Young kids don't know when their minds are being poisoned. They can't "allow" it. They absorb what's provided and permitted by the adults in their lives. Whatever that happens to be, that's their "normal". And really, what you described there is such a typical modern selfishness story where the already well established needs of children …
Young kids don't know when their minds are being poisoned. They can't "allow" it. They absorb what's provided and permitted by the adults in their lives. Whatever that happens to be, that's their "normal". And really, what you described there is such a typical modern selfishness story where the already well established needs of children are dismissed by "progressive" adults pursuing their own wants and "rights". A lesbian couple in their late 50s decide that they want a child. Human society says "We don't want to look bigoted, or ageist, or whatever, so no problem!" and hands over a toddler for them to adopt and raise. A few years later they can't manage to honor their commitments to each other or to the child they adopted. Both are expendable in the pursuit of their own individual happiness. So she (already burdened with the baggage of being adopted) becomes another emotionally damaged child of a broken home, thoughtlessly used as a pawn and a weapon, except this time there's a geriatric rainbow flag over the doorway. It is a bad situation. It's no surprise that she's looking unkempt and lost. She is. But absolutely none of it was that 13 year old child's fault.
Let's not vilify them b/c they are a homosexual couple getting a divorce instead of the legion of heterosexuals who do the same thing everyday. The touchstone in divorce proceedings should be the best interest of the child whether it is a same-sex or opposite-sex couple.
We're in utterly new territory here. It is still yet to be determined if same sex parenting is in the best interests of children. Meanwhile, heterosexuality is our default. It's how we naturally reproduce. The standard family unit of father/mother/children has served us well for thousands of years. And up until the 1970s or so, "broken homes" from divorce were rare. We already know that divorce is bad for kid's emotional development unless there are extenuating circumstances like abuse or whatever. The results are in on that. All because we can push past natural limits these days and redefine "family" to suit modern adult needs doesn't mean that we should. Or that there will be "equal outcomes" for offspring when we do. Homosexual pairings in other species do occur, but usually in captivity, and never for very long.
Ned, I'm gay. Believe it or not, I agree with you in many respects. Mother/father/child is the most normal configuration for a family, and may be the healthiest. However, your picture of the past is too rosy. In the 1970s and before there were plenty of broken homes -- families where a parent had died, families where the father left (that happens a lot), etc. Hell, my own parents separated in the 1960s. If a child ends up with two fathers or two mothers, that is better than if the child becomes an orphan. So I think you need to stop putting the ideal situation -- mother/father/child -- on a pedestal as if it were the only workable arrangement.
I agree with the replies to Nedweenie. Ned is talking like a real weenie. A weenie with rose-colored glasses on about the traditional nuclear family. He seems to mean well, but only knows how to think along a narrow line. Children are actually best off (imo) when they have reliable extended close-knit family, who live nearby, and interact in a very friendly way with their neighbors (as long as their neighbors are good people), and vice versa, if that makes sense. Sounds pie in the sky unfortunately. It's just a version of "It takes a village to raise a child." That old saying didn't come out of nowhere. It's the truth.
No matter when you go on the Internoodle, there's always someone who can't resist name calling and strawmanning. And jumping to conclusions. I am female, prefer polarized lenses, and didn't say at all that extended close knit families were a bad thing. I really don't know where you got that one.
If you don't want people to think you're male, then don't choose a pseudonym like Ned Weenie, then complain of being "misgendered" and name-called, when a name like that seems to be asking to be made light of. Never said you did say that extended close knit families were a bad thing, but iirc you seemed to show a preference for certain kinds of families over others, emphasis on father, mother and child/children, as if that were really enough or ideal in any way, when it's just the bare bones, and children often know it. No wonder children often feel so insecure in the world, when all they have is two adults to count on and sometimes not even that. But I'm not the only one who must have read you wrong. Re-read your posts, then wonder again why other commenters also got you wrong.
