Analysis Of Graff's Arguments Against Marriage Equality

1. There were many conflicts that occurred between women of different classes in the growth of the labor movement, the most obvious of these clashes occurred between women of the middle class, and women of the working class. Working class women “embraced socialism and anarchism” (online article) while the middle class women were content with fixing the current system, rather than embracing new ideas. Another conflict that occurred from this was, that despite all of the outstanding equality that middle class feminists fought for and achieved, especially in the labor movement, they often left out women of different classes, races, and backgrounds. Women of color were especially left out of the discussion, though often times facing drastically

In his essay “What is Marriage for?” Graff shows that the arguments against marriage equality for LGBTQs are not logical. He does this by presenting a series of historical context and information to rebuttal the arguments against marriage equality. Graff presents information in a way that argues logic against emotions and personal feelings. More specifically-Graff shows that the arguments against marriage equality are not logical by presenting an argument and deconstructing it. An example of this is shown in Graff’s essay. He states that historically marriage was simply an exchange of land and money, and was often considered as a means to make life easier for both parties, “the phrase ‘traditional marriage’ […] should really only mean marriage for money” (346). Another argument that Graff deconstructs is that marriage was not even considered the ‘sacred’ exchange that it is today, until nearly “1215” (346), nearly a thousand years after Christianity was first created. Graff finishes his argument by claiming that marriage is a construct that has always been changing, and will always be changing. It has never been one stone cut definition, and it never will be, marriage equality is just another change in the construct. By comparing marriage, to an ever changing city, Graff furthers this point: “While marriage may retain its ancient name, very little […] has remained the same-not its boundaries, boulevards, or daily habits- except that it is inhabited by human beings like

(Question 7) There is a vast degree of ways in which our culture’s traditional definitions of “masculinity” can do harm to social relations and people’s well-being. An example of this is shown in the film Tough Guise. Tough Guise presents the issue of violence in America, and how that issue spans beyond simple violence or guns, but instead is an issue of the patriarchy and the cultural norm of “masculinity.” When violence is discussed in America, “real or imaginary,” (Tough Guise Film) it is almost always male violence that is being discussed. However, when the media talks about this violence, it becomes a “youth problem instead of a men’s issue” (Tough Guise Film), and the few times that gender is acknowledged, it is excused as testosterone, or boys will be boys. The reality of this mindset, and the violence that goes along with it, is that the traditional idea of “masculinity” is portrayed through male dominance and aggression, this in turn is presented throughout the violence we see in the media. Rape, murder, and other forms of assault occur because of the mindset that we as a culture perpetuate. When we continue the standards of what “masculinity” is and continue excusing the actions that result from those standards, we harm not only the individuals involved, but also society as a whole. Similarly to how violence can harm an individual male by implanting the idea that he must live up to impossible standards of “masculinity,” damage can be caused to males through the