Amazing Woman

This is AMAZING - Janet Howell, Virginia State Senator, "attaches rectal exam to anti-abortion bill" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/mandatory-ultrasound-bill-virginia-anti-abortion_n_1242627.html

Planned Parenthood in Distress

              America has taken a giant leap backward into the early 1900s in terms of women’s health care and women’s rights to their own bodies. The “republicans in the House of Representatives [who] are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families” (nytimes.com editorial). The only reason why they want to cut the funding is because of the fact that Planned Parenthood provides abortions. The United States republican politicians who are in power are trying to control women’s bodies. It is 2011 and any optimistic ideals are being crushed by this country’s House leaders. What would Margaret Sanger say today? She fought for women’s rights to contraceptives and sexual health care as a way to avoid abortion which makes sense; but how can people avoid abortion if their rights to affordable birth control are being stripped slowly away?  The fact that the religious republicans of the country are the ones trying to strip away the funding of Planned Parenthood as well as make outlandish laws regarding abortion. Morals are not more important than life itself and the religious right is trying to pass it off that way. In a sarcastic rhetoric: ‘It is alright if you are on drugs or are homeless or were raped by someone you trusted, just have the baby anyway – that is obviously the right choice for your mental and physical health; that is what God would want, you know.’ That is what can be interpreted from these people who think they know what is best for women’s bodies.

            This can also all come back to separation of Church and State, just as the argument about same-sex marriage. The only reason there is any argument at all is because people cannot see past their individual views to see what is best for society. In this democracy, if someone focuses on their own beliefs without thinking of the whole, it can be incredibly detrimental. For example, if abortion was made completely illegal because of one person’s beliefs, it could be the end to many women’s lives everywhere. The “sanctity of life” as comedian George Carlin liked to refer to it as, is something that has been established not by the politicians and state leaders, but by the moral obligations of the Church. The Church has overlapped into this democracy allowing for clouded judgment and close-minded bigotry against women.

            The Planned Parenthood Action Fund was founded in 1989, but the movement began in 1916. They offer "family planning and health services, particularly to low-income women, including testing for sexually transmitted disease (STD), sexual abuse and rape treatment and counseling, cancer screening, vaccination, access to birth control and abortion" (healthland.time.com). There are some startling things going on right now and Planned Parenthood is trying to take a stand against these groups trying to sabotage the Planned Parenthood name by doing things like "sting" operations to different Planned Parenthood locations all over the country. A group called "Live Action" set out with six different men posing to be sex traffickers in January of 2011, claiming that they needed health care such as birth control and abortions for their sex workers, some as young as 14-years-old. Instead of these people taking all of their time and energy trying to make Planned Parenthood look bad - what if they used that time and energy to actually do something about stopping sex trafficking? The energy that people are using right now to try to "de-fund" Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides affordable or free women's health care, could be used in way more beneficial ways that would move this country forward, it is such a shame. Each year Planned Parenthood provides 830,000 breast exams, 1,800,000 cancer screenings, and 4,000,000 STD tests and has 2,500,000 birth control patients (plannedparenthoodaction.org). Planned Parenthood makes these services affordable and safe through the federal funding that they have received as a non-profit organization. With this detrimental fund cut to the organization, it could be the first step to abolishing legal abortion and even birth control. This is the first of many unbelievable actions that are being taken in pursuit of control over women’s rights to safe and legal abortions, birth control, cancer screenings, STD testing and much more.

