Re-Visiting the Glass Escalator

Despite women's long history of being denied equality in admissions to universities and graduate programs, one of the earliest and most famous US Supreme Court cases regarding the right for state schools to discriminate on the basis of sex in admissions was brought (and won) by a man.

In Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, the male-dominated US Supreme Court decided in his favor 5-4 in an opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. She wrote:

"The facts are not in dispute. In 1884, the Mississippi Legislature created the Mississippi Industrial Institute and College for the Education of White Girls of the State of Mississippi, now the oldest state-supported all-female college in the United States. 1884 Miss. Gen. Laws, Ch. 30, 6. The school, known today as Mississippi University for Women (MUW), has from its inception limited its enrollment to women."

Seems like they also limited enrollment, at least for a time, to white women, er, "girls."

O'Connor continues:

"In 1971, MUW established a School of Nursing, initially offering a 2-year associate degree. Three years later, the school instituted a 4-year baccalaureate program in nursing and today also offers a graduate program. The School of Nursing has its own faculty and administrative officers and establishes its own criteria for admission.

Respondent, Joe Hogan, is a registered nurse but does not hold a baccalaureate degree in nursing. Since 1974, he has worked as a nursing supervisor in a medical center in Columbus, the city in which MUW is located."

Of course he has.

The Supreme Court handed down this opinion in 1981, and 15 years later, delivered the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) opinion striking down the VMI's exclusion of women.

This is all old news, of course, from a legal and political standpoint.

However, the facts of the two cases really illustrate how state discrimination toward men and women is, oftentimes, not at all equivalent. And, I think some people forget that. In their zeal to make feminism, "gender egalitarianism," and/or gender studies appealing to men, I sometimes see this "men and women have/had things just as bad, except in opposite ways" meme perpetuated, and I think that's a pretty historically-ignorant claim to make.

In MUW, thanks at least in part to the glass escalator whereby men in traditionally "feminine" occupations advance much more quickly and easily than women, the male victim of discrimination was already a licensed nurse and was already in a leadership position in that occupation despite not having a bachelor's degree.

He also had opportunities to earn a bachelor's degree in Mississippi at non-sex-segregated universities. The barriers that men faced in entering the field of nursing were, for the most part, ones of having to endure social disapproval, shame, and being marked with the "taint" of feminine inferiority for choosing a "womanly" profession. Yet, just like in the fields of cooking, fashion design, and hair-styling, we see that many of the men who enter those professions often rise to the top for, what can look like on the surface, no other reason than their alleged Inherent Superior Male Competence At Stuff.

Sure, it might not be easy for men to deal with the shame of working in these professions, but there often are not the same structural barriers to entry in those professions as there were for women who historically tried to enter male-dominated professions where licenses were, literally, denied to them on the basis of sex. For instance, in 1872, when Myra Bradwell went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to get her law license, the men on the Supreme Court denied her request because "God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action." Far from being a supervisor who was already-licensed in hir chosen profession, as the MUW guy was, Bradwell was legally restricted from entering that profession in the first place.

Similarly, in VMI, the women were seeking entry into a prestigious military school that provided an experience that could be had at no other institution in the state, and few institutions elsewhere in the US. Unlike MUW, where the assumption was that men maybe shouldn't be nurses but that they of course had the competence to be nurses if they wanted to be, the state's assumption in VMI was that women shouldn't be VMI cadets and of course they lacked the competence and suitability to be VMI cadets.

The different treatment of men and women seeking to enter non-gender-conforming professions seems to follow an unspoken rule of "anything professional a woman can do, a man can do better."

9th Circuit Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially re-classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples." -Judge Reinhardt, Perry v. Brown

Yesterday, as you might have heard, the 9th Circuit held that Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

An important take-away of this decision is that it is a narrow one. The Court asked, to paraphrase, "Was it constitutional for California to extend the status of marriage to same-sex couples and then later take that status away?" That is an interesting way for the Court to have framed the issue. Framing is everything in a court case and, while it is certainly true that the State took away same-sex couples' right to marry, the Court could have just as well framed the issue as "Is it constitutionally permissible for voters to deny same-sex couples the right to marry?"

