Dreher Rages In Support of Gender Police

[Content note: anti-trans bigotry, gender policing]

Welp, Rod Dreher is at it again with the anti-trans crusade at his blog.

First things first, he begins with the preening male conservative equivalent of a trigger warning/content note (caps and bolds in original):

"Below, a video that went up on Facebook on April 19. DO NOT WATCH THIS AT WORK. The language directed at the police is foul and abusive. But if you can handle cursing, you need to watch it. I’ll describe it below."

I use content notes, so I'm not knocking the practice. Rather, my point is that his own content note shows that for all their railing against "PC culture run amok" social conservatives have their own versions of political correctness. And, I've interacted with such people long enough to know that their moral outrage about swearing, especially if engaged in by "females," usually far exceeds their moral outrage at certain (what they deem) societal undesirables being treated indecently.  Saying fuck, shit, or (lord help me) pussy while female is akin to inflicting upon society a human rights violation of the first order. But verbally bash gay or trans people? Shrug.

He continues:

"In the video, a very masculine-presenting teenager is asked by police to leave the women’s restroom. The person, who has a deep voice, says she’s a woman, and not going anywhere. She gets very aggressive: 'I’m a f–king female. Do I have to tell you again?'"

The police ask the teen for her ID and, when she says she doesn't have it, the police remove her from the restroom. Dreher links to the video, and adds his own commentary:

"I saw the video on this FB page. Read the comments for an example of the unshirted rage of these people."

"These people." Hmmm.  I guess it's something that he at least calls them people. Credit where it's due. Dreher goes on to justify the decision to remove the, what he calls "alleged lesbian," from the restroom:

"[If you don't remove her] you might have let a man stay in the women’s bathroom — a public toilet — making women who didn’t know this person was a lesbian very uncomfortable, and even make them feel unsafe.

.....This country is crazy. It is instructive to read that Facebook page, and to see how berserk so many of those on the cultural left are — as if the cops had behaved like stormtroopers instead of like reasonable people trying to protect the public safety."

The reasoning, such as it is, behind Dreher's argument is twofold (a) trans women are actually men and (b) men in women's restrooms pose an inherent threat to women.  Funny how this particular example works out though, isn't it?

In this case, he finds it justifiable for the police to have removed a cisgender woman from the ladies because some other women might have merely felt unsafe by what they might have thought was a man but really wasn't. The risk, by his own logic, was not there because neither a man nor a trans woman was present.  Thus, in practice, we see that the policy does not address actual safety of women, but perceived safety and even that's questionable. For, it is Dreher who editorializes, inserts himself, and simply imagines, on women's behalf, that women might be scared.

At his blog, Dreher speaks often of a so-called Law of Merited Impossibility, alluding to his belief that Christians like himself are at imminent risk of widespread, brutal persecution. Under this "law," he claims that liberals don't believe such persecution of Christians will ever happen, but if it does, we liberal types will think that those bigoted Christians will deserve it.

This "law" looks like 100% projection.

What was at first a policy of keeping trans people out of gender-appropriate restrooms becomes acceptable to more broadly apply, so that anyone who doesn't properly perform gender becomes suspect.  And, well, I guess those people deserve the policing and abuse, what with being so unhinged and angry.  I mean, did you hear they even swear sometimes? (Caution!)

Dreher's illogic becomes even more apparent when watching the video. In it, you see that the woman is in a line of many people in what appears to be a very crowded restroom of people coming and going.  Indeed, other people in the bathroom were telling the police, "That's a girl! That's a girl!" suggesting they were hardly threatened. It is difficult to imagine at what point this "potential man"/"alleged lesbian" would get away with raping a woman in the bathroom. What I'm saying here is that I'd do more listening to actual sexual assault experts on this matter, many of which condemn anti-trans "bathroom bills" for putting trans people at risk for violence and not actually protecting cisgender women.

Indeed, we scratch these policies even just a little bit and we mostly get the putrid smell of incoherent gender policing, coupled with threatened, fragile masculinity. The disgust at the "mouthy""masculine" "lesbian" and her cohorts is practically dripping from Dreher's mocking temper-tantrum.

Yet, rather than recognizing the flawed logic, rather than seriously engaging counter-arguments to his point of view, he acts as though the other side ("the cultural left") has no legitimate argument for all this bathroom business. As though trans people don't actually have to ever piss or shit when they're out and about. And if they do, well, too bad. It's their fault for being trans, and the rest of the world shouldn't have to accommodate that - they deserve no bathrooms! (And hey, did this lesbian ever get to pee, by the way? I hope so).

Well. Many people in his comment section rightly took Dreher to task, although he mostly responded with the typical whining that people didn't READ what he ACTUALLY WROTE so WAH! So, he posted an "update" to his piece, erm, clarifying:

"Maybe living with that degree of social anxiety [of people being able to use "whichever gendered bathroom they want"] is worth it to you so transgenders, genderfluids, genderqueers and all the rest can pee wherever they like, whenever they like. But it’s a big damn ask for women."

Okay player.

First they come for the "transgenders," and then see how the list of who it's justifiable to exclude from public restroom access expands. (Hey, by the way, did you all hear that The Handmaid's Tale is coming to Hulu?!)

Now, here I have to ask, why the potty obsession, which seems so fashionable in conservative circles at this particular moment in time, with an election looming?  With so many defenders of traditional morality being exposed as sexual hypocrites or predators themselves, are we looking for a new social wedge issue or does the topic serve the purpose of being p0rn for prudes? By "monitoring" "deviant" gender and sexual behavior, some conservatives can consume that behavior while also signaling their own virtue by publicly rejecting it.

Here: I do not reject any of this.

On a final note, if we assume the very best intentions on his part, well, as a woman, I don't want or need Rod Dreher, or any other concerned-ass citizen, to exclude trans people from women's restrooms on my behalf, for my defense. Mostly, because I live in the real world where trans people don't actually pose a threat to me in the potty.

The fact is, I have shared restrooms with trans people (when I've even known they were trans) and I have literally never felt unsafe. But, for me, trans people aren't an abstraction. They're not a symbolic evil or sign of societal decay and decadence. They're not "men trying to be women" or "women trying to be men" or predators hell-bent on attacking women in restrooms.

They're human beings.  And, I'm of the opinion that when one understands that simple concept, one also understands that therefore trans people's concerns and perspectives are worth contemplating beyond a knee-jerk reactionary level that dismisses the whole debate itself as evidence of how "crazy" modern society is about gender.

But, you know, I'm a swearing lesbian who likes a prison show featuring trans, lesbian, bisexual, and otherwise gender-non-conforming women too, so I'm sure that discredits my entire argument in the view of some. Scribble that on your goddamn content note.

