Tuesday, May 19, 2009

True Gender Equality

Gender Inequality NotEqual

“Marriage between one man and one woman is the ultimate expression of equality as no gender is marginalized.”

This is a thought I have recently adopted (and do eagerly disseminate) that was coined by my very good friend Pomegranate Apple (also writing now at Beetle Blogger).  Ponder it.  It is very profound.

Radical feminists would have us believe that the only way for women to achieve equality is to marginalize men.  Some have even gone so far as to propagate the sentiment that true equality can only come as women embrace their supposed “inner lesbian” and categorically deny any need for the male gender.

  • "Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
  • "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" (National NOW Times, January, 1988).
  • [Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny... " -- Cheryl Clarke, "Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance," in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color
    (Source: Opine Editorials)

When approached thoughtfully, this quite easily becomes transparently illogical.  How can we ever be equal to those we’re attempting to rise above?  Yes, it’s great that women can vote, own property, and wear pants.  Fantastic, actually.  But, demanding that women can (and should) do all that men do, actually denies the unique nature and contribution of man and instead sets woman at a contrived advantage by the forced combination of her innate, feminine characteristics and her socially-driven, male character acquisitions.

Radical Feminism = woman on a pedestal; man subservient.  Does that seem like equality to you?

Male chauvinism, on the other hand, demands the exact opposite.  Instead of recognizing and appreciating the unique abilities and contributions of women, machismo demands that women walk behind men, serve men, and eternally submit to men.

Male Chauvinism = man on a pedestal; woman subservient.  Still not equal.

Not surprisingly, the only situation in which true gender equality can be achieved is marriage between one man and one woman, where cohabitation, daily interaction, respect for marital vows (life-long commitment), and the mutual care of physical, spiritual, and family assets (aka children) demands a cooperation the likes of which cannot and will not be required in any other situation.  Successful marriage relies heavily upon the equal contribution of both sexes.  Women and men balance each other perfectly: testosterone to estrogen, physical strength to spiritual strength, adoration to admiration, justice to mercy.  Where one is lacking, the other steps up.  Where one excels, the other observes, learns, and grows.

In parenting, the same applies.  Children need the influence of a father and a mother, as both contribute different yet vitally essential lessons to developing minors.  Two lesbian partners cannot possibly provide the necessary contributions of the male gender as they do not posses the inherent male characteristics and abilities with which to deliver such lessons.  Textbooks, research, and education can only take one so far.  It is strictly in hindsight that an individual recognizes which lessons were most vital to his development, so it is logical to conclude that a teenager will not, in the midst of his character development, approach his two “mommies” and say, “I really need you to teach me, by example, how a man should treat a woman.”  That is a lesson that a good father will teach his son unconsciously as he goes about the course of his days interacting respectfully with his son’s mother.  For a lesbian mommy to teach the same lesson unconsciously, she would have to abandon her femininity in favor of masculinity, effectively illustrating the unique importance of a male role model in the home through imitation of male behavior.  Additionally, for mommies to try to teach the same lesson consciously would very simply be less effective as it has been proven that children learn more by the example of those in primary proximity than they do by lecture from the same.  Think, “Do as I do; not as I say.”

Homosexual marriage/parenting/relationships = marginalization (sometimes even derision) of opposite gender = two left feet = unnatural imbalance = discord, anxiety, depression, confusion, dissatisfaction.  Definite inequality here.

More examples of essential lessons taught by the unique presence of an opposite-sex parent in the home:

- A little girl learns from her daddy (through observation) what to look for in a future spouse.
- Children learn to nurture and serve others by watching an inherently sensitive mother do just that.
- Kids know their own strength and its appropriate use through roughhousing with dad.

Incidentally, it is extremely interesting to note that more often than not, one individual in a homosexual partnership will take on the role of male (dominant, commanding, and butch) while the other adopts the role of female (emotional, meek, and effeminate) in an attempt to imitate and recapture nature where the natural has ceased to exist.  And still more desperate attempts for the unnatural to imitate the natural include increasingly convoluted, gender-confusing actions and behaviors such as estrogen/testosterone injections, sex changes, and transvestite fetishism.  On a greater level, this desperate imitation can be interpreted as lending profound importance to the institution of marriage as homosexuals demand the acquisition and redefinition of a uniquely heterosexual union which currently provides a protected platform for the essential blending of opposite genders and, therefore, healthy continuation of society.

