"From my (admittedly female) perspective, I would interpret the criticism of male characteristics that seems so all-pervading to many men to be the balancing out of many centuries of similar criticism of female characteristics. Women have always been expected to accommodate male preferences and tendencies, and now men are also expected to accommodate and compromise."

Gee Hedgepig you really must be old to know that. Me, I am not that old.

Even if the above statement is true and I strongly doubt that it is. It still does not justify abuses of human rights, although human rights are a relatively new concept in the terms of history.

Judging the history of human behaviour from our so called modern perspective. leads to distortions. Mainly because what was acceptable 2 centuries ago is no longer classified as acceptable today.

Such arguements as 'it is justified because of history', is an attempt by abusive people to justify their own abusive behaviour.

We often hear that men do not respect women. It obvious from your post and the post from Hamlet that there is very little respect for men.

My argument was not that criticism of either male or female characteristics is justified, but rather that the existence of criticism of both is relatively recent. Women used to get most of the criticism, now both men and women get criticism. Depending on which sex you are, you'll probably notice more criticism of either male or female.
Your impression that there is no respect for men anymore is like the impression many whites in southern USA had after the slaves were set free that there was no respect for whites anymore. Once formerly privileged groups have to share rights and freedoms it becomes more likely that things won't always turn out the way they'd like.

hedgepig I agree with most of what you say and love the calm way you say it, however, i don't agree men and women are fundamentally incompatible. having been happily married for 30 years to the same bloke, how could I? But we have a partnership, hamlet, that's why it works. Sometimes he takes the lead, sometimes I do. But, just as I would never make a major decision without consulting him (we don't always agree, and have to battle it out occasionally - but that's life), so I would expect him to treat me with the same respect and courtesy.
You might find that if you were willing to enter into a true partnership with a woman - where neither saw themselves as the "boss" but both as equal, adult participants who freely chose to stay together, rather than felt obliged because of what they'd been taught, their religion told them or for economic reasons, that it is the best thing in the world. Good relationships are based on mutual respect, mutual loyalty, mutual consideration and mutual support - with the emphasis on mutual. Indeed, I believe their is some evidence that the more rigid the gender roles in a marriage, the more "traditional" the parts played by man and woman ( male breadwinner and decision maker who controls the money, woman financially dependent, home maker who controls the kids) the more likely the marriage to break up, the more bitter the divorce and the angrier the ex-partners - particularly the bloke, who often thought it was all lovely till his wife finally imploded with repressed fury and left him stunned and amazed that she didn't just love being his home-help.

Ena

I hate to tell you this, but he has been acting all these years: he knows that the idea of partnership is for the woman not to know that she is in charge, unless she wants to know it.

Men learn that if they want to have a happy marriage, and to get some physical comfort, to put the woman first in everything, but not to make it obvious. Congratulations on having a well trained huband for the last 30 years. The both of you have done well, both being happy, but equal partnership, no way.

It is, perhaps, a little presumptuous of you, Hamlet, to assume you know my husband of 30 years better than I do.
All I can tell you is that I believe (with a fairly strong body of evidence behind my belief - much stronger than yours, I'd humbly submit) that you couldn't be more wrong.
And I feel rather sad that you clearly do not even believe in the possibility that you could have a strong, vigorous and equal partnership with a member of the opposite sex. It is possible, it is worthwhile (not perfect, but respect is the only secure foundation for love, I think), but both parties have to be prepared to both give and take. If either wants only to take, or only to give, then the foundations are already shaky, right from the start.

Wow Hamlet how big is that chip on your shoulder.

“they don't seem to contribute anything worthwhile to the world.”

If it weren’t for men we would still be living in grass huts (cant remember which feminist said it)

From the faceless invisible workers who take away your rubbish, supply electricity, water.

The first car was built and designed by a man. Most Medical advances have been a result of men. Note I said most.

I am not saying that members of your gender are not as capable, because this has been demonstrated time and time again that women can do the same jobs as men.

“Your impression that there is no respect for men anymore is like the impression many whites in southern USA had after the slaves were set free that there was no respect for whites anymore. Once formerly privileged groups have to share rights and freedoms it becomes more likely that things won't always turn out the way they'd like.”
Posted by Hedgepig, Thursday, 23 November 2006 3:45:44 AM

A very bad attempt at ‘Sophistry’ Hedgepig!

Men as part of the mythical privileged group, in the UK in the past were gaoled for the debts incurred by their wife, if they could not pay that debt.

So who was really the privileged group the ones that were gaoled or the one’s that avoided gaol?

Women have never been conscripted into the armed services.

There were labour laws in England which protected women, not men. Minor details which tended to be forgotten.

During the industrial revolution there was a very high risk that men would not return from work, then the family would suffer.

If you asked the labourer, the serf if they felt privileged when all they concentrated on was day to day survival, I guess they might have felt privileged to just have enough to eat and not to get sick.

They call it a privilege to die for your country. I’ll stay home and Hedgepig you can take my privileged position and die for my country.