(no subject)

[oyceter]

So I've calmed down a little and actually read through the entire thing. And wow. Am trying very hard not to get worked up again. The gender essentialist stuff in and of itself would piss me off, not even considering that he's using it as a piece of "proof" to further his very fallacious chain of reasoning.

And as hesychasm so kindly pointed out, yonmei and cesperanza have written rebuttals, which is good, because so far they are much more coherent than me.

ETA: I take it back. I am ranting anyway. Because the gender essentialist crap really pisses me off and his whole, oh gay people do have the right to marriage! It's like back in the days of non-interracial marriage -- you do have the right to marriage! Of course, with the small footnote that it is limited to a certain pool of people who look like you! I'm sorry. Yonmei goes into the whole marriage without sex thing but I haven't read far enough to see if she (he? I tend to assume LJ people are female, ironic for my gender essentialist argument) points out that his argument itself is very scarily like the Jim Crow laws. Blacks have the right to sit on buses -- just in the back. Blacks of course have the right to go to school! Just these certain ones though. Because of course the whole separate but equal thing was totally fair.

And I am pissed off beyond the telling at the gender essentialism. Wait, only a father can provide moral groundwork? WTF?! Because we poor women are too weak and coddle the children too much, and of course, we are all freaking the same because we have two X chromosomes? Nothing about cultural influence there, or maybe that the centuries confining women to the home space may have caused this, as opposed to genes. Oh no, a woman, any woman, no matter what, will without fail be coddling and cannot possibly *gasp* reprimand her child to provide a moral framework. Uhh, I'm sorry.... surely it wasn't my mother who taught me lying was bad?

I'm sorry. That's honestly the stupidest thing I've read for a very long time. And I'm not being good and logical about it like I'm sure other LJ people are, but oh well.

Ugh. To think I went to his signing.

Comments

When metaphors go to far for a modern girl's taste

[ebonbird.livejournal.com]

Gender essentialist?

That gender is immutable and relates to a physical reality. Or at least, is immutable?

Bah. And all the times God is described in the bible as being in labor over his people, as in, I squatted in the pains of my labor and gave you birth?

Or some such.

Anyway... OSC has a set of beliefs that make sense to him and, when he puts them in his text, make sense... in that context. But really, I have a tendency to grit my teeth and go, "ook. You're writing like a LeHaye again."

I've read many books on family, therapy, and family dynamics by Christians, like Tim & Beverly Lehaye, the Smalls, and the Minirth-Meier clinics. There's a lot of good stuff in there. And there's a lot of stuff that's kind of crap.

(note my Rupauls icon)

Re: When metaphors go to far for a modern girl's taste

[oyceter]

Nyargh. The entire idea that gender means that some aspects of your personality or your role in society are fixed not culturally, but biologically pisses me off incredibly. Because of course gender and gender roles have been exactly the same throughout the entire course of human history, just like definitions of marriage and family /sarcasm.

Not even going to go into the incredible arrogance and cultural imperialism that goes into making a statement like that.

And on a happier note: so that's who's in your icon! I've been wondering.