Cross-dressing in schools

[brough]

A school system in one state was considering banning cross dressing in school since some boys were regularly wearing dresses and make-up to school.

In our Secular Humanist society, we laud "freedom," tolerance/acceptance and "equality." So it is encumbant upon us to permit what we might well call "gay culture" to make inroads on the patriarchal-monogamous cultural system that has characterized human civilizations for the last five thousand years.

Where will it lead?

[Haven]

Thinking long term, this "gaining more freedom" would seem to further break down what the radicals call "sexual steriotypes." The rest of the world has become increasingly hesitant about always following us and adopting the changes we make in our society. We are being seen as decedant. This among many other reasons could help explain why Islam is turning against us and why world cooperation is breaking down to the point where growing world problems are not being effectively delt with.

What, exactly, is wrong with breaking down sexual stereotypes? So, because I'm a man, I have to watch football, drink cheap beer, have no fashion sense, listen to country and 80s metal, act tough and aggressive, and look down upon women? If I don't behave like this, I'm not a real man?

A woman must act passive and quiet, love to gossip, be obsessed with fashion, not have a career, stay at home, cook and clean, and remain barefoot and pregnant? If she doesn't act like this, she's not a real woman?

Are you really advocating such thinking?

Why must individuals conform to stereotypes based on the set of genitals they have? There is no rational reason to insist people need to conform to some arbitrary stereotype.

[brough]

HAVEN, I'm glad you brought that up! I had not assumed most men had such a warped, male juvenile belief about what manhood is! I am not saying that men or women should behave like you describe.

Let me explain what I mean: as you know, the sexes have both physical and emotional differences. We evolved with them through millions of years of evolution and thus they are functional. We climbed the ladder of "progress" and created civilization not inspite of but because of them.

Our ideological systems such as the older faith and the more recent secular one validate our differences in ways that benefit society. But when they begin to push us away from our natural, evolved social behavioral inclinations and preferences, we begin to work against our innate nature and society begins to break down---as is currently happening and accounts for so much tension, despair and society's inability to solve world problems.

My own interpretation of how a man normally behaves is that he sees his prime responsibility as protecting the welfare of his woman and children---also protecting his private property (his "territory"). He also sees his role as controlling the male juveniles (in-the-home disciplining and in society, the justice system). Since society is also a broadening of his "group," he also feels responsible for protecting it, the nation, its alliance.

Moreover, there is a feeling in him that what he protects is his. That is, he feels an unexpressed pride of ownership. And because of his natural focus on protecting and keeping order in it, he is the best trained to deal with it. "His woman" is more focussed on childbearing.

As long as the male society is well run and the leadership respected, women happily and diligently fulfill their role. However, when society grows divided and weakens, the women are innately sensitive to it and immediately begin to assert themselves. This is a rather universal characteristic of primate behavior, not just ours. It has happened in every civilization. As the women gain position, the men give it up, become less responsible and drift to sports-watching, indulgence and, in some cases, become abusive to their woman.

Also, those in power become more corrupt.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

...
But when they begin to push us away from our natural, evolved social behavioral inclinations and preferences, we begin to work against our innate nature and society begins to break down---as is currently happening and accounts for so much tension, despair and society's inability to solve world problems.

Sexuality is built on a continuum, from effeminate males to bull-dagger dykes. Even a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary theory will tell us that there are no "set in stone" rules regarding the sexualities found in h. h. sapiens. For you to suggest otherwise is to display a complete failure to incorporate this data into your analysis.

What we see historically is that a typically religious majority will seek to impose their own narrow view of what it means to be of one sex or another. There is much literature to suggest that if religious folks'd get over their own hangups in this regard, the "despair" and "problems" you mention would likely disappear.

My own interpretation of how a man normally behaves is that he sees his prime responsibility as protecting the welfare of his woman and children---also protecting his private property (his "territory"). He also sees his role as controlling the male juveniles (in-the-home disciplining and in society, the justice system). Since society is also a broadening of his "group," he also feels responsible for protecting it, the nation, its alliance.

So then, a woman who may be better equipped in this regard suddenly becomes a "man" by your reckoning, while her paraplegic husband is to be neutered.

You have just insulted the entire population of females who serve as policemen, firemen, and soldiers, to name a few traditionally male dominated roles. Moreover, you've insulted a good bit of the male population that is not the bread winner, not the disciplinarian, or not the one living up to your ideal of what it means to be a man.

The remainder of your post is more of the same ill-informed, outdated dogma.

[McCulloch]

Regarding your snide remark, do you really expect a reply?

Yes, I do.

Which of the world's many problems are growing? Is civilization in danger? Are our thousands of years old traditions a help or a hindrance to them? Is the breakdown of the patriarchal monogamous system a good thing or a bad thing in the long run? Why?

[brough]

JOEYKNOTHEAD:

Sexuality is built on a continuum, from effeminate males to bull-dagger dykes. Even a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary theory will tell us that there are no "set in stone" rules regarding the sexualities found in h. h. sapiens. For you to suggest otherwise is to display a complete failure to incorporate this data into your analysis.