Ah. So it's my fault that you assumed that I literally had a weenie? And where did I "complain about being misgendered"? I merely clarified my sex so that there wasn't any further confusion. And really, the lower case n and the "ie" are somewhat obvious tells to my mind, but no matter. I don't expect others to have psychic abilities or see things the same way that I do.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but I’m just not convinced that an “anything goes” parental configuration is in the best interest of children. I am also very uncomfortable with the idea of making children into social engineering guinea pigs to satisfy the arguably selfish desires of adults.
Ned -- and yes, Mildred is right, you shouldn't call yourself that if you are a woman -- you keep making it clear that you prefer the traditional nuclear family, but you don't understand that it is MEANINGLESS TO SAY THAT because families are what they are. Reality is what it is; and if only a percentage of families are nuclear, then there's nothing more to say about it. Now, if you are going to say that gay people shouldn't adopt, then all I can do is remind you that there are orphans out there that need a home, and a non-standard home is better than nothing.
Truly, you sound like a man to me. It is mostly men who yammer on about the nuclear family. Women are more nuanced on this subject.
I hope you see the irony in your telling me that I must have a conventional, gender conforming user name on the Internoodle (an unnatural environment if there ever was one!) and then lecture me on our current "reality" (another unnatural environment that's literally making us sick & nuts) and the need to adopt unconventional family arrangements because our self made (post)modern "reality" demands it. (!) I'll take as a compliment that I "sound like a man". We need more Healthy Masculinity these days, not more Toxic Femininity.
Ned, who are you actually even arguing with? Because at this point I'm convinced you're a fraud of some kind or other. Nothing you could say would convince me otherwise. Who cares what a few strangers on substack think of you? You seem to be arguing just to annoy people, so Perry James is probably right. Who else but a man would be likely to use a phrase like Toxic Femininity, about mostly a bunch of feminists or feminist-leaning people? How "feminine" are any of us? Those are your values, not those of Eliza's subscribers. Either way, you are stubbornly stuck with your own opinion, no matter what reality throws at it. Be happy with yourself then, and stop wasting other people's time.
Lesbians have been having children for decades and they turn out as well as other children. And let's be clear about why there were not as many divorces in the past and that is b/c women had fewer options for financial independence--many were trapped in unhappy marriages. And there were no domestic abuse shelters in the past as well to support women and children. And while I think the nuclear family can be a good situation w/i which to rear children in the course of human history that configuration is relatively new. I would imagine even transwidows are less likely to stay in marriages nowadays than they used to be--see this interesting article that prob. would not get published today. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BkIQTu7BV2nifZ3sbSFpS7spWb9od3YU/view
Divorce is far better for children than living with an abusive male who will oppress the family and instill a sense of inferiority in female children. Lesbian couples are safer for children than either het couples or gay male couples, simply because it tends to be males who are more likely to sexually abuse children. Statistics bear this out.
I think it better if parents can keep a marriage together but not if it is too toxic--'the marriage survived but the people did not' is not role-modeling a healthy marriage for the children.
Ah, there's nothing like a bit of shameless misandry! Oh those oppressive and abusive males who ruin everything! Yeah, whatever. But I will point out that males who are not biologically related to the children in the household are the biggest sexual abuse threat to them. That's a relevant detail in our revolving spouses world. As to lesbian couples, they may be "safer" for children from a sexual abuse perspective, but in 2010 and 2013 the US CDC determined that after bisexual women, their category is next for highest incidence of intimate partner domestic violence. Above that of heterosexual women. Interestingly enough, the latest CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey conducted in 2017 has summaries for most of the data collected, but the Victimization by Sexual Orientation summary is still "coming soon!" in 2023. Here's the 2010 version: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf
I agree with you, Ned, although T. Lister makes a good point. There are so many orphans who need homes that we can't say "no" to people who want to adopt as long as they seem to be normal. The real problem with society is that humans are reproducing too fast. We need birth control and abortion to keep our population down.
Just to clarify: I don't actually know when this lesbian couple adopted the girl. I can find out. All I know is that they have had the girl for a number of years. But you are right -- the girl is now a pawn between them.
Since family having is so economically difficult and socially "unliberated" now of course there's an effect on the adoption market. But lowering standards is not a good remedy for difficult predicaments. Not when we're talking about raising the next generation in healthy environments. They will be adults someday. As to needing more birth control and abortion, I believe that we need more reverence towards sex and its primary (and still unavoidable) function: reproduction. And marriage and family making. But that's me. And thanks but there's no need to find out any more details on your neighbor's situation on my account.
"Lowering standards", "healthy environments". As I said above, Ned, the ideal situation isn't always the reality.
"Reverence towards sex" -- that certainty SOUNDS good! But how do you make it happen? How do you put reverence in the hearts of other people who are simply horny? Guess what -- you don't!
You sound like a conservative to me, Ned, a conservative with ideas about how things "should" be, -- but I'm not hearing any solutions as to how we can get to a better place. To say we need more reverence towards sex suggests that we need better social standards that we teach to our children. But if today's adults don't have the wisdom to do that, how do we change that? The world is over-populated, and that is resulting in social chaos that is out of our control.
I agree that the ideal isn't always attainable. But we should try to strive towards it whenever and however possible. Especially when we see that our faith in tech and progress is producing even more complicated predicaments, and not less.
Reverence is acknowledging meaning and value. Meaning and value are created and defined by limits. Sure, we're horny. But we used to have socially imposed limits on sex because Nature showed us that licentious sexual behavior to appease that horniness had negative outcomes for the individual, their offspring, and the community at large. STDs. Inbreeding depression. Bastards. Nature also made it difficult for us to perpetuate the species, so every human life was precious and certain conventions that yielded the best results were adopted. Being the clever apes that we are, we have managed to assert our wills over Nature. But if we go so far as to destroy Her, we will destroy ourselves. We do not exist outside Her ecosystems. And she always bats last.
Right now the Devouring Mother alphas in our society are entertaining an egregore that insists that everything is oppressive and that everything will be grand and "equitable" if everyone gets the pony that they want. If we destroy "discrimination". Meanwhile, reality is very discriminatory. It's inequitable and stubborn. As is evolutionary biology. And the lessons of Pottenger's cats. Thankfully collective human consciousness can and does change. Even if this current phase continues beyond my lifetime, I am confident it won't last. We simply don't have the juice for it.
I'm not one for idpol labels. I don't think that idpol can be fought by using it. But if I were to describe myself I'd say that I'm a Spiritual Ecologist+Reactionary Feminist: a dirt worshiping pagan who doesn't think that the two human sexes are interchangeable Meat Legos. So I'm not exactly a capital C Conservative. But there is some overlap. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that. Thanks for playing. I appreciate your thoughts.
Your prescriptions are for the whole human race, but only some people are listening.
Please, please, please don't personify nature or anything else as a woman. It is sexist and sounds old-fashioned and generally obnoxious. What you are demonstrating is that femaleness was up for grabs by men long before the trans idiots came along.
Storms are not female, ships are not female, nature is not female. Only females are female.
Well, as I said, the limits will return. And some people are already applying them of their own will in defiance of tech and progress and are finding value and meaning in their lives in the process.
Nature is our Great Mother. She gave everything on our planet life and wrote the playbook to keep it going. I am not going to deconstruct and desex Her and disavow Her inherent feminine characteristics to satisfy hare brained postmodernists. (Now that's sexist when you think about it!) The word "she" applied to storms and ships used to be an compliment, an honorific, BTW. It was a reflection of the value and power of femininity on its own terms, not solely "oppressive male ownership" of it or some kind of misogynistic slur directed towards it.
I am 72. You won't get much hare-brained post-modernism from me.
Above you say you are a women. I agree that nature and God too have more in common with the reproductive function of women than men, but I still think that personifying storms and ships as women is sexist. Since men have been in control of our society since the beginning, they are undoubtedly the ones who decided that certain things would be seen as female.
