The discussion of whether the Sister Wives “marriages” are in violation of laws against polygamy, seems to hinge on the definition of marriage for both sides. I have previously posted a link to a news article about the possible legal repercussions toward the family that has decided to open their polygamist lifestyle to the world. The comments from viewers in the preceding link feature an interesting arguments from multiple points of view and I would like to explore a few of these in relation to our class discussions:
(thesevenveils, 2010) Why don't we call call [sic] this what it is. It is a communal house, an upscale version of a hippy commune. There is a married couple who openly practices free love. They have no high ground to be spouting about morals. The only thing missing in this picture is the pot garden in the back yard (or is it there?).
This respondent is not giving credibility to the argument for a “spiritual” marriage. His or her response comes after a discussion about how plural marriage should be legal as long as nobody is getting hurt. I feel like this respondent is taking any kind of religious significance out of the argument from the Brown family and squashing the idea of a “true” plural marriage. He or she is now bringing the family down to the level of a hippie free-love commune and stating that they do not have any room to talk about morals.
(Wendyjob, 2010) That's right, mormons who know their religion (which includes my grandparents, Uncle and Aunts and cousins - many married in the mormon temple and active mormons - are just awaiting the day they can once again practice polygamy). The only difference between "official" mormons and those in break-off polygamous groups is that the unofficial mormons are more "honest" than their official brothers and sisters. Study up and you'll discover all mormons to be deceptive and mostly... stupid.
I find this argument interesting because it is grounded in authority and gives the respondent a sort of credibility. Part of the post that would not fit above explains that her great-great grandfather was the 7th president of the Morman church and she knows for a fact that polygamy did continue after Utah was made a state. She speaks from a place of credibility and grounds her argument in fact. However, she ends with an ad hominem attack on all Mormans as “deceptive” and “stupid.”
(fromthebackofthebus, 2010) I dont see anything wrong with what Kody and his family are doing. Everyone assumes they are living off of the system but it hasnt [sic] been proven or stated yet…If you havnt [sic] noticed in the news, foster care isnt [sic]always the best option. If you think Sister Wives is promoting a bad example...watch Maury and see all the unwed mothers on there that sleep around.
So, this respondent is not discussing the definition of marriage in the polygamist family as much as the lifestyle they are trying to lead. He or she comments on the comparison between a happy looking family and the “unwed mothers” on the Maury Povitch show. Essentially, using a counter to a previously stated ad hominem argument implying that a family that big must be on welfare. I realize this is not as much an argument of definition as it is pointing out fallacies in a previous argument, but I wanted to include it.
What all these arguments tell me is that the controversy over plural marriage does seem to stem from the definition of marriage. Many of the respondents have commented that the Brown family should be left alone to live their lives, but then there are the former fundamentalist Mormons that are commenting and saying that the plural marriage is a sad and lonely life for the women involved. And, the sense of “family” is not always as cozy as the Brown family makes it out to be – especially when more wives means less of a chance of everybody living under the same roof (as was seen this season on Sister Wives when Robin, the fourth wife, joins the family).
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Defining Family and Marriage
After following the Sister Wives controversy (see the latest link that was shared with me, Sister Wives Polygamy Case Not Being Pursued), I believe my question is about the legal and social definition of “marriage.”
Recently, I came across this report on Yahoo, via the Associated Press, Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete. The article discusses the definition of marriage by highlighting the changing definition of “family.” Reportedly 1 in 3 children will spend the holidays with parents that are divorced, separated, or never married. Pew Research Center took a poll and found that 6% of children live with parents who live together but have chosen not to get married. In the same poll, 39% of Americans agreed to the response that marriage is becoming obsolete. 4 in 5 respondents felt that a heterosexual unmarried couple with children could be defined as a “family,” but the vast majority of respondents felt that only married couples without children could be considered a “family.” A legal marriage was necessary; cohabiting heterosexual couples without children could not be a family.
I think the definitional arguments of “family” help to define the meaning of “marriage” in society. Legally, marriage is many times only recognized between a man and a woman who sign a paper stating that they are agreeing to be together. However, there are unmarried heterosexual couples who legally sign closing documents on a shared home and are not given legal rights as a committed couple. How are both sides using the definition of “marriage” to inform their arguments? This is what I will be exploring in further detail throughout the rest of the blog.
Recently, I came across this report on Yahoo, via the Associated Press, Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete. The article discusses the definition of marriage by highlighting the changing definition of “family.” Reportedly 1 in 3 children will spend the holidays with parents that are divorced, separated, or never married. Pew Research Center took a poll and found that 6% of children live with parents who live together but have chosen not to get married. In the same poll, 39% of Americans agreed to the response that marriage is becoming obsolete. 4 in 5 respondents felt that a heterosexual unmarried couple with children could be defined as a “family,” but the vast majority of respondents felt that only married couples without children could be considered a “family.” A legal marriage was necessary; cohabiting heterosexual couples without children could not be a family.