Treating Sick and "Troubled" People With Dignity

Is only remarkable if your default position is that such people don't deserve dignity.

My observation is in response to a glowing National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage (NOM) promotion of an article written by someone who supposedly witnessed Antonin Scalia being kind to a woman at his church who had "sores" on her body and who "behaved strangely, [and seemed like] a troubled person that you meet in large cities and quickly walk away from."

While we're on the topic, I'm mystified why purportedly great male leaders like the Pope always get big time props for, every now and again, being kind to people with leprosy. He's the fucking Pope. He should be nice to people.

Christ.

Actually, I'm not mystified by the phenomenon at all. This is men we're talking about. Obviously the bar is very low for what behavior they can engage in while still being thought of as leadership material.

Chris Christie is all of us right now saying "WTF."
 Just kidding. He's awful too.

Gay Man Covertly Attends NOM Conference

[Content note: homophobia]

Recent college grad and blogger Carlos Maza recently attended the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) "It Takes a Family to Raise a Village" conference in San Diego. This conference contained segments on homosexuality, defending marriage, and included a number of speakers known for, to put it generously, their anti-equality views on marriage.

Maza's account, which is pretty detailed, is interesting. If you follow this particular "culture war," not much about the conference is surprising, including the repeated mis-use and citing of Mark Regnerus' discredited study.

One of the more bizarre claims, entirely new to me, as the following, uttered by Douglas Allen:

"This is a puzzling one, but very interesting. The lesbian households, they tend to be much more likely to marry in the rates, not just in numbers, in numbers and rates, but they’re much less stable than the gay households. And lots of theories about why that is. You know, getting on the same menstrual cycle, getting really attached to your own biological child and not being willing to share the biological child with your female spouse." [emphasis added]

Wut the wut now?

Maza ends by talking about how he became kind of close to a young woman there who attended BYU. Despite their different views on homosexuality and marriage, they seemed to have much in common and she seemed to be kind, thoughtful and not motivated by anti-gay animus. "The enemy lines," he writes, "were blurrier" than he had previously imagined them to be. To him, the "us v. them" mentality seemed to have become stark mostly through the work and advocacy of NOM and the Ruth Institute. He notes:

"The ideological divide between me and the BYU student may have been small, but NOM had spent the entire weekend trying to widen it by teaching her that gays and lesbians - including me - are unstable, dangerous, and unworthy of raising their own families. Despite the promise to focus on 'marriage, not gayness,' ITAF had been a veritable crash course in demonizing LGBT people."

How sad.

I hope NOM and the Ruth Institute learn how to do a better job of bringing people together, rather than further polarizing society. Maybe one day, the LGBT people can be present at these conferences, not as undercover agents, but as people whose opinions matter with respect to our own health, autonomy, relationships, humanity, and morality.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go synchronize my lady cycle with my partner's.

Do you ever wonder

just how many professional and amateur male anti-LGBT advocates secretly watch and jerk off to lesbian pr0n?

I do.

Lest anyone be under the mistaken impression that this "lesbians are SO hawt" fetish means that lesbians have it totally easy compared to gay men (which yes, some gay men have actually said to me before), this bigot pseudo-acceptance mostly only applies to "conventionally attractive," gender-conforming, feminine cis women who make out with other "conventionally attractive," gender-conforming, feminine cis women solely to titillate, and then later have Real Sex with, heterosexual men.


Tip of the beret: PF.

"Thought Police" and a "PC Gone Too Far Culture"

What Liss said about "Rush Limbaugh and the Thought Police":

"To those who mistakenly believe that [those who object to Limbaugh's bigotry] are [the thought police], I offer this alternative perspective: The entire rest of the world, with its privileging of men, and heterosexual and cisgender people, and thin (but not too thin!) and tall (but not too tall!) and able white bodies with neurotypical minds, and religious people and people who have sex (but only in certain ways!) and people who can and want to be parents and the wealthy and the educated and the employed and the powerful and residents of the Western and Northern hemispheres, and all the ways in which most of the rest of the world facilitates and upholds that privilege, and all the ways in which the rest of the world marginalizes and demeans and treats as less than all the people who deviate from those privileged "norms," and all the ways the rest of the world has indoctrinated you into that system of privilege, and socialized you to believe it's the natural and right and immutable state of the world, and all the shills for the kyriarchy who fill the ether with self-reinforcing rubbish on a constant loop so you swim in a sea so thick with the detritus of Othering that you don't even notice it on a conscious level anymore, and all the jack-booted bullies who swarm out of the woodwork to kick you back in line if you do notice and dare to protest, if you have the temerity to question the message, and all the other bits and bobs of the brainwashing to which we are all subjected since the day we're born as part of the scheme, nearly incomprehensible in scope, to ensure that challengers to these traditions are never made, and, if they're born, are squashed with the weight of mountainous tidal waves of blowback in the other direction…? The purveyors of that shit are the goddamn thought police.

And you know what one of the biggest lies they tell you is?

That it's the other way around."

Yep.

And another big lie is the way such people so often brand themselves as courageous tellers of truth in the PC Gone Too Far Culture created by all of us over-sensitive censors.

What people like Rush Limbaugh do? I wouldn't call it brave, I would call it empty bravado. It's ignorant, unthinking, uncritical hostile commentary that confirms popular prejudices.

Until now, he's suffered little financial or personal consequences for communicating in that negative, aggressive manner for decades. At the end of this, he will still likely be a millionaire, and he will be a millionaire not in spite of his commentary, but precisely because of it. Dude's cackling all the way to the bank.

Brave?

Nah.

Limbaugh and his supporters are often the types of people we have to tiptoe on eggshells around calling them or their statements "problematic" rather than racist or sexist or homophobic, because calling them the more accurate label, bigot, is too mean to them, a gross violation of their FREE SPEECH, and evidence of "leftist intolerance, hypocrisy, and judgment."

Our critiques, they cry, rather than the original hostile statements themselves, are what Shuts Down Dialogue. An unspoken condition of dialogue happening with such people is that we can talk about contentious topics only if we do not call these bigots bigots while doing so.

The truth?

The purveyors of that shit can't handle the truth.


Contrast Limbaugh's position with Sandra Fluke's- a student who no one heretofore had heard of who had the temerity to publicly talk about the importance of access to birth control for people with certain non-sex-related medical conditions.

Are we to understand that a millionaire public figure is somehow.... courageous for misrepresenting her testimony, riling up his misogynistic troops, and smearing her name?

Contrast Limbaugh's position with that of feminist, non-white, non-cis, non-male, and non-hetero bloggers and commentators, those of us who don't, actually, possess institutional and financial power to "censor" privileged men like Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, and Kirk Cameron, let alone possess multi-million dollar contracts to share our views.

