marriage/family

Marriage–as a social and legal institution–has not always been what it is today.

In early American history, when families largely lived on farms and worked for sustenance, people didn’t marry because they loved each other.  And they certainly didn’t split up because they did not.  Marriage choices were highly influenced by their families and, once married, husbands and wives formed a working partnership aimed at production.  They teamed up to support themselves and make children who would take care of them when they were old and help them in the meantime.

Today, we still (generally) think of marriage as comprised of a man, a woman, and kids, but mutual love and happiness are now central goals of marriage.  This idea only emerged in the 1900s.  It hasn’t actually been around all that long.

I bring this up in order to shed some light on the pro- and anti- gay marriage rhetoric.

On the one hand, those against gay marriage need to define “marriage” in a way that excludes same-sex couples.  One way to do this is to refer to a “traditional” marriage (image found here).

But there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage, just a long history of evolving forms of marriage.  For example, few anti-gay marriage types would actually be in favor of returning marriage to one in which women were property that can’t contract, vote, testify in court, own anything, and have no rights to their own bodies or custody of their children (though the idea that women are property is still out there today).  Because there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage (that is, no reason to privilege one historical form over another), when someone speaks of “traditional” marriage, they actually just mean “the kind of marriage that I like that I am pretending existed throughout all time before this current threat right now.”

On the other hand, to make an argument in favor of gay marriage rights, the movement must either (1) change the collective agreement as to what marriage is (the social construction of marriage) or (2) convince the collective that gay marriage already is what we believe marriage to be.

This ad in favor of gay marriage does the latter. Mobilizing the social construction of marriage as about love, the commercial then defines same-sex relationships as about love. If you accept both premises, then, presto, you are pro-gay marriage.  That is exactly what this commercial is trying to do:

NEW!  This Swedish commercial for Bjorn Borg’s dating website, sent in by Ed L., similarly mobilizes the idea that marriage is for love and that gay men’s marriages are, therefore, beautiful:

A New York Times article about politicans and parenting offered this figure illustrating what percentage of Democratic and Republican voters say they would be likely to vote for a woman with and without children and a man with and without children.

Historians argue that what constitutes a good childhood and, relatedly, good parenting has changed dramatically over time.  Today, keeping children busy with lessons (in this, that, and the other) seems to be one version of ideal parenthood/childhood.  I thought this ad nicely illustrated this new ideal:

Found at MultiCult Classics.

See also this post on constructions of modern parenthood.

Both men and women should be troubled by representations like this.  It is insulting to men, of course. But representations of men as childlike also contributes to the idea that men cannot be held responsible or accountable for bad behavior.  As I have explained elsewhere on this blog:

So long as we buy into the idea that we can’t expect men to be good partners or fathers, we will tolerate women’s responsibility for the second shift and their placement on the mommy track at work.

This extends, too, to not coercing women sexually, not cheating, and being partners and lovers who give as much as they receive.

This portrayal of men as children, idiots, animals  (see here and here), and monkeys perpetuates patriarchy, even as this perpetuation is disguised by the denigration of men.

I found this 1971 ad for Kenmore stoves over at Found in Mom’s Basement:

The woman says,

If you ever broke 14 nails cleaning an oven, you’d know why I want this new self-cleaning one. They say the Kenmore self-cleaning oven even gets the corners clean. You just set the dials. It locks itself and everything. And you know what a horrible job it is cleaning under the burners? No, I guess you don’t. Anyway, with this stove you just flip up the top and give it a wipe. The automatic timer on the oven’s great too. It’ll cook dinner even if I’m out shopping or something.

Her husband says,

That stove’s really put together right. And another good thing, you can sure depend on Sears service. Honey, you’re about to own a new stove.

We still frequently see this message–instead of getting men to share housework more equally, women should buy appliances that make their workload easier…and of course would need their husbands to pay for them. And then you should use it to cook for him, because that’s who it’s built for anyway.

Also…14 nails? Like, she broke all 10, grew 4 more in real quick (or put on 4 fake ones), and then broke them too? Or was she somehow using her feet and some of them were toenails? Burk says that part of the ad makes women seem whiny and as though they exaggerate the difficulties of housework.

I must be a disgusting human being, because the only time I ever worry about cleaning my oven is when I move out of a place I’m renting and have to if I want my deposit back. I’ve never noticed it being particularly disgusting, but then I put a tray under everything to catch drips.

There is a lot going on here.  Comments after the image (found at MultiCultClassics):  

First, notice how this ad mobilizes a nostalgia for a simpler past (“We’re bakers”).  Goldfish crackers are likely baked not by bakers (how quaint), but in large automated factories.  Second, in line with this nostalgia, Pepperidge Farm, the company, is recast as a parents (“We’re bakers. But we’re parents, too”) instead of a corporation in a capitalistic society likely employing low-wage workers (who are not, by the way, busy caring about consumers kids).  Notice that, by re-casting the company as parents, they encourage you to think of the company’s motives not as profit, but nurturing.  Third, the Goldfish crackers themselves are anthropomorphized into a happy parent and child. Finally, happiness and family togetherness are commodified. Text:

That’s why we bake Goldfish crackers the way we do. Natural. With no artificual preservatives adn zero grams trans fat. Made with whole grains, real cheese, and plenty of smiles. For tips and tools to help keep your kids smiling, visit fishfulthinking.com. Because we believe kids should be happy and healthy.

Jessica at Scatterplot notes the difference between the BBC coverage and the U.S. coverage of a recent research report noting that the real gender gap is between men who believe men should be breadwinners and women homemakers and everyone else (men who believe women and men should share in both breadwinning and homemaking, women who believe the same, and women who believe that they should be homemakers and men breadwinners) (i.e., at msnbc).  Here are two screenshots of the coverage:

Did you catch the difference?

Next time you feel all warm and fuzzy about how far we’ve come since the bad ol’ days when men weren’t encouraged to take of of children like they do now (by the way, they largely do not), remember this ad (found here):

I don’t detect a hint of sarcasm here. Do you? Or am I oh-so-not-in-touch with 1940s comedic culture?  I could be wrong.  Am I wrong?