Introducing the Schulman
8/8/10 05:11![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eredienI was tempted to backdate this post--turning back back time to an era when men were men immoral and uncontrollable, women were fragile flowers and queer people were all Oscar Wilde, undeserving of dignity or moral and physical integrity--but I didn't have to. Lucky for us, that time was as recently as August 6th!
That's when this opinion piece went up on the Christian Science Monitor, an opinion piece which is full of so much shit that I'm surprised that the type isn't brown.
Sam Schulman, before August 6th, the English language needed neither the concept of, or a word for, "the opposite of satirist Jonathan Swift." But you, Sam--once you recognized the glaring conceptual deficiency, you strove mightily to fill that void by penning the immortal lines below.
Alas, genius is fleeting: you did not fill the corresponding linguistic void. What can we do but name it in your honor?
Ladies, Gentlemen, and Genderqueer people of all ages--I am pleased to present the world's first "Schulman":
Marriage is not about couples or lovers – it’s about the physical and moral integrity of women. When a woman’s sexuality is involved, human communities must deal with a malign force that an individual woman and her family cannot control or protect.
Modern marriage is only the least worst version of marriage that has emerged from all this – but it is still necessary for women. What protects women, ultimately, is that marriage laws and customs confer upon her independence something extra – dignity, protection, sacredness – that others must respect. And if this quality can be bestowed upon anyone, even those not in intersexual relationships – it reduces, even dissolves its force.
Yes, you read it right: the central thesis of Schulman's piece is that women, not worth respecting on their own terms, will only become worthy of respect when society adds the little "something extra" of marriage. Once married, women must then become worthy of being respected by others, and will possess dignity and sacredness and physical and moral integrity.
It's good to know that no married women ever get raped, huh?
Oh, hey 13th century French inheritance law--what? You mean that there's a long history of women being considered legally married if they were taken by force? But that totally doesn't happen now! What, women of the Congo? Well, ok, it doesn't happen here. What's that you say, lady down the street? Oh. Oh, well. Um.
And unmarried women, well, um, they should get married and then--then they will be protected from A Malign Force that no individual woman or her family could control or protect. Whaddya mean, you don't want to get married, lady? Surely you want respect bestowed upon you, and physical and moral integrity, and marriage is the only way to get those.
...er, marriage is the only way for women to get those, I mean; you can't just have 'em already--that's kinda grabby, don't you think, ladies? But if you're a man, you already got dignity, protection, sacredness, physical and moral integrity, independence galore bestowed on you at birth. You are set. Golden. A-1. ...Dammit, last sentence in paragraph two! You say that bestowing those qualities on just anyone leaves women vulnerable, and that's messed everything up! Oh--oh, wait, it's cool, I've got it: Since marriage is the only way for women to gain all that extra independence and moral virtue that men are already rocking, there's no need to let men marry at all! They'll hardly notice it's gone!
Yup: one woman, no men, that's the way to....Wow, heterosexual-marriage-only crowd, you guys really take that idea of "marriage isn't about couples" to heart!
No, no...of course we can't go bestowing dignity, protection or sacredness on just anyone. Those things can only go to the people who didn't have enough of them in the first place, lest Malign Forces fail to respect their physical integrity, and all of those people just happen to be women...what? It's also possible for men to have their physical and moral integrity violated by Malign Forces? B-but how could that be, since men by definition already start out with so much more dignity and moral virtue than women that they don't even need marriage to protect their integrity? Such men can't exist. They...they do? But that means that they were lacking in dignity and sacredness in the first place, or else they wouldn't have had their integrity violated. The only people lacking in dignity and sacredness are unmarried women, though. So, that means that those men who have their bodily integrity violated because they are lacking dignity and sacredness...my god, they must be women! Or, no, wait, they're the Malign Forces! That's right, the Malign Forces are men who are really women! It was the queers, after all! God, I'm glad you got that straightened out for me, Sam; I was worried there for a second.
Geez, those Malign Forces--these weak feminine men lacking in innate dignity, bodily and moral integrity, and sacredness--must be really powerful, lacking all those things and yet causing all this uncontrollable strife for women. Those poor women, who who only want to uphold marriage law and custom so something extra may be conferred upon their independence! They never did anything to you, Malign Forces--why do you array yourself uncontrollably against human communities, individual women, and families? You're so powerful that I bet your moral and bodily integrity never get violated! But don't forget that you don't have dignity or sacredness and aren't worthy of protection. What? Why are you complaining, Malign Forces? You say that you don't have dignity and sacredness in the eyes of religion or society? You say your bodily and moral integrity is routinely violated?
We've already gone over this in the last paragraph: if we went around bestowing dignity, protection, and sacredness on just anyone, there wouldn't be enough to go around to the women, who of course need it most. So sit down, and shut up: we're not letting you get married because you don't need to. And no sneaky business. Trying to convince me that you're really men who are women, and women need marriage, heh, whose idea was that? That argument won't fly with me.
...Yes, I'm aware it's my idea. No, my argument still holds in all other cases! It just--doesn't apply in this particular situation of you wanting marriage, that's all. That's it. The End.
You done now? Good, I'm glad you have no choice but to see it my way.
Ahem. Sorry for the interruption.
Powerful people: always trying to quash dissent, huh?
Since someone must be married or women won't be protected, and Sam's incisive arguments have clearly demonstrated that men and Malign Forces are not eligible for the unique women-sexuality-protecting benefits of marriage, the obvious strategy to protect marriage and keep Malign Forces at bay is: Mass Lesbian Weddings.
