marriage

I believe that he defines marriage in this way before starting the article because many people have different ideas of what the institution of marriage means. Therefore, when he puts his definition, and the legal and religious definition, it gives everyone a level idea of what marriage. Though the definition provides good backing to the argument, it does neglect to cover the religious aspect of the institution of marriage. Many people could argue that it is slanted, just in the fact that it is so incredibly un-slanted. Though i personally agree with him, i can see how many people could say that he is not sensitive to the religious institution of marriage, and that the word "marriage" indicates a man and a woman, though the usage of the word "civil union" or something would guarantee the same rights. It really just comes down to the linguistics; whether people want to use the same word or not.

Airplanes

The comparison of a single parent household to a plane that does not always reach its destination is a creative metaphor, and the incentive behind it is very clear. Two parent households are usually more stable and secure than a one parent household, and therefore the child is, indeed, more likely to grow up safe and sound. However, though the metaphor is accurate on the surface, it is very shallow. There are many many more factors that go into the success of a child than just whether it is being brought up by a single parent or by multiple parents. Some of them can be linked to the status of the parents, but some of them aren't. Obviously the emotional and economic stability of the parent is usually more balanced when it is a married couple. This would be the factor that would create problems for the single parent. On the other hand, a single parent can certainly be just as supportive and loving as a child than a married couple can be... in some ways, more so, because many married couples that stay married simply for the sake of their kid can cause a large amount of tension in the family. Though this metaphor to a plane seems shallow and in some ways insensitive, it is acceptable until he begins to equate gay couples to this template. Gay couples can be just as emotionally stable, financially stable, and loving of a child just as a straight married couple can be. The reason single parents sometimes are less able to raise a child usually has to do with the stress caused by divorce or being a single parent, along with the financial strain that comes with not having a spouse to help support a child. However, a homosexual couple would not have these problems any more than a heterosexual couple would. In fact, the only real difference a homosexual couple would face would be homophobic adults and children harassing their lifestyle. This could create problems, but that is not at the fault of the parents.

Homophobia

I believe Vázquez waits to disclose the fact that the victims of the anti gay violence are, in fact, straight to make the reader realize that the crimes are committed against people that don't have the trait that the crimes are being committed against them for. It puts everyone on a level playing field... whether you are gay or not, you can be a victim of anti-gay violence, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. It also makes the reader realize that there really isn't much of a difference between people who are gay and people who are not... I believe that because it is still a very controversial subject that a lot of people are not well acquainted with, the choice to tell the reader that the victim was not gay adds an extra shock factor to someone who may not know what their beliefs around homosexuality stands, and will give an extra push in the argument against gay violence because people who are heterosexual and possibly uneducated about the whole issue will be able to relate to the victims even more and therefore adds to Vázquez's argument.

we're men (MANLY MEN!) we're men in tights...

I do not agree that manly and sensitive are opposite- I think they can not only be compatible but they are often complimentary. There are plenty of men that can fit the definition of manliness... assertive, strong physically and mentally, and who has a drive to get things done, but they can still be kind and willing to connect on a personal level with people. Though I don't believe Eustace really fits that mold, he tries to in some ways. His long love letters and his passion can show that he could potentially be "sensitive" as Mansfield would put it (I don't really like that term), but his personality will not allow him to understand what other people feel. It isn't really because of being a man as much as just what his personality is like... and the stereotypes that follow men are great ammunition to feed the ego that he has. He already is dominating and controlling, but the old idea that manly men are SUPPOSED to be dominating and controlling makes him feel as though it is ok, so he doesn't do anything about it. Unfortunately for him, in modern day society it creates a lot of problems in relationships. Women do not want to be dominated or controlled, so he doesn't have a lot of success with women.

The Last American Man

Gilbert crafts a careful image in her choice to name the book "The Last American Man". This makes three assumptions... that he is somehow the "last" of something, that there is a difference between an "American" man and any other type of man, and an idea of masculinity. That he is the last one could be taken into very simple terms... that in all the future generations, people are becoming more and more inept at being able to live without human commodities and human resources. Therefore, no one will follow in his interest in nature because there will be no nature/ no people with an interest in nature left. However it can also speak of the standards he sets for himself... no one else can follow them, because of how he has trained himself highly for his entire life, and what he doesn't realize is that his perfectionism is not, in fact, natural; the people that he idolizes so much, who he is trying to live like, probably wouldn't have even satisfied his extreme desire for perfection. He would have been disappointed with the very people that he emulates, making either him or them the true "American" persona, and whichever he is, it is the first and last of whatever kind he is trying to create. Also the idea of being "American" comes up here... why is he not called the last frontiersman? America has changed from being a culture looking for freedom and exploration to one of the most materialistic cultures in the world. The life he is trying to live reflects the idea of old America... at least, he wants it to. Unfortunately, it also reflects a desire for attention; just what America today has come to stand for- and an idea of what he does is the right thing and everyone else is wrong. Though this doesn't necessarily reflect modern- day America (many cultures have had this idea for a long time), it isn't positive like he wants it to be.

De Tocqueville

In Europe and America, the different view of women have to do with their character more than anything else. Though Americans respect the character and freedom of a woman, and rarely "lavish her" as the way that Europeans do, they also have given specific tasks to a woman as opposed to a man. The argument for this is that women are the best at carrying out their tasks, and men are the best at theirs, and therefore they have divided them into very specific groups. Apparently society can be driven forward more easily if people stay in the tasks assigned to their own gender. Apparently the European society is allowing more women to do things that men would do, but they still give them an image as being seductresses and inferior mentally. However, De Tocqueville argues that women are equals intellectually and their freedom should be respected, but by having each gender stay in his or her specific "task" of life, they will in fact be putting women as equals to men because they are equals though assigned to different tasks. Men don't do the woman's task, women don't do the man's one.

Beauty and the Beast

Many of the fairy tales, especially the ones that were converted into disney movies, portrayed women as either a mother figure or as the romance figure of the story. Often these stories had a theme of a beautiful woman who ended up getting married. The story of Beauty and the Beast shows this very well... the original tale had Belle with a single mother, not a father. Also, I believe she had siblings. However, the disney version of Belle is the epitome of the "perfect female" in the eyes of a 18th or 19th century male. She is modestly dressed, does not seem to even know of her own physical beauty. She is intelligent and loves to read (though this would lead her to be opinionated, which many men would have not liked in a wife), but this gives her an air of acting very innocent, but having a lot of knowledge about the subjects she likes to read about. The fact that she longs for more than just being a usual housewife to a man like Gaston shows that she has an independent nature and in turn has a strong mind, which appeals to women as a role model. The story is very focused upon her physical beauty however, and the Beast, when she meets him, falls in love with her after an amount of time. She falls in love with him as well, despite his ugliness. This can give off an impression that women should be able to love a man no matter who he looks like, but there is rarely a story that has the reverse... a handsome man falling in love with a less than attractive woman. On the other hand, when she kisses the beast, he turns back into the handsome prince, which leads the story back into its emphasis on physical beauty. She doesn't REALLY have to put up with this ugly beast all her life, even though she loves him for who he is and not what she looks like. There are mixed messages that this story preaches... Though it tries to preach that love and beauty is on the inside and not the out, it still manages to portray its characters as extremely attractive and therefore still perpetuate the image that especially women, though often men as well, are judged very readily on their appearance as opposed to their personalities.