Glass Slippers: Empowering or Disabling?

In the New York Times Article, "Mommy I Want to Be a Princess," author Naomi Wolf explains to concerned mothers that the fairy-tale aspirations of young girls need not be disempowering. For Wolf, the "Sleeping Beauty narrative...designed to seduce women into marriage and passivity," doesn't have to be a setback for young girls and their feminist mothers. Wolf believes that "second-wave feminists" have it wrong." Instead of teaching young girls to be domesticated housewives and mothers, or starry eyed dreamers hopelessly waiting for a kiss from Prince Charming, Wolf recharacterizes the experiences of animated and real-life princesses as constructive and heroic role models for young girls to follow. Although I believe that the overarching theme of many fairy-tales revolve around the damsel in distress saved by a handsome prince, I think that Wolf successfully hones in on the positive attributes of princesses that we are familiar with and exposes the underlying "feminist" feature of "princesses." To sum it up, Wolf provides us with a "revisionist" history of Disney princesses, and attempts to frame modern "real life" royalty, such as Kate Middleton, Princess Diana, and other figures that the public is less familiar with in a "feminist" light.

Wolf boldly asserts that the princess worship that young girls engage is less about a vain, distorted, and sexist reality, and more about "power and recognition." Little girls may be obsessed with princesses, but little boys like action heroes just as much. For Wolf, the "princesses" we imagine are more powerful than the world leaders we see today, such as Hillary Clinton, and less drugged out than the popular icons that command our attention in the media today. Furthermore, what other women can control an army or excite the public in the same manner as a princess?

One caveat I would like to add to Wolf's description of the strong and bold princess is her failure to mention physical attributes of these princesses that she exalts. The Disney characters she discusses (which I will address) are all of unrealistic bodily proportions. Cinderella, Mulan, and even the real life princesses, such as Kate and Diana, fit the image of feminine perfection. Dainty, thin, and conventionally pretty, these women or "heroines" that Wolf describes are NOT the average woman. Even though the image factor is peripheral is the heroic capabilities of some of these women (and cartoons) it cannot be conveniently ignored. If princess empowerment is supposed to be a viable motto, then the category has to include girls of all genders, shapes and sizes.

Wolf includes a litany of princesses in her discussion. Princess Diana, revered and internationally known for her charitable disposition and unique background, was according to Wolf, "a pioneer" for defying the restrictions of the British class system. Though Diana was by no means poor, she challenged the British monarchy's conception of "proper marriage." Her much publicized divorce to Prince Charles after 17 years of marriage made global headlines, and in a sense, normalized divorce in the most effective way possible. For if a princess can divorce her prince, surely it must be acceptable for the average woman to leave an unhappy marriage.

Perhaps the best evidence of Diana's legacy is the treatment that Kate Middleton has received as a new member of the royal family. Diana taught the royal family how to behave. Kate Middleton did not come from an aristocratic family. Kate's great grandfather was a coal miner, and while her family achieved great monetary success as business entrepreneurs, it can hardly be argued that Kate Middleton defies the traditional "criteria" and possesses a different "pedigree" than what is typical of the British monarchy. Furthermore, Kate Middleton was an athlete in college and was Captain of the field hockey time. Though this may not sound out of the ordinary, it is quite revolutionary that the potential future Queen of England could potentially beat her husband in field hockey!

In many other respects, Kate Middleton has conformed to the "conventional" gender role expected of her as a new bride to Prince William. The couple has barely been married for 7 months and Kate Middleton is reportedly already pregnant. Her slim physique and manicured appearance never falls short of fashionable, and she can always be found donning the most exquisite attire. I do not find these to be "faults" per se, but I think that Kate Middleton's acceptance by the media AND the royal family is conditioned upon her acting appropriately. If Prince William had chosen to marry (as an extreme example) a "bisexual" who wore overalls and blue hair instead of Kate's prim and proper wardrobe, I have a hunch that the dialogue would be drastically different.

In terms of the Disney "fantasy" world, Wolf explains that the characters we think of as helpless, desperate, and pathetically "female" are actually heroes. In Mulan, the princess helps her family fight off the Huns and saves the kingdom, while Cinderella is rewarded for her compassion to "small creatures." Although I appreciate Wolf's perspective, I think that there is something fundamentally different about the prince/princess dichotomy that appears in real life and in the movies. If history had favored the princess, I would be more inclined to agree with her that the modern day conception of "princess" is really a heroine who happens to prefer a pink tutu to an armored suit with a sword. Even in real life, Kate Middleton was practically "discovered" by William, and Diana was the lucky girl to marry a prince. But I think that "herstory" from a feminist point of view, finds the less favored, and more pessimistic history, to be more in line with reality. It is never the princess riding in to save the dying prince, or rescue him from infinite turmoil. Even if the princess is capable of defeating the main "villain" such as Mulan or Snow White, the small "heroine" battles are always consumed by the larger picture of the princess waiting for the prince. The brave activity is always just a means to an end- finding the prince of her dreams and happily ever after. Until the princess is waging her own battles for her own well-being, I think I have to disagree with Wolf.

Are you willing to run?

Inspirational female reformers officially began the fight for women’s suffrage in the 19th century. In 1848, the attendees of the Seneca Falls Convention created “The Declaration of Sentiments.” The Declaration acknowledged that “[h]e has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice… [and] [h]aving deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.”

Even before women secured the right to vote, Montana selected the first U.S. Congresswoman, Jeannette Rankin, to represent their state. Three years later, in 1920, women finally won the right to vote. Americans, it seemed, were on the road to halting oppression of females and ensuring a voice—and a place—for women in politics.

One hundred-sixty years after the suffrage movement began, female candidates from both major U.S. parties finally emerged as strong contenders for both executive offices of the land. Today, women represent only about 17% of Congress, and Americans have yet to elect a female U.S. President or Vice President. Thus, women still lag behind men in American politics. In fact, we lag behind half of the world’s countries in terms of female representation in the federal legislature.

We know that women are capable of leading and affecting positive change—and that women how to do it well. In fact, women may lead better than men. Studies show that female-lead companies in the U.S. achieve more financial success than those with male CEOs. Despite these achievements, far fewer women than men consider running for public office.

So, what is keeping American women away from U.S. politics? Why am I still waiting for Americans to elect a female U.S. President and choose legislative representatives that mimic the proportion of men to women in our country? Well, that’s just it. I’m waiting for someone else to do it because I’m not willing to do it myself.

I participated in student government during all four years of my high school career, and I campaigned for elected positions during each of those four years. Despite winning my elections in only two of the four years, I found campaigning an exciting experience at the time. With my strong family support system and a bit of the naivete of a younger person, I figured I had nothing to lose.

For me, the interest in leadership continued throughout college, but instead of running for president, I ran for less demanding positions in multiple organizations…or I just waited to apply for positions that required interviews and applications rather than a public voting process. My approach provided me with the voice I sought, and it helped me to avoid many of the downsides associated with higher-level positions…especially the grueling task of the school-wide election process.

Until now, I never thought much about why I chose not to run for the presidential positions. In retrospect, though, I think that I lacked the confidence to run. There was always someone else who seemed like a better fit for the job. I bet that I was not the only woman to think that way, for, the most political organizations that I participated in during college were lead by male presidents. Our student government, one such organization, was lead by men during all four of my undergraduate years.

Despite this realization, though, the more I learn about, people, law, the world, and the treatment of women, the scarier it becomes to consider something like an election for public office. At this point in my life, I'm ready to support brave women who willing to take on the task, but I'm not ready to give up my private life and submit to the emotional rigors of a national campaign.

According to Jennifer Lawless, Professor of Political Science at American University, fewer women perceive themselves as qualified to run for public office and we continue to recruit more men than women for such positions. Many women also prefer male bosses to female bosses, and cite gender stereotypes and intra-gender competition to support this preference. Furthermore, despite the growing population of female students in higher education, fewer women than men serve as student body presidents. This trend carries to the elite universities traditionally known for educating many of our influential government leaders.

At a recent UN program entitled “Women's Political Participation – Making Gender Equality in Politics a Reality,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and fifteen other high-level government leaders signed a "Joint Statement on Advancing Women’s Political Participation." It’s going to take more than a few signatures to make the changes that will bring women on par with men in the realm of American politics. We need to encourage more women to run and to provide them with the mentorship necessary to navigate the American political system. We also need to motivate women by changing American female perceptions of self-worth and confidence. The ideal female candidate can not—and probably should not—be perfect. But, until we start treating female candidates like people rather than sex objects, mothers, pets, or iron maidens (See Carlin and Winfrey, Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage, 60 Communication Studies 326 (2009)), many women may continue to avoid public office.

