Strange as it may seem, I'd like to actually defend clontroper5 for a moment.

While I disagree with his cultural feminism , I do believe that his heart is in the right place. Because I believe his heart is in the right place, I also think that eventually a synthesis of his beliefs with those of more mainstream feminist ideas is possible, even if that seems impossibly remote these days.

I also think that the barrier to that synthesis comes from the presumption of ill will on the part of the other side. Even in our conviction for our own beliefs, let's set aside the vilification and see where the other person is coming from.

I can agree with your point, but as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Could you elaborate?

I agree that clon is coming from a position that he feels is just and correct (I cannot say the same for others). He has good intentions with his position, but his position is still harmful in spite of that.

but his position is still harmful in spite of that.

Man... I just had a "you might be a Star Wars nerd moment"

That actually made me take a step back and re-evaluate my words.

but his position is still harmful in spite of that.

"only a Sith deals in absolutes"

Which only proves that Obi-Wa s n was Secretly a Sith, as he stated an Absolute.

but his position is still harmful in spite of that.

"only a Sith deals in absolutes"

Which only proves that Obi-Wa s n was Secretly a Sith, as he stated an Absolute.

Alright, since someone took the bait. I actually really really hate this criticism.

Obi-wan and Anakin were talking about morality and choosing a side. Obi-wan made the statement within the bounds of the conversation and specifically in reply to "If you are not with me, then you are my enemy". Within the context of the conversation, Obi-wan's statement makes total sense. "Only a sith deals in suc h absolutes". The such is just implied because it's English and much of our language derives from context within the conversation.

It's only when you apply it as a mantra for everything that it becomes nonsensical, and of course, in that case, Obi-wan wouldn't have said it.

It's only when you apply it as a mantra for everything that it becomes nonsensical, and of course, in that case, Obi-wan wouldn't have said it.

It was the prequels, let's not forget, there was probably a deleted scene with a CGI tea-towel embroidered with "Only a Sith Deals In Absolutes" and underneath it "More Midichlorians than even Master Yoda!"

Then Padme would have used said CGI tea-towel to dry some CGI dishes in a green-screen kitchen whilst telling Anakin that he looks handsome because she's so in love.

Then George Lucas would have gone back to the scene in Obi Wan's hut in 'A New Hope' and CGI'd the tea-towel to replace the rag that C-3PO uses to clean himself.

Because it's like poetry.

It rhymes, I guess.

Taken the Bait?

No, no bait was taken.

Merely, I have provided the Roadmap to Technically Correct .

The best kind of Correct, after all

It's only when you apply it as a mantra for everything that it becomes nonsensical, and of course, in that case, Obi-wan wouldn't have said it.

It was the prequels, let's not forget, there was probably a deleted scene with a CGI tea-towel embroidered with "Only a Sith Deals In Absolutes" and underneath it "More Midichlorians than even Master Yoda!"

Then Padme would have used said CGI tea-towel to dry some CGI dishes in a green-screen kitchen whilst telling Anakin that he looks handsome because she's so in love.

Then George Lucas would have gone back to the scene in Obi Wan's hut in 'A New Hope' and CGI'd the tea-towel to replace the rag that C-3PO uses to clean himself.

Because it's like poetry.

It rhymes, I guess.

The prequels are an easy enough target as is. No need to make up problems that aren't there. That's how I feel about the "absolutes" subject anyway.

I'm admittedly a huge Jedi nerd though, so there's my bias.

I agree that clon is coming from a position that he feels is just and correct (I cannot say the same for others). He has good intentions with his position, but his position is still harmful in spite of that.

but his position is still harmful in spite of that.

"only a Sith deals in absolutes"

Okay, so how do we make sense of this conundrum? I believe that as long as people of good will re willing to question the infallibility of their positions, they'll step away from the brink of doing excessive harm.

I think that my side of the debate (ie. the progressive left) has a wrongful tendency to disapprove of women who choose traditional roles. If that's their choice then their choice should be respected - even if we believe that the choice is the result of sexist cultural conditioning. By the same token, I think that clontroper5 's point of view underestimates the degree to which the traditional roles of women rob them of empowerment, and that without that empowerment the notion that cultural feminism is actually feminism is betrayed.

