Interesting opinion. I really believe the very root of the problem

is illustrated in the excerpt of the essay sourced below. Misogyny and homophobia/transphobia are so deeply rooted in the collective consciousness of the religious dogma based general cultures of many societies. Those who believe in these dogmas often have a major short circuit in their cognitive processes when faced with a conflict between reason, logic. common sense, and reality, and their need to support and cling to the irrational beliefs of their instilled and/or chosen dogma.

They have a crippling fear of challenging the authority of those (usually people that profit on creating fear in individuals in order to perpetuate their sources of profit) who have told them that they must except what they have been told without question, or they will burn in hell forever. Often, they have had this idea repeatedly and consistently hammered into their consciousness since they were born. They may be afraid of uncertainty. They may be afraid of no longer belonging. They may be afraid of taking responsibility for their own thoughts and actions. They are afraid of the punishment of the omnipotent deity of their respective dogma, and his power to burn them in hell forever. Most often, it's all of the above.

But the most crippling fear of all is the fear of thinking for themselves. They believe what they have been told about what is "right", and are deathly afraid to challenge what they have been told is "right" and subsequently figuring out what is right for themselves.

Thinking is, literally, a mortal danger to their impostor identity. "I don't want to hear anymore! I believe in my bible, and that's all I believe."

It's a box. An authoritarian prison. There are some spiritual folks that actually understand the relevance of their respective scripture as it relates to higher understanding and consciousness. These folks are tolerant, self-actualized people who have some understanding of love, and how to manifest love. You can recognize these folks by what they do. And what they do does not ever include harboring, preaching, or manifesting ignorance and hatred.

The rest are hateful, bigoted religious people. Their belief system forbids them to think thoughts that are not written in their book, a book that they do not even have the faculties to comprehend, and that book is literally their god. They basically worship the respective book of dogma that they use to justify and maintain the comfort and security of their crippling, devastating fears...

...and the subsequent comfort and security of their hate.

This is why they hate women and LGBT persons.

This is why they murdered Christ.

Two things I"ve come to believe for myself in this life:

1) You never really know someone else.

2) People, and things, change.

I no longer have any illusions of permanence, or any concrete expectations, so nothing shocks me anymore. And I'm only rarely even mildly surprised by anything.

A person has the right to feel hurt by anything s/he wants to feel hurt by.

Of course. Everyone has the right to feel hurt, for whatever reason they desire to feel hurt about; if a woman has a problem with a cross dressing husband, it's her right to feel hurt by it, or go with the flow and embrace it as well. (Could be fun). But of course, I'm LGBT, so I'm about as blase as a person can get with regard to individual uniqueness, and diverse gender expression.

I realize that a man expressing femininity is, historically and presently, one of the greatest horrors of western civilization for many straight folks, because women are generally considered to be sooooo completely inferior to men. But I personally don't understand why it's such a big deal. I guess it has something to do with the god-like status that some women continue to ascribe to men, and to masculinity.

I've never had any problem with my partners wearing stereotypical "mens" clothing whatsoever. But then, I'm not at all hung up with culturally stereotyping people into rigid gender roles or forms of expression. And piling more shame and guilt on some poor guy because he has a feminine streak, but has felt compelled to hide it because, again, for a man to express femininity is, next to engaging in sex with another male, the greatest offense against the mythical fundy gawwd that exists in the universe.

Taking the bronze, in third place on the eternal fundy list of offenses against gawwwd, is simply, just being a woman.

Sure, honesty and integrity are critical to certain types of personal relationships.

But honesty is always relative, of course.

The woman horrified by her husband not telling her that he had an inclination to cross dress may have slept with his best friend a week after they got married, but files it in the "that's my secret, and he doesn't need to know" drawer, and remains self-righteously indignant over her husbands failure to divulge his (realistically) harmless feminine interests, without mentioning that old scarlet letter long hidden under the pancake Clinique. Or maybe she was raped as a child, and doesn't want her husband to know. Had an abortion as a teenager, and never brings it up. Fakes orgasms. Has been sleeping with her brother. Is taking a nip of gin when she's promised hubby that she's stopped. Doesn't really love her hubby, but is hanging in because he supports her. Whatever color you prefer.

