Search

Understanding the processes that lead to change in institutions and meanings is a central concern of sociology. This paper examines the tactics used by "plural-marriage" activists to cast members of such marriages as an oppressed minority and portray polygamy as empowering to women. In-depth interviews with Mormon fundamentalist polygamist women (N=30) and men (N=4) involved in the plural-marriage-rights movement suggest that, to achieve these goals, our respondents distance themselves from Mormon fundamentalist groups known to force underage girls into marriage while rhetorically likening themselves to a population with whom they have moral objections: gays and lesbians. Movement leaders reinforce the analogy with gay men and lesbians by strategically and self-consciously employing a language of "coming out of the closet" to talk about revealing and affirming their polygamist status. We argue that they are drawn to this particular language not merely because it is culturally ubiquitous but also because of how same-sex marriage and polygamy have been connected via what we call discursive networks. As feminist scholars, we consider our respondents' claims that polygyny offers women advantages over monogamy, while also examining how post-feminist discourse about choice can reinforce patriarchal structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most recent internationally widespread disease outbreak occurred during the flu season of 2009 and 2010. On April 2009, the first cases of influenza A (H1N1) (Popularly called, Swine Flu) were confirmed in the USA and UK following a novel virus that was first identified in Mexico. As the virus spread rapidly, the risk of morbidity and mortality increased in several countries. In this paper, we rely on the social cognitive theory of risk to assess the willingness of the US public to comply with vaccination and reduce the risk of sickness and death from the flu. We conduct a secondary data analysis of the Pew Research for the People and Press October 2009 and investigate the factors associated with willingness to take the swine flu vaccine (n = 1000). The findings indicate that the decision to take the swine flu vaccination was highly polarized across partisan lines. Controlling for education, income and demographic factors, the likelihood of taking the vaccine was associated with party identification. Individuals that identified themselves as Democrats were more likely to be willing to take the swine vaccine than individuals that identify themselves as Republicans and Independents. Confidence in the ability of the government to deal with the swine flu crisis seems to explain party identification differences in the willingness to take the vaccine. The implications of the findings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]