What we see historically is that a typically religious majority will seek to impose their own narrow view of what it means to be of one sex or another. There is much literature to suggest that if religious folks'd get over their own hangups in this regard, the "despair" and "problems" you mention would likely disappear.

So then, a woman who may be better equipped in this regard suddenly becomes a "man" by your reckoning, while her paraplegic husband is to be neutered.

You have just insulted the entire population of females who serve as policemen, firemen, and soldiers, to name a few traditionally male dominated roles. Moreover, you've insulted a good bit of the male population that is not the bread winner, not the disciplinarian, or not the one living up to your ideal of what it means to be a man.

Of course male/female differences are not rigid! I would hope you would have understood that. I only delt with the alpha male trait as gleaned from the social instincts we have in common with other primates. If you disbelieve we also evolved as primates, you might say so. As a matter of fact, there is an alpha hen-pecking order among women also--as in other primates.

In between the alpha male and the feminine trait, there is an intermediate area. In human rather than animal-study terminology, that middle ground is called gayness or homosexuality. It shows up as gay culture in our society and breaks down and changes the monogamous/patriarchal structure that characterizes civilizations.

What happens when it is changed? In human history, the lesson is that barbarians invade, take over, and restore the monogamous/patriarchal system. I am interested only in what happens, not in judging "what ought to happen." You get all antagonistic from your secular dogma position, and it sounds like it would if I were burning the Bible or the Koran.

What does the history tell us today? Simply that terrorism is the modern form of barbarism. Its threat has grown, even though unevently, over the last half century, but it feeds on our weakness. What weakness do we have today that would make us gradually more and more vulnerable and hence enable it to keep growing as a threat?

The answer is our demonstrated and growing inability to deal effectively with such serious world problems as global warming, diminishing resources, nuclear proliferation, species loss, over-population, polution, popular unrest, etc.

[bluethread]

If education is truly the purpose of the public schools, then the only reason I see for brick and mortor schools is to provide education to those who have no supervision at home or are not able to learn self-dscipline. In that case, a dress code is in order, because discipline is a primary factor.

[brough]

McCulloch: Which of the world's many problems are growing? Is civilization in danger? Are our thousands of years old traditions a help or a hindrance to them? Is the breakdown of the patriarchal monogamous system a good thing or a bad thing in the long run? Why?

Nuclear proliferation, taking more energy to extract energy, global warming, terrorism, polution, loss of species, over-population, and growing income disparity, obesity, and environmental damage to name a few.

Is our civilization in danger? All civilizations have grown, topped out and then declined. Our secular ideals and ideology is becoming less able to hold it ideologically together. To solve world problems takes cooperation, and we are evidencing less of it. We love "democracy" so much we hate our "politicians" and load our media with condemnation of "big government."

Is the breakdown of the patriarchal-monogamous system "good" or "bad"? I's not a moral matter. What I am saying is that it has always shown signs of happening in past civilizations and leads to religious regression, decline in science, and economic stagnation.

Then a new civilization develops in its place. . .

I've just saved you from having to spend a few decades studying all the past civilizations to find that out!

[His Name Is John]

I don't get cross dressing at all.

I can't see the point in it to be honest. One of the strangest pieces of news was when I read about the way male bras had started selling really well in Japan. I can't understand it, but I presume that its causes are not valid reasons to allow it.

If greater evidence comes to light I will happily change my opinion, but I think this is an issue about culture and society rather than religion and philosophy (although both can be used in working out what to do with the evidence).

[connermt]

A school system in one state was considering banning cross dressing in school since some boys were regularly wearing dresses and make-up to school.

In our Secular Humanist society, we laud "freedom," tolerance/acceptance and "equality." So it is encumbant upon us to permit what we might well call "gay culture" to make inroads on the patriarchal-monogamous cultural system that has characterized human civilizations for the last five thousand years.

Where will it lead?

In most modern societies, there are freedoms along with rules. Just because I'm free to dress like the opposite gender doesn't mean I'm free to do so at work. The same could be said of public schools by (one way) simply administering a dress code/uniform policy.
What's disturbing is that you seem to be equating "cross dressing" with being "gay". The two are totally different and independent of each other. Not seeing so is disturbing IMO.

[Choir Loft]

A school system in one state was considering banning cross dressing in school since some boys were regularly wearing dresses and make-up to school.

In our Secular Humanist society, we laud "freedom," tolerance/acceptance and "equality." So it is encumbant upon us to permit what we might well call "gay culture" to make inroads on the patriarchal-monogamous cultural system that has characterized human civilizations for the last five thousand years.

Where will it lead?

You struck at the core of the issue when you pointed out the dichotomy between pretended liberty and actual liberty. Such examples as you cite make it very clear that liberty, although a subject of story and song, is far from being actually practiced in America today.

It isn't just Washington DC that has usurped liberty in the land. There's lots of little Hitlers out there from the halls of congress to the local home owner's association that dictates whether you can fly our nation's flag or what color to paint your house.

Liberty is dead in America and it was killed by those who wish to exert their influence over others who refuse to accept it.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...