Naturally, the same goes for the men also, within their sphere of common secrets; secrets and hypocrisy are equal opportunity employers.

Wish you would have told me before we were married...

Or not.

I've just seen so much hypocrisy. I'm really not cynical.

Just "realistically jaded".

One other thing I believe I've learned is not to deliberately keep secrets from potential committed partners. (This candidness usually scares potential partners away, in my case. I've made it a point to never let fear or social convention spoil my pursuit of happiness). If that doesn't scare someone away, then a relationship may be worth pursuing. It's actually a great tool to use for separating the wheat from the chaff.

It's really all about who you are, where you come from, where you've been, what you can deal with, what your priorities are, how judgmental you are, and how true to yourself you are in the way you deal with your own hypocrisy, relative to how you judge others.

Like the man said, "This above all, to thine own self be true".

But what do I know? I only know what is true for me. I have no right to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't get all freaked out about.

This is a non- issue. Elizabeth's believing what her mom told her makes her what?

Normal?

Many American families have oral histories pertaining to having American Indian ancestry, stories that are passed down from generation to generation. Sometimes these stories are accurate, and sometimes they are not. If an individual hears these stories as child and believes them, but never questions their accuracy because they were passed down from a parent or relative, can this person be blamed for what they believe to be the truth?

Children generally trust their parents and relatives to give them accurate information about their families.

One huge question that arises in Elizabeth Warren's situation is:

If she was told by her mother that her great great great grandmother was Cherokee, why would she have reason to question this information that came from her mother? Why would she find it necessary to document her heritage?

If your parents tell you are 1/32 Spanish, or Irish, or African American, do you find it imperative to go out of your way to prove it to yourself or others?

This whole thing is about nothing. Apparently, she has not used this belief that she is Cherokee for any financial gain in any way. While it is true that some American Indians get upset when people claim undocumented Native American heritage, it is also true that Native American tribal heritage is sometimes difficult or impossible to substantiate due to inaccuracy of record taking and keeping.

Traditional tribal records are often full of mistakes. Census takers in previous centuries often looked at the color of a person's skin to guess at their percentage of Indian ancestry. Sometimes American Indians told BIA men that they were white, because they worried that their land would be stolen

Sometimes, the documents are just...flat out gone, burned up in a fire, or lost in time.

So maybe she is part Cherokee as she was told by her parents that she was. Maybe her parents were misinformed about this.

If she were trying to get tribal membership, or casino money out of this, then there would be very good reason for us to demand proof of her ancestry.

Otherwise, all she did was reiterate something her mother told her. This does not meant that Elizabeth has been duplicitous in any way if her mother was mistaken about her ancestry. She just believed what her mom told her.

I still believe the things my mom told me as well.

And among those things that my mom told me and that I believe, include, especially include, the stories of my diverse ancestry.

"When I was about 6 years old, I started having these feminine feelings,

but that was in the '60s. Wearing my mom's makeup, I thought I looked pretty,"

I understand that Ms. Crecelius is regarded as an intersex person, due to her condition of having both male and female genitalia.

However, the types of feelings expressed in the subject line of this post are extremely common among transsexual persons also. The brain is generally believed to be the organ that interprets "feelings". So, what I'm wondering here is, why is it only that having the genitalia of both genders determines that a person is intersex? Why is brain structure not considered as a possible marker for determining a person to be intersex?

Babies. Ice cream. Music. Sunsets. Flowers.

Baseball. The laughter of children. Books. Dreams. Butterflies. Your first car. Peaches. Sunshine. Spring water. Gay penguin parents. First kisses. A warm breeze. Mothers. Fathers. Art. DU. Desert rain. Summer vacation. Dancing. Films. First loves. Rainbows. Kittens. Puppies. You...

