DOCSLIB.ORG

Marriage Maintenance, Miscategorization, and New Manifestations: How People Are Reinforcing and Disrupting Gender and Sexual Inequalities in Married Life

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Marriage Maintenance, Miscategorization, and New Manifestations: How People Are Reinforcing and Disrupting Gender and Sexual Inequalities in Married Life University of Wisconsin Milwaukee UWM Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations August 2019 Marriage Maintenance, Miscategorization, and New Manifestations: How People Are Reinforcing and Disrupting Gender and Sexual Inequalities in Married Life Daniel John Bartholomay University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.uwm.edu/etd Part of the Gender and Sexuality Commons, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies Commons Recommended Citation Bartholomay, Daniel John, "Marriage Maintenance, Miscategorization, and New Manifestations: How People Are Reinforcing and Disrupting Gender and Sexual Inequalities in Married Life" (2019). Theses and Dissertations. 2159. https://dc.uwm.edu/etd/2159 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by UWM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UWM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARRIAGE MAINTENANCE, MISCATEGORIZATION, AND NEW MANIFESTATIONS: HOW PEOPLE ARE REINFORCING AND DISRUPTING GENDER AND SEXUAL INEQUALITIES IN MARRIED LIFE by Daniel J. Bartholomay A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee August 2019 ABSTRACT MARRIAGE MAINTENANCE, MISCATEGORIZATION, AND NEW MANIFESTATIONS: HOW PEOPLE ARE REINFORCING AND DISRUPTING GENDER AND SEXUAL INEQUALITIES IN MARRIED LIFE by Daniel J. Bartholomay The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2019 Under the Supervision of Professor Noelle Chesley This research positions marriage as an institution that has historically served to privilege men, masculinity and heterosexuality. Overall, this project is intended to advance our understanding of gender and sexual inequalities in the realms of marriage and family by examining the lived experiences of married people. It draws on data from 41 in-depth interviews conducted with married people living in Wisconsin, many of whom identify as part of the LGBT+ community. Using qualitative social science methods, this research speaks to unanswered questions regarding the capacity of a more gender-fluid society to reshape key social institutions (like marriage) in ways that make them more accessible to a wider population by reshaping cultural ideas about what marriage and family can look like. Theoretically, it broadens our understanding of how gender and sexuality are connected, the mechanisms that reinforce and disrupt gender and sexuality norms, and the larger implications of undoing for greater gender and sexual equality. ii © Copyright by Daniel J. Bartholomay, 2019 All Rights Reserved iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................vi LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................ix CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER TWO. THEORY AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON MARRIAGE, GENDER, AND HETERONORMATIVITY .............................................................................................. 11 The History of Marriage in the United States ......................................................................... 11 Contemporary Theories on Marriage ..................................................................................... 18 Deinstitutionalization and The Individualization of Marriage ............................................ 18 Social Exchange Theory and Marriage .............................................................................. 20 Gender and Sexual Inequalities in Marriage .......................................................................... 21 Problematizing Heteronormativity ......................................................................................... 25 The Effects of Heteronormativity on LGBT+ Families ...................................................... 27 Assimilation into Heteronormativity: A Critique of Same-Gender Marriage ...................... 29 Positioning Same-Gender Marriage as a Challenge to Heteronormativity .......................... 32 Accessing Heteronormative Privilege in Marriage ............................................................. 34 Marriage Beyond the Binary ................................................................................................. 36 Doing and Undoing Gender and Sexuality ............................................................................. 39 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 42 CHAPTER THREE. METHODS .............................................................................................. 44 In-Depth Interviewing ........................................................................................................... 44 Study Eligibility .................................................................................................................... 45 Participant Recruitment ......................................................................................................... 47 Interviewee Characteristics .................................................................................................... 