            The discussion of only allowing abortion for certain women under certain situations was the first thing I heard this year that really caught my ear. It is not hard to see where this idea is coming from. Federally funded abortions make some people in the public upset who do not believe in choice, but it would make it easier if people knew that the abortion was only being performed for people who need it under certain circumstances. There is an extreme misconception that some women use abortions as a form of birth control as opposed to proper birth control methods and that every time they get pregnant they have an abortion. Representative Chris Smith, republican of New Jersey introduced the “No Tax-Payer Funding for Abortion Act” “a bill that would not only permanently prohibit some federally funded health-care programs from covering abortions, but would change the language exempting rape and incest from rape to ‘forcible rape’” (thinkprogress.org). This would exclude statutory rape and date rape. According to Kansas State University, “Two-thirds of rape victims between the ages of 18 and 29 know their attacker and over 60 percent of rapes occur in residences” (k-state.edu). The idea of changing the word rape to mean anything but unwanted sexual violence is an act of violence against women as Representative Wasserman Schultz said. Changing the word’s meaning is making an excuse and placing the blame on the woman. If this bill passes a rapist could stand up in court and claim it isn’t his fault because the woman was dressed “too sexy” at a party and even though she said no, she obviously “deserved” it. Changing the word rape is the most misogynistic thing this already patriarchal country can do because it is giving power to the rapists and stripping the power from the women.

            Another bill that has been proposed recently by the House of Representatives “has a provision that would allow hospitals receiving federal funds to refuse to terminate a pregnancy even when necessary to save a woman’s life” (nytimes.com). This bill not only undermines the progressiveness of Roe vs. Wade and women’s rights to their own bodies but has the ability to literally kill a woman.  Roe vs. Wade “established the right to a legal abortion” (54 Burack) and the bill that would allow hospitals to refuse to terminate a pregnancy even when necessary to save a woman’s life goes completely against it. This takes the power away from the woman and practically hands it over to the old, white men in the House who are trying to control what women do with their bodies. I cannot grasp the logic behind why it is more important for both the woman and the child to die as opposed to terminating the pregnancy and saving the woman. A woman dying due to the morals of men is the reason why this country is so far behind in progressive equality between all people of this nation and why this country is viewed as a patriarchal nation.

            There is no question that America has come a long way in terms of women’s rights and equality but it is heartbreaking to see it head in the opposite direction. The women’s movement has paved way for equal rights from the 19^th amendment giving women the freedom to vote, to Roe vs. Wade, allowing for safe and legal abortions. To take a step away from these freedoms would put the movement back by decades. If men could have abortions I am almost certain that the subject of sexual freedom and rights to your own body would not be up for discussion. The only solution to this is that people who Cynthia Burack designates as the Religious Right need to be voted out of power and there needs to be more support for Planned Parenthood and other non-profit organizations that provide information and action towards safe and affordable health care for women and girls.

Referenced Websites

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26sat1.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/01/dws-rape-language/

http://www.k-state.edu/counseling/student/date_rape_drugs.htm#stats

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/

Global Woman

Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy is a series of compilations edited by Barbara Ehrenreich and Arlie Russell Hochschild who set out to address the globalization of women’s traditional roles and how it poses many challenges to anyone who is “concerned about gender and economic inequity” (Ehrenreich and Hochschild Russell 13). The contributors to this book help us take the first step to see these women as full human beings and answer the tough questions such as, “How can we prevent trafficking and enslavement? … Can we find a way to counterbalance the systematic transfer of caring work from poor countries to rich, and the inevitable trauma of the children left behind?” (13).

            The contributors to Global Woman have done extensive ethnographic research and hands on research all over the world. From Filipino nannies to Thai sex slaves the spectrum of women’s work across the world is vast in what women will do for their families and themselves. The sources that these authors use are from researchers all over as well as their first hand interviews and encounters.

Global Woman uses examples of nannies and maids to discuss the “invisible labors” that are brought up throughout the book. If a nanny wants time off or the employer thinks that she is stealing from the family, she can get fired on the spot and lose her source of income not just for herself, but for her family (Cheever 31-38). The women and families who hire these nannies try to teach their children that “money can’t buy love, and then [they] go right ahead and buy it for them – hiring strangers to love them, because [they] have more important things to do” (31). Why are the mothers getting blamed for not caring enough about their children when they hire nannies, but the fathers aren’t held accountable for their side of the child rearing at all? Women are expected in our society to take care of their children and if they can’t do it themselves, then instead of having the husband take more time to care for their children, they hire another woman to do it for them. “When female migrants are mothers, they leave behind their own children, usually in the care of other women” (39 Salazar Parreñas). It’s this constant cycle of pressure being put on women to care for children and relaying all of the responsibility onto themselves.

