Gender equity marches on

Get the State out of intimate personal relations — so goes the slogan. Nonetheless, the real function of social liberalism is to abolish intimate personal relations, or at least denature them and make them incapable of interfering with anything serious. Hence the sex ed that trains children to think of sex as a consumer good, hence the redefinition of “family” as any constellation of human beings temporarily calling themselves such, and hence the constitutionally favored position granted by the Supreme Court, under the supposedly conservative leadership of the Chief Justice, to legislation designed to remove “the pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women’s work.”

Out of respect for federalism, the Court has recently held state governments immune from various employment regulations. That principle goes by the board, though, when Congress uses its 14th Amendment power to enforce that amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process — which, according to our “right-wing” court, includes destruction of all cultural understandings of masculine and feminine responsibilities, no matter how deep-rooted, long-standing, or even universal. Among a free and self-governing people, the fact that something is a “pervasive stereotype” would be a reason for the government to respect it. In America today it is an overriding reason to suppress it. With conservatives like Chief Justice Rehnquist, who needs Leftists?
Posted by Jim Kalb at May 29, 2003 12:24 PM | Send


“Among a free and self-governing people, the fact that something is a “pervasive stereotype” would be a reason for the government to respect it. In America today it is an overriding reason to suppress it.”

That’s turning things back on the liberals!

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on May 30, 2003 11:08 AM

It seems Justice Rehnquist’s behavior is ironic. He tries to end one stereotype but creates another stereotype—caring for family members is not women’s work or caring for family members is shared equally by men and women or both. Also, he uses the word caring loosely. He implies men do not care for their families or do not care as much as women. This idea is irrational.

In addition, he is operating with an ax instead of a scalpel. He strips away the concept of roles and leaves us with no basis on which to structure our society. Perhaps he has some familiarity with the way many men today take cultural advantage of their wives. Many wives today work in jobs just as their husband’s do. Yet their husbands (spoiled by their dear mothers) expect their wives to cook, to clean, to see to the children, to push (a/k/a to nag), to make sure everyone goes to the doctor, to listen to everyone’s gripes, etc. FN 1. To the extent he is attempting to inhibit governmental enforcement of such relationships, Justice Rehnquist has some justification. But he neglects to outline a substitute relationship. Yeah, burn it down man, but before you do, have a substitute.

FN 1. This modern situation is perhaps partly the result of couples having unrealistic wants, with the woman (by default because of her husband’s genetic or culturally-induced incorrigibility) bearing the greater burden of the couple’s desires. The result might be caused in part by feminists, who exist supposedly to protect females; the feminists idealize women behaving as men in every respect including working outside the home.

Posted by: P Murgos on May 31, 2003 12:04 AM

Yesterday, before I read your blogs on this issue, I linked to the article “Queering the Schools” at Frontpage.mag’s front page. Today, it no longer has any appearance on the front page, and when I did a search of the site for the word “queering”, it turned up no hits. I had to come back to your site and hyperlink over to the article, because I sent Bill O’Reilly the hyperlink and a link to your site as well.

It bugs me when he lets the President of the Log Cabin Republicans refer to gays as being a part of the American family and never challenges the guy or asks him to define what he is talking about.

P.S. I’m a 40 something year old woman. The topics and images discussed in the article “Queering..” are so repulsive and profane to me at this age that I truly wish I had never read it. I want to weep when I think of young men and women even being exposed to this information.

Posted by: TB on May 31, 2003 12:15 PM

Even our friendly neighborhood liberals have noticed the change in Rehnquist.
Michael Kinsley writes in Slate:
“The Supreme Court surprised everybody by ruling Tuesday that even state governments have to obey the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Liberals and women’s groups are hailing the opinion and love-bombing its author, Chief Justice Rehnquist himself. Still, it’s a very odd opinion, especially to anyone who remembers the debate over family leave 10 years ago…..
The chief justice writes in a wonderfully matter-of-fact way about “mutually reinforcing stereotypes” about “women’s domestic roles” and “a lack of domestic responsibilities for men.” About how these “create a self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination” that “force (!) women” to be the “primary family caregiver.” And so on. All this is true, of course, but framed in quite an amazingly radical way. Rehnquist simply assumes that stay-at-home mothers are evidence—and victims—of societal discrimination. He assumes it and elevates it to a constitutional principle.
Even odder is Rehnquist’s insistence that sex discrimination is what the Family and Medical Leave Act is all about. Fighting stereotypes about women may have been one reason for guaranteeing this benefit to both genders, but the main reason was the benefit itself.”

I never thought that I would say this; but I agree with Kinsley. When was FMLA ever about fighting stereotypes? Apparently, this fig life of species reasoning was provided to Rehnquist by the Bush’s lawyers.

I agree with Murgos. The feminists have set women up by not only idealizing the behavior of men but by also devaluing the traditional work of women. If women have been told that they ought to be free from household slavery by working outside the home, then how would wives convince their husband that the household work is important?

Posted by: TCB on May 31, 2003 11:56 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):