A few stirrings of opposition to the new sexual order:
- People are noticing that single-sex education is actually better for boys, too. Let boys be boys, it seems, and you can lead them to become better boys. They’re more likely, for example, to develop cultural interests, and to grow up able to deal with the opposite sex in a sensible way. Why wouldn’t the people agree with that who believe repression is bad, and getting in touch with your inner whatever is good?
- Melanie Phillips, a moderately conservative British pundit I’ve commented on from time to time, has written a book on The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male. I haven’t read it, but from the review it seems to make many of the right points: abolishing sexual morality abolishes marriage, abolishing marriage abolishes fatherhood, and abolishing fatherhood doesn’t do anybody much good because fathers do have something definite to add.
- One basic problem with abolishing the normal family as an authoritative institution is that it throws the relation between parents and children into radical doubt. If having a baby is the woman’s purely personal choice, and a marriage is just a couple of people who hang around with each other for a while, it becomes unclear why parents should be assigned custody of their own children. The natural response is to multiply government protections for children, and to treat parents (who aren’t supervised up to the usual standards for care-givers) as presumptively guilty of abuse. The result: Kafkaesque children’s courts sitting in private and playing God with the families that come before them. After all, who should the court listen to—an untrained nobody who’s under suspicion anyway (a parent), or a certified expert?