I would like to think so.

I like to feel and look like a woman, be attractive to men and don’t feel insulted if a man opens a door for me or comments about my hair.

I also like men to be masculine and my view of masculinity may differ from another. Men don’t have to be an ‘Adonis’ to be masculine for example.

What do we mean by feminine?

Is it the traditional view of women being submissive in need of protection or is it a woman who feels confident and comfortable in her own skin - in who she is whether she be a high powered career woman or a stay at home mother?

Please don't let this discussion degrade into a ‘them versus us’ discussion. What do other women think? Men please feel free to add your comments – they will be welcome too. :)

Is femininity defined by biology or by social conditioning?

I tend to think biology plays a part but also accept that we are very much influenced by societal values and norms. What role does the media play in defining femininity (or masculinity for that matter)?

What do you think?

'Is femininity defined by biology or by social conditioning?'

Neither. It is obvious femininity just like masculinity is by design. Only dreamers would dispute that.

pelican
"What do we mean by feminine? 'Is femininity defined by biology or by social conditioning?"
1. It defined by biology, by social conditioning, by women and by men!
2. various people from various civilization mean very different things by feminine. I want to know what the men and women mean by feminine in countries where women cover their body except from their eyes and have limit rights to express their selves, their abilities, their creativities etc.
It is a sad story to remember women's role and feminine in human history.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Hi pelican,

You should feel and look any way you want, be it feminine or masculine, or anything else. The media does play a big role, because it portrays gender roles stereotypically. So it is up to us to define these roles ourselves, to play with them and bend them. HAVE FUN!

Hi Pelican :)

"function follows form"... or..design.

Females are the complement of males,and vice versa. Like a jigsaw...together the make up the full picture.

If we look at the way life pans out in history, based on a traditional society with no government other than that of the 'group/village/tribe' then.. I don't think too many would dispute the reality as demonstrated by the recent front page of the herald "LOST TRIBE found".

The males were out with their bows and arrows.. 'protecting' the village from the pesky flying monster. No women.. just men. The women were looking after their offspring and taking them presumably to safety while the males fought off 'the monster'.....

Now.. fast forward to 2008.. we have 'central government, rule of law, the UN' etc.. none of which actually change the basic biological differences between males and females. So.... such political structures might make it easier for females to explore different ways of interacting in the community, but it does not change how things would be if all those structures were suddenly removed.

FEMININITY...given that humans are capable of love, not just instictive reproduction, it seems to me that the way we manifest our biological differences should enhance this value rather than degrade it. I guess this means how we dress, speak and act? Same goes for we blokes.
We can use our clothes, speech and body language to reduce our existence to 'MTV/pornography/animal lust' level, or.. to strengthen those things which make a society outlast the next STD infested one night stand.

Serious?. What makes you think feminism = Hairy Lez-bollah?. The question isn't about feminimity (iminimity...eminiminimity...whatever) IMO, it's about everyones perception of feminism. You can have pro-female females without them necessarily being Yetti-esque Lez-bollah.

May I just say that the term "Yetti-esque Lez-bollah" was my first good laugh of the day. Thank you.

Basically, I agree with StG. The answer to your question, Pelican, is yes. I myself am a committed feminist and a spunk of some renown*.

I find men extremely attractive and have in the past gone to extreme and some may say pathetic lengths to attract their attention. (Blonde was a mistake — it made my hair go stringy. So were hotpants.) That was before I settled down with a good bloke and let myself go, of course.

Having said that, while I wouldn't be in least offended if a man opened the door for me, I would never expect it either. Door, no door, compliments, no compliments — I'm happy with whatever. The only thing I am unhappy with — the thing I hate, and find deeply unsexy, no matter which gender spouts it — is discrimination, and the belief that women are in any way inferior because they are feminine. Or men who believe some women aren't sufficiently feminine and therefore are less womanly than others. See whathisface's criticisms of Julia Gillard, e.g.

So basically, yes, of course a woman can be a feminist and feminine. I think this question was settled in the affirmative some time ago.

* In my own lunchtime.

"May I just say that the term "Yetti-esque Lez-bollah" was my first good laugh of the day. Thank you."

*Tips hat*

It doesn’t matter what a woman looks like, feminine or otherwise.

In fact, one doesn’t have to be a female to be a feminist- luckily there are many men who advocate equal women’s rights and are committed to end discrimination. Luckily, we have a few of these wonderful men on our OLO forums

Some feminists are brutal in condemning men, it can become habitual.
I like, love feminists they helped me grow up, by overcoming the expected male role of childhood.
There have been some who were overly aggressive, I lived thru it, and formed my opinion of my own and their sexuality.
I try not to be aggressive and hope they will learn it's negative value, I never seek aggressive company and assume others are the same?
fluff4

I dunno about this 'feminine' or 'masculine' label.

People tell me I am very feminine - based on my appearance. I don't see myself as feminine at all I see myself as someone who just happened to be born female. Also I am a person who happens to be pretty good at so-called masculine skills: maths, reading maps, spatial orientation, design drafting and quite capable of performing minor repairs around the home or on my car. Handy person to have around if I may say so myself ;-)

I mostly wear jeans and docs, yet I still get called very feminine just because I'm a slim blue-eyed blond. The person who inhabits that blond is very different to what her appearance may suggest. This can be very annoying sometimes, because I am frequently underestimated - big mistake.

As for the label 'feminist' to my way of thinking it is much the same as 'humanist', by that I mean, all people are entitled to equality of opportunity AND respect.

On the courtesy thing.

I believe that it is a two way street. I don't expect doors to be opened for me just because. I have often held doors for men and vice versa, sometimes the men say that they should've opened the door - I say "Courtesy works both ways." I have given up my seat for pregnant women and frail elderly people (men and women).

Being courteous is not a prerogative of either sex, its just common sense.

And what do I value in a man?

Exactly the same things I value in women:

Humour
Integrity
Honesty
Intelligence
Self respect
Competence

*quite capable of performing minor repairs around the home or on my car. People tell me I am very feminine - based on my appearance.
I still get called very feminine just because I'm a slim blue-eyed blond*

Ah Fractelle, the perfect woman! One who looks like a real woman
but can think like a bloke :)

Yabby: "Ah Fractelle, the perfect woman! One who looks like a real woman
but can think like a bloke :)"

WRONG Yabby, everyone knows that the perfect woman can't think and loves housework.

