Reading the comments section of a newspaper the other day, I was reminded of another popular pseudo-argument that homophobes throw about, without realizing how stupid they sound. It's very similar to the "Being gay is unnatural" rubbish, and the reasoning for why it's so ridiculous is similar too, but I felt I needed to raise it.
"No other animals have same-gender sex, so why should people?"
The first reason it's so flawed is that it is totally wrong: List of Animals Displaying Homosexual Behaviour
"Homosexual behaviour has been observed in close to 1500 species, and is well documented in 500 of them."
Secondly, humans are a species of animal. Every animal is different, and a lot have unique traits which aren't shared by any other animals. Praying mantis females eat the male's head after sex, starfish have no brain, dolphin calves and their mothers don't sleep at all for months when the calf is first born. These are all unique traits, and are in no way wrong because of that. Even if homosexuality was peculiar to humans, it would simply be a unique homo sapiens trait. One of many:
Lastly, humans are very different to other animals, and we have a lot of unique qualities. Civilization, advanced language, and consciousness to name a few.
If you're going to suggest that being gay is wrong because no other animals do it, then everything else we do that is unique to us is wrong too.
The only way you can stand by that argument and not look like a complete fool is to give up everything else that separates humans from animals.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Having a penis does not a good Prime Minister make
A week ago, as a result of some internal politics, the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, stepped down from his post and was succeeded by his deputy, Julia Gillard.
Just like that, Australia took a major step toward being a truly equal society; Gillard marks the first female Prime Minister this country has seen.
Now we still have a long way to go: around the same time that this was happening in Australia, Iceland's lesbian PM was legally marrying her girlfriend. But still, this is a step in the right direction, and every step is a victory.
Perhaps I shouldn't be, but I've been surprised by all the backlash and bigoted comments that have surfaced as a result of this event. I guess I knew on some level how prevalent sexism still is, even in the 21st century; but you don't often see it rear its ugly head so blatantly.
Such comments as, "I for one will by voting for Tony Abbott in the next election, as I feel more confident having a man in charge."
Now for those who don't know, Tony Abbot is, essentially, an Australian George Bush, complete with apelike appearance and inability to string a series of words into a coherent sentence. He believes that a woman's place in the kitchen making sandwiches, while a man goes to work. He believes that homosexuality is wrong, and that gay couples are less deserving of the rights that straight couples are privilege to. He believes that everything in the Bible is true, and that if you're not a Christian, you're a heathen.
If he should ever become Prime Minister, he will set the country back 50 years. If we're lucky.
Now it really does concern me when people, and otherwise Labor supporters at at that, would choose this, over having a woman in charge. How can anyone hold this opinion and not see the ignorance in it?
Just to be clear, I'll say this now, loud and clearly in bold text:
Having a penis does not qualify one to run a country.
Nor does having a uterus, or breasts, or a vagina impair one's ability to do so.
Intelligence, charisma, decisiveness, passion, strength of character, sense of morality: these are the characteristics that count as a leader, and these have absolutely nothing to with one's gender. These are also characteristics that Gillard has in spades; and things that Abbott wouldn't know the meaning of if he was a senior editor at Oxford.
I'm also not saying that being female automatically makes one suitable to run a country; Sarah Palin has quite clearly demonstrated this during her time in politics.
At the end of it all, candidates for Prime Minister, or indeed any seat in government, should be voted for or appointed based solely on their suitability for the job. The only way this is going to happen is if minorities in politics - females, non-whites (less of an issue in Australia than in, say, USA, but an issue nonetheless), and out-of-the-closet homosexuals - continue to do as Julia Gillard has done, and fight through the discrimination to secure these positions. This opens the door for others to follow suit, and eventually we will reach the point that the likes of Iceland and India are at; where female rulers are not even newsworthy because of how ordinary they are, and have legitimately equal footing with their penis-owning adversaries in the fight for positions of influence.
Just like that, Australia took a major step toward being a truly equal society; Gillard marks the first female Prime Minister this country has seen.
Now we still have a long way to go: around the same time that this was happening in Australia, Iceland's lesbian PM was legally marrying her girlfriend. But still, this is a step in the right direction, and every step is a victory.
Perhaps I shouldn't be, but I've been surprised by all the backlash and bigoted comments that have surfaced as a result of this event. I guess I knew on some level how prevalent sexism still is, even in the 21st century; but you don't often see it rear its ugly head so blatantly.
Such comments as, "I for one will by voting for Tony Abbott in the next election, as I feel more confident having a man in charge."
Now for those who don't know, Tony Abbot is, essentially, an Australian George Bush, complete with apelike appearance and inability to string a series of words into a coherent sentence. He believes that a woman's place in the kitchen making sandwiches, while a man goes to work. He believes that homosexuality is wrong, and that gay couples are less deserving of the rights that straight couples are privilege to. He believes that everything in the Bible is true, and that if you're not a Christian, you're a heathen.
If he should ever become Prime Minister, he will set the country back 50 years. If we're lucky.
Now it really does concern me when people, and otherwise Labor supporters at at that, would choose this, over having a woman in charge. How can anyone hold this opinion and not see the ignorance in it?
Just to be clear, I'll say this now, loud and clearly in bold text:
Having a penis does not qualify one to run a country.
Nor does having a uterus, or breasts, or a vagina impair one's ability to do so.
Intelligence, charisma, decisiveness, passion, strength of character, sense of morality: these are the characteristics that count as a leader, and these have absolutely nothing to with one's gender. These are also characteristics that Gillard has in spades; and things that Abbott wouldn't know the meaning of if he was a senior editor at Oxford.
I'm also not saying that being female automatically makes one suitable to run a country; Sarah Palin has quite clearly demonstrated this during her time in politics.
At the end of it all, candidates for Prime Minister, or indeed any seat in government, should be voted for or appointed based solely on their suitability for the job. The only way this is going to happen is if minorities in politics - females, non-whites (less of an issue in Australia than in, say, USA, but an issue nonetheless), and out-of-the-closet homosexuals - continue to do as Julia Gillard has done, and fight through the discrimination to secure these positions. This opens the door for others to follow suit, and eventually we will reach the point that the likes of Iceland and India are at; where female rulers are not even newsworthy because of how ordinary they are, and have legitimately equal footing with their penis-owning adversaries in the fight for positions of influence.
Labels:
feminism,
government
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)