Still, I wonder if support, mentorship, and generally respecting women is sufficient. In Kay and Shipman’s article about the successes of women in business, the authors proclaimed that “[a]ll those right-brain skills disparaged as soft in the roaring '90s are suddenly 21st-century-hot, while cocky is experiencing a slow fizzle.” In the political world, though, I think that over-confidence might be a pre-requisite—at least for winning (or surviving) an election. If that’s the case, then ladies, I think it’s time we got a little cocky.

The Women "Behind" Our Politicians

Herman Cain’s once promising campaign for President has been waning in recent weeks, resulting from revelations of harassment and improper relationships with several women. He will soon be holding a press conference to announce the “next steps” in his campaign – which some are predicting is code for dropping out of the race. Whether or not he will continue to seek the Republican nomination remains to be seen. However, political pundits and Internet commentators have heavily focused the conversation on Cain’s wife, Gloria, as a result.

In a recent interview with Fox News, Cain vehemently denied the allegations and decried what he characterized as the Establishment/media’s smear campaign. But he also admitted that he would terminate his campaign if asked to do so by his wife. The New York Times reported the interview in an article entitled, “Wife’s Word to Decide Cain Campaign’s Fate.” Given the gravity of the allegations surrounding the Cain family, one would hope that they would discuss their future together, both politically and privately. At first glance, this seems an innocuous title. In fact, one would hope that partners in any relationship would consult each other before making a monumental decision that affects them both.

But is it fair for male political candidates to blame their wives for their campaign decisions? Jim Newell argues that race resignations or explanations for not running at all are replete with undertones of blame disguised as apologies. He has a point. But is this truly what is happening? Are politicians like Cain and Mitch Daniels blaming their wives for short-circuiting their political agendas? I suppose it could be argued both ways. Newell spells out the argument that, yes, these men are blaming their wives. As such, I will forego any further analysis on that point.

But, playing devil’s advocate, couldn't their decisions be just as easily celebrated as a “win” for feminists? Politics has been considered a “man’s world” for centuries. But by including their partners in their decisions, aren't these men dispelling the notion that male politicians’ wives must stand idly by, that they must get out of the way while their husbands govern the nation? Couldn't it be argued that these men are the antithesis of the phrase, “Behind every good man, there is a good woman?” Instead, they are treating their partners as equals, seeking their full input and standing beside each other in their decisions.

I’m not sure where I stand on the question. I think both arguments could be made with a straight face. But I was surprised by the media’s portrayal/reaction nonetheless. Gawker denounces their statements as thinly-veiled attempts to deflect responsibility. And the New York Times has made Gloria Cain the focus of the story, rather than the accusations themselves and their effect on the Cain family. What do you think?

Three's Company: Polygamy, Women, and Free Exercise

Just how damaging are polygamous marriages to women and children? Enough to justify and permit their prohibition? How much of society's concern over the practice is about harm, and how much of it is really about intolerance of religious difference? Vexing questions like those ones drove me to this blog post. The seed was planted after I read the paper Anna found and submitted as part of our Week 11 class presentation on Women & Religion. That seed flourished into the jumbled discussion you are about to read below.

Polygamy has had a checkered past. Occasional, standout news reports remind us of some of the more incestuous, dangerous, and downright cuckoo polygamous communities out there in America. [See: Warren Jeffs story, here]. Yet there was a time when the practice was not such a fully fermented display of outcast perversion. There was a time when at least some unorthodox yet functional polygamous families occurred and survived -- not accepted by most, a bit odd in their ways, but a lot safer, and yes, consensual, than we might have believed. Then came Reynolds v. United States, the dusty old 1878 Supreme Court case that upheld a state prohibition of polygamy. Reynolds is still good law, upheld recently in Oklahoma, here. This got me thinking. I wanted to revisit polygamy: to interrogate the charges against it, and to question the justifications commonly advanced in support of state laws that have outright barred it. I was unconvinced then, as I am now.

