Suchergebnisse

This article provides an analysis of the Canadian full-length feature film High, produced in 1967. It also briefly examines early drug regulation and fictive illegal drug films with a focus on representations of marijuana and women. High captures societal tensions of the 1960s, including women's liberation, counter-culture lifestyles, and marijuana use. Yet it also re-enacts discourse and symbolic frameworks about white women, marijuana, law, and crime. White women's marijuana use is represented as a threat to gender-appropriate norms, respectability, and, ultimately, the family and nation. These frameworks and understandings of marijuana appear to be quite enduring, informing the production of film, policing, law, and the continued regulation of women.

This commentary responds to Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson's argument for the use of human rights discourse rather than a discourse of mental health when arguing for the legalization of same‐sex marriage. Without disagreeing with their basic argument, I "problematize" it, showing that legal and human rights discourses also have a history of reinforcing power dynamics and operating to the disadvantage of marginalized groups such as lesbians and gay men. First, equality rights discourse can force lesbians and gay men into a conservative mode of argument, for instance, having to show how similar they are to traditionalist opposite‐sex couples, rather than emphasizing potentially significant differences. Second, the increasing use of rights discourse has arguably narrowed the scope of the lesbian/gay social movement and rendered its political strategies more conservative, rather than aiming for the elimination of heterosexism and patriarchy. Third, the focus on marriage as a human right tends to render invisible, and to reinscribe, the extent to which marriage as a socio‐legal institution has operated in oppressive ways. Modern marriage is not innocent of oppression, tied as it is to the increasing privatization of social and economic responsibilities. While human rights discourse offers an important avenue for lesbians and gay men, the perils of its use should not be overlooked.

The author explores feminist frameworks within which questions of family, law and sexuality can best be explored, drawing on recent efforts to (re)establish materialist feminist theory. She suggests that in order to make the important link between questions of gender, sexuality, difference, desire, identity and subjectivity on the one hand, and problems of production and exploitation on the other, a materialist feminist theory must incorporate the strengths of Marxist feminism with those of postmodernist feminism. As a way of exploring the politics of current struggles for legal recognition of lesbian and gay relationships as 'spousal', she engages with the debate between Nancy Fraser and Judith Butler on the 'recognition/redistribution' dichotomy. She argues that neither theorist takes seriously enough the role of the family in the privatisation of the costs of social reproduction within capitalism. She concludes that the important lesbian/gay struggles for legal recognition of 'spousal' relationships, such as in the M v H lesbian spousal support case in Canada, should not be seen as sufficient to achieve social equality. Such legal struggles must be accompanied by trenchant critiques of the limits of such recognition in redistributing wealth and well-being.