48 The Interview Process ........................................................................................................... 55 Data Generation .................................................................................................................... 58 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 59 Method Limitations ............................................................................................................... 63 Reflexivity ............................................................................................................................ 64 CHAPTER FOUR. MARRIAGE MOTIVATIONS, DECISIONS, AND BEHAVIORS RELATED TO GENDER AND SEXUALITY ......................................................................... 67 I Now Pronounce You… Negotiating Decisions about Marital Name Change ....................... 68 Legal Rights and Benefits as a Motivation to Marry .............................................................. 71 Practicing Consensual Non-Monogamy (CNM) and Polyamory while Married ..................... 77 The Potential of Polyamory ............................................................................................... 79 The Challenges of Being Married and Polyamorous .......................................................... 83 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 86 CHAPTER FIVE. THE MARRIAGE EXPERIENCES OF BISEXUAL, QUEER, AND PANSEXUAL PEOPLE ........................................................................................................... 90 A Word on Sexual Identities Beyond the Binary.................................................................... 91 Bisexual, Queer, and Pansexual People in Mixed-gender and Same-Gender Marriages ........ 93 The Heteronormative Privilege of Choosing When to Be Out ............................................ 94 iv “So, Does That Mean You’re Straight?” Negotiating Queerness in “Heterosexual” Marriages .......................................................................................................................... 99 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 104 CHAPTER SIX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 107 Closing Thoughts ................................................................................................................ 110 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 112 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 131 Appendix A. Definitions of Gender and Sexual Identities .................................................... 131 Appendix B: IRB Approval Letter ....................................................................................... 134 Appendix C: Recruitment Flyer ........................................................................................... 135 Appendix D: Detailed Descriptions of Interviewees ............................................................ 136 Appendix E. Informed Consent Document .......................................................................... 140 Appendix F: Qualtrics Survey ............................................................................................. 145 Appendix G: Interview Schedule ......................................................................................... 156 Appendix H. Research Assistant Letter of Offer .................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, POLYGYNY & JESUS; Another Look for Christians. COPYRIGHT JANUARY 14, 1995 All
    MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, POLYGYNY & JESUS; Another Look for Christians. COPYRIGHT JANUARY 14, 1995 All rights reserved. Portions of this file/document may be posted/published as long as the paragraph of the portion, the paragraph before the portion and the paragraph after the portion are included without any additional breaks or spaces, and the source and author are included with the protion posted/published. Copyright 01/12/96; 11/10/05; 5/13/09; 11/29/10; 3/15/11 (Revised) By L. Tyler SanDiego, CA 92162-0763 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PolyPolygamyPolygnyNJesus http://groups.google.com/group/BiblicalChristianPolygamyPolygyny http://www.flickr.com/groups/christian_polygamy/ http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6382095167 http://biblicalmarriagepolygyny.yuku.com/directory TOPICS: FOREVER MARRIAGES CROSS CULTURALLY, FORMAL AND INFORMAL CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE, COMMON LAW MARRIAGE, CHRISTIAN DIVORCE, CHRISTIAN REMARRIAGE, CHRISTIAN CONCUBINES, CHRISTIAN POLYGYNY (POLYGAMY), RACISM, ETHNOCENTRICITY, AND THE SWEARING OF OATHS TABLE OF CONTENTS (PLEASE USE YOUR FIND TOOL TO FIND THE CHAPTER BY THE CHAPTER ROMAN NUMERAL) I. INTRODUCTION: PRIORITIES RECONSIDERED. II. DIVORCE DEFINED, A Surprise III. DIVORCE! A PLAGUE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. IV-A. MARRIAGE AND POLYGYNY FROM GENESIS TO JUDGES IV-B. MARRIAGE AND POLYGYNY FROM JUDGES TO JESUS V. MARRIAGE, POLYGYNY, JESUS AND THE APOSTLES VI. ADULTERY DEFINED: A SURPRISE! ISNT POLYGYNY ADULTERY? VII. SO, WHAT ABOUT CONCUBINES & POLYGYNY TODAY IN MY COUNTRY? VIII. ARE POLYGYNISTS AND CONCUBINES LIVING IN ERROR TODAY? IX. MARRIAGE, CONCUBINES, CIVIL LAW, PERSONAL LIBERTY AND A LOVING CONSCIENCE! X. DOES GOD FORGIVE BROKEN VOWS, DIVORCE AND ADULTERY? XI. CAN YOU COME BACK TOGETHER & REMMARY AFTER ADULTEROUS REMARRIAGE? XII.
