The Revolutionary Nature of Same-Sex Marriage

Same-sex marriage has become legal everywhere in the United States. I have actively supported the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples for over two decades, and supported LGBT rights in general for forty-five years. One of the reasons that I support marriage rights for same-sex couples is because as a sociologist I know that same-sex marriage has the potential to radically change the nature of marriage and families. 

I was recently reviewing the original lectures that I wrote fifteen years ago for Kentucky's first fully on-line introductory sociology course.  This was at least four years prior to the first state (Massachusetts) legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States. In that 15 year old lecture I stated the following: 

"Family is the most important agent of socialization in our childhood, and it is the place where we first learn gender. It is also the one social group in our lives in which all the roles held by individuals are "gendered." One is a husband or a wife (not a generic marital partner), a mother or a father (not a generic parent), a son or a daughter (not a generic child). "  [emphasis added]

Same sex-marriage has the potential to create generic marital partners and generic parents, and thus potentially substantially diminish stereotypic gender role socialization in children. This transformation is not automatic, nor will it happen quickly.   Some same sex couples, especially those involving transsexual individuals, often incorporate rigid gender-role stereotypes into their relationship with one person playing a stereotypical husband and another a stereotypical wife role. Moreover, research continues to demonstrate that parents still unconsciously treat male and female infants and small children substantially differently. These unconscious behaviors convey gender stereotypes to the next generation in ways that  highly resistant to change because they are unrecognized by those who engage in them.

A Modest Proposal for Arizona

Arizona House Bill 2625 will allow employers to reject insurance coverage for contraceptives for their employees if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse SB 2625 which would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections. Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

“I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,” Lesko said. “So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”

I propose an amendment for Arizona’s SB 2625. I am not aware of any Christian religion that officially states that men can have sex outside of marriage and/or for non-reproductive purposes while women may not. [There are many religions that not only allow but encourage non-reproductive (marital) sex by both men and women]. In practice there may indeed be such a double standard – but that standard is not found in actual official Christian religious doctrines. Indeed, the Old Testament reference usually used to justify the anti-birth control position refers only to men and their “seed,” and not to women at all.

Therefore to more truly meet religious objections to non-reproductive sex both outside and inside marriage, I propose the following: Any employer who wishes to deny medical coverage to any woman engaging in non-reproductive sex on religious grounds, must also deny medical coverage to any man engaging in non-reproductive sex.

In order to qualify for health insurance coverage of Viagra or other anti-impotency drugs, a man must 1) be married, 2) to a woman who is medically certified to still able to bear children (has not passed menopause, not had a tubal ligation, a hysterectomy, and does not have any medical conditions that cause infertility), and 3) who does not use contraception; additionally, 4) the man must have medical certification that he does in fact suffer from impotence due to physical causes that are treatable by anti-impotency drugs such as Viagra.

No employer is required to deny men health insurance coverage for anti-impotence drugs, UNLESS they deny women health insurance coverage for birth control on religious grounds.

Time Travel with Tonka Trucks

I've always thought that the folks at Tonka had a good product development department -- they produce toys that are sturdy, long lasting, and fun. But it would appear that they have also got some theoretical physicists who have developed time travel as well. Last night I saw a television commercial for Tonka's “wheel drivers scoot and scoop” that made me believe I was back in 1960. This little commercial informed me that "boys are built different" and that Tonka toys are built for boys. My husband (the humorist) immediately remarked that must mean that the toys had "wee-wee holes" in them so that boys delicate equipment wouldn't get smashed or squashed during play.

After doing a bit of Googling this morning, I discover that my outrage is a bit behind the times. This particular commercial first aired in October 2007 during the big toy push prior to Christmas. Many other people have blogged on this advertisement. An article in Salon by Catherine Price does a very nice job of talking about the advertisement and the issues.

If I go by my own students and their comments about child raising, there are many parents today to whom this type of advertising definitely appeals. Parents who have substantial anxieties about gender and sexuality, and are conservative in their construction of those roles. However, there is also evidence out there in the blogosphere of many parents who find these rigid gender roles, and gendered toy advertising offensive and disturbing. A great blog post on this advertisement, with responses from 22 parents can be found on Table For Five.

As a sociologist, the question that I find most intriguing (and for which I do not as yet have an answer) is: Are advertisers (and toy makers) simply responding to the gender preferences of parents, or are they actively attempting to shape those preferences? There is certainly research evidence to support the contention that advertising has been used in the past (specifically research on advertising campaigns in the decade after World War II) to attempt to shape gender roles, in a way that would encourage women back out of the work place and into the home.

P.S. If you haven't see the ad, go to http://www.hasbro.com/tonka/ Under the product pictures – click the “watch video link” while the “wheel drivers scoot and scoop” image is showing.