As she so often does, Amanda Marcotte has noticed something in the Christian conservative worldview that I’ve never seen pointed out before. The tabloids are apparently having a minor freak-out over the gender presentation of one of Angelina Jolie’s children, you see, and in order to present an “expert voice on parenting,” Life & Style Magazine went to Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton, of all people. Britney Spears was apparently otherwise tied up and didn’t have time to comment, I guess? Anyway, reacting to the fact that little Shiloh is going through some sort of tomboy phase, Stanton had this to say:
Says FotF’ Glenn Stanton, “Little girls have never been women before. They need help, they need guidance of what that looks like.”
Uh huh. I can’t top the reaction from Andi Zeisler at Bitch Magazine, so I’ll just quote that for you:
Oh, how right you are, Mr. Stanton! Let’ make sure this poor misguided tot gets to spend some time with a traditionally feminine woman‚Äîsay, one with long silky hair, pillowy lips, bountiful curves, perhaps even one considered the hottest sex bomb Hollywood’ ever seen! But where oh where are we going to find a woman like that for Shiloh to emulate?
Heh.
So anyway, off ran Amanda Marcotte’s brain, and she noticed that there is a huge, glaring contradiction in the teachings of Focus on the Family and similar groups on gender, gender presentation, and sexuality. I’m going to excerpt a good bit, and then you should read the whole thing:
[W]hat’ really interesting to me is that social conservatives want to have it both ways—they argue both that gender is innate and unchangeable, and that it’ learned. When feminists criticize domestic sexism, conservatives are all about how gender roles are natural and fixed—and in complete opposition to each other. That men are naturally boorish pigs and women are naturally nurturing, so women who resent being told to nurture people who can’t even be expected to show gratitude are bucking nature and need to learn to live with our debased roles. But then they turn around and say things like Stanton did, which is basically to admit that femininity (they also believe this about masculinity) is a learned behavior, and not only that, but it’ a long, hard process learning your gender. You’ll hear from conservatives that boys are naturally drawn to trains and girls to dolls, and then they’ll flip around and tell each other that it’ extremely important to steer your children towards the “right” gender roles.
Their homophobia is clashing with their sexism, and showing how intellectually bankrupt both positions are. Social conservatives portray homosexuality as a “choice”—which makes sense. They want gays to get in the closet, and they’re just portraying that as authentic heterosexuality. But in order to argue that it’ a choice, you have to position homosexuality as a serious temptation and gays as simply very weak people who give in. If you buy into that argument, then you start to see homosexuality as a temptation that preys on all people, and your job as a parent becomes about shoring your child up to resist that temptation. Focus on the Family has long taught its followers that homosexuality can be warded off with strict teaching of gender roles. In other words, they’ve been forced to make explicit what they’ve always pretended wasn’t true, which is that gender roles are learned and performed. The irony is that the one avenue where they’ll admit gender roles are learned is the one avenue where they’re not actually going to have as much influence as they think. Forcing a little girl who wants to be a tomboy into dresses is not going to make her not be a lesbian, and also that many lesbians prefer to present a feminine manner to the world. And a lot of little girls allowed to be tomboys grow up straight.
What groups like Focus are unable/unwilling to grasp is that concepts of gender and sexuality are actually unique for each of our lives, and they can’t handle that reality. Even if one were to grant that their “god” created us (I do not, obviously), they can’t stand the fact that the humanity they think he created simply doesn’t fit into artificially proscribed gender roles. I was talking to someone the other day, whose high-school aged son recently came out, and the father was apparently doing some of that all-too-typical “If I had only introduced him to more guy stuff, this wouldn’t have happened” thing, and I said, “Actually, even if he had, and the kid turned out to be the most talented football player in the state, he would simply be a gay teen who happens to be the most talented football player in the state!”
It’s ludicrous. The teachings of James Dobson and pals are so stupid, so completely unaccredited by any real parenting experts, that it’s obnoxious to have to spend time refuting them, but the sad fact is that lots of normal garden-variety Evangelicals read his titles for advice. In his book Bringing Up Boys, Dobson actually spends a significant amount of time talking about “preventing homosexuality” by enforcing strict gender roles. It’s laughable to us, because we know that homosexuality isn’t a disease to be prevented. It’s a simple fact that homosexuality exists, and it bears no relation to a person’s gender presentation, or how well they fit into societally proscribed gender roles. The only thing Dobson can really teach parents to do is to make their gay kids hate themselves so much that they’re driven to depression, general unhappiness, inauthentic living, and in some cases, suicide. (I’m never quite sure whether that’s not Dobson’s actual goal in the first place, the insipid dog-abusing monster.)