    [Show full text]
  • Masculinity, Homosociality, and Violence Among Fraternity Men
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Honors Scholar Theses Honors Scholar Program Spring 5-1-2020 Brothers as Men: Masculinity, Homosociality, and Violence Among Fraternity Men Daniel McCloskey [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses Part of the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation McCloskey, Daniel, "Brothers as Men: Masculinity, Homosociality, and Violence Among Fraternity Men" (2020). Honors Scholar Theses. 717. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses/717 Brothers as Men: Masculinity, Homosociality, and Violence Among Fraternity Men by Daniel T. McCloskey Honors Thesis and University Scholar Project Department of Anthropology University of Connecticut University Scholar Committee: Dr. Françoise Dussart, Chair Dr. Pamela Erickson Dr. Daisy Reyes Honors Advisor: Dr. Alexia Smith May 2020 McCloskey, 2020 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements 3 Chapter 1: Introduction 5 Chapter 2: Gender 14 Chapter 3: Masculinity 25 Chapter 4: Homosociality 43 Chapter 5: Violence 61 Chapter 6: Conclusions 78 Bibliography 82 Appendices 86 McCloskey, 2020 3 Acknowledgements As much as I have dedicated my time and energies to this thesis, this work would not have been possible without the insight and guidance of so many people including my committee, my professors, programs at the University of Connecticut, my friends, and my family. While there are not words in the English language to fully express my appreciation and gratitude to these individuals, I will now do my best to make an attempt. First and foremost, I must acknowledge the role of the committee that helped me through this project. I would like to thank Dr. Françoise Dussart for her guidance throughout this process.
    [Show full text]
  • Safe Zone Manual – Edited 9.15.2015 1
    Fall 2015 UCM SAFE ZONE GUIDE FOR ALLIES UCM – Safe Zone Manual – Edited 9.15.2015 1 Contents Safe Zone Program Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 Terms, Definitions, and Labels ................................................................................................................. 6 Symbols and Flags................................................................................................................................... 19 Gender Identity ......................................................................................................................................... 24 What is Homophobia? ............................................................................................................................. 25 Biphobia – Myths and Realities of Bisexuality ..................................................................................... 26 Transphobia- Myths & Realities of Transgender ................................................................................. 28 Homophobia/biphobia/transphobia in Clinical Terms: The Riddle Scale ......................................... 30 How Homophobia/biphobia/transphobia Hurts Us All......................................................................... 32 National Statistics and Research Findings ........................................................................................... 33 Missouri State “Snapshot” ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prosociality and a Sociosexual Hypothesis for the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction in Humans
    fpsyg-10-02955 January 10, 2020 Time: 9:34 # 1 PERSPECTIVE published: 16 January 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02955 Prosociality and a Sociosexual Hypothesis for the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction in Humans Andrew B. Barron1* and Brian Hare2 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2 Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Center for Cognitive Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States Human same-sex sexual attraction (SSSA) has long been considered to be an evolutionary puzzle. The trait is clearly biological: it is widespread and has a strong additive genetic basis, but how SSSA has evolved remains a subject of debate. Of itself, homosexual sexual behavior will not yield offspring, and consequently individuals expressing strong SSSA that are mostly or exclusively homosexual are presumed to have lower fitness and reproductive success. How then did the trait evolve, and how is it maintained in populations? Here we develop a novel argument for the evolution of SSSA that focuses on the likely adaptive social consequences of SSSA. We argue that same sex sexual attraction evolved as just one of a suite of traits responding to strong selection for ease of social integration or prosocial behavior. A strong driver of Edited by: recent human behavioral evolution has been selection for reduced reactive aggression, Antonio Benítez-Burraco, University of Seville, Spain increased social affiliation, social communication, and ease of social integration. In many Reviewed by: prosocial mammals sex has adopted new social functions in contexts of social bonding, Jaroslava Varella Valentova, social reinforcement, appeasement, and play. We argue that for humans the social University of São Paulo, Brazil Rafael Lucas Rodriguez, functions and benefits of sex apply to same-sex sexual behavior as well as heterosexual University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does the Bible Say About Divorce and Remarriage
    WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE? “If your opinion about anything contradicts God’s Word, guess which one is wrong?” Rick Warren “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Proverbs 14:12 ESV) What does the Bible say about marriage? Marriage is created by God as lifelong institution between a man and a woman, rooted in creation, with a significance that shows in its comparison to Christ’s relationship with the church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Today marriage is often defined by the emerging trends, understandings, feelings, and opinions of the culture rather than the transcendent, immutable, and eternal truth found described by the God who created it. This change in understanding and practice has led to an overwhelming amount of marriages ending in divorce and resulting in remarriage. Although many sociological, psychological, economic, emotional, and man- centered rationales may be created to explain and justify the practice of divorce and remarriage, the Christian perspective and practice must be rooted in a balanced and holistic application of biblical theology. The overwhelming practice in today’s churches is to allow remarriage in most cases of legal divorce. This is problematic in a society that frequently allows no-fault divorce, thus eliminating most standards or requirements for divorce. In the few churches that do choose to discriminate in the practice of remarriage, it is often confusing and complex to determine accurately the circumstances surrounding the divorce as well as the guilt or innocence of each party involved. In evaluating the Scriptural texts in regard to marriage, divorce, and remarriage the Bible points to the marriage bond as ending only in death, not merely being severed by legal divorce, thereby prohibiting remarriage following divorce no matter the circumstance (Matthew 19:6, Romans 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11,39).
    [Show full text]
  • Flag Definitions
    Flag Definitions Rainbow Flag : The rainbow flag, commonly known as the gay pride flag or LGBTQ pride flag, is a symbol of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer pride and LGBTQ social movements. Always has red at the top and violet at the bottom. It represents the diversity of gays and lesbians around the world. Bisexual Pride Flag: Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behaviour toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. Pink represents sexual attraction to the same sex only (gay and lesbian). Blue represents sexual attraction to the opposite sex only (Straight). Purple represents sexual attraction to both sexes (bi). The key to understanding the symbolism of the Bisexual flag is to know that the purple pixels of colour blend unnoticeably into both pink and blue, just as in the “real world” where bi people blend unnoticeably into both the gay/lesbian and straight communities. Transgender Pride Flag: Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex. Blue stripes at top and bottom is the traditional colour for baby boys. Pink stipes next to them are the traditional colour for baby girls. White stripe in the middle is for people that are nonbinary, feel that they don’t have a gender. The pattern is such that no matter which way you fly it, it is always correct, signifying us finding correctness in our lives. Intersex Pride Flag: Intersex people are those who do not exhibit all the biological characteristics of male or female, or exhibit a combination of characteristics, at birth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Chivalry in Medieval and Modern Society Grace M
    HUMANITIES All Roads Lead to Homosociality: The Role of Chivalry in Medieval and Modern Society Grace M. McDougall Faculty Mentor: Dr. Karma Lochrie, Department of English, Indiana University Bloomington ABSTRACT This paper examines the role of chivalry in Marie de France’s lais, focusing on Guigemar with support from Bisclavret. One of the most-studied authors of the medieval period, Marie de France channels the values, anxieties, and societal dynamics of her time by both adhering to and pushing against literary norms. Guigemar and Bisclavret present near-perfect examples of knighthood according to chivalric norms, save for two flaws: Guigemar has no love for women, and Bisclavret is a werewolf. The treatment of these knights and their peculiarities reveals the strict expectations of masculinity and the risks of breaking from them. I pay particular attention to the importance of humility in chivalric masculinity and the ways in which their peculiarities affect their relationships, especially with other men. Guigemar shows that humility, rather than courage, martial skill, or courtesy, was the most important chivalric value. Humility is so essential because the main role of chivalry was to preserve the relationships between men that formed the basis of medieval society. I argue that understanding the cultural history of chivalry is important for modern audiences because the concept of chivalry is still used by many groups to legitimize and promote their interests and continues to shape our perceptions of masculinity and gender dynamics. While what we think of chivalry has changed greatly since Marie de France’s time, the ends of chivalry remain the same—to promote the interests of those in positions of power.
