Equality Run Amok
On the one hand, these advocates tell us us presumptive straights that peoples sexual orientation should be of no concern to us.
Then they turn around and tell us that their orientation is the most important thing in the world to them the very source of their identity and a matter of pride.
So it should matter to us not at all, though it means everything to them. But isnt what a man considers an all-important fact about himself something other people should take into account when dealing with him?
Serious Christians consider their religion the most important thing in their lives, the defining fact of their existence. They dont say non-Christians should regard this as a trivial fact about them. That would be nonsense.
Furthermore, the gays (as distinct from quiet homosexuals) make demands on the rest of us that require us to take notice of them such as their current clamor for redefining marriage to include same-sex unions, a change whose ramifications, for all of us, would be vast and unpredictable. We are still supposed to regard their orientation as insignificant to us?
Such minorities gays being only one example want it both ways. They complain about the way theyre perceived, as if theyd prefer to be invisible; then they try to create new, highly visible, and of course totally favorable perceptions of themselves. They want to supplant negative stereotypes with what they call positive images, which are usually far more unrealistic than the old stereotypes.
The color-blind liberalism of the last generation insisted that ethnic differences shouldnt matter. The civil rights era taught us, with endless and eloquent propaganda, that race was an utterly unscientific concept, even though it was transpiring that racial distinctions werent just social conventions; some diseases struck blacks but not whites, Jews but not non-Jews. All the neat little lessons about skin color were ignoring deep mysteries of human nature.
Other complications arose too, making these subjects hopelessly confusing to anyone who had believed the propaganda. Dissent mere critical analysis of minority claims was presumed to spring from bigotry, a presumption that made public discussion almost futile. Affirmative action and Zionism made you wonder what the slogans of democracy and equality really meant. Were some groups exempt from the principle of equal rights and equal treatment under the law? What about the idea that double standards were bad?
Then there was sex or rather, as it was now often called, gender. The two sexes had always been regarded as pretty obviously different seriously different. But suddenly they werent. The feminism of the last generation all but denied la difference. At least when la difference was to the disadvantage of women; when equality worked against women, it was another story. Police, the military, and other institutions lowered their standards so men wouldnt monopolize the jobs.
Far from simplifying everything, as progressive rhetoric had promised, equality created a chaos of new rules, laws, and anomalous exceptions, as when transsexuals got into the act. (Only a liberal can believe that a man becomes a woman by having himself surgically mutilated as if sex is defined by genitalia alone.)
It was often apparent that what minorities were after was not equality, but privileged treatment. Or, in a word, power.
The blandly abstract language of equality usually conceals specific interests. Civil rights, its now clear to everyone, means certain black interests; nobody takes it to mean anything else. When whites hear about a new civil-rights measure, they dont imagine it means their rights are going to be protected; on the contrary, they know instantly that it means further violations of their privacy, freedom of association, property rights, access to jobs, and so forth.
Sexual orientation likewise means certain homosexual interests; it doesnt cover, say, guys with a thing for blondes, even if this happens to be a source of identity and pride for them; the government doesnt yet cater to the blonde-loving community.
The seemingly universal principle nearly always turns out to mean what's good for very specific groups. The seemingly simple principle can wind up bringing havoc to law and clear thought. One superfluous principle, however noble or innocuous it sounds, can eventually undermine an entire way of life.
|Copyright © 2004 by the
Griffin Internet Syndicate,
a division of Griffin Communications
This column may not be reprinted in print or
Internet publications without express permission
of Griffin Internet Syndicate
Archive Table of Contents
Return to the SOBRANS home page.
|FGF E-Package columns by Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, Paul Gottfried, and others are available in a special e-mail subscription provided by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation. Click here for more information.|