The US Supreme Court, shall this case eventually make it there, should then in theory limit its ruling to the narrowly-framed issue as articulated by the 9th Circuit. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court also decided to frame the issue differently. At least several different legitimate ways usually exist to frame a constitutional issue.

So, in answer the narrow issue, the 9th Circuit recounted the facts of Prop 8. In short, before Prop 8 passed, 18,000 same-sex couples were legally married in the state of California and given all of the state-level rights, benefits, and responsibilities of marriage. After Prop 8 passed, same-sex couples alone then lost the right to designation of "marriage," while still maintaining the state-level rights, benefits, responsibilities of marriage.

Yes, I can already hear opponents of same-sex marriage questioning how it could possibly hurt same-sex couples to take away the word "marriage" from same-sex couples if such couples still received the same rights under a different designation. I would suggest that such people become familiar with the word "stigma." Or, as the 9th Circuit explained:

"...[W]e emphasize the extraordinary significance of the official designation of 'marriage.' The official designation is important because 'marriage' is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple desiring to enter into a lifelong committed relationship, a marriage by the name 'registered domestic partnership' does not."

I have said before that I have complicated, conflicting thoughts about assimilating same-sex couples into the Cool Kids' Marriage Club and how that might, in turn, stigmatize other forms of relationships between adults and create new hierarchies. On a practical level, I also think that allowing same-sex couples to marry will decrease the stigma associated with same-sex relationships and homosexuality. And so to answer my own criticism, I don't see marriage equality for same-sex couples as the ultimate end goal of the LGBT/feminist/progressive movement that I want to be a part of, I see it as a step in the right direction.

Continuing on with the opinion, the 9th Circuit then asked whether California had a legitimate reason for taking away the designation "marriage" from same-sex couples.

Perhaps explaining why the Court framed the issue as it did, the 9th Circuit articulated that it is much different, and suggestive of a more sinister purpose, to take away a right from a disliked minority group than to merely leave alone a status quo of "man woman marriage." In this way, by extending same-sex couples the right to marry and then taking away that right, this case is analogous to Romer v. Evans, where local ordinances first banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and then, later, voters repealed all laws in the state that protected people on the basis of sexual orientation.

As a notable fact, Justice Kennedy is widely believed to be the swing vote in any Supreme Court same-sex marriage opinion. He wrote the majority pro-equality opinion in Romer. It is an interesting approach for the 9th Circuit to have made the Prop 8/Romer comparison so explicitly here. I would be surprised if that were a coincidence and I hope that bodes well for Team Equality.

The 9th Circuit then addressed the reasons put forth for enacting Prop 8:

1) Prop 8 "advances California's interest in responsible procreation and childrearing" (I have addressed this argument here and explained why it's not a legit reason for discrimination): The Court held that Prop 8 was not rationally-related to these interests because Prop 8 did not restrict the right of same-sex couples to adopt or raise children. A law that was actually aimed to promote man-woman child-rearing would have sought to restrict same-sex parenting.

2) There is no point to same-sex marriage because same-sex couples can't accidentally procreate: The Court claimed that it is no justification to take something away to say that it should have never been given in the first place. Prop 8 proponents would have had to argue, and demonstrate, that same-sex marriage would make it more likely for man-woman couples to procreate "accidentally or irresponsibly" upon the legalization of same-sex marriage. They failed to do so.

3. Prop 8 justifies the state's interest in proceeding cautiously in changing the definition of marriage: The Court aptly noted that, in short, an absolute ban of unlimited duration on same-sex marriage in the state Constitution was not merely proceeding with caution, it is a fundamental barrier. It is therefore not rational to think that Prop 8 was enacted for purposes of acting cautiously.

To end, the 9th Circuit concluded that absent a rational relationship to any purported government interest in passing Prop 8, the voters of California enacted Prop 8 out of animosity or, more likely, "mere disapproval" of gays and lesbians- which is not a legitimate government interest. In making this conclusion, the Court observed that, as in Romer, the pro-Prop 8 ads often relied on stereotypes about the inferiority of same-sex relationships, stated that homosexuality and gays/lesbians are inferior, and that children need to be protected from learning about homosexuality and gay people.


[Cross-posted: Alas]

Lady Flips Off Camera For Milisecond, Violence Profiteers Very Offended

What a strange society we live in.

