|
from Social Issues
Is Male Protectiveness Sexist?
A February 2001 article published in The American Psychologist critiqued the traditionalist view
of the man as head of the household and family protector. NARTH President Joseph Nicolosi and
his wife, Linda Ames Nicolosi, submitted the following Commentary to the journal:
In your lead article of the last issue of the American Psychologist (1), the authors criticize the
"benevolent sexism" and "chivalrous ideology" in a marriage where the husband serves as the
protector and provider.
Given that the authors' radical feminist view is at odds with a significant portion of American
society, it is surprising indeed that there is so little resistance to it in the pages of this journal. We
see little objection--in this journal or others--to the relentless deconstruction of the traditional
family, and to the related assumption that children do just as well,
if not better, in nontraditional families.
Perhaps this view is so prevalent in intellectual circles because we Americans love democracy
so much--along with its cherished individualism and equality--that we easily tend to slip down
the slippery slope into radical egalitarianism. Radical egalitarianism, some philosophers have
noted, leads to a denial of the foundational social distinctions of gender, generation, and hierarchy.(2)
But when gender distinctions are denied, and the subtle, hierarchical distinctions of
traditional marriage are deemed merely laughable, there is reason for concern for the continuation of the
foundational institution of marriage, upon which democracy itself depends.
As Stanley Kurtz of the Hudson Institute has noted, (3) the success of marriage actually seems
to depend on gender distinctions--particularly, the innate complementarity of the sexes, although
"even to mention it [complementarity] these days is to invite ridicule." Male-female physical and
emotional complementarity is, Kurtz astutely observes, biologically-based and thus "not about to
disappear." Women help to domesticate the man's typically more aggressive, sexual and
risk-taking nature.
Innate gender differences may help to explain why gay male relationships, for example, in
contrast to heterosexual marriage, characteristically turn out to be "open," while lesbian relationships
are more often socially exclusive and tend to be possessive. Neither of the latter two types of
relationships possesses the strength inherent in gender complementarity.
Does a man's protectiveness toward his family translate into anything like "sexism," or worse, a
form of despotism? Perhaps quite the opposite; in fact, one very important factor that works in favor
of marriage, as Kurtz notes, is a man's sense that his home is his "castle" and he its "king." Even so,
the reality, he observes, is that "a rough sort of equality" has always lain hidden in the reality of a
husband-wife relationship. But still, "what the Promise Keepers has the audacity to say out loud about
a man's authority within the marriage bond remains, in subtler form, the formula of
heterosexual marital success."
While the authors of the American Psychologist
article would obliterate gender distinctions,
the distinction between the generations is now also slowly deteriorating. Thus we now see
arguments being made in favor of "intergenerational intimacy"--a euphemism for man-boy sex--which
are published in the Journal of
Homosexuality. That journal has argued that children are an
oppressed minority who possess a natural right to their sexual autonomy.
The next frontier is the obliteration of the distinction between the species--a project of the
animal-rights movement and of those who question whether human life is indeed any more sacred than
that of animals.
Where, we are asking, is the intellectual resistance to these movements? Other than within
journals of religion and public policy like First
Things and Commentary, its intellectual opponents
have largely fallen silent.
Some of this silence can be attributed to the powerful "censoring role" of the media which prefers
to promote its favorite causes; some, we believe, to the fact that a small group of deeply
committed idealogues (particularly, radical feminists and gay activists) can impose social and career costs
on their adversaries.
"But one also senses," says Kurtz (and we agree), "that the silencing of the majority would
never have been possible were the majority itself more certain of its ground."
Endnotes
(1) "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender
Inequality," The American Psychologist, February 2001, p. 3.
(2) Weaver, Richard, Ideas Have
Consequences. Chicago, Ill.: U. of Chicago Press, 1948.
(3) Kurtz, Stanley, "What is Wrong with Gay Marriage,"
Commentary, September 2000, pp. 35-41.
Updated: 8 February 2008
|