We've been fed hare brained postmodernism for many decades. It's in our heads whether we think it's there or not. I admit, I blindly embraced and utilized it in my own perceptions of the world for a long time. Too long. But I see the damage it's doing now, to myself and to human society at large, so I am willfully trying to change my consciousness.
There are absolute truths. Like men and women are different. They have their own psychologies and cultures based on their sexed bodies and evolutionary paths. Desexing them, or worse, giving the impression that in order for women to be liberated they must emulate men, is causing many problems. And who put forth that idea? Who painted femininity as something undesirable? Akin to being a slave? It sure wasn't men. It was women. Women who thought the grass was greener on the other side of the fence. Women who couldn't handle their animal natures, their natural limits. (Sound familiar?) And this notion that all current social and political ills are entirely the fault of men is absurd and smacks of soft bigotry to me.
So women have had no say on anything ever? Zero agency? Zero effect on history and culture? Or the designs of human conventions and institutions? They've been unwilling participants in all this terrible, hateful patriarchy for all time? They never, ever benefited? They never said "Return from war with your shield or on it"? Or "I want to pay less for a pair of socks at Walmart."? Or "Trans women are women"? No one is innocent in this modern mess we've made. Least of all women.
But surely "as a woman" that must be my internalized misogyny speaking there. I can't possibly entertain (much less disclose) such blasphemous notions. Just as I can't possibly laugh at and be comfortable with the winking inference that women are "stormy". (We are, BTW.) Or see that vessels that carry precious cargo (and men!) over perilous seas have any metaphoric relation to female humans. (Hmmm!). We've really lost our sense of humor and appreciation for human creativity with this thin skinned "everything is patriarchal oppression designed to insult and control women and must be found offensive and eradicated!" stuff. I see things differently. So count me out. And thanks for your patience and consideration. And again for playing~
Young kids don't know when their minds are being poisoned. They can't "allow" it. They absorb what's provided and permitted by the adults in their lives. Whatever that happens to be, that's their "normal". And really, what you described there is such a typical modern selfishness story where the already well established needs of children are dismissed by "progressive" adults pursuing their own wants and "rights". A lesbian couple in their late 50s decide that they want a child. Human society says "We don't want to look bigoted, or ageist, or whatever, so no problem!" and hands over a toddler for them to adopt and raise. A few years later they can't manage to honor their commitments to each other or to the child they adopted. Both are expendable in the pursuit of their own individual happiness. So she (already burdened with the baggage of being adopted) becomes another emotionally damaged child of a broken home, thoughtlessly used as a pawn and a weapon, except this time there's a geriatric rainbow flag over the doorway. It is a bad situation. It's no surprise that she's looking unkempt and lost. She is. But absolutely none of it was that 13 year old child's fault.
Let's not vilify them b/c they are a homosexual couple getting a divorce instead of the legion of heterosexuals who do the same thing everyday. The touchstone in divorce proceedings should be the best interest of the child whether it is a same-sex or opposite-sex couple.
We're in utterly new territory here. It is still yet to be determined if same sex parenting is in the best interests of children. Meanwhile, heterosexuality is our default. It's how we naturally reproduce. The standard family unit of father/mother/children has served us well for thousands of years. And up until the 1970s or so, "broken homes" from divorce were rare. We already know that divorce is bad for kid's emotional development unless there are extenuating circumstances like abuse or whatever. The results are in on that. All because we can push past natural limits these days and redefine "family" to suit modern adult needs doesn't mean that we should. Or that there will be "equal outcomes" for offspring when we do. Homosexual pairings in other species do occur, but usually in captivity, and never for very long.