Are we to understand that it's we who are "The Man," and that it's Limbaugh and company who are heroic underdogs, bravely subverting us, "the system," political correctness, and everything we stand for against all odds?

Sure.


Talk about all of this, or whatever, today, my truth-telling friends.

Using Your Words

[Content note: Misogyny, body shaming, fat shaming]


In a twisted way, Susan Smith Dale's anti-feminist screed over at "Human Events: Powerful Conservative Voices" [Ker-POW!] is kind of charming in its untimeliness. (What can I say? Gallows humor is how I blog day in and day out.)

Sure, it's 2012, but why not part-ay anti-feminist style like it's 1996!?

But first things first. She begins:

"I am presently in a terrible conundrum.
I can't figure out whether it is feminism, environmentalism or the unions that is [sic] responsible for the near destruction of America.

Wow, three whole options! Good thing she's not oversimplifying things by only presenting us with two. (Is a false trichotomy a thing? It should be).

(Spoiler alert!)

Dale doesn't find her conundrum to be terribly confounding after all. She ruins the suspense and informs us right away:

"Demographically, of course, feminism is the culprit. Not only has it been directly responsible for the lack of progeny in America and the west in general, but it is primarily responsible for women leaving the home and doing whatever, most of which the members of the feminist community, forced ot [sic] otherwise, don't seem to like; in fact, they are an angry lot, very angry."

LOL. Sure.

That "demographic" thing about the "lack of progeny"? I always read that as dog whistle for "not enough white babies are being born, ruh-roh!" Am I alone there?

Anyway, notice how when women abandon our One True Role In Life As Child-Bearers, otherwise known as Having A Career, we're just "doing whatever." When men have careers, they're doing something responsible, important, and worthy of respect.

Maybe she thinks my heating bill is going to pay itself?

Or whatever.

She continues, bringing up the most pressing feminist issues of the day:

"Women, because of the many and outrageous screeds of the feminists of the 20th century, aren't quite sure what they're so angry about – it's sure not about Bill Clinton and his abuse of women, (rape, groping, 'kiss it,' bj to an adolescent in his employ, et cetera; all of that seemed to be fine with the most outrageous of their complainants) – it's about, well, I don't quite know. "

Well, that she doesn't "quite know" things about feminism is patently obvious.

And that's what so irritating about so many of these anti-feminist women.

They understand that they get extra cookies for being women who publicly hate feminism and have no problem having careers (or, sometimes, abortions) themselves while denigrating other women for making that choice. But, like most anti-feminists, they don't know much about the topic. They often can't articulate a single feminist thought without turning it into a ridiculous straw-argument version of the original. But, somehow, mysteriously, despite their ignorance, they are 100% sure that feminism is responsible for nearly every social ill facing society and themselves.

Take this narrative, for instance:

"Conversely, women, post-feminism, live lives so difficult that no one ever thought independent women would be forced to live. [sic?] And who are the so-called role models for female nightmare? [sic?]

The completely repulsive and restructured Jane Fonda? The even more-repulsive-than-Howard Dean Debbie Wasserman Shultz? The women who-knows-what-she-looked-like-pre at least a dozen plastic surgeries liberal hypocrite Nancy Pelosi?

The very sad, very fat and tragically pathetic Hillary Clinton? "

Any second Dale is going to start "raising the roof" while adding infamous single mother Murphy Brown to her list of awful, fugly women.

But seriously, you know an anti-feminist isn't even trying to form logical arguments when they basically just list off various women and call them ugly. It's interesting though. One of the big anti-feminist memes is: the big mean feminazis judge women like me who stay home and that's NOT FAIR because it's my CHOICE and I feel judged and insecure about it!

I highlight that accusation only because screeds like this make it pretty clear that anti-feminist men and women do almost nothing in their screeds but engage in the act of Judging Women. They're all protective of the housewives who stay in line like Real Women, but the ugly bitch feminists deserve what they get.

Anyway, after going off on a bizarre, anti-environmentalist, anti-union rant, Dale ends by asking a question (that she apparently forgot she already answered). Which group of people is responsible for America's demise, "the" feminists, "the" environmentalists, or "the" unions:

"Or is it just the left, who [sic] is close to achieving its goal of destroying America?"

LOL at the "the left" being anthropomorphized.

So, one of my New Year's Resolutions related to blogging was to re-think how I engage with people who write poorly. Communicating with people who are unable or unwilling to explain themselves clearly makes for some extremely frustrating Internet interactions in the context of talking about contentious political stuff.

We all make grammatical and spelling mistakes. But writing like Dale's? In this over-the-top, constantly overstating-the-case, simplistic, accusatory, dualistic, hateful, ignorant manner?

I think, for many people, our writing does evidence how we think about the world. So when a person is saying things like "the left, who" blah blah blah TOTALLY WANTS TO DESTROY AMERICA, I am questioning their reasoning and thought process. Because, as someone on "the left," my goal is not at all to destroy America, but to try to make it better than it has been. So, I'm left wondering, how and why does someone's mind go from "You know, I don't agree with everything feminists say" to the much more extreme "I'm going to write an article proving that feminists are totally destroying society!"

I think there's room for grown-up thinkers to concede that maybe we don't have these awful bad-faith motivations, and that not all feminists are feminists just because we're fat fugly baby-killers. So, I'm negotiating how to even talk to people who can't even concede points like that.

Lady Flips Off Camera For Milisecond, Violence Profiteers Very Offended

What a strange society we live in.

During the halftime show of a violent sport that often has lifelong negative health repercussions on the heads and bodies of its participants and in which its male athletes often engage in public, celebratory dances involving humping the air and taunting opponents, and in which TV networks receive money to air commercials that present scantily-clad women as the sex class for hetero men, a woman spontaneously flips off a TV camera for a fraction of a second and NBC and the NFL suddenly fall over themselves to condemn and apologize for that gesture.

Seriously?! That's the thing you fall ass-over-heals onto your fainting couch about?

FFS.

Exaggerating and condemning female misbehavior while ignoring celebrating male aggression and misbehavior is how rape culture works to entitle men to violence and aggression.

Woman Says Politician "Sucks," People Throw Shit-Fit

Of all the tweets that are mean, vile, and otherwise-reprehensible in existence, I find it amusing how many pearl-clutching folks are ass-over-heels on their fainting couches about this one, by 18-year-old Emma Sullivan:

"Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot"

While "heblowsalot" isn't the most mature retort, I generally find it okay to say that people suck if they really do suck.