Last week, a Canadian trial court judge upheld a law that criminalized polygamy [You can find a discussion of the case here, and, as criticized by a feminist Canadian reporter, here.]. The judge graciously recognized that the criminalization infringed on a practice central to the faith of those protesting the law in court. Still, even though this case is based on an entirely different national constitution, it aptly echoes U.S. states' key justifications for barring the free exercise of polygamy. Justification One: Harm to women and children who are encouraged or even coerced to partake of this family practice. Justification Two: The harm done to marriage (and all its attendant benefits) as society traditionally agrees it ought to be. For elaboration of #2, and other moralizing canards, check out Justice Scalia's disfavored dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.

But first, a rapid segue into Free Exercise Clause doctrine (You knew this was coming). The Supreme Court indelicately gutted the Clause in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990). Smith did away with strict scrutiny review, favoring instead a standard whereby courts must allow a law infringing on one's freedom to practice conduct central to one's faith, so long as the law is of "general applicability," and that it was not written with the purpose of unfairly targeting religion. Setting aside the fact that divining true intent from a legislature can be the most foolish of fool's errands, post-Smith states would need to make much less of an effort to courts to justify the prohibition.

It wasn't a death knell for the Free Exercise Clause. But it came as close to death as could be expected. Yet because I have poetic license, I will assume for the rest of this post that we live in a pre-Smith world. I would like to examine the harm justification one more time, to test its veracity and virtue.

As stated, we have seen how harmful polygamous marriages can be in America: dangerous communities where fourteen-year-olds are married to and pregnant by their uncles; cultish societies where women are coerced into abusive marriage arrangements that flout the concept of mutual love and respect. These places are rife with rape, abuse, and incest. Moreover, from a feminist perspective, even single-family instances of polygamy offend the sensibilities of many enlightened observers. Just how far removed are such marriages from the kinds of antiquated arrangements of past centuries, where wives and women were like so many kinds of chattel? To many feminists, a woman cannot be on equal footing where she is but one of many options for the male head of the family.

Yet can we be sure that all instances of polygamy are and must be like the commune situations above? If not --if we agree that polygamy is not necessarily equated with such harm to women and children-- can we confidently allow a state to bar all instances of the practice? Even those marriages that, while unsettling to our modern sensibilities, are run in safe and more or less fruitful ways? Now, I have not done the research on the extent and severity of harm in the entire practice of plural marriage. And space does not permit me to expound upon it if I had. Yet what I have read suggests that there are instances where single families choose plural marriage (either in secret or in those countries that do not prohibit it) in ways that society may find troubling, but which nonetheless can provide love and support for the spouses, and for their children. Without knowing the answer, I posit the fundamental question: Are the harms of polygamy because of polygamy itself, or because of some of the ways it is practiced? This article suggests that the harms discussed by the Canadian judge are overstated, and reflect only part of the story.

A corollary question is this one: To the extent that polygamy is harmful to women and children, are those harms different in kind from the harms that come from traditional, two-parent, heterosexual marriages? Consider the fact that a great many marriages today, those that involve only a man and a woman, are deeply flawed -- whether they involve child abuse, spousal abuse, a home without real love, or any of the myriad instances where a woman’s place is a subordinate one. The polygamous communes aside, are those dysfunctional marriages less serious than the claimed dysfunctions caused by polygamous marriages? I am not saying they are not. But can you be sure they are? I am asking for proof here.

An interesting, if imperfect, analogue is the Muslim headdress case that we discussed in class [discussed here]. In that case, in Turkey, young Muslim women were prohibited from wearing traditional headdresses to school because they disrupted the school's and society's more secular-based concerns. The case sorely tested core principles of Free Exercise, and flexed quite a bit of paternalistic muscle over Muslim women in the process.

Many of us recognize that in most instances, women wearing a niqab, or a burqa, choose to do so -- as a matter of modesty, and as a matter of allegiance to their faith. But in some cases, there are harms there too. In some more fundamentalist circles, women are forced to wear headdresses (at threat of violence or public shame) that make them inseparable from other women, or that require that they subordinate their sexuality. Are those genuine harms enough to ruin the principle of religious freedom for women who choose this course of action? These extreme cases might require at least some observers to imagine an impossible choice between paternalism on the one hand, or feminism on the other.

Just how different are headdress cases from those of polygamy? Clearly, there are well-chronicled harms in each instance. And there are situations in each where women choose paths of their own, even though they might unsettle some who would find that same path unacceptable for themselves. Of course, the glaring difference here is that polygamy is not in fact practiced in the same widespread and streamlined way that Muslim headdresses are. The truth is that polygamy in America, having been banished and stamped out for so long, almost always appears in its ugliest and most reviled form. It is hard to make the case for how polygamy can be practiced, when how it is practiced is almost always so divorced from that possibility.