During the halftime show of a violent sport that often has lifelong negative health repercussions on the heads and bodies of its participants and in which its male athletes often engage in public, celebratory dances involving humping the air and taunting opponents, and in which TV networks receive money to air commercials that present scantily-clad women as the sex class for hetero men, a woman spontaneously flips off a TV camera for a fraction of a second and NBC and the NFL suddenly fall over themselves to condemn and apologize for that gesture.

Seriously?! That's the thing you fall ass-over-heals onto your fainting couch about?

FFS.

Exaggerating and condemning female misbehavior while ignoring celebrating male aggression and misbehavior is how rape culture works to entitle men to violence and aggression.

Speaking of Republican Primary Season

Wanna hear the most annoying song in the world?

I think it's pretty funny, I don't know why. Possibly because (a) someone actually put semi-scientific thought into how they could come up with the most annoying song ever and (b) that children singing was high on the list of disliked sounds.

LOLOLOL.

I know we're all supposed to think that children are So Cute when they sing, but a lot of the time, it sounds to me like they're basically just yelling. Good to know I'm not alone there.

[Description for those unable to hear the music: The 20-minute-plus song includes "holiday music, bagpipes, pipe organ, a children’s chorus...Wal-Mart, cowboys, political jingoism, George Stephanopoulos, Coca Cola, bossanova synths, banjo ferocity, harp glissandos, oompah-ing tubas," and a woman rapping in opera, which have been found to be people's least favorite sounds.]

9th Circuit: Prop 8 Tapes To Remain Sealed

The Prop 8 saga continues!

Yesterday, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held (PDF) that a lower court abused its discretion in ordering the unsealing of tapes of the Prop 8 trial.

I'm not happy with the decision, but I agree with it. Here's why:

If you remember, the legal defenders of Prop 8 opposed plans to broadcast the trial live. In a pre-trial brief, they claimed:

"The record is already replete with evidence showing that any publicizing of support for Prop 8 has inevitably led to harassment, economic reprisal, threats, and even physical violence. In this atmosphere, witnesses are understandably quite distressed at the prospect of their testimony being broadcast worldwide on YouTube."

The issue of broadcasting the trial went all the way to the Supreme Court. There, without explanation, the Court disallowed the trial to be broadcast.

The judge in the Prop 8 trial, Judge Walker, then continued to allow the trial to be recorded because, as the 9th Circuit opinion cites, Judge Walker asserted that the recordings would only be used for purposes of helping him reach a decision and would not be publicly broadcast. Later, "a different federal judge ordered that the recordings be unsealed because "no compelling reason" existed for keeping them from the public.

And so we come to the 9th Circuit opinion.

Let's talk here about what the opinion is definitely not saying. What this opinion says, if you read it, is not that the recordings must remain sealed because the witnesses in support of Prop 8 are so very scared of same-sex marriage supporters.

Indeed, as key Prop 8 witness David Blankenhorn admitted to me in conversation at Family Scholars Blog, he "never felt physically threatened" because of his testimony and he didn't even seem to be aware that the Prop 8 legal team was putting forth the narrative that witnesses like him were Too Scared To Testify. (Fun Fact: Check out Page 18 of The American Foundation for Equal Rights' brief! (PDF) I love that part of a blog conversation that I provoked is part of the official Prop 8 record! #bragging).

What the 9th Circuit opinion says, if you read it, is that Judge Walker said that he was only going to use the recordings in his own chambers and that he should therefore be held to that. To not hold Judge Walker to his assurance would, in fact, harm the integrity of the judiciary.

What do I think?

I think the tapes should have never been sealed in the first place, and that the US Supreme Court erred in saying that the trial could not be broadcast live, because I strongly question the accuracy and truthfulness of the claim that the broadcast had to be hidden from the public in order to somehow protect the Prop 8 witnesses, who were already relatively-public figures in the anti-SSM movement. I also think many professional opponents of same-sex marriage are petrified of the recordings going viral, mostly because their arguments, witnesses, and substantive points were pretty well walloped by the pro-equality attorneys and experts.

However, given that Judge Walker stated that the recordings would only be used in his chambers, and would not be broadcast to the public, I also think the 9th Circuit makes a compelling argument that it would harm the integrity of the judiciary to not hold Walker to his word regarding the release of the recordings.

The 9th Circuit will soon be issuing a ruling on the merits of the Prop 8 decision. I'm far more interested in that outcome, quite honestly.

[Cross-posted: Alas]

On "the Core" of Marriage

In the comment threads over at Family Scholars Blog there has been a fair amount of discussion about what constitutes the core of marriage. By "core," it seems as though people are referring to the essence of marriage, or to its defining features and/or purpose.

Supporters of same-sex marriage (SSM) are sometimes challenged to identify this core of marriage, since it is us (supporters of SSM, that is) who argue that marriage is something that two people of the same sex can have.

Why I view this challenge as problematic is because I contend that it is inaccurate to speak of marriage as though it has, or should have, one "core" that is universally-accepted by all in a society, much less across all societies that have ever existed. For one, it is a demonstrable statement of fact that people have differing beliefs as to what constitutes the, or even a, core of marriage. To some, the core of marriage is "one man and one woman." To some, it is "two adults in a romantic and mutually-supportive relationship." To some, it is "one man and one woman (and this same man and another woman, and this same man and possibly another woman)." To some, it is "a group of people who are all married to each other." Further variations exist.

Two, a related point, marriage is a human construct and, as such, is given meaning by the humans who utilize it, recognize it, and speak of it.

Sure, some argue that marriage is not a human construct and that it instead comes from, say, God or is just a fact of nature. But, that argument is unconvincing. How does one prove that marriage comes from God? How does one recognize a marriage in nature, in the way that, say, we would recognize a tree or a flower?

Most of us understand how babies are made but, in nature, absent the existence of a marriage license, how do we know that a marriage exists? Is it every man-woman pair that engages in sexual intercourse? Is it only the ones who say they're married? Is it any man-woman pair that has children, even if they don't plan on staying together for life?

My point with these rhetorical questions is that marriage is not a universal, readily-recognizable entity in the way that tangible, natural phenomena are.

Abstractions aside, what matters to many same-sex couples isn't where marriage supposedly comes from or what its "One True Core" is. Many do not view this conversation as an esoteric debating exercise. What matters are the rights, benefits, obligations, and privileges that flow from a state which grants some partnerships the legal status of marriage.

In legal terms, in the US, marriage has multiple meanings or "cores." In New Hampshire, for instance, "[m]arriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender." The core of marriage is two people, of any gender, who meet certain requirements.
But, in Nevada, the state's Constitution reads, "[o]nly a marriage between a male and female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state." There, the core of marriage is between two people, one of the male sex and the other of the female sex, who meet certain requirements.

From a religious standpoint, Catholicism defines marriage as a "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. [It] has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptised."

Other religious groups, such as the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), Unitarian Universalists, and some rabbis in the Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism movements view both mixed-sex and same-sex couples as capable of comprising the core of marriage.

In light of this definitional diversity, perhaps marriage doesn't have to mean the same thing for everyone across all secular, societal, and religious contexts. Perhaps it is an institution that never can mean the same thing to all in a society. Certainly not in a society that is increasingly accepting of the equal dignity of non-heteronormative relationships and their needs to protect their families via the legal system.

If it involves consenting adults, I generally support the right of private organizations and individuals to define marriage as they deem fit. The Catholic Church doesn't want to perform same-sex weddings? Fine. I don't want a wedding in a Catholic Church anyway. (I recognize that some people might want that who cannot have it, but I would support that progressive change to come from within the church, rather than through the state forcing the church to solemnize same-sex marriages).

To me, those who make arguments about what marriage supposedly is are refusing to participate in the more relevant debate that needs to take place in a democratic society. When very real benefits, rights, obligations, and privileges are accorded to those who possess the status "married," the only debate is what should the core of marriage, from a civil, legal standpoint, be?

Under Equal Protection doctrine in the US, we generally strive to treat "likes alike" and "unalikes unalike." To continue being very general, it is okay for the state to discriminate, but it must have good enough reasons to do so. That is, those being discriminated against must be different in a manner that is relevant to why they are being discriminated against.

To get out of the realm of abstractions, I will note a core of marriage as articulated by Elizabeth Marquardt,at Family Scholars Blog:

"Rather, a core purpose of marriage is to channel the reality that heterosexual sex quite often makes babies into a stable (most likely to be found in a marital) union of the baby’s own mother and father, for the sake of the babies and the mothers and father."

