Plenty of people may have been stung by the ole' WASPs in our history, but I don't think it's an issue of making common cause at all. A lot of the convictions and principles in feminism do transfer over into those other issues, so I think it's a natural extension for the movement. Branching into them simply for common cause would be disingenuous.

I'm sure many women of those era's were happy, but not knowing anything different doesn't mean the quality of their life was high. They (like the majority of people back then) had to work within the only option of life offered to them. Most people in the old days were peasants bound to feudal land, heavily taxed, with a single pair of clothes, and no crops stored for a harsh winter. That wasn't a very easy existance for anyone really. The difference is that women's station were still even lower and more powerless than their male peers in all divisions of life.

I agree that the core quality of any relationship is the result of the two people within it and their love for each other (or lack of it), we're certainly not debating that. I have no doubt that there were men who treated their wives extremely well in all earlier era's, and they had a mutually had a happy life together. And similarly, there were, are, and will always be horrible people as well. We can just hope to make a framework that can make as most people live as happy and healthy a life as possible. If you can't divorce, you're endlessly at the mercy of a scumbag. If your society has divorce though, although it's not perfect, it does offer the option to change the circumstance for everyone involved. To me that's why the second is superior, even though we'll never have a system that's perfect.

You do have a point that it's the tallest tree in a forest that tends get cut down first, and in a violent society men do see other men as a threat and so most of their violence is on each other in terms of power struggle. There are benefits to that, like the influence Emma of Normandy from your example was able to hold behind the scenes. However, to be weak and nonthreatening is also to be simple prey, and there's nothing to protect you from be exploited and abused in other ways. And in terms of Emma, it was only a small small fraction of people in those eras who had access to political power to dictate or even influence it. Unquestionably women in nobility and royalty have had significant influence over our history as well, but they and their stories are a very privileged exception to the life of most people. To be able to influence your husband also does not make you his equal in that system. Your presence and ideas are his to welcome, tolerate, or shut out at his own discretion.

That's an excellent example and I agree completely. Being competitive has benefits but also flaws like you pointed out. That's why I think that if some women in the UK Parliament are doing that, then it's not simply in regard for an innate advantage. The degree that you consider competitiveness (and to what amount) as a benefit could result in a lot of different opinions. Why then would they feel the need to do something as drastic as take male hormones for political office? My speculation would be that those specific women may feel they need to exaggerate those qualities to be accepted in such a male dominated arena, and turn to such an extreme and unnecessary method.

Well, I would argue more the reverse of that situation, that a patriarchal religion influenced its society (and spread to most of the world to influence them in a similar way) to a similar patriarchal structure. I think a lot of people don't follow a religion innately because they agree with it's teaching. Certainly they agree with much of it, but it's often because they perceive it as the will of an omnipotent god and that disobedience leads to damnation and condemnation in your community. I think most people don't think sacrificing a sheep in a ritual is a great idea or a good use of that resource. There's a reason they call it God-fearing.

The second aspect to that is that a patriarchal religion is less flexible. Where changes of a society in time would naturally lead to changes of the dynamics within them, religion says that this is the way things are and always must be. That's more inherently damaging.

Seperating sex and gender isn't my personal distinction, it's two seperate terms in its relation to sociology. Sex is your inherent genetic make up (XX or XY). Gender are the roles and attitude a society places on and expects of men and women within it. I think what you're getting at is along the lines of "Isn't there an obvious connection between them?"

There is a significant impact, but not as drastic as its made to be. Like we've touched on earlier, men and women are influenced by different hormones that affects them and their development. At the earliest stages of development, even in those of us with an XY chromosome, female is the default and original marker in our gestation. At an early point though our Y chromosome causes our body to secrete different levels of testosterone among other things that triggers the development of testes and the beginning of other masculine traits. Of course we come away with a different effect from that.

I will concede that men are in general naturally more aggressive, competitive, etc. than women. Enough that there is a connotation all over the world with that. However, there are also many competitive and aggressive women. And less competitive men. It is a spectrum, like you acknowledged, and there's not a clear cut off on what is masculine or feminine, but there is a general connotation of what is.

Where my no comes into play is that there is a significant artificial exaggeration by society on them. One example is a boy playing with dolls, toy ponies, or a cooking set. Most parents get uncomfortable and would take them away or direct them to more typically boy toys. I know there are studies that males are more likely to drift towards masculine toys, but there's always variation, and the point here isn't the child choice, it's the parents reaction.

The father might fear that the dolls are emasculating him, and that he needs to reinforce masculine behavior. After all, he needs to grow up to be a man, and that's not the behavior of a man (at least as he sees it). In the child's perspective he's simply playing a game.

The mother may be concerned for the same reasons, or maybe even if it doesn't bother her, she's concerned about how his peers will perceive him and that he'll be teased. In the end the result is the same, the boy is told that dolls and ponies are for girls (as are the things associated with them), and trucks and for boys. It's the same with pink toys. Pink on a toy isn't changing that much about it, but there's a gendered perception of pink that makes such an incredible impact in our society. These type of aspects are present through the entirety of our lives.

I think you get the idea of what I'm trying to say. Men may be more innately leaning towards one behavior and women another, but we're not aliens from mars and venus. However, the gendered perception of our society teaches us what traits are to define us. On the boys don't cry subject, it's not because men don't cry, or are significantly less inclined to. It's because it's perceived as a weakness, and that to cry in public is to lower your own standing and respect. Does crying do that? Not innately, it does nothing innately in that context other than express your sadness. It's what we make of it and interpret it as in our society that marks how we define it.

It's a common and simple way to live our lives, but I think it's limiting and cuts the potential and talent of ourselves as individuals. One example that might stick out to people particularly on this forum are the onna bugeisha, or the women of the samurai nobility. They were trained in combat and weapons to protect their household, family, and honor. They weren't just the wives and daughter of samurai, they were part of the Bushi class as well. They did enter actual battle and at the side of men. This wasn't their primary role, they had family responsibilities that they focused on, but they were part of a warrior tradition, so they received the training and were expected to fight if needed. And they did.

Traditional society all over the world often says that women cannot and should not fight. That women are simply passive and soft. Women may not be on average as aggressive as men or physically as strong, but that does not mean they are the polar opposite. The onna bugeisha did fight, and they fought well. But it also wasn't the defining aspect of who they were. It was a part of the life that they lived among their other duties. To gender war as exclusively masculine is our own construction.

My point is, we create the perception of what a gender is meant to be in our society, and we limit ourselves into something that isn't just emotionally damaging, but limits our potential as well.

I agree that we don't have to try and label everything, and I do think that's a big part of the problem. However, as a male who's attracted to other men, I can tell you that to live your life hidden away and in silence is not the same in fulfillment or respect than people who can be themselves openly. It's not just a matter of leaving people alone in the privacy of their own homes, we should be so lucky if humans were like that. There's a trail of discrimination throughout the ages for pretty much anything that's not in the mainstream of the majority, and laws against homosexuals was no different. It's not accommodation by any means.

I couldn't help but picture a level 70 Gelatinous Cube. One the size of a pyramid with a castle floating around inside and distressed little soldiers. The horror.

Reply