Denise Brennan goes into the extent of caring for children and the woman herself when she writes in her essay called Selling Sex for Visas: Sex Tourism as a Stepping-stone to International Migration. “Why waste a marriage certificate on romantic love when it can be transformed into a visa to a new land and economic security?” (Brennan 154). Brennan describes a Dominican sex worker who left her boyfriend to marry a German man so that she could support herself and her daughters. The women who support their lifestyles and families with selling sex to maintain economic stability are exposed to rape, beatings, and an array of sexually transmitted diseases, HIV and AIDS being highly prominent.

In Thailand, there are thousands of women who work as prostitutes and for young girls, “when asked what it means to be a prostitute their most common answer was, ‘wearing Western clothes in a restaurant’” (Bales 213). The girls see the outcomes of prostitution as having nice clothes and money, but have no idea what goes on to get the clothes and money. Another thing that is incredibly disturbing is the younger you are or the younger you look, the more money you make as a prostitute in Thailand.

Each article chosen in Global Woman gives the audience an insight to the globalization of female workers in our global economy. Through the individual stories of migrant workers and women in their own countries, I think it makes the articles much more persuasive to the original questions as well as the original statements made by the editors. When research is done I think what makes a strong argument is the stories of the struggles of individual people.

Women's Studies 325: Issues in Women's Health

               Before I really became familiar with the birthing process, I’ve always just assumed that if I chose to have children in the future, I would have them in a hospital. Hospitals are like a ‘safe zone’ for me. I have always felt like if something went wrong, I’d be taken care of. I never questioned why something would go wrong because I always assumed that it would go wrong because of my body. There are several pros to having a hospitalization during labor, but I feel like they are all about how comfortable the woman is with having her child in the hospital and the safety of the child.

                I feel like ‘pro-choice’ is not strictly in regards to abortion rights, but also birthing rights. It’s the woman’s right to choose how to have her child because it’s her body and that human growing inside her is a part of her body. If her pregnancy is going to be a risky birth, it would be in the best interest of both the mother and the child to have the birth in a hospital because of all of the resources that you may not have at a home birth. There are “increased hazards resulting from the use of obstetrical medication and obstetrical tampering which are more likely to occur in hospital environment” (584). I also feel like the happiness of the moment and the love connection is hindered because it becomes such an unnatural process of drug after drug to induce, to numb, to deliver. It just seems the hospital process of birthing takes out the intimacy of the situation and takes control away from the mother.

                Home births should not be feared and we should promote this through taking the fear away and promoting information about it. Women’s bodies have been squeezing babies out for thousands and thousands of years, because their bodies know what to do. That’s how we have a population. It just seems like common sense to a point, like why wouldn’t someone want to have a natural birth?  Some cultural stereotypes that go along with mid-wives and at home births are that it’s unsafe and the midwife is less qualified than an OB/GYN. “Midwives’ training emphasizes skills which help women have healthy outcomes with as little intervention as possible,” (590-591) and that just seems like the way it should be. We, in the United States, need to get more information out about the facts of midwifery and eliminate the idea of a woman coming in who doesn’t know what she’s doing. In a pro-choice OB/GYN office, they should make this option available and not withhold any information from the women about their bodies and their unborn child.

Corruption and Femicide in Ciudad Juarez

Since 1993, approximately 400 women, if not more by now, have been victims of violent mutilations and deaths (Lowe 1). Femicide is defined by the National Organization of Women as “the mass murder of women simply because they are women” (O’Neill 1). Mexican women working in the Maquiladoras factories in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico have been primary victims of these horrific events due to the daily work schedule that they are subjected to. Families of the victims try to speak out and get justice for their daughters’ murders, but still, nothing has been done about it. Activists have been struggling for years to have their voices heard, and the authorities respond with catching the wrong men responsible and imprisoning and torturing innocent people. The nonchalant attitude towards the deaths of these women and lack of motivation to apprehend the real rapists and murderers makes the women seem like they have no value on this earth and are just as good as garbage being tossed into the desert. There have been many human rights campaigns and feminist organizations that have protested in Mexico, fighting against the “political disregard and lack of accountability, at all levels of government” (Wright 152). Corruption of the Mexican government on all levels seems to be a source of a growing problem that has taken the lives of hundreds of women since 1993.