Which is partly why I contend that some of the reactions to Sullivan's tweet are a lot worse than her tweet. Like, Ruth Marcus' response in The Washington Post. Marcus' piece is gross in many ways, but what really stands out to me is the subtext that Sullivan's biggest sin was impolitely criticizing a very important male authority figure while being a young woman.

Marcus warns:

"Emma Sullivan, you’re lucky you’re not my daughter....

If you were my daughter, you’d be writing that letter apologizing to Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback for the smart­alecky, potty-mouthed tweet you wrote after meeting with him on a school field trip."

Oooh hoo hoo.

Now, as someone who was once accused of blogging with a "listen to mother tone," I find Marcus' tactic really strange and condescending. Is it appropriate to publicly fantasize about how you'd punish a legal adult if she were your "daughter"? I mean, I didn't know before what it would even mean for one to have a "listen to mother" tone, but here is a lady literally taking on the tone and totally owning it. Weird.

And well, after reading Marcus, I don't think my blogging "tone" is quite the same as hers. For one, I would never use the phrase "potty-mouthed." (Do people still even say that? If so, they shouldn't. Outside of the context of discussing a toddler's toilet habits, there are no justifiable reasons for an adult to ever say "potty.") And two, I wouldn't use the word "smartalecky," which when directed at Sullivan in this case, reads as "uppity."

On an interesting side note, one anti-gay fella on Internet once called me a "potty-mouthed dyke," which is interesting, because it seems to contradict that other dude's "listen to mother" bit, but I digress...I think my larger point is that people on Internet are assholes. A lot. So why are prominent adults like Marcus and Brownback only just now realizing this? And why are they only just now realizing it when it's an 18-year-old female high school student who was, arguably, the asshole to a VIP man?

Anyway, given that Sullivan's Tweet didn't include a swear word, and that "sucks" seems to be in the American English lexicon as an acceptable synonym these days for "bad," I think Marcus' threshold for what constitutes "potty-mouthed" is absurdly low. I question whether it would be that low if Sullivan were an 18-year-old young man.

Marcus continues, by mocking Sullivan's silly girl interests. She writes:

"[Before tweeting about the governor,] Sullivan had previously opined on such weighty subjects as the 'Twilight' series ('Dear edward and jacob, this is the best night of my life. I want u. Love, ur future wife') and Justin Bieber."

The implication here is that a young woman who appreciates some of the most popular forms of entertainment in the US right now and who thinks three popular hot guys are hot obviously can't have serious political opinions or maturity. Like, who does girl think she is trying to weigh in on politics, anyway, amIrite bros? As she high fives the "girls are stooopid" crowd, Marcus reinforces the message that because Twilight and the Bieb (do people call him that?) are liked primarily by girls and women, they possess the inferior taint of femininity and thus signal unimportance and triviality.

And, well, playing that card is really problematic, because Marcus has basically just dismissed millions of people from the category of People Who Are Capable Of Having Serious Political Thought.

And then, well, about that.

Marcus may think she's playing some important public role here expounding upon the importance of civility young ladies shutting TFU and acting more like docile little ladies, but she really just comes off looking like a bully. She's using her platform in The Washington goddamn Post to mock and infantilize an 18-year-old who wrote a non-cussing-but-critical tweet of a major politician.

I mean, this is Internet. If you're reading this, you probably know that pretty horrible things get said on Internet all the time (see also #mencallmethings). That worse things are said doesn't make Sullivan's statement perfectly acceptable, but I find Ruth Marcus' column to be cheap and easy. It's cheap and easy because she chose not to use her platform to speak truth to power.

Instead, out of the millions of easily-found, violent messages aimed not only at politicians but at relatively powerless groups in society, she chose to shame a young woman who made one immature statement about a sucky governor.

Just keep this one in mind the next time you hear that it's The Feminists who get our panties in a bunch over all the unimportant stuff.

The Children of Women

Over at the Family Scholars Blog, the anti-equality-leaning Elizabeth Marquardt posted a short snippet she entitled "Daughters of the Second Wave." This post was an excerpt of Rebecca Walker criticizing her famous feminist mother, Alice Walker, for "offering herself up as a mother figure" to everyone but her own daughter.

I don't know what Elizabeth's motives were in posting the piece since she didn't provide commentary. But, given the title she gave it, I would infer that she was making a statement about how Famous Feminists Are Bad Mothers because they did not prioritize motherhood.

Indeed, many anti-feminists and non-feminists (not necessarily Elizabeth, here) take a certain delight in pointing out feminists who supposedly turn out to be awful mothers and how that, in turn, means that they have utterly failed at being women.

Yet, couldn't a similar criticism/mocking be made of Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative anti-feminist crusader who hired nannies to raise her children while she campaigned against equal rights for women?

What about Sarah Palin? Shouldn't she be at home taking care of her children, as Rick Santorum suggested, instead of opting for a high profile public career? Aren't her children missing out on Having An Awesome Highly-Involved Mother?

My point in raising these question is a rhetorical one.

Children might indeed miss a female parent just as they miss a male parent who isn't around much, but rarely do commentators suggest that male parents who are public figures should be made to feel guilty for having public aspirations that take time away from parenting.

Rarely do commentators suggest that a man should stifle his professional ambitions and talent because he has children at home.

Nosy commentators who judge other women's choices while letting men off the hook for the same behavior hurt women of all political persuasions. Within their commentary is the subtext that a female parent is the Real Parent while a male parent is a Less Involved Secondary Parent.

What if, instead, the responsibility for Being A Real Parent was spread to two people, instead of just one?

"Brilliant" Warning Flaunts Animus

[TW: Homophobia, gender policing]

Reacting to Gay Days at Disney World, Christian group Florida [Heteronormative] Family Association (FFA) recently paid for an aircraft to fly near the theme park pulling a banner that read: "Warning Gay Pride Day@Disney Today"

David Caton, executive director of FFA then boasted that, according to his group's observations, "[t]here was a defininte, drastic reduction of mainstream families there." The Christian Post article doesn't provide a statement from Disney confirming this alleged reduction. The article also fails to provide a statement from Caton saying what his group's ultimate goal was with respect to the sign. Apparently, why "mainstream families" require such a warning is a self-evident bit of common sense that requires no further explanation.

The head of another "family" group, however, shared his insight. John Stemberger, who called the warning "brilliant" and who is president of the Florida [Heteronormative] Family Policy Council, explains:

"For Stemberger, his problem with Gay Days at Disney is how attendees 'flaunt' their sexuality when children are around, and that Disney allows the event to take place during normal business hours when other groups have to come in after hours to hold their events.