So I am definitely NOT your poster girl.

-)

Thanks everyone for your comments. The thread was a result of a comment regarding femininity on an old OLO subject some time ago but it got me thinking.

I agree with many of the comments above that what we look for in male or a female friend is much the same at the character level eg. honesty, integrity, reliability etc. The chemistry and interactions between a male and a female is very much a personal thing I guess and based both on cultural and biological factors.

The perpetuation of the species relies on being attracted to the opposite sex so viva le differences whatever they may be. :)

Of course, the most important thing is to be loved for who we are.

I started this subject but have to be offline for a few days unexpectedley so I apologise if I don't comment for a while on my own thread - (I believe this is bad forum etiquette) :)

I think there is some contradiction. Feminism is very corrosive now, where once it had some value. In general, feminism teaches women who like the submissive role to think badly of themselves and to be ashamed for supporting the "male power structures", when in fact it brings them most happiness.

Steel I would think that feminism (if it ever was 'corrosive') would be less so in current times.

I have called myself a feminist when speaking about equal pay, equal rights under the law and so forth and most feminists don't see themselves as anti-male, quite the opposite in my experience.

Trying not to make this too political but movements and societies evolve and I personally believe that feminism has been successful in achieving its main aims but acknowledge that there is some room for improvement, not only for women but for men particularly under family law.

I agree Steel that feminism has not been ALL good, particularly for those who might not choose a career over staying at home to raise a family, thus not fitting in with the economic model that governments are trying to force upon us as the norm. Probably less about feminism perhaps and more about economies. I am not sure.

For me feminism for the 21st Century would be about an opening up of options for both men and women and establishing the economic and social structures to support those options. It would also be about equality but as a class issue rather than a gender issue. It is pointless to some extent talking about equality and power between the sexes when most of us has no real power in relation to the distribution of wealth and power.

Steel: "feminism teaches women who like the submissive role to think badly of themselves and to be ashamed for supporting the "male power structures", when in fact it brings them most happiness."

Well, perhaps that's your experience. In twenty years of being a feminist, being in feminist organisations and reading about feminism, I have always learnt and believed that feminism teaches women to be proud of whatever role they decide to take on, whether that be staying at home nuturing a husband and children, being a nurse, being a doctor, being a politician, being anything they jolly well pleased. The important thing, I believe, is that gender doesn't restrict choices, for either women or men.

This may not tally with your experience, Steel, but I hope you at least appreciate that one can be fairly extensively involved with feminism and NOT learn to be ashamed of any choice they make.

As for what makes women happiest, I would have thought that there are as many answers to that question as there are women. What has made me most happy has been working my way towards doing exactly what I want to do professionally. And having a relationship with an intellectual equal who I find devilishly sexy, and feeling equally responsible for the running of our household. Given he's free to leave anytime, and given his general level of happiness, I think it works for him too.

I appreciate that your experience has been different from mine, but the happiest couples I know are those where the partners think of themselves as equals.

Pelican, interesting thread.

Both feminine and feminism cover very wide ranges. The extremes of both don't go together but there is plenty of happy space in the middle.

I suspect that my idea of feminine will be quite different to that of some others (Fractille already had impressed on that count on a post about doing repairs around her property in a different thread). Others might find that same resourcefulness unappealing. Don't panic Fractille, my attentions are very contentedly elsewhere. Just take it as a compliment.

One of the joys of this space is that we get to know people first by their words rather than appearances. I'll just have to pretend that I don't know that Vanilla has let herself go ;)

I can also be glad that what constitutes masculinity is not the same for all women. That at least one distinctly independant, feminine and beautiful woman appears to find the mix of characteristics which goes to making up me appealing.

R0bert

*WRONG Yabby, everyone knows that the perfect woman can't think and loves housework.*

Actually not so Fractelle. Perhaps that was the old definition
of "wife", which was about washing, ironing, f.... ing etc.

Its a different story with "partner", IMHO anyhow. If you
are both tuned to different mental frequencies, its fairly
bloody hopeless. If you are on the same wavelength, it all
becomes so much easier and more meaningfull. The best relationships
that I have had, have been with really intelligent women.

However their career paths usually take them to totally different
places then where I live, which is in the sticks.

(Fractelles bloke speaking)..

"Honey.. about the garden... I'm thinking we will pick the plants and put them in this weekend..how about it?"

[Fractelle] "Sure mate..sounds good.. we'll put the Azalias at the front, and some conifers at the back"

[Fractelles bloke] "WHAT? err.. umm.. Conifers? did you say CONIFERS? oooh..honey.. I reallllly don't like Conifers..... don't know about that"(thinks to himself.."good GRIEF.. I had a bad conifer experience as a kid..traumatized me.. and now 'she' wants to surround me with them?..argh")

[Fractelle replies].. "But HONEY.. I absolutely LURRRRV conifers..they remind me of my childhood at Grannies.. we simply MUST have them!"

Soon the neigbours call 000 and emphasize the need for an ambulance.

*grin*

Humour
Integrity
Honesty
Intelligence
Self respect
Competence

yeah yeah :)

Wasn't going to put in my two cents worth because, between them, Fractelle and Vanilla voiced my own opinions. But I just had to come in now to ask:-

BD -

What the HELL was that all about?

Hi dear Romany

well..it was about having a slight dig at Fractelles 'paradise' like account of male female relationships.

When I read her post I thought "Good golly.. I've arrived at the garden of Eden" (prior to the fall) :)

She mentions some pretty idealistic values, but knowing human nature, and how WE (all) disagree here.. something as simple as 'which type of plant' ..or.. it might be 'which color for the feature wall' or 'That' painting... tends to bring out the 'challenging' side in all of us..

Most people who express idealistic views about relationships realllly mean 'as long as it goes my way, all that is true' :)

Don't make too much of it.. I'm being a stirrer this time.

Boaz_David....What was that about the front gates of Eden...?

Ah...there's Adam, just finished his Senior First Aiders course...pressure bandages in mitts... all at the ready in case the lovely young Eve is bitten by the nasty serpent. But no... a quick nibble of the pippin and we are forever cast into doubt not knowing where we should tread in sight of our true loves eyes. Or was it the other way around?

