I am scarlet for marriage equality opponents

Okay.

Let me marshal my thoughts as best I can; I’ve just finished watching the Late Late Show debate on marriage equality, which I experienced first via the so called ‘river of bile’ on Twitter- a surprisingly moderate, inoffensive river all things considered although I do think calling Wendy a cunt and telling her to stick things up her fanny was unhelpful and immature- on the whole, twitter was being it’s usual twittery self.  I think it says an awful lot of David Quinn blacklist of bile-y tweets mostly consisted of balanced, moderate comments and a kind of eye rolling disdain for the usual weak arguments against marriage equality.  A few things did strike me about the debate hat I think I, as something of a feminist and general know it all, ought to clear up.

1. The ‘gender equality’ point

Both Darren and Wendy set forth this point; that in every other area of society be it in politics or business, we’re always striving for an equal number of men and women representing on boards and in government.  The argument seemed to be that in these areas, there was a recognition that you needed both men and women for there to be fairness and equality, so why is it different when children are being raised?  It was said that this notion of gender equality recognizes that men and women have different skills and approaches that are both valuable.

The thing is, that’s not what gender equality really stands for, or at least my conception of it.  The idea is, quite radically, that gender doesn’t actually matter in these cases- that men and women can both do the same job equally well without difficulty.  The problem emerges when there’s such a massive disparity in the gender balance of a company board or parliament- because if gender really, honestly wasn’t the issue, we’d have a 50/50 balance of men Vs Women.  The whole basis of this is that like race, gender doesn’t actually tell you anything about the person.  Women can be just as aggressive, stoic or tough as men, and men can be just as passive, emotional or sensitive as women.  There’s nothing wrong with being whatever- people are simply people, their gender can inform their identity but it doesn’t define them.

2. Biological mammies and daddies are best

The first thing that strikes me about this entire argument is how insulting it is.  To reduce the love I have for my parents- who have cared for me, protected me and given me a stable home for 20 years, loved me no matter what my difficulties have been- to reduce a relationship so complex and fulfilling to biology is woefully simplistic.  I have a mother and father, but to reduce their roles in my life to simple cardboard cutouts of ”MAM’ and ‘DAD’ fitting into this narrow gender binary is ridiculous.

When I was a child, my father worked nights and my mother worked during the day in town.  At the time I was sure that she basically owned a company and so was very happy mammy went to work in the day.  Because my dad worked nights, I spent most of my day with him- we’d get up and watch sesame street, then we’d go in the buggy to town, or to the park, or to any number of places.  My dad changed my nappy everywhere because there were no changing facilities outside of the ladies toilets in an era before parenting rooms, so he improvised, most famously on the grave of an archbishop.

My Dad is very stoic.  He’s not a very touchy feely guy.  He’s told me he loves me exactly once in his life- on the phone, after my mum had gently informed me that my grandmother, his mother, had passed away while I was on Holiday in Galway.  He’s an old fashioned, Colm Meany in the commitments sort of Dad.  He doesn’t say he loves me, but he certainly shows it- everything I’ve ever needed is provided for.  I’ve never gone hungry or been cold or scared.  He’s worked hours of overtime to pay for my education and my school trips.  He was a very hands on father when I was a kid, sharing the parenting duties with my mother.  As well as my mum and dad, I was cared for by two grandmothers who without fail babysat us four days a week when dad started working in the mornings again.

My mother worked in town full time for most of my childhood.  When I was a little kid, she’d ring from her office in town once during the day, and then arrive home in a big beige 90s style rain mac, usually holding an umbrella and her handbag.  On the weekends, she’d cook a spaghetti bolognese on Saturday and a roast on Sunday.  We’d all go on outings- my mum, dad, brothers and usually my grandparents- together as a family.

Bottom line- my parents both mucked in and got on with it.  I wasn’t particularly aware of gender roles when I was a kid- if I cut my knee, I ran crying to either parent.  As I got older and needed help with other problems, I gravitated towards two people- My mother, and my uncle Fran.  My uncle is like me in personality, articulate and great at conversation.  I don’t gravitate towards my mother because women are just naturally better at dealing with their daughter’s problems, I do it because my dad just happens to not be as easy to talk to.  My brothers go to my mum with problems too, the same way if we have a wobbly desk we go to dad.

It’s not to say that they have set roles that are defined by their gender- they’re just two people primarily, who raised a family together.  The really important thing that they gave us was stability- I never had any doubt that my parents were a team, and working together.  It’s stability, not gender, that’s really important to a kid.

3.Marriage is only for makin’ babies

This obsession with kids being the only outcome of marriage kind of irks me.  No it bloody isn’t.  The primary function of marriage as a social institution?  I would have imagined it had something to do with the people actually getting married and not just their potential offspring.  This also discounts people unable to have children, or who just plain don’t want them.  Again, reducing marriage to just being about biological reproduction is ridiculous.  There’s also the question of adoption- Sometimes the sad fact is that biological parents aren’t capable of raising children alone or together, and that’s okay- kids get adopted all the time, and it doesn’t fundamentally distort them.  I suppose it’s okay for them to be adopted by straight couples because then there can be a pretend biological bond, by Darren and Wendy’s logic.

To me, the biological argument is bullshit.  It insults adoptees and children raised diligently and happily by step parents, grandparents and any of the other million grey areas there are in the world.  The ‘protecting the children’ rhetoric also completely ignores the legal limbo that the children of gay parents now exist in, with only one official parent.  It doesn’t make sense to me.

4. George Hook is kind of the man.

Has to be said because I have done mean impressions of him on many occasions and he was a total dude up on that podium.

5.They’re gonna ruin marriage for everyone

God you know, as a straight, cis female who wants to someday have children, I know exactly what will put me off marriage forever- two chicks being able to do it, amirite?  I mean, what would be the actual point of getting marriage and having babies if the gays are going to come in and RUIN MY MARRIAGE?  It’s just not bloody fair.  An entire generation of straight women and men would be discouraged from getting legal protection and starting families because sure now EVERYONE can do it, it won’t be cool anymore.  Or something.  The opponents to marriage equality are never very clear about how that bit works…

The idea that my relationships are cheapened by somebody else’s just confuses me.  I don’t care if gay people can marry- my ability to produce more of me doesn’t somehow make me a magical, sacred person capable of deep sorcery that my gay friends don’t have- it just makes me fertile, and I’m a lot more than that.  My relationships, both romantic, platonic, meaningful and shallow, are all based on more than that.

__________________________________________________________

In the end, marriage equality isn’t really just about kids, though that seems to be the way the debate is always framed.  it’s also about legal protection, clarity and the reinforcement of the principle that it actually doesn’t matter what you choose to do with another consenting adult.  The re appropriation of ‘gender equality’ for something that’s just reinforcing the very divisions we’re trying to remove is laughable, and David Quinn’s river of bile is probably the most rational, balanced thing ever posted to the Iona institutes website.

SO THERE.

__________________________________________________________

Niamh ‘did not get onto the rivers of bile list. devastated’ Keoghan

Advertisements

3 responses

  1. So wait, was anyone pro marriage-equality and equal adoption rights? Anyone?

  2. Oh wait, I understand it now, sorry, got confused there. :p
    I actually think a fair few of the tweets were out of order, just low petty insults and threats. But still, a lot of them are just valid. (Like Simon’s one.) Damnit the things I miss!

    1. bankholidaytuesday | Reply

      The fact that his examples of bile list had to be padded out with so many reasonable voices is hilarious, makes Quinn look paranoid. And yes, I’m not defending any of the abusive misogynistic tweets Wendy got.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: