(Note: This post originally appeared in another blog of mine, written shortly after the 2010 elections in which Republicans made many gains in Congress. At the time, I was teaching intermediate writing at Utah State University. The post has been lightly edited.)
I don't know why I'm less patient with my students this semester than I ever have been before, but the truth of the matter is that I am, and I know that I am. I teach in Logan Utah, where a large percentage of the population is LDS (Mormon), and often very conservative. Usually I take this as a learning opportunity for both my students and myself, but this semester my patience for all things ultra-conservative has begun to run very, very thin.
Perhaps it's because the new Republican House majority, many of them extremely conservative (and extremely religious), has started to use their conservative (and religious) beliefs to try and pass legislation that will ultimately affect me and my family. Attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, make abortion (and, in some cases, birth control) illegal or otherwise inaccessible for many women, and define marriage as between "one man and one woman" are results of these ideologies. In the past, I have benefited from being able to discuss these issues with students in an educational environment, but when actual legislation wants to interfere with my life, these issues hit a little too far below the belt. What astounds me is how successful these movements are, and how easily so many people swallow the rhetoric behind them.
What I want to get at here is the fact that, I think, part of the reason conservatives are currently so successful in pushing their agendas is that they have hijacked the term "family values." In essence, the message is that if you agree with the ideologies of the far right -- that is, if you identify as pro-life and espouse very conservative, traditional views about marriage, families, and gender roles -- then you are "pro-family." On the other hand, and if you disagree with conservative ideas, then you are accused of attacking families and "family values," which they refer to as, "the foundation of Western society."
I see this throughout many of my students' papers. They write about the "moral decay" of our society, or the "crumbling morals" of most modern people, and it doesn't matter how many times I tell them to define "morals" or explain why one set of morals is above another. They can't, or won't, do it. All they know is that "moral values" are declining, "the family" is suffering, and abortion, gay marriage, and single-parent families (among other "social ills" such as working women) are to blame.
This makes me extremely angry, because I personally believe that a close examination of the far right's movement reveal them to be vehemently anti-family. They are not pro-family, but pro-one-type-of-family.
What do conservatives mean when they say "family values?" Look closely at the arguments, and you'll find that for them, the only proper definition of a family is a two-parent household with children, in which there is a father who works to support the family and a mother who stays home to take care of domestic business and raise children. Now, there is nothing wrong with that type of family if that's what you desire, and I agree that it can be a wonderful structure that can benefit those involved. Understand that my problem comes when people push the notion that this is the only type of family that benefits people or society as a whole. My problem is the idea that families who deviate from this structure are second class to those that do, and also the main cause of social ills nationwide.
What about my family? My immediate family consists of myself and my son. I am a single mother who works, goes to school, and has sent my son to daycare so that I can do so. My family is stronger and closer than it was when I was a married housewife, and my relationship with my son has never been better. My son, too, thrives more now than he did when I was in the midst of a troubled relationship with his father. Many conservatives, however, would have people believe that single mothers are a burden on society. Mike Huckabee, a United States politician, recently opined that our society should never glorify single motherhood because most of the time it results in uneducated women raising children in poverty. (And yet, interestingly, this man also wants to keep sex education out of public schools and prevent these poor, uneducated women from birth control and abortions if and when they need them.)
I think I'm living proof that his stereotype isn't always factual, though. What is being said about single mothers isn't pro-family, but a claim that women can't survive on their own without a husband -- or, even if they can, they'd always be better off with a husband, preferably one who will take care of them financially. These arguments are sexist and offensive, and do not speak to many families headed by single women (or, for that matter, by single men). When the far right speaks out against single mothers who work, they are anti-family.
What about couples who choose to not have children? What if they want to enjoy each other for their entire lives and never want to have kids? What if these men don't see themselves as fathers, and these women would rather advance their educations and professional lives rather than raise children? Or, even if they do have children, what if the mothers still want to work and send their children to daycare? The far right has made arguments that women who choose not to have children, or have children and decide to work anyway, are inherently selfish. But these couples are families, too. Again, this is only more sexist rhetoric designed to keep women in the home. (There are actually some churches that promote, to varying degrees, that there are spirits who are just waiting to be born, and by not birthing them, women are hindering God's plan.) When the far right speaks out against childless couples, or mothers who choose to work or go to school (even if they don't necessarily have to), they are anti-family.
What about homosexual couples who want to marry and raise children? Many states (including my own state of Utah) have laws barring unmarried people from adopting children. While this is, in a sense, aimed at single women, it is also largely aimed at the gay community. These laws bar pretty much anyone except for heterosexual married couples from adopting children, which sends a message that only married heterosexual couples are worthy of certain social privileges. Again, while the far right wants to prohibit abortions and many forms of birth control, they also want to keep certain people from adopting the hoards of unwanted children in this country. Studies show that children with homosexual parents grow up just as well-adjusted and happy as any child raised with straight parents, but because the people of the far right are afraid of any relationship that doesn't involve a man and a woman in traditional roles, they would rather see these children pushed through "the system" than with a family. How on earth is this pro-family? When there is a child who wants a family, a loving couple who wants a child, but you refuse to allow this family to form simply because the couple is gay, you are anti-family.
And hiding behind a veil of thinly-defined "family values" doesn't change any of this. Families come in many shapes, sizes, and forms. When you hear the far right running their mouths about "family values," realize that all they're doing is instructing an entire nation of people to adhere strictly to the following: "if you're a man, marry and support a family; if you're a woman, marry, have children, and stay home; if you're gay, pretend you're not or stay out of society; and if you're a child, learn from this structure so you can grow up and do the same thing." If they really cared about the family, they would support education, family planning, all types of loving couples, and gender equality, because these types of people make up happy, loving families all over the world.
So, while I used to enjoy lively, educational debates with my students involving social issues, more often now I just find myself getting angry and steering away from these controversial topics. I've grown tired of hearing how arguments make sense, but students just can't agree on any level because it's still "wrong," or because God says so, or because they've been taught to never question anything. Yes, I'm discouraged. What is the educational system coming to when people refuse to enter conversation with an open mind because, despite how much sense the "other side" is making, there is only one choice to make? One way to think, one way to live, one way to be ... it's a system that controls every major life decision people make based on antiquated structures, and shuns them from the idea of "family" if they dare not to.
Words are powerful, and it's time to reclaim the word "family" and what it truly means to be for or against it.
No comments:
Post a Comment