Does this all mean that woman is from Earth and man is from Earth also, not the perception of Mars and Venus as was thought?

The mystery and challenge of it all!

Best wishes to all.

Not sure myself what "by design" means in respect of feminity, and to my mind, feminity is equitably a social construct, and a biological fact.

Perhaps, if "by design" implies that a woman herself intends how feminine she might or might not be perceived, (is that possible? or just another social construct about how social constructs combine with biologically embedded tendencies), then, perhaps, the social construct of feminity, needs to be considered within the original choice of the use of the word "feminism". Obviously the first "feminists" were not all big butch dykes.

In fact, I would argue, that many men, find the "tom boy" type self image, to be more feminine than the boob jobs and mini skirts ever could be.

Of course it is possible to be a feminine feminist.

What else are all women who have wider hips, narrower shoulders, and tend to cover up their body because it attracts men's gaze.

For a start Vanilla you could read the articles on OLO.

Steel: "For a start Vanilla you could read the articles on OLO."

Sure, I take your point. If you look at my comment history, you'll find that I have argued voraciously with some OLO feminists about their attitudes. Thought I loathe these labels, I believe I'm what some people call a "sex-positive" feminist, which is why, in part, you and I were in agreement about Bill Henson for example. (As was, I might add, every feminist I know. I refuse to count Hetty Johnson as a feminist as I believe child-protection is her real focus, whether or not you agree with her methods, and I do not.)

However, I still stand by what I said in my earlier post. I have always learnt and believed that feminism teaches women to be proud of whatever role they decide to take on. And men too, come to think of it. That does not mean every feminist I've met agrees with me. Many don't. It's one of the things I love about the movement toward sexual equality — it really is robust and challenging and intellectually demanding. It is not black and white. I rejoice in its complexity.

And, anecdotally — not, I concede, statistically, because I've never seen the stats — couples that believe in sexual equality seem to be happier than those who have taken traditional roles. This may have been different in earlier times, when those roles were expected, but in this day and age equality seems to better guarantee happiness and longevity of relationships.

Whitty (who's left now) once said something very wise about women and feminism. He said we (women) are reluctant to criticise it because we are so grateful for it. We are loyal. He meant it as a criticism — that we lack the capacity to fault it because of that loyalty. But I see something different. My mother was a working-class woman who scholarshipped her way into medical school because she had an enlightened father who simply recognised her as clever and believed — despite the fact it was the 1940s, and women, especially poor women, simply didn't become doctors then — that she should be allowed to achieve their potential. I admire both my mother and my grandfather for their foresight and visions and yes, I am loyal to the movement that suggested gender (nor social class) should not hinder potential. I want and work for the best of that movement.

Steel, as I said earlier, I do appreciate your experience has been different. I honestly do — it's not just lip service. Some men have sh!t lives. Affirmative action — with which in this day and age I profoundly disagree — has seen some less able women promoted before qualified men. So I do appreciate your take. On the other hand, you have, in the past, not only disagreed with my arguments but also suggested — several times — that you reckon I'm a bit of a der-brain in general. (I can provide examples if necessary.)

Tell me why you disagree with my argument. But there's no need to tell me again why you think I'm thick — I've heard it before and I get it.

R0bert, when I said "let myself go", I didn't mean "ended up a drooping-fag-out-of-side-of-mouth, shell-suit-wearing, stringy-haired, foul-mouthed, Westfield-food-hall-haunting harridan. I meant I used to be a size 10 and now I'm a size 12. Oh, ok, sometimes a size 14. But other than that, I'm quite presentable really.

On this topic, can I just say that I've seen pictures of the real Romany and she's a total fiery-haired spunk.

Vanilla, I took your comment as being tongue in cheek.
You are one of my favourite feminine feminists.

R0bert

This is a brilliant thread - thanks pelican :)

I've avoided it until now because

(a) the answer is so obvious, and

(b) I thought it was going to be another of those tedious OLO gender wars.

Happily, the latter hasn't proven to be the case, and most people seem to agree that the terms aren't mutually exclusive.

(c) Vanilla's excellent comments above expressed very similar sentiments to my thoughts on this fraught subject.

Of course it's possible to be simultaneously 'feminist' and 'feminine'. Indeed, every serious emotional/sexual relationship I've had has been with a woman who could be described as both.

Of course, it has to be said that from a male perspective the simultaneous accommodation of the independent career heroine and demonstrative, supportive lover and soulmate can prove terminally difficult, as far as the relationship is concerned. But my more recent and enduring experience is that it is quite possible to achieve, especially when true love is involved (not to mention financial security and low stress work).

Actually, I think it's possible to be, if not feminist, then 'feminist-friendly' and 'masculine' too. But that's probably a different topic :)

So Fractelle's eminently pragmatic ideas on relationships are of "paradise", and "the garden of Eden"? Strange then that Vanilla's account of her own happy relationship managed to tally pretty much with the values Fractelle expressed (and that I agreed with too). I've actually heard a couple of other posters voice similar sentiments (I think Robert was one?)at different threads.


Even then BD couldn't resist the temptation to insert the worm in the apple by claiming (and considering he knows neither Vanilla, Fractelle or me this is a true modern-day miracle, folks)that what was really meant was "as long as it goes my way, all that is true". As an "expert" in interpreting texts, BD, old son, I suggest you do some research on the texts in question and their relationship to previous posts by the said posters and come up with one single remark backing that sour-grapes claim.

Nah, face it, BD, we from "the dark side" seem to have it all over you women-should-cover-their-hair-and-recognise-men-as-superior mob in the relationship stakes, huh?

Oh, and "That time" you were being a stirrer? That, rather than any real or honest attempts at exchanging ideas, seems to be your predominant motive on all threads. But, in this case, (as in most others) I ask, simply, "Why?" What could possibly be the motive behind a mature adult - a mature Christian adult at that - jumping in and disrupting things when they have nothing whatsoever to contribute?

Vanilla - a "total fiery-headed spunk"? Gonna get that framed, girl.

