Ah. This post by Clio clears it up
for me.
Marriage equality is a threat to those who do not believe in EQUALITY between the sexes in general.
the conservative/traditional view of marriage is grounded not in the pursuit of personal freedom or individual happiness or rights, but in gender essentialism – in the belief that the purpose of marriage is procreation and that woman’s highest role is as wife and mother.
Same-sex marriage makes a lie of the very foundation of traditional gender roles. Same-sex marriages say that a woman can run a household, or that a man can raise a child. This does not square with those whose lives and beliefs and relationships depend on upholding and living their lives based on differences between the sexes.
The real problem with SSM is not that it's icky, per se.
It's that it threatens the patriarchy. This makes a lot more sense now.
SSM denies gender essentialism. That is, it says that there's no such *thing* as one kind of man, one kind of woman. If that's true (and it is), then there's no such thing as one kind of marriage. And if *that* is true, then why should all those women stuck in those horrible marriages keep submitting to their horrible husbands?
THAT, my friends, is how SSM will harm traditional marriage.
The root of their argument revealed.
The problem, of course, is that those making this argument don't want to admit that the patriarchy exists, or that they are oppressing women, so they can't MAKE this argument. Ha. A neat trap.
It's that it threatens the patriarchy. This makes a lot more sense now.
SSM denies gender essentialism. That is, it says that there's no such *thing* as one kind of man, one kind of woman. If that's true (and it is), then there's no such thing as one kind of marriage. And if *that* is true, then why should all those women stuck in those horrible marriages keep submitting to their horrible husbands?
THAT, my friends, is how SSM will harm traditional marriage.
The root of their argument revealed.
The problem, of course, is that those making this argument don't want to admit that the patriarchy exists, or that they are oppressing women, so they can't MAKE this argument. Ha. A neat trap.
5 comments:
I WISH it would destroy the patriarchy. Alas, I don't think it will. But we can hope!!!!
It's a step in the right direction. --L
Yes, I know -- if only!
Delagar,
I followed your link from Rod's blog. You have something of a point,but it's also more complex.
I'd say that at a *personal* level, I believe strongly in traditional gender norms. I would certainly not want to be in an egalitarian relationship, and I think the best relationships are those characterized by complementary gender norms: one party providing and taking care of the other, etc.. I'm also a gender essentialist in that I think the differences between mean trait values for men and women are due to innate biological factors much more than to culture. (That doesn't mean every individual woman is shorter, less competitive, or less agressive than every man, but it means the means are different, and the differences are due to nature rather than culture). Therefore, I don't *personally* believe that gay marriages are marriages.
At the *legal* level, however, I'm fine with the state recognizing gay marriages, egalitarian marriages, feminist marriages, childless marriages, interfaith marriages, and many other things I might not personally approve of. Our government, for better or worse, isn't founded on natural law, and isn't founded on Christianity.
This is for two reasons. First, while I think *most* men and women are ultimately going to be happiest conforming to traditional gender norms, there is a minority of people who are just hard-wired differently, and whose natural inclination is to be gender nonconformists. (This might include gays and lesbians, but also men with traditional 'feminine' personality traits, women with 'masculine' traits, etc.). People like that deserve to be happy too. And secondly, even if a particular couple might be happiest in a traditional, patriarchal relationship, that choice needs to be freely made in order to be meaningful. Virtue that's strictly compelled is no virtue at all.
People have the right to choose marriage models that I disapprove of, just as they have the right to choose religions that I disapprove of.
Biology, Hector, does not support your belief in gender essentialism.
If you think it does, you have probably been reading the wrong biologists. (And I bet I can name them.)
That said, no one is telling you that you have to be in a relationship with someone who is your equal if you would prefer to be in a relationship with someone who is your social and (as you see it) biological inferior. That is not my idea of a happy life, but if that if what it takes to make you happy, and if you can find a woman who can go along with it, mazel tov.
As for "natural law" and your worldview about what "most" men and women are going to want, Hector, come on. You're an educated man. You know about socialization. Clearly you can see as easily as the rest of us that gender expectations and gender "norms" have changed radically over the past hundred years. Hell, they have changed radically over the last thirty years. So how you can talk about hard-wired with a straight face is beyond me.
One last thing: No such thing as masculine traits or feminine traits. I'm assuming you actually know this, but maybe you don't. There are traits that our culture ascribes to men -- puts in the box we call "male behavior" -- and traits we ascribe to women. But that's a very different animal than what you mean.
Post a Comment