Marriage between one man and one woman = true gender equality = balance = peace.  Who wouldn’t want that?

Please note that bringing up skyrocketing divorce rates and spousal abuse does not provide a logical basis for abandoning the singular encouragement of the heterosexual marital ideal.  It merely points out a problem with the humans involved in the institution, not the institution itself.  And there are many ways to deal with such problems (counseling, elimination of no-fault divorce, beheading . . . just kidding) that do not include devaluation through redefinition.

~Pearl

6 comments:

Sarah said...

This entry is assuming that homosexuality doesn't even exist. If it didn't, then yeah! I'd totally agree. But the truth is that homosexuality does exist. It's not about gender. It's about a person unable to marry who they love. Sexuality is completely separate from gender. As for a child's environment, what happens to the children of a heterosexual marriage in which one of the parents isn't heterosexual? Many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people marry as heterosexual because they don't see any other option. These marriages are extremely detrimental to both parties. Can you imagine as a straight person marrying someone of the same sex because you feel you have no choice? How could you provide a stable environment for your children in a loveless marriage?
I understand your argument, but the fatal flaw is that it disregards homosexuality as a legitimate life. It assumes that everyone is actually straight. I've known enough people who have tried to end their own lives because of their homosexuality. The assumption that homosexuality is unnatural threatens the lives of millions of homosexuals. Have some empathy, what if everyone you knew thought something you were born with was a sin?

Yours, Sincerely said...

Love it Pearl! Beautifully stated. We might also say that in a marriage between a man and a woman, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, as together, a man and a woman can create a full-spectrum marriage and family, where one alone, or two of a single gender, could only fulfill half of the equation.

MyBook said...

Marriage between one man and one woman = true gender equality = balance = peace. Who wouldn’t want that? The truth is that most people do want true gender equality, balance, and peace. I would add for the women, it also includes security. A man will protect his wife and uplift her to others.

There is a case where two lesbians divorced and are fighting a custody battle now. It is Lisa Miller versus Janet Jenkins. The child is now 7 years old and hardly knows the other partner who is vying for custody. Without getting into great detail, if Janet Jenkins (who is from Vermont) wins and Lisa Miller (from Virginia) loses, then marriage in all states can be at risk with this precedent in this case. Keep a sharp out on this.

Cheryl McCann, huggy101
http://www.husband-ry.com

Troy said...

Sarah,
Pearl is not denying homosexuality here in this wonderful piece. She is denying that same sex unions are "more equal" than marriage in a very clear way. Being able to name a relationship with another of the same gender marriage is really beside the point of this fantastic article. The point of the article, which I think is well thought out and presented, is that same sex relationships don't provide equality between the sexes and that they ARE lacking in what they provide to children.

As for the "what happens if" portion of your post with some worst case scenario (or at least an undesirable scenario) is missing the point which is, "The gold standard of human relationships for rearing children is marriage between a man and a woman, everything else is less." There are lots of "what happens if" scenarios that involve any of a number of combinations of same sex attracted persons, children, opposite sex attracted persons which all basically result in a situation that is not as good for raising children. It's not the point to enumerate them here. Same sex unions are substandard with respect to raising children and anyone who claims otherwise apparently hasn't taken the time to understand the extensive research done on the question.

The article written by Pearl is thoughtful and clear. Thanks for writing it Pearl.

Euripides said...

Great piece you've written here Pearl. This makes perfect sense, as long as you're not blinded by the false assertions gay activists have created to neuter marriage.

Pearl said...

@Sarah

Can you please explain (and be specific) how I "assume that homosexuality does not exist"? I find that assertion startling considering I specifically mention homosexual relationships and why I feel they are not representative of true gender equality.

With regards to the "born with it" argument, you might want to take note of the latest statement from the APA. No one knows exactly what causes homosexuality. No one. It could be nature. It could be nurture. It could be a combination of both (which is what I, personally, believe), but for the moment, not one person on this planet can use the argument, "I was born with it," in a scientific sense. Sure, that might be their personal opinion, but science does not (indeed, cannot) concur.

From the APA:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

Compare to the APA statement of 1998:

"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

Puts quite the damper on the supposed "civil rights" argument for homosexual "marriage," now doesn't it?

@Yours, Sincerely

Thank you. And thanks for reminding us of the wholesome nature of marriage between a man and a woman.

@Troy and Euripides

Thanks guys! You make excellent points and I appreciate you taking the time to share them here.