Femininist still have a long long way to go.
Male Chauvenism and Capitalism is still blocking their path.
Women have come a long long way since say 1910 and the suffragette movement acheived a great deal and so did the likes of OZZY Germaine Greer campaigning in Britain. Feminist do not need to be feminine the question does seem to be patronising. Feminist have plenty to do within their religious beliefs especially Moslems, Latter Day Saints, Jehovah Witness and many other beliefs. They are still classed as the appendage for lack of a better word. After all they were created from Adams rib.
It was Socialist men that strengthened the Femininist cause and equality had to be legislated women alone would never have done this on their own as slavery would never had been abolished without the help of progressives and reformers.

Vanilla>"On the other hand, you have, in the past, not only disagreed with my arguments but also suggested — several times — that you reckon I'm a bit of a der-brain in general. (I can provide examples if necessary.)"

Vanilla I found your response balanced and thoughtful, but i thought i retracted that at the time-Your comment here demonstrates that you are not. There is nothing wrong with being thick though if you have more sense and insight than another who isn't. Still there are articles on OLO and elsewhere that indicate it isn't people like you in the feminist movement who have the most influence (you probably have no interest) and are trying to continue to manipulate society to their favour and to fit with their agenda.

Is it possible to be a feminist and be feminine? Of course it is fighting for womens rights comes within entitlements and justice it has nothing to do with Gender. Pru Gower has been very quiet since she has represented the Coalition way of thinking her role now does not seem to be compatible with her previous job. The Iron Lady benefitted a lot from legislation and at times thought she was actually the Queen of England. Golda Mier was perhaps a great leader.Jane Fonda was a person to be admired during the sixties. Vanessa Redgrave was also prominent in politics and Yoko Ono inspired John Lennon. The Dixie Chicks are Feminine Feminists as an example. Burmas Truly elected leader is also a person to be revered and is extremely feminine and so was Ms Bhutto of Pakistan she should never be forgotten. Can we name any more ? Feminine Feminist

Steel, I'm sure other posters will be the judge of my thickness or otherwise, and our respective qualities in general. I was simply letting you know that I'm very clear about what you think of me. What i think of you remains a delicate secret.

Given you don't know who I am I don't know why you're so sure I have no influence in the feminist movement. Okay, I'm not saying I'm a mover and shaker, but I have been a consultant to government departments. I'm certainly not in the Cathy Lumby league, but on the other hand, there are a lot of feminists whose attitudes you probably disagree with who contribute to OLO who are phd candidates and have zero impact on actual policy.

Let's name names. Who are the feminists you believe are influencing government?

Vanilla>"I was simply letting you know that I'm very clear about what you think of me."

I don't know why you keep raising that point. You seem more clearer about what I think of you than myself :)

Vanilla>"What i think of you remains a delicate secret."

I can probably guess now considering your not so delicate statement.

Vanilla>"Let's name names. Who are the feminists you believe are influencing government?"

I don't know...I did say society not government, earlier.

Oops, I re-read my comment and that's not correct :P

These should be seperate:

Steel>"Vanilla I found your response balanced and thoughtful"

Period. That should have ended there.

Steel>"but i thought i retracted [the inferences about your intelligence] at the time-Your comment here demonstrates that you are not ['thick']."

See, I made a mistake it should have read like that.

Steel>"There is nothing wrong with being thick though [*if* you were] if you have more sense and insight than another who isn't."

Sorry, Vanilla if you read it literally. I sometimes throw around these things loosely anyway and sometimes to my regret.

Let me ask the corollary to this question, as the original question seems to have been answered in the affirmative: is it possible to be fulfilled as masculine and non-feminist in today's world? There is an enormous amount of publicly-funded pressure being put on blokes to be more like women in their behaviours and precious little encouragement given to express the conventional masculine traits of self-reliance, courage-of-conviction, independence and so on. Do women really want men who are women with a penis? If so, why, what is the attraction? As a bloke who is probably fairly regarded as a "man's man", I have few interests in common with most women, yet we seem to get on fine until they inevitably decide I'm too "blokey" and try to change me; usually into some version of the currently fashionable "ideal".

It seems this was always the case mind you, as my Dad used to say "a woman picks a man because she thinks she can change him; a man picks a woman because he thinks she'll remain the same". In his day, both were likely to be disappointed; today?

there are a few interesting questions arising in this thread, about the nature of feminism, and the nature of feminity

I like antiseptic's comments in the post before this one, about women picking the man who will change for her, and men picking the woman who will not, and both being inevitably disappointed. It seems to be a more universal truth than any feminist dogma, despite how much we all love our feminist liberation.

I have a question for everybody who can be bothered to contemplate it:

Are men more likely, (or perhaps even more capable), of noticing what defines femininity than women are?

It may well be the case that only a female could ever believe that being feminine and feminist had any possibility of being mutually exclusive.

That is to say, I reckon men are more different from us girls, than we often give them credit for. (after all, why else would any girl . . . )

Some great comments by CJ, Vanilla, Romany, RObert, Fractelle, Curaezipirid and interesting reflection by Antiseptic – I wonder if this is how men see women today? There may be an element of trught there although personally I wouldn’t choose a mate that I think I need to change to my image of perfection - too exhausting and life is too short.:)

Curaezipirid you ask an interesting question. "Are men more likely, (or perhaps even more capable), of noticing what defines femininity than women are?"

Even males might differ on what they view as feminine or attractive. Sometimes my husband and I disagree on what constitutes ‘attractive’. Maybe a woman’s perception of women is different than men - has to be I guess as I am not seeking sex from another woman whereas a man's perception will be governed by this to a large extent.

And : “It may well be the case that only a female could ever believe that being feminine and feminist had any possibility of being mutually exclusive.”

Not necessarily as demonstrated by the comments of most posters but I take your point given the title of the thread. Women have so long been criticised, pilloried and satirized by men for feminism (not all men) and aspersions about feminists as hairy armpitted, short-haired, b**l crunchers .... well you get the point...don’t help.

Personally I think we all can be whatever and whomever we wish to be and the good thing about reaching middle age is you tend not to worry so much about what others think. And as RObert said we are lucky when we find someone will accept us for who we are

cont...

Vanilla
I agree with you, the happiest relationships are where the partners respect each other as equals - don't know how either partner could be fulfilled if they were to feel either diminished or overtly powerful in the relationship.

