forward. To clarify, the breakdown of all the issues, in a setting like that of congress-only it will be filled with members of all sides (feminists, men, legislatures etc.). From this setting, a group of educated individuals representing all perspectives would yield to most drawn out and effective model for society to bridge the gap between feminism and our modern patriarchal social structure.modern patriarchal social structure.
Pat-
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment that perhaps the reason there is so much confusion on same-sex marriage, etc. is that many of the people fighting for it have differing views. I also agree with you when you said that you believe the "Same Sex Marriage FAQ" article takes a stronger approach to the reasoning behind the desire for same-sex marriages. While I can see where Ettelbrick is coming from, I do not believe that our society is anywhere close (or will be anywhere close anytime soon) to abandoning our very structured ideals on what marriage is. In order to achieve what Ettelbrick envisions it seems as if she wants us to deconstruct our ideal of heterosexual marriage all together and I do not see that happening. For this reason, I think the "Same Sex Marriage FAQ" article is much more convincing. They are more convincing to me because many of the reasons the author points out in this article are ones that heterosexual couples can relate to well and ones that they would be devastated to live without.