    [Show full text]
  • Bisexual People’S Experiences of and Ideas for Improving Services
    COMPLICATED? Bisexual people’s experiences of and ideas for improving services Sam Rankin James Morton and Matthew Bell 1 Acknowledgements The Equality Network would like to thank all the respondents to the survey for taking the time to contribute their experiences and ideas to better bisexual inclusion. We would also like to thank the authors of ‘The Bisexuality Report’1 for inspiring this work. Thanks also to our research assistant, Mel Maguire and all the people who provided feedback on the consultation draft and proof read the final draft. Thank you to the Scottish Government Equality Unit for funding this work. 1. Barker and others, 2012 3 Foreword Meg John Barker Back in 2012 when we produced The Bisexuality Report, my co-authors and I struggled with a few things. There was the lack of evidence regarding the experience of bisexual people in the UK – particularly those outside of the official ‘bisexual community’ – to support the findings from other countries. There was the absence of in-depth qualitative data from UK-based bisexual people to illustrate our points, particularly regarding experiences of services - which is so necessary if we are to fight for improvement in those areas. And there was the dearth of material anywhere regarding people whose bisexuality intersected with other marginalised identities and experiences. This in particular was something we subsequently hugely regretted giving such a small amount of space to, given its vital importance and the danger of suggesting shared experience where actually there is so much diversity. For these reasons – and so many more – I am extremely grateful to the Equality Network for producing ‘Complicated?’.
    [Show full text]
  • An Exploration of Female and Male Homosocial Bonds in DH Lawrence's
    Student ID: 200614777 ENGL3318: Final Year Project 2014/15 Dr Fiona Becket An exploration of female and male homosocial bonds in D. H. Lawrence’s ‘serious English novels’ ENGL 3318: Final Year Project Tutor: Dr Fiona Becket Student ID: 200614777 1 Student ID: 200614777 ENGL3318: Final Year Project 2014/15 Dr Fiona Becket Introduction………………………………………………………………… 3 I. Female Homosociality in The Rainbow………………………… 4 II. Female Homosociality in Women in Love……………………… 9 III. Male Homosociality in Women in Love………………………… 15 IV. Male Homosociality in Aaron’s Rod……………………………. 20 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….. 25 Bibliography………………………………………………………………… 26 2 Student ID: 200614777 ENGL3318: Final Year Project 2014/15 Dr Fiona Becket Introduction To focus exclusively on homosocial relationships, ‘the social bonds between persons of the same sex’, may seem like an odd choice when studying a writer like D. H. Lawrence.1 Lawrence himself stated that ‘The great relationship, for humanity, will always be the relation between man and woman. The relation between man and man, woman and woman, parent and child, will always be subsidiary.’2 His attitude towards sex, gender and the nature and importance of homosocial relationships, however, were subject to many changes throughout his career. These changes, I argue, are most visible in three closely related novels written across a seven-year span. The first is the female-focused narrative of The Rainbow, banned for obscenity upon publication due to its protagonist’s lesbian affair.3 The second is its sequel, Women in Love, best-known for the ambiguous relationship between its male protagonists, but whose female relationships are also worth studying. The last novel is Aaron’s Rod, a text in which the titular protagonist relinquishes his ties to his family and country and explores the possibilities of bonds with other men.