It is apparent that concepts of masculinity and femininity alter and evolve over time. I can think of many examples of women considered beautiful or feminine in the 30s and 40s may not rate a mention now, and many commentators have surmised that even Marilyn Monroe would not have made it in today's 'thin' obsessed culture. The media plays a big part in this. It is probably well that we all have different views on attractiveness - otherwise a lot of poor sods and soddesses would be alone.

And we certainly have moved away from the Neanderthal times when the caveman would, by nature of his physical superiority, be able to drag off any woman of his liking to his cave (yes...I am assuming this was so as I wasn't there at the time :D).

My girls are very different - one more a tomboy who won't wear dresses and the other loves to wear makeup and dress in skirts and the like. I was probably a bit of both, and was often found hanging upside down in a mango tree playing cowboys and indians with my brother and friends.

Before I left home my father taught me to change a tyre, a sparkplug and points so that I could look after myself when I left home but luckily I never had to do it as the few times it ever happened with my old bomb of a car a man would always pull over to help. I didn't expect it, but appreciated it all the same. :)

Pelican

"Before I left home my father taught me to change a tyre, a sparkplug and points so that I could look after myself when I left home but luckily I never had to do it as the few times it ever happened with my old bomb of a car a man would always pull over to help. I didn't expect it, but appreciated it all the same."

Excellent, your parents taught you to be resourceful - which is the best parents can do for all their children (boys and girls). Who wants a man incapable of cooking? Who wants a helpless woman? Masculinity, to me, means a man who is comfortable with himself and not threatened by either strong women or homosexuals. A man who is comfortable with himself is comfortable to be with :-)

Romany, thanks for saving me the bother of asking Boaz "WhatTha?"

Boaz, if you want to mock just make sure you haven't been dipping into the sacramental wine and actually make some sense in future.

Antiseptic I think probably spoke for a lot men on this forum when he said: "there is an enormous amount of publicly-funded pressure being put on blokes to be more like women in their behaviours."

Given that the blokey dynamic was once the defining paradigm in Oz there are still many people who were brought up in the Man = Strong, Unemotional and Woman = dependent, defenceless mode. O.k., that is a broad example: the point being that certain qualities were considered male and certain other qualities the prerogative of females.

Asking a man therefore to show characteristics that such people always considered feminine does indeed seem as though "men are expected to be like women" Conversely when a woman takes on characteristics such people consider masculine, she is faced with an either/or and forfeits her defining feminine characteristics.

I think what unsettles those with this mindset is that they do not see that feminism seeks only to make basic human characteristics define all human beings. They think that to take on any one "feminine" characteristic means to forfeit another "masculine" characteristic. And, of course, vice versa.

Antiseptic's learned genderism posits independence as "male". As strength is also male, strength of character or conviction are also seen as the province only of men.

Therefore a woman who shows strength of conviction (especially in defence of feminism!) has given up not just her gendered but her sexual niche which leads often to the assumption she has "crossed over" and become a hairy old dyke. Or a man who exhibits compassion and empathy has become a "pansy".

The conflation of gender with sexuality thus leads to the belief in the dichotomy that a feminist cannot be feminine - or, if male, masculine - and those who resist feminism are therefore not resisting an ideology but what they see as personal emasculation.

I was once told by a female friend, that when it comes to partner
selection, women will draw up all kinds of lists, but in the end,
they will just follow their feelings. I'd say that there is certainly
some truth in this and that we underestimate the role played by
instinct, in our decision making, be that male or female.

Some call it chemistry, science makes some claims about it being due
to our olefactory bulbs and genes. Apparently women can sniff
sweaty t-shirts and identify, who they will be attracted to.

Through self observation, I've had to admit that there could be
something in all this, although perhaps we don't yet fully
understand the science behind it. Some women, even if they don't
have the qualities that I claim to find important, even if they
don't look like I claim to prefer females, I just want to badly
bonk, others I am happy to just call friends :)

That all this has something to do with the disasterous relationships
in which we can land up finding ourselves in at times in our lives,
I will have to concede, could be true.

OTOH, when the so called chemistry is right on both sides, as
well as the mental frequency, wow, its hard to find, but when
it does happen, it makes the whole mating game very special
and worthwhile

Steel, thanks for clearing that up. We did get mixed up with our messages there. Glad we've sorted it out.

Romany, very brainy and true.

Hi all

Interesting and insightful thread. Yabby, you can be such a sweetheart when you want to. On a thoughtful note, I have been with my partner for more years than I'm prepared to post here, and Yabby, you are absolutely right. He was not what I had, through my teenage years, for example, imagined that I would spend my life with.

I think it is possible to have feminist ideals with regard to matters of equality in status in life, career, education, political and other opinion, financial dealings and the like, but I would not like to think that I have lost feminine characteristics for having defended those rights.

In my case, to an extent I have had to, because my partner retired from the workforce some years ago due to major illness, and I have been the "breadwinner" for the ensuing years.

I have many male friends, and there are even men whom I might have found attractive were I not already attached, but I don't think feminism and femininity are mutually exclusive.

Cheers
Nicky

Pelican, what a good question!

The women on this thread have articulated quite perfectly what I think. Especially Vanilla. Vanilla's story also demonstrates how the important men in a women's life are as inspirational as the women.

Both men and women should feel free to develop whatever talents they have without feeling they need to keep any eye on society's construct on what constitutes masculinity or femininity.

StG and Albie made be laugh so hard I almost wet myself!

Romany: "Asking a man therefore to show characteristics that such people always considered feminine does indeed seem as though "men are expected to be like women" Conversely when a woman takes on characteristics such people consider masculine, she is faced with an either/or and forfeits her defining feminine characteristics."

Bit of "learned genderism" there, Romany; the bloke is being asked to change and the woman is making her own decision. It's that dichotomy that was my point. The reason that feminism took the imagination in the first place was that women felt disempowered and constrained to fit into the prevailing view of their role, which some felt was not allowing their natural proclivities sufficiently free rein. Don't you think it's somewhat ironic (hypocritical even) that feminists should now be telling men that they should not act in accord with their own proclivities?

Romany: "strength of character or conviction are also seen as the province only of men."