Relative to women's equality, one of my goals is to raise awareness of sexism

and sexist thought, words, and actions on DU, in order to further eliminate it from our society, in order to help speed the process by which women will achieve genuine equal status with men.

I absolutely had a clear agenda when I posted that thread illustrating a jury decision not to hide a post that contained the "b" word. I then posited that, if it were the "n" word, then the post would have been hidden. My agenda was to elicit candid, detailed, open discussion about the status of women in our culture in order to clarify and raise awareness of this unequal status and further the cause of women's equality.

DUer efhmc describes this situation very well:

I am an old feminist and see little or no real change in the ingrained, atavistic concepts about
women. These ideas are so entrenched in our society that we will need many generations before we see them recede and many more generations for them to die completely. A good, but not perfect parallel is shown by racial bigotry. It is still alive and well in our country, even though it is a very incorrect stance for decent people to voice any prejudicial statements. As to this site, I have been appalled in my 10 years here to see the amount of acceptable use of anti-female language and negative stereotypes which are used and seldom changed or challenged. I once started a thread about the use of the term "bitchslap" which I find offensive to women as humans being and whose usage I feel condones violence. I quit replying when I realized that the type of person seeing its use as a free speech issue didn't then and maybe never would see how harmful that word is. I have seen language and concepts about women used here that if posted about any minority group would have gotten that person banned post-haste.

I think both sides are right on this one. If a man is mistreated for his gender in our culture, then he is being individually oppressed. If a woman is mistreated for her gender in our culture, then women are being oppressed. This is because our culture oppresses women significantly more than men. Some men feel oppressing women is OK because so many people do it, including some women.

If: A majority of persons within a non-dominant group (minority) recognize that they are oppressed and unequal, have had a recognized valid historical struggle for equality, and speak out in an effort to attempt to end this ongoing oppression and inequality, and a very substantial number of members of another group, or multiple other groups, recognize and acknowledge the oppressed, unequal of status and struggle of the non-dominant group -

Then, why would some members of the dominant group continually and very ardently attempt to diminish the positions of the oppressed non-dominant group (minority) that is only asking for the oppression and inequality to end, if these aforementioned respective members of the dominant group are not seeking/getting some type of personal reward by doing so?

Why? What is the reward for engaging in this behavior, whether this behavior is manifested in its extreme form, or in a subtle form?

If a woman is mistreated for her gender in our culture, then women are being oppressed. This is because our culture oppresses women significantly more than men. Some men feel oppressing women is OK because so many people do it, including some women

No. I will continue to speak out and struggle for my equal rights until my goals are achieved,

without regard for the opinions of those whose conscious or unconscious objective it is to prevent me from attaining my goals.

There is nothing impersonal whatsoever about someone promoting and perpetuating the conditions that create or maintain the inequality of another.

That's about as personal as it gets.

I am a feminist, and I totally don't know jack about 2nd wave third wave new wave whatever feminism.

Why would/should any reasonable person tolerate racism, sexism, or homophobia/transphobia simply because a dominant group finds it somehow convenient to perpetuate their dominance at the expense of the non-dominant group?

I'll fight for someone's personal right to hate me if they choose, but I will not in any way condone or tolerate their oppression and/or attempted oppression of me. Or of anyone, for that matter.

That's real personal.

Here it is:

If: A majority of persons within a non-dominant group (minority) recognize that they are oppressed and unequal, have had a recognized valid historical struggle for equality, and speak out in an effort to attempt to end this ongoing oppression and inequality, and a very substantial number of members of another group, or multiple other groups, recognize and acknowledge the oppressed, unequal of status and struggle of the non-dominant group -

Then, why would some members of the dominant group continually and very ardently attempt to diminish the positions of the oppressed non-dominant group (minority) that is only asking for the oppression and inequality to end, if these aforementioned respective members of the dominant group are not seeking/getting some type of personal reward by doing so?