I think the definitional arguments of “family” help to define the meaning of “marriage” in society. Legally, marriage is many times only recognized between a man and a woman who sign a paper stating that they are agreeing to be together. However, there are unmarried heterosexual couples who legally sign closing documents on a shared home and are not given legal rights as a committed couple. How are both sides using the definition of “marriage” to inform their arguments? This is what I will be exploring in further detail throughout the rest of the blog.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The definition of marriage...
Continuing the discussion of Sister Wives, this story on abc.com called, "Sister Wives" Program Could Lead to Legal Trouble,, ultimately seems to be questioning the definition of marriage.
Kody Brown is only technically married to his first wife, however, he has been with at least one other wife for 16 years and his third wife for 15 years. And, he has recently added a fourth. The family calls each union a marriage, though the ceremonies for the last three have not been legally recognized by the state of Utah.
Greg Skordas, a local defense attourney in Salt Lake City, Utah, states “We normally do recognize common law marriage. Does the couple have children? Do they do things together as husband and wife? After a number of years, the court will recognize a common law marriage" (abc.com, September 2010).
If we call a long-term relationship, where a couple lives under the same roof and has children together, a common-law marriage, then the definition of marriage now extends to a whole variety of other couples (same sex, familial couples that live together and raise children, etc.). Though, law does not want to recognize many of these common-law unions as legal marriages, which would give rights to same-sex couples. So, this argument from definition is complicated from both sides of the case. The Brown family says that it is not a legal marriage, but a spiritual marriage, therefore, technically it is not a marriage that can land anybody in jail. Utah law says that non-legally bound unions can still be considered a "marriage" but perhaps only between heterosexual couples. And, for the Brown family to say that it is not a legal marriage so we are skirting the law, even though they truly feel that they are married, raises a few contridictions. If the couple perceives they are married, can they really be married? Is a spiritual marriage vs a legal marriage a legitimate distinction? And, if the family defines themselves as a polygamous family, then aren't they committing polygamy?
Kody Brown is only technically married to his first wife, however, he has been with at least one other wife for 16 years and his third wife for 15 years. And, he has recently added a fourth. The family calls each union a marriage, though the ceremonies for the last three have not been legally recognized by the state of Utah.
Greg Skordas, a local defense attourney in Salt Lake City, Utah, states “We normally do recognize common law marriage. Does the couple have children? Do they do things together as husband and wife? After a number of years, the court will recognize a common law marriage" (abc.com, September 2010).
If we call a long-term relationship, where a couple lives under the same roof and has children together, a common-law marriage, then the definition of marriage now extends to a whole variety of other couples (same sex, familial couples that live together and raise children, etc.). Though, law does not want to recognize many of these common-law unions as legal marriages, which would give rights to same-sex couples. So, this argument from definition is complicated from both sides of the case. The Brown family says that it is not a legal marriage, but a spiritual marriage, therefore, technically it is not a marriage that can land anybody in jail. Utah law says that non-legally bound unions can still be considered a "marriage" but perhaps only between heterosexual couples. And, for the Brown family to say that it is not a legal marriage so we are skirting the law, even though they truly feel that they are married, raises a few contridictions. If the couple perceives they are married, can they really be married? Is a spiritual marriage vs a legal marriage a legitimate distinction? And, if the family defines themselves as a polygamous family, then aren't they committing polygamy?
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Switching Topics - Sister Wives
As many of you know, I am switching my topic and the title of the blog will just have to refer to the "talking" portion for the rest of the semester. I am currently facinated with the tv show, Sister Wives. Not only the idea that a very popular cable station, TLC, has launched a reality show about polygamy, but that the viewing public has overwhelmingly embraced the family. The show follows Kody Brown and his four wives, 13 children and 3 step-children as they attempt to show the viewing auidience "how normal their polygamist lifestyle is" (Crimesider, C. Black, 9/28/10).
Now, the Sister Wives stars are under investigation for polygamy (an illegal crime) in the state of Utah. What is interesting about this investigation is that is appears that the state of Utah typically does not spend time investigating polygamy unless child molestation or abuse if reported, but the decision for the family to take their lifestyle out into the open on national television has spurred the action. What is interesting here is the use of the public sphere by each side. The Brown family wanted to use the Public Sphere to spur a discussion about polygamy and to present their family as normal, or similar to a monogamous family. However, the fact that they entered the public sphere is seemingly the main reason for Utah to go after them with charges.
