Admiral Theia, we could be friends hehe...love the passion and the personal experience.

I never fit the typical "male" role. Was never macho (even while blowing crap up in the military), never liked sports, like crafty stuff and never drank much. Pretty much none of the male sterotypes (even though I am 6'2 250 and was a massive offensive lineman up to college) fit me. I never had any gender fluidity to speak of, and always was attracted to women, etc.. Just not...alpha male. That's why it bothered me that simply having a ***** precluded me from the "moms groups" and made it even more difficult to raise my son. (without the whole village effect).

Point being, sex and gender are defined by no one other than the individual, imo. And the roles that one proscribes oneself are inherently yours and can never, by society, religion or dogma be defined and adorned upon another person. Its just that simple.

I don't know clon, and I don't ever attack people. However, ideas are fair game. The idea, whether by a person, society or religion that defines a persons role is anathema and reprehensible. I am sure clon is a good dude in general and just raised in the LDS church, etc..etc.. so not really his fault. It is my hope that people caught up in religious dogmatic bigotry find the light so to speak and get out. It has never and will never be of any good to the world.

Ps - Athena is a bad ass goddess hehe... I personally (not in any real belief in fairy tales) have always had an affinity for the Celtic gods from where my people originated

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've heard similar arguments from people who come from a philosophical place very different from clontroper5 's. My mother is an example, who hardly comes at this question from a religious angle. Her idea is that the problem is that motherhood is despised because women are despised in a sexist society. A just society would value motherhood a great deal more than it does (and not just because that society is suffering from a demographic decline). From my PMs with Clon, he seems to have a vaguely similar idea, so I'm trying to understand where he's coming from. The fact that he did not balk at when I called him a feminist, which any dyed-in-the-wool sexist would automatically do, suggests to me that what he is saying shouldn't be pigeonholed the way you are doing.

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.

Okay, so maybe 'tendency' was not the word that I ought to have used, because that word does imply that it's done by a majority. I can't speak to a precise proportion, but it's certainly there. Even just that statement - suggesting to someone that she has other choices - is effectively a statement of disapproval for the choice that she has made.

As to your working as part of the progressive left - yes, you have your bona fides in that regard, but I've got a couple of those as well.

Okay, so maybe 'tendency' was not the word that I ought to have used, because that word does imply that it's done by a majority. I can't speak to a precise proportion, but it's certainly there. Even just that statement - suggesting to someone that she has other choices - is effectively a statement of disapproval for the choice that she has made.

As to your working as part of the progressive left - yes, you have your bona fides in that regard, but I've got a couple of those as well.

There's a difference between checking that someone isn't being oppressed (many women are raised being told that their only "good" choice, or their "best" choice, is to get married and be subservient wives and mothers), and demonizing or attacking their informed choices.

And yes, your bona fides are much stronger than mine :-).

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.

you know for preaching about how we shouldn't be "shunned, excluded, and/or insulted " you sure like to use the tactics your self to disprove us "sexist bigots" over here that believe in God

I passed no judgement on your belief in god, only on your belief and vocal support for an archaic, oppressive idea of women's roles and lives. If you can't tell the difference, that's on you and your reading comprehension skills.

Wow, this topic deffinitly seems to go on and on! I havn't followed very closely and I usually avoid interjecting into these conversations since in my experience they tend to end up as pointless arguments in which neither side will change each others opinions or views. This seems to be especially true when the conversation reaches the point of the parties being disrespectful to each other. I much prefer a calm level headed discussion where logic prevails over emotion. I don't think I'm going to find that here, so I will just interject quickly and then move along.

