As I read Jack Halberstam's post, I only vaguely agree with his argument. I found the film to be engaging and exactly as he said, more of a critique about the reality of marriage than a reality of homosexual marriage. While my own experience does not mirror a family with two moms, there were threads of connections woven throughout. I was able to relate to some of the family dynamics because that's how a family works, not strictly a family with lesbian parents. Yes, the element of the sperm donor changes those dynamics incredibly but if Jack Halberstam wants to focus on the desire-less relationship between Nic and Jules I feel that he is ignoring the reality that, as humans, we get bored. Despite whatever commitment you make to someone, there still remains an element of our humanity that will wander. In this case, Jules' wandering was more than a flirtation or a daydream fantasy. It is the decision to fight that wandering and hold true to the whole-hearted promise you made from day 1. I think that is what I took away from this more than the gendered roles of the moms' asexual relationship vs. Paul's hypersexual world of casual relationships. I agree far more with the second portion of the quote, "trading in sex for comfort, change for stability, and improvised relationships for marriage are all bad deals and if we don't change the social structures we inherit, we are doomed to repeat them." People make compromises with themselves everyday and, inevitably, mistakes. We were able to watch the progression of this family as they learned a little more about themselves and then were left to cope with the aftermath. However, it is how this family, and all families for that matter, use what they learn through these monumental experiences and morph and change for the better. This is what we, as societies, need to be doing - morph and changing our ideas of how a "family" looks and acts.
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/179243