Were Women Ever Oppressed in the US?

[Cortes]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Eph, would you have any problem with a value based statement such as, “Women and men have different roles in society and society is best served by overall adherence to those roles?”

[/quote]
But no matter what role someone decides to have in society, it should be one of choice instead of adherence.

[/quote]

Can’t both co-exist? Are they mutually exclusive?
[/quote]

Ofcourse they can co-exist. If it’s a woman’s choice to adhere to society’s general gender roles, then that’s fine.

But I object to society imposing gender roles, beit male or female roles.
[/quote]

This is a touchy subject and without agreeing upon and using the same nomenclature, it can be muddy.

I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the word “roles” and “society”. That implies something created by man. Do you feel man and woman have different natures, in general? And, that perhaps we are best served by adhering or surrendering to our true nature? We touched upon this a bit in the SAMA femininity/masculinity thread in case you’re interested, before that degraded into the usual biased opinions about roles and people bringing personal baggage to the table.

If a man and a woman has a different nature, shouldn’t we follow roles that are suitable to that nature? Of course, the foregoing is voluntary. And in fairness to society, I don’t think man woke up one day and said, “woman, from henceforth you shall stay at home, cook, clean and take care of the children and home”. I believe our nature steered us right into those “natural” roles which, for the feminine (I believe), is “nurturing”. [/quote]

Yeesh, I just saw this after typing War and Peace above.

I could have just written, “I agree 100%,” and been done with it.

[ephrem]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Ofcourse they can co-exist. If it’s a woman’s choice to adhere to society’s general gender roles, then that’s fine.

But I object to society imposing gender roles, beit male or female roles.
[/quote]

This is a touchy subject and without agreeing upon and using the same nomenclature, it can be muddy.

I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the word “roles” and “society”. That implies something created by man. Do you feel man and woman have different natures, in general? And, that perhaps we are best served by adhering or surrendering to our true nature? We touched upon this a bit in the SAMA femininity/masculinity thread in case you’re interested, before that degraded into the usual biased opinions about roles and people bringing personal baggage to the table.

If a man and a woman has a different nature, shouldn’t we follow roles that are suitable to that nature? Of course, the foregoing is voluntary. And in fairness to society, I don’t think man woke up one day and said, “woman, from henceforth you shall stay at home, cook, clean and take care of the children and home”. I believe our nature steered us right into those “natural” roles which, for the feminine (I believe), is “nurturing”. [/quote]

Yes, men and women have different roles, and I agree that there shouldn’t be such a stigma attached to following traditional roles for men and women like we have nowadays.

But that doesn’t mean that “society” should have a say in what a man or a woman can or cannot do with regards to those roles.

If a woman wants children and be a “stay at home mom” then she should be free to do so.

If a man wants to stay at home and take care of the kids while his wife brings home the bacon, that should be fine too.

I have more problems with carriere types who drop their kids off at daycare when they’re a couple of months old. But if that’s their choice, they should be free to do so.

[Cortes]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Ofcourse they can co-exist. If it’s a woman’s choice to adhere to society’s general gender roles, then that’s fine.

But I object to society imposing gender roles, beit male or female roles.
[/quote]

This is a touchy subject and without agreeing upon and using the same nomenclature, it can be muddy.

I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the word “roles” and “society”. That implies something created by man. Do you feel man and woman have different natures, in general? And, that perhaps we are best served by adhering or surrendering to our true nature? We touched upon this a bit in the SAMA femininity/masculinity thread in case you’re interested, before that degraded into the usual biased opinions about roles and people bringing personal baggage to the table.

If a man and a woman has a different nature, shouldn’t we follow roles that are suitable to that nature? Of course, the foregoing is voluntary. And in fairness to society, I don’t think man woke up one day and said, “woman, from henceforth you shall stay at home, cook, clean and take care of the children and home”. I believe our nature steered us right into those “natural” roles which, for the feminine (I believe), is “nurturing”. [/quote]

Yes, men and women have different roles, and I agree that there shouldn’t be such a stigma attached to following traditional roles for men and women like we have nowadays.

But that doesn’t mean that “society” should have a say in what a man or a woman can or cannot do with regards to those roles.

If a woman wants children and be a “stay at home mom” then she should be free to do so.

If a man wants to stay at home and take care of the kids while his wife brings home the bacon, that should be fine too.

I have more problems with carriere types who drop their kids off at daycare when they’re a couple of months old. But if that’s their choice, they should be free to do so.
[/quote]

No one has suggested any of this, that I am aware of.

[ephrem]

Okay.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Putting a woman on a [religious] pedestal isn’t honouring her and it isn’t about respect if by doing so you can hold her to different standards than you would hold against yourself.

