When Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967) was filmed, miscegenation was illegal in 17 US states. Miscegenation is the mixture of a white person
and another race, often used in the context of cohabitation, marriage and
sexual intercourse. In the movie, Joanna, a liberal white female, brings Dr. John Prentice, a successful and educated black male, home to meet her parents. Through a series of conversations and arguments, the families recognize the mutual love the couple shares and overlooks each's physical differences. Later that year the Supreme Court decision, Loving v. Virginia (1967), ruled anti-miscegenation as unconstitutional. Are we still racist today? What's changed between now and then? Interracial couples struggled from the start and some researchers argue they still do in the 21st century. In "'My Daughter Married a Negro:' Interracial Relationships in the United States as Portrayed in Popular Media, 1950-1975," a political scientist and wife in an interracial marriage named Melissa Magnuson-Cannady (2005) discusses the continuity and change between the 1950’s to the 1970’s regarding miscegenation. She explains that laws prohibited interracial marriage to "...ensure the superiority and purity of the white race..." Even after laws changed in 1967, mixed couples still received dirty looks in public and often kept relationships secret from family members and friends. Magnuson-Cannady explains that (surprisingly) the Catholic Church was one of the first to openly voice approval for miscegenation. In, "Guess Who's Been Coming to Dinner? Trends in Interracial Marriage over the 20th Century," Roland G. Fryer Jr. also recognizes Christians, in addition to military veterans, as accepting. Fryer suggests that from cultural experience and limited options abroad, veterans are more open-minded about various backgrounds.
Magnuson-Cannady also mentions Renee C. Romano, who in the 1990's, proposed that whites happily integrate with blacks for school and work, but still greatly disapprove of mixed dating. Although I was only a child, and in liberal New Jersey, I never felt discouraged from befriending and dating black men. Unfortunately, statistically many others do, and perhaps unconsciously, separate from different ethnicities. For example, in, "Guess Who's Been Coming to Dinner? Trends in Interracial Marriage over the 20th Century," Roland G. Fryer Jr. analyzes the lack of integration between races in
more intimate social aspects, such as during religious worship, school lunch and neighborhoods. Fryer also reports the most common mixed relationships: Asian women and white men, then white women with black men. In high school, I dated a half-Japanese and half-Irish boy who embraced his two cultures. Although he did not suffer socially, it seems mulatto children face difficulty more frequently than other mixes. Lunch tables at my school were certainly segregated to an extent, but outside of the cafeteria, in the hallways and at social outings, parties were quite mixed. In, "The Contours and Etiology of Whites' Attitudes Toward Black-White Interracial Marriage," researcher Ewa Golebiowska (2007) evaluates whites’ attitudes on
interracial marriage between a black person and a family member. Golebiowska
reports that age is the major determining factor on how a person feels. Younger
people are more likely to support interracial marriages while older people are
less likely. Thus, perhaps racial discrimination is continually fading out. Modern disputes seem to focus more on same sex marriages rather than interracial ones.
To sum up, although most of society is generally accepting of complete integration and some even fond of interracial couples, some still prefer to keep interracial couples out of their own families, churches and friendship circles. I feel privileged to have grown up in an accepting state where racism was never an issue. Even more so, I feel honored to attend such a diverse and open-minded university where every classroom is colorful.
In the romantic comedy, Adam's Rib, two married lawyers, Adam (starring Spencer Tracey) and Amanda (starring Katherine Hepburn) learn of Doris Attinger's case. When Doris discovered her husband cheating, she shot him in the arm. Ironically, Adam is assigned to prosecution and Amanda becomes the defense attorney. After a power struggle between the two, Amanda successfully wins the case, consistently noting double standards and gender roles. Amanda suggests the judge consider if the roles reversed.
In the film, Amanda utilizes Doris's case to exemplify the inequalities between men and women, particularly regarding adultery. Here, social justice is served but to this day, women are still subject to double standards. For example, society perceives women as promiscuous for sleeping around, but often praises men for being charming and desirable. Second, men still outnumber women in politics, high-level business positions and much more.