What a lot of tosh. Do you deny that males have certain generally-applicable characteristics and women have others? If you do, you'd be at odds with some very successful advertising agencies. Men are rambunctious, loud, sometimes rude, boorish, selfish, loyal friends, generally goal-driven and occasionally compassionate and empathic. Does that mean I think women are none of those things?

Besides which, I think I expressed my points perfectly well back there. I do wish you'd address what I write rather than creating your own version and addressing that. Most of the time I take the trouble to be as clear as I can.

Romany: "Therefore a woman who shows strength of conviction (especially in defence of feminism!) has given up not just her gendered but her sexual niche "

"Those who resist feminism are therefore not resisting an ideology but what they see as personal emasculation."

So, if I get this straight, your thesis is that men who resist feminism are neanderthals who make nasty assumptions about successful or strong-willed women because they fear having their nuts lopped off? LMAO. You really are very funny, you know.

"So, if I get this straight, your thesis is that men who resist feminism are neanderthals who make nasty assumptions about successful or strong-willed women because they fear having their nuts lopped off?"

Antiseptic, I dont know about fear of losing ones nuts, but a lot of the (generally older) feminist-resistant men I have come across (and I see quite a lot in a business context) DO make nasty assumptions about successful or strong-willed women. The women that choose to associate with these men have a tendency to do the same. My husband comes from a family with these outdated views and he struggles daily with the fact that I wont "act like a wife" (this is despite the fact that I look after the kids, do 90% of the housework and hold down a fulltime job). Problem is that I dont follow his definition of wife, which is dutifully agree with your husband at all times, and so there is often conflict. The problem is that his view of the role of women is not from some deep primal reality, its simply a result of social conditioning.

Antiseptic: "It seems this was always the case mind you, as my Dad used to say "a woman picks a man because she thinks she can change him; a man picks a woman because he thinks she'll remain the same". In his day, both were likely to be disappointed; today?"

I don't know what day that way, but, with respect to your dad, I don't see that as a blanket rule, then or now. It may be true for some, but was it ever the norm? My parents picked each other because they had the same intellectual focus, and because they desperately fancied each other. As for their extra-curricular activities, Dad was a jock-type — he was sportsman — and mum was more creative, so they simply supported each other's independent interests and enjoyed their common interests. (The biggest problem they faced in their union was more a class one — Mum was working class and Dad middle-class — it mattered in those days.) I don't think either wanted to change the other and life would have been pretty boring if either wanted the other would stay the same. They've been married now for more than fifty years. Mum says the secret to their success is that they never got tired of talking to each other.

In my relationship, it's the same. I have some stereotypical "girly" interests — cooking and gardening — but also some "male" ones. I provide the technical support in the house, for example. Similarly with my partner. We slip apart for some stuff but then slip back together for our vast array of common interests, which are neither masculine or feminine but the things we generally discuss on this forum — books, politics, policy, social issues.

Romany: "I think what unsettles those with this mindset is that they do not see that feminism seeks only to make basic human characteristics define all human beings. They think that to take on any one "feminine" characteristic means to forfeit another "masculine" characteristic. And, of course, vice versa."

I have nothing to say about the except I agree and thought it was worth repeating. In my mind, the goal of a relationship is to provide each other with the emotional support to become MORE yourself.

Women are no longer victims of a patriarchy, and men are not victims of some feminist-lobby-group conspiracy. We are all responsible for ourselves and our relationships, and culture is constantly engaged in the tricky job of drawing lines in sand. The Footy Show saga is a good example. The Footy Show is a celebration of masculinity which rates highly and which many blokes and women enjoy — for its masculine ethos. It all works well UNTIL it seeks to put people down, until it starts to lie — as Sam Newman did when he said women contributed nothing to the AFL soon after at least one of the women he attacked had managed to raise $20,000 for her club. Masculinity was not on trial with The Footy Show, deception and cruelty was.

Romany/Antiseptic,

I'm really interested in your debate. Antiseptic has eloquently argued my point of view, which I have previously done so badly a lot of people have questioned my mental health.

'The bloke is being asked to change and the woman is making her own decision.'

Exactly. I have never had any objection to women deciding to free themselves of whatever gender roles they felt trapped in, but there are a great many men happy with male codes of behaviour, and I don't see why feminism must encompass changing men's values.

' feminism seeks only to make basic human characteristics define all human beings. They think that to take on any one "feminine" characteristic means to forfeit another "masculine" characteristic'

That's rubbish, and very patronising. For a start, Feminism seeks a lot more than that. I notice you use the word 'make' too. Social engineering of what characteristics people choose to value and define themselves with? I'd rather we just allow people to choose what characteristics they value for themselves.

I find a lot of feminist writings demonise supposed 'male' characteristics like aggression, stoicism, competitiveness for the purpose of dumping on the patriarchy, while at the same time rallying for women to be 'allowed' to exhibit these 'male' traits. So they define them as 'male', therefore 'bad' characteristics, but then cry when women who have been freed to exhibit these traits are labelled unfeminine. They say Thatcher had to behave 'like a man', I say she behaved like a woman in power.

'those who resist feminism are therefore not resisting an ideology but what they see as personal emasculation.'

It's a bit rich to lump any objections any man has to feminism as a gender identity problem. Men have designed for themselves over years what it is to be male, what characteristics they value over others, and feminism is by your own admission the business of redefining for men what it is to be male. I'd call that emasculation.

Vanilla,

I agree with some of your take on the footy show argument, but only in regards to the comments about 'women contributed nothing to the AFL '. I wouldn't say lie though, that's just his opinion.

I believe some of the objections to the jovial antics, poor taste jokes and rejection of PC principles in these type of shows exhibit an attitude that men should change to accommodate the sensitivities of some women. Why do women so desperately want to be included in this kind of world, only to have it changed to suit them. It's like a tourist complaining that things aren't like home to me.

You just don't see men waging war against Sex and the City, or 'Mere Male' articles in women's magazines.

The popularity of these type of shows exhibits the shrinking space men have to be themselves, without having to worry about the PC feminist brigade. Not that I even like the show, I rather they talk about sport than make high school standard skits in dresses.

Does anyone have any examples of PC culture curbing women's behaviour? The tax on alcopops is one, although the motivation is still really to stop supposed 'male' behaviour in women. What I'm really looking for is an example of curbing traditionally 'feminine' behaviour.