'No one is saying they don’t have a right to do it. The issue is why doesn’t Disney warn the parents and say this is Gay Day? We do that with movies, we do that with records. Why not do it with a theme park?' questioned Stemberger. 'Or they can just close the whole thing off and do it in the evening and let them have unbridled debauchery. They don’t have to do it during the day … where there are thousands of children around that have to be exposed to this behavior.'”

Unbridled debauchery. Lulz. I think anti-gays think most gay people's lives are much more exciting than they really are. Stemberg continues:

“'It’s not just the fact that it’s gay,' asserted Stemberger. 'You have to understand that it is the activity that is going on, the kissing, the inappropriate dress, the immodest and purposely provocative cross-dressing that goes on at the park.'”

Oh, so it's not just the kissing, it's the kissing that's gay that's the problem. And, it's not that the gays are prancing around naked or that the lesbians are engaging in competitive carpetmunching contests on Space Mountain, it's more that some of the people are wearing the clothes that have been arbitrarily assigned by society to the "opposite" sex.

Got it.

On a serious note, I think the FFA did a real service to the LGBT cause with their warning. For one, it warned away homobigots of the "I don't have a problem with gays, I just don't want to see them flaunting it by holding hands, pushing strollers, or kissing each other like how straight people do all the time" sorts of bigots from Gay Days- ensuring a more tolerant atmosphere for LGBT attendees.

And two, it perfectly illustrates the animus behind bans on same-sex marriage and other anti-gay measuers, an animus that professional "marriage defenders" deny exists in the real world.

By their own words, actions, and very large airplane banners, these Nice Civil Christian groups make it abundantly clear that the driving force behind many of their activities is the notion that, because we're immoral, depraved, dangerous, and unworthy of the same human dignity they grant to "mainstream" families, same-sex couples and LGBT people must be stigmatized and avoided by normal people.

Procreation: A Necessary Marriage Requirement... For Some

In an unnecessarily-long version of that strange, circular "marriage is a thing that exists in nature like a tree or a flower" argument, Christopher Wolfe explains, in The Public Discourse, how same-sex marriage isn't Real Marriage:

"...[H]omosexual unions are essentially—of their very nature—incapable of procreation. There are, of course, many instances in which a heterosexual union is incapable in practice, by reason of age or physical defect, of leading to procreation; but the nature of the union remains the kind of union capable of producing children. In ways that many people, unfortunately, fail to understand, conjugal intercourse between a couple that is infertile or past childbearing age still has an inherent procreative significance—one that homosexual sexual activity inherently lacks." [emphasis added]

On the one hand, Wolfe claims that procreation, or the capacity for two spouses to procreate with one another, is an essential part of Real Marriage. Yet, as many equality advocates often note, this claim means that male-female relationships that cannot procreate together also do not constitute a Real Marriage. In trying to explain why such relationships, unlike same-sex relationships, still count as Real Marriages, Wolfe claims that infertile male-female couples' "conjugal intercourse.... still has an inherent procreative significance."

Now what on earth does that mean, to have "an inherent procreative significance"?

Wolfe seems to be saying here that coitus between an infertile male-female couple looks like, or signifies, the kind of sex that in other couples sometimes results in babies and so therefore an infertile male-female couple has a Real Marriage. Whereas, sex between a same-sex couple doesn't look enough like penis-in-vagina sex for the marriage to count as Real. (Hmm, I guess if Wolfe would have just said that, his argument wouldn't have had the same intimidating pseudo-intellectual ring to it.)

Yet, under Wolfe's own definition of marriage, a Real Marriage is "intrinsically or essentially oriented toward mutual love-giving and life-giving." And, applying his own definition of Real Marriage, the infertile heterosexual couple fails to meet this second criterion just as surely as does a same-sex couple, no matter how much the former's coitus looks like a procreative sex act.

This double-standard, of course, lends credence to my theory that the "procreation is an essential part of real marriage" argument is nothing but an invented, after-the-fact requirement of marriage added precisely to exclude same-sex couples from the Cool Kids' Marriage Club while trying not to look bigoted about it.

Also, so much for Team Anti-Gay not caring what goes on in people's bedrooms. I mean, here they've built an entire Nice Guy argument against same-sex marriage that is predicated entirely upon what specific sex acts between two people look like. Like, they've really thought about sex and penises and vaginas and what goes where and how and with whom, like, in great detail.

Look, I personally don't care what male-female couples do in the privacy of their own homes, but do we really have to talk about it use it to justify discriminatory laws all the damn time?

Prop 8 Drama: Quote of the Day

Regarding the Prop 8 supporters' motion to vacate the Perry v. Schwarzenegger decision on the grounds that Judge Walker is in a same-sex relationship, Pema Levy observes:

"The judicial bench -- traditionally a bastion of privilege and racial homogeneity -- has never been as diverse as it is today. That is, of course, a good thing. But it may signal that minority judges are vulnerable to ethical challenges....

If Walker's decision is vacated, this situation may well give rise to a new species of ethical conflicts. While the motion to vacate Walker's ruling is certainly offensive in parts, by using Liljeberg and other similar rulings to demonstrate Walker's conflict of interest, Prop. 8 opponents are essentially arguing that an interest in full equality is the same thing as a financial interest....

The motion against Walker is in unchartered territory, so it's unclear if a judge will find it convincing. But the sentiment behind it highlights the sad truth that judges are usually members of a group -- namely straight, white, heterosexual men -- who enjoy more privileges under the law and whose impartiality is never questioned. 'Typical cases affect groups that judges aren't members of, such as criminals or people on welfare,' Hellman says. 'There aren't many laws challenging a middle-class way of life.'"

Indeed, if this motion is successful it will set a precedent for requiring the recusal of minority judges in cases ascertaining whether that minority group is unconstitutionally discriminated against.

And regarding the contention that a gay judge in a same-sex relationship has "an interest" in the same-sex marriage issue, well, logically, of course minorities have an interest in no longer being discriminated against. That's sort of the nature of discrimination and oppression, derp. But then, so too do majority groups have an interest in perpetuating that discrinination.

Unfortunately, and owing to the invisible nature of that privilege, it is only non-heterosexual, non-white, and non-male judges who continually have to go out of their way to assure everyone that they are not beholden to "special interest groups." White male heterosexuals never have to assure us that they are not beholden to the special interest group of straight white guys.

That being said, many constitutitional law scholars (who aren't, like, affiliated with Liberty University) believe the chances of this motion succeeding are slim. For instance, UC Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky has said that the motion "has no chance of success" and that he "know[s] of no instance in which a judge has been disqualified because of his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender."

DePaul University School of Law's Jeffrey Shaman, who authored a textbook on judicial conduct, suggests that the Protect Marriage legal team might be "worried about the judge's opinion, which was such a strong opinion, and they are trying to make an end run around it."

