Marriage, a History : Intro-Chap. 3

According to Stephanie Coontz, "worrying about the decay of marriage isn't just a Western habit", and it definitely isn't anything new (1). Every generation tends to have this misconception of there being some "Golden Age of Marriage" in the past and therefore conceives their marriage situation as worst than their mothers or grandmothers. In this book, Coontz gives examples of many different ways marriage is perceive in other cultures and therefore shows us how complicated it is to generalize marriage in any way. She wants to see how is it that relationships in the West has changed more in the past thirty years than in the last three thousand years. She also wants to explain what took so long for the revolutionary implications of the love match relationship to come into play(9).

In Chapter one, "The radical idea of marrying for love", Coontz writes about how in the last two centuries, the West has developed this whole new set of values about the way to organize marriage and sexuality through "love" (23). This emphasis on a loving relationship has placed high expectations on our modern relationships. The expectation for marriage to satisfy every need from psychological and social needs to intimacy and sex. The one quote that struck me from this chapter is:

"this package of expectations about love, marriage, and sex, however, is extremely rare. When we look at the historical record around the world, the customs of modern America and Western Europe appear exotic and exceptional" (20).

Coontz gives examples of how in America, such practices like polygamy and cheating are the stuff of "trash TV" but in other cultures, "individuals often find such practices normal and comforting"(20). My personal reflection on this is that although other cultures practices polygamy and adutery, even the older Hmong generation did practice polygamy, I can't find it in myself to accept it. Yes, I have been culturally influenced by the west, but also because I have personally seen and heard stories of too cases in which women and children are second to men's lust and passion.

In Chapter two, "The many meanings of marriage", Coontz goes on to say that there is no such thing as a "universal institution of marriage" (24). Some argue marriage is universal due to the biological urge to mate and reproduce, but apparently, marriage is much more complicated than this because than we would not be discussing the future of marriage today (25). Throughout history, marriage has not only united two individuals but two sets of families, therefore mate selection has not solely been left to the decision of the individuals but constrained by society. Coontz reminds us that there are many exceptions to marriage and it's more than living together, engaging in sexual activity, and cooperating economically (26). This may apply to our perception of marriage in the West but Coontz shows how different cultures view marriages differently.

I found the part on the Chinese's way of a "ghost marriage" to be very interesting. Since most parents only allow one daughter to remain unmarried, if the others want to be single, one way is to conduct a marriage ceremony with a dead man (27). I think it's also important to consider the spiritual side of marriage.

In Chapter three, "The Invention of Marriage", Coontz, argues that "marriage is a social invention, unique to humans" (34). In this chapter, Coontz does not believe that "marriage was invented to oppress women any more than it was invented to protect them...in most cases, marriage probably originated as an informal way of organizing sexual companionship, child rearing, and the daily tasks of life". But due to economic and social changes, marriages have been effected in many ways (44).

Throughout this first section and especially in this chapter, Coontz allows us to be aware of other realities other than our own. Different people have different ideas of how marriage is according to their given situation. Therefore, as Americans, we should consider if our "winner-take-all global economy" is the way to keep going (49).

Giddens Ch. 8-10

Chapter 8 "Contradictions of the Pure Relationship":
"Pure relationship" as defined by Giddens is "a relationship of sexual and emotional equality" (p. 2, he goes more into details on p. 58). In this chapter, Giddens focuses on aspects of the pure relationship in same-sex encounters, specifically lesbian women (134). In this chapter, I believe Giddens is saying that a homosexual relationship, especially a lesbian relationship can provide us with a new model to follow since the heterosexual model has been impacted by too many societal restrictions. Giddens goes on to say that it is the gay community who becomes pioneers in changing and challenging long-term relationships and marriages (135). I do believe that because so much attention has been focused on heterosexual relationships (and unfortunately, so much benefits have been given to heterosexual couples) that maybe our hope for a new model of relationship would be to look at homosexual relationships. According to Giddens, homosexual relationships can give us that pure relationship we're looking for because women have a higher level of communication with each other as opposed to heterosexual relationships (142). I think Giddens sums up this chapter pretty well on page 154 when he says "if orthodox marriage is not yet widely seen as just one life-style among others, as in fact it has become, this is partly the result of institutional lag and partly the result of the complicated mixture of attraction and repulsion which the psychic development of each sex creates with regard to the other".

I personally have seen and experienced a lot of problems with heterosexual relationships in terms of communication and expectations from the other sex. The earlier chapter on codependence spoke to me on personal levels. I believe there are a lot to learn from other relationships, such as homosexual relationships, and once we can look at the relationship instead of the two individuals involved, than maybe we can start to see what works and what doesn't. I can speak for myself that I've started to noticed my personal relationship have become more of what Giddens called "confluent love". So as third wave feminists, I wonder if this "confluent love" is what we all should be striving for?

