c.1997 N.Y. Times News Service<
Oedipus blinded himself when he learned that he had slept withhis mother. Moll Flanders, Daniel Defoe's much-wed 18th-centuryheroine, rejects happiness when she discovers that her thirdhusband is her brother. The lovers of D.W. Griffith's ``A Baby'sShoe'' become priest and nun upon learning that they are siblings.
That was in 1910. In 1996, the reunited lovers of John Sayles'``Lone Star,'' after finding out that they have the same father,continue their affair.
If a dozen movies, television dramas and memoirs are anyindication, incest, one of humanity's last taboos, is taboo nolonger. Incest is the plat du jour in the '90s marketplace, thesudden Zeitgeist zapping a jaded American audience. What's more,the new permutations make this societal crime seem almost ordinary.Gee, one almost hears someone say, doesn't every family have thisskeleton in the closet?
In addition to the Sayles movie, the plots of several upcomingmovies—``The House of Yes,'' ``This World, Then the Fireworks''and ``The Locusts''—turn on incest. And the buzz on ``The Kiss,''Kathryn Harrison's new memoir for Random House, is not about thebook's overall quality but about the author's revelation that shehad sex with her father, not as an unwilling child but as a womanof 20.
``Incest has such incredible currency today largely because ofambush television and mid-afternoon shame programs,'' said James B.Twitchell, a professor of English at the University of Florida, whowrote ``Forbidden Partners: the Incest Taboo in Modern Culture''(Columbia University Press, 1987). ``In a highly competitiveentertainment world, this is one that will quickly grab you.''
Incest as a literary theme first erupted at the beginning of the19th century as part of romantic interest in intense relationships,Twitchell said. Byron, Shelly and Poe all wrote about the subject.
``Nothing could have been more intensely hyperbolic than thebrother-sister relationship,'' he said. ``It was essentially anidealized sibling incest, and there is some reason to believe thatByron's incestuous relation with his sister, Augusta, was really acover-up for a homosexual relationship, incest being more palatablethan homosexuality at the time.''
An obvious reason behind the current trend, he said, is thewomen's movement, the notion of a victim class exploited by a malepower structure. ``But there is a much more efficient reason,''Twitchell said. ``The major consuming audience of film, televisionand books is still in emotional adolescence, and to this audienceincest is absolutely riveting.''
Whether the incest theme is a sign of society's decline or amarketing device, it is as old as the biblical injunction againstit. ``Incest is in the foundations of Western drama,'' said TomGunning, a professor in the cinema and media program in the artdepartment at the University of Chicago. ``But to discover afamilial relationship and go, `So what?' That's relatively new.''
``Chinatown,'' Roman Polanski's 1974 film with Jack Nicholson,and Faye Dunaway as a victim of incest, played out tragically. Thevictim herself is killed. By ending in tragedy, most storiesreinforce the notion of divine retribution.
There is, however, no thunderbolt at the end of ``Lone Star.''Gunning sees the seeming nonchalance of the lovers as more of anallegory about Anglo- and Mexican-American relations than a trueendorsement of incest. ``The idea is that they're all in ittogether—whites and Mexicans—and can't sort it out,'' he said.``It's a metaphor for the racial situation.'' Beyond the Pale
But Thomas Doherty, associate professor of film studies atBrandeis University, said the appearance of incest in entertainmentwas an outgrowth of ``greater sexual explicitness in general.''Doherty is at work on a book titled ``Pre-Code Hollywood:Immorality and Insurrection in American Cinema, 1930-1934.'' ``Ifone talks about what is still beyond the pale,'' he said, ``thereis only child molestation, bestiality and incest.''
Hollywood toyed with the theme of incest before the 1930 MotionPicture Production Code, he said. Still, movies like ``Scarface''in 1932, with Paul Muni as the hood with a lust for his sister, and``Unashamed,'' with Robert Young as a jealous brother who kills hissister's husband, used heavy hints, not explicit sex.
The use of incest as entertainment, particularly when it ispresented as morally neutral, troubles David Beatty, actingexecutive director of the National Victims Center, a nationalnonprofit organization in Arlington, Va., that helps victims ofviolence.
``In most cases when you're talking about incest, there isnothing romantic about it,'' he said ``What you're talking about istwo victims. If we start accepting incest as a literary motif, welose public outrage, and when we lose that, we start to condone it.I find it very troubling.''