^^^This^^^ is what racists do to the black, hispanic, Jewish, etc communities. Example: Neo-nazis

^^^This^^^ is what homophobes and transphobes do to the LGBT community. Example: RW religious fundamentalists passing anti-LGBT legislation.

^^^This^^^ is what sexists do to women. Example: Misogynist RWers currently working to limit/abolish women's rights.

Why? What is the reward for engaging in this behavior, whether this behavior is manifested in its extreme form, or in a subtle form?

It's not rocket science, it goes way beyond a mere difference of opinion, and it really is eminently personal.

For what it's worth...

I've been thinking about this a whole lot. And this is how I feel about this issue...

1) I see nothing inherently ethically or morally wrong with posting these images in our group.

2) From my POV, both the female and male forms are uniquely beautiful. While I do object to many forms of objectification, I don't see the posting of these images as potentially damaging to impressionable minds within or from within the context/relative confines of our Group.

3) Illogical and artificial religious, cultural, and societal mores should not be perpetuated. As LGBT individuals and as an LGBT community, we have long been vicitimized in every way due to unreasonable institutionalized bigotry based on various widely held superstitions, and there is no reason for members of our Group to be limited in their choices based on any unreasonable artificial mores that have arisen from superstitions.

4) Simply out of respect for anyone who, for any reason, may be offended by images of the human body, it would be a nice gesture on our part if the subject line in the OP of all threads containing the types of images in question were labeled with an appropriate notice of content.

5) Hard core pornography could exceed the limits of reasonable ethical standards, and would probably violate DU rules, and from my POV the policy most beneficial for our Group would be for everyone to voluntarily refrain from posting hard core pornography.

This is just my two cents worth, based on my perspective as a host serving our Group.

I believe that you misunderstood. I'm just not seeing sympathy for innocent

protesters being bludgeoned by out of control cops. Not seeing sympathy for the many concerned, innocent people arrested for expressing their frustration at being controlled by an unelected 1% of the population, etc.

Not seeing any concern that the cops are beating up innocent people. Not saying that people here are being delighted at the abuse of protesters by the police.

The concern seems to be that the MSM is making protesters/Occupy look bad. And/or possibly, that, because of this, the protests may be detrimental to Democrats, even though the Democratic Party has nothing to do with the protests.

That's part of my point.

Also, OP seems to be saying that we are going about things the wrong way, and that we need to change our methods.

However, in reality, the output from MSM has long been the spoken or unspoken meme that "liberals/liberal protesters are evil". This was made very obvious during the Bush regime in particular, and this is still commonly occurring today.

The thing is, we can't prevent the PTB from planting agents provocateurs, we can't control a few violent mentally unstable people, and we can't control generally peaceful protesters who instinctively react in self defense when police attack them with the unwarranted malicious intent of causing them bodily harm.

And we certainly, obviously, have no control over the MSM.

The MSM is owned by the 1% PTB, and will do what they are told to do: paint us as evil no matter what method of direct action we employ, (except voting), and we are no longer confident that voting is effective as a significant agent of change, especially as a vehicle to use for overthrowing the plutarchy.

Singing Kumbaya might get some good local press, but it won't do jack to further the goal of spreading awareness of the injustice and inequality in this system imposed upon us by the 1%.

There is a long history here of certain posters who repeatedly admonish protesters and tell them to get back in line and try to effect change through methods controlled by the 1%. Very often, these posters support the 1% version of laissez faire capitalism as espoused by the Third Way party.

A great many of us don't agree with Third Way ideology and practice. We have been forced to go outside the box. Both literally and figuratively; there are only a limited number and type of changes that can be brought about through the ballot box.

Removal of the 1% plutarchs from power is not among these changes that can be accomplished through the electoral process. We have been forced to employ whatever non-violent direct actions that we see as necessary to establish a genuine egalitarian democracy that recognizes and serves the well being of people, and not the profit and pleasure of the authoritarian few, as the sole reason for any system of governance.

Fine. Set an example for us. Go. Leave now, and go live in the slums of Calcutta.