Chapter 9 "Sexuality, Repression, Civilisation":
I found this chapter harder to understand. But in here, Gibbens criticizes "sexual radicals", Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse, for "believing that modern societies depend upon a high level of sexual repression" and because they did not include much information on gender or changes on love in the modern social order (168 & 169). I guess one thing that I didn't really understand was when Gibbens mentions that according to Reich "freedom and sexual health are the same thing" (163). I believe Gibbens is saying that he doesn't agree with Reich and Marcuse in have a non-repressive society because we are not ready for it and by having it be a non-repressive society, we put all of our other relationships at stake (182).

I would have to say that I agree with Gibbens on this issue. I find it disturbing to think of kids having sex with each other. Yes, this is how my culture, my society has raised me up to think but like we mentioned earlier, should we consider everything socially constructed as something bad?

Chapter 10: "Intimacy as Democracy":
First, Gibbens goes on to talk about 'the meaning of democracy'. He mentions David Held four approaches to political democracy (185). Gibbens states "the structural source of this promise is the emergence of the pure relationship, not only in the area of sexuality but also in those of parent-child relations, and other forms of kinship and friendship". What he is proposing here is again his model of "confluent love" (188). I believe Gibbens is saying that he doesn't believe parents should encourage their children to be sexually active but he believes parents should have democratic relationships with their children.

"The model of confluent love suggests an ethical framework for the fostering of non-destructive emotion in the conduct of individual and communal life" (202).

Against Love: a polemic (Ch. 1&2)

"Please fasten your seatbelts: we are about to encounter contradictions. The subject is love, and things may get bumpy" (3). Indeed, the first two chapters have been nothing else but pages after pages of a polemist arguing against something that as a society, we have learned to not question. Laura Kipnis questions our quest for lasting love and looks at the meanings and cultural significance of fidelity and betrayal.

One review from the back of her book states, "[this book] raises a thousand questions most of us lack the courage to ask". We're afraid to ask because we're afraid we might find answers that might oppose our essential need to love and be loved. In the prologue, Kipnis argues that adultery is an "experiment" to keep us feeling "alive". She gives the analogy of "adultery is to love-by-the-rules what the test tube is to science: a container for experiments" (9). Agree or disagree? I think that there is adultery because marriage life has been portrayed by the media as something so negative--that after a couple years of marriage, there will be less sex, less attraction, more arguments, etc. The media already gives couples a sense of what to expect from marriage without having even been married. So I wonder, how much does the media and the society play into our expectations of marriage? When we do find ourselves having less sex, feeling less attractive, and arguing more, are these our signs of a fail marriage or have we been socially constructed to feel that way when we encounter these signs? And with over 50,000 couple therapists in this nation, how can we not expect to think marriage is set for failure?

Kipnis goes on to her first chapter of "Love's Labor" and argues that we cannot separate how we love from how we work (22). It's important to keep in mind that our approach to "achieve what is most essentially human" is " a recent cultural dictate" (25). In this chapter, Kipnis helps me to see this whole notion of "working on your relationship" in a new light. Just like how we're dissatisfied with our work and want to look for something else, we're also expecting the same from our relationship when we ask, "isn't there supposed to be more?" (42). And her solution so far is adultery. I don't believe adultery is the way to go once a relationship becomes monotonous, but I'm not sure how else to go about it. This makes me question, is it apart of human nature to always want more, or is it our society that promises us we can have more....and it'll be better? I think what Kipnis really wants us to get out of this chapter is that our notion of love is shaped by our society and adultery is an outlet to what we have been restricted to.

In chapter 2, Kipnis goes on to discuss about "Domestic Gulags". Here Kipnis disagrees with our modern idea of "mature love" in which she describes "maturity" as "a depressing badge of early senescence and impending decrepitude". Instead of viewing "maturity" this way, we tend to think of it as "a sterling achievement, a sign of your worth as a person and your qualifications to love and be loved". By trying to live up to this "mature love", any sort of change means personal failure and therefore we are constrain to continuously strive for this "enviable state" (58). Here, she also goes into details about "Couple Linguistics 101", listing all the things you cannot do in a relationship (84-92). These eight pages of cannots made me feel overwhelmed by what we restrict and demand from our relationships. Maybe it's because I find myself saying a lot of these to my boyfriend but my gosh, reading them here makes me question why I'm so demanding! And by demanding so much, is it a sign of a failure or is failure our only expectation?

