What captivated me form this week’s assigned reading was Ettelbrick’s comment about lesbian and gay liberation being linked with the women’s liberation movement. Her comment made me think about all of the issues that are placed on the women’s rights agenda such as intersex and transgender identities, problems with patriarchy, global human rights issues like female genital cutting and domestic issues with media representation. That’s a lot on one plate and makes me think about how misleading the term “women’s issues” is when I realize that this movement actually encompasses all gender issues, which throws men and intersex people into play as well. This one sentence from Ettelbrick’s piece made me think about how complex and multivariegated the feminist agenda is.
After reading the FAQ and Vaccaro’s piece, my mind was filled with benefits of legalizing same-sex marriages. It was a no-brainer that legalizing same-sex marriages would lead to social justice and create a domino effect from then on. Like what Amy from TriFem posted, I was absolutely shocked when I read that married couples receive 1,138 federal benefits just for purchasing a relatively cheap marriage license and only one type of relationship is deemed worthy of these benefits – heterosexual ones.
However, Ettelbrick’s piece provided an alternate point of view on this issue and actually challenged all of the proposed future benefits same-sex couples would gain after marriage is legalized. Ettelbrick calls for an elongation of our field of vision and to think beyond legal rights. She wants to get across that legal rights don’t always translate to social justice. In fact, obtaining this right might actually complicate things as the public eye might view that as a final step and eradicate same-sex couples’ problems from their agenda. Ettelbrick uses the metaphor of a trap. Not only is this goal overweighing all of the other same-sex liberation goals, but it’s also dismissing all the flaws that marriage has as an institution. Marriage is not a flawless institution. In it’s history, it has been heteronormative, highly patriarchic, and even oppressive. Why feed into this social system then given all of its flaws? To fix this, Ettelbrick proposes a de-institutionalization of marriage. Her language in describing this new vision of marriage sounds wonderful, but I don’t know how it functions and what this de-institutionalized marriage would look like in our society. I want to understand this more.
Vaccaro’ piece was very interesting to read because it came from a female college student’s perspective and it blew my mind away reading about how she was able to translate passion for her identity and legal rights into activism at such a young age. It was truly inspiring to read that snippet of her biography. The section about her protest location being closed reminded me about a concept I had learned about in my peace and conflict studies class – the second image of power. The city isn’t outright denying Vaccaro and her colleagues, but by failing to notify the protesters that the venue was closed, the city seemed to be mobilizing their agenda against theirs. Reading this made me angry because I know how much it takes to try to organize a protest. It’s an extremely long and arduous process to contact city officials and to obtain the necessary permits, which come with a monetary cost! They not only have to pay for their freedom of speech, but they were chased by the police for showing the city who they were. Instead of applauding and rewarding these courageous, college first-years, our society shuns them and sweeps them away like vermin.
Samantha,
ReplyDeleteThanks for connecting the events we learned about in the Vaccaro piece to your peace and conflict studies class. Could you elaborate on the definition of "second image of power?" Does it include more subversive and subtle actions to undermine a group's power (somewhat like the more implicit forms of sexism that exist today)?
Sure! I didn't explain it much in my post, but I can see why my argument is lacking if I don't elaborate on the concept itself. Thanks for pointing that out! Here's a really quick run-down on the images of power:
ReplyDeleteFirst image: The one everyone thinks about when they think about power. Person A makes Person B do something. A husband forces her wife to quit her job and stay at home.
Second image: Getting someone to do something without physically getting them to do it by stacking and manipulating the law/rules in favor of your agenda. So, this is usually used by people who have obtained some type of higher power and use the legitimate rules, manipulate it to keep them in power. The city officials' agenda is to not disturb heteronormativity in the city so they manipulate rules (permits, calendar days) so that it works in their favor. The protesters end up protesting at an empty venue.
Third image: This is the image of power that I see working with implicit forms of sexism. It's a lot more sneaky and reminds me of enlightened sexism. This image of power controls people by influencing what they think and desire and it's hard to pinpoint because not one person is in power - it's a whole entire system. Our culture influences what we think and what we think we know and this is the third image of power. Think 1984, the society of "Big Brother" makes its citizens want certain things. Fashion magazines like Cosmo influence what we "know" to be beautiful. The whole portrayal of women in the media as a FEMINIST MOVEMENT. This is the perfect example of the 3rd image of power in play. Implicit sexism.
I completely agree with you that implicit sexism is found in a type of power and the reason I see it as a 3rd image rather than a 2nd image is because a system is behind enlightened sexism, there is not one person or group that can be singled out and blamed.
I hope that makes a lot more sense!