We'll see what happens. Honestly, you really never know how a case is going to turn out. BiAsEd JuDgEs notwithstanding, natch.


Related-

American Foundation for Equal Rights: "Prop 8 Propoonents Desperate Plea Backfire in the Media"

Marinelli: NOM Sought "Crazy" Pictures of Equality Advocates

Last July, in writing about the National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage's (NOM) "Marriage Tour," I speculated that a motive of the tour might have been to present "marriage defenders" as victims of aggressive LGBT advocates in order to drum up opposition to same-sex marriage.

After all, it's easier to get people to deny rights to a minority group that is framed as dangerous, monolithic, and evil than if that group is framed as just as human and nuanced as "good, clean, regular everyday folk."

Indeed, soon after the wheels on their bus started turning, NOM began tediously documenting and publicizing every real and imagined slight suffered by its participants and supporters.

For instance, when someone allegedly cut off the NOM bus in traffic and flipped them off, NOM's Brian Brown tweeted "Got tolerance?" (Apparently, only "marriage defenders" ever have run-ins with rude drivers). Then, speaking of equality advocates who showed up to counter-protest NOM, Brown characterized them in a blogpost as "crazy" and "nuts" for shouting "Get your hate out of our state."

Well, almost a year later, NOM defector Louis Marinelli is claiming that Brian Brown sent him an email during the tour instructing:

"I need crazy pictures of our opponents."

According to Marinelli, Brown's request came minutes after Marinelli had sent Brown a photo of "marriage defenders."

If true, Brown's request would be especially ironic coming from Team Don't You Dare Frame Us As Villains.

Indeed, back in 2009, NOM's Maggie Gallagher bemoaned the fact that some marriage equality advocates dared to suggest that "people who see marriage as a male-female union are like slave owners or segregationists" and, in response, Gallagher demanded, "This kind of disrespectful treatment of diverse views on gay marriage really needs to stop. Now. Today."

Wow.

Got projection?

Tennessee Anti-Reality Bill

[TW: Homophobia]

As you might have heard, a Tennessee Senate panel recently passed a "Don't Say Straight" bill that would prevent students from learning about heterosexuality in public elementary and middle schools.

When some heterosexuals expressed concerns about this bill fostering anti-heterosexual animus and preventing students from learning accurate information about sexual education, marriage, notable heterosexuals, and the fact that heterosexuality exists in the real world, Republican Senator Stacy Campfield, the bill's sponsor, noted:

"The bill is neutral. We should leave it to families to decide when it is appropriate to talk with children about sexuality- specifically before the eighth grade."

Oh wait. That didn't happen.

The Senate panel actually passed a "Don't Say Gay" bill that prevents students from learning anything at all about homosexuality in schools. Apparently, it is only the homosexual orientation that has anything to do with sexuality.

We know this because Michelle and Bob Duggar can parade themselves and their 19 (and counting!) proofs of coitus on national television and that's fine and dandy, but if a lesbian quietly notes to a co-worker that she has a partner she's the one who's Flaunting Her Sex Life In Everyone's Faces and Shoving Her Sexuality Down Everyone's Throats.

So yeah. That's the double-standard of hetero privilege right there.


Helpful Anti-Bigotry Hint: Ignoring reality doesn't make it go away.

"Marriage Defender" Accidentally Insults People Who Matter

[TW: Homophobia]

Via the anti-equality blogosphere, we get two diverging perspectives on the importance of community acceptance of relationships.

In Corner #1, we have Amber Lapp at the anti-equality-leaning Family Scholars Blog, speaking of her community of friends who are supportive of her heterosexual marriage:

"Doherty’s term, 'friends of marriage' captures the truth that marriage is, as sociologist Kai Erikson says, 'something of a community affair.' In his book Everything in its Path, Erikson elaborates by saying that marriage is '…validated by the community, witnessed by the community, commemorated by the community' (219) and that the community is almost like a magnetic force that can help to hold the couple together (or perhaps tear it apart).

Given this, I think that one thing that we can all do to lower the divorce rate is to 'befriend' the marriages of our friends and families—whether that means offering a listening ear, offering to babysit on a Friday night, or working cooperatively on a garden."

Although Lapp writes in a heteronormative context, I would agree with her that communities and friends are important in sustaining relationships. Isn't it community-building to want others to respect and support one of our most important relationships in life? Isn't it a sign of a healthy society if communities support and build up such relationships rather than tear them down?

Unfortunately, in Corner #2, anti-equality blogger "Playful Walrus" has a less charitable view of the importance of community affirmation and acceptance of intimate relationships. The compassionate Christian opines:

"Emotionally and mentally healthy adults do not care so much what other people think about their relationship or their sexual practices."

Ouch.

Of course, "Playful Walrus" made his comment in the context of telling everyone how awful, immature, crazy, and needy it is that same-sex couples seek community support and affirmation of our relationships.

It's sad, really, that this is a purportedly Christian man's view of community and relationships. Walrus likely doesn't believe he harbors ill-will toward LGB people or our relationships. And yet I wonder. Does he intend his cruel maxim on emotional and mental health to only apply to adults in same-sex marriages, or was he making a statement about adults in heterosexual marriages too?

To apply it only to those in same-sex marriages would indeed be prejudicial and bigoted of him. It would look an awful lot like anti-gay animus, in fact.

Yet, I suppose, since "marriage defenders" Aren't At All Bigoted Or Anything, we can logically infer that Playful Walrus just issued an equal opportunity insult to all married people who seek and appreciate community support of their relationships.

Whoops. So much for defending marriage.


Related: Anti-Gay Ordinance Accidentally Hurts People Who Matter.

Marriage Is A Benefit... Er, Sometimes...

Regarding (the now retired) Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in California's federal Prop 8 case (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), in light of Walker's homosexuality, John C. Eastman* argues:

"Recusal is required by the code of judicial conduct if 'the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned,' such as when the judge knows that he 'has a financial ... or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.'

Not his sexual orientation, which alone would not require recusal, but the possibility that he could directly benefit from his ruling, raised the prospect that recusal may have been warranted. If the relationship [Walker was in] was such that it gave Walker a financial or other interest in the outcome of the proceeding -- and the ability to marry would certainly qualify -- recusal would be mandatory and non-waivable." (emphasis added)

Using this logic, no one at all would be able to rule on this issue, given that all of civilization directly benefits from a ban on same-sex marriage. /snark

But seriously, for one, I find this argumentation interesting insofar at it highlights the invisibile way that privilege operates and perpetuates itself. Although bans on same-sex marriage directly benefit heterosexuals by (a) lofting their marital relationships into a position of superiority relative to the relationships of same-sex couples and (b) doling state and federal benefits to such couples on LGB taxpayers' dimes, it has rarely if ever been seriously argued that heterosexual (or Catholic, Mormon, or Evangelical) judges recuse themselves from ruling on the legality of same-sex marriage bans.