            The first victim officially recorded was Alam Chavira Farel, although since “local disappearances exceed known homicides each year” (Newton 2) it’s hard to know for sure. In 1993, police acknowledged 16 murders following Farel’s of women in Ciudad Juarez (Newton 2). All of the cases recorded, including the ones after, involved strangulations, stabbings, mutilations, and rape. The police had several suspects but none of them were arrested (Newton 2).  Women working in the Maquiladoras factories are supposed to be ‘safe’ because they go from work to the bus stop. This is where a significant number of women have been abducted and murdered. In several of the cases it has been noted that the murderers are often the bus drivers themselves (Newton 7). In 1999, a 14-year-old girl escaped from being choked and assaulted by a maquiladoras bus driver named Jesus Guardado Marquez, but his nicknames were “El Dracula” and “El Tolteca” (Newton 7). These men were jailed but the murders continued. A female attorney was murdered which spurred a lot of publicity which is when President Vicente Fox finally stepped in to make a public announcement ordering a “new investigation by ‘federal crime specialists’” (Newton 9). This still doesn’t focus on the femicide as a whole – it just looks at isolated situations.

            The mothers of these women who have been murdered have become activists without even choosing to do so. Norma Andrada is the mother of the victim Lilia Alejandra Garcia Andrada expresses her angst in the documentary, On the Edge, “They tell me I’m an activist. I don’t feel like an activist, I’m simply a mother, struggling for rights that my daughter had.”  Another mother, Ramona Morales, mother of the victim Silvia Morales, interviewed in On the Edge, recounts how her daughter disappeared on July 7^th, 1995, she went from school to work and then one day her daughter didn’t return home. Her husband and sons looked for her, but they couldn’t find her. She maintains that the main idea of why this continues is impunity. It gives men the right to do what they want to women in Juarez and they have no consequences. This documentary also mentions the fact that if you have money, you can get your perpetrators but it’s often the murderers who have the money to get out of being accused. These girls are being treated as if they have no value to society because of the ways that the authorities react to their deaths. A single mother was asked to come into the desert and identify her daughter’s body, as she reports through the documentary On the Edge, and it took all of her money to take a cab to get out there and then when she identified her daughter’s body, the police wouldn’t even give her a ride back to her home or back to town. So this mother who just had to identify her child’s body had to walk approximately 10 miles back to town because the authorities wouldn’t take her. This not only devalues the woman, who was slain, but the family and their grieving as well. The National Organization for Women states that “small advances in the struggle for justice are due to the perseverance of victims' families who cannot be silenced despite the efforts of state and federal authorities to keep them quiet” (O’Neill 1). It’s also adds to the horror, being in the United States, that these women are being murdered who are working for factories that export 90% of their goods to the United States (Newton 7).

            Many of the routines for interrogation in Ciudad Juarez involve torture. The bus drivers of the maquiladoras that have been apprehended and charged with legitimate charges of murder and assault, but many of the men interrogated are the ones closest to the women who are murdered. According to statements in On the Edge, because these men are tortured relentlessly, they end up confessing to murders that they did not commit and the real murderers and serial killers are still out there. On the opposite end of the spectrum there are protesters and human rights movements like the Ni Una Mas (Not one more) campaign who is fighting for the justice for that these women deserve. In the United States, Ni Una Mas is a campaign through Drexel University that is an art exhibit trying to raise awareness of gender violence and specifically raise awareness of the murders of the hundreds of women in Ciudad Juarez. The students did an “Artmarch” wearing pink shirts to represent their solidarity with the victims (Timpane 1). Bringing awareness to this is one of the most important things that can be done nationally and internationally, because it brings significance to the lives lost, showing the Mexican government that these women have value and they should have justice. The art in the Drexel University art show was from women and men all over the world from Switzerland, to Norway, to England, and the United States (Timpane 1). This is one of the many things that is being done internationally to try to raise awareness to the horrific femicide, but what is done locally is possibly of even greater importance.

