Laird’s article asks the question of whether ritual is something that is equally accessible to men and women. It really is an interesting question and one that I had not necessarily thought of or even would have recognized to think about. Laird being a family therapist leans more heavily on the rituals within family life and the attempt at trying to define them. She sees a lack of ritualistic meaning for women and a lack of inclusion in family rituals. For example the women in a stereotypical household though out history is the caregiver, the one who takes care of the home and the children. Now let’s look at a stereotypical family dinner. It is a ritual that takes place every night or once a week, it includes the family sitting together and eating together. This undoubtedly serves the function of bringing this group closer together, for a moment in time removes them from the daily “hub-ub” and deary-ness, and allows them to connect on a different level. But let’s examine this ritual a bit closer. For the entire time before this stereotypical dinner, where is the female? – in the kitchen (probably alone, cooking). During the meal, where is the female? – bringing out the food, making sure desert doesn’t burn, making something different for the young child in the family etc. At the end of the meal – probably in the kitchen cleaning, alone. Now this may seem too stereotypical, negative, anti-feminist, but let’s face it, it is the traditional stereotype of nuclear family households (or at least it was for much of history). It only goes to support the notion that ritual is not equally accessible to women as is men. Because for the entire ritual that is supposed to include the entire family, that is an opportunity and time of coming closer together and bonding; the women is left out. Further back in history when women were blatantly not allowed to part take in various rituals we can see it more obviously, but coming a little closer to the present time, we can still see how women are made to be subservient to men. But why??? Why do women (although we have fought back and demanded to be included and have succeed in leaps and bounds) still succumb to these prescriptions? Maybe some fear the self-inclusion will alter the ritual in some negative way. Well I have to say many mothers have changed it and from personal experience I say it only makes it stronger and more worth-while.

The point of this article is to act as a critique of Victor Turner and his notions of liminality. I very much so feel that the way in which Bynum prefaced her article was both strengthening and harmful. Strengthening in the fact that for those who no not of Turner’s theories it give them somewhat of an overview, at least enough where they could grasp the ‘gist’ of the point of the article. I also felt it was a bit harmful to her piece as well though because she sets her self up for a lack of reader support. From the very beginning (and again at the end) seems to knock herself down and come off as though she does not fully back her thoughts and that she can’t really critique Turner because it is something he has eluded to previously. It just (at least for me) made it a weaker argument. Though she made good points, had good ideas, etc. they some-what lose a bit of “umph” due to her … shall we say … timidness? Aside from that, this focus on women as the major symbol of liminality though out history and the need to see with them not just over, around, etc. them. I have always believed that for anything, any idea, belief or understanding that is separate from your own, you must “walk a mile in their shoes” to truly understand what it means for them, how they view life through it, why they do what they do. We can not just look at or observe and assume we know. We cannotgive ourselves that much credit. We learn best from experience so what better then to stand with and experience with? Esp. when looking at the dual between men and women. Men seem to use at their will, women for liminality. With how much they have relied/leaned on women throughout the history of the world, one would think that men and women might understand each other a bit better. But they don’t because they have always, as Bynum discusses, looked at not withwomen. They have separated themselves and for what? Why? Women clearly serve a vital purpose for them, they need them to survive, to go on, so why not try to understand, why not try to stand with? And for women, why not try to make them stand with, or make yourself a part of them (men). Tieing this in to our last class discussion I think we see women more pushing for a standing with males (like our talk about video games). And girls playing the first person shooters that are stereotypically designed for males. We (women) are seeing what its like, testing the waters, experiencing and joining in. And why shouldn’t we?