Ned, I'm gay. Believe it or not, I agree with you in many respects. Mother/father/child is the most normal configuration for a family, and may be the healthiest. However, your picture of the past is too rosy. In the 1970s and before there were plenty of broken homes -- families where a parent had died, families where the father left (that happens a lot), etc. Hell, my own parents separated in the 1960s. If a child ends up with two fathers or two mothers, that is better than if the child becomes an orphan. So I think you need to stop putting the ideal situation -- mother/father/child -- on a pedestal as if it were the only workable arrangement.
I agree with the replies to Nedweenie. Ned is talking like a real weenie. A weenie with rose-colored glasses on about the traditional nuclear family. He seems to mean well, but only knows how to think along a narrow line. Children are actually best off (imo) when they have reliable extended close-knit family, who live nearby, and interact in a very friendly way with their neighbors (as long as their neighbors are good people), and vice versa, if that makes sense. Sounds pie in the sky unfortunately. It's just a version of "It takes a village to raise a child." That old saying didn't come out of nowhere. It's the truth.
No matter when you go on the Internoodle, there's always someone who can't resist name calling and strawmanning. And jumping to conclusions. I am female, prefer polarized lenses, and didn't say at all that extended close knit families were a bad thing. I really don't know where you got that one.
If you don't want people to think you're male, then don't choose a pseudonym like Ned Weenie, then complain of being "misgendered" and name-called, when a name like that seems to be asking to be made light of. Never said you did say that extended close knit families were a bad thing, but iirc you seemed to show a preference for certain kinds of families over others, emphasis on father, mother and child/children, as if that were really enough or ideal in any way, when it's just the bare bones, and children often know it. No wonder children often feel so insecure in the world, when all they have is two adults to count on and sometimes not even that. But I'm not the only one who must have read you wrong. Re-read your posts, then wonder again why other commenters also got you wrong.
Ah. So it's my fault that you assumed that I literally had a weenie? And where did I "complain about being misgendered"? I merely clarified my sex so that there wasn't any further confusion. And really, the lower case n and the "ie" are somewhat obvious tells to my mind, but no matter. I don't expect others to have psychic abilities or see things the same way that I do.
Forgive me for being skeptical, but I’m just not convinced that an “anything goes” parental configuration is in the best interest of children. I am also very uncomfortable with the idea of making children into social engineering guinea pigs to satisfy the arguably selfish desires of adults.
Ned -- and yes, Mildred is right, you shouldn't call yourself that if you are a woman -- you keep making it clear that you prefer the traditional nuclear family, but you don't understand that it is MEANINGLESS TO SAY THAT because families are what they are. Reality is what it is; and if only a percentage of families are nuclear, then there's nothing more to say about it. Now, if you are going to say that gay people shouldn't adopt, then all I can do is remind you that there are orphans out there that need a home, and a non-standard home is better than nothing.
Truly, you sound like a man to me. It is mostly men who yammer on about the nuclear family. Women are more nuanced on this subject.
I hope you see the irony in your telling me that I must have a conventional, gender conforming user name on the Internoodle (an unnatural environment if there ever was one!) and then lecture me on our current "reality" (another unnatural environment that's literally making us sick & nuts) and the need to adopt unconventional family arrangements because our self made (post)modern "reality" demands it. (!) I'll take as a compliment that I "sound like a man". We need more Healthy Masculinity these days, not more Toxic Femininity.
Ned, who are you actually even arguing with? Because at this point I'm convinced you're a fraud of some kind or other. Nothing you could say would convince me otherwise. Who cares what a few strangers on substack think of you? You seem to be arguing just to annoy people, so Perry James is probably right. Who else but a man would be likely to use a phrase like Toxic Femininity, about mostly a bunch of feminists or feminist-leaning people? How "feminine" are any of us? Those are your values, not those of Eliza's subscribers. Either way, you are stubbornly stuck with your own opinion, no matter what reality throws at it. Be happy with yourself then, and stop wasting other people's time.