I am a Christian...now that I've said that, you can put all the stereotypes on me that you wish, and in fact, some might read but not hear anything I say after that. I'm sorry to say that many Christians are some of the most judgmental and critical people you will meet. Those who disagree with their beliefs are treated like lesser people, maybe not overtly (at least all the time), but many act superior and look down on others. I appologise for those people, whom I'm sure you have run into at some point. They give Christians a reputation that I don't believe should be anything like what it is, just as radical Muslims, give Islam a bad name. While the two religions are fundamentally different (which is a completely different topic), the parallel is similar. In fact, the whole term religion has a negative conotation, due to atrocities that have been commited in their names. I don't want to be religious, were all it's about is following a set of rules. I care about realtionship, relationship with a being who cares so incredibly deeply for me, but also for every single person on earth. Just beacause I disagree with someone's beliefs doesn't mean I can't respect them as a person.

On this topic; I believe that poeple have been gifted free will, and are able to make their own choices based on how they want to live their life. I will say I think that many choice people make have serious consequences, but the matter is never black and white. There most definitely right and wrong, but it can be very hard to determine that from our perspective. I would prefer people make certain choices, and this is becuase I care for them, both for their life on Earth and after. I won't (well I will try, but unfortunatly I'm human and therefor not perfect) judge you based on your choices, I will do my best to show you respect and love. That doesn't mean I agree with you though, and if you ask my opinion I will give it honestly. I will discuss with you calmly, not trying to shove my beliefs on you or belittling you for disagreeing. Enough people do that already.

When I get married, my wife won't be "under me." We will be a team, we will make discisions togeather, though I will do my best to lead my family. I will serve my wife, laying down my desires for hers, and idealy she would do the same. Neither is greater than the other, neither is more important, but both are different. I want to protect and care for my family, so that is what I will do. I have no problem with my wife wanting to work or to achieve other dreams. Hopfully I'll be able to support her. though if and when we decide to have children we will have conversation and discussion on what we will do. I personally think being a parent is a full time job, and I would like my wife to be home with our children. If she doesn't want to do that, we will have to find something that works, but that is between us and not for society to determine what we should do. Maybe I would be the one to stay at home and I will freely admit that would require my masculine pride to be swallowed. But why woudl this even occur? Does my wife feel she needs to prove somthing? I wouldn't want her to do anything for that reason, because I will love her for who she is, and true perfect love (again, I'm not going to be anywhere near perfect in this) is unconditional. There is also the question of who could better provide for our family. If I have better job options, probably me, if she does, then probably her. If circumstances require maybe both. I can't say what the future will hold.

What I'm trying to get at is that people need to be flexible, since different circumstances and conditions will result in different choices. I think many poeple go too far in both directions. I have a hard time with people throwing the term "sexism" out there all the time. Expecting everything to be the same for everyone is highly unrealistic. Women and men are different, and that is not a bad thing, though obviously there are inequalities from social conditioning that are unfortunate. However, too often it seems like people are trying to destory what is unique and wonderful about each gender to try to reclaim a perfect world.

Theia, what happens if society accepts the ideals that you embrace? When those who believe in, as you put it "an archaic, oppressive idea of women's roles and lives," are in the minority, won't society shun, exclued, insult (or worse assault) those people? How do you feel about that? Are you okay with it because their beliefs are believed by you and the majority to be "wrong." If so you have destroyed your very own argument, because how would it be alright for you to do to them what you are trying to have stopped being done to you? In fact even now, you try to do it to Clon. You say you respect his right to his beliefs and then you insult his intellegence. I'm not saying Clon has been conducting himself well here either, you can tell he is upset. But who started what really isn't important here. Please, all who are invloved in this conversation, we will only cause futher rifts and divides if we can't learn to live togeather and comunicate in a respectiful manner. Shouting each other down will not solve an issues, just inflame the matter to further conflict.

Edit: I appologise for any spelling errors, I'll try to correct them at a later time.

Okay, so maybe 'tendency' was not the word that I ought to have used, because that word does imply that it's done by a majority. I can't speak to a precise proportion, but it's certainly there. Even just that statement - suggesting to someone that she has other choices - is effectively a statement of disapproval for the choice that she has made.