            In Mexico, “a caravan aimed at upholding women’s rights and stopping violence against women in Ciudad Juarez and Mexico is headed to the U.S. border” (Frontera Nortesur 1). They protested on November 10, 2009 and continued until they got to the U.S. border. The group that headed this was The Women in Black who are an international organization fighting against violence towards women and femicide. They worked with the group The Exodus for the Life of Women, who has a 10-point program which involves finding missing women and getting justice for murders (Frontera Nortesur 1). Their protests brought on a reactionary statement from the government claiming that they have “spent tens of millions of dollars from 1993 to 2009 in response to the women’s homicides,” yet, “according to the federal agency, the money went for special prosecutors, new institutions and related expenses” (Frontera Nortesur 1). This money was not going to support the authorities who were in charge of finding these serial killers/murderers, but it made the government look good and look like they were at least trying to solve these murders. They weren’t.

            It has been reported from human rights organizations that the body count had lowered in 2004, but in 2009 the women’s homicides have broken all of the records. It is presumed to be because of the ongoing narco-war between rival cartels that more women were being murdered in 2009. It is believed that gender violence and gang activities are going to be merging, causing an increase in the femicide (Frontera Nortesur 1). In late 2009, two young women who were in their late teens were “reportedly tortured and possibly sexually assaulted before being dragged outside of a house in Senderos de San Isidro neighborhood where a party had been underway and then set on fire” (Frontera Nortesur 1). The people who are thought to be responsible for these horrific murders were gang members. In the ‘90s, it was thought by some authorities and media that the slayings were due to one person, “the Juarez Ripper” (Newton 3), who was a serial killer targeting the young women of the maquiladoras, but it has become clear over the years that more and more men are responsible for taking the lives of over 400 women. Now it isn’t just the serial killers or bus drivers, but the gangs that roam Ciudad Juarez, who also have placed no value on the lives of each woman brutally assaulted and killed. The corrupt officers and officials also alleviate the gang members of any responsibility of the murders if they can be bought off or bribed with drug money.

Vicente Fox’s thoughts on NPR regarding the murders of women in Ciudad Juarez were absent. The interviewer asked him about the horrific situation and he tiptoed around the subject and then never actually answered her question. It’s incredibly unfortunate that it has become this way with the Mexican government, but it’s a trickledown effect of disinterest in finding these murderers in Ciudad Juarez, as well as Chihuahua, Mexico.

Looking at the effects that these murders have on the women’s families, as well as what is being done about it through protest as well as through authority brings significance to the femicide, not just for Ciudad Juarez, but for all over the world where violence against women is a problem.  If the change will happen, it needs to begin with the leaders of the nation of Mexico, to put a stop to these horrible murders and bring justice to the women who have been slain for the past 17 years.

                                                                                                  

Works Cited

            Frontera Nortesur. "Women in Black March on Ciudad Juarez." New America Media. 
            N.p., 21 Nov. 2009. Web. 1 June 2010. <http://news.newamericamedia.org/ 
            news/view_article.html?article_id=15b82db343fc06addc3bc6f24367293f>.

Lowe, Kathy. “Femicide in Latin America: A Tale of Two Cities.” International Viewpoint Sept. 2006: 1. Web. 17 May 2010. <http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/?spip.php?article1134>.

Newton, Michael. "Ciudad Juarez:The Serial Killer's Playground." trutv.com. 
             Turner: A Time Warner Company, 2003. Web. 18 May 2010. 
            <http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/ciudad_juarez/ 
             index.html>.

O'Neill, Terry. "Femicides of Juarez Fact Sheet." National Organization for Women. National Organization for Women, 2009. Web. 1 June 2010.  <http://www.now.org/issues/global/juarez/femicide.html>.

