28. PhD Candidate in Creative Writing and Literature. Loves cyborgs and zombies, sewing, steampunk and cosplay. Horror movies. Wants to be R. L. Stine when she grows up.
"I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.
I feel sad for California but at least 63% of voters aged 18-29 voted against it. Hopefully soon the mainstream definition of family will be expanded. And maybe that's the problem. If we want to worry about "the children" maybe we should worry about teaching them how to imbalanced-ly value a chicken's life over a human being's.
I can't help but wonder if all these issues: gay marriage; the stay-at-home/stay-at-work debate; the tortures behind the decision to have children at all and trying to combine/reconcile those decisions with career paths and/or societal perception; inflexibility of the workplace--originate from a singular core issue: that the current definition of family is outdated.
Perhaps the core issue here is that the current medicalized definition of family is too limited to realistically deal with the wide array of issues individuals face on a daily basis.
For instance in insurance concerns, instead of simply allowing children to be covered by someone's health plan because they’re automatically dependents, why not expand the choice an individual has in regards to the people in their life they’d like to cover with their insurance benefits?
Similarly, how sad is it that there are numerous childless/CFBC scholars in institutions across the country—and from what I understand, most institutions offer tuition remission for faculty's (and sometimes even staff's) children—but if a person is childfree (by choice or not), why aren’t they allowed to sponsor a child in their life with the tuition remission? My husband and I may not have children of our own, but wouldn’t it be great if I could guarantee that my nieces or nephews would have free tuition if they wanted it? Or what about sponsoring kids in the neighboring communities of the local college?
I just think the current definition of family is way too narrow to ever truly be fair—except to the people who are making money off of the narrow definition. Think about it: the current definition is an inherently survivalist/selfish one. Every family should be out for themselves instead of creating communities that mutually benefit one another.
I mean, look at the bickering even this simple post created. (My comment is at the end of it, and it's almost the same as this particular post.) But the resentment that builds between people over the decision to have children (or not to have children) is shameful. That’s a product of an inherently narrow definition of family. If it was more inclusive, then I wonder if bitterness on both sides would start to fade away and communities could be created instead.
And I wonder if we expanded the definition of family, if civil rights would grow out of that new definition.
I love the idea of sponsoring a student in the neighborhood. Wow. I wish universities would give their profs that option.
But really... it's all about making money, which is why universities would rather take away tuition remission for professor's children before they allow people to sponsor people who might actually need the money.
I thought I already left this comment, but maybe I got distracted and never clicked "Say It!" before I closed the window. My apologies if two copies appear after a delay or moderation or something.
I would just like to tell you all that I am thankful to be alive at this moment, and that I am proud of my fellow human beings. Perhaps my Grinch's heart is growing three sizes this day, but I feel as though I have undergone a profound change. The air is already a little lighter. And even though it's 1:19 in the morning, the sky is a little bit brighter.
Happy President-Elect Obama Day!
[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="338" caption="Alex Ross Obama Comic-Con 2008 Shirt -- I bought it for B to wear on Election Day."][/caption]
I am getting ready to leave for Chicago for a conference where I'm talking about Chobits. I had to deal with my absentee ballot stuff and although I'm not in California and I'm not seeing the Prop 8 commercials, B has shown me a few and if there's something I'm so sick of voting on it's parental notification of underage abortion and gay marriage. I vote the same way every time (no on notification, yes on gay marriage).
Here's a clip that my favorite blog fourfour put up on his page:
If you think about it, based on the Bible's definition, my marriage to Brad is an abomination. We are not nation-building. We have sex for sex's sake. Not for procreation. (My marriage is an abomination... huh. That's kind of cool, now that I have thought about it.)
I have issues with marriage in general--is it weird for someone who is "happily married" to still not believe in the institution? Oh well, I'll take it: I'm weird. And probably a hypocrite. And at the risk of sounding even more like a hypocrite: even though I don't really believe in marriage, I'm really tired of the government trying to regulate our bodies and families.
Even though I'm really against people getting married for stupid reasons (i.e. Sarah Palin's pregnant, teenage daughter--I have don't have a problem that the teenager is keeping the baby, I have a problem that the issue is moot simply because she and her teenage boyfriend are going to get married! Wow! Problem solved!), or people getting married who shouldn't really be married (like my mom--she's wasn't emotionally healthy and married my loser ex-step-father as a way to not be lonely).
So even though these people are getting married for horrible reasons, I'm not about to take those mistakes away from them! Let them learn!
But what about gay marriage? Well, if homosexual couples want to get married, who I am to stop that?
I'm annoyed and out-raged when people try to take rights away from one another. Let them all learn!
And every once in a while, when people are given the freedom, a cool definition of marriage arises, like an abominable one: I wouldn't have gotten married if it wasn't to B. He's the only person I've ever trusted enough to make marriage different: 8 years together, no kids, and I'm living away for a year to pursue a career opportunity--that's a very cool, and a very different definition of marriage.
Oh, and the parental notification crap? Yeah... the government cannot force familial communication. If they can't force communication about drugs, they ain't gonna be successful with abortion.
...in 2006 there was a spike in teenage pregnancies for the first time in, like, 20 years. This current economic crisis we're in the midst of is not a sudden disaster. It's been a slow, rolling boil for a long time coming. When parents cannot be parents due to working 50-80 work weeks, things like teen pregnancy and drug use are inevitably going to rise.
Instead of trying to violate peoples' bodies and homes, maybe the government should spend money on comprehensive education and mass public transportation programs that benefit all economic areas of society, including the poor areas like where I came from. I lived so far away from anything remotely considered a town that the only things to do where I lived were smoke pot and fuck. I'm not saying public transportation is the answer to all life's needs, but, I don't know... maybe it'd give people something else to do. Yeah, we need a bullet train! From Northern California to Southern California. That'd be awesome...
Okay, back to packing. A Scream Awards post is in the works... but I'm finalizing my conference paper and my presentation is on Friday, after that I'll be free.
Other highlights include the infectiously giddy Jillian [last name deleted especially for this block quote] getting to present an award to her own personal icon, Wes Craven with Neve Campbell. Jillian is a contest winner who is teaching a class called Zombies, Witches and Cyborgs: Animating Gender and Monstrosity. She is a Pre-Doctoral Fellow at the Fisher Center at Hobart and William Smith college. And she absolutely adores Mr. Craven which you can tell just by the attention she gave to him.
If you're wondering why I deleted my last name when obviously there are pics of me and stuff, so anonymity seems irrelevant, it's all about the search engines. I'm trying to keep this blog--even though it is unsearchable--off the radar as much as possible.
But, after all this, I feel so sad being back at my little non-red-carpet/non-Doug-Jones life.
I had no idea who Doug Jones was, thinking, "I've never seen this actor (director? writer?) before in my life." Then I looked him up and it was rather obvious why I had never seen "him" before.
*sigh* I shouldn't try to leave comments at 4 a.m. Another thing I just thought to add is, it's great that you got to give an award to Wes Craven. Did they ask you about your horror movie icons before the awards to find a perfect fit for your appearance, or was it luck?
said...
[/caption]
[/caption]
Post a Comment