That label seems as unreasonable as calling someone "anti-life." After all, "anti-choice" advocates would be those who don't really care about the morality of family planning, but simply want to strip women's bodily autonomy. That sort of malicious or arrogant will to see one sex dominated by the other seems like it must be present in a fairly small number of people in 2017. At least, one would wish that were the case; it's sadly easy to find things like this on the internet:
Though I'm sure patronizing things like this are overall more common:
I imagine most women are in no way shocked by either of those memes, and admittedly, I've long since past the point of being surprised by such things. The only reason I got started thinking on it today was because of an article that appeared in my Twitter feed today.
When I saw the headline I didn't get too riled. The wording, which shames people for rejecting romantic overtures, immediately jumped out as entitled bull, but content providers often brand articles with provocative titles to draw attention, even when doing so contradicts the content of the author's work.
The title, however, isn't far off from the author's intention. Rather than blame Trump supporters for electing Donald Trump, the article blames the reproductive choices of progressive baby-boomers and gen-x'ers for creating Trump voters (and somehow still lays the weight of that accusation on the shoulders of millennials dating in the present). Laber attributes the differences between modern progressives and conservatives to discriminatory mating practices based on intellect.
As cognitive ability became the most valued aspect of human capital––and the biggest predictive indicator for professional success––people began marrying others with similar intellect.Laber and his source peg this as beginning with "a shift to a particular type of mating in the ‘60s" essentially when the baby-boomers started procreating.
Ivy League graduates marry other Ivy League graduates, and their kids do the same, and so on and so forth, causing severe economic stratification between what Murray calls the “New Upper Class” and “New Lower Class.”It's strange to think that Laber blames two or three generations of such selection for our current situation. Neighborhoods and school districts in the United States remain racially segregated as a result of the centuries old racism that empowered slavery and discriminatory laws. Trump supporters scream for a wall to be built on a border that was formed by the ending of a war in 1849. Americans in southern states mourn the failure of a rebellion that ended in 1865, and gather with torches to protect statues commissioned in 1917. One of the most influential families in America dates back to the early 1900s, and our controversial president is a septuagenarian, himself born into a privileged family. Yet, despite all of this, Laber and Murray blame our socioeconomic stratification on 57 years of "assortative mating" based on education.
Despite all of these preceding factors, he contends that if it weren't for two generations of people seeking mates with "similar intellect," our country would not have descended into the political "tribalism" it has, and that people would be better equipped to fend off the demagoguery of individuals like Trump. The whole premise feels very similar to the Social Darwinism that underpins Idiocracy.
Tied into all of this is Laber's implicit belief that the ideological differences between progressives and conservatives are trivial matters, and certainly not sufficient justification for refusing to engage with someone romantically, a stance he makes clear from the beginning.
...OkCupid announced Wednesday that it would make the online dating scene a little easier for progressives who can’t risk interacting with someone with whom they disagree (imagine the horror!)...While people don't necessarily choose a partner based on a single simple characteristic, we often eliminate potential partners from consideration based on certain characteristics - sex, age, religion, attraction, interests, etc. So how is it that Laber considers the moral differences entailed in the conflict between progressive and conservative values to be relatively trivial? If people can't 'screen' mates based on morality, on what premise can they be selective? Laber's stance becomes less surprising when you consider the specific issue he objects to screening for:
[OkCupid] announced a partnership with Planned Parenthood that allows site users to put a badge on their profile signifying support for the nation’s largest abortion provider...Laber's whole line of argument is based on criticizing Americans' collective reproductive choices, and is specifically slanted against liberals as the cause of our current situation. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that differences over attitudes towards abortion and contraception is what spurred him to write his article. Fundamentally, Laber is upset that people are refusing to consider having sexual relationships and potentially family relationships with people who differ from them in their basic beliefs about sexual relationships and family planning.
In other words, Laber blames social strife in modern America (partly) on liberals exercising their right to choose, not simply whether to have children, but with whom to have children. He faults progressives for rejecting potential romantic partners who advocate against women's bodily autonomy, and criticizes them for treating "an opposing viewpoint as an all-out assault on their personhood." God forbid that a woman reject a sexual relationship with a man who would oppose her seeking an abortion or even oppose her use of contraception.
Laber is, essentially, anti-choice, albeit more subtly so than the loud misogynists who would say that a woman's place is in the kitchen. He gives lip service to the contrary, hedging in his conclusion:
If a progressive doesn’t want to date a conservative and vice versa, that’s perfectly fine. Everyone has deal-breakers.
But his final opinion is still that choosing partners based on moral principles has harmed our country:
...as a political protest, this form of virtue-signaling is counterproductive in the long run.And in that last statement, Laber's disconnection from his fellow American's is most apparent. To him, support for Planned Parenthood and women's rights are purely 'political' issues, rather than deeply personal ones. To Laber, factoring that sort of thing into one's romantic decisions is an unreasonable form of "protest" - an attitude that is so absorbed in male privilege that you certainly don't have to be a woman to see it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment