The Failed Philosophy of Male-Female Fungibility

I was up at the preschool the other day. My LO doesn’t go full time she stays home with me but I still take her up to the preschool a couple of days a week. Well anyways I was observing the behavior of the kids while they were playing outside. There is simply no denying that they boys are simply more aggressive and risk taking than the girls. Of course, a few of the girls would play with the boys too but for the most part they were off playing with other girls. The boys were running around much more than the girls and several times the teachers had to break them apart from fighting with the other boys (a couple of times they even started fighting with the girls and they stopped that real quick).

Feminists supported gender neutral laws and standards of dealing with males and females. MRAs complain about the way boys are treated yet they too are advocating for the same gender neutrality as feminists. The problem is that the sexes are not fungible with each other yet any attempt to segregate the sexes in any area of life is met with fierce resistance and claims of “stereotyping.” and “sexism.”

In some areas boys will suffer and in others girls will suffer. Not only are boys more aggressive and can’t sit still (they evolved/were made to be hunters and warriors after all) but they also don’t mature as fast as girls. In other areas girls suffer. For instance, teenage boys do not get pregnant. Well feminists wanted to invalidate all laws that favored and protected women. For instance, statutory rape laws that used to lay penalties on the male. This is called common sense. Not only is the boy not going to get pregnant but he also has a much larger sex drive and 20 times more testosterone coursing through his veins. But, no, of course in the interest of sex-neutral laws and male-female fungibility we have the punish the girl on top of the natural punishment she will already receive from society and the risk to her body and life that would result when the inevitable pregnancy occurs as a result of the sex act. But of course these laws must be gender-neutral because, you know, women can be guilty of statutory rape too and teenage girls should face the same punishment as the teenage boys even though the boy won’t face the same responsibilities and hardships as the girl and history is just filled with stories of groups of rowdy women coming through a town, killing all the women and children and taking out all the young virgin males and using them for reproduction! Justice William Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion on the matter in 1981 was:

“Because virtually all of the significant harmful and inescapable identifiable consequences of teenage pregnancy fall on the young female, a legislature acts well within its authority when it elects to punish only the participant who, by nature, suffers few of the consequences of his conduct. It is hardly unreasonable for a legislature acting to protect minor females to exclude them from punishment. Moreover, the risk of pregnancy itself constitutes a substantial deterrence to young females. No similar sanctions deter males. A criminal sanction solely on males thus serves roughly to ‘equalize the deterrents on the sexes.’”[1]

In addition we still have some sex segregated schools left today, but the ACLU is working fiercely to shut those down. You know, by all that’s holy how dare us force boys and girls into “stereotypes” regarding their sex! You know, it’s not like the girls will grow up to be mothers and need those nurturing home-making skills and it’s not like we should ever suggest that the boys grow up to be men who provide for and lead families! How dare us? Why a woman should march off to work big and pregnant while her dainty little house husband sits home knitting sweaters and painting his nails! What is wrong with society today? The entire point of marriage and bringing fathers into the family is for them to do their part providing for women and their children so that the mother does not have to both bear children and support the family on top of it. Intimacy and structure can be satisfied without marriage. There is no other point of marriage other than to be a safety net for women to bear and nurture children, which women are going to do no matter what. But the prime fact of life is that no man will bear the burden of pregnancy.

“Similarly, man’s ‘innate need for structure’ can be satisfied in hundreds of forms of organization. The need for structure may explain all of them or none of them, but it does not tell us why, of all possible arrangements, marriage is the one most prevalent. It does not tell us why, in most societies, marriage alone is consecrated in a religious ceremony and entails a permanent commitment.

As most anthropologists see it, however, the reason is simple. The very essence of marriage, Bronislaw Malinowski wrote, is not structure and intimacy; it is ‘parenthood and above all maternity.’ The male role in marriage, as Margaret Mead maintained, ‘in every known human society, is to provide for women and children.’ In order to marry, in fact, Malinowski says that almost every human society first requires the man ‘ to prove his capacity to maintain the woman.’”[2]

So the only thing that’s actually happening as a result of all this gender neutral legislation and forced male-female fungibility is that boys are falling behind in school and, oh my, teenage girls are still getting pregnant as they have since the beginning of time! Who would have thought? But, of course, let’s continue on with this failed philosophy.

 

Notes:

[1] Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma City., 450 U.S. 464 (1981) Dissent by Justice William Rehnquist
[2] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage,” Pelican, 1993.

 

 

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Advertisements