So yeah, Focus, etc., are wrong on all counts. In the world of actual human beings, most of us, if we’re honest, are sort of a composite of the characteristics ascribed traditionally to “male” and “female.” Likewise, there are many, many kids who go through experimental phases where they like to dress up like the opposite gender, and most of these kids just sort of outgrow it. Others, as they mature, find themselves to be transgender. Still others find themselves somewhere in between the two! And others, and others, and others… It’s the same with sexuality. All you have to do to realize this is to spend five minutes in a large gay or lesbian bar and do some people-watching. Sure, there are those who conform to stereotype. Others don’t. Still others find themselves somewhere in between. The point is that the reality of gender and sexuality is complex, and those like Glenn Stanton will always be wrong as long as they insist on interpreting the world though a disproven, black-white, good-evil, male-female dichotomy that doesn’t exist in the real world.
Anyway, three cheers to Amanda for picking up on yet another example of extreme cognitive dissonance in the Christian conservative worldview. There are so many, it’s hard to keep track sometimes.
You wrote: “It’ a simple fact that homosexuality exists, and it bears no relation to a person’ gender presentation.”
I’m either disagreeing or clarifying, depending on the meaning. A lesbian or gay cisgender (non-transgender) person tends to contradict culture’s gender ideas. On average, a lesbian is more masculine than her heterosexual counterpart and gays more fem. I’m not stereotyping; plenty, perhaps the majority, don’t fit this trend and it would by silly to assume anyone’s gender presentation before you met them based on their orientation. But on AVERAGE and TENDENCY, orientation does influence gender. The converse is even more prevalent; heterosexuality is barely, if at all, the majority orientation of transgender people, unlike cisgender people where it’s about 95%.
There’s a big movement of lesbian and gays that “we’re just like everyone else” and therefore we don’t deserve discrimination. I think that’s both false and dangerous. The gay community needs to love itself as it is, “gay acting” and all, or it will never conquer its stigma.
Uhh, yes, don’t use nonsense words like cisgender. People know if you aren’t referring to someone specifically as transgender that your talking about someone that isn’t transgender. Or just say non-transgender and then normal people can understand you.
Yes, but actually, Ephilei, I think you’re playing into a certain inverse phenomenon when you suggest that there’s such a thing as “gay-acting.” I think that there’s indeed a phenomenon among some gay people who come out of the closet and are STILL inauthentic because they go from adopting what they perceive as normative for straight people while in the closet to adopting what they perceive as normative for gays. Put simply, I have known so many guys who just queened the hell out when they came out and it was no more authentic than whatever they were trying to be before. I’ve noticed, especially among younger generations, that SO MANY of the stereotypes simply no longer apply, because the counter-culture aspect of being gay is no longer necessary for so many of them. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with any kind of mannerism or presentation, as long as it’s authentic, but there’s been historically just as much desire to “pass” within the gay community once out as there has been for gays in the closet trying to pass as heterosexuals.
I’m not sure how old you are, but being 29, I can honestly say that among the large number of gay people I know in my age group and younger, you can find any sort of “presentation” you want. The generation gap in LGBT people is very, very real. Some of it is good, and some of it is bad. But this is why so many younger gay people feel like they don’t relate to older gay people, because they look at the stereotypes, the counterculture of days gone by, and they see something that is decidedly NOT THEM.
AND I would add that the younger generations of lesbians and gays ARE conquering the stigma because their friends and families see that they, indeed, ARE like everybody else. Likewise, one of the benefits the increased awareness and acceptance of gay people is bringing to straight people is a certain permission for THEM to be more authentic and not worry so much about what gender roles they’re fitting into or not fitting into. The entire contention of the piece was that these kinds of variances are NOT unique to the LGBT community.
I frankly think it’s dangerous to insist on perpetuating this idea that we’re so different. Embracing differences is great, as long as it’s accurate, but I really think it’s becoming less and less accurate as time goes by to insist on the differences. This is part of why I think the word “queer” is so effing stupid. It might have had a valid use at one point, but there’s a point where “I’m so different, hear me roar!” becomes tiresome. The point is that we’re ALL so different, straight, gay, transgender, whatever. And THAT’S what we have in common. :)
actually priya, “cisgender” is a “normal word.” you just don’t know it yet and haven’t introduced it into your vocabulary.