Such a pedestal is simply a disguise for misogyny.[/quote]

Is this the pedestal you’re talking about? :)[/quote]

1 Timothy is one of the Pauline letters. It’s a letter, written by a man(St Paul) to a man(St Timothy); it’s not the word of God. If you’re going to criticise the Saints at least make sure you know what you’re talking about.[/quote]

Well, if the contents of the bible are inspired by God, why isn’t it fair to hold this particular passage up for scrutiny? I’m not “criticizing” it as I think it speaks quite nicely for itself, and should be judged on its merits.

But are you challenging me to find more misogynistic scripture? Alex, I’ll take Scripture and Misogyny for $500. I can start with Genesis if you’d like. How apropos, “start” with Genesis. [/quote]

Paul was not a misogynist. In fact, the highest office of the early church[*] was open to women and Paul said of the Apostle Junia that she was ‘outstanding among the apostles, and (she) was in Christ before I was.’

[*] Apostleship was the highest office of the early church - “And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.” - Corinthians 12:28

Sounds like equality to me.[/quote]

If you’d like to do this, we can start a thread dedicated to it.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
(The Grammar Nazi asks in advance to be pardoned for any typos or evidence of delirium here or above. He worked from 9am until 11pm literally non-stop today and is now practically typing this from outside of his body and should just go to bed, probably, but refuses to).

Quick example before I crush the point with pressing it. There are certain acts my son will engage in in front of his mother which he KNOWS not to engage in with me around. One of them is pushing the button that lights the stove (we have a gas range). My wife will tell him again and again to stop, and again and again he ignores her and does it, laughing.

When I hear it and walk in and just say his name sharply, he jumps like a gun went off and runs up to me and hugs me (cute little brat Same thing with running out into the street. I get so mad at my wife because this is fucking dangerous but she just can’t bring herself to be VERY strong with him in that manner. He tries the same when I’m outside and I yell “STOP!” once and it’s like he just ran in to a wall, and back he comes.

However, when he is not feeling good, and whiny and noisy and needy and complaining, it’s a damn good thing his mom is there. Because I just can’t handle it and I don’t know how to be kind and nurturing and sweet when someone is clearly insane.

All I can see is a problem that needs fixing, and all my wife can see is someone who is not feeling good and needs as much love as he can get right them, at the exact time that I am most inclined to withdraw my affection and close up and become cold.

I scold her for the former, and she scolds me for the latter.

Now for you people that have kids, you know which one of these you are, and if you are honest, you’ll admit that you tend to be dominant in one or the other. Sorry, I don’t buy that someone can be equal parts of both. At best, if you end up right in the middle you are a watered down version of each.

Again, please refrain from mischaracterizing me or putting words in my mouth. I know there have been women who have made terrific single-mothers, politicians, business owners, hostage negotiators and leaders (go Maggie T!), just as I know there are certain men who have the patience and fortitude to spend a third to a half of every day, cooking, cleaning, ironing, bathing, dressing, diapering, cleaning, listening to, entertaining, putting to sleep, cleaning, driving around, waking up six times in the middle of the night, listening to literally hours of whining and crying and complaining and demanding and repeating and all of the WORK that come with raising a small child and yet still can manage to smile and hug and not show frustration or anger through it all. Did I mention cleaning?

I aint one of them. But I know they exist. Never actually met one, come to think of it. But yeah, I’m sure they exist…somewhere. Maybe

---

Cliff’s Notes:

Men tend to be physically larger and stronger than women. Men almost always have a hormonal profile that differs significantly from that of women. These factors, among others, tend to cause the two sexes to think, feel, act, make decisions, and cope with stress differently. It also tends to affect our perception of reality and our ultimate motivations. Because of these differences, men tend to be better suited for certain roles that conform with their general tendencies. And the same holds true of women.

I actually thought my first question to eph was about as clear as I could have made this (thanks to TheBodyGuard for seeing it and recognizing it, as I suspected you would). I honestly did not expect this to be such a contentious suggestion. It seems self-evident to me.[/quote]

I’m actually that guy you mentioned in passing as the exception I do all that stuff b/c I am the primary caretaker for my 5 year old son, who lives with me. I have no choice. I don’t like doing all the cooking, cleaning, etc., but we rise to the occasion. I’d rather be out conquering some challenging mountain of my mind and/or ego, but this is my calling right now and I INSISTED upon primary custody. So now, you “met” that guy However, it’s not my natural disposition or calling in this world. I’m a very caring, affectionate and nurturing father, but I am also in no measure a “mother”.

