OK - still thinking

Being a woman is a challenge. We've come a long way, Baby, and all that, but there is still more to come.

But being a man - particuarly being an intelligent man who cares about social issues and social justice - must be difficult too.

Women are given a lot more latitude with their gender roles. Straight women wear pants & wear men's clothes. I've worn neckties. Women participate in sports - even traditionally masculine sports such as boxing and hockey. Women are cops, soliders. Most of our generation agrees that most things men can do women can do as well (there are certain facts - such as that most men are stronger than most women that can't be overcome but in the modern world this has little effect on most jobs and activities).

Men are not allowed a corresponding freedom. Straight men still worry that dressing or acting a certain way will label them gay. We accept female doctors, but question male nurses. Men don't wear women's clothes. Men's clothes are not adorned with lace, or use bright colors, and are not tightfitting.

I personally value men who act outside the typical gender role. My boyfriend and I plan to have kids. I will be the breadwinner (masculine) and he will be the primary caretaker (feminine). This arrangement makes sense for us - I make much more money than he does, and he would like the flexibility to work on his art.

But this will be considered strange - we will be outside the normal paradigm. I think when people are exposed to more nontraditional gender arrangements such as the one I am planning they will begin to see new options.

Another big change I see is our generation's comfort with homosexuality. A generation ago, the threat of having someone thing you were gay would keep a straight person in line. Our generation doesn't worry too much about it. My boyfriend dresses a little flamboyantly at times and is sometimes asked if he is gay or bi. He is not, responds that he is not, and goes about his life unaffected by that. He doesn't let his fear that someone will think he is gay change the way he acts because he doesn't care if they think he is gay. And I love that about him.

Okay, I disagree with so much here...I'll handle it point by point.

> "Women were historically screwed from the begining of time and things are balancing out. "

Demonstrate that this has extended "to the beginning of time." This little gem is trotted out by feminists repeatedly, yet there's essentially no evidence to support it. There have clearly been cultures where women were exalted. While it can be demonstrated through historical documents and the archeological record that women-as-a-whole have been oppressed in some nations/regions/cultures of the world at some periods of varying lengths of time, it cannot ever be demonstrated by anyone to have been universally true since "the beginning of time." That's a load of shit, and I call you out on it.

> "The downside of the feminist movement, like any movement, is that some members can go to extremes."

Unfortunately, with the feminist movement in the west, the extremists seem to be presently in control of the helm, and herein lies the problem.

> "It will take some time for feminist and true gender equality to take hold."

It will take literally forever to reach "true gender equality." While I think that equality under the law is achievable, I do not believe "true gender equality" can ever be acheived, nor do I find it to be a desireable goal. Why? Because the sexes will never be equal. We'll always be different. No matter how much sociocultural engineering gets done by feminists or other gender fascists, men and women will NEVER be "the same." Just won't happen. So trying to force it to be so by application of authoritarian control hardly seems like a good plan.

> "sometimes when priveleged white men try to drape themselves in the cloak of the victim it is pretty silly."

As opposed to the privileged white women that compose the bulk of the feminist movement in the west?

Every racial group and sex contains more members of the class that could be rightfully called "the oppressed" than it does members of the class that could be rightfully called "privileged." Just the way it is. To suggest that anyone white and male is "privileged" seems like an utter distortion of reality intended to slander white men.

> "A big failure of feminism or gender equality movements is that there has been so much emphasism on changing women's roles, and little on changing men's roles."

Uhhhhh.... I don't know how you get this. Ask some men. We in this society encounter nearly constant pressure to "be more like women." We hear constant programming from feminists and also the pop media and pop psychologists pushing us to: get in touch with our emotions, express our emotions, talk our problems to death, express ourselves in a way our girlfriends/wives can understand us, be open to her having a career and caring for children, be open to caring for children, etc. The list here seems virtually endless. The "goal" pushed on men in our society, by society as a whole and influenced heavily by the feminist movement, seems to be for men to become the "sensitive new-age guy." A man in touch with his "feminine side," his emotions, never aggressive, never taking the lead role, always kowtowing to the needs of his woman.

> "I think in my generation in particular there are a lot of lost men - not sure where they fit in the scheme of things. "

Indeed. Lost due to the pressure to "not be a man" and to "be more like a woman" put on us by the feminist movement and the creeping feminization of western society as a whole. We have no idea how to BE men anymore, and when we ACT like men, we receive judgemental crap from both men and women around us.

Of course, if we actually learn to be who we are and embrace our masculine sides, we actually get more sex and more women interested in us as long-term mates, but...and big BUT here...we'll get shit about it every step of the way, and every time we stand up for it or ourselves.

> "Labelling traditionally masculine behavior as "manly" when exhibited by women is limiting."

Well, I just don't see it that way. What's the big deal? Some traits definitely seem either <more> masculine or <more> feminine on the whole. Why? Because more men and/or more women exhibit them. Does this mean they belong exclusively to that sex? No, of course not.

> "I would never date a man who did not exhibit the "womanly" or "unmanly" traits that Mike discusses - sensitivity and understanding."

For something to be "womanly" does not automatically mean "unmanly," at least in my mind, and I think this is the biggest perception to fight here. To allow something to be called "womanly" or "feminine" without that having to mean "unmanly," and vice versa. And I think this is slowly happening in our society, but a lot of progress can still be made.

> "I think that language has not evolved to keep pace with changes in gender dynamics."

> "So yes, Mike, I agree that anyone who would call a man with those features "unmanly" would be going against gender equality. "

Agreed 100%