    [Show full text]
  • American Masculinity and Homosocial Behavior in the Bromance Era
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Communication Theses Department of Communication Summer 8-2013 American Masculinity and Homosocial Behavior in the Bromance Era Diana Sargent Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_theses Recommended Citation Sargent, Diana, "American Masculinity and Homosocial Behavior in the Bromance Era." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2013. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_theses/99 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Communication at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMERICAN MASCULINITY AND HOMOSOCIAL BEHAVIOR IN THE BROMANCE ERA by DIANA SARGENT Under the Direction of Patricia Davis ABSTRACT This study examines and reflects upon the current “bromance” culture that has emerged in American society and aims to conceptualize how media texts relate to masculine hegemony. Attention to current media portrayals, codes of conduct, rituals, homosocial interaction, and con- structions of masculinity in American culture is essential for the evaluation of the current era of American masculinity. Mediated portrayals present an ironic position on male closeness, dictate how men should behave towards women and other men, and create real life situations in which these mediated expectations are fostered and put into practice. Textual analyses of the films Superbad and I Love You, Man and the television series How I Met Your Mother were conducted, as well as an ethnographic study of cult film audiences of The Room to better understand mani- festations of homosocial environments in mediated texts and in real life settings.
    [Show full text]
  • Bi Women Vol
    Spring 2012: Mar/Apr/May Bi Women Vol. 30 No. 2 • Voices of Youth A newsletter produced by the Boston Bisexual Women’s Network, for people everywhere Train of Thought longer than a glance. He gives an acknowledging smile. By Anna Chase I recall an article I read recently about signals the right sides of our brains send to one another when we make eye The train is hot and crowded. I find a seat next to an elderly contact. We are not entirely conscious of these signals, white man in a black pea coat, cross my legs and place my but they give us an instinctual, underlying feeling about brown leather purse on my lap. My phone vibrates against the other, whether it be fear, dislike or attraction. I return my thigh: a text from her. We’re at Central bar! Come find us. the slight smile and fix my eyes on the red leather boots I notice the absence of excitement, but I do want to see her. I of the woman next to him. envision us sitting at the bar with our Manhattans, speculating We ride on. I begin conducting a silent survey of as to whether or not the couple to our left is on a blind date. which gender of those around me attracts me more, I wonder if we will kiss tonight. Last time I saw her she a habit I’ve found hard to shake since I realized a revealed her bisexuality and her haitus from men, “until they few years ago I may be bisexual.
    [Show full text]
  • LGBTQ Role Models & Symbols
    New Brunswick LGBTQ Inclusive Education Resource LGBTQ ROLE MODELS & SYMBOLS lgbtq Role Models trey anthony Liz Matheson Ashley Arrowsmith Kathy McCormack Sébastien Bezeau Colin McCready Alexandre Coholan Marie-Hélène Michaud Aaron Cosgrove Sarah Nesbitt Gail Costello Peter Papoulidis Danderson Sarah Payne Alexi Desjardins Yves Pelletier Sarah Doiron Stella Raven Pierre-André Doucet Tracey Rickards Leanne Fitch Bill Ryan John Fletcher Bruce Ryan Karla Gillis Allan Sabattis Derek Hannon Chantale Thanh Laplante Brent Hawkes Adam Thériault El-Farouk Khaki Crystine Thériault Michelle Leard John Thériault Beth Lyons Kyle Wedge Michael Lyons Matt K. Williston Meredith Martell trey is the first Black Canadian Toronto 2010. She has spoken at woman to write and produce a Canada Revenue, Stats Canada, GE television show on a major prime Canada, and numerous universities time Canadian network. She is a and schools in the U.S and Canada. former television producer for the Trey has recently been named a Women’s Television Network (now W) Bell Media fellow, which recognizes and a writer for the Comedy Network emerging television producers and and CTV. She was also the executive their contribution to Canadian producer of the Urban Women’s media. She was chosen as one of the Comedy Festival, dat girl, sho is funny! participants to the highly competitive She co-wrote, I Am Not a Dinner Mint, Bell Media Producer accelerator’s lab, The Crap Women Swallow to Stay in a over 195 applicants were received and Relationship!, which debuted in 2006 trey was 1 of eight participants chosen to sold-out audiences. Following in in March 2014, which led her to be an the line of successful theatre plays invited participant at the World Media came, Secrets of a Black Boy, (the male Festival 2014.
    [Show full text]