But that said, and more telling, is your small and very valuable point about how we deal with emotions (and I hope it wasn’t missed by those reading it); when my son gets “irrational”, as nurturing and affectionate as I can be, it brings out the same in me as you described in you. It’s during those times, that no matter how good I am, that the boy really needs a soft feminine touch. It’s a VERY nuanced point, but life is lived between the bold lines, in the nuance, in the gray. The other stuff is easy to “get”.

To deny the sexes have relative strengths and weaknesses is to deny reality. And allowing ourselves to exist within our natural strengths and weaknesses is harmony. Selling women on the greatest lie ever told (that you are “less than” if you don’t do the same things a man does), has done our society and family structure no favors, in my humble (or not so humble) opinion

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If a man is homeless he has more capability to get work than a woman [/quote]

Huh?[/quote]

Extreme metaphor. I used it to show a point. But to further my point, how many women do you see as day labors?

Or are you asking something else?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Putting a woman on a [religious] pedestal isn’t honouring her and it isn’t about respect if by doing so you can hold her to different standards than you would hold against yourself.

Such a pedestal is simply a disguise for misogyny.[/quote]

Is this the pedestal you’re talking about? :)[/quote]

1 Timothy is one of the Pauline letters. It’s a letter, written by a man(St Paul) to a man(St Timothy); it’s not the word of God. If you’re going to criticise the Saints at least make sure you know what you’re talking about.[/quote]

Make another thread about it.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Putting a woman on a [religious] pedestal isn’t honouring her and it isn’t about respect if by doing so you can hold her to different standards than you would hold against yourself.

Such a pedestal is simply a disguise for misogyny.[/quote]

Is this the pedestal you’re talking about? :)[/quote]

1 Timothy is one of the Pauline letters. It’s a letter, written by a man(St Paul) to a man(St Timothy); it’s not the word of God. If you’re going to criticise the Saints at least make sure you know what you’re talking about.[/quote]

Well, if the contents of the bible are inspired by God, why isn’t it fair to hold this particular passage up for scrutiny? I’m not “criticizing” it as I think it speaks quite nicely for itself, and should be judged on its merits.

But are you challenging me to find more misogynistic scripture? Alex, I’ll take Scripture and Misogyny for $500. I can start with Genesis if you’d like. How apropos, “start” with Genesis. [/quote]

Paul was not a misogynist. In fact, the highest office of the early church[*] was open to women and Paul said of the Apostle Junia that she was ‘outstanding among the apostles, and (she) was in Christ before I was.’

[*] Apostleship was the highest office of the early church - “And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.” - Corinthians 12:28

Sounds like equality to me.[/quote]

Make another thread about it.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Putting a woman on a [religious] pedestal isn’t honouring her and it isn’t about respect if by doing so you can hold her to different standards than you would hold against yourself.

Such a pedestal is simply a disguise for misogyny.[/quote]

Is this the pedestal you’re talking about? :)[/quote]

1 Timothy is one of the Pauline letters. It’s a letter, written by a man(St Paul) to a man(St Timothy); it’s not the word of God. If you’re going to criticise the Saints at least make sure you know what you’re talking about.[/quote]

Well, if the contents of the bible are inspired by God, why isn’t it fair to hold this particular passage up for scrutiny? I’m not “criticizing” it as I think it speaks quite nicely for itself, and should be judged on its merits.

But are you challenging me to find more misogynistic scripture? Alex, I’ll take Scripture and Misogyny for $500. I can start with Genesis if you’d like. How apropos, “start” with Genesis. [/quote]

Paul was not a misogynist. In fact, the highest office of the early church[*] was open to women and Paul said of the Apostle Junia that she was ‘outstanding among the apostles, and (she) was in Christ before I was.’

[*] Apostleship was the highest office of the early church - “And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.” - Corinthians 12:28

Sounds like equality to me.[/quote]

Make another thread about it.[/quote]

Ha ha ha. You make it I’ll join in. You know more about this stuff than me.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If a man is homeless he has more capability to get work than a woman [/quote]

Huh?[/quote]

Extreme metaphor. I used it to show a point. But to further my point, how many women do you see as day labors?

Or are you asking something else?[/quote]

I see the same amount of women as day laborers as I see the same amount of men as babysitters, nannys, caretakers, maids, housekeeping, teacher’s aides…would you like me to continue, or would you like to reconsider your position or, perhaps at least provide a credible reference that men have more capability to get work than women?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If a man is homeless he has more capability to get work than a woman [/quote]

Huh?[/quote]

Extreme metaphor. I used it to show a point. But to further my point, how many women do you see as day labors?