Troubling, if not trivializing. Linda Katherine Cutting's``Memory Slips'' (HarperCollins, 1997) details the lifelong woundsher minister father inflicted on her as a child. Ms. Harrison'sbook, which she says she wrote quickly in a ``white heat,'' seemsalmost self-indulgent next to Ms. Cutting's memoir. Yet Ms.Cutting, a concert pianist, has done little promotion for the book,said Jane Beirn, director of publicity for HarperCollins. ``It'stoo hard for her to relive the tragedy of it all each time,'' shesaid.
Ms. Cutting, who once tried to kill herself, did not think ofwriting a book until she met a psychiatrist who had lost most ofhis family in the Holocaust. His message: ``Stay alive so you cantell.'' Bearing witness, she writes, has enabled her to ``restorehonor to the memory of others who have survived as well as thosewho haven't.''
FORT WORTH, Texas—Angela Whitewood's dreams of a long, happymarriage went up in smoke in November when her husband of 10 yearsfiled for a no-fault divorce, leaving her to raise four children,all younger than 8.
Whitewood, who believes that her marriage could have been savedwith counseling, is a case study in why lawmakers in Austin arelining up to support the Marriage Restoration Act. The bill wouldmake it harder for a man or woman to walk away from a marriageagainst their spouse's consent.
It would eliminate no-fault divorce for couples with childrenyounger than 18 and would require a one-year waiting period beforeconsenting couples without children could be granted a divorce.
If the couple has children or only one party is seeking thedivorce, the marriage could be dissolved only if one spouse provesthe other is at fault—such as being unfaithful, abusive, absentor a convicted felon.
``The marriage contract is the only contract I know of where thestate is more on the side of the person who is trying to break itthan the person who is trying to fulfill it,'' said Rep. ArleneWohlgemuth, R-Burleson, one of the bill's authors.
Current law allows a divorce with only one party's consent and a60-day waiting period. Neither party has to be found at fault.
According to the Texas Department of Health, there were 97,183divorces in the state in 1995, compared with 51,530 in 1970—theyear no-fault was enacted.
Wohlgemuth is backing the legislation as a way to combat theskyrocketing divorce rate and a multitude of social ills, such asjuvenile delinquency and teen-age pregnancy, that some experts havesaid result from broken homes.
The legislation, which has been referred to the House JuvenileJustice and Family Issues Committee, has sparked controversy amonglawyers, judges and the general public. Some say the legislation isan example of ``big brother'' government trying to dictatemorality. Others say the legislation would make it more difficultfor women to leave abusive relationships.
Attempts to curb divorce rates are sprouting in other states.Lawmakers in California and Michigan have tried to eliminateno-fault divorce, but they have not managed to get bills passed, aspokesman in Wohlgemuth's office said.
Rebecca C. Lucas, a family law attorney in Fort Worth, is amongthose concerned that state lawmakers are meddling into privateaffairs.
``This bill places the government in the role of trying to besociety's moral keeper,'' Lucas said. ``There's no reason for thestate to be imposing itself in this most personal and private areaof our lives.''
Brian Carper, a Tarrant County family law judge who has beenpresiding over divorce cases during the past 14 years, questionsthe bill's practicality.
``There's no way in the world, even with the best of intentions,to keep a family together once one of the parents decides that theyare going to leave,'' he said.
But Wohlgemuth and Rep. Glenn Lewis, a Fort Worth Democrat andanother author of the bill, have quick responses for their critics.Government, they say, has every right to get involved with theissue.
``Government already has a major role in this,'' Lewis said.``If it shouldn't be involved, then why does government sanctionmarriage? Why do the courts have jurisdiction over divorces?''
Wohlgemuth said: ``The state has a vested interest in families.We have to deal on a state level with problems like education,juvenile justice, drugs—these are the effects of divorce on oursociety.''
Juvenile arrest figures have been steadily increasing in recentyears, according to the Texas Youth Commission. Since 1988,juveniles arrested for violent index crimes such as murder,forcible rape and robbery have increased by 133 percent and thenumber of youths arrested for property index crimes such as arson,burglary and auto theft has jumped 21 percent.
