Since we’ve spoken today about how important media accountability is, I thought I’d post something positive and frankly, quite beautiful, that came from the very mainstream media this week.
I had an inspiring conversation this week with someone about how part of unpacking and recognizing (white, heterosexual) privilege is using that privilege constructively to effect positive change. I think this is a wonderful example of that, and I have to give MSNBC credit.
Also, I got a bit teary.
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
20 comments
This was absolutely amazing.
I'm speechless.
Posted by Brianne
November 12, 2008, 7:29 AM
Wow, that was a great end to my night!
Posted by piKe
November 12, 2008, 9:11 AM
ok so i know we can expect only so much of the mainstream media, and strategically, i agree that it makes a lot of sense to shame hateful people for their hypocrisy/bigotry and failure to live up to their own "traditional/family values/commitments", but i feel like there's a lot to critique here as well.
certainly, we can contrast the legitimacy lavished on bristol palin's shotgun nuptials (the kind of weak-but-straight-thus-legitimized marriage keith seems to be referring to here) with the denial of basic rights to people who actually *want* to commit to each other who "just happen to be of the same sex." but his heavy leaning on a "love" message (which i grant can be effective, tugging on the heartstrings of america and such), and subsequent way-too-easy equation of "love" with "marriage" ultimately undermines a broader feminist, queer-positive, counter-hegemonic politics whereby love and alternative bonds of kinship outside of marriage are also recognized as legitimate. it's awesome and beautiful when people want to commit to each other for life with a ceremony and all the trimmings (and who knows, i may go a little crazy and do it myself one day), but the message that's ultimately reinforced here is actually very heteronormative: marriage is the highest, most revered, and only legitimate context in which we can recognize the love between two people and reward that with access to special rights and privileges. so, come on, let's give it to "gay" people too. (his relentless use of "gay" instead of "same-sex" irked me as well. i almost thought he was gonna start saying "homosexual".)
i don't know, i just think that as feminists we gotta have our critique-y hats on all the time, even when we're recognizing and applauding a moment when a mainstream journalist gives bigots and queerophobes a sound and well-deserved thrashing.
oh and ps/ i didn't get the way he prefaced with his whole "i don't even have any gay friends" shpeil... like, isn't rachel maddow just across the hall?
Posted by Sarah G
November 12, 2008, 3:20 PM
I agree Sarah --
I think the homophobia surrounding same sex marriage is ridiculous and disgraceful. I think that a vote like Prop 8 that denies/takes away civil liberties is disgusting. And I dig what Keith Olbermann is doing here by yoking discourses of "love" to marriage, it's not necessarily "corny," but it is rhetorical strategy. (this, by the way, does not mean that I don't think we need to recognize the love and commitment of married/marrying couples, gay, straight, or whatever—it exists, and it is beautiful and deserves recognition and legitimacy and the very material/real benefits that come with it)
However I find it unfortunate that he explicitly contrasts the relationships of "gay couples" who wish to marry, to those of "impermanence," that are "fly-by-night." In doing so, we see the problematic privileging of long-term, monogamous, romantic relationships, a particular domestic structure (concepts laden with historical baggage and sociopolitical implications), as well as a contribution to the discursive classing of some queers as "good gays" who are "normal" and then those naughty promiscuous queer sluts over there (alongside single mothers, etc.).
I think it's fantastic strategy for the task at hand, and I hope it works to reject Prop 8, but I think as feminist thinkers in the blogging community, we need to take it with a grain of salt and ask questions of it. Yes, the issue is a question of love, but also a question of so much more.
Posted by Sheetal
November 12, 2008, 3:37 PM
ok, that what really brilliant Sarah and Sheetal
jumping onto the Racahel Maddow point, does anyone actually know for sure if she is gay? its just that a lot of people I know assume she is a lesbian without any real information.
Posted by Jenna
November 12, 2008, 4:01 PM
she has a lady partner, and is 'out'
Posted by Sheetal
November 12, 2008, 4:05 PM
http://www.rachelmaddow.com/
Posted by Sarah G
November 12, 2008, 5:07 PM
ps/ i know what you're thinking, and yes, i am mildly obsessed w/ her...
Posted by Sarah G
November 12, 2008, 5:15 PM
sarah and sheetal i couldn't have said it better myself
I hate that Prop 8 passed cuz i believe its passage was motivated by homophobia and a hatred for anything non-hetero. BUt at the same time i think we should all be putting our energies towards critiquing marriage as an institution, and y it should NOT be used as a 'way' to organize society, or hand out rights.