Or are you asking something else?[/quote]

I see the same amount of women as day laborers as I see the same amount of men as babysitters, nannys, caretakers, maids, housekeeping, teacher’s aides…would you like me to continue, or would you like to reconsider your position or, perhaps at least provide a credible reference that men have more capability to get work than women?[/quote]

reconsider my position on what? That there are different standards for men and women? The capability of man being more able to get work outside the home may be of times past (though I still think if you took two homeless persons one male, one female and looked to see who could get work first it come out that the man could), but my position that there are different standards isn’t held up by that one situation alone. The situation was to show an example of the difference.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If a man is homeless he has more capability to get work than a woman [/quote]

Huh?[/quote]

Extreme metaphor. I used it to show a point. But to further my point, how many women do you see as day labors?

Or are you asking something else?[/quote]

I see the same amount of women as day laborers as I see the same amount of men as babysitters, nannys, caretakers, maids, housekeeping, teacher’s aides…would you like me to continue, or would you like to reconsider your position or, perhaps at least provide a credible reference that men have more capability to get work than women?[/quote]

reconsider my position on what? That there are different standards for men and women? The capability of man being more able to get work outside the home may be of times past (though I still think if you took two homeless persons one male, one female and looked to see who could get work first it come out that the man could), but my position that there are different standards isn’t held up by that one situation alone. The situation was to show an example of the difference.

[/quote]

I do not agree a man is any more employable than a woman. The day laborer is equivalent of the housekeeper or maid or babysitter, or even the prostitute, barmaid, waitress, stripper.

What IS your point there?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If a man is homeless he has more capability to get work than a woman [/quote]

Huh?[/quote]

Extreme metaphor. I used it to show a point. But to further my point, how many women do you see as day labors?

Or are you asking something else?[/quote]

I see the same amount of women as day laborers as I see the same amount of men as babysitters, nannys, caretakers, maids, housekeeping, teacher’s aides…would you like me to continue, or would you like to reconsider your position or, perhaps at least provide a credible reference that men have more capability to get work than women?[/quote]

reconsider my position on what? That there are different standards for men and women? The capability of man being more able to get work outside the home may be of times past (though I still think if you took two homeless persons one male, one female and looked to see who could get work first it come out that the man could), but my position that there are different standards isn’t held up by that one situation alone. The situation was to show an example of the difference.

[/quote]

I do not agree a man is any more employable than a woman. The day laborer is equivalent of the housekeeper or maid or babysitter, or even the prostitute, barmaid, waitress, stripper.

What IS your point there?[/quote]

Really? You going to hire a housekeeper or babysitter that is homeless? Barmaid? Waitress?

I like my possessions to stay in my house personally.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Really? You going to hire a housekeeper or babysitter that is homeless? Barmaid? Waitress?

I like my possessions to stay in my house personally. [/quote]

Happens ALL THE TIME. In fact, it’s far more difficult for a woman to be truly “homeless” than for a man inasmuch as there are more shelter resources that cater to women and women with children as opposed to homeless men.

Do you still care to spitball this? Or do you have any reference at all, other than your vague opinion, that what you stated and my objection thereto has any merit at all? If you’re spitballing here (and you are), just say so, and we can move on. I’m not in the “changing Brother Chris’ mind (about anything) business”.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Eph, would you have any problem with a value based statement such as, “Women and men have different roles in society and society is best served by overall adherence to those roles?”

[/quote]
But no matter what role someone decides to have in society, it should be one of choice instead of adherence.

[/quote]

Can’t both co-exist? Are they mutually exclusive?
[/quote]

Ofcourse they can co-exist. If it’s a woman’s choice to adhere to society’s general gender roles, then that’s fine.

But I object to society imposing gender roles, beit male or female roles.
[/quote]

This is a touchy subject and without agreeing upon and using the same nomenclature, it can be muddy.

I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the word “roles” and “society”. That implies something created by man. Do you feel man and woman have different natures, in general? And, that perhaps we are best served by adhering or surrendering to our true nature? We touched upon this a bit in the SAMA femininity/masculinity thread in case you’re interested, before that degraded into the usual biased opinions about roles and people bringing personal baggage to the table.

If a man and a woman has a different nature, shouldn’t we follow roles that are suitable to that nature? Of course, the foregoing is voluntary. And in fairness to society, I don’t think man woke up one day and said, “woman, from henceforth you shall stay at home, cook, clean and take care of the children and home”. I believe our nature steered us right into those “natural” roles which, for the feminine (I believe), is “nurturing”. [/quote]

Yeesh, I just saw this after typing War and Peace above.