Lesbians have been having children for decades and they turn out as well as other children. And let's be clear about why there were not as many divorces in the past and that is b/c women had fewer options for financial independence--many were trapped in unhappy marriages. And there were no domestic abuse shelters in the past as well to support women and children. And while I think the nuclear family can be a good situation w/i which to rear children in the course of human history that configuration is relatively new. I would imagine even transwidows are less likely to stay in marriages nowadays than they used to be--see this interesting article that prob. would not get published today. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BkIQTu7BV2nifZ3sbSFpS7spWb9od3YU/view
Divorce is far better for children than living with an abusive male who will oppress the family and instill a sense of inferiority in female children. Lesbian couples are safer for children than either het couples or gay male couples, simply because it tends to be males who are more likely to sexually abuse children. Statistics bear this out.
I think it better if parents can keep a marriage together but not if it is too toxic--'the marriage survived but the people did not' is not role-modeling a healthy marriage for the children.
Ah, there's nothing like a bit of shameless misandry! Oh those oppressive and abusive males who ruin everything! Yeah, whatever. But I will point out that males who are not biologically related to the children in the household are the biggest sexual abuse threat to them. That's a relevant detail in our revolving spouses world. As to lesbian couples, they may be "safer" for children from a sexual abuse perspective, but in 2010 and 2013 the US CDC determined that after bisexual women, their category is next for highest incidence of intimate partner domestic violence. Above that of heterosexual women. Interestingly enough, the latest CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey conducted in 2017 has summaries for most of the data collected, but the Victimization by Sexual Orientation summary is still "coming soon!" in 2023. Here's the 2010 version: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf
There is no such thing as misandry, Mr. Weenie. Men do perform the majority of sexual assaults and violence toward women and children.
I agree with you, Ned, although T. Lister makes a good point. There are so many orphans who need homes that we can't say "no" to people who want to adopt as long as they seem to be normal. The real problem with society is that humans are reproducing too fast. We need birth control and abortion to keep our population down.
Just to clarify: I don't actually know when this lesbian couple adopted the girl. I can find out. All I know is that they have had the girl for a number of years. But you are right -- the girl is now a pawn between them.
Since family having is so economically difficult and socially "unliberated" now of course there's an effect on the adoption market. But lowering standards is not a good remedy for difficult predicaments. Not when we're talking about raising the next generation in healthy environments. They will be adults someday. As to needing more birth control and abortion, I believe that we need more reverence towards sex and its primary (and still unavoidable) function: reproduction. And marriage and family making. But that's me. And thanks but there's no need to find out any more details on your neighbor's situation on my account.
"Lowering standards", "healthy environments". As I said above, Ned, the ideal situation isn't always the reality.
"Reverence towards sex" -- that certainty SOUNDS good! But how do you make it happen? How do you put reverence in the hearts of other people who are simply horny? Guess what -- you don't!
You sound like a conservative to me, Ned, a conservative with ideas about how things "should" be, -- but I'm not hearing any solutions as to how we can get to a better place. To say we need more reverence towards sex suggests that we need better social standards that we teach to our children. But if today's adults don't have the wisdom to do that, how do we change that? The world is over-populated, and that is resulting in social chaos that is out of our control.
I agree that the ideal isn't always attainable. But we should try to strive towards it whenever and however possible. Especially when we see that our faith in tech and progress is producing even more complicated predicaments, and not less.
Reverence is acknowledging meaning and value. Meaning and value are created and defined by limits. Sure, we're horny. But we used to have socially imposed limits on sex because Nature showed us that licentious sexual behavior to appease that horniness had negative outcomes for the individual, their offspring, and the community at large. STDs. Inbreeding depression. Bastards. Nature also made it difficult for us to perpetuate the species, so every human life was precious and certain conventions that yielded the best results were adopted. Being the clever apes that we are, we have managed to assert our wills over Nature. But if we go so far as to destroy Her, we will destroy ourselves. We do not exist outside Her ecosystems. And she always bats last.