Now, the Sister Wives stars are under investigation for polygamy (an illegal crime) in the state of Utah. What is interesting about this investigation is that is appears that the state of Utah typically does not spend time investigating polygamy unless child molestation or abuse if reported, but the decision for the family to take their lifestyle out into the open on national television has spurred the action. What is interesting here is the use of the public sphere by each side. The Brown family wanted to use the Public Sphere to spur a discussion about polygamy and to present their family as normal, or similar to a monogamous family. However, the fact that they entered the public sphere is seemingly the main reason for Utah to go after them with charges.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
3FatChicks - Weight & Height Stats
Originally, I thought I would post about the forum asking "1200 Calories, way too much?". The woman who started the post was simply not losing weight with her 1200 calorie diet and was asking fellow posters whether she should go down to 900 calories. To my relief, nobody responded back that a 900 calorie diet sounded like a good idea. Instead, they began to attack pasta. The first poster outlined her typical day of food which consisted of two or three bowls of pasta. The fellow dieting posters all rallied and decided that the reason she wasn't losing weight was because she was eating too many carbs. So, now the woman is supposed to track her food and try to add in more protein and fat to trick her body back into losing weight.
It's all so complicated.
Another blog forum asks, "So many diets, which to choose?". Once inside the forum, everybody has a different opinion but they all have a general theme of, you won't know until you try one.
What I've been noticing in these chat forums are that many of the posters are putting little weight loss trackers supplied by the 3FatChicks website. The posters have a little tracker at the bottom of each post and then they have a star next to the part of the scale they are at currently. One woman has a smiley face as she gets closer and closer to her goal, unhappy faces at the beginning and then grimacing faces in the middle:
I then realized that many of the women posting have listed their height and weight next to their profile information. I am really disturbed by the obsession with the numbers on the scale. I feel like the 3FatChicks website makes it okay for people to obsess about their weight and focuses too heavily on reaching the desired number, rather than focusing on having a healthy relationship with food. I feel like the chat forums constantly associate dieting with health (i.e. Will diet coke make me lose weight?) when in actuality, a balanced diet with as little artificial products as possible is the healthiest way to lose weight.
I find the arguments made by fellow dieters troubling because these are not doctors or nutritionists giving advice and yet, the posters seem to be wholeheartedly accepting "facts." The bias that is clear in these posts, either the dieters who have lost or those that have not, does not mean that they have any idea of health.
It's all so complicated.
Another blog forum asks, "So many diets, which to choose?". Once inside the forum, everybody has a different opinion but they all have a general theme of, you won't know until you try one.
What I've been noticing in these chat forums are that many of the posters are putting little weight loss trackers supplied by the 3FatChicks website. The posters have a little tracker at the bottom of each post and then they have a star next to the part of the scale they are at currently. One woman has a smiley face as she gets closer and closer to her goal, unhappy faces at the beginning and then grimacing faces in the middle:
I then realized that many of the women posting have listed their height and weight next to their profile information. I am really disturbed by the obsession with the numbers on the scale. I feel like the 3FatChicks website makes it okay for people to obsess about their weight and focuses too heavily on reaching the desired number, rather than focusing on having a healthy relationship with food. I feel like the chat forums constantly associate dieting with health (i.e. Will diet coke make me lose weight?) when in actuality, a balanced diet with as little artificial products as possible is the healthiest way to lose weight.
I find the arguments made by fellow dieters troubling because these are not doctors or nutritionists giving advice and yet, the posters seem to be wholeheartedly accepting "facts." The bias that is clear in these posts, either the dieters who have lost or those that have not, does not mean that they have any idea of health.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Binging...is this normal
So, I am sticking to the 3FatChicks website for the initial post this week. In particular, an entire topic that caught my attention is called, Binge Free Challenge, and it is actually still live today - running for one week.
The goal was to have a binge-free week and what I find so interesting is the creation of normalcy around binging. This is a support forum, so the women do not want to binge and are working to not binge, but the women who slip and do binge are told to hang in there and start again tomorrow. What I guess I have a concern with is the support that is given is to try again tomorrow, but I am finding very little that suggests getting a doctor's help. Binge-eating is an eating disorder and I guess I am concerned with the creation reality through normalizing the behavior. I believe that the argument is that binge eating is just like any other part of a diet and you have to resist the urges in order to lose weight. But, again, the focus is on weight-loss rather than the unhealthy aspect of binging.
This reminds me of one of Jean Kilbourne's lecture/discussions for her book, Can't Buy My Love where she discusses the control of advertising to shape the way women think and feel. She argued that advertising normalizes binge eating, but in reality, a healthy eating pattern would not include binge eating at all.