Stacy McDonald, a spokeswoman for the Texas Youth Commission,said that although there has been much debate on whether brokenhomes are a factor in juvenile delinquency, there are no studies toprove or disprove the theory.
Lewis, who grew up in a single-parent home, calls himself ``oneof the lucky ones,'' but says few children are fortunate enough toescape the scars a divorce can reap.
``I know there are people who will argue with that,'' Lewissaid. ``One might argue that there is not a causal relationshipbetween divorce and the statistics—but you can't argue with thenumbers themselves.''
Whitewood, 30, said she is learning firsthand how divorce canaffect children.
The 30-year-old Round Rock woman says life for her children,ages 10 months, 2, 6, and 8 years, has been traumatic since herhusband left in November.
``Justin, my oldest, he's taking it hard,'' Whitewood said. ``Hewent from being a well-rounded, straight-A student to havingproblems in school, emotional outbursts. His grades have dropped.It breaks my heart to see what it's done to him.''
Whitewood said her children, especially Justin, face many yearsof counseling and therapy to help them deal with the effects of thedivorce.
Beverly Parkhurst, a volunteer with the Brighter TomorrowsShelter in Dallas, agrees that divorce can be devastating forchildren. But even worse, she said, is the possibility that thebill will make it harder for women and children to leave abusiverelationships.
``Many women in battered relationships file for no-fault,'' saidParkhurst, who works with battered women at the shelter.``Sometimes it is hard to prove abuse, so I think this bill has thepotential to lead to some dangerous situations.''
Parkhurst also said that a single-parent home is preferable insome circumstances.
``It is much more damaging for kids to be in a home whereparents are destructive, instead of living with one parent wholoves them,'' she said. ``I can't see how this bill helps anyone.''
Attorneys and judges also worry that the legislation could leadto a backlog in the courts, and ugly divorce disputes, as couplesresort to lying and fraud to prove fault, such as adultery, wherethere is none.
Still, Wohlgemuth and the more than two dozen lawmakersauthoring or co-sponsoring the bill say something must be done toreverse the effects of divorce-on-demand, a policy that has been ineffect for more than 25 years.
``Fifty percent of all marriages are going to end in divorce,''Wohlgemuth said. ``We've made it so easy to get (a divorce) thatthe institution of marriage has lost its meaning.''
_
(Visit the Star-Telegram's online services on the World WideWeb: www.startext.net; www.arlington.net; and www.netarrant.net)
c.1997 Bloomberg News
Washington, March 31 (Bloomberg) -- The Supreme Court todayupheld the constitutionality of a Montana law that requiresnotification of parents before a minor can obtain an abortion.
In an unsigned opinion, the court unanimously said the Montanalaw provided adequate procedures for judges to permit an abortionwithout parental notice, if they decide it's in a young woman'sbest interests.
Abortion-rights advocates had challenged the law, saying itsometimes required parental notice even in cases where a judge hasdetermined that an abortion is justified.
A San Francisco-based federal appeals court accepted thatargument, and struck down Montana's notice law.
The high court, issuing a decision without even hearing thecase, said the appeals court went too far in finding distinctionsbetween a judge's rulings about whether an abortion is justified,and whether parental notification is justified. The Montana lawappears to make no such distinction, the high court said.
The law, the high court ruled, permits an abortion with ajudge's consent, if the judge finds that parental notification isnot in a woman's best interests.
The high ruling will have an impact on at least 11 other stateswith parental-notice rules almost identical to those in Montana.
Montana law has required parental notification since 1974.During an earlier court challenge, state officials agreed in 1993that the original version did not comply with Supreme Court rulingsthat require some sort of procedures where a woman can --with ajudge's permission -- bypass the notice requirement in appropriatecases.
The Montana Legislature, in 1995, amended the law to providejudicial review. Under the new law, a youth court can waive thenotice requirement if there's proof that a minor is mature enoughto make her own decisions or has suffered from abuse, or thatparental notification is not generally in the child's bestinterests.
Abortion-rights supporters said the new law's notice requirementalso interfered with a woman's right to an abortion because itfocused on whether parental notification is in her best interests,rather than whether an abortion itself is appropriate.
Abortion-rights supporters said that, once a judge decides anabortion is in a child's best interests, parental notificationshould not be required.
The case is Lambert v. Wicklund, 96-858.