Right now the Devouring Mother alphas in our society are entertaining an egregore that insists that everything is oppressive and that everything will be grand and "equitable" if everyone gets the pony that they want. If we destroy "discrimination". Meanwhile, reality is very discriminatory. It's inequitable and stubborn. As is evolutionary biology. And the lessons of Pottenger's cats. Thankfully collective human consciousness can and does change. Even if this current phase continues beyond my lifetime, I am confident it won't last. We simply don't have the juice for it.
I'm not one for idpol labels. I don't think that idpol can be fought by using it. But if I were to describe myself I'd say that I'm a Spiritual Ecologist+Reactionary Feminist: a dirt worshiping pagan who doesn't think that the two human sexes are interchangeable Meat Legos. So I'm not exactly a capital C Conservative. But there is some overlap. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that. Thanks for playing. I appreciate your thoughts.
Your prescriptions are for the whole human race, but only some people are listening.
Please, please, please don't personify nature or anything else as a woman. It is sexist and sounds old-fashioned and generally obnoxious. What you are demonstrating is that femaleness was up for grabs by men long before the trans idiots came along.
Storms are not female, ships are not female, nature is not female. Only females are female.
Well, as I said, the limits will return. And some people are already applying them of their own will in defiance of tech and progress and are finding value and meaning in their lives in the process.
Nature is our Great Mother. She gave everything on our planet life and wrote the playbook to keep it going. I am not going to deconstruct and desex Her and disavow Her inherent feminine characteristics to satisfy hare brained postmodernists. (Now that's sexist when you think about it!) The word "she" applied to storms and ships used to be an compliment, an honorific, BTW. It was a reflection of the value and power of femininity on its own terms, not solely "oppressive male ownership" of it or some kind of misogynistic slur directed towards it.
I am 72. You won't get much hare-brained post-modernism from me.
Above you say you are a women. I agree that nature and God too have more in common with the reproductive function of women than men, but I still think that personifying storms and ships as women is sexist. Since men have been in control of our society since the beginning, they are undoubtedly the ones who decided that certain things would be seen as female.
We've been fed hare brained postmodernism for many decades. It's in our heads whether we think it's there or not. I admit, I blindly embraced and utilized it in my own perceptions of the world for a long time. Too long. But I see the damage it's doing now, to myself and to human society at large, so I am willfully trying to change my consciousness.
There are absolute truths. Like men and women are different. They have their own psychologies and cultures based on their sexed bodies and evolutionary paths. Desexing them, or worse, giving the impression that in order for women to be liberated they must emulate men, is causing many problems. And who put forth that idea? Who painted femininity as something undesirable? Akin to being a slave? It sure wasn't men. It was women. Women who thought the grass was greener on the other side of the fence. Women who couldn't handle their animal natures, their natural limits. (Sound familiar?) And this notion that all current social and political ills are entirely the fault of men is absurd and smacks of soft bigotry to me.
So women have had no say on anything ever? Zero agency? Zero effect on history and culture? Or the designs of human conventions and institutions? They've been unwilling participants in all this terrible, hateful patriarchy for all time? They never, ever benefited? They never said "Return from war with your shield or on it"? Or "I want to pay less for a pair of socks at Walmart."? Or "Trans women are women"? No one is innocent in this modern mess we've made. Least of all women.
But surely "as a woman" that must be my internalized misogyny speaking there. I can't possibly entertain (much less disclose) such blasphemous notions. Just as I can't possibly laugh at and be comfortable with the winking inference that women are "stormy". (We are, BTW.) Or see that vessels that carry precious cargo (and men!) over perilous seas have any metaphoric relation to female humans. (Hmmm!). We've really lost our sense of humor and appreciation for human creativity with this thin skinned "everything is patriarchal oppression designed to insult and control women and must be found offensive and eradicated!" stuff. I see things differently. So count me out. And thanks for your patience and consideration. And again for playing~
Sorry, Ned, I didn't read your whole comment, just the beginning. You have worn me out.
Yeah. I do that. Often! Thanks for playing and have a nice day~