Let's return to a post I made a few days back, but first a reminder of the details:
Last week the Indiana Daily Student--Indiana University's campus paper, published a piece on a campus competition known as "Big Man on Campus." The piece's author wrote:
Every male on campus wants to be him, and every female on campus wishes she could date him
To which Mr. Evan Rosenberg took offense, and wrote the following letter to the editor:
Article forgets lesbian women
I was very interested in reading Maggie Bozich's front-page story ("Greeks prepare to crown new Big Man on Campus," Oct. 15, Indiana Daily Student) on Zeta Tau Alpha's research benefit event, Big Man on Campus, but she lost me with her first sentence: "Every male on campus wants to be him, and every female on campus wishes she could date him." Although I have enjoyed reading some of Ms. Bozich's other work, she let me down this time. With one innocent slogan, she silenced every lesbian woman on campus by implicitly denying her existence. Too often we remain complacent with narrow-minded interpretations of love, and by denying the existence of perspectives or orientations different from our own we unconsciously make others feel invisible, which denies them the right to express their love.
I believe Ms. Bozich meant no harm, but let this serve as a reminder of why it is so important that we are inclusive in our language. Silence can be deadly.
Evan Rosenberg, Sophomore
In posting Mr. Rosenberg's letter to the editor here, I concluded with this comment:
Surely Evan, with all his multi-cultural feminine sensitivities, will make someone a good
wifehusband.
In thinking more about this comment, though, I wondered whether some might take it as a cheap shot, a cynical dissing of Mr Rosenberg? In fact, it was an attempt to make a serious point to which I now return.
There are certain natural, God-given aspects to the two sexes that are a necessity in marriage, the home, and civil society. Men (including Mr. Rosenberg) are called by God to relish and embrace their manhood to the end that in some way each of us reflects God's Fatherhood. This is one way all men (as men) glorify God.
And there is a certain femininity about Mr. Rosenberg's desire to forsake God's condemnation of sodomy for the sake of inclusive relationships and communication, finding offensive an article that was quite innocently written without any intent to leave out or make invisible sodomites, the married, the single by choice, etc. Further, this certain femininity is not attractive in a man.
Past generations would have called it "effeminacy."
In the past, men viewed sodomy with revulsion while pitying and having a quiet compassion for those suffering this temptation. Past generations would also have read Mr. Rosenberg's letter to the editor and shaken their heads wondering what happened to his manliness?
But now we are never to criticize a man for lacking manliness, and thus the word 'effeminate' is dying. We have stopped talking about sexual differentiation and only talk about gender--and gender is a social construct, not a biological fact. So having turned sex into a social construct, we have added the element of choice, one of our culture's principal idols.
Why accuse a man of not properly reflecting his sex when it's all relative to his own personal choice?
We are quite open to the discussion of logical flaws in Mr. Rosenberg's argument; we steel ourselves against the occasional Christian who reminds us that the Bible says sodomy is an abomination; but to point out that Mr. Rosenberg has betrayed his manhood--that his argument and posture are not honoring to the stronger sex--that is inconceivable.
PS: For ten extra points, what's the definition of muliebrity?
