Suzanne Venker’s article “Is Equality Ruining Your Marriage?” explores the adverse effects of integrating egalitarian concepts in the marriage context. At the onset, Venker argues that couples in marital unions which conform to the traditional gender roles are happier as compared to those whose marriages integrate the modernity principle of gender equality. Her article targets a learned audience and seemingly one impacted by the deleterious effects of departing from the customs. Venker incorporates logos, pathos, and ethos to assertively convince her readers that gender fluidity is a fallacy, and interchangeability is an elusive dream. Although societal attitudes and norms change over time, the inherent human nature is rigid and unalterable.
Venker utilizes logos in her article by explicitly referring to scientific findings, illustrating the magnitude of eroded happiness in marital arrangements, disregarding conventional gender responsibilities. She indicates that 1800 women and 1500 men aged between 52 and 60 whose marital unions refuted the orthodox gender roles experienced declining happiness (Venker). By referring to verifiable data, Venker reinforces her arguments and establishes some degree of authority. Additionally, she posits that today, an estimated 30% of married women with children opt to stay at home to illustrate women’s natural tendency to rely on their husbands for provision and protection (Venker). By adducing these statistical figures and data, Vneker persuades her audience by depicting the way her perspectives are reflected widely.
Further, Venker establishes her credibility and authority in the subject since she is a reputable author of various related publications on a similar subject, such as feminism, gender politics, and marriage. Moreover, she demonstrates mastery and a profound understanding of the topic, through which her readers easily discern the invalidity of gender fluidity within the context of marriage. For instance, she notes that egalitarianism has been downgraded to mean the interchangeability of genders (Venker). However, according to Venker, this approach has led to the switching of gendered responsibilities, which ultimately negates the innate and inherent components of each gender. For instance, she posits that although women can undertake some of the tasks which are traditionally assigned to men, it adversely impacts their psychological wellbeing (Venker). Similarly, men who execute female-associated roles experience declining levels of happiness and overall health. Therefore, women and men are not simply interchangeable beings but are wired in such a manner that departing from deep-seated customs impedes their wellbeing.
Suzanne emphasizes the concept of gender rigidity by stirring the emotions of her audience. She categorically illustrates the instinctive and intuitive attachment which each gender has on specific roles. For instance, men are inclined to provide for and protect their women and children. On the converse, women are inherently wired to supply the emotional and physical needs of their children (Venker). The gratification and satisfaction stemming from the accomplishment of these objectives by each gender are exceptional and irreplaceable. Through this reference, Venker appeals to her audience and distinctively underscores the inflexible nature of gender, regardless of the dynamics in societal attitudes and norms.
Venker’s article depicts the rigidity of gender and the attendant consequences of deviating from the norms. Although modernity transforms the existing customs and norms, human nature is unalterable and remains relatively unchanged over time. Venker effectively demonstrates that integrating these contemporary concepts in various settings, such as marriages, impairs their functionality. Therefore, changing social values does not transform the primal and inherent nature of humanity. Any attempts to force such changes directly impact our happiness and overall wellbeing.
Work Cited
Venker, Suzanne. “Is Equality Ruining Your Marriage?” Fox News, 2017, Web.