That comparison aside, my most compelling critique of polygamy prohibitions is this: If the severe and damaging cases of polygamy are enough to warrant their prohibition, even at the expense of the well-adjusted polygamous marriages out there, why not target the crimes that make those communes so dangerous? Incest, statutory rape, tax and welfare fraud -- these are all common in some American polygamous communes. So why target polygamy? Instead of applying an anti-polygamy law of "general applicability," why not apply in their place specific criminal laws of general applicability? The state would target those individual crimes, in two-parent families as much as in multi-parent families. If the criminal laws disproportionately affect polygamous communities, let the offenders make the bogus claim that statutory rape and spousal abuse are conduct central to their Mormon religion.

Now, strict scrutiny may be gone for polygamous families seeking to litigate. And, under Smith, it still must be shown that a law barring polygamy is motivated by a purpose to discriminate against a religion. That is hard to show. What I have aimed to do here (again, admittedly without any supporting data) is to ask whether the neutral justification of protecting women and children is sufficient and sincere. And, if it is, if barring the practice of polygamy on the whole is the best way to go. Perhaps, if Congress were to create an exemption for plural marriages (not likely to happen), it would give the practice some room to breathe. Polygamy would not flourish with abandon; for good reason it is not the favored route. Yet perhaps then it could exist in peaceful, consensual, and safe environments, where love and support could be exercised as they are in two-parent families.

Finally, in parting, consider the analogue of gay marriage. Now, many would argue that this is no comparison at all. There is a clear and commonsensical line to be drawn between the two, it is argued. Yet the Prop. 8 litigation and, in part, Lawrence v. Texas demonstrated that marriage is a fluid concept, and that marriage as it "ought to be" is a flawed institution that needs protection only from itself. I'm not saying that those cases demand that we recognize a fundamental right to plural marriage. Yet ask yourself whether there is not a society out there where it is or can be fundamental to many. From what I gather, until the anti-polygamy law was enacted in British Columbia, that right was exercised safely and peacefully by at least some Mormons. How do we know those wives and their children won't turn out okay in the end?

Misogyny in video games

I’ve been playing video games my entire life. I’ve been a fan of many games beginning with the original Super Mario Brothers, Zelda, and the like. Many of these games bring back early 90’s nostalgia, but beginning in college (the early 2000’s, that is), I started to notice a more misogynistic tone in video games. While the early games are certainly not innocent when it comes to reinforcing gender stereotypes (e.g. the common “rescuing the Princess” story line), games have become increasingly more sexist and violent - particularly against women. After a bit of research it became clear that too many video games today either sexualize female characters or involve overt acts of violence against women; video games are a popular media that is being used to vindicate the sexualization and abuse of women.

The widely popular Grand Theft Auto is known for its violent themes, but it made headlines when Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas simulated violence against women. In this game, a player can make a character have sex with a prostitute, beat her up, kill her, and take his money back. Having sex with a prostitute replenishes the character’s life but drains his money, thus encouraging both the solicitation of sex and the beating/killing of the prostitute afterwards. Further, the character calls the prostitute a "bitch" repeatedly after sex and while killing her.

Other games are not as overtly violent against women as they are sexist and exploitative of female sexuality. In Killer Instinct, the scantily clad female character “B. Orchid” has a move where she can kill her opponent by unzipping her top and flashing her breasts at them (though away from the camera). Further, the popular game Dead or Alive is best known for its young, sexy female characters. In Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball the entire cast is wearing extremely revealing string bikinis while playing beach volleyball. What’s more, the characters can be controlled to move into sexually suggestive positions and a zoom feature allows players to zoom in on the characters’ bodies. The female characters in all of these games have Barbi-esque figures with young girlish faces, tiny waists, and impossibly large breasts.

The most egregious example of violence against women in video gaming is the Japanese game RapeLay. Though it may be hard to believe, this game is actually based on the rape, sexual torture, and stalking of young girls. RapeLay begins with a subway scene in which the character’s objective is to grope and molest a young girl on the subway platform. From there, the player is enabled to stalk the girl and her sister, rape them repeatedly, capture them, torture them, and ultimately make them his sex slaves. Players can select which girl they wish to rape and choose from a number of scenes as to where the rape will take place. As play continues, “friends” can join in on the sexual abuse. The game even allows the character to impregnate a girl and encourage her to have an abortion. Though RapeLay never made it into stores in the United States, illegal copies still remain available on the internet.

