Hanna Rosin recently penned a short piece in which she exhorted the superiority of gay parenting. It is one of those supremely superficial, navel-gazing pieces that manages to butcher the reality of sex, homosexuality and intimate relationships.
First, before considering Rosin and her piece, consider Mark Regnerus’ study of gay parenting entitled New Family Structures. In it, he commits the cardinal sin of questioning sacrosanct left-wing dogma, by suggesting that homosexual approaches to parenting are deficient to heterosexual ones. The most obvious reason, and most rooted in common season, is that the world is full of both men and women. One must have some understanding of the opposite sex. As such, parents of both sexes are absolutely crucial in order to ensure said children grow into adults with healthy views of both sexes. Dr. Robert Glover, in his book No Mister Nice Guy, noted how the lack of a positive father figures often has a tremendous negative influence on a boy’s growth into a healthy adult. Of course, when esteemed academic, Tom Bartlett, heard of Regnerus’ study, he provided a shrewd insight into the intellectual rigor of the study, calling it “bullshit.” Profound.
Later that summer, Oscar Robert Lopez penned an introspective and thoughtful essay reflecting on his childhood being raised by two lesbians. His experience was largely negative, as Lopez did not learn at all how to behave like a man. He struggled mightily with women, as his lesbian moms had absolutely nothing to teach them about seeking sex and relationships with women, as they had the benefit of living in the insular world of serial lesbian monogamy. Still, Lopez became a professor, a husband and a political conservative.
Despite his upbringing, he has made something of his life, but still struggles to this day with his untoward upbringing. His real self-reflection and introspection stands in stark constant to the narcissism and self-denial of Zach Wahls, another son of a lesbian coupling. The liberal media ignored Lopez’s story of anguish and lauded Wahls’ story, dubbing it proof positive of the triumph of female-centric parenting: lesbian parenting. Much like a Christian Scientist proclaiming their child’s broken arm has been healed, while the arm is obviously disfigured, we see this astonishing level of delusion with respects to homosexual parenting fanatics on the left.
Reconsider Hanna Rosin. She is the portrait of an entitled American female. She comes from wealth and attended Stanford. Her life has been handed to her on a silver platter. As expected, she cashed in on her privilege by pretending to be an intellectual. Her ideas are not just derivative, but smack of a strong degree of superiority and narcissism. Her most famous book – The End of Men – reeks of a virulent level of female self-congratulation for doing jobs men have doing for time immemorial while also taking a sick sense of pride in hurting men. It is heavy-handed and has the smug superiority of a clinical narcissist. She senses weakness in many males and women like her have tethered their identity to one-upping men as a class.
A man commits suicide because he can’t find work and his wife is leaving him? A pathetic male who could not reconcile the ascension of women with his own misogyny. Ugh, why am I so awesome!
A man complains that dating is very much stacked against men because women seek richer, more educated and more socially powerful men? Now he knows what it feels like to be a woman! Seriously, why I am so ridiculously good-looking?
Yet another clear manifestation of our narcissistic sexual hierarchy in America.
In this piece by her, she blames masculinity, patriarchy and gender roles for the issues around child-rearing in America. She presents an ostensible gay male couple who, by way of their sexual orientation, are superior to a heterosexual coupling. This is highly amusing from an evolutionary perspective, as she essentially calls out evolution for not properly selecting male/male and female/female couplings as superior to the utterly bourgeois coupling of a male and a female.
Her hypothetical gay coupling ignores both biology and socialization. She, like most feminists, pretends all gendered behavior is just a performance. It isn’t. One curious aspect of homosexuality women like her don’t consider is the exact biological parameters of homosexuality. Are babies born gay, but with no instincts on how to exercise that sexuality? Or are gay babies born with proclivities related to that orientation – often times mimicking the other sex; for example, are effeminate gay men born that way or have they freely chosen to abandon masculine norms? Essentially, are men born attracted to physical attractiveness? If that is so, then straight men value physical attractiveness in women, the same for gay men. Don’t ask those sorts of questions in a Women’s Studies or Queer studies class. Questions like that do NOT keep people in those classes or people like Rosin up at night because those questions would shatter their worldview.
She does nothing to understand anybody’s reasons for who they are – just that if they buck the patriarchal norm, and then they must be autonomous decisions. Note the approach that a feminist could use here. If many gay men are born much more effeminate than the average male, then the issue becomes we, as a society, need to adjust norms on how we view men in order to not limit his autonomy. If the other approach is true – he has freely chose to not be masculine – the same analysis is used – we should not limit his autonomy in order to respect his identity. Once again, women like Rosin are not interested in whether gay men are born this way or that – they only consider power balances in society. Of course, through their own self-absorbed, narcissistic lens.
As usual, it is more heterosexual worship of the supposedly progressive, egalitarian unions of homosexuals. They don’t have those relationships. That is not how power functions – there will always be a partner in power and one who is not. The most relevant question is not as to the existence of a power disparity, but how large that is. Once again, given Rosin’s ignorance about reality, I highly doubt she would ever consider neuroses or personality disorders in her power analysis, much less the vagaries of personalities, random chance and the realities of life that affect power balances in a relationship.
Note Rosin is a female. She has been told that real relationships are based on equality and mutuality. The absolutely massive, narcissistic problem here is that women will assume they are equal with the alpha males they desire. See the fuel behind second-wave feminism? Coming back to homosexual relationships, she assumes that they approach their relationship on a purely logical basis in the sense that whomever is best a particular chore/activity will do that. That because of the lack of opposite sex partners, then equality can truly be had, as gender isn’t an issue. No, it is just that power in a relationship can’t be hidden or explained away by gender inequalities. Truly, the whole concept of arguing over gendered roles reeks of a couple pretending to fight over feminist/anti-sexist issues while it is really a power struggle.
For anybody versed in negotiation theory, the savviest partner will able to steer the relationship in a way that suits them. Once again, Rosin is seeking to tilt the balance of power further into the hands of women. Women, as a class, have been able to manipulate men better than the reverse, mostly because of the naivete and low-self esteem of beta males.
For her, gender roles prevent women like her from dominating a relationship outright. When one partner has sole claim to at least one significant aspect of a relationship, that means they have sole control in at least one domain of the relationship. Rosin, while pretending to care about equity, will open up all aspects of a relationship to “equitable” negotiation, knowing full well she will pick a man she will establish a
business partnership with, with her as CEO a loving equal. Her narcissism prevents her from seeing her duplicity and control issues, so trying to reach her as such is futile. Her sheer insistence on negotiation not only reflects her knowledge that she can manipulate beta males, but also her delusional idea she can hang with alpha males. She couldn’t in her past sexually and cannot now as an intellectual.
When viewing gay couples, it is very telling she picks gay male couples. Rosin wants to put beta’s collective testicles into the feminist vice grip. Since women can rarely control the alphas they desire, they double down on controlling beta males. The oppression will only get more cruel and narcissistic so long as betas submit to women like Rosin. Rosin needs to show betas how much better gay men are than straight men, shame them for their sexist, vestigial remains of out-dated masculinity and usher them completely into the androgynous future where beta males will have absolutely zero power and are completely at the whims of women. Male privilege and all that.
Rosin ends with an appeal to soften the strictures of monogamy and seemingly encourage heterosexual couples with experimenting with a level of infidelity. Since this is in the XX blog at Slate, it clearly is aimed at women and trying to alleviate their shame and guilt for cheating on the husbands they don’t desire. For the men reading, it is show them, once again, the progressive approach gay men take infidelity—most specifically easing expectations for monogamy on the part of their spouses.
This is Rosin’s world: an empowered woman who has a powerful job with a large salary, coming home to a man in the kitchen, raising the kids and cooking dinner. She comes home two hours late – was she cheating? It doesn’t matter.
That man should be progressive enough to understand that his potential feelings of betrayal and sadness are little more than his deeply ingrained misogyny working its way to the surface. Real men respect a woman’s autonomy and decisions about her life. If she decides it is more important to work all day and sleep around, that is more important than spending time with her children. If she decides to go see a movie after work the same analysis applies. Remember, men, this is a situation into which you freely and consensually negotiated into.
Further, gay parenting simultaneously eases the guilt of parents of two classes – single mothers and work-focused mothers. Both feel guilt over not parenting their children correctly, the former over not having a male influence in child-rearing, the latter over their largely absent mothering of their children. Both classes need to decouple the need for either sex to have a strong hand in the raising of children. Single mothers need to prove that men are not relevant to raise a child, working mothers often to need consume media that either explicitly says or implies that their diminished involvement in their children’s lives is not just okay, but good for the kids. Remember, if you are reading it, it is for you.
In the end, it really is all about women and how they want the second-class objects in their life – their husbands, children, coworkers – play into the fantasy they have dreamed of since they were young girls, acting out princess fantasies in their bedroom. Mature women leave those fantasies in the past, women like Rosin substitute a princess costume and a gorgeous prince for a power suit and a controllable husband.
The buzz over gay marriage and gay parenting is a manifestation of this. Rosin dreams up un-realities of gay people’s lives based on fantasies of how much more progressive and less gendered homosexual pairings are. Of course, in her analysis she explicitly leaves out power relations not based on gender. She falsely assumes modern heterosexual relationships reflect male privilege – suggesting the sheer invisibility of beta males to women like Rosin. Maybe she is not bothered by power imbalances not based on gender – i.e. a dominate gay male and a submissive gay male? Given she is a feminist, it wouldn’t be surprising she is only bothered by relationships in which a man has the upper hand – as in hot and bothered. 50 Shades of Grey didn’t sell millions of books because of the patriarchy.
Regardless, it is stereotypical fare of female hypergamic-driven fantasies of how the world should work. Gay parenting is not superior to straight parenting and certainly not for the reasons Rosin puts forth. Her concern isn’t at all about the children, it is about making sure everybody adheres to liberal autonomy theory and divests themselves of gendered norms of behavior – so as to benefit women like Rosin. As usual, alphas benefit, women get increasingly frustrated and narcissistic, all the while betas remain the punching bags and pack mules for women. Leave to women like Rosin to take gay men’s lives and shunt those lives through her delusions about how the world works and how it should revolve around her.
It could be called appropriation of gay men’s lives, but what does Rosin care? It is your life as a male that is winding down while her future as a woman is so bright she will need sunglasses.