There's a difference between checking that someone isn't being oppressed (many women are raised being told that their only "good" choice, or their "best" choice, is to get married and be subservient wives and mothers), and demonizing or attacking their informed choices.

Yes there is, from the point of view of the person doing the checking. From the person being so evaluated is can come across as negative-but-polite judgement.

I'm certainly not trying to come across as a saint here. As a non-father without ambitions of fatherhood, I don't put as much store behind procreation as you do. I am also attracted by strong women, and in my mind, I associate being a stay-at-home mother/housewife with weakness and oppressedness. (I'm not saying that this is a proper association, or that I should make that evaluation, I'm just saying I do. The male brain in me is probably also checking for availability, even if I - as a happily married man - am not available.) As a result, when people inform me that they are stay-at-home mothers/housewives, I probably also give off that slight disapproval with my immediate verbal/facial reaction, even if I do very much try to control it.

Maybe I would be the one to stay at home and I will freely admit that would require my masculine pride to be swallowed. But why woudl this even occur? Does my wife feel she needs to prove somthing?

Hi JJ,

Overall you've spoken very well and openly on the subject. Thank you for that. What you write here is something that I've had to overcome. My wife draws a greater income than I do, and while I was still working on my degree, she was the only breadwinner, and even now I'm still working on building my career. (I'm working, and it requires full-time effort, but it's still modest in income) So, I've been the housewife, so to speak - I know what swallowing that masculine pride tastes like. I've also known what ridicule on that count feels like. ("So, are you still Mr. Mom? Hur, hur.")

In my case, and possibly yours at some point, it was not a case of her having to prove something. It was a case of us needing to eat, pay bills, and pay down debts. She could simply do that better than I could. So, what's this masculine pride and ridicule, then? It comes out of our social structure that has different expectations of men and women, that are both internal (swallowing masculine pride) and external (ridicule). That social structure is sexist, by the definition of sexism that says that men and women have different social roles, and that transgressing those roles doesn't happen without social push-back.

What I'm trying to get at is that people need to be flexible, since different circumstances and conditions will result in different choices. I think many poeple go too far in both directions. I have a hard time with people throwing the term "sexism" out there all the time. Expecting everything to be the same for everyone is highly unrealistic. Women and men are different, and that is not a bad thing, though obviously there are inequalities from social conditioning that are unfortunate. However, too often it seems like people are trying to destory what is unique and wonderful about each gender to try to reclaim a perfect world.

What I call sexist is when people's choices are curtailed because of society's gender-role preferences. That I have to face ridicule for being "Mr. Mom" when I'm staying at home working on my education while my wife works, is a very mild and fairly inconsequential aspect of that, compared to what many women have faced who have tried to enter the workplace. Especially some of my older female professors have had some stories to tell in that regard (e.g. single mothers being told they would not be paid as much as the men, because those men had families to take care of.)

Yes, women and men have some differences - but which of those differences matter, and how different are they really?

As far as to "destroy what is unique and wonderful" - could you name some examples of what you're talking about?

Theia, what happens if society accepts the ideals that you embrace? When those who believe in, as you put it "an archaic, oppressive idea of women's roles and lives," are in the minority, won't society shun, exclued, insult (or worse assault) those people?

Those who believe in archaic and oppressive ideas of women's roles and lives are already in the minority in Western society. What we are dealing with is the legacy of their long dominance. The tide has already turned. For some, the ridicule that the traditionalists suffer is something that they deserve to suffer now that the power is flipping. I am of the 'bind-up-the-nation's-wounds'* crowd, but I'm also a cisgender white male.

Also, that ridicule really pales in comparison to the history of abuse that women have suffered and are still suffering in most quarters. That abuse continues (just imagine what Theia - as a transgendered woman - gets to hear and feel quite frequently) and is far worse than anything Theia typed at Clon. In the context of that history of social and physical violence, a keyboard lashing is not all that bad - even if individually undeserved.

*A phrase from Lincoln's second inaugural, when the Civil War was all but over.