In June of this year the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, holding that a California law prohibiting the sale of "violent video games" to minors violated the First Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia contended that video games are a form of expression protected by the First Amendment, and that minors have their own First Amendment rights to access these games just like their adult counterparts. Justice Scalia then concluded that the state had failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between violent video games and violent behavior by children. While I am an advocate of free speech, I find it hard to believe that exposing children to these interactive games won’t affect how they will grow up to treat women. Indeed, violence against women is a pandemic and it doesn’t take much to find the manifestations of this problem. I can’t help but ask the perennial question: Does life imitate art, or does art imitate life?

The images of sexualized women and sexual violence that are provided to young people and adults alike via gaming serve to endorse a sort of interactive misogyny that, I believe, only normalizes this behavior. While adults may be at liberty to chose from an array of violent, sexist, and generally distasteful material (and there is plenty to choose from), misogyny does not need yet another audience in today’s youth.

Family and acceptance

I recently the Bodenheimer Lecture on Family Law at UC Davis delivered by Professor Angela Onwuachi-Willig, professor of law at University of Iowa. Professor Onwuachi-Willig examines the Rhinelander v. Rhinelander case of 1925 to explore race relations in the United States. Particularly, she wanted to impress upon the audience the importance of expanding our normative notions of family. She explains that it is detrimental to racial minorities, especially African American females, to perpetuate an understanding of family as mono-racial and heterosexual. I believe she is correct; and I additionally believe that such notions of family are inconvenient and even injurious to members of the LGBT community.

In Rhinelander v. Rhinelander, an extremely wealthy white man from one of New York's elite families (Leonard) sued his wife (Alice) for an annulment based on fraud. Leonard claimed that Alice had misrepresented her race (she was a black woman), and that he only married her was because he believed her to be of Caucasian decent. Legend has it, however, that the two were actually madly in love and that Leonard's family, particularly his father, pressured him to annul the wedding. In fact, that an all-white male jury ended up ruling in favor of Alice suggests to many scholars today that the jury simply bought the love story. For instance, there was evidence that Leonard frequently visited with Alice's black family in the lower-income areas of New York. After a quiet wedding, he moved to a modest apartment to live with Alice in relative secrecy, foregoing the extravagant announcements and ceremonies most men of his stature were due. He was obviously and simply in love. Although Alice won the lawsuit (and the marriage was not annulled), the relationship was destined to dissolve. Leonard died shortly after, many say from love sickness, alone and estranged from all friends and family. Alice lived until she was 87, but "living" may be too generous a word, because she too was alone, and mostly poor throughout the rest of her life.

Professor Onwuachi-Willig situates her research in the field of race relations, focusing on interracial marriage as a vehicle for breaking psychological and social boundaries to move towards acceptance and equality. Canadian sociologist, Dorothy Smith, however, argues that the idealized family that Professor Onwuachi-Willig describes, includes a gendered division of labor (a breadwinning father and a stay-at-home mother) which devalues women. I believe that it additionally creates an expectation and an acceptance of gendered roles to the detriment of members of the LGBT community.

Sociologic theories that aligns biology with normative behavior have the potential to confuse an observed relationship with a causal relationship. Moreover, these assumptions tend to over-generalize, and to consequently marginalize those who do not fit the mold. For example, the iconic family as being headed by a married couple excludes single parent families, divorced couples, separations and cohabitation. In California, unfortunately, it also excludes single-sex couples. This demonstrates how norms in our society can affect laws and associated privileges and protections. Today, there are 1,138 rights and responsibilities reserved for opposite sex couples who can legally be married in the United States, including social security benefits, spousal insurance benefits through one’s employer, Medicare, and family reunification for asylum seekers. I know this because my partner and I received an IOU from the activist County Recorder in Yolo County for each of the rights.

A dismantling of normative notions of family would advantage racial minority, as Professor Onwuachi-Willig explains, and would additionally undo prescribed gender roles, that may constrict the potential of women to contribute to society. By abolishing a picture of normality, it would signal acceptance of that which was previously considered abnormal. This includes interracial marriages, same sex couples, and a variety of other loving relationships that deserve legal, social, and psychological security.