Secondly, for some additional context, let's remember one of the closing arguments (PDF) made during the Prop 8 trial.

Ted Olson said: "[California] has rewritten its constitution in order to place [gays and lesbians] into a special disfavored category where their most intimate personal relationships are not valid, not recognized, and second rate. Their state has recognized them as unworthy of marriage, different and less respected."

Here, Olson was observing how Prop 8 took away same-sex couples' right to obtain marriage licenses and re-relegated them, instead, to domestic partnerships- a status that grants almost all of the state-level benefits and obligations of marriage.

Yet, in their 9th Circuit reply brief (PDF), Team Anti-Equality argued that partly because domestic partnerships confer many of the state-level benefits of marriage on same-sex couples, domestic partnerships "bear no resemblance to the 'separate-and-inherently-unequal' system of racially segregated education struck down in Brown v. Board of Education. And so, because marriage and domestic partnerships are almost the same thing and confer almost the same benefits, same-sex couples aren't actually harmed by being channeled into domestic partnerships.

(You know, other than not receiving all of those important federal benefits. Ho hum, thanks DOMA!)

So, what does Eastman's argument mean in the context of the larger Prop 8 case?

Well, if folks are going to go down this road of arguing that Walker's ruling be vacated because, as a gay man, he's likely to receive a "financial or other interest" due to the outcome of a case that is, in part, addressing the issue of whether gays would receive a "financial or other interest" from the institution of marriage, I daresay Team Anti-Gay is shooting themselves in the foot with this new contrived grievance.


*Fun fact: John Eastman, ironically, wrote an article about a gay judge's alleged "financial or other interest" in a same-sex marriage case while not disclosing his own "financial or other interest" with the National Organization for [Heterosexual] Marriage.


Related: Judge Walker's sexual orientation is a non-issue

Book Review: Women and Gender In Islam

[TW: Sexual assault]

First off, thanks to reader EDB5Fold for recommending that I read author Leila Ahmed, PhD, whose book Women and Gender In Islam is the focus of this post. I chose to read this book primarily because it is a historical account of the status of women in the Middle East that is written by a Muslim feminist woman from Egypt.

On that note, anti-feminists, MRAs, and other such folks continually mock and criticize Western feminists for failing to adequately address the Plight of Middle Eastern Women. But, before we begin wholesale exporting Western feminism into the Middle East, it would be an understatement to say that maybe the perspectives of Muslim feminists and women in the Middle East should be taken into account regarding that matter.

So, that point is a good intro to Ahmed's arguments. (All quotes from Women and Gender in Islam unless otherwise noted). In her chapter "Discourse of the Veil," Ahmed notes that women "emerged as the centerpiece of the Western narrative of Islam in the nineteenth century, and in particular in the later nineteenth century, as Europeans established themselves as colonial powers in the Muslim countries" (150). Ahmed traces how colonial narratives simultaneously and hypocritically perpetuated the Victorian English narrative that European men were superior to women while also denigrating Muslim culture for being oppressive to women.

That is, Victorian colonists "appropriated the language of feminism in the service of its assault on the religions and cultures of Other men... at the very same time as it combated feminism within its own society" (152). It's the classic anti-feminist bait-and-switch that we still see from today's Western anti-feminist and anti-Muslim bigots who bark: "Don't criticize us, criticize Them."

The veil, "to Western eyes" then became "the most visible marker of the differentness and inferiority of Islamic societies" (152). Christian missionaries sought to save Muslim women by attacking the custom of veiling and converting women to the (also male-centric and sexist) religion of Christianity. The fundamental premise of some Western (purported) feminist narratives was that veiling was oppressive and that, therefore, Western-style male dominance should replace Islamic-style male dominance (162).

Most colonialists- whether patriarchal men, missionaries, or purported feminists- assumed that saving Muslim women must entail ridding Islamic societies of all "native religions, customs, and dress" because European society was superior (154). The Muslim resistance to this colonialism, then, supported veiling, not necessarily as a symbol of female subordination, but as a reaction against colonization and assumptions of European supremacy.

In more contemporary times, Ahmed explains that the veil can have the practical effect "carv[ing] out legitimate public space" for women, where they can interact with men "without cost to their reputation" in societies that are beginning to integrate the public spheres (224). The veil can "declare women's presence in public space to be in no way a challenge to or a violation of the Islamic sociocultural ethic" (224). Thus, with nuance, does Ahmed aptly explain that to view the veil as signifying anti-feminism is to grossly oversimplify.

As a radical feminist who is religiously agnostic, I am not exactly the biggest fan of organized religion, particularly the three major androcentric monotheistic faiths. And, lest you think Ahmed lets Muslims off the hook for perpetuating female oppression, she doesn't. She is a harsh critic, but her criticisms are aimed more at fundamentalists who overlook Islam's "ethical voice" of equality in favor of an oppressive fundamentalist version that adherents are, when pressed for details, pretty uninformed about (observations that could aptly be made of Christianity and fundamentalist Christians as well).

She lambasts the historical "male-engendered debate about women, with its fixation on the veil," which in contrast to female-authored narratives, "often seem[ed] preoccupied with abstractions and oblivious of the appalling human cost to women and children and ultimately to men exacted by the male dominance enshrined in the laws and institutions of Arab societies" (183). She critiques Islamic family law policies- like polygamy and divorce laws- that give men almost total control over women and children. She observes that laws depriving women of the right to participate politically and earn a living are explicit in some states (231).

Although, Ahmed also acknowledges that "[w]hatever the source or sources a fierce misogyny was a distinct ingredient of Mediterranean and eventually Christian thought in the centuries immediately preceding the rise of Islam" (35). That is, misogyny was and is hardly unique to Islam.

Ahmed ends by suggesting that there is a need for a feminism that is "vigilantly self-critical and aware of its historical and political situatedness if we are to avoid becoming unwitting collaborators in racist ideologies whose costs to humanity have been no less brutal than those of sexism" (247). I find that that suggestion resonates with my instincts, even if I could not fully articulate them.

I have long been uncomfortable with US leaders, particularly those who are anti-feminist, co-opting the language of feminism for (alleged) purposes of justifying war in the Middle East and mandating an end to veiling. For, if the ultimate goal of invasion is to civilize Backwards Muslim Countries(tm), is it really a feminist victory to replace one androcentric culture and religion with another?