Usual suspect, I dont agree. Feminism (apart from the extremist views that few really subscribe to), aims to promote women to free themselves from past society views of the female role, AND in the process helps set the stage for men to do the same. The choice should ultimately be one of the individual. Just as women should not be made to feel inferior as a woman if they are competent enough to change the oil in their car (or other such matters), men should not be made to feel lacking as a man if they are competent enough to cook a meal or iron their own clothes. Men who are not aggressive are no less manly than front row forwards. Likewise, not all women are maternal.

This last point was the centre of a big blue in this household when my husband made the ultimate error of telling me that I was better at doing something (cant remember what - probably putting kids to bed) because it came "naturally". Well!! I ever so politely (yeah, right) put it that it seemed easier when I did it, because I'd done it every night for a year (at that point), spent plenty of time working out what worked and what didnt and stopped to think through the long term consequences of my actions, NOT because of some inbuilt ability to settle babies.

Antiseptic – yeah, that would be rather funny. But no, you didn’t get it straight. You know, if I had a dollar for each time someone had accused me of calling men, or a group of men, Neanderthal, I would fly down and discuss this in person. It never enters my head to make such comparisons. Also, I wasn’t being reductionist and using the term emasculation in its literal sense. Emasculation is a common enough metaphorical term to apply to male feelings of loss of power, surely?. After all, no-one has assumed that the title of this thread means “Is it possible to be a feminist and not have ones female genitalia removed?” do they?

And I agree 100% that courage of convictions are not a male prerogative. I was addressing your own statement concerning what you, who volunteered you are a “bloky” bloke called “ the conventional masculine traits of self-reliance, courage-of-conviction, independence and so on”.

You are perfectly correct though to pull me up when I said “ASKING a man therefore to show characteristics that such people always considered feminine…” etc. I should have said “Letting a man know therefore, that its not shameful to show characteristics…”.etc.

However, it was you who changed the verb from “asking” to “telling” viz: - “Don't you think it's somewhat ironic (hypocritical even) that feminists should now be telling men that they should not act in accord with their own proclivities?” …and yeah, I would certainly think that was both ironic and hypocritical. Fortunately though, I have never met any feminists who tell guys not to act in accord with their own proclivities.

Changing a person is a far different thing from letting a guy know he doesn’t have to act with false bravado when he’s worried or frightened. Or inculcating in a kid the absurdity that “Boys don’t cry”.

Conversely, telling a little girl its not “ladylike” to get dirty or a woman that she can’t be a feminist if she wears make-up is all part of the gender conditioning we’re talking about here surely

Country Gal,

I'm not sure you do disagree with me. As I said in my post, 'I'd rather we just allow people to choose what characteristics they value for themselves.
'

The problem I have is with your statement that feminism 'helps set the stage for men to do the same.'. The implication is, and I've heard it often expressed, is that men need to do the same. That's for men to decide, not feminism.

Some men may be stifled by gender expectations, but a lot are not. Similar for women, and I still believe there were women who were happy with their role pre-feminism, and were told they were letting the sisterhood down if they stayed home and had babies. I know not many will agree with me, but I still say feminism de-valued the role of the housewife. I'm not saying that was the intention, but it was definately a side effect. Feminists still now talk about workplace participation as if any women who isn't working cant possibly have just made the choice not to persue a career. They try to create every incentive under the sun to 'allow' (coerce?) women into maintaining a career.

Romany went further than yourself and stated that the aim of feminism was to 'make basic human characteristics define all human beings'.

Men who have defined their value system to embrace and value some characteristics more than others should be free to do so.

Vanilla: "I don't see that as a blanket rule, then or now."

It was a witticism really, not an overarching truth. I must say that my own experience has very much mirrored the comment, though. For the record, Mum and Dad were both married twice - to each other for over 20 years until Mum's untimely death.

Vanilla: "men are not victims of some feminist-lobby-group conspiracy"

You're quite wrong on that score, I'd say. There is a group of women's organisations that see it as their function to "empower" women by disempowering men. These groups do get together and decide strategies, so they do constitute a conspiracy. We see the same bandwagon-riders time after time, regurgitating the same misandric misinformation, generated by fellow travellers who've managed to get themselves qualified as sociologists or some similarly "soft" degree. As "representatives" of other women, that group are pandered to by some mediocre journalists who know where to find an easy few column centimetres. The published tripe is then quoted by a self-serving bunch of MPs and bureacrats (of both genders)to support the contention that there is a big problem with men and so we need publicly-funded ad campaigns telling men how they are expected to behave. Women, apparently, don't need to be told.

CG, I don't share your husband's view of a wife's role. One of the reasons my ex-wife walked away was because I wasn't prepared to work 12 hour days so she could stay home doing very little. I got up through the night for feeds, changed nappies and all the rest. My wife was EXPECTED to make her opinion known. Everyone is different and while some behaviours are social constructs, perhaps including the one you mentioned, some are the result of deeper imperatives.

US: "the shrinking space men have to be themselves"

That's the point I was trying to make. I'm glad to see you've decided to stay.

Romany, the "nuts" comment was a joke. Whenever I hear of another woman appointed to a position of social policy power, however, I do feel the old cremaster muscle contract sharply.

Dear Pelican,

I've been away for a few days and have just come back - so I'm going to jump right into this thread.

"Is it possible to be a feminist and still be feminine?"

Of course it is. I mean, why not? Unless being feminine is not what you want to be. In today's world, I'd like to believe that women have a choice.

What I find surprising though is - why is it necessary to even ask this question? Does anyone question a man - whether he can still be
masculine if he stands up for his rights?

What does wanting equality (fair treatment, equal rights...) have to do with one's femininity or masculinity?

I would have thought that in today's world - the choices are open to us, and are ours to make on how we live our lives.

Am I wrong?

Strange question Pelican, but you are right in asking it. Without femininity, feminism could not have taken root. Having done so spectacularly some of us now feel the need to reaffirm that femininity is still acceptable, as if the movement has been hijacked somehow. Maybe it has.

