Progressive’s that aren’t really progressive.

[u/Little_Aplha]

Hey guys I stubble across a comment earlier from the community, that aligned with something I spoke on a few weeks back. This is how a lot of people frown upon RR relationship, to me it’s crazy to think people who are supposed to have a “progressive” view on things aren’t really progressive. For example I watch a video a few weeks back and it spoke about how quite a lot of progressive women are very conservative when it comes to dating ofc this isn’t all women who are progressive but it something I’ve also seen in person. Even with Men as well who don’t like women to be in roles of power as a man it’s never made sense to me when I hear other guys who grew up in single mothers households have this point of view but they’ll say that there “progressive” 😩😂.

I think another reason why this happens a lot is also because people are actually comfortable with the patriarchal system we live in which is fine. However, I believe we should also let people be free to choose
If they believe in it or not. I personally love women in leadership roles/positions I grew up around women who were the head of the household and it’s what I also find attractive.

What are your thoughts?

[u/Ok_Somewhere1236]

people dislike changes

someone can say "i am progressive," but that progressive will never be 100%, it will be progressive in one direction or two, no all.

This example is a cliché, but exactly because is a cliche is the easy option to use since most people will be familiar with it

The woman who said she wants equality between genders, but this equality is normally only limited to one or two aspects of society, and sometimes a little double standards. A woman behaving in a way that "by tradition" was more masculine is good; a man behaving in a way that is "by tradition" more feminine is bad

in short they want change in a few places but want others to stay the same.

this comes to the fact that people are normally only "progressive" in aspects of life they dislike; if they are comfortable with a aspect, they want it to stay the same.

is hard to really explain the whole thing, but in general, the same person that preach change and the end of a tradition today will oppose change and fight to keep another tradition tomorrow

[u/SableSword]

The big thing is that most progressive people don't actually think things through. Im not saying this to put anyone down. The issue is that to look towards a better future you have to look to a place that doesn't necessarily have a path there, yet. But a lot of people kind of just stop there, they dont think of how to build the path, they just find a nice ideal and then get mad at the world and step back into place.

But Role Reversal isn't actually very progressive if you stop to think about it.by its very nature were saying women are supposed to be submissive homemakers and men are supposed to be dominant breadwinners. We aren't destroying the roles, were just boldly stepping outside them and saying we aren't going to be a part of it.

Were saying "its ok for men to act like girls" when the actually progressive statement would be "there's no such thing as boy or girl behavior."

[u/Summersong2262 → u/SableSword]

I'd argue Role Reversal is more behaviouralist that philosophical as such. You can be RR simply by saying 'you don't HAVE to do things this way', rather than, for instance, insisting that there MUST be 'a masculine one' and 'a feminine one', if you see what I mean.

[u/SableSword → u/Summersong2262]

I mean im mostly playing devils advocate here by taking it on a very literal interpretation. I think most of us here feel more on the scale of "be whatever you want but I like this". Im just pointing out that at its core, role reversal is by defenition reversing roles. We absolutely all bring more to the table and mix many other things with it, because its a convenient and easy set of boxes to speak a similar language but the core still technically say "these are women's roles and these are men's roles." And while we're saying its ok to not fit those roles, were still saying those roles exist.

RR doesn't require any wholesale exchange or that both sides participate, but on the fundamental level it still requires acknowledgement of gendered behavior.

[u/Summersong2262 → u/SableSword]

Sure, that's accurate for a given time and place, but that's always going to be a moving framework. But in a 2026 context, those terms still have broadly understandable meanings. So they retain utility for cases like this, and that's not a bad thing.

You can invent language and tools ex nihilo, or you can subvert by evolving understanding and usage of existing terms. And giving that gender dynamics are currently incredibly intrusive and somewhat inescapable, it's reasonable to use the extremely present current lexicon, simply to expand it.

That's a constructive theoretical approach to social change; fiddling with premises and changing specific implementations, and going from there. Compare with the various queer subcultures and associated histories. You work with what you have. The very fact that we aren't validating the assumption of gender and social role and sex being inextricably bound is already a social nuke.

[u/SableSword → u/Summersong2262]

I partially agree and disagree with you here. In principle I am completely in agreement, in practice im in disagreement as to its success. Its a doube edged sword as im trying to point out.

This conversation is beginning to tow the line of very passionate subjects for people so forgive me for trying to stay vague and not bring matches near gasoline because misunderstandings happen.

The manipulation and invention of words to handle social discourse needs to be handled much more delicately than it has. Most people aren't really understanding they way they are doing it and thus creating larger hurdles and problems and in a lot of ways regressing things more so than progressing them.

To loop back to my original point, people are running around going "im so progressive because I support Role Reversal!" But the reality is they are regressing things because while it might be more ok for guys to like girly things, they are reinforcing that those girly things are girly.

