"The "norm" is based on the demands of the system in which we live in, not something integrally embedded in our species."

I have to disagree. I have just seen too much which makes me believe that traditional gender roles are, by and large, traditional gender roles because they are aligned with our natural, genetic programming.

Of course there are individuals who are exceptions. Of course there are varying degrees of alignment between gender roles and biology with some roles that arose out of environmental conditions or just chance, with women bearing children and nursing for firmly biological reasons and men being in charge of the backyard barbecue for mostly environmental reasons or chance. It is possible that these biological drives differ slightly in different ethnic groups due to differences in the genetics of these different groups (as with a few in which men are expected to do most of the child-rearing - but are still the warriors, hunters, etc.) - but on a large scale I believe that gender roles are generally aligned with biology, and that we should respect that.

"I know you do not like feminism, but what you truly hate is a reactionary form of misandry that has arisen and ridden on the coattails of the original, which was simply striving for equality and an end to role-based expectations."

I do hate the misandry of modern feminism, but I also hate the anti-femininity (or misogyny) of modern feminism. As you say, the original feminism strove for equality and choice. Perhaps they were also against role-based expectations, but I think that was a mistake - not because I want to pigeon hole everyone into one path in life, but because most children need a certain amount of direction in their life, which they can then choose to deviate from if they like. Fact is, children will have expectations placed upon them, whether we like it or not. Children absorb the cultural signals around them and react to them whether we intend for them to or not.

Right now, those cultural signals say that women who wish to be primarily wives and mothers are not as smart, not as hard-working, and not as valuable as women who pursue a career or higher education. Those cultural signals say that women who volunteer at the local church or school to arrange social events or charity drives, or engage in such old-fashioned things as tea parties where they can socialize with their friends in the afternoons while their children play in the yard, are less valuable and have less purpose in life than those who pursue a career - even if they dislike their job and are not doing anything that a thousand others looking for a job could not easily do.

In fact, those feminine drives that lead to better socialization and education of children, and that lead to a birth rate at least high enough to replace those who die, are necessary to the health of society. Those traits create a society with a high level of trust and social inclusion, which in turn are necessary to keep a society robust and strong. We should celebrate and value these feminine traits. Modern feminism, being led now mostly by lesbians who falsely presume that their own experiences and desires are the experiences and desires of most women, focuses on discouraging women and girls from pursuing their natural interests and pushing them into becoming more like men. Modern feminism seems to focus on replacing males with ersatz males - getting rid of actual men to replace them with women who are trying to act like men and generally doing a poor job of it. It denounces men, but exalts masculinity - and only masculinity - in women.

That is not good for either men or women. That only serves the interests of one particularly vocal subset of lesbians - and it doesn't even serve that demographic in the long term, as it is destructive enough that if left unchecked future lesbians will find themselves in a failed culture that no longer has any place for them.

My argument is simply that our society will send cultural signals whether we like it or not, and since this is the case we should focus on sending cultural signals that make the most people happy. I would also like to send signals that gender roles are not set in stone and that we value people of all types for the benefits they bring to society. I am not sure how effective this will be, as it appears that a great many people have difficulty dealing with that level of complexity. If it is impossible to have both, then I would send the cultural signals that maximize the happiness and health of society as a whole, and hope that those who are different can find a way to get by - and knowing that those who do manage will be several cuts above the average - just as they have always been.

"That implies to me that you have no problem leaving the choice in the father's hands, and then equating their choice with his choices."

Not at all. Of course I want girls' choices to be respected.

"Tradition only works for those who are at the top of the power hierarchy, within a tradition that insists on having power hierarchies."

