Mark this society has certain expectations of a white protestant man that reaffirm that individual's worth.

Up until 30 years ago the expectations for Australian women were restricted to marriage and children. Girls were bought up to marry well and rear well behaved children in wedlock. Women who didn't conform were punished in low paid jobs at 66% of the male wage, denied the opportunity to purchase homes. Women whose husbands ran off or were widowed were doubly punished by seeing their children grow up in poverty as there were no single parent pensions.

My mother studied in 1947 alongside women whose families had educated the [often incompetent] son but sent the girl to work at age 16. These able women had enlisted for war and as part of their repatriation deal they were receiving university training so they could fulfil their potential.

billie - "this society has certain expectations of a white protestant man that reaffirm that individual's worth." I suspect that in some cases that should be rephrased as "this society has certain expectations of a white protestant man that entrench perceptions about that individual's worth."

In particular the idea that his worth is judged primarily on his earning capacity.

I think that the equivalent for women is being judged on physical beauty.

Both are to some extent wired into our systems from more primitive times but both leave individuals who don't happen to be top of the heap in their respective characteristics feeling undervalued. Those expectations/perceptions can have dramatic impacts on the individuals ability to find (and keep) a partner and other aspects of life satisfaction.

R0bert

Mark says there are certain things i should expect of him as a man, and I have been puzzling my head over this one.

There are certainly things I expect from people as human beings; things like courtesy, honesty, integrity, decent, considerate and law abiding behaviour, but I can't see that I make any distinction between what I expect from men and women here.

There are other things I delight in when I find them; kindness, intelligence, self awareness, a good sense of humour, a sense of humility, open-mindedness, playfulness, a sense of fun, enthusiasm, engagement with the world, compassion, courage, sensitivity and intellectual rigour. I love these qualities, but I don't expect them, that is too big an ask. Never-the-less, I enjoy them equally in men and women, and find them to be pretty evenly spread across the sexes.

Just what I would expect exclusively from Mark as a man, I can't imagine. That he change light bulbs and take the garbage out? Well, that's nice, of course, but I don't expect such things to be done for me, I quite enjoy mowing the lawn and my husband does the hoovering. And, being of sound mind and good health, I don't currently want or need his protection. One day I may need it, but it is just as likely that my husband could require care and protection from me. That he go to war on my behalf? No, I don't expect that either and have always beieved that as women gain more rights they must also be prepared to shoulder more responsibilities - such as serving in the armed forces.

No, I honestly believe I expect the same things from men and women, and if I had sons, I would expect no more and no less of them than I expect of my daughters; that they be honest, civil, polite, self responsible and compassionate people who remain true to themselves. Surely it would be totally unfair and, therefore, terrible parenting, to do anything else?

Ena,
Why did you not answer billie or RObert.
You answered Mark Richardson because that is the letter that attracts you. I as a thinking male would not answqer it in a fit.
What floods out of his letter is the attitude of "money, power, status, security, arrogance and even aloofness but women will put up with arrogance and aloofness so long as they gain, money power and security. Mark's letter is a lot of showy puffery of power.
Mark's quote was:
"There certainly are things you ought to expect of me as a man. You are not oppressing me by expecting these things."
The second sentence means the opposite to what is written. It means he will certainly oppress the woman. He certainly will. I as a male would not write to Mark but ena as a woman does.
What does it all mean?
It means that women oppress themselves by being attracted to money and power and security that the elite male has and they trade off their individuality by marrying these men. The rich men fool women. What does that teach the male? It teaches men to be more powerful, arrogant, aloof and rich and they can have any female they want.
When that happens women are second-class citizens.

Neither Billie nor R0bert required an answer to their eminently sensible posts.

Why did I answer Mark? Because his question puzzled me and made me think about just what I expect and do not expect. Your interpretation of my motives, Glenwriter, is just that - your interpretation - and has nothing whatsoever to do with what they really are.

However, you make an interesting point. I agree that stereotypical "female" (passive, submissive, masochistic even) behaviour does encourage men to behave in an exaggeratedly "male" fashion, sometimes to the point of tyranny. That is why I don't like such stereotyping, I believe it both limits and corrupts both sexes, by causing them to act parts, rather than behave in ways that genuinely and authentically reflect their individual human personalities.

I agree basically with jane's analysis. The movement of women via education into high pay, high status jobs and the economic liberation that went with that was the most important event in western history. This has had interesting consequences though. Now educated couples like my wife and I earn $200k+ a year as a family unit Whats more we send our kids to state schools!!(horror). we can afford to live in inner city enclaves where a tiny house costs $$$$. Families such as ours have pushed the costs of housing to ridiculous heights. The single or poor(uneducated) struggle with both parents working fulltime to pay morgtages which are insane in the burbs and/or pay the credit cards for Kath/kim lifestyles. The social consequence I believe is the sharpening of class difference in Australia and the ghettoisation of the cities especially. The liberation of women has been fantastic for the deucated middle class but I have big doubts about the growing underclass that is what is left of what were once the proud working class of the 40s and 50s.
The restrictive sex based roles of father/mother defined working class life for centuries, now this is gone, and not much replaces it but more and more unemployed or poorly paid if employed young men with little or no chance of forming lasting relationships with women who have a totally different view of their futures.

What do you think??