Would it be, say, a feminist victory to unveil women in Iran and begin importing an American Girls Gone Wild! culture? What about importing a fundamentalist patriarchal Christian culture? Is it a feminist victory to eradicate the oppressive Taliban by using the US military, a military imbued with a large sexual assault problem, and defense contractors who shield their employees from being prosecuted for rape?

I think, in general, it would be a nice change if conversations about Western feminism's role in Saving (or Not) Middle Eastern Women took these issues and complexities into account.

Some Men Say Men Aren't Violent, Make Threats To Make Point

[TW: threats, harassment, reference to sexual assault]


And so we have another example of how, in rape culture, observing how men and boys are taught to be aggressive and violent is actually worse than men being aggressive and violent.

I first read about this last week, right after posting my "On Threats" article.

Josh Jasper, who heads an advocacy group for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, conceived of a commercial to bring attention to the ways society teaches and condones aggressive behavior in men and boys. In this commercial, which can be viewed here, a white baby appears on the screen with a male voice saying, "He's tough. He's strong. He's aggressive. He's powerful. He raped his girlfriend. But he wasn't always this way. What are you teaching your son?"

Although brief, the commercial implies that (a) many parents teach their sons to be tough, strong, aggressive, and powerful, as possessing these traits is what it means to be a man in our society; and (b) these traits also correlate with entitlement to violate other people's sexual boundaries. What has gone unspoken, and perhaps could have been more explicit to heed off at least some criticism, is that while boys are often taught to display these "masculine" traits, many girls are taught to be the "opposite" of the above characteristics, frail, weak, passive, and powerless.

This binary contributes to a gendered power dynamic where men are disproportionately on the dishing-it-out end of rape. The commercial's gendering of the hypothetical perpetrator and victim seems to acknowledge that.

However, from the Des Moines Register:

"A men's blog that linked to the commercial said it promotes hatred of men."

A "men's blog," huh? I wondered what happened next. Oh, right:

"[An] offended viewer put it this way: 'You [Jasper] would be better off dead.'

Jasper, 36, the president and chief executive of Riverview Center in Dubuque, said the backlash prompted him to call the police and change his personal information on Facebook from the married father of a toddler to 'single.'

...The [men's] blog drew comments such as: 'That is such a disgusting ad' and 'I teach my son whenever I can: never protect a woman' and 'Josh Jasper should suffer the same fate as Nazi sympathizers after WWII - taken out and shot after a five-minute trial.'"

Undoubtedly, the commenters at that "men's blog" (and at Jasper's own blog) are upset because they view the commercial as framing All Men As Inherently Violent. Which, I don't think is true. Not at all. The phrase "what are you teaching your son" implies that violence and aggression is something boys and men learn through parenting and conditioning.

Yet, naturally, some see that as proof of "man-hating," which of course these reactionary types always use to justify further male violence and aggression. If people hate men, or are perceived as hating men, it's then okay to threaten their lives and compare them to Nazis.

These fellows don't seem to realize that it hurts their PR Man Campaign For Men when they try to prove men aren't violent by being violent themselves.

Anyway, one guy has a theory:

"The responses exemplify the way anonymous online forums can bring out the worst in people, said Michael Lashbrook, president of the Iowa Police Chiefs Association."

Or, you know, they exemplify exactly what the commercial was talking about. Part of being a man in our society means being justified in making death threats whenever men's social entitlement to violence is challenged.

(See also: Of Course]

I Agree With Sarah Palin

Rick "man on dog" Santorum is a "knuckle-dragging Neanderthal."

Not that I'd put it quite like that, of course. Sexist would probably be more appropriate.

Speaking of Palin's absence from the Conservative Political Action Conference this past weekend, Santorum opined, “I don't live in Alaska and I'm not the mother to all these kids and I don't have other responsibilities that she has."

Sarah Palin is a public figure who is the mother of five children. Rick Santorum is a public figure who is the father of seven children, six of whom are 18 or younger.

Rick Santorum is a "defender" of the "traditional family." Not surprisingly, unlike his own status as a parent, Santorum's statement evidences a worldview where Palin's status as a parent degrades her competency in the public arena.

Many "marriage defenders" who are really into the "traditional family" vehemently object to gender neutral references to parenting. Replacing the words "mother" and "father" with "parent one" and "parent two," they believe, is an assault on what it means to be mothers and fathers.

Notice, then, how even though Santorum does have "all these kids," he is careful to note that he is not "the mother" to them. He is the father, and that carries with it different assumptions, responsibilities, and implications. Indeed, whilst suggesting that Palin's parenthood interferes with her public life the relationship between his own parenthood and public activities doesn't even have to be implicated, because it's just assumed that dads don't have to make any difficult work-childraising choices."

Motherhood and fatherhood are two complementary roles that are equally important to a child's upbringing, or so it goes. When we understand this, Santorum's statement comes as no surprise.

It is helpful, though, in demonstrating the false pedestal on which so many "marriage defenders" place motherhood and women. It's awesome and amazing and special when women are mothers, they say. Well, as long as they don't try to do the things that fathers do.

The Meaning of Marriage: It Can Be An Art Project

A gay man and a heterosexual woman have married, as part of a "university art project." Despite their nuptials, they both say they will continue to date other people.

I highlight cases like these, where people subvert the marriage-exists-for-procreation argument, from time to time to point out how mendacious it is for "marriage defenders" to claim that marriage is and always has been an institution for one man and one woman to create and then raise their biological children together.

The truth is, marriage means different things for different people. For some it is about companionship. For others it is about financial security. And yes, for some, it is indeed about creating and then raising children. It can be about all of these things or none of them.

In this particular case, marriage is not being used for "responsible procreation" at all. And, because procreation is not a legal requirement of marriage despite the "marriage defense" insistence that it's the very core of marriage, these art students are allowed to marry and call it an art project. Indeed, the wife in this marriage has no intention of having procreative sex with her new hubby and will, instead, have potentially-procreative sex with men who are not her husband. Rather than ensuring responsible procreation, at least as "marriage defenders" define it, we see here that legal marriage is actually an impediment to it.

As an interesting twist, despite the fact that you often hear the anti-gay set insist that gay people should Just Marry Members of the Other Sex If They Want To Get Married So Badly, it has been amusing to watch them now add But but but, this isn't what we meant! What we meant was, gay people have to marry and also have sex with people of the other sex! They can't just live together! As the director of a group called "Christian Voice" opines:

"Marriage is not an art project, it is the life-long union of man and woman and part of that is the sexual act, which is there for companionship and the raising of children."

Got it.

It's almost like these anti-gay folks don't know that there's a word for "having sex with" people you don't want to have sex with. Yet another admission that puts my opinion of "traditional marriage," as defined by anti-gay folks, in the shitter.