I think that this forum discussion on binge eating encourages the argument that it is normal to want to binge and to slip up and binge, but if you want to lose weight, you have to control your binge-eating. Rather than questioning the urge to binge and encouraging a healthy mental attitude toward food, the chat forum continues to encourage the white-knuckling of avoidance and rewards a multi-day stint free from binging.
The goal was to have a binge-free week and what I find so interesting is the creation of normalcy around binging. This is a support forum, so the women do not want to binge and are working to not binge, but the women who slip and do binge are told to hang in there and start again tomorrow. What I guess I have a concern with is the support that is given is to try again tomorrow, but I am finding very little that suggests getting a doctor's help. Binge-eating is an eating disorder and I guess I am concerned with the creation reality through normalizing the behavior. I believe that the argument is that binge eating is just like any other part of a diet and you have to resist the urges in order to lose weight. But, again, the focus is on weight-loss rather than the unhealthy aspect of binging.
This reminds me of one of Jean Kilbourne's lecture/discussions for her book, Can't Buy My Love where she discusses the control of advertising to shape the way women think and feel. She argued that advertising normalizes binge eating, but in reality, a healthy eating pattern would not include binge eating at all.
I think that this forum discussion on binge eating encourages the argument that it is normal to want to binge and to slip up and binge, but if you want to lose weight, you have to control your binge-eating. Rather than questioning the urge to binge and encouraging a healthy mental attitude toward food, the chat forum continues to encourage the white-knuckling of avoidance and rewards a multi-day stint free from binging.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Weighing Less = Feeling Good
I have enjoyed everybody's comments, and I'm sensing a theme of not just how we feel healthier when we fit in our clothes, but we feel better about ourselves. And, though most of my examples have centered on women, I know quite a few men in my life that are just as concerned with wanting to lose weight, and I welcome any comments from men as well.
I have an issue with the word, "fat." I do not know why and I know that there are quite a few overweight people who have taken this word as their own and I suppose have tried to create a sense of power behind the word.
I stumbled across a chat forum called 3 fat chicks on a diet. I immediately cringed at the use of the word fat - almost as if it's okay to say that because soon they will not be "fat." According to the main website, About Us section, 3FatChicks.com was started as a support resource for three sisters who were starting a diet.
I'm thoroughly interested in some of the posts and threads within the forum, but one in particular caught my eye. It is called, "Nine year old daughter eating chocolate secretly" and it is about a mother who restricts sweets to once a week, but her daughter is sneaking food. When her mother "gently" questions her about why she had empty chocolate wrappers in her bag and a receipt for a Snicker's bar, dated the day before, the little girl breaks down in tears and won't answer. The mom is concerned that this is a sign of a future eating disorder and relates the situation to her own childhood and how she would sneak food. She is also implying that she has shared her own struggles with weight loss with her daughter. She is very careful to state that her daughter is of normal weight and she is not trying to force her daughter to diet, but rather to teach her the concept of moderation.
I am not concerned with saying whether this situation is bad or good. I think there are a lot of factors that go along with this that we cannot know. However, it does make me question where our eating habits and ideas about food and body image come from? It's easy to blame the media, but I think my earliest memories stem from watching and listening to my family. So, knowing that little eyes are always watching, what is the right message to give children about food?
I have an issue with the word, "fat." I do not know why and I know that there are quite a few overweight people who have taken this word as their own and I suppose have tried to create a sense of power behind the word.
I stumbled across a chat forum called 3 fat chicks on a diet. I immediately cringed at the use of the word fat - almost as if it's okay to say that because soon they will not be "fat." According to the main website, About Us section, 3FatChicks.com was started as a support resource for three sisters who were starting a diet.
I'm thoroughly interested in some of the posts and threads within the forum, but one in particular caught my eye. It is called, "Nine year old daughter eating chocolate secretly" and it is about a mother who restricts sweets to once a week, but her daughter is sneaking food. When her mother "gently" questions her about why she had empty chocolate wrappers in her bag and a receipt for a Snicker's bar, dated the day before, the little girl breaks down in tears and won't answer. The mom is concerned that this is a sign of a future eating disorder and relates the situation to her own childhood and how she would sneak food. She is also implying that she has shared her own struggles with weight loss with her daughter. She is very careful to state that her daughter is of normal weight and she is not trying to force her daughter to diet, but rather to teach her the concept of moderation.
I am not concerned with saying whether this situation is bad or good. I think there are a lot of factors that go along with this that we cannot know. However, it does make me question where our eating habits and ideas about food and body image come from? It's easy to blame the media, but I think my earliest memories stem from watching and listening to my family. So, knowing that little eyes are always watching, what is the right message to give children about food?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)