VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:56:33 05/09/16 Mon
Author: Corey
Subject: Follow-Up to Julie Wilson's Post

Julie Wilson's recent post got me to thinking about a dialogue on another message board several years ago.

A woman who was about to give birth to a boy saw nothing desirable in males and asked for advice and support on feminizing him. She did not get many positive responses, but one woman in particular, an ardent feminist, was very enthusiastic. Her point was that a patriarchal society cannot be made equitable without addressing the validity of patriarchy. Taking risks and pushing boundaries are essential triggers of change.

I think our society is slowly decoupling the concepts of beauty, softness, grace, and cuteness from the female and viewing them as desirable in their own right. As proof I would offer the growing fondness among heterosexual men for the ultrafeminine "ladyboys" we often associate with Thailand. The long hair, lipstick, clingy dresses, and heels create a framework of desire that the wearer can step into, and pursue a fulfilled life. Also consider the popularity of the cosplay cafes and "brolitas" in Japan, where men and women embrace cuteness and femininity, work side-by-side, and are often indistinguishable.

So in my estimation, the notion of a powerful female figure feminizing a young man as her preferred lifestyle choice is valid. A male who is inherently "macho" is just as likely to reject femininity as a male who is inherently feminine will resent being forced to play rough sports.

I saved my response to the inquiry and share it here:

++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree with the original poster, "G", on this.

Social traditions and gender-based behaviors are just long-accepted ways of doing things that have no real basis in law or nature. We just feel comfortable with prevalent expectations, and find discomfort with those who challenge or flout them.

Most fathers would happily give a daughter a baseball glove and blue jeans, but when a mother gives a son a pink dress and tights, society flinches. That is because we equate femininity with weakness, and we abhor weakness. Since we discourage young males from exploring femininity, those who desire to do so must suppress their desires, which emerge as fetishes in later life. Since we equate fetishes with adult behavior, the cycle of discouraged childhood behavior becoming underground adult naughtiness in later life continues unabated.

Anything that suppresses human flourishing is bad. Anyone who is uncomfortable with his or her identity, clothing, behavior, or sexuality is wasting human potential by either trying to conform, trying to hide, or both. Traditional family values and religious beliefs are all good, so far as they promote social cohesiveness. But when they are used to judge or exclude, (as they so often do with regard to nontraditional family structures and gender-based behavior), they lose all moral authority. They become frameworks of hate.

I think "G" is perfectly correct when she states that there is no clear advantage to raising a traditional dominant, alpha male in today's society. Women perform, competently, every job men used to exclusively do. The job market of the future will lean heavily toward women. And male aggression is demonstrably linked to most of our criminal behavior, wars, and other human suffering.

So I think "G" is exercising her right as a parent to raise her son as feminine, and instill in him the values and promote the behaviors she deems fit.

A respondent made the point that real social change is, by definition, painful. If we weren't willing to absorb pain and discomfort in the quest of widespread social equity, there would have been (as but two recent examples) no civil rights or women's liberation movement. So perhaps a sea change in the values we instill in boys may seem threatening or even fetishistic, but in reality, this is just another step in our societal evolution.

All established cultures view provocative thought and progressive change with suspicion. Those who are not comfortable with the status quo have the right to pursue change.

We are not going to run out of football players anytime soon, so fitting our concepts of gender-based behavior to the natural variations in humanity hardly seems threatening.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.