Why Does Everything Need To Be Denuded Of "Gender"?
I clicked on a tweet about a Passover story, leading me to a piece at Slate by Miriam Krule on how the "wicked son" in the Passover Seder is "actually the best of the four children in the Haggadah" (the booklet read at Passover).
Well, it drew me in until I got to this passage below where, all of a sudden, the son the author has been talking about is transformed into a "her" -- for no reason that makes any sense in the piece. (See my italics below):
I prefer to refer to the wicked son as the challenging child, a more alliterative, gender-neutral, and helpful way of looking at this character. As for her question, it sounds less evil to me than sensible. The idea of searching for meaning in practices, and understanding their motivations, is a natural one. Challenging the reasons behind tradition, and the logic underlying the holiday's restrictions, can only lead to greater understanding and more honest practice. Whereas the smart son merely asks for, and receives, the law, the wicked son asks for the reasoning underlying those laws.
Many people in history were men. Changing the way they are described is merely confusing and silly, same as it is to try to put female artists and writers on the same level as men just to fill out the chick side of the equation.
Truly feeling equal means that you can be honest about who the greats were without feeling a need to elevate those with vaginas to feel better about yourself and being a woman.
I am sure there are those who studiously ignore the hundred meter sprints in the Olympics because it illustrates a big difference between men and women.
Radwaste at April 15, 2014 8:06 AM
Why does the author feel it needs worth saying it's "more alliterative?" I know this seems trivial, but it's a red flag to me.
The author is giving her reasons for thinking this way and her top three include: it involves alliteration, is gender-neutral, and is "helpful" (quotes because it isn't necessarily true, but I'm using her word).
If one has a good reason for something, alliteration doesn't make the list. If her case were compelling, she would just make it, not add junk like that to bolster her argument.
Shannon M. Howell at April 15, 2014 8:46 AM
It gets worse.
People can tell the difference between awesome and marginally acceptable. College professors may crow about how all things are equal and identical etc…but at the end of the day, people will go see a remake of Hamlet in the theaters, while a remake of the vagina monologues would only get made and seen if it were a porno.
My point here is that when you elevate the marginal by simply claiming that it is the same as the incredible, you highlight and make obvious your lack of excellence upon which you can draw.
Perhaps there are reasons why there is a shortage of female Shakespeares, Blakes, Chaucers, etc, reasons worthy of discussion, and where changes that can improve opportunity can be made, they ought to be…but when you try to pretend the minor is major, you're not helping your cause, you are actively hurting it.
People will assume you're promoting something minor as huge because you have nothing else worth mentioning, and instead of looking for you to produce excellence, they shrug their shoulders and assume the minor part is the best you can play.
Is it fair, no, but it is the inevitable outcome of trying to pretend the insignificant is game changing.
Robert at April 15, 2014 9:13 AM
> Why Does Everything Need To Be
> Denuded Of "Gender"?
Ask the gay marriage advocate in your neighborhood.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 15, 2014 9:45 AM
because, y'know, fighting the power an' stuff. It's not ACTUALLY gender- LESS rather reversal of same.
Bah.
SwissArmyD at April 15, 2014 10:51 AM
As I read that, to me it sounds like there is a person that is otherwise outside the text quoted...say another person who has commented on the story. Though after reading it several times to try and figure it out, I think the author is talking about the character in the story but not sure.
The Former Banker at April 15, 2014 1:45 PM
Amy,
What Crid said. Why is this not OK yet it is OK to remove gender from the definition of the term Marraige?
Goo at April 16, 2014 6:27 AM
Gays and lesbians deserve the same rights and protections as the rest of us. An adult should be allowed to marry the person they love and possibly want to raise a family with.
Why would it make any sense whatsoever to deny this to people who, say, don't have sex with a partner you approve of, perhaps due to your belief in an imaginary big man in the sky?
Amy Alkon at April 16, 2014 6:33 AM
I agree. All people deserve the same rights and protections (and oligations)as the rest of us. An adult should be allowed to marry the person they love and possibly want to raise a family with.
But "Why Does Everything Need To Be Denuded Of "Gender"?"
Goo at April 16, 2014 6:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/04/15/why_does_everyt.html#comment-4499110">comment from GooWe're not talking about speech here, we're talking about rights.
The state shouldn't be in the marriage business to begin with.
And the presumption that people should only be with a person of the opposite sex does not conform to the reality of how people live their lives and the protections children in gay-parented families need.
Amy Alkon
at April 16, 2014 7:02 AM
Hey Happy Passover!
Ben David at April 16, 2014 7:18 AM
> The state shouldn't be in the marriage
> business to begin with.
Then you have no business insisting that gays be "allowed to marry."
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at April 18, 2014 6:58 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/04/15/why_does_everyt.html#comment-4508233">comment from Crid [CridComment at Gmail]As long as the state IS in the marriage business and straight people get rights and protections of marriage, gay people should, too.
How odd that you argue for discrimination against people based on their sexuality.
Amy Alkon
at April 18, 2014 7:05 PM
Leave a comment