Lets start prop 9 which moves to eliminate "marriage" as a legal entity!! Instead of "MARRIAGE FOR EVERYONE" how about "MARRIAGE FOR NO ONE"
Prop 8 also feels like a bunch of people trying to get into this 'club' that really isn't that 'cool' anymore!!
bottom line: i didnt love the MSNBC clip
Posted by Lara S
November 12, 2008, 10:50 PM
Hahah, Sarah G, I totally understand, if this were high school, I would have Rachel Maddow stickers on my notebooks, a Rachel Maddow t-shirt, Rachel Maddow magazine spreads taped to the inside of my locker, and I would possibly be publishing a Rachel Maddow fanzine.
I have a problem that I hope someone will answer for me. Although I theoretically agree with the arguments put forth by Sheetal and Sarah and Lara, I don't know how they would ever work in reality. In an ideal world, I would love it if alternative bonds of kinship outside of marriage were also recognized as legitimate, however when working with the world we do have, maybe we have to pick our battles? Like, what would be the easier legislation to enact, same-sex marriage (which has been already been chugging along happily in Canada and several other countries), or laws that would completely upset the existing societal framework and also piss a huge number of people off ("BUT WHAT DO YOU MEAN MY MARRIAGE ISN'T THE BE ALL, END ALL OF RELATIONSHIPS? YOU MEAN THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T REVOLVE AROUND HETERONORMATIVITY?")? Is that a fight anyone could win in this (or even the next) generation? I just don't believe voters, or courts (especially when the judges are elected officials) are ever going to go for that. Whenever anyone suggests that marriage isn't the way to go, they never really present a compelling plan as to how they would go about getting these alternative partnerships fully recognized instead. Thoughts?
Posted by Michelle
November 13, 2008, 12:06 AM
haha I would have a Maddow lunchbox... (that's a lie, I would stick to my Jem lunchbox)
I envision something that isn't "either/or," rather "both/and" ...
I totally agree that right now same sex marriage is an important issue to organize around, especially because it will affect the lives of so many couples/families that need the legal protection and real benefits that it will allow, and because it is something that there seems to have been a paradigmatic shift on. But we can't stop there because anything beyond will be hard, or unpopular.
I even remember Hillary "it takes a village" Clinton in an interview on the Tyra Banks show (yes ma'am I watch it!) while she was running for democratic leadership mentioning how she felt family structures like two sisters living together or an adult living with and taking care of her/his aging parents also deserved benefits, protections, etc. So I don't think it's as "alternative" a societal framework as we are led to believe-- I mean, I think the dominant family structure is so grounded in Western, capitalist, heteropatriarchal ideologies/ideals that many people don't see their lives reflected in, or see themselves organizing their lives around.
I think it's about being strategic : taking the victories, but imagining something more (and what I see as a very probable "more") -- and then working towards that. We can't be limited to the "possible" set out for us by the dominant, the normal, the majority...
Posted by Sheetal
November 13, 2008, 11:33 AM
michelle, if i were in highschool i would BUY your fanzine... actually, sadly, i'd buy your fanzine now.
same-sex marriage is definitely an important goal and civil rights struggle. the fact that some people have access to certain privileges and legal protections and some people don't, just b/c of their sexual identity/orientation, is a disgusting a human rights travesty that's worth fighting. but it's just part of a bigger fight, i think... and i think sheetal just put really well what that bigger fight is.
marriage is hardly this timeless, consistent thing throughout history the way conservative a-holes would have people believe. changes in the institution take place from within (like back in the day, when women got the right to divorce, or when interracial couples got the right to marry) but also from w/o, as more and more people just reject marriage in favour of other expressions of their love/commitment. so, by all means, let's keep the changes coming, from all directions!
in terms of the olberman clip, i'm just saying that we need to think about the normativization process that's going on here as well. the essence of olberman's speech was "look, they're not that scary! they're normal, just like us" ("us" being a particular Western, middle-class, hetero idealized, almost figurative, minority). ie. "they" have minivans and mortgages and sweater-sets, so let's let them into our normal-club. he is well-intentioned (and radical for his context), but as feminists, toeing this kind of line does little to undermine larger hegemonic structures (to which marriage is attached and by which it is privileged) that have been responsible for so much suffering and oppression in the first place (and continue to do so).
ps/ so funny, sheetal, i was toootally thinking of that hillary comment on tyra, too! tyra is the source of all good things... as well as all things that are so bad they're amazing...
Posted by Sarah G
November 13, 2008, 12:37 PM
Sheetal, Sarah, thank you for your answers! Yes, I can totally agree with everything you (and Tyra?) have said. It's strange. Tyra Banks, Investigative Model, has way more influence on my life than I would like to admit.
