Obviously, the whole article is bullshit, but there's one particular paragraph I wanted to pick apart:
The fallout is already being seen. Increasingly, girls show none of the reticence they once did to engage in early sexual relationships with boys.Yeah, god forbid that girls who want to have sex go for it instead of acting like their virginity is the only thing that gives them value as a morally upstanding citizen.
That may be a good thing from the standpoint of gender equality, but it could be a bad thing since there is no longer the same typically “feminine” brake on such behavior.So it has always been (and should always be) up to women to stop such "behavior"? Does that mean men are completely incapable of controlling their baser desires when necessary? How insulting to men. And people try to argue that feminists hate men.
Girls beat up other girls on YouTube.But if it were boys beating up other boys, that would be TOTALLY FINE. Because violence is cool so long as it's to prove your masculinity.
Young men primp and preen until their abdomens are washboards and their hair is perfect.But it's okay if girls primp and preen and have perfect hair, because all women are vapid and shallow.
And while that may seem like no big deal, it will be a very big deal if it turns out that neither gender is very comfortable anymore nurturing children above all else, and neither gender is motivated to rank creating a family above having great sex forever and neither gender is motivated to protect the nation by marching into combat against other men and risking their lives.This just makes so much sense. Because only women can be nurturing enough raise children and only men have enough cojones to go into battle to defend their country. And if people who don't fulfill traditional gender roles will never, ever want to give up having great sex forever to have a family, then why are conservatives so afraid of gay marriage and adoption? (And why does having a family have to mean no more great sex? I mean, I understand that kids can be a bit of a disruption but still.* Also, I think Ablow just implied that people not conforming to gender roles have great sex. Yeeeeeah boi. Okay, I'll stop that.)
Who cares if a little boy decides his favourite color is hot pink? He has every right to do whatever the fuck he wants if his mom decides to let him. If he is straight, wanting to paint his toe nails won't change that. If he is gay, his mom not letting him paint his toe nails wouldn't change that. Your obedience or disobedience to various gender roles doesn't affect your sexuality, your abilities or your ambitions in life. For instance, here are some of the ways I don't conform to traditional gender roles:
-I am loud
-I am not afraid to interrupt people
-I hate talking about my feelings
-I don't fall in love with every guy I have sex with
Okay, so these are kinda shitty examples. But just because I don't follow these particular gender roles doesn't change my identity: female, cisgender, (mostly) heterosexual, loud, opinionated, ambitious, etc. I still am who I am. And this little kid will still be who he is, with or without hot pink toenails. God fucking forbid we let people be who they want to be, especially since it will literally affect nothing but their own happiness.
*Also, I think Keith Ablow just gave away more about his sex life than he intended.