Friday, February 27, 2004
- One more note about gay marriage, and then I'm going to get off the topic.
I've stated before that I support the idea in theory. However, there's a caveat:
I am reluctant to acknowledge the idea that man-man and woman-woman relationships are equal to traditional relationships when it comes to parenting.
Man and woman, working together as one parental unit, create a balance that is hard to replicate when you remove one. They are Yin and Yang. I don't know if Yin and Yin would work.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret: men and women are different. You wouldn't know it by the recent trend towards making women more masculine and femininizing men, but the two genders have fundamental differences.
"Man = Woman" does not apply in all cases. Men cannot do everything a woman can do, although exceptions exist. Women cannot do everything a man can do, although exceptions exist.
My belief is that you have to have both, or at least someone to fill each role. I know it's fun to think that a family does not need a man around (Hi Rosie!), but this simply isn't the case.
- While we're on the subject, I think one of the worst events to ever happen to the family is feminism. Not because women need to be subservient to men, or that no woman should work or any other silliness like that. No, it's simply because we now have both parental members focusing on careers, leaving no one devoted to the children in these households.
In fact, a woman devoting her life solely to her children is discouraged in today's society. Such woman are being viewed as "not being independent enough" or "having to rely on a man". They endure subtle taunts from "enlightened" woman who find the idea of entering into an equal partnership with a man- that is, divide up responsibilities amongst the man and woman, even possibly (gasp, shudder) having the woman cook and clean- as a choice only a weak willed or self-identity lacking woman would ever choose.
This is nothing less than hate speech against the housewife and the traditional family.
I have no desire to go back to the time in which women were not allowed to own property, or were barred from most professions. What I do believe in is that somebody has to be there for our children. If it's the female, fine. If it's the male, fine. I plan on writing screenplays from home, so this very well might be the road I travel. I don't really care who does it, as long as it's somebody.
If a two-career household cannot be avoided, or is desired too greatly, it's not the end of the world. It just requires that both parents take upon themselves the extra responsibility to stay involved and help teach their children when they are present.
Sadly, that nasty 'r' word- responsibility- has become more profane than the 'f' word.
I've stated before that I support the idea in theory. However, there's a caveat:
I am reluctant to acknowledge the idea that man-man and woman-woman relationships are equal to traditional relationships when it comes to parenting.
Man and woman, working together as one parental unit, create a balance that is hard to replicate when you remove one. They are Yin and Yang. I don't know if Yin and Yin would work.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret: men and women are different. You wouldn't know it by the recent trend towards making women more masculine and femininizing men, but the two genders have fundamental differences.
"Man = Woman" does not apply in all cases. Men cannot do everything a woman can do, although exceptions exist. Women cannot do everything a man can do, although exceptions exist.
My belief is that you have to have both, or at least someone to fill each role. I know it's fun to think that a family does not need a man around (Hi Rosie!), but this simply isn't the case.
- While we're on the subject, I think one of the worst events to ever happen to the family is feminism. Not because women need to be subservient to men, or that no woman should work or any other silliness like that. No, it's simply because we now have both parental members focusing on careers, leaving no one devoted to the children in these households.
In fact, a woman devoting her life solely to her children is discouraged in today's society. Such woman are being viewed as "not being independent enough" or "having to rely on a man". They endure subtle taunts from "enlightened" woman who find the idea of entering into an equal partnership with a man- that is, divide up responsibilities amongst the man and woman, even possibly (gasp, shudder) having the woman cook and clean- as a choice only a weak willed or self-identity lacking woman would ever choose.
This is nothing less than hate speech against the housewife and the traditional family.
I have no desire to go back to the time in which women were not allowed to own property, or were barred from most professions. What I do believe in is that somebody has to be there for our children. If it's the female, fine. If it's the male, fine. I plan on writing screenplays from home, so this very well might be the road I travel. I don't really care who does it, as long as it's somebody.
If a two-career household cannot be avoided, or is desired too greatly, it's not the end of the world. It just requires that both parents take upon themselves the extra responsibility to stay involved and help teach their children when they are present.
Sadly, that nasty 'r' word- responsibility- has become more profane than the 'f' word.
Comments:
Post a Comment