Kipnis brings two good points on page 94:
"why has modern love developed in such a way as to maximize submission and minimize freedom, with so little argument about it?"

"Isn't it a little depressing to think we're somehow incapable of inventing forms of emotional life based on anything other than subjugation?"

Overall, Kipnis has really helped me to ask those questions that I've been afraid to ask. I'm excited to here what others think of her.

Masculinities Chapters 1-3

[I have the 1995 version so the page numbers might be different from yours.]

Chapter 1 "The Science of Masculinity": From a sociological perspective, Connell discusses in details about how early works of psychology has contributed to shaping the West's ideas of masculinity (and femininity) . He starts out by stating how scientific claims has a "definite hegemony in our education system and media"(6). Therefore, whenever speaking of sex differences, we tend to use biological findings to validate our answers without thinking of masculinity and femininity as being "culturally constructed" (5). He gives an example from a local newspaper in Sydney about why women are more likely than men to ask for directions. The psychologist quoted in the article stated "simply because the sexes think differently...for this reason that men tended not to ask a stranger for directions, because it was admitting that they were in some way inferior" (4).

Here Connell acknowledges how scientific findings can help to clarify types of knowledge about gender questions but at the same time, he questions how "scientificity was enough to establish a right to criticize common-sense knowledge [but] common sense did not criticize science" (6). He goes on to say that natural science in the West has a "gendered character", therefore "what can be expected from a science of masculinity, being a form of knowledge created by the very power it claims to study?" (7). I think Connell makes very valid points here in the first couple of pages about how willingly we accept scientific findings without questions. I do see the importance of scientific findings, but I wonder, how can we bring in the more theoretical perspectives into the education system and the media so that there will be perspectives presented rather than only that of science?

Connell continues on to discuss about psychoanalysts (Freud, Jung, Alfred Adler) who have contributed to the discourse of masculinity and what I found very interesting, this idea of "sex-role". It wasn't until the mid-century that the term "sex-role" came about through sex difference research. Expectations are set to one sex, either masculinity or femininity (man or woman). "Masculinity and femininity are quite easily interpreted as internalized sex roles, the products of social learning" (22). But sex role is not connected to the idea of sex differences but these two terms have been used interchangeably since the forties. Connell is saying here that sex role has been created to put both men and women in their places--"linked to the structure defined by biological difference, the dichotomy of male and female--not to a structure defined by social relations" (26).

Two good questions that Connell brought up in this chapter are: "is it actually masculinity that is a problem in gender politics? or is it rather the institutional arrangements that produce inequality, and thus generate the tensions that have brought 'masculinity' under scrutiny?" (42).
Chapter 2 "Men's Bodies": There's this belief that men cannot change due to their "true masculinities". In this chapter, Connell refutes three conceptions of the body: (1) biological, (2) social, and (3) the combination of these two. He proposes that "we can arrive at a better understanding of the relation between men's bodies and masculinity" (46).

Here, Connell explains how we have come to accept "natural masculinity" as an inheritance from the "masculine" genes. Connell explores sociobiology as "almost entirely fictional" because of its broad assumptions in the character traits and behaviors of women and men (47). He states that the power of this masculine perspective "lies in the metaphor of the body as machine" (48). For example words such as: functions, operates, hardwired, programmed, have been used to described how the "mechanic" body functions.

Connell suggests that as a way of rethinking, we can start by acknowledging that "the body is inescapable" in that "in our culture at least, the physical sense of maleness and femaleness is central to the cultural interpretation of gender" (52) (maybe I'm wrong but isn't this the combination of biology and socialization that he's against? So then what is he new vision?). There's the muscular gender in which we get to feel and then there's the bodily experience in which helps us to understand who we are. In the rest of the chapter, Connell gives examples of "life-history" studies to support his argument.

Chapter 3 "The Social Organization of the Masculinity": Connell starts out by defining what masculinity means. Before he names the four strategies the type that is masculine, he provides two good points of masculinity. First of all, masculinity does not exist except in contrast with femininity. Therefore, different culture have different ideas of what it means to be masculine or feminine (68). Secondly, he states that our concept of masculinity is a recent construct so when we speak of masculinity, we must be mindful that we are "doing gender in a culturally specific way" (68).

Now to his four main strategies:
(1). Essentialist- this definition usually picks a feature that defines the core of the masculine. The weakness of this is that it's arbitrary. Different scholars have claimed different universal basis of masculinity.
(2). Positivist- this approach emphasizes finding the facts and what men actually are. The problems are that there is no standpoint in this, requires categories of "men" and "women", and rules out the "masculine" woman and the "feminine" man.
(3). Normative- "masculinity is what men ought to be". This approach gives no grip on masculinity at the level of personality.
(4). Semiotic- abandon personality and define as "non-femininity". This makes it limiting in talking about gender.

