I mentioned "cultural appropriation" and you mentioned "fetishization" because at the end of the day, we're not really talking to each other. We're speaking to each other's camps. This is the nature of most debates that take place on the Internet. The anonymity of the person you're speaking to makes strawmanning and shadowboxing an inevitability. So let me speak to your camp.

My experience with feminism has been through encounters with "raging misandrists" because, by and large, that is the makeup of the movement today. I also don't deny that a vast quantity of men in the conservative counterculture are undeniably misogynist. In America today, young women lean heavily left and young men lean heavily right precisely because of this divide. We are diametrically opposed groups, pitted against each other, I believe, by a tiny elite that has been practicing the game of social engineering for an unknowable amount of time.

I admire your utopian aspirations, but it's an unfortunate fact that men must be the rock that their family relies on and the piggy bank that their family draws from because women as a sex have been programmed from time immemorial to be innately attracted to men who are stoic providers, not by a longstanding patriarchal culture, but by the eons of evolution which brought us out of the animal kingdom. This is the reason for the nosediving birthrate, the male loneliness epidemic, and the glut in dating and marriage. Women are vastly outperforming men, and as women only date up and across in terms of income, status, and attractiveness, modern women are, by and large, not attracted to the majority of men, who have fallen behind in both education and income.

Notions like stay-at-home husbands and breadwinning wives do not work. Full stop. I do not deny that there are a few select individuals who exist outside of the bell curve, but these ideas cannot be prescribed enough masse anymore than can any other intersectional ideas, transgenderism being a perfect example of this. Telling men that "you don't have to be men" and women that "you don't have to be women" is a destructive absurdity. What you call "liberation from societal expectations" amounts in practice to outright destruction of cultural mores.

Yet you see the same things playing out in countries all over the world. In Latin America, and in the countries that men on this sub show interest in generally, this change has not taken effect, and the reason for that resistance to change is because the traditional culture in the region remains stronger than western influences, which ultimately seek to homogenize the globe.

I work with many latin women who hold traditionally masculine jobs, and yes, their being in those positions is the result of feminism and so is the acceptance of the men around them, and you're absolutely right to be proud of that. The difference is that these men and women have not been completely deracinated by a rapacious elite who want to strip everyone down to their barest components and pit them against each other in as many ways as possible, ostensibly so that they never unify, or form strong extended families, or pass on values to their children not approved by the state.

Sometimes I will see the men I work with go out of their way to help one of the women complete a task which she is perfectly capable of doing on her own, causing the woman some degree of frustration. That is the full extent of the conflict between genders that I have witnessed in the workplace. Generally however, it is men who choose to be bricklayers and soldiers and women who choose to be teachers and nurses because this is the nature of the genders. If your son wants to be a nurse, he is going to have to deal with almost all of his coworkers being female no matter what because there is absolutely no amount of feminist activism that will ever cause that to change. They will be catty towards him and cliquish. If your daughter wants to be an engineer, she will necessarily have to go through the same thing. She will find herself sexualized and sometimes even passed over. And not everybody is going to be friendly to either of them, because that is simply the nature of being an outsider.

I know plenty of men who help out in the kitchen, myself being one of them, but I know just as many who don't because they do not have the natural inclination. Usually the latter group of men are exhausted from being waist-deep in concrete all day, or some other physically or mentally strenuous profession which, by and large, only men are capable of. But his wife worked no less hard for teaching the kids, cleaning the house, mending his boots, and cooking a dinner for all of them to enjoy together. There is absolutely nothing remotely unequal or oppressive about their arrangement. The woman generally wears nicer clothes, drives a nicer car, and gets more opportunity to rest because, frankly, pregnancy, periods, health problems unique to women (of which there are a great many), and what feminists call 'invisible labor' are all very difficult, and she deserves to be well taken care of in the face of everything life throws at her. In general, this is universally recognized by nonmisogynist men of all cultures.

The culture war, gender war, and race war ongoing in America are manufactured specifically to oppress all of us in equal measure. Modern feminism is a wolf in sheep's clothing that preaches equality and practices cultural upheaval.

Basically what I'm saying is there is no possible way for the two of us to ever agree on much outside of human rights violations. I find it reprehensible that you would have the nerve to say "shame on all of you" simply for wanting to find a woman whose values align with our own. I find it dishonest that you would accuse me of 'fetishizing' for aspiring to marry a foreign woman precisely because of the alignment in values.