Timpane, John. “Art exhibit protests women’s mass murders in Mexico.” Philadelphia Inquirer  13 May 2010, PHLI ed.: D01. Web. 16 May 2010. <http://global.factiva.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/?ga/?default.aspx>.

"Vicente Fox on U.S. Immigration." Interviews. NPR: National Public Radio. NPR, 
     n.p., 28 May 2008. npr. Web. 1 June 2010. <http://www.npr.org/templates/ 
     story/story.php?storyId=90883427>.

Wright, Melissa W. Disposable Women and Other Myths of Global Capitalism. New 
     York: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006. Print.

Wright, Melissa W. “From Protests to Politics: Sex Work, Women’s Worth, and Ciudad Juárez Modernity.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94.2 (2004): 369-386. JSTOR. Web. 18 May 2010. <http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/?stable/?3693993?seq=1>.

On the Edge. Youtube. N.p., 2005. Web. 1 June 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/ 
     watch?v=RNIZvrGDPak&feature=channel>.

Equal Partnership for Equal Love

            Imagine sitting in the rows of family and friends, surrounded by white flowers, ribbons, tassels, and then the music begins. The words “here comes the bride” echo in your mind, even though it is an orchestral procession. This song is common knowledge to most people, even though no one could ever tell you the first time that they had ever heard the melody. This whole surreal ritual of marriage in America is incredibly romanticized by the media, by our peers, our family, but the source of it all is hard to recognize. I never really thought about marriage until all of my friends started getting married and talking about marriage. The benefits from marriage are outrageous compared to that of a single individual. The State, bound by the constitution of the United States of America, promotes the act of marriage (a ceremony performed by a religious institution) by giving benefits to married couples. America sticks by their constitution, except when it comes to separation of Church and State. Marriage reflects the patriarchy of America in that it is controlled by a man and the woman is supposed be submissive. Mary Lyndon Shanley promotes the idea that the act of marriage should be completely reformed and discusses contractual marriage as a start, but not an answer. The complete reform of marriage could wipe out patriarchy but the way that America sticks with tradition, as do many other countries, it is hard to see the future for what it can hold in the eyes of equality. I contend that the rhetoric surrounding marriage, as well as the ritual itself needs to be changed, and can be changed with new vocabulary to promote the equality. The universal understanding of what marriage is differs greatly in all cultures and societies. “Equality must be a central attribute of any marital regime based on considerations of justice” (Shanley 18). One thing is certain and that is that the majority of acts and ideas surrounding marriage are laced with a patriarchal understanding of female submission and male dominance.

            Separation of Church and State is a way to keep America a democracy, yet the country rewards married couples.  Among the benefits includes the right of “Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility… obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer… receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses… [and] Living in neighborhoods zoned for ‘families only’…” (NOLO Law for All 1). The neighborhood designation is extremely condescending because it implies that you can’t be a single parent with three children and be considered a “family;” or an unwed homosexual couple raising their child and be considered a “family.” In 1996 the creators of the Welfare Reform Act inserted “a provision requiring mothers who receive welfare to identify the biological fathers of their children. The state could then go after the father for child support” (23). This had seemingly good intentions, but “the sponsors hoped that if the woman identified the father the state might induce them to marry” (24), and I completely agree with Shanley in that “marriage is not an effective antipoverty program, nor is it appropriate to use it as such” (24). This idea is wrought with this patriarchal slime, oozing the idea that women can’t be successful single parents and they need a man in their lives in order to sustain themselves emotionally and financially. Inducing a woman to marry the father of their child in order to save them financially is ignoring so many factors, including the possibilities that the father is abusive to the mother and the child, or the father doesn’t have the money to support the mother and child. This idea of “addressing women’s poverty by attaching them to men who can support them reinforces inequality and vulnerability within marriages” (24). Sponsors who had hoped for the women to marry the fathers of their children were walking the fine line of separation of church and state. A bill generated by the United States Senate or Congress should not even have an inkling of religious lining to it and this one seems like it was teetering in that direction. There are several states that recognize domestic partnerships of over a certain number of years which give the same benefits as a married couple, but this is also a way for the state to view a couple as “married” even though the couple may not be or may never plan to be. The idea of the church not involved in the unification of love is extremely appealing to me because I don’t see it as joining together “under God,” I see it as a presentation to your loved ones that this is the person that you are going to be with for the rest of your life because you have love, happiness, trust, respect and equality. Removing the state from marriage and having a strictly contractual agreement of terms is interesting because it holds to completely separate the Church and the State.