I think that my side of the debate (ie. the progressive left) has a wrongful tendency to disapprove of women who choose traditional roles.

I... I hate people who immediately shout "Straw man!" or "False equivalency!" or whatever frowned-upon debating tactic they believe is being used, but I honestly think this is... I don't know, I want to say "Straw man!" but I don't think that fits.

ANYWAY, what I actually wanted to say is that I'm not sure the notion that "the progressive left... has a wrongful tendency to disapprove of... traditional roles" is a particularly valid statement anymore. Certainly I have never encountered anyone, identifying as a feminist or progressive or otherwise, express disapproval of a woman who chose herself to follow a "traditional role" in life. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I've just never come across it, and that's with a fairly broad spectrum of contacts in real life and on social media, discussion groups etc.

I think you're right that it is a problem for these roles to be dismissed, I just don't think it happens that much anymore. Most feminists (including myself) I've spoken to have been fairly transparent about their opinion that it is, as you said, the choice of the individual that must be paramount. A few of my female friends have ended their full-time careers to raise their children, and I've not once heard any criticism of them for it - or indeed any expressions of guilt or shame by the women themselves over their choice.

Just my experience, mind, and things might be different in other parts of the world, where feminism is still getting going.

Sadly, I think it's almost a necessary part of a fledgling feminist movement, though - in order to normalise the concept of women having careers and jobs outside of the home, there almost has to be some (not necessarily much) disapproval of "traditional roles", if only to get more women realising that they can move into the job market and develop careers. Kind of like when you want your kid to learn something scary like riding a bike. To get them to make that first initial ride on their own, you have to almost "shame" them into it - "you're being silly, you can't be the only kid not riding a bike, if you don't learn to ride a bike you're missing out." Once they've done it, and they know that they can do it, then the choice is theirs as to how much they ride their bike, but that initial push might just need a bit of "tough love" to get the whole thing started.

Put that into the context of a female population that for a long time hasn't had the right to work independently of males, even after the law changes the existing population, women included, will still be used to the old ways. Making it a point of pride for a woman to be professionally successful - and a point of, well, not "shame" so much as... I dunno, I need a better word - but a point of negativity to be "just a housewife" might be the push that is needed to get more women working and prevent too much backlash over recently changed laws, and arguments such as "Look! It's been five years and hardly any women took their opportunity to take up paid work, we may as well go back to the old ways!"

I dunno, it's not a nice argument, but I guess it's basically the same argument in favour of affirmative action - it's not the desired ideal, it's not the way you want things to be, but it might simply be a short-term solution to get things closer to the way you want them to be further down the line.

****, another long post. Sorry.

Have some cool tax:

My first response to this thread (with more to come):

Stoped reading after the part you called my Religion Sexist...


I'm sorry but that is Unacceptable and proves you are incapable of a reasonable discussion. I will no longer reply to this thread

If you accurately described your religion, then it IS sexist. You can be offended all you want, but couching sexism, racism, misogyny, ableism, etc, etc, in religion absolutely DOES NOT excuse it from criticism and/or ridicule. I **** well will ridicule anything that seeks to tell me what I should/shouldn't do with MY life. I'm a pagan, and my primary worship is of Athena. You don't see me running around saying that the greatest thing a person can do is join the national guard and become a craft-person. You don't see me decrying the information sector ruining our morals and degrading us as a people. No, because that would be ridiculously idiotic (Athena is the goddess of the community, defense of communities, and personal crafts, as well as wisdom).

Criticism of a religion is NOT inherently "unreasonable". And you have replied to this thread, so there's that too.

Personally, I try and stay optimistic. This situation is a good example. The amount of people that stepped forward to disparage the remarks that were made were many and the amount of people that stepped to defend the remarks, or to add to them, were few.

There will always be outliers to progress but their influence is constantly waning.

This has made me happy as well, though I admit to feeling that the opinions are being given a bit too much respect. Just me. Respect the person, to hell with their hateful/oppressive opinions.

Strange as it may seem, I'd like to actually defend clontroper5 for a moment.

While I disagree with his cultural feminism , I do believe that his heart is in the right place. Because I believe his heart is in the right place, I also think that eventually a synthesis of his beliefs with those of more mainstream feminist ideas is possible, even if that seems impossibly remote these days.