Yes, this is just a fantastic argument forgay marriage--you said that this is the argument for keeping marriage from queer couples?
Well, you said it, not me, Schulman.
That's when this opinion piece went up on the Christian Science Monitor, an opinion piece which is full of so much shit that I'm surprised that the type isn't brown.
Sam Schulman, before August 6th, the English language needed neither the concept of, or a word for, "the opposite of satirist Jonathan Swift." But you, Sam--once you recognized the glaring conceptual deficiency, you strove mightily to fill that void by penning the immortal lines below.
Alas, genius is fleeting: you did not fill the corresponding linguistic void. What can we do but name it in your honor?
Ladies, Gentlemen, and Genderqueer people of all ages--I am pleased to present the world's first "Schulman":
Marriage is not about couples or lovers – it’s about the physical and moral integrity of women. When a woman’s sexuality is involved, human communities must deal with a malign force that an individual woman and her family cannot control or protect.
Modern marriage is only the least worst version of marriage that has emerged from all this – but it is still necessary for women. What protects women, ultimately, is that marriage laws and customs confer upon her independence something extra – dignity, protection, sacredness – that others must respect. And if this quality can be bestowed upon anyone, even those not in intersexual relationships – it reduces, even dissolves its force.
Yes, you read it right: the central thesis of Schulman's piece is that women, not worth respecting on their own terms, will only become worthy of respect when society adds the little "something extra" of marriage. Once married, women must then become worthy of being respected by others, and will possess dignity and sacredness and physical and moral integrity.
It's good to know that no married women ever get raped, huh?
Oh, hey 13th century French inheritance law--what? You mean that there's a long history of women being considered legally married if they were taken by force? But that totally doesn't happen now! What, women of the Congo? Well, ok, it doesn't happen here. What's that you say, lady down the street? Oh. Oh, well. Um.
And unmarried women, well, um, they should get married and then--then they will be protected from A Malign Force that no individual woman or her family could control or protect. Whaddya mean, you don't want to get married, lady? Surely you want respect bestowed upon you, and physical and moral integrity, and marriage is the only way to get those.
...er, marriage is the only way for women to get those, I mean; you can't just have 'em already--that's kinda grabby, don't you think, ladies? But if you're a man, you already got dignity, protection, sacredness, physical and moral integrity, independence galore bestowed on you at birth. You are set. Golden. A-1. ...Dammit, last sentence in paragraph two! You say that bestowing those qualities on just anyone leaves women vulnerable, and that's messed everything up! Oh--oh, wait, it's cool, I've got it: Since marriage is the only way for women to gain all that extra independence and moral virtue that men are already rocking, there's no need to let men marry at all! They'll hardly notice it's gone!
Yup: one woman, no men, that's the way to....Wow, heterosexual-marriage-only crowd, you guys really take that idea of "marriage isn't about couples" to heart!
No, no...of course we can't go bestowing dignity, protection or sacredness on just anyone. Those things can only go to the people who didn't have enough of them in the first place, lest Malign Forces fail to respect their physical integrity, and all of those people just happen to be women...what? It's also possible for men to have their physical and moral integrity violated by Malign Forces? B-but how could that be, since men by definition already start out with so much more dignity and moral virtue than women that they don't even need marriage to protect their integrity? Such men can't exist. They...they do? But that means that they were lacking in dignity and sacredness in the first place, or else they wouldn't have had their integrity violated. The only people lacking in dignity and sacredness are unmarried women, though. So, that means that those men who have their bodily integrity violated because they are lacking dignity and sacredness...my god, they must be women! Or, no, wait, they're the Malign Forces! That's right, the Malign Forces are men who are really women! It was the queers, after all! God, I'm glad you got that straightened out for me, Sam; I was worried there for a second.
Geez, those Malign Forces--these weak feminine men lacking in innate dignity, bodily and moral integrity, and sacredness--must be really powerful, lacking all those things and yet causing all this uncontrollable strife for women. Those poor women, who who only want to uphold marriage law and custom so something extra may be conferred upon their independence! They never did anything to you, Malign Forces--why do you array yourself uncontrollably against human communities, individual women, and families? You're so powerful that I bet your moral and bodily integrity never get violated! But don't forget that you don't have dignity or sacredness and aren't worthy of protection. What? Why are you complaining, Malign Forces? You say that you don't have dignity and sacredness in the eyes of religion or society? You say your bodily and moral integrity is routinely violated?
We've already gone over this in the last paragraph: if we went around bestowing dignity, protection, and sacredness on just anyone, there wouldn't be enough to go around to the women, who of course need it most. So sit down, and shut up: we're not letting you get married because you don't need to. And no sneaky business. Trying to convince me that you're really men who are women, and women need marriage, heh, whose idea was that? That argument won't fly with me.
...Yes, I'm aware it's my idea. No, my argument still holds in all other cases! It just--doesn't apply in this particular situation of you wanting marriage, that's all. That's it. The End.
You done now? Good, I'm glad you have no choice but to see it my way.
Ahem. Sorry for the interruption.
Powerful people: always trying to quash dissent, huh?
Since someone must be married or women won't be protected, and Sam's incisive arguments have clearly demonstrated that men and Malign Forces are not eligible for the unique women-sexuality-protecting benefits of marriage, the obvious strategy to protect marriage and keep Malign Forces at bay is: Mass Lesbian Weddings.
Yes, this is just a fantastic argument for
Well, you said it, not me, Schulman.