FUN WITH PROCREATION: Eve replies to Gabriel Rosenberg, second part

2, 3 and 5) Gabriel is misunderstanding my view of the necessity of men. To be honest, I wonder why he thinks I meant "any man will do"! That would be a genuinely weird thing for a family advocate to think.

It's obviously best for kids--barring abuse or neglect--to be raised by their own two married parents. That's the main thing marriage is for. However, any time an opponent of SSM says that, the initial objection is, "What about couples who can't conceive?" So I addressed that objection by pointing out that those couples can still give adoptive children (who aren't going to be raised by their own two married parents no matter what) a mom and dad. (And infertile opposite-sex couples don't reinforce a cultural belief that fathers aren't necessary, either.)

And yes, I do think a mom and a dad are better for kids than a fatherless or motherless household. I think it's better because I believe gender is a deep reality, one of the biggest factors in shaping our views of ourselves and our place in the world. That's why gender difference appears across cultures and throughout history.

To be more concrete: I think a motherless or fatherless household is incomplete, sub-optimal, not to be encouraged, because boys need to learn to be men and to relate to women, and girls need to learn to be women and to relate to men. That's a big part of what people who grew up with a father and mother say that they gained, and it's a big part of what people who grew up without father or mother say that they lacked.

Let me ask Gabriel a question that mirrors his questions: When people who grew up in mother + grandmother-headed households say, "I never had a daddy," or, "I never learned what men are supposed to do in a family," are they really only articulating the problems of three-generation families? Or are they saying something about the deep importance of gender?
posted by Eve at 8:26 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home