I also think that the barrier to that synthesis comes from the presumption of ill will on the part of the other side. Even in our conviction for our own beliefs, let's set aside the vilification and see where the other person is coming from.

I disagree. His heart is with his head, up somewhere. It's sexist drivel (yes, I use that phrase a lot, it's pretty accurate) disguised as reasoned argument and couched in the context of an over-extended metaphor (as all deific religions are to one extent or another). It's this pretense that lets him say so, and then condemn anyone who loudly, vociferously disagrees as themselves the "real bigots". It's self-righteous BS, pure and simple.

I agree that clon is coming from a position that he feels is just and correct (I cannot say the same for others). He has good intentions with his position, but his position is still harmful in spite of that.

but his position is still harmful in spite of that.

"only a Sith deals in absolutes"

Okay, so how do we make sense of this conundrum? I believe that as long as people of good will re willing to question the infallibility of their positions, they'll step away from the brink of doing excessive harm.

I think that my side of the debate (ie. the progressive left) has a wrongful tendency to disapprove of women who choose traditional roles. If that's their choice then their choice should be respected - even if we believe that the choice is the result of sexist cultural conditioning. By the same token, I think that clontroper5 's point of view underestimates the degree to which the traditional roles of women rob them of empowerment, and that without that empowerment the notion that cultural feminism is actually feminism is betrayed.

Another point at which I'll disagree my friend. As a very active part of that "progressive left" (I've identified as a democratic socialist for years, and actively worked to support it), I don't think we do. There will be comments of, "you know you can make other choices, right?" But if the response is one of affirmation for that choice, and an understanding that the choice existed, then we leave it be. This is in general, as there are outliers in every group.

I don't think he and his view underestimate the impact, he/it outright deny it exists, as he did so in his previous posts.

Holy cow calm down! Jeeze I'm sory I have a belief that Mothers are important and that Expressing that makes me a "sexist" "Nazi" "real bigot"

The response to my expression of belief had been almost completely Dispicable I will continue this discussion with Mikeal in a PM as he is obviously the only one of you guys actually capable of having a reasonable discussion on the topic.

My point is, a ***** and ****** are obviously physically different. Physiologically the two sexes are obviously different. None of that assigns roles to the sexes. WE as a developing society did it. And ultimately, it's wrong. Nothing is out of the capability of either sex. I personally attest to that in my life, and have been involved with many others that breach those society defined roles.

As an aside though, it's not just men doing the aggressive stereotyping. In my conservative community in Indiana, I was effectively shunned from all the play dates and group gatherings because I was male. It took, literally, three years of gentle requests and finally being given a chance to participate. Now....I'm just one of the "girls" ..... Haha..

Yeah, v-a-g-i-n-a getting censored but not *****? F-U-C-K that noise. It is just one of the insanely common examples of #everydaysexism.

MikeMcMann, that stereotyping doesn't originate with women. It is an artifact, a whole-cloth creation of misogyny and patriarchy, of the type espoused by Clon here. If men and women have certain roles, as that argument goes, then men and women who step outside of those roles/behaviors will, naturally, be shunned, excluded, and/or insulted (or worse assaulted). You were a man trying to do "women's things". Since these women had grown up in a culture that told them there is no way you SHOULD want to do them, and that if you DO, then there's something wrong with you, it's easier to see why they rejected you. Internalized misogyny, basically a form of Stockholm Syndrome, is very real, and very prevalent.

Holy cow calm down! Jeeze I'm sory I have a belief that Mothers are important and that Expressing that makes me a "sexist" "Nazi" "real bigot"

The response to my expression of belief had been almost completely Dispicable I will continue this discussion with Mikeal in a PM as he is obviously the only one of you guys actually capable of having a reasonable discussion on the topic.

Meaning "He is the only one giving validity to my opinion."

It's not your belief that mothers are important, it's your belief that it is the MOST important, that there is some apex to our aspirations, and anything less is somehow wasteful (implied in the belief, not outright said, but it's there none-the-less).

Btw, telling me to "Calm down" is sexist AF too. You didn't tell any of the men to calm down, you replied to their comments, you argued with them. But with me you say "Calm down" when I'm expressing a similar opinion, though a bit more strongly; though I'm the only one directly in this discussion (I'm aware of) that is a direct recipient of your judgment. So yeah, I had something to say. Go try to shut down someone else, this lady isn't having it.

Holy cow calm down! Jeeze I'm sory I have a belief that Mothers are important and that Expressing that makes me a "sexist" "Nazi" "real bigot"

The response to my expression of belief had been almost completely Dispicable I will continue this discussion with Mikeal in a PM as he is obviously the only one of you guys actually capable of having a reasonable discussion on the topic.

And you proved my point from a few posts ago.

My point is, a ***** and ****** are obviously physically different. Physiologically the two sexes are obviously different. None of that assigns roles to the sexes. WE as a developing society did it. And ultimately, it's wrong. Nothing is out of the capability of either sex. I personally attest to that in my life, and have been involved with many others that breach those society defined roles.

As an aside though, it's not just men doing the aggressive stereotyping. In my conservative community in Indiana, I was effectively shunned from all the play dates and group gatherings because I was male. It took, literally, three years of gentle requests and finally being given a chance to participate. Now....I'm just one of the "girls" ..... Haha..

Yeah, v-a-g-i-n-a getting censored but not *****? F-U-C-K that noise. It is just one of the insanely common examples of #everydaysexism.

MikeMcMann, that stereotyping doesn't originate with women. It is an artifact, a whole-cloth creation of misogyny and patriarchy, of the type espoused by Clon here. If men and women have certain roles, as that argument goes, then men and women who step outside of those roles/behaviors will, naturally, be shunned, excluded, and/or insulted (or worse assaulted). You were a man trying to do "women's things". Since these women had grown up in a culture that told them there is no way you SHOULD want to do them, and that if you DO, then there's something wrong with you, it's easier to see why they rejected you. Internalized misogyny, basically a form of Stockholm Syndrome, is very real, and very prevalent.

I appreciate the reasoned and Well written Arguments of the OP.

However I must warn him to Not get "sameness" confused with "equality"

Men and Women are Different, that Is an undeniable fact. Saying "women should be homemakers and men should be Breadwinners" is NOT Sexist, it simply Suggests that Gender plays an Important role in the Family. This is the viewpoint shared by me and many religions reflecting that our gender was Chosen by God for a purpose.

This does not mean We don't support Equal rights Such as suffrage and equal treatment and the right to choice.

Many do not share this veiw but it is important that while Preaching Tolerance you don't become Intolerant of valid world Veiws

Take it from a woman, and a transwoman at that, I know both sides of the argument. It IS sexist. You can call it anything you want, but that doesn't change the reality of what it IS. Men and women have few differences, and even those are just tendencies rather than absolutes, right down to chromosomes and hormones. Some men have breasts, some women have narrow hips and flat-asses. Some men are weak, some women are extremely strong. Some men are nurturing, some women abandon their children. You cannot accurately make absolute statements about anyone, anywhere on the gender spectrum. And yes, it is a spectrum, not just two polar opposites. It's like a number line with an infinite number of points between one end and the other, which goes for gender, expression, and sex. They create a basic 3-D chart of a persons defining characteristics. Well, 6-D actually, when you take in to account asexual, agender, and gender fluid people.

It's a big, crazy, diverse as hell world out there, and there is a tremendous number of people who would take umbrage with your classifications.

Also, it is not inconsistent for me to preach tolerance while not tolerating something. As was said elsewhere, not every idea has merit, not every opinion is valid, and your idea is incredibly invalid from my world view, and from the point of view of the changing social landscape in western societies. Deal with it. You want to keep judging women for how they live their lives (and you are, regardless of any denials), you go right ahead, but there is no rule of law, decency, or society, that tells me I can't or shouldn't shout you the F#&% down.

There, I'm pretty caught up now.

Thanks to those of you not letting sexist BS slide. You make me happy to be in this community. To those espousing it, you are the reason I feel so alone at events.

Also, are there any other women who spend time on these forums?

