Friday, October 10, 2008

Why Feminists Should Vote for Prop. 8

would make a terrible politician. I have my opinions, but I hate holding hands politically with folks whom I find abhorrent in their argumentation. Heaven help me if I had to "pal around with" bigots (as Sarah Palin would say). I prefer to cut my own path...and be lonely in the process if necessary. Indeed, my approach makes me few friends...I have to fight back the opposition while fending off folks who are trying to "help" me.

So some may wonder why I talk so much about this topic. One reason, of course, is because it's more than a little controversial. And I would be lying if I said I didn't dig that. I like getting into hot water; it keeps me clean, as one wise philosopher once noted. The other reason is pragmatic. I would write as vociferously about the Iraq war, but there are plenty of others who do that and far more eloquently. I would write about global warming, but other than cutting back on my gas guzzling, write a few letters, and appear in a few rallies, there's not much that I can contribute that can't be done better by someone else. Plus I am not a scientist so will probably not be able to form the kind of opinion I need to feel passionately about it. I fear that if I were to start reading up on it, I would not be able to tell up from down. But I digress...

Feminism has been the ideology d'jour to promote the rights of homosexual couples. It is understandable that they would. After all, it was Adrienne Rich, the famed literary critic a la feminism (that's a shout out to Ashley Sanders...hi Ash!) who argued that women by their very natures lesbians and had only been coerced or had sold themselves for the economic securities of heterosexuality. Elaine Showalter, while more moderate in her remarks, has argued that women should stop both protesting and imitating, as both demonstrate their dependence on men. Touche, Sister Showalter ONe might look to others such as Nancy Chowderow or Nancy Jones for more solid feminist analysis.

I recognize that in citing feminists in opposition to homosexual marriage, I am severely bucking academic orthodoxy. But last I checked, academics liked doing that, so they should be willing to indulge me a little as I do the same.

But must I accept their conclusions if I accept their reasoning? If I accept that women have been oppressed, must we conclude that they should just stay to themselves? As the prominent feminist historian, Joan Scott noted, such a practice would equate ghettoization of the worst order. Typically we speak of ghettoization in literature...now they're speaking of lives!

Furthermore, legitimzing lesbian unions seems to be the ultimate DELEGITMIZATION of women's contribution to our society. By legitimizing them, we are suggesting that woman ultimately have nothing to offer a child that a man can't offer. No singularity. No special perks. They would become simply homo sapiens in skirts. Men would begin having easier access to adoptive services on the basis of financial well-being (all other things being equal of course). And worse, they're concluding that anything a female mother can do, a man can do just as well. Before women know it, they've been cut out of the pie in their efforts to protest against men.

Legitimizing homosexual unions is concluding that one's female identity is nothing more than a genetic quirk that has nothing to do with parenting. Femininity is a construct...something that man can give and man can take away. Look at a bit of Foucault's work History of Sexuality --such tenets are accepted within the academy and out on the street. One's gender is fluid and can be played with at will. Within religious circles, they're not doing much better on this question...all they've got is "God made me this way"...and even then, that gender is only life-long, not to have much relevance in the life hereafter.

But, Russ, what a caricature you draw! Not really. If men can come to dominate the power structures, then homosexual men would do the same. The best way to preserve women's claim to power in the parenting structure is to support Prop. 8 if only for adoption purposes. As Showalter noted, stop trying to imitate men and start exercising your own power by keeping the men from taking away the parental rights that are properly yours.


But don't listen to me...I'm just a man. You know how important your role as a woman is to society. Fight for it. Drink it up. Live it.

3 comments:

Patrick Meighan said...

Prop 8 has nothing to do with adoption.

Unmarried same-sex couples were adopting children in California long before same-sex marriage was legal, and same-sex couples will continue to adopt children in California long past November 4th, regardless of the outcome of Prop 8.

Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA

Russtafarian said...

Actually, for that very reason, Prop. 8 has everything to do with adoption. Granted, Prop. 8 won't solve it single-handedly...it's only the first step. So you're probably right...they will continue after Nov. 4th. However, it sets the proper tone for future adoption proceedings

There is ambiguity in California Family code. There is precious little distinction between a domestic partnership and marriage. There are also provisions to allow for domestic partners to adopt, probably due to the ambiguity that exists between D.P.s and marriage.
This creates the environment that allows for D.P.s to adopt.

The reason we support creating this reserved status is so that we can craft laws in accordance with the constitution that are friendlier to a balanced environment of gender for children. While not all heterosexual couples will be as "balanced" as they should be, we have little reason to suppose that we should make an argument from the margins, using the minority to define the majority.

And as far as "there are so many orphans out there that homosexual couples would like to adopt," methinks that homosexuals have the same biases as heterosexual couples and would like to have an infant. In which case, they will be waiting a long time indeed. Those who are willing to take the older children are exceptions indeed.

Carolyn said...

Um ...

This doesn't really address what you're saying about Prop 8 at all. Still, it's something that's been on my mind recently.

Maybe I don't understand feminism. But as it has affected our culture today, I think feminism is dangerous to our families, too. Because, as much as high-minded theorists might argue something different, feminism to the common woman in our American culture means that women are the same as men, period. It means, I can do anything a man can do and, by extension, must mean a man can do anything I can do. I think that fighting domestic abuse is important. I think that giving women the vote was monumental. I think that making room for successful, driven, and visionary women in machinery of capitalism was necessary. Giving women every opportunity to choose, in no way forcing them to take up any role, seems a worthwhile goal to me.

But the mindset that is perpetrated with feminism seems dangerous. I do think that we are steadily replacing our women with "homo sapiens in skirts", as you say, and if left to continue, will erase the womanly attributes that are seen as inferior.

The most beautiful things about being a woman are sacred and often secret. That is as it should be. Our example is our Heavenly Mother who, glorious as she must be, is kept hidden from the world. Does that mean our Father devalues her? In our culture, that is sometimes the only conclusion we know how to draw. We think it is wrong to ask a woman to be discreet with her body, her goodness, and her gifts. I say that is the height of womanhood. To be a woman is to be modest.