Essay:There's a difference between voluntary or necessary specialization and unfair sexism

Feminists be like, "It's sexist that women get raped more than men do" while meninists be like, "It's sexist that men get their asses locked up for crack dealing or blown up by RPGs in Afghanistan more than women do." Feminists be like, "Yeah, but it was mostly men who voted for the drug war and the aggression in Iraq." Meninists be like, "When has Hillary ever voted to end the drug war or withdraw all troops from foreign lands?" Feminists be like, "That's because she has to appeal to the male voters and the predominantly male wealthy campaign contributors!"

What they fail to recognize is that there's a difference between voluntary or necessary specialization and unfair sexism.

Let me prove my point using some contrived dialog from a fantasy game that hasn't been created yet.

And so, their journey begins...
Suppose, for a moment, that it's the year 2050, and you're playing Final Fantasy L, in which the artificial intelligence is so advanced that the characters can pass the Turing test.

You say to the white mage, "Heal the fighter" and get the response, "Why do you always expect me to do the healing, rather than the more prestigious jobs like fighting? And why am I always ranked fourth in this party, rather than being the leader?"

You reply, "Healing is what you're good at. I could have you attack with a wooden hammer, but you'd only do 1DMG and might even miss completely. Also, if I make you the leader of the party, you'll be more exposed to attacks and get your ass beat because your armor is cloth."

The fighter then comments to the white mage, "I'm the one who has to lug all this heavy armor around, plus if there's anyone going to get poisoned by an asp, it's usually going to be me, so it's really not all that great of a job. Plus you've got this one seventh-level spell, HRM4, that can really put the hurt on some undead creatures, doing as much damage to them as the eighth-level black magic spell FADE.

Is specialization good?
It didn't have to be that your party had white mages and fighters. You COULD have just had red mages, so that you could've rotated them in and out of leadership posts depending on their health and armor, and let them switch between fighting on one turn, and healing on the next.

But which is actually more dehumanizing: having everyone be the same, and interchangeable; or saying, "You, as a member of this particular class, can ONLY be assigned the roles that are appropriate for that class"?

Which gives you more reason for pride: to be exceptional at one task, so that others look to you as the most competent person to do it; or to be able to handle any task in a mediocre way, so that no one can say that you're totally incompetent at anything?

If you had to choose, which class would you be? And if you were putting together a party, what classes would you include?

Let's apply these principles and unanswered questions to real world relationships
Might it be that what a person needs in their mate depends on what THEY have to offer?

Assuming the ideal is balance, I would imagine that if you're some really masculine guy (or butch lesbian), you probably need some really feminine chick to balance it out, or otherwise it's like having a party with four fighters, and we wouldn't want that, right? On the other hand, if you were someone who's pretty androgynous, then maybe your best partner would be another androgyne, because otherwise, where is the balance? The couple would be, as a unit, leaning more masculine or more feminine rather than neutral.

It really depends on what is the most suitable analogy. Is it like flint and steel, where you need opposites in order to get the effect you want? Or is it more like a dual-monitor configuration, where the more similar the two monitors are, the better you're able to use them in tandem?

The more similar the person you're with is to you, the more activities you can share together. For example, masculine chicks might be more into playing a two-player war game with their boyfriend. Or feminine guys might be more into helping pick out dresses and decorations, planning a wedding, etc. There are theoretically some chicks who are extremely masculine outside the bedroom, and extremely feminine in the bedroom, so that they would be both the perfect "bro" and "ho" companion all in one package. Kind of like the fighter or ninja in Final Fantasy, which are strong at both attack and defense.

What's probably more common is the kind of chick who's the worst of both worlds, and unhelpful at everything from the perspective of her guy (can't cook, and cuts her hair shorter than her guy would like, AND won't sit in the basement playing video games with him) much like it's more common to find a man who's unhelpful at everything (won't earn a living, fix the water heater, or build up a sexy ripped body AND won't do housework) than a guy who does everything. In other words, analogous to a character like the black belt. So when people say, "I don't believe I should have to conform to society's rigid gender roles!" what is often (but not always) actually the case is that they suck at just about everything a person could want or expect from them, especially in the context of a relationship.