Okay, last one, then I need to be off to game:

I'm not well versed in the behavioural sciences, but I think there is a long running debate wether behavioural gender differences (like girls generally preferring to play with baby dolls and boys generally preferring to play wargames like cowboy vs indian) are learned or (partially) innate behaviour. It is telling however that warfare has from recorded history been largely a male endeavour, which I doubt is only because of the physical differences between the genders. I suspect women are just wired differently than men up to a point, originating perhaps from when we were purely animals and the larger (alpha) males were responsible for the welfare of the group, as we see in the contemporary great apes.

Anyhow to get back to Rogue One, I think the only thing of importance is that the leading actor/actress is good for the role, regardless of his/her gender. I thought Rey was amazing in the Force Awakens, and the Rogue One actress seems to be good for the role as well. On the other hand when a movie depicts something historical like the Roman Empire's war on Dacia I'd really find it disgusting if they made the lead Roman Centurion a woman just to promote gender equality. I'm all for gender equality, but I hope they don't overdo it like with the LGBT equality movement that seems to have infiltrated all major tv shows that I watch. I swear that every goddamn series these days needs a homosexual couple in a main role and explicit sex scenes involving said couple before it is allowed to air.

I am decently versed, though still lay, in the behavioral sciences (I have these arguments a couple times a week, so I can spit out some of the literature practically by rote memory). There is the constructivist approach, which says that gender roles and behaviors are constructs of society, a male dominated society at that. This is a relatively new concept. For most of human history the "natural tendency" idea tended to be stronger, that there are just traits inborn to women and men. There used to also be that kind of thinking about races, too, but we moved past that well before we've moved past the idea that women are just somehow "weaker" in many ways. I am with the rising, and currently more in vogue, that says that our gender roles are constructed, but that some traits are based on the physical/genetic.

As someone who lived 30 years as a male, responding to testosterone and societal male conditioning, and then lived several years as a woman, with estrogen as the main hormone and an entirely new set of social reactions to my very existence, let alone whole personality, I can tell you that emotional tendency is largely a process of hormones. This is widely correlated by just about any trans-person you might ask. We've lived both sides. Now, I can tell you though, that the expectations and assumptions about me, the way people react to me, the way they treat me, and they way they react to my outspokenness, has changed dramatically. It is another thing noted almost universally by people who have transitioned socially/physically. I get talked over more, I get talked down to (you should see some men teach me a new game, when I've played almost every type of rule mechanic out there in the last 18 years, and mastered several of them. They dumb it down SOOOO much farther than they did even when I was a kid, let alone a man), I get ignored, I get ogled, I get dismissed, I get presumed upon.

I remember shortly after I transitioned. I was talking with the copy repair man for our office. I know quite a bit about electronic systems, and a decent bit about copiers. We were chatting about the problems with one machine that kept having trouble. I had work to do, so I called over our security guard (male) to be with him while I went back to my work. As soon as the guard appeared, the repair man stopped directing any statements at me, and began using more technical terms. This has not been an isolated incident. Up until recently I was a programming/computer engineering major. I know more than the average person on such topics, but let it come up in conversation and people are almost unwilling to listen to me seriously on the subject.

BTW, I take extreme umbrage with your comment about LGBT people on TV. Usually the only representations of transwomen I see on TV/movies are extremely stereotyped as either "tricking" men in to having sex with them (Haha, jokes on the man, he slept with a "dude" is the punchline there, either that or his anger is somehow seen as justified), as prostitutes, or as "men in drag" (with two days beard growth and hairy legs with a bad wig). The sympathetic trans character, who is JUST a character, has yet to be written from what I can tell. And yeah, the shows are having LGB couples more. Get over it. It's about **** time we get represented, just as with women as the main, strong protagonist of a story.

But please, share with me your divine wisdom oh great man, on just how much representation is "overdoing it".

Personally, I try and stay optimistic. This situation is a good example. The amount of people that stepped forward to disparage the remarks that were made were many and the amount of people that stepped to defend the remarks, or to add to them, were few.

There will always be outliers to progress but their influence is constantly waning.

This has made me happy as well, though I admit to feeling that the opinions are being given a bit too much respect. Just me. Respect the person, to hell with their hateful/oppressive opinions.

From what I've seen, most of the respect is toward the person. The opinions have been called out continuously from the start.