By the way, please note that I respond to one point at a time, from the beginning of a post. I do not typically read the entire thing through first, so I'll address matters as I get to them.

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.

And I have to counter-disagree with that based on my own observations. If genetic programming determined gender roles and other aspects of our behavior, then it would be impossible to resist them. When we see a huge amount of resistance and genders going their own way, and the only reason you think this destruction of "traditional" society is a bad thing is because you happen to be one of the ones who like society more or less as it is except for the situation plaguing MAPs (and, maybe to some degree, how it treats younger people). What I instead see are laws and (yes!) traditions that impose these roles based on specific reasons related to economics and a revolving system of power hierarchies, and then we mistake these for being "natural." It's similar to the nonsense and claims made about age-based roles, but these things change from society to society, depending upon a combination of laws and levels of productive development. I have known plenty of women who go against those gender-based roles and are not only quite happy, but thriving. I know many men, including myself, who go against gender-based and age-based expectations because they do not work for us as individuals.

Basing laws and policies on things because they have a strong emotional appeal to us, and then claiming it's "natural," is a classic rationalization of oppression. "Pedophilia isn't normal!" "Gay relationships aren't normal!" "Women working isn't normal!" Etc., et al.

Of course there are individuals who are exceptions.

Far too many to be mere anomalies. Enforced roles have always been resisted as soon as any given society has advanced enough to make it feasible.

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.)

Men traditionally became the hunters and warriors in more aboriginal societies because production was very difficult, survival was much more precarious, the human tribes were far more subject to the mercy of nature than we are today, and women were spared being the risk-takers due to being the life-bringers. The perils of childbirth was the sole risk they had to undertake. Men were considered more expendable, plain and simple. However, this also put men in the position to eventually collect the greatest amount of property, and to earn the right to be the explorers to other lands, where they achieved glory, conquest, and the acquisition of various riches, whereas women were stuck at home raising the kids and doing none of the above.

However, modern production levels have removed that type of precarious existence with nature, thus allowing for women and men alike to step out of roles that were based on expediency rather than strict genetic programming. I have seen, for instance, women hunters who are incredible with the use of a gun or bow and arrow, and as someone who has practiced martial arts, I can firmly attest that women are fully capable of being warriors, with their typically smaller sizes giving them advantages in certain ways when a male or female of comparable training are paired off in a ring. And let's not forget the two young girls--one 15, the other 14 (Laura Dekker!)--who broke both traditional age and gender roles by proving they were as capable of sailing around the world solo as any adult or man.

- but on a large scale I believe that gender roles are generally aligned with biology, and that we should respect that.

That sounds like it loosely translates into, "We should expect it, and thus the genders should expect us to create social policies and expectations in accord with this school of thought." No, what I think we should respect is individual choice and ability, and treat everyone on a case-by-case basis. That is the only way to foster a truly democratic society.

I do hate the misandry of modern feminism, but I also hate the anti-femininity (or misogyny) of modern feminism.

We are in accord with this, old friend (as you know), but I think in certain ways we have reacted differently to the phenomenon. Anti-femininity was never adopted by "first wave" feminists, nor is it embraced by women who are egalitarians. I do not support attacking women who may choose to live in accordance with what we consider traditional roles if it truly works for them as individuals, and if making a choice of their own volition (not because they feel "trapped" in it due to circumstance).

It seems some have opposed the SJW misandrist phenomenon by digging their heels down in support for the "traditional" roles and system that ultimately resulted in this extremist reactionary movement. Others, however, have agreed that the system did have a lot of problems that required a change, but NOT the way the SJWs are promoting it--an extreme, regressive form of tyranny that simply seeks to invert the oppression rather than an evolutionary move to a new system that is intended to promote freedom for everyone. I have obviously taken the latter route. I have taken it because I can see how this system doesn't work for me any more than it does for others who have turned against it; I have simply turned against the system itself, however, and NOT specific groups of people within it (e.g., women, men, gays, etc.).

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.

Which is why they need freedom of access to information, freedom of expression, and freedom to vote on how social policies that affect them are formed.

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.

What about the equally strong cultural signals and attitudes that insist that men who choose to be homemakers are failures and not living up to their "responsibilities"?

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.

And what about the men who are good in these roles, yet still expected to be a "breadwinner" because he is a man? Why not allow people in general who are good caregivers to take on this role as a profession, rather than forcing people of either gender to pick and choose between that or a career that they may actually want? This is not a zero sum game of any sort.

The birth rate of society remaining stable isn't a good thing in and of itself if large swaths of these new individuals will grow up unhappy because they will have roles and expectations placed upon them that they, as individuals, are not able to fit. Let me use me as an example as to why I oppose this type of expectation-management based on both age and gender.

In our society, men are expected to be handy and good at fixing things. I'm not. He is supposed to be the prime provider for a family. I'm good at maybe "providing" for myself, but not anyone else; if I had a nuclear family unit going on, I would need a partner who could work with me to help provide for the kids until they achieved enough cognition to seek levels of independence for themselves. Men are expected to like sports and cars, and spend their off-time with the "guys" watching the ball games, playing fantasy football, showing off the latest edition of a model car they collected, the cool body work they recently did on their Chevrolet, etc. Other than martial arts, I do not care for sports, I do not care for cars; instead, I like comic books and intellectual creative endeavors, and guess what, Baldur? As a connoisseur of tea, I would love to be included in a tea party, where I just relax, chill with some friends, and sip tea. In contrast, men are supposed to want to guzzle beer and hard liquor instead. Guess what? You guessed right... I don't. And I know many other men who are similar, and have to deal with constant criticisms for it. I guess our genetic matrices are messed up in some fashion? If so, I have no complaints. Should I be trying to be more "masculine" in accordance with out society's traditions? Strive to be a better "provider" for a family unit? Become better at fixing things or waxing up cars? I say no, because not only wouldn't it make me happy, these are not things I am good at, and thus I would not be able to contribute anything useful to either my family or to society at large in these ways.

I want to live in a society where it's expected that I do things and contribute in ways that I'm good at, suitable for me as an individual, and which make me happy.

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.

I think the major problem with the SJW mindset you mention is the call for a separation of the genders, of women rejecting men out of some type of bigoted "principle," with the idea that "women do not need men." Is this true? Individually, maybe not, and that depends on a wide range of individual factors. Obviously, the majority of women are not lesbian, and lesbianism cannot be "chosen" as a political principle or ideal to achieve; it's a natural state of being that is pre-decided for everyone by nature. But collectively, we all need each other. Women who are good at doing things that are traditionally considered to be "masculine" should be allowed and encouraged to do it. Those who are not, should not, plain and simple. I think the main folly of the SJW movement, or what "feminism" has corrupted into in its "third wave" incarnation, is trying to impose the opposite type of standardization that society pushes, rather than just letting everyone be themselves, i.e., true to their own unique skill sets and sensibilities as individuals.

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.

We can send signals that can make most everyone happy if that signal is: There are no expectations imposed upon you beyond contributing something to the greater good in accordance with your individual skill set. Your lifestyle, however, is your own choice, and cannot be predetermined by society according to arbitrary factors (e.g., your age, your gender).

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.

I think the main problem is the conflicting signals we send. For instance, we tell women that it's just as healthy for them to want a fulfilling sex life, and to have a sex drive, as it is men; but then, "tradition" kicks in and we simultaneously "slut-shame" women who express themselves sexually in the same manner that men have always been allowed to. I think truly standing behind the signals we send, rather than only doing so in haphazard, reluctant, or selective fashion, is in order.