            “Contractualism suggests that each marriage is a particular agreement between individuals not a relationship in which the public has a legitimate interest” (16). Advocate of contract marriage, Martha Fineman, argues that “abolishing marriage as a legal category is a step necessary for gender equality” (19) and I would have to agree with her. Chad Brand is a southern Baptist and explains that the nation needs strong men and “the price women pay for marriage and morals is submission to the husband as leader within the family” (19). That disgusting quote alone proves the parallel that exists between this patriarchal nation and the institution of marriage. Marriage by contract helps to replace the gender stereotyping of traditional marriage and recognizes the “individuality and equal agency of the partners” (19). I agree with this as a beginning to abolish inequality within marriage, but I also agree with Shanley in that contract “is not adequate to defeat the legacy of patriarchy” (20). There needs to be more. The State needs to step in and promote spousal equality. Shanley argues that “marriage law and public policy must work to ensure that neither partner is precluded from participating in social and political life or rendered unable to provide care to family members” (20). This is how equality is going to come ahead and our nation is going to take a step away from traditionalism and patriarchy.

            I want to explore a way to still have the institution of marriage, but change to vocabulary to promote gender equality and remove heteronormativity as well. The rhetoric surrounding marriage is extremely sexist and focuses a lot on the woman serving the man and being faithful to the man, but not the other way around. When the religious leader conducting the marriage ritual says, ‘I now pronounce you man and wife, you may kiss the bride,’ it bothers me and it is the specific words used that I have a problem with. ‘Man and wife.’ This phrase shows me that the man is a man before he is a husband, yet the woman is a wife before she is an individual. This phrase is also completely heteronormative, assuming the identities of the people getting married are hetero identities. The union of two people under love is something to be celebrated but the entire vocabulary in doing so from the weddings that I’ve attended has just been unsettling. I was the ‘maid of honor’ for my best high school friend’s wedding last June and listening to their preacher recite the ceremonial script was bizarre to me because he focused almost all of his intentions on my friend being faithful to her husband and serving him as his wife but failed to mention anything regarding him and his “duties” as a husband. The kind of wedding that would promote equality to both parties would be equal vows, promising that they will love each other forever, take care of each other and respect each other. Shanley quotes Chad Brand explaining the Southern Baptist Convention’s position on marriage equality, “while the Bible teaches full equality, it does not affirm egalitarianism or interchangeability in all things… male-female equality and male headship may seem paradoxical, but they are both taught in Scripture, much like a thread of two strands” (19). These literal translations from the Bible are hurting the women’s movement for equality. The Bible is used for religious marriages and it may seem “traditional” to some, but since when is tradition more important than autonomy, individuality or equality? It should not be that way. There needs to be a way to promote gender equality within a marriage and it needs to start with the ceremony itself. Religious people need to see that they can still have a religious ceremony without the direct sexist quotes from the Bible, that in this day and age would never even be uttered out loud unless out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich.

            Parents and teachers are always telling children, ‘you never know what the future has in store for you!’ and it’s always with a positive inflection. I hope the future has gender equality in store for all of us. Not just the ideas of equality, but the actions taken in order to promote and fulfill equality. The actual separation of Church and State, the exploration of contractual marriage and reformation of marriage law and the reform of the marriage ceremony would all promote the ideal movement towards the removal of the patriarchal understanding of female submission and male dominance surrounding the institution of marriage.

Works Cited

Shanley, Mary Lyndon. Just Marriage. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. 
     Print.

"Marriage Rights and Benefits." NOLO: Law for All. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2011. 
     <http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html>.