The venerable paper had a number of articles of interest yesterday:
- “With One Word, Children’s Book Sets Off Uproar“: This year’s Newbery Medal-winning book, The Higher Power of Lucky, contains the word “scrotum” in it. It’s in reference to a dog who gets bitten on that rather tender piece of his anatomy, but some parents and librarians want the book banned (probably including the people who changed the name of The Vagina Monologues to The Hoohah Monologues on a theater marquee in Florida).
- “Psst! Ask for Donor 1913“: Sperm donors make the news for the second time this week, in a rather fluffy article about women searching for the “perfect” donor. In response to increasing demands for information prior to sale, the Times reports, sperm banks are disclosing more and more about their donors. Some might say this is a good thing, but the Times doesn’t explore any of the ramifications of either disclosure or confidentiality, nor what such quests for perfection say about our societal ideals (how relevant are SAT scores, really?).
- “Civil Unions Begin in New Jersey“: The Times rightly honors this occasion with a fairly positive article in its Wedding & Celebrations section, though they do feel the need to quote someone from the Conservative Party of New York on the whole “one man-one woman” thing. They do, however, ask pointedly enough “But is a wedding a wedding if it’s not a marriage?” and quote several same-sex couples on their mixed feelings about the unions.
- “The L Word: Leftward, Ho?” is not about the hit lesbian TV show, but rather about the liberal “resurgence” in the U. S. I found it interesting that the Times chose to use “The L Word” as part of its headline, indicating an assumption that a good part of its readership would get the reference. Or maybe they didn’t, and there’s just a dyke on the editorial staff having a good chuckle. (Addendum: The paper iteslf says “The L World,” but the online version says “The L Word.” Maybe there’s a dyke on the tech staff.)
Thanks for this, Dana. I had contemplated doing something linking these, too, given the plethora yesterday.
I also thought the piece by Stephanie Coontz, Illegitimate Complaints, was of interest. In her work as sociologist and historian of the family, she continually reminds her readers that the “traditional” nuclear family, as it’s currently conceptualized (within heterosexual marriage; with children who came to the family by birth, biologically related, etc. etc.), is just one of many models of family, rooted in a time and a place, and not “naturally” the only healthy structure available to us.
You’ve noted her work earlier this month, regarding the diminishing significance of marriage. In this piece in yesterday’s Times, she notes that the various legal inroads to Anna Nicole Smith’s daughter have not always served the best interests of the children:
“The fact that Dannielynn has a right to inherit from either of her parents is the result of legal processes that have undermined the role of marriage in determining people’s economic and social rights. Surely this change is a welcome corrective to the injustice of traditional marriage laws and family values that stigmatized ‘bastards’ for life.”
All these thoughtful critiques of the institution of marriage, as it has evolved up to now, are of use in the ongoing struggle to redefine it — or even come up with better ways of reflecting our financial and emotional commitment to significant others.