One thing I've found frustrating, and I admit that this is a complete generalization based on mainstream media portrayals of same-sex marriage, is that more queers don't take their right to marry and then turn it into something apart from the normal-club, making the institution as queer as they are. There's nothing that says queers have to follow the dominant framework of minivans and upper-middle class living, and yet so many of us seem to fall right into that trap. It frustrates me that there havn't been more attempts to make queer marriage radical instead of just more of the same. But like I said, maybe all this stuff is going on, and I just haven't read about it. Of the three queer married couples I know, myself being one, none of us really fall into the imitation-of-heteronormativity category, but rather did what we did for our own reasons, and for the rights that we needed to ensure the continuation of their relationship. But yeah, I would love it if queer marriage became really, really queer.
Posted by Michelle
November 13, 2008, 2:13 PM
oooo sister, i hear ya!!!
p.s. non sequitor : I AM GOING TO SEE TINA TURNER TONIGHT !!!!!!!!
Posted by Sheetal
November 13, 2008, 2:39 PM
Ack! I am seething with jealousy! I hope for more non sequitor comments in which you let us know exactly how awesome a time you had at the show.
Posted by Michelle
November 13, 2008, 2:46 PM
jealoussss... she's a goddess: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFQlZh...
i'm sure i'll be hearing sheetal's squeals of delight over here in montreal...
and michelle, right on! *virtual solidarity fist-pump*
Posted by Sarah G
November 13, 2008, 3:27 PM
this goes out to PATRIARCHY :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6yxb1...
"cuz i don't have no use for what you loosely call the 'truth', you better be good to me!!!!"
Posted by Sheetal
November 13, 2008, 3:39 PM
addendum : lyrics to "better be good to me" --- it really does go out to the patriarchy!
A prisoner of your love
Entangled in your web
Hot whispers in the night
I'm captured by your spell
Oh yes I'm touched by this show of emotion
Should I be fractured by your lack of devotion
Should I, should I?
You better be good to me
That's how it's gotta be now
Cause I don't have no use
For what you losely call the truth
You better be good to me
I think it's also right
That we don't need to fight
We stand face to face
And you present your case
And I know you keep telling me that you love me
And I really do wanna believe
But did you think I'd just accept you in blind faith
Oh sure babe, anything to please you
You better be good to me
That's how it's gotta be now
Cause I don't have the time
For your over loaded lines
You better be good to me
And I really don't see why it's so hard to be good to me
And I don't understand what's your plan that you can't be good to me
What I can't feel I surely cannot see, why can't you be good to me
And if it's not real I do not wish to see, why can't you be good to me
Posted by Sheetal
November 13, 2008, 3:42 PM
I always thought, in this bizarre libertarian way, that the easiest way to deal with the whole marriage conundrum would be to take it out of the domain of state or national governance, any governance whatsoever.
I mean isn't marriage rooted in religious law, isn't it weird that in a country (or countries) based on the (okay kind of not really) separation of church and state marriage is the one contract you can sign that leaps that fence like it's on gel sneakers and poppers.
So why Doesn't the government invent a nicely done up contract for people who want to share their belongings, custody of their offspring, health benefits, and family members for a great deal of time, say more then 1 year.
Then let communities define who they will marry and who not, and how that marriage looks, and for crying out loud, even what that marriage signifies.
Question: Why does the state have to be in the marriage business?
Answer: It does not, only in the granting of civil union status.
I have no desire to take a fundamentalists right to believe that a married man and woman trying to make a baby are the only people on G-d's earth with the right to enjoy each other as partners and lovers.
Though it does sound pretty boring to me :)
They should have no interest in removing my right to believe, fornicate and love as I choose, so long as their rights to believe are equally protected.
The one big gray area in this rosy picture is immigration which leads me to suspect that the state wants to stay in the marriage business because it is also in the nationhood business, which complicates thing so enormously, I am just going to stop the comment right here.
Unrelated: I was a volunteer at a fundraiser where they were auctioning of a pair of TT tickets. I spent the whole night singing "Private Dancer" under my breathe and dancing, just a little.
Posted by mir
November 13, 2008, 7 PM
MIR -- i totally hear your comment, esp. re: the whole nation-state relationship to the marriage contract...
it's weird, cuz when you start to look at things like OSAP for example... you can't help but question why it is that legally married couples suddenly qualify for so much more dollas.... (my "boston marriage" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_m...) partner and i (i.e. my roommate... not "roommate" though we were often asked), with whom i lived all through undergrad, used to wonder about this...
also : TINA WAS FABULOUS/INSPIRATIONAL last night, and said, as she had us sing along to "what's love got to do with it", and i quote : "there's nothing no better than female support"!!!
Posted by Sheetal
November 14, 2008, 10:48 AM
Leave a comment
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.