How have women advanced socially throughout history? Beginning with the first women’s rights
convention in 1948, to year 1920 when the Nineteenth Amendment granted women
the right to vote, to the early 1940’s when women started working during World
War II, to a series of pro-women legislation, women still struggle in 2012 for
equality versus men in the home and work force. In "Rosie the Riveter: Myths and Realities," Quick (1975) recalls two myths about women’s
labor during and after World War II, and then attempts to establish the truth
about woman’s oppression. Quick attributes the long term trend of increased
woman’s labor to the decline of domestic servants and increased production of
consumer durables. Quick notes the capitalist trend where the working class is
forced to work more and more, yet the standard of living remains the same. For
this, Quick describes the working woman’s journey as progressive, not
liberated, for she gained social experience but not freedom. Traditional gender roles
continue to dominate society’s expectations of what is appropriate masculine
and feminine behavior. Although women typically work as frequently as men do,
many still label household chores and childcare as female responsibilities. Researchers
continue to analyze women’s rights history and the effects of an increasingly
egalitarian society on relationships. While
some relationships accept a bread-winning wife, others strive for traditional
gender roles. In “What's
Love Got to Do with It? Equality, Equity, Commitment and Women's Marital
Quality," (Wilcox and Nock 2006) illustrate that many models of marriage
predict greater happiness for wives over the companionate model, which stresses
equality. As a female with high aspirations and dreams of a successful career,
I hope the argument portrayed in "WASP
(Wives as Senior Partners)," (Atkinson and Boles 1984) regarding an
increased acceptance for WASPs, is accurate because I also desire a happy
marriage. If perceived deviancy from others is the largest disadvantage of a
WASP, society must learn to understand a growing section of married couples. Consequently,
I also hope females continue to destroy inequalities in the workforce regarding
salary and high-level positions.
I would not go as far to call modern women oppressed, for we have obtained the right to vote, the right to an abortion, protection from sexual discrimination, and access to traditionally male careers. However, women must continue to challenge men in the workforce and expect equal treatment in relationships. In an earlier post, I discussed how few women even attempt to run for political office. Research suggests that women would win elections if they actually ran. On this note, women should not let society dictate what we can and can not achieve Vice versa, if women who respect traditional roles yearn to fulfill housewife, they should be able to without criticism.
However...some women do consider themselves oppressed. FEMEN, a group of Ukrainian feminists, protest topless to get attention to fight for equal rights in wardrobe, domestic violence, politics, government, prostitution and much more. Although there were videos with more education, this one shows the least nudity and still demonstrates the cause.
Once again, the film and articles lead me to conclude that society should stop being so judgmental. Let people do as they please :)
In Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), governor Hubert Hopper must select a replacement for a U.S. Senator. Inspired from his children during a dinner conversation, Hopper selects Jefferson Smith, an icon for the Boy Rangers. With no political experience, innocent Smith is frequently teased by the other members. He proposes a bill for a national boys park. The land for the park is already part of a corrupt bill supported by Senator Paine. In attempt to destroy Smith's bill, Paine claims that Smith already owns the land and suggests he is scheming the US for money. The film attacks the corruption in politics and lack of genuine character in Congress for the only "good guy," in the film is a regular man who has no idea what he is doing. Instead of just being themselves, like Mr.Smith in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), politicians strive to portray different types of representation and convince voters that they are good candidates. In "U.S. House Members in Their Constituencies: An Exploration (1977)," Richard Fenno pretends to look through the eyes of a House member. He determines a representative’s reputation to his home district as his/her “home style,” which is how the member convinces the average constituent: “I am good person; you can trust me; I am just like you.” The home style is composed of the member’s presentation of self, distribution of resources and tales of Washington activities. How do Congressman convince people of their homestyle? Congressman utilize a series of techniques and perspectives to gain votes. There are different types of representation. In "Rethinking Representation (2003)", Jane Mansbridge discusses several types of representation: 1. Promissory representation: the traditional view; when during campaigns, representatives make promises to constituents which they either keep or fail to keep 2. Anticipatory representation: when representatives focus on what they predict constituents will approve at the next election; utilizes retrospective voting, which is when people vote based on what the official has accomplished in the past 3. Gyroscopic representation: when a representative uses his/her own interests, common sense and principles as grounds for action; voters are attracted by this representative’s good character and honesty. 4. Surrogate representation is when legislators represent people outside of their own districts.
Next time your analyzing your representative, analyze what methods he/she might be using. Then again, does it matter how your Congressman is representing you, as long as you are actually be accurately represented? How well does your Congressman represent you? Does it even matter? In "Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress (1978)," political scientist Robert Weissburg suggests that perhaps it doesn't matter because even if your Congressman does not represent you, one in another district will. In the article, Weissburg compares and contrasts the relationships Congress members have
with their constituents (the people they represent from their district) in
dyadic representation and collective representation.For those of you who do not know: dyadic representation, the
common and first way of analyzing such circumstances, is examining one
legislator’s relationship to one individual constituent. Generally, researchers
ask how well is the individual represented. Weissburg takes a different approach
and examines collective representation, meaning how Congress represents the
people as whole. Through a simulation of a legislature with twenty members and
constituencies, Weissburg explains that with “perfect randomness,” even with
the worst possible representation, the majority will still be represented half
the time. Weissburg includes that when the majority is violated, the vote will still be close.You are probably wondering is accurate representation only half the time good enough? I would say no but apparently dyadic representation leaves us with a worse conclusion! Weissburg claims that collective representation is at
least equal to, but seemingly more accurate, than dyadic representation. Even if you are better represented collectively than dyadically, at least you are still represented. By voting and participating in local politics, you can strive for representation from your Senator or Assembly member on state and federal levels.
Throughout history, people continuously discriminate against minority groups. Whether the Jews are scapegoated for economic disaster or the gays are shunned to hell for disrupting reproduction, someone is always scolding someone. Even if you are not holding an extreme view, you are likely, at least subconsciously, accepting the stereotypes. Do any of these statements ring a bell?
“I do not want a gay roommate because he/she will hit on me.” And the quotes could go on, but by now I hope the point is driven. Fortunately, the tolerance for gays continues to increase but the LBGT community still has hurdles to overcome. Gays can openly declare sexual orientation in the military but still cannot legally get married in all 50 states. But what about Tyler Clementi and the epidemic of gay suicides due to bullying in 2010 and on? Soon after, the Anti-Bullying Law established in 2008 was extended in 2010 to provide anti-bullying workshops and strict regulations in all public schools in attempt to prevent bullying. In Milk, Harvey receives a random phone call from a boy who feels suicidal after his parents demand he goes to a hospital to be fixed. Harvey urges the boy to run away to advocate for his freedom. The "The Trevor Project: It Gets Better" public service advertisements flooded to guide lonely, bullied, and/or gay individuals. Google Chrome created a beautiful collection of the hope:
“My taxi driver’s name is Mohammad Hussain. Pray for me!” “I’m not dating him. He’s Jewish and will probably take me to McDonald’s.” “There’s a black guy trying to get into the party. Put your purse in my locked room.” “The drive-in messed my order up. Do they not understand English? Get out our country.”
The unfortunate fact is that when one group finally obtains relief from bullying, another is subject to blame. For example, according to Schafer and Shaw in The Polls: Trends: Tolerance in the United States (2009), “Despite the broad patterns of growing acceptance… Americans have yet again shifted their intolerance toward other least-liked groups…” Between 1993 and 2006, the belief that being gay/lesbian is morally wrong, decreased from 55% to 37%. Between the early 1990’s to mid-2000’s, polls also depicted that people are more accepting of gays as teachers in k-12 and higher education, more comfortable with gays and neighbors and feel gays should have the right to speak publicly and have books in public libraries. Gays and lesbians still face struggles, but as of 2009, according to Schafer and Shaw, Muslims were most discriminated against. Over three years later, I imagine the Muslim community is still harassed due to 911, but I can only hope that time has healed some of the fear.
How can gays and other groups manipulate politics to fight social discrimination? Gus Van Sant directs the film, Milk, starring Sean Penn and James Franco, to depict gay politics and the power of symbolic representation. Harvey Milk becomes the first openly gay politician in the state of California as a San Francisco City Supervisor. After a series of losses, Harvey continuously runs until he succeeds. Milk also depicts the importance of assistance from political elites. Harvey must work to get allied with straight politicians. In "The Politics of Gay Rights in American Communities: Explaining Anti discrimination," political scientists Wald, Button and Rienzo (1996) researched the likeliness of gay rights ordinances, particularly
antidiscrimination laws for sexual orientation depend upon urbanization, social
diversity, the social and political resources of the gay community, political
opportunity, and the amount of counter actions from traditionalist religious
groups. Through surveys, telephone interviews and comparative analysis, the
authors argued that size, organization, political activism, openly gay
candidates and a significant number of gay bars and services enhance the
likeliness of a gay ordinance intact within a locality. In "Minority Group Interests and Political Representation: Gay Elected Officials in the Policy Process," Markel, Joslyn and Kniss came to similar conclusions about the sources of gay liberation. I suggest other persecuted groups use symbolic and substantive representation to reflect their desires in law.
On a final note, if you enjoyed Milk, I'd like to suggest Philadelphia (1993) starring Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. This movie beautifully depicts employment discrimination against gays and AIDs sufferers.
