The Degree of Oppression in Society

In Joan L. Griscom's essay "The Case of Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson: Ableism, Heterosexism, and Sexism," the oppression of society on people who don't follow the "norm" becomes apparent. Perhaps it's because I've faced discrimination based on my race before that I am able to sympathize and support Griscom's argument that society should not be denying people freedom based on qualities that aren't considered "normal." Griscom tells a story of Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson, a married couple whose human rights were violated, showing the flaws of the structure of our society.

Griscom first starts off by telling the story of Sharon and Karen from the time Sharon is hospitalized till they're reunited. This story focuses on getting the reader to sympathize with the author's point of view. "Karen spent hour, daily, talking to her, reading the Bible, massaging and stretching her neck, shoulders, and hands (497)." We start to see Karen as someone who has unconditional love for Sharon, fortifying the idea that it doesn't matter if the marriage is heterosexual or not. This definitely makes me feel bad for them while making me angry at the system that has taken them away from one another.

Then Griscom discusses the different reasons why Karen and Sharon's rights were oppressed. First, due to Sharon's lack of ability she is labeled as "helpless." Griscom says, "The presumption of helplessness 'traps' her far more severely than her 'twisted body (501).'" This is definitely apparent because even though Sharon could communicate through writing, no one would take her testimonies or wishes seriously.

Second, heterosexism was also a major factor in limiting Karen's access to Sharon. The legal system in the past did not recognize non-heterosexual relationships. "When Karen was first to arrive at the hospital after the accident, she was not allowed access to Sharon or even any information, because she was not 'family (501).'" If they were a heterosexual couple, they definitely would not have faced as many issues as they did before. Griscom further enhances her point when she says, "While unmarried heterosexual partners might have trouble securing guardianship, married partners would not (502)." Clearly, this was a problem because the institutional system didn't believe that two people could be married if they didn't follow the sexual orientation of the "norm."

Third, Griscom argues that sexism was intertwined with heterosexism in denying the rights to Karen. "...but in a sexist society, it is appropriate to assign an adult woman to her male parent (503)." Griscom is pointing out how females don't have as much freedom as males. And although this may be true, I don't feel that this was a strong argument