This week we look at the controversial states of marriage, cohabitation and child rearing as they vary by geography and demographics. These readings ask us to consider the choices we make with regards to family and children, while taking our individual and societal context into account. More often than not these two are in conflict, and it is important to consider whether the resulting dissonance has a positive or negative effect on our lives and the lives of our family. For Canada and the United States, traditional marriage has been and continues to be the predominant social norm. The various legal rights and protections inherent in marriage are limited within cohabiting couples. In the United States, some states such as California provide cohabiting couples with almost equal protections as married couples, however other parts of the country limit the rights provided. In addition, the definition of “cohabitation” varies by state. In Canada there is less property right protection for cohabiting couples, however common-law marriages are available to straight and gay couples. Interestingly though, only a small percentage of Canadians qualify two married homosexual individuals with children as a family. (We will post the survey that discussed this shortly.)
In the United States, recent controversy over the definition and “protection” of marriage erupted onto the political field with a bid for same-sex marriage. While support for same-sex marriage seems to be growing, (according to CNN, 46% of the US now feels that the government should give legal recognition), the rhetoric is still not acceptable within politics. Neither President Barak Obama nor Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, two politicians lauded for their socially groundbreaking presidential campaigns, say that they support gay marriage (President Obama did support the overturn of Proposition 8 in California despite his lack of commitment to gay marriage).
Furthermore, the existence of cohabitation appears also to be in constant conflict with the institution of marriage: recent debates rage over the ideal family to raise children, the legitimacy of non-heterosexual marriage, and the rights of non-married family members to legal protection and support.
This week’s readings have demonstrated that lived realities may not coincide with ideology. Perceptions of ideal families, marriages, and ways of raising children are encoded in specific societal beliefs, and can severely affect the lives of those who deviate from those expectations. Universal rising cohabitation rates show us that change is occurring. The example of Quebec illustrates that an “avant-garde” life choice can become a stable norm when there is societal acceptance.
More and more people are making the conscious choice to cohabit, to be single mothers, to fight for the rights of gay and lesbian couples, but will this be enough to synthesize the realities and ideals of family life?
As Mannis states toward the end of “Single mothers by choice”,
“Most social institutions operate as if the traditional heterosexual, married, two-parent family is the only family form. This places burdens and stigma on nontraditional families. The dominant view supports the traditional family as ideal and the norm against which other families are compared. Other family structures are viewed as deficit models (Rice, 1994).”
Mannis, however, along with much of Western society, continues to base assertions of familial variability on the traditionally White, high-status normative family structure. In so doing, fails to fully acknowledge the societal differentiation between valued and non-valued groups. A reorganization of single mothers (or any other social group) across socioeconomic, racial, or geographical boundaries (artificial or otherwise) does not recognize the intersectionality of disempowerment. Indeed, the above statement takes on an ironic meaning considering the subjects of the article.
While many continue to challenge the two-parent, heterosexual family ideology, individuals who engage in non-traditional relationships adopt or retain highly traditional sexual roles (gay parents as disciplinarians, lesbians as nurturers, single mothers in need of children to mother). The evidence on cohabitation suggests that marriage no longer meets the needs of the post-modern family. As societal expectations and personal goals shape and shaped by the broader socio-political environment, many areas (Sweden, Quebec, to name but two) no longer seem to be compatible with traditional marriage. Take a look at these two articles on the changing nature of marriage and cohabitation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-minogue/traditional-marriage-and_b_191423.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/06/is-living-in-sin-still-bad-for-your-marriage.html?from=rss
As well as these:
A simple definition of marriage from our friendly neighborhood monsters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQJvSzkVfRg
And this offensive yet effective video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA
We look forward to reading your responses!
No comments:
Post a Comment