The New York Times said in an editorial on Monday, March 31:
Welfare mothers in New York who are being forced to go to worknow find themselves in desperate competition with the working poorfor help with day care. The shortage of day care slots for workingmothers is fast becoming a major problem that state officials incharge of carrying out welfare reform must soon address.
Under new federal and state welfare reform laws, an increasingnumber of welfare recipients will lose their benefits unless theyaccept a job or participate in training programs. When welfaremothers accept work, someone must care for their children.
There is already a nationwide day care shortage. Of the 6.5million children under the age of 13 in welfare households acrossthe nation, less than one-fifth receive federally subsidized daycare. As more welfare mothers are pushed into jobs, more childrenwill need care. A similar shortfall exists in New York City, whereabout 300,000 children between the ages of 3 and 12 are on publicassistance and may eventually need some form of child care support,either during the day or after school.
Traditionally, scarce child care subsidies have been extended towelfare and working-poor families, whose needs are oftenindistinguishable. New York City, which accounts for about 70percent of the state's welfare recipients, already uses $400million in federal, state and city funds to subsidize child carefor about 65,000 children from welfare and working-poor families.But with the new workfare requirements, welfare recipients may bumpthe working poor further down the waiting lists.
Gov. George Pataki proposes to use $54 million in expectedfederal welfare funds to pay for about 23,000 additional child careslots—14,000 for new workfare participants and the rest forlow-income families. Some child care advocates think he hasunderestimated per-slot costs, and that $54 million will provideonly 13,750 more day care spaces. They want the state Legislatureto at least match the federal funds, adding more child care slotsas a demonstration of Albany's commitment.
Beyond providing extra funds, the state could make changes inthe way it is administering the new welfare laws to ease the daycare crunch. For example, it could exempt welfare recipients withchildren under the age of 1 from participation in workfare orcommunity service programs and earmark more money to train childcare providers, including welfare mothers who might be recruited tocare for the children of other recipients.
Mothers who are forced to work should not be forced to competeagainst other low-income parents for care. Neither Pataki nor theLegislature may have anticipated the scope of this problem, butneither in good conscience can ignore it.
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws thatrequire teen-agers who want an abortion to tell a parent. The ruling, which reinstated a Montana law, came as a similarstatute is working its way through the Texas Legislature. Like theMontana law, the Texas version would let unmarried minors escapeparental notification if a judge endorses the need for secrecy. Both measures apply to girls under age 18. Monday's ruling was the second time that the Supreme Courtupheld state parental notification laws. Notification advocates inTexas said the unanimous opinion should remove any doubts about the legality of theproposed statute. ``This is a parental rights deal,'' said Rep. Kenny Marchant,R-Coppell, who is sponsoring the proposed Texas law. ``This is adeal where a 16-year-old boy takes a 14-year-old girl and pays forher to have an abortion, and the parents never know whathappened.'' Abortion rights advocates criticized the court ruling, arguingthat parental notification is not always the best course fortroubled teen-agers. ``Healthy parent-teen communication cannot be legislated. Forsome teens who fear physical or emotional abuse, this law puts themin even greater jeopardy,'' said Kate Michelman, president of theNational Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. In the Montana case, a group of abortion doctors challenged thelaw on the grounds that it did not give judges enough latitude indeciding whether to waive notification. The law says courts canapprove a secret abortion if a judge concludes that parentalnotification is not in the best interests of the pregnantteen-ager. Two lower courts agreed with the doctors and blocked the law'senforcement. The Supreme Court, citing a 1990 decision in a similarcase, declared the lower courts in error and reinstated thenotification requirement. Although Marchant welcomed the court ruling, he acknowledgedthat the decision probably will not change any votes in Austin. The Texas Senate approved the notification requirement March 20in 22-9 vote. The proposal is awaiting action in the House StateAffairs Committee, where the outcome is uncertain. ``If the bill is allow to reach the House floor, it will passpretty decisively,'' Marchant predicted. _ (Visit the Star-Telegram's online services on the World WideWeb: www.startext.net; www.arlington.net; and www.netarrant.net) Go back to SOCIOLOGY 260 -- Sociology of Marriage and the Family Page If you have any questions or comments please email:COURT UPHOLDS STATE LAWS REQUIRING PARENTAL NOTIFICATION FOR
c.1997 Fort Worth Star-Telegram=