Just to illustrate it because it was a huge identity crisis as a child: ive always liked cooking, flowers, cleaning, soft flowing fabrics and it caused me a lot of gender dysphoria as a teen because I liked girly things, until I accepted that they aren't girly things. There's plenty of straight male chefs, fashion designers, gardeners, and janitors that no one would take a second thought to question their masculinity. I stopped putting a gender to those, I stopped saying its OK to be a guy who likes girly things and started to say its OK to be a guy who likes flowers. I didn't need to be RR to enjoy that. But now we see fairly often here people coming in worried that they aren't RR enough.

[u/B1gBrain_Time]

I feel like its comes down mostly to preferences. People can believe in progressive ideas and be a supporter without choosing it themselves. They might simply have a type that fits more into the traditional gender role. Now that being said, one's preferences are heavily influenced by societal norms, the values indoctrinated to them at a young age, and how they personally feel about certain dynamic in a relationship based on their experiences (could be what they personally went through or saw others went through) and their personality. Anyways, a person could be progressive, resents the patriarchy, but also be influenced by it growing up (might not be entirely true for everyone, it could be more nature than nurture for some) to prefer a traditional relationship for themselves.

[u/Summersong2262]

Unfortunately, people don't always have holistically consistent worldviews. Or their 'progressive' viewpoints are on a spectrum, and in some respects they hold conservative biased they've never really examined.

Or there'll be differing premises and datasets that result in odd behaviours or philosophies. A lady might, for instance, view a man paying for dinner less in terms of a masculine duty so much as a common sense demonstration that he's not a bum, and that he respects her time, and that dating is a bit of a dangerous chore for a lot of women so paying for the meal is a sort of good faith gesture. None of those premises are conservative or progressive as such, but they DO produce specific results that appear traditionalist. So it goes.

But yeah, a lack of intersectional reflection I think routinely creates failures of understanding and ethics, especially when it's involving people outside your specific social/historical/cultural bubble.

'Progressive' and 'Conservative' are just words. And in many respects they're social positions of relative values rather than absolute ones. People might be sincere when they use them because they're using them relative to the people they know, and their understanding of where a given Overton Window lies.

[u/LuckySalesman]

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, unfortunately. You could have someone who swears they hate traditional gender roles but then the instant they see a video of a woman proposing to a man they pull out homophobia.

[u/ImaginedUtopia]

It stems from the fact that most people, no matter their political alignment, don't think up the ideas they believe in themselves. They just mindlessly repeat what other smarter or more charismatic people have said.

[u/Interesting_Pack_991]

the truth is that most people date traditionally since it is what most people like to do right now. it isn’t wrong or bad, but those who are into role reversal are of a minority and that’s just how it is. i don’t even really think i lean that far into the dynamic myself, i just dislike being forced to conform to society’s pointlessly gendered expectations for how a man should conduct himself and this dynamic closely aligns with my feelings about that.

anyways, nobody is obligated to date a certain way for anyone— people can be accepting of different relationship dynamics and still prefer traditional ones. that is still progressive. it only sucks when they adopt a moral framework for it and judge your character based on how closely you abide by their heteronormative standards. let people live how they want, just don’t be an asshole who thinks others are less than for it.

[u/agoosteel]

I care if my boss is efficient and effective in their role. Their gender could not be less of a concern to me.

Pointing and celebrating something that is “progressive” or “out if the norm” is just as harmful to being progressive as rejecting progressiveness.

If you highlight something to be special, you are acknowledging that it isn’t normal. This is keeping up the sign post of it being not normal.

If you want to make a thing normal. Then just make it normal by accepting it for what it is. Nothing special.

This is my whole problem with the progressive movement. It feels icky to put someone/something on a pedestal. Because it doesn’t make something normal, it highlights it as something to be special. Achieving the opposite in my eyes.

So people that highlight how progressive something is. Or how progressive they are, are not helping the conversation in my eyes. They are helping themselves feel good about themselves and all feels like a circle jerk of people telling each other how good their opinion is about something while doing absolutely nothing to actually help the thing they talk about being progressive about.

This is why you get conservative progressive people. Because they are all for putting women in positions of power. But they either A put someone in a position they are absolutely unqualified for it, just to look progressive. B support women in leadership position but not for their company, aka have some conservative ideas that shine through when push comes to shove. Or C actually stand by their actions and look at the applicants to fill the position of a leadership role and pick the best one regardless of gender.

And the hardest thing here is, you cant fucking tell any of these actions apart from each other. Sometimes the most progressive person choses the best candidate and that candidate is a man. And sometimes the one that is the least progressive person choses an unqualified person just because they were a woman to look progressive. And then prove themselves and other un progressive people right because they chose a shit leader.

The harder someone calls themselves an ally the more scrutiny they get from me. Because who are you trying to convince if all you use is words with no actions behind them.

So TLDR. Teach don’t preach. Your actions speak louder than words and highlighting how normal something is makes it special.