I could have just written, “I agree 100%,” and been done with it.
[/quote]

Haha, BG’s “discomforts” were the exact one’s I was trying to point out with my questions.

One small point/question, and perhaps this should go in another thread, but…

In Japan, women are “expected” to work until they get married and then quit as it is the “role” of the woman to be a “baby making machine” (as the equivalent of the secretary of health and human services said a few years back (2007?)). This has greatly contributed to the “M-gata” and a situation where a lot of extremely qualified women are not being hired/promoted because of their “role” and the expectation that they will quit. This has also lead to a generation or two of women who reenter the workforce in their mid-40s upset and disillusioned at being “entry level”/OLs/basic secretaries when their capacities and aspirations are much higher. Further, IMO, this had been a MAIN contributor to the societal postponement of marriage (I think the average age of marriage for a woman now is 29-30ish, did you catch those recent economist articles?) and the EXTREMELY low birth-rate and drop in the birth-rate (I think it might be under 1.4 now).

To not leave men out of the equation, I think men ARE expected to do what you did when you wrote your reply, namely work 10-12 hour days in order to financially support the family. This has lead to a lot of situations where the father’s are NOT present in the lives of their children.

To try and stay on point, the Japanese seem to have decided that arranged marriages (Omiai) didn’t work, educated the women, and are now being shocked that the traditional “roles” that society is trying to impose (through government action as recently as a decade ago I think) have produced negative results (many unmarried, low birth rate, pushing back the age of marriage, M-gata, etc).

So, in short, the reason I asked the questions is because, IMO, it is the very “roles” that Japanese society is trying to place on men and women that greatly contribute to some of the biggest problems the society is facing. 'Course, I’m just an outsider looking in for a few years, so this is just my 2 cents.

[TheBodyGuard]

^^^^

I think Cortes would have some perspective here on Japanese society.

But, quick question, why are women re-entering the work force in their 40’s? Divorce? Or, “empty nest”?

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
^^^^

I think Cortes would have some perspective here on Japanese society.

But, quick question, why are women re-entering the work force in their 40’s? Divorce? Or, “empty nest”?[/quote]

Yeah, I wrote it for Cortes. He’s one of the few who I really enjoy discussing Japan matters with.

To answer your question, my personal opinion is that they want to work (have always wanted to work). Add to that a bit of “keeping up with the Matsumotos (Jones-es)”, boredom when their kids come of age, and a desire to become more independent. Imagine yourself an educated, capable person who (despite your aspirations or desires) had to take 20 years off for kids. Now you are in your mid-40s with all day on your hands. I do think “empty nest” has a lot to do with it. Divorce rates are a lot lower than in the West, but rising steadily.* To be honest, I don’t know that I’ve seen any poll numbers on it. Perhaps Chushin or COrtes can speak to that more than I could (I don’t know that many women in their 40s to be honest).

*My personal opinion on divorce rates is that they will continue to clime until they are roughly equivalent to the west UNLESS the number of unmarried women continues to grow. IMO, as women have begun entering politics and obtaining more political strength, their rights have increased dramatically. I’m certainly no expert on this, but I recall a recent (2006ish) surge in divorce rates among elderly Japanese couples as the laws changed enabling women to receive a significant portion of the man’s pension. IMO that had more to do with arranged marriages in those cohorts, along with women rejecting their “roles” in the household, but that is just an educated guess. An older woman once described to me how old, retired men are called “wet fallen leaves” because they cling to their wives expecting them to continue to make all their meals and clean the house etc while they sit around the house all day. This is the sort of rejection of roles that I was questioning earlier. /end side rant

[TheBodyGuard]

Interesting. And complex.

[Cortes]

I appreciate the kind words, GL, thanks.

There’s all sorts of good stuff here I want to address but it’s going to have to wait till tomorrow.

One thing I wanted to make clear that I still think I have not is that my opinion upon the “roles” of men and women within society is not necessarily a rigid black and white idea that I use to assign value to the choices people make. I completely understand that roles are going to have the be flexible to adapt to the changing realities of a society over time. I’m speaking above to the NON-changing aspect of human society and, if I am suggesting anything, it is the same thing you appear to be: That people NOT feel that they HAVE to adopt a certain role, or demeanor, or force themselves to do anything that goes against what their heart tells them they should be doing. BG and I discussed this in his thread about masculinity and femininity, but I think there are a lot of women and men out there who insecurely adopt a persona that is contrary to their innate nature, and it causes a lot of grief and conflicts both for the pretenders and for the more balanced people who have to interact with them.

Anyway it’s after 4am now so I will try and tackle the rest of this tomorrow.