similarities/differences in struggle for rights

Both you and Lateralus have made some very good points.

I tend to take your view, that the long term goal is more important than the present, but . . .

in those other struggles you mention there are many similarities to our present struggle, but also one important difference. In all of those struggles there was no one attempting to keep parties apart "for their own good". No one attempted to keep suffragettes from talking to other suffragettes, or even to the public. The closest that ever came to that were laws against miscegenation (which were challenged by people who, um, miscegenated) and the Apartheid regime in South Africa (where, for example, the authorities attempted to keep ordinary white people - excepting tame religious authorities - away from black churches). I suppose we could also look at the separation of "subhuman" classes from the "Aryan" class in Nazi Germany.

In all of these cases, the way that these nasty regimes were challenged was by "privileged" classes crossing that barrier and challenging the regime, but mostly within the rules of the system itself. One of the few anti-Nazi campaigns that was successful was waged by the Aryan wives of Jewish men who demanded (among other things) to be kept abreast of what was happening to their husbands. The authorities could not simply brush them aside, so their husbands - though confined - were not sent to the extermination camps.

It seems to me that this is akin to what Todd has been doing in his own life.

In Apartheid South Africa, black churches welcomed white visitors - in secret - just as some children meet with child lovers - in secret. But in many cases blacks could not easily meet with their white supporters, even secretly. To do so would have been too dangerous for both parties. While a few white supporters challenged the law head on (and their challenges were needed), more worked to subvert the system from within - half measures, perhaps, but half measures that allowed them to survive and carry on. Their support was also needed.

In a campaign like this there is not necessarily a single, correct action to take. Those who have studied military campaigns know that there is a need for different types of units and tactics - one cannot easily dispose of either the regular troops nor special operations; cavalry and infantry must support each other (even today, as the Israelis learned to their chagrin in 1973); and neither air power nor ground forces are sufficient by themselves in a modern war.

Certainly there are many of us who must set aside the present good for the future good - delayed gratification. However, others need to make the personal connections that will allow nons today to see that we are a beneficial part of children's lives; and those, like Todd, who have children in their extended family are a natural choice for this. A direct challenge would be counterproductive for them.

I am not in a position to make such choices for anyone besides myself.

I am glad to see Todd's excellent post on this subject.