Connell goes on to talk about how gender is a way in which social practice is ordered through a three-fold model of the structure of gender (1) power, (2) production and (3) cathexis (74). Connell acknowledges that in order to understand gender, "we must constantly go beyond gender (class, race)" (76).

Connell continues to talk about how gender, race and class is crucial to recognizing multiple masculinities through hegemony, subordination, complicity, and marginalization. At the end of this chapter, what Connell writes reminds me of what Vincent said "men no more than women are chained to the gender patterns they have inherited" (86).

So far I've enjoyed reading Connell and I'm excited to hear what others think of him.

Butler: Gender Trouble Part 3

1. The Body Politics of Julia Kristeva

Butler focuses this section on deconstructing Julia Kristeva’s theory of the “semiotic dimension of language” which is based off of Lacan’s “Symbolic” theory. The two main terms that Butler uses in this section is “symbolic” and “semiotic”.

“Symbolic” (according to Lacan) is “the paternal law structures all linguistic signification” which has become a “universal organizing principle of culture itself”. Butler further explains: “this (paternal) law creates the possibility of meaningful language and, hence, meaningful experience, through the repression of primary libidinal drives, including the radical dependency of the child on the maternal body” (107).

Kristeva’s purpose is not to refute Lacan’s primary premise but “serves as a perpetual source of subversion within the Symbolic” (108). She suggests using poetic language for her “semiotic” argument. “Poetic language is the recovery of the maternal body within the terms of language, one that has the potential to disrupt, subvert, and displace the paternal law”. Maybe I completely missed this, but what exactly does she mean by ‘poetic language’? I still don’t have a good grasp of this.

I think Butler makes a really good point when she states “Her (Kristeva) theory appears to depend upon the stability and reproduction of precisely the paternal law that she seeks to displace”. Also because Kristeva doesn’t admit that the semiotic is always subordinate to the Symbolic. But Kristeva’s strategic task is “neither to replace the Symbolic possibility, but rather to validate those experiences within the Symbolic that permit a manifestation of the borders which divide the Symbolic from the semiotic” (115).

Butler continues to discuss Kristeva’s second point which is the maternal body. She states that for Kristeva, “poetry and maternity represent privileged practices within paternally sanctioned culture which permit a nonpyschotic experience of that heterogeneity and dependency characteristic of the maternal terrain” (116). But Butler criticizes Kristeva for not challenging the structuralist assumption that the paternal law is foundation to culture itself and that change must com from within (117).

Butler than goes on to talk about Kristeva’s point on homosexuality and how “both maternity and poetry constitute melancholic experiences for women appropriately acculturated into heterosexuality” (117). I’m not quite sure where Butler and Kristeva were going with the argument of lesbianism

2. Foucault, Herculine, and the Politics of Sexual Discontinuity

In this section Butler discusses Foucault’s theory of sexuality offered in his book “The History of Sexuality, Volume 1” and how his theory contradicts with what he wrote about Herculine Barbin, a nineteenth-century French hermaphrodite who was born a girl but showed male sex characteristics and physical features. Butler states “Foucault understands sexuality as saturated with power and offers a critical view of theories that lay claim to a sexuality before or after the law” (127).

"The 'Fair Deal'? Unpacking Accounts of Reciprocity in Heterosex"

This is an article about a study conducted by Virginia Braun, Nicola Gavey, and Kathryn McPhillips on the discourse of reciprocity in heterosexual sex relationships. This study was done in New Zealand with 15 women and 15 men and with an age range from 18-50 years. They were recruited to share their experiences and thoughts about heterosexual sex. The next paragraph states their purpose for this research:

"Reciprocity is a basic premise of egalitarian relationships, and is typically depicted as a 'good thing' within heterosexual sex and relationships...[but] we argue that notions of reciprocity are not necessarily as liberatory as they might seem, as they do not occur in a social or sexual vacuum. In conjunction with other dominant sexual meanings, a discourse of reciprocity produces entitlements and obligations that can render 'choice' in heterosex problematic, particularly for women" (237).

Braun et al. starts out by stating that sex is something that has been socially constructed (237). An example of this is how Wendy Hollway’s discourses of heterosexual sex relationships remain influential in constructing ideas about, and practices of, heterosex in the West. The first being a male sexual drive discourse, meaning men need orgasm. The second being a have/hold discourse where it is more of a traditional romance ideal. And the third being a permissive discourse meaning anything goes as long as no one gets hurt (238). Braun et al. also acknowledge that heterosexual practice is not only influenced by discourses of (hetero) sexuality but also by other cultural values and discourses.