Here, an important core of marriage, according to Elizabeth, is for children to know and be raised by both of their biological parents. Thus, using this core of marriage, it would be acceptable to not allow same-sex couples to marry because they do not fulfill this core. There would be, it seems, no point to their marriage if marriage is about a man and a woman creating children together and then raising those children together.

And yet, we can easily think of other couples, couples who are allowed to marry, who similarly fail to fulfill this core of marriage:

1. A childless, post-menopausal woman who marries a man
2. A man and a woman who are fertile with other partners, but not with one another*
3. A man who lacks testicles who marries a woman
4. A woman who has had a hysterectomy who marries a man

I could continue.

These examples are not "gotchas." I want to be very clear about that.

See, the only thing our legal system cares about in asking whether whether state discrimination is the acceptable kind of discrimination is whether a legitimate enough reason exists for that discrimination. And, on that front, if the purpose of marriage is to channel heterosexual sex into procreation that results in children being raised by their biological parents, couples 1-4 are just like same-sex couples: Any children they raise will not be both of their biological offspring.

And so, from an Equal Protection standpoint, the legal system should be treating likes alike. But, in most US states, it's not. Most states grant marital status to some mixed-sex couples who haven't "earned" it via reproduction and child-rearing, while denying that status to same-sex couples precisely because they haven't "earned" it in that way.

Why observing this reality isn't a "gotcha" is because I contend that, if the "core" of marriage is what Elizabeth says it is, then it degrades that core of marriage and confuses people about what that core is, when we allow couples 1-4 into marriage. Allowing such couples into marriage is to grant them a special privilege that is denied to those with whom they are similarly-situated.

Indeed, to many LGBT people and allies, it looks like couples 1-4 are granted marriage licenses not so they can fulfill the core purpose of marriage, indeed they cannot, but to give them a nod, a wink, and a pass because they look a lot like members of the Super Special Heterosexual Procreators' Club. (And that's before we even start looking at possible anti-gay/bigotry-related motivations that some harbor).

So, when we start thinking about whether or not discrimination against same-sex couples is the acceptable kind of discrimination in light of what marriage is purportedly all about, it begins looking less and less acceptable due to the overbroad nature of many marriage laws.

Now, I am not, of course, actually arguing that couples who cannot procreate degrade the institution of marriage. But, rather, that we seem to have a societal incoherence in talking about marriage, with those on all sides of the issue claiming that they alone possess its one true definition. (And here it is worth noting that Elizabeth said that she was stating "a" core of marriage, which suggests one of many possible cores, rather than "the" core of marriage).

Our overbroad (or is it underinclusive?) marriage laws are reflective not only of this incoherence, but of the reality that marriage simply means different things to different people.

Maybe we need to do a better job of becoming okay with that.


*In about 10% of infertility cases, a couple's infertility arises from a combination of both of their individuals make-ups. They may be fertile with other people, but they cannot conceive with one another. Such a couple is a particularly apt comparison to same-sex couples.

Since they are failing to fulfill the purported core of marriage, I wonder, if marriage rights were denied to them on that basis, would people tell them they could simply choose to marry other people? Or would that be readily-recognized as cruel?


[Cross-posted: Family Scholars Blog]

This Is What An Anti-Feminist Looks Like

[TW: Accidental death, mass casualty, gender policing, misandry, misogyny]

Some MRAs seem to think that it is modern-day feminists who, perhaps through the use of time travel, are single-handedly responsible for the "women and children first" policy on the Titanic.

The voices they completely let off the hook for such sexist (toward both men and women) policies are traditionalists who believe that it is women's One True Authentic Role to be protected and men's One True Authentic Role to protect.

Take a recent column at conservative Christian forum LifeSite news, where Hilary White takes the opportunity to capitalize upon the Costa Concordia disaster for purposes of bashing feminism. (Note: MRAs, meet Hilary White. Hilary white, meet MRAs). She writes:

"What kind of man sneaks away under cover of darkness from his own sinking ship, leaving nearly 4200 passengers and crew to fend for themselves? What kind of men knock aside old ladies, little girls and young mothers to get to lifeboats first? Why, modern men, sexually emancipated men who have been raised on the tenets of feminism and our 'contemporary' mores."