Emily some people like to use ten dollar words when an ordinary one will do because it makes them feel important and superior. Non-transgender explains it perfectly well and is a word the vast majority of people can readily understand. People for whom its more important to sound important and superior than to be readily understond will continue to use words like “cisgender”.
Guess who Dobson cites in _Bringing Up Boys_ as the authority/expert on the belief that homosexuality develops from a child not appropriately learning his/her respective gender box?
NARTH’s Joseph Nicolosi.
If such narrowly defined gender roles are “natural” for men and women – then why do these groups spend so much time enforcing them on everyone?
Good one, Christine!
Apparently Dobson and Co are clueless about COMFORT and CONVENIENCE when it comes to anything from combing kid’s (or mom’s) hair, to wearing what’s PRACTICAL to play in and keep warm.
Shiloh has THREE sisters, and indeed, one of THE most beautiful and glamorous mothers on the planet. It was exceptionally stupid to think that Shiloh doesn’t have a mother to take her cues from in how to dress like or behave like a girl (whatever the HELL that means).
When it comes to their children, there are some parents who WANT their children to realize their individual potential, and NOT force their children to conform into non existent, if not hurtful ideals around gender. THEY know their children better than Dobson knows ANY kind of children.
It’s a wonder he presents himself as any kind of ‘expert’ on family psychology and counseling.
He’s woefully unqualified on SO many levels.
Oh and….
I’m speaking from the perspective of being streetwise and self aware of one’s personal body language and what attracts CRIMINALS.
When you work in law enforcement or have a father who was a probation officer, there are physical and mental aspects that make you good for that job or able to protect yourself in everyday life.
Girls are TRAINED to be more submissive AGAINST their natural sense of danger around certain people.
The way most women dress on the street, makes them especially vulnerable to attack because their clothes hinder their movement or don’t protect them enough.
I could take anyone one of you on a walk and show you how easily it would be for a female to be tripped up, or not be able to lift her legs enough to run, or kick or or anything.
And Dobson and co have an appalling lack of sensibility when it comes to females who are instinctively tougher, confident and self aware.
They consider those traits masculine instead of individual.
How stupid…and dangerous. And why even girls or boys who are naturally LESS aggressive are disrespected and bullied, even on the playground and eventually by the adults around them.
This is also a contradiction that Dobson teaches, unrealistic expectations that are policed by children on each other.
And aggression on those perceived as weak accepted in the playground, but when manifest in the adult world progresses into CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
It is what the police are then called in to manage, from domestic violence, to harassment in the workplace, to sexual molestation and assault on the street.
HE grew up in a world where such things were hidden, and left unreported to unsympathetic agencies like churches and law enforcement and schools.
HE remembers a time that wasn’t a good one if you were black, a female, or gay.
And apparently hasn’t learned a whole lot about what life is like for people who aren’t like HIM and never can or will be.
What an arrogant and unforgivably insulated piece he is.
well priya, i guess since you didn’t personally know the word, that makes everyone else who uses it an intellectual elitist attempting to personally attack you – just like when anyone mentions anything religious off-hand.
Oy.
I can understand where Priya’s coming from. It’s like when black people refer to themselves as black, african american or anything else, and then they get all elitist when I tell them to call themselves nonwhite because they simply don’t understand that their self-descriptions should be proscribed by my personal tastes.
Getting back to Reagan for a minute, James Dobson does present himself as an expert on family counseling. He has a radio show( or at least he did before he stepped down as head of “Focus on the Family”) where he gives families foolish enough to listen to him, counseling on various subjects. This is where he often espouses his b******t belief that a person can be made heterosexual by enforcing strict gender roles. He also uses this platform to rally against gay rights.
Again, Reagan, I completely agree with you. James Dobson comes from a time in which gay people were treated as less than human. This doesn’t excuse his behavior, as times have changed and he passes himself off as an expert on a subject he knows absolutely nothing about.
Dobson was brainwashed with extremist faith by his fanatical preacher father at a very young age. He was trained up to carry on the Dobson dynasty of demagogues.
That I think is the basis for the gay-hate and junk science propaganda machine that Focus has become.
[...] The Inherent Contradictions of the Social Conservative Worldview on Gender and Sexuality [...]
[...] The Inherent Contradictions of the Social Conservative Worldview on Gender and Sexuality (15) [...]
Focus on the Family is a second Nazi Party! What it fails to realize (or just doesn’t care about) is that the Constitution gives gays, transgenders, crossdressers, etc. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION! I have a message for Focus: Since you obviously oppose the Constitution, you belong in Iran, NOT America!