Typically, as argued by Gilfoyle et al., there is an unequal ‘givings’ based on gender. For example, women tend to give more than men. Women are seen as objects that are both ‘given away’ and ‘given to’ as opposed to men who are positioned as agents by giving and taking pleasure (240).

As for discourses, there have been many starting from the 1920s and 1930s where it was allowed to promote sexual reciprocity. This desire for reciprocity in sexual relationship is also evident in (radical) feminist critiques of heterosex (239). In this discourse, heterosexual relationships are identified as the oppression of women in which “‘heterosexual desire is eroticized power difference’” (240). By looking at these cultural values and discourses, we can begin to understand how reciprocity plays out in heterosexual sex relationships.

The most interesting part about this article is when Braun et al. discuss about “patterns of sex to orgasm” and their findings. They state that “heterosexual activity have typically reported sex to be highly patterned” (242). It’s the sequence of events such as: kissing, tongue kissing, manual and oral caressing of the body, particularly the female breasts, manual and oral contacts with both the female and male genitalia, followed by intercourse in a number of positions. It’s usually the female who orgasm first followed by the male orgasm. Her orgasms are generally represented by what he did or gave her as opposed to his orgasm as something “we” did or where his orgasm took place. This means that “the man is represented as more active in the production of orgasm—both hers and his own—than is the woman” (243). Braun et al. concludes that this is a subtle account of the traditional expectations of women in heterosex.

It was also interesting to read how some of the men and women felt from their interviews. One man in particular expressed that if he got an orgasm and his partner didn’t, than he felt he was “using” her (245). But if his partner receives some orgasms then he deserved one too. I really like it when Braun et al. acknowledge that “female orgasm can be important for men not simply for reciprocity and the importance of the woman’s pleasure, but also as an indicator of performance and his skills as a lover” (248).

As Braun et al. continues on to talk about how although a woman’s entitle to have an orgasm, her orgasm can be seen as an obligation to establish sexual normality to reinforce her partner’s “sexpertise” (252). I think this article brings to light a lot of the important issues that couples struggle with when striving for an egalitarian relationship. Sometimes, it doesn’t occur to us how reciprocity really works until a study like this is done.

“What is different about our manifestation of reciprocity is that it reduces it to a purely sexual, even orgasmic, level” (254).

finally..."a vision of new porn"

I'm not a big fan of porn because the few that I've seen left me angry, disgusted, and sick. Angry because the woman always look like she's in so much pain. Disgusted by seeing the same angle for twenty minutes. And sick of constantly seeing the man spray his cum into her mouth, forcing her to swallow. But after reading this article, I'm thrilled to see how pornography can be portrayed in such a way that is not only sexually arousing to its viewers but also look sexually satisfying to its performers.

In the article "A Vision of New Porn", Professor Anne G. Sabo shows how feminist porn directors--Candida Royalle, Anna Span, and Erika Lust-- strive to move away from patriarchal porn to producing this overdue vision of egalitarian porn. The structure of this article is lay out on how porn is re-visioned by women in the United States and in Europe.

In the United States, Candida Royalle is a a renowned producer of porn from "a woman's point of view" (224). She was part of the feminist movement but later became a porn actress. This is when she became ambivalent about the porn industry and believed that better porn could be made for both women and men so she co-founded the Femme Productions in 1984. "Royalle's films stand out in terms of quality filmmaking, use of realism, and depth of plot and character development" (225). Her films speak to most Americans who are not encouraged by society to pursue their sexual desires. "Royalle's way of dealing with the hegemonic heterosexual erotic discourse, with its "symbolic subordination of women" was to engage it reflectively and ironically, a critical appropriation" (226).

Professor Sabo brings in a viewpoint I've never really thought about. Most Americans (myself included), get turn off by a lot of the 'hardcore' porn because we find them degrading to women, but other people in other parts of the world who are more comfortable with their sexuality don't seem to have any problems viewing this type of porn. Anna Span who is a British producer of porn states, "'to sexually objectify, that is to fleetingly view a person's sexual attractiveness separately from their personality/person, is a natural human experience, NOT just a male one, as traditionally depicted'" (230). Professor Sabo goes on to state that Span's porn speaks to countries such as Scandinavia and Norway who have had "the benefits of a much more thorough human sexuality education and the accomplishments of the women's movement ..." to encourage these European women to take "ownership over their sexuality" (230). It has never occurred to me to make the connection with our abstinence-only education and our perceptions of porn.

I really like the way Professor Sabo tied up all the different themes we have been discussing so far from Levy to the CAKE book. I'm excited to see this new vision.