Did you catch that?

Notice what White's view, a very traditional view on gender, asks of men. It asks them to view the lives of "old ladies, little girls, and young mothers" as more valuable, more worthy of being saved, than their own lives. Notice too the implication: It has been feminism that has given men the radical notion that they don't have to sacrifice their own lives, on sole account of their sex, for the lives of women and children.

And then notice that she takes it for granted that prior to feminism, all men were self-sacrificial knights-in-shining-armor who would never harm women.

LOL sure.

She continues:

"What can an expression like 'women and children first' mean to modern men who have been taught all their lives that women are nothing more precious than sexual playthings, and children nothing more than a disposable burden?"

The line about children being "nothing more than a disposable burden" is, of course, a cheap jab at pro-choice beliefs. We are apparently to believe that men are utterly incapable of valuing children as human beings now that women have some abortion rights in some countries.

As you can see, the traditionalist does not think highly of men.

Most amusingly, though, is her implication that first came feminism, then came men's view that women are nothing but "sexual playthings," therefore, feminism teaches men that women are nothing but "sexual playthings."

So.

It's always good, before reading the rest of an anti-feminist's article, to know up-front that they're basically ignorant of much of feminism, and apparently have never heard of radical anti-pornography feminism. Indeed, like many ignorant anti-feminists are wont to do, she mistakes the sexual revolution for a feminist one. For instance, she charmingly calls the sexual revolution feminism's "strumpet daughter," as though feminism's motto is and always has been "Women: We admit it, we really are nothing but sexual playthings for men!".

She continues blathering on about our apparent femi-topia:

"In one video, [some Catholic dude] mentioned the type of men who are approved by the feminist-controlled media: weak, stupid and ineffectual, who need to be ruled over by strong, hip, intelligent women."

I just- what? Are you kidding me? The "feminist-controlled media"? Oh I can't even. I mean, come on Hilary White, you're not even trying here. The Bechdel Test has been a thing on Internet for at least 5 years, which is like 20 years in real world time.

Please.

But alas, she continues:

"In the last 50 years, the Catholic institution has followed the world in adopting the feminist model. That ideal, Voris says, has driven strong men out of the Church and out of family life, pushing them to find a channel for their masculinity in unhealthy avenues like criminality and the objectification of women."

I would call the Catholic Church many things. "Too feminist" is for sure not one of them.

The whole piece is really something.

In White's version of reality, feminism is at once all-powerful and yet, mysteriously, totally nonsensical. But, I see three important take-aways from her piece.

First, it's she, not feminists, who is implying that men have no free will and bear no adult responsibility for their development as human beings. Men These Days, according to White, have failed to "grow up" and have failed to value women.

Why? Feminism, natch:

"Instead of insisting that men grow up, marry a woman and protect and care for their children, it has offered men women as toys while offering women the Pill, abortion and family court as the back-up plan."

Here we learn that men need their mommy-wives, who somehow are capable of becoming fully-formed adults, to teach them how to be responsible. And yes, It is a strange incoherence of gender traditionalism that men are, by virtue of their sex, perpetual babies and yet, mysteriously, the sex best suited to Rule The World.

Two, we see how misogyny so often intertwines with misandry within traditionalist gender viewpoints. She writes:

"The effeminate man-child is a plague in Italy; vain, self-important, shallow and self-seeking mamma’s boys who live in their parents’ house into their thirties and forties."

Throughout her piece, she implies that women are more responsible and valuable than men. And yet, the very qualities that apparently make women more responsible and valuable, apparently essential "effeminate" qualities, somehow cause men to remain child-like. This is an incoherence for sure, but it's also a condescending admission about what gender traditionalists really think of women.

Feminists often say that no one wins under traditional gender roles and this is a good illustration of that. Men apparently need women to help them become Real Adult Men, and women, despite having that responsibility, can never actually become full adults because of their essential "effeminacy."

Lastly, it's interesting that White references "feminism's misandry" as though it's such a given that it is doesn't need to be further expounded upon. But let's all remember that it's she, not feminists, who is ordering Real Men to go down on a sinking ship because they are men and that's what men do.

Have fun with that, men.