Usually, criticism is best left unaddressed. People hold differing opinions, and those differences should be respected. People are pretty good about sorting through things and choosing what to believe. But, occasionally, some piece strays so far from reason, it would be delinquent to let it go unanswered. Ben Clark’s recent exercise [” A clear lacking of historical and current reality”] in gratuitous virtue signaling reaches that level.
Do I really need to respond to his disapproval at the suggestion that “men are distinctly different from women, and that’s how things should be?” Is he saying that men aren’t different from women, that the sexes can’t be distinguished or simply that women should be the same as men?
People enjoy advantages because of looks, intelligence and ambition, but “cisgender white males” don’t have a monopoly on those attributes, which is why there is such a diversity of successful people in every arena of human endeavor all around the world. Does Mr. Clark not see all of the female or non-white leaders? Does he feel they are at a disadvantage because they are not “cisgender white males?” I doubt if Shinzo Abe, Cyril Ramaphosa, Angela Merkel or Xi Jinping feel “marginalized.” Clark’s attribution of “privilege” is, at most, a myopic, U.S.-centric view.
Mr. Clark’s disapproval of my presumed hostility towards gender diversity is curious. “Gender” was a useful term for the centuries it was confined to linguistics, but in the last century, it was hijacked by feminist theorists to define – what exactly? Lacking any objective substance, “gender identity” can mean anything, and a word that can mean anything ultimately means nothing. Often, “gender identity” reduces to a suite of gender stereotypes one chooses to embrace. Identify as a “man?” Cut your hair and wear pants. Identify as a “woman?” Put on makeup, and cry. The irony seems lost that, on the one hand, these theorists posit that gender stereotypes are stifling, and, on the other, espouse the “empowering” nature of embracing those very same stereotypes.
Children are intelligent creatures, adept at mimicry and anxious to please authority figures. I won’t reiterate my earlier piece, but children are taught their “gender,” as that word is currently defined. In an evolving social system, it’s fine to encourage young people to look beyond traditional gender roles. But, in practice, “gender identity” reduces to “preferred gender stereotype,” so those individuals who seek to free their charges from “stifling gender roles” unfortunately simply constrain them under a different suite of stereotypes, and often those ill-fit their physical natures. Culture serves biology, and, biologically, sex, if not sexual attraction, is binary. Social convention simply provides the framework in which to negotiate that reality.
A small tragedy is perpetrated every time authority figures encourage children to deviate from those conventions in response to children’s clumsy attempts to conform to authorities’ expectations. It’s neither kindness nor compassion to abuse your custodial rights by using innocent young people as the raw material upon which you work out your personal angst, or your social agenda. It’s unfortunate Mr. Clark sees virtue in that abuse.
In referencing “25 white men in Alabama voted to criminalize abortion,” Mr. Clark chooses not to recognize all of the women and people of color who support constraints on abortion, nor even the female Alabama governor who recently signed one of the strictest anti-abortion bills. Does Mr. Clark feel those people don’t matter, or does he simply see the world as a mosaic of stereotypes, rendering every exception or nuance invisible to him?
Regarding his reference to a study on children of same-sex couples compared to those who are raised by a father and mother, I would remind Mr. Clark that that my article didn’t contrast gay versus straight parent outcomes, but cited the consequences to children of lacking either gender in their upbringing. Being reminded of that, I’m sure Mr. Clark will appreciate the distinction when citing further studies.
I respect everyone’s formulated opinions. Mr. Clark’s might be worthy of greater consideration if his reliance on popular tropes didn’t suggest he is simply burnishing his SJW bona fides by parroting a mélange of progressive talking points. I would, however, welcome any thoughts he might evolve independently, and look forward to reading them in some future article.
As always, thoughtful responses are welcome at henrycarlyle@outlook.com
John Blasiak is a resident of Greenfield.