Skip to main content

View Diary: Threatening Traditions - Part III.a: Traditional Sexuality and Choice (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I suspect you were replying to orwelldesign, but (5+ / 0-)

    I'll give you my two cents on that, and I hope OD chimes in too.

    What it is going to take is the "traditional" viewpoint to die out, and that is happening. It's easy to blame it on, say, religion, but there are plenty of people who are not in the least religious who hold on to misogynist and homophobic attitudes.

    While that is happening, there is an increasing number of people from older generations who have "softened" to feminism and non-heterosexual orientations.

    Which brings me to this: who will be oppressed next? I'm not talking about immigrants, who have always been oppressed unless they had a Royal Grant. I wonder, whom?

    SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

    by commonmass on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:05:36 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  By the way, it's clear that this is a totally (4+ / 0-)

      Marxist viewpoint I just espoused.

      SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

      by commonmass on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:07:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And (3+ / 0-)

      when you re-pose that question in light of technological advances (biotech, robotics, virtual reality technologies), it seems to become a more powerful question.  I'm not sure precisely how, but one obvious candidate seems to be...illness, aging, anything that might count as a "disability."

      But - and I'm probably being tendentious here - that returns me to the fluidity of social categories, and the risks of converting them too quickly into "scientific" questions.

      "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." (Artemus Ward)

      by Silencio on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:12:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  On that point I have to disagree. The "dying out", (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, Silencio, sfbob, NancyWH

      that is. I think it's going to take quite a bit of effort yet to shift, and I don't think we can afford to wait while it happens, because there are other major problems that need to be solved now, like global warming, that are going to need the system to be shifted before a concerted effort can be made.

      The case can be made, I think, that it is those who hold most strongly to a patriarchal view that are also doing the most damage in that area. Change the structure, and much of the resistance to other changes may also drop.

      mouseover the bar (I'm practicing for DK5)

      by serendipityisabitch on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:45:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, change is essential. (5+ / 0-)

        A very traditional patriarchal structure, the Episcopal Church (who's provenance is Scottish rather than from the C of E by the way) has done a great job at that. Women priests and bishops, Wardens, and other leaders coming in since the 70's has completely changed the tone of the church--an historically patriarchal institution. Not without a fight, I will say, but very few people active in that church today really have a problem with the fact that our province is led by a woman.

        It was indeed a change in structure, but it has involved some "dying out" as well, as had our work with LGBT clergy and bishops.

        SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

        by commonmass on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:54:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Are you saying (4+ / 0-)

        that, in your view, patriarchy (as a form of social domination) is a type of linch pin?  Dislodge or unsettle it, and other forms of domination or, say, political recalcitrance will be loosened up too?

        "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." (Artemus Ward)

        by Silencio on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 06:56:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site