Marriage

I had hoped that Proposition 8 would not pass and had underestimated how upset I would be when it did. I wasn't quite expecting us to loose but I am not shocked that we have.

This is a post that I probably would not write if this blog had a large audience because it's not a post helpful to marriage equality or eradicating sexual orientation based discrimination and I would not want to damage those goals for anything. However, I felt the need to share my opinion with the internets, especially since I haven't seen it expressed elsewhere. Here it goes.

The other side has a very valid point. Marriage for same sex couples will lead to more societal acceptance for homosexuality. I believe that more acceptance of homosexuality will lead to more homosexual couples.

I believe (and I know that others disagree, and that this isn't proven by any scientific evidence but also that lots of others do share my opinion) that something like 10% of people are straight, 10% are gay, and the rest are some variety of bisexual. Now, part of my belief in this might be that I'm bi and that to imagine that someone is incapable of enjoying sex with a person of a particular gender is as difficult for me as imagining that someone is incapable of enjoying sex with a redhead when they prefer blondes. It's weird. The fact that different cultures have wildly varying incidents of homosexuality is fairly convincing that genetics are not the only factors (while the fact that homosexuality exists no matter how terribly it impacts the quality of life of individuals is convincing that individuals often can not control whom they find attractive).

So, if there are a lot of bisexuals out there, people who are equally attracted, people who are repressed, men who might prefer men but find women occasionally attractive, women who lust after both but can only 'connect' with a man, etc. then social acceptance of same sex pairing will likely lead to many more same sex romances. It logically follows that those people who think gay relationships are inferior in any way or that being gay is undesirable (if occasionally unavoidable) will not want homosexuality to be socially acceptable (and thus will have reservations against same sex marriages). Most people in the United States today, even most people who are 'accepting' and would never try to make life difficult for gay people as a general matter of course, who would accept a family member that was gay and wish them happiness and love would really prefer that no one they care about be gay. These people don't want their children growing up in a world where they see marriage as a contract between two people , who see nothing wrong with same sex relationships because then these children might go ahead and find out whether that passing fancy for that pretty girl could be something more real instead of obediently redirecting all impulses.

I don't think there's anything inferior about being homosexual or same sex relationships. I want them to be socially accepted and marraige equality is an important step for that. But truthfully? to deny that this all leading down a certain path? is disengineous. All revolutions are step by step and we'll fight this one a step at a time but the other side isn't being irrational in seeing what we're aiming for and the natural consequences. (No more so then sexists were irrational when they fought so hard against every gain for women, they knew it was going somewhere, and it is, toward equality).

ETA: Of course, today I see this, where Amanda says the same thing. (Could have saved me the time!) :)
ETA2: Oops, the above link is the second half of the post that was in my head but on second thought it doesn't mirror what I actually wrote above.

"Prominent Conservative Women" or "Ideology Bends to Reality – Longterm"

The problem with sexism (one of the problems with sexism) is that it is impractical. If you want a conservative woman as your flag bearer you're going to have to deal with the fact that she isn't going to be living the conservative life style, because it is an impossible life style for prominent women to lead. A women should be attractive and young, but such a woman should have a family and be taking care of them. Yeah, Sarah Palin has lots of kids, but she's not the one taking care of them, she's not 'mothering' them in the conventional sense of the word.

Sarah Palin makes me happy. I dislike all of her positions (or at least all of her positions that I know of) and I even dislike all that I know of her personally. I vehemently hope that she will lose the general election and that the ideology that she espouses loses, both in November and long term. However, I'm thrilled that she is part of the national discourse, I think it immensely useful for feminist goals.

The current single largest barrier (not to diminish a variety of other barriers also present) to equality in the United States is the presumption of women as primary caretakers. Being a primary caretaker for children is extremely time consuming and for years at a time a full time occupation. It's also one of those things that while very difficult to do very well is simple to perform to a minimum level. (Like cooking actually). There are no special skills or training required. (I'd argue the need for heroic patience and large doses of empathy but it's all mostly debatable). A group of people (a class if you will) that is presumed to have a job that requires minimum skills, a lot of time, and no pay during some of the most productive years of a person's life, with a similar part time job in later years, is handicapped in the ability to achieve financial security or excess and great achievements of any kind. This is simple logic, if you do A you can't do B at the same time, if you don't do B now the total B that you do decreases.

Today, a substantial portion of society thinks women should have economic and political equality with men. Often, even men who espouse this view will not be eager to shoulder more work in the childcare department, this is, unfortunately, simply rational behavior on their part. However, as the view that women should be seen in political life permeates society and even conservatives feel the need to have women representing them, the basic incompatibility of the full time caretaker model (especially with the multiple children far right conservatives would have all of us have) with a competitive career becomes inescapable.

Sarah Palin, whatever else she is or isn't, is not the primary caretaker for her young children. The simple, brutal calculus of time does not allow it. Someone else is doing the majority of the diaper changes, the majority of the rocking to sleep or quite, the monitoring that the baby doesn't fall out or the toddler doesn't eat something toxic, and all that. I don't think there is anything wrong with this. I just want more women to have that choice, without facing shame or obstacles.

Rich women have always been able to break conventions, when the stars aligned just right in family connections and talent. There have always been exceptions and they have rarely done much for women as a group. Conservatives (and lets be fair, human beings) have always had a large tolerance for hypocrisy (maybe even a taste for it?). Sarah Palin though, is not particularly rich (though she is certainly well off) or terribly well connected (as far as I can tell). So, I think it a good sign. Queen Elizabeth didn't do much for society's view of women. No one women can or will. But there must be a critical mass, a time when there are enough women to point to and say “hey, she did this, and you think she's a good person, a good woman, why can't I?” that it will make a difference.

None of this will stop conservatives from trying to shame and tar liberal women by saying they're bad mothers and bad women for not being primary caretakers or for being outspoken or ambitious but the more Sarah Palins there are the more ammunition we have to go “R U Serious? Really?” And every non prominent conservative that votes for Palin is endorsing her lifestyle and though he may see no contradiction in his 'values' and his vote for Palin eventually these contradictions will seep through.

It makes the conservative arguments harder, and sooner or later they are abandoned. The overtone window moves.

Gold diggers and Manipulators; Power, Gender Roles and Equality

It is undisputed that study after study (if one’s own observations aren’t enough) tell us that women do the vast majority of child rearing and house work. However there is another sort of work that women do overwhelming more then men. Emotional work. The emotional maintenance of a relationship. Monitoring the mood of the parties, monitoring the relationships with family, smoothing over problems and preventing problems, articulating feelings and resolving problems.

Emotional maintenance is hard to quantify and there is a lot of disagreement on the subject. Is it real? Is it necessary? Do men really not do it? Do men really need it?

I think it is both real and necessary and that women are trained for it and men aren’t. A side effect or accompaniment of this is that there is in fact a certain subtle power that this gives women.

One part of emotional maintenance is being aware of when your partner or family member is angry or sad and what to do to change it. It’s logical that if a woman knows how to do this then she can also not do it, or acerbate the situation. This sounds like a lot of power and it is, but unlike any other oppressed group women always have power in a patriarchal society. A functioning society has to have paths to happiness for women, spheres of influence. Feminists often deny that women have any real power in patriarchy but that’s not necessarily accurate. What is accurate is that the power patriarchies give women are always subtle powers and when they come into conflict blunt power beats subtle power every time, sometimes literally so.

This is perfectly illustrated by an article about Jamaica, Females To Blame for Male Suicides via Feministing.

Jamaica of course isn't the United States and one article isn't proof of a culture wide trend, but it is a good example.

The basic point of the article is that men don’t know how to deal with their strong emotions and so lash out in anger and kill their partners before killing themselves. The anthropologist in the article explicitly says that it is women’s fault that men are killing them.

"Women have grown up without restrictions on expressing their emotions and so they are more emotionally developed than most men and pretty much manipulate men and make them feel incompetent and inferior," McGill said.

This is a fascinating point view, women are more emotionally developed then men and manipulate men and then men kill them so obviously the solution is to change women.

?

The point that stands out for me is that even taking for granted that women do have this power to manipulate and use it against men (which I don’t necessarily believe) men have more power, it is the woman who is dead, the man who killed her. However, this isn't pointed out. We are all so very used to men having the superior power that it is not even worth noting.

Not all power is equal. Violence and money as power will always (as a group and at least for the foreseeable future) triumph over any other type.

Men, as a group, have all the self-focused blindness of a privileged group. They see that there is a certain power wielded by women as a group and complain, often and loudly, that it isn’t fair for women to ask or demand equality while they have these powers. When analyzed this position is ridiculous. Women shouldn’t expect to have the same ability to control their own lives by having equal earning power till they pay half for all their dinners and change their own tires? How can anyone expect an oppressed group to give up the advantages that they do have when there is no guarantee and every indication that it won’t help them get anything in exchange? Privileged groups have a lousy track record of giving up their power if only the people they are oppressing are nice enough.

Today, in the real world, when it comes to power, women are fucked. So till women earn as much as men do in the same jobs, till women aren’t expected to be the primary care takers of children, till women aren’t expected to manage the household, I’m not going to be recommending that women stop batting their eyelashes and capitalizing on any manipulative advantage they might have.

Let men who are so very scandalized by gold diggers give up all of their advantages and then we’ll think of being scandalized too.

The average guy needs to realize that just because a woman made him feel like shit and as if he is powerless doesn't mean he isn't privileged by society.