This is nonsense. There is certainly room for improvement in many traditions, but traditions generally formed because they met the needs of all the people involved. You overestimate the capacities of many of those at the bottom, and overestimate the desire of those at the top to be at the top. In actual fact, there are a great deal of people in the world that are just not very smart, who don't have much in the way of useful skills, and who need other people to watch out for them and help them out. If you give such people control of all the resources they need, they will exhaust those resources in short order and be no better off than before - but now those resources will be gone. Those who you see as being at the top of the "power structure" very often do not want to be there, but fill that position because they feel an obligation to look out for their neighbors who are not as capable of looking out for themselves. To an outsider they may appear to be "lording it over" their peers - but in fact they are not really peers (not equals) even though they are friends, and frequently what appears to be bullying behavior is just trying to stop a friend from doing something stupid that will hurt themself. Throw in the fact that those at the top will make mistakes sometimes, and there can be a semblance of "abuse" that can be used to generate jealousy and hatred. Throw in a third group that really is out for only themselves - con men and charlatans - and there really can be abusive situations - but that is why we need to exercise discernment to be able to tell these sorts of situations and people apart. There are entire sets of traditions devoted just to preventing the con men and charlatans from overrunning society, but sadly most of those traditions have been curtailed - by the con men and charlatans, mostly.

"If society collapses, then I say good, let this damn joke of a society collapse and be replaced by a better one."

There is a time to let a society collapse - but we should also consider what society will look like after that collapse. If we can find a way to reshape society in a way that benefits everyone that is best, if not a collapse might be managed to prevent worst case scenarios. The fact is, most revolutions fail and the new, revolutionary regime is usually worse than the one it replaced. (This is why many nations see a wave of revolutions instead of a single one.) The American Revolution was an exception largely because it was led by the elite and was devoted to maintaining traditional rights - while adding and expanding a few.

As girl lovers, we should pay special attention to what society will look like after the revolution, because the girls we love will be paying the price if we are wrong.

"How do gay relationships fit these gender norms, Baldur?"

They don't. A norm is just that, a norm. It is not a command, it is not a law, it is not a requirement. It is just the base standard, which everyone will deviate from to some degree. A society needs norms, just as it needs those who deviate from those norms. The important thing is not that gay relationships fit any norm, but that gay people - and everyone else - is accepted regardless of whether they are close to the norm.

I am probably about as far from the norm as any person could be, but I still appreciate those norms. They provide an anchor through which I can communicate with others who are entirely unlike myself. They create some measure of shared experience through which I can understand others and they can understand me.

"If the girls have no say, and I saw no indication that they do"

And I have seen no indication that the girls don't have any say.

Are they under pressure? Probably - but it wasn't typically their fathers who created that pressure. In the past you have recognized that child prostitutes may be under pressure to be child prostitutes, but justified their choice as the least bad response to those pressures - that being a child prostitute is better than starving to death. Well, these child brides may be acting under similar pressures. If so, how is their choice any less valid than the choices of those child prostitutes? For that matter, would many of those child prostitutes prefer a husband - one john who loved her instead of an endless stream of johns who won't be there for her when she needs someone?

Perhaps these girls would prefer to stay in school or find another husband - but if this husband is acceptable, and if this marriage means that she and her family will not die of starvation or exposure ... perhaps that is enough. The fact that some people face very difficult choices does not mean that we should take those choices away from them, that we should force a family to die to protect one young lady from a marriage that is not quite her ideal - an ideal which may never be possible, and certainly won't be possible if she is dead.

And then, of course, many of these girls want to get married. Should we denounce them and stop them, simply because some people face difficult choices?

"Where is the consent? That is what the pro-choice ideology is all about!"

Why do you assume that there is no consent? Just because these are Islamic, patriarchal cultures? Most men in these cultures will not force a girl or woman to marry without their consent, and while they may exert some pressure to marry will generally respect a daughter's wishes about who she marries.

Would I like a better world, where girls can have a greater say in the matter? Of course! But I am not going to take away their options at the time they actually have to make such decisions just because I want a world where they will have more options. Instead, let us both work to create a world where no one ever need be pressured into a decision they don't want.




Baldur