The Thinking 

The Ride Family Has Reached a Dead-End

July 25, 2012


AS a commenter points out in the previous entry, an acquaintance of astronaut Sally Ride, writing in The Washington Post, lauds the achievements of Ride and her sister, Karen, a Presbyterian minister who goes by the name of “Bear.” The Ride sisters, he writes, have changed the world. Their parents encouraged them to “study hard, to do their best and be anything they wanted to be.” The groundbreaking Ride sisters both became lesbians. Karen Ride is “married” to another female Presbyterian minister, and Sally, as was revealed by her homosexual activist sister this week, has been in a lesbian relationship for decades.

“The Ride family is an all-American family and at the same time an extraordinary one,” writes Michael Adee. Lesbianism has gone from shameful to a badge of honor.

What went wrong in this “all-American family?” Here’s a clue. The mother Joyce was known for her “groundbreaking Sunday School lessons about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movements to the little children there.” The Ride sisters grew up imbibing the Kool-Aid and their mother filled their glasses to the top.

—- Comments—-

Paul writes:

Even though we don’t know exactly what MLK would think about homosexual marriage, we can infer that most likely he would not have approved based on his Christian beliefs. But you correctly imply that is not important in any event. A family’s reliance on the 1960s civil rights movement as an ideal is significant. Freedom from societal roles was the ideal. After all, the civil rights movement was for freedom from the societal roles of blacks first and women second.

Sally Ride’s family embraced the way out offered by this newfangled idealism because they and their daughter would not have to deal with as much traditional pain over their daughter’s societal disability.

Laura writes:

Do you mean the disability of being a more masculine woman?

A reader writes:

To borrow a popular liberal buzzword, liberalism is unsustainable.

Laura writes:

A liberal will watch his family tree wither before his very eyes before he gives up his belief that the sexual revolution represents progress and emancipation.

John writes:

Let the liberal families wither. The future belongs to our children.

Jesse Powell writes:

Being in favor of the Civil Rights Movement for blacks in the 1960s does not necessarily mean being in favor of the wholesale cultural revolution that came after the major civil rights victories were won.

Paul says “Freedom from societal roles was the ideal. After all, the civil rights movement was for freedom from the societal roles of blacks first and women second.” The Civil Rights Movement was specifically about removing discrimination against blacks, it was not about altering the gender roles of women. Discrimination against blacks and traditional roles for women are two different things. In addition the “societal role” of blacks before the 1960s was something imposed upon blacks by whites. On the other hand the “societal role” of women before the 1960s was something that was due to the intrinsic nature of women in relation to men. One race imposing its agenda on another race is not equivalent to the complementarian relationship between the sexes that occurs within a people or culture.

It is true that the Civil Rights Movement was quickly followed by the Women’s Rights Movement but that does not mean that one movement lead to the other or that the two movements are intrinsically related to each other. A third factor could have been the cause of both movements. This “third factor” might have been “social disruption” or “the post-war economic boom.” Regardless of what the third factor was however I do not think it is reasonable to link the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Movement together.

It is true that there were many white women supporters of civil rights that later moved on to feminist activism but in terms of why Sally Ride and Karen Ride became lesbians I think the answer is much more likely due to an embrace of feminism than it is due to support for civil rights for blacks.

Laura writes:

Mr. Powell is missing my point, and Paul’s point too.

Mrs. Ride was teaching children about the civil rights movement in church. It had religious meaning to her. As Paul pointed out, it seems to have been the family’s motivating ideal. That was my main point. Once liberal progress takes on this religious meaning, it grabs hold of the imagination and invents new sacred objects. First it was blacks, then women, then homosexuals.

For many, the civil rights movement was about more than eradicating restrictions against blacks. It meant a wholesale revolution in the relations between the races and a complete overturning of the past. It meant the authority of white men was officially over and done with and that white men owed everyone over whom they had previously wielded authority – primarily blacks and women – reparations. The two movements are interconnected. Feminists frequently associated their cause to the civil rights movement, although this association often made no sense, and a ban on sex discrimination was included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This amendment was not simply the work of feminists but also of those trying to defeat the bill. Nevertheless, feminism fed off the demoralization of whites and the intoxicating belief that all natural distinctions were suspect.

Paul responds:

In response to Laura, yes. It must be awful for a parent to discover their child is inclined toward homosexuality and will never be fully accepted unless everyone is considered equal. So the parents embrace the Tower of Babel and ally themselves with those who are encouraging, and soon they will be demanding that heterosexual children be taught homosexuality. That is coming, to be sure. If you don’t let a homosexual pet you and you don’t pet back, then you will be branded a hater. I guarantee that will come about before I die. It is Lot’s story.

The punishment of sexual contact between pre-teens is soon to be the subject of lawsuits. That is, institutions will not be allowed to punish homosexual petting of a heterosexual more severely than heterosexual petting of a heterosexual. The reason they should be treated differently is because homosexuality can be learned easily and the great majority of parents do not want their children to become homosexuals or bisexuals. Yes, I hear that some homosexuals can unlearn homosexuality or at least enjoy heterosexuality, but it is not easy, at least once they are adults. Moreover parents do not want to risk their children becoming homosexual or bisexual.

Share:Email this to someoneShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest0Share on Google+0