So how do we all begin to feel equal, and comfortable in accepting equal responsibility, without feeling insecure about being too feminine, or not enough so. Just how exactly should our femininity (or lack thereof) sway us here? If gender equality was indeed feminism’s primary goal, then it must be just a matter of time before men get equal reproductive rights? Right? No more, no less, just equal. Same choices.

Or are we men just not feminine enough to be worthy of feminist consideration? If so, then you’re asking the wrong question and I duly regret entering this debate.

"So how do we all begin to feel equal, and comfortable in accepting equal responsibility, without feeling insecure about being too feminine, or not enough so. Just how exactly should our femininity (or lack thereof) sway us here? If gender equality was indeed feminism's primary goal, then it must be just a matter of time before men get equal reproductive rights? Right? No more, no less, just equal. Same choices.

Or are we men just not feminine enough to be worthy of feminist consideration? If so, then you're asking the wrong question and I duly regret entering this debate.
Posted by Seeker"

That's really interesting. Do you mean should men get a say if women want to have an abortion?

Feminism seeks equality under the law, but it accepts men and women are biologically different. It simply wants them to be themselves — to be unrestrited by gender expectations. So women should be able to quilt if they want or become astronauts if they want, while men should be able to become astronauts if they want or quilt if they want.

What you ask is very tricky, since it is women, not men, who get pregnant and give birth. But, of course, both parties are responsible for conception, and if women insist on having a baby the father doesn't want, he still has to pay for it. Yet if a woman gets pregnant and the potential father desperately wants the child, there is nothing he can do.

What do others think? Is this fair? If not, why not? If so, why?

I don't know, myself.

See and there I was thinking Seeker would get hounded for talking about men in a feminist thread. Maybe he's part of the gang:-)

Woops, I missed pelican's green light. 'Men please feel free to add your comments – they will be welcome too. :)
'

Ah, now we have equality.

Yet if a woman gets pregnant and the potential father desperately wants the child, there is nothing he can do.

There's good and bad power, almost as in arm wrestling the strongest wins mostly. But I've seen the stratergy of will overcome more often than I thought possible.
I have lived happily with strong feminism, and mostly enjoyed it, in a perverse fashion. I found it hard to read the objective, and understand it, too late did I learn to lay and enjoy the ceiling!
Now I'm too old to care and choose to live alone, a committee of one so to speak.
A woman with power that is deserved and justified is no less feminine just more capable, in my experience and I loved then all.
If they too are physically strong it's a bonus, and of course I now cook and clean as needed, this is of course as "I" see it needed.

I learned so much about myself thru their wisdom, tuition and frankness, it is invaluable knowledge, noway was feminism compromised.
A lot of that though is perception as in the individual self?
Most interesting blog and comment, thanks.
fluff4

Foxy, "Does anyone question a man - whether he can still be
masculine if he stands up for his rights?"

Sometimes yes. I've had my masculinity questioned on this site for raising the plight of men with violent spouses. I've seen similar against other men standing up for various "mens rights" issues. Terms like "grow some balls" have been tossed around.

The question could also be asked about masculinity and showing a sensitive side.

Enough women still seem to like the Bad Boy/tough guy image that the answer is not always clear.

There is value in discussions like this, it's worth thinking about what we value and how it translates into our lives.

R0bert

On the topic of violence R0bert, i found this intersting (but not unsurprising considering my distaste of feminism's inherent destructiveness)...

How the Research Showing Women Are as Complicit in Family Violence as Men Has Been Suppressed
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2214

I wonder how far this has gone in Australia.....We do have a predominance of feminists and the sexist and discrimnatory Office for Women and Federal Minister for Women's Interest.

Steel, some of the fiercest opposition comes from paternalists. Those who cherish the old gender roles which for those still clinging to them rely on women being good nurturers, submissive and possibly a bit dim. Especially the ones who will attack a males masculinity over issues like this.

My comment was in relation to Foxy's question rather than attempt to sidetrack this discussion into a DV discussion. I think parts of the mens movement have suffered greatly by a dogged insistence on attacking feminism as a whole rather than recognising that many of the issues men face are a result of paternalistic thinking.

Rather than working with equality feminists many have continually lumped all feminists in the same boat.

R0bert

Dear Robert,

Thank you for responding to my question. I'm hoping that the day will eventually come when we no longer have to deal with labels, but can look beyond, to each other's individuality.

That, as Vanilla pointed out - it will come down to a question of choice - and the choice will be ours to make - freely.

Men and Women alike will no longer feel the pressure of having to conform to some stereotype image.

Foxy, no you are not wrong. In a perfect world we would all live as we choose (while first doing no harm) without stigmas. But the reality is that we do not live in a vaccum and with our choices comes consequences or repercussions. The idea that we can have it all is a myth, sometimes something has to be sacrificed so we can have something else or have something we think we want more. Anyway I digress a bit.

There are no right or wrong answers because the terms femininity or masculinity mean different things to different people. As RObert said he has seen men ridiculed for raising issues like DV. Women who are seen by some as being too powerful or assertive ("aggressive") as "b**ll busters" etc. Some men feel emasculated when working for a female boss no matter how consultative or egalitarian she might be. Some women I know don't cope well with female bosses either - not sure why - maybe it is the idea of competition. I don't know.

There can never be true equality between the sexes (or between people for that matter) as we are not the same. What societies can endeavour to achieve, if they choose, is to establish equality of access to opportunity and sharing of responsibilities regardless of gender. And the framework that enables families, couples, singles etal to be able to choose a lifestyle that suits their particular circumstances and goals.

Runner
You ask a difficult and interesting question regarding reproductive rights. I understand it as Vanilla has restated it in her post - unless we have misunderstood your meaning.

My thinking would be in the case of pregnancy the ongoing care of the baby would be the responsibility of both parents, this being in the best interests of the child (financially and practically). It does raise more questions about responsibility for contraception but even the best laid plans can go wrong.

In the case of an unwanted pregnancy the current practice is that it is a woman's right to choose because it is her body. BUT you raise an important issue about the right of a man to choose to be a parent when the woman might choose otherwise. This is a difficult dilemma and raises other issues like the right to control your own body. That same right should also prevent someone being forced into circumcision or forced into having sex against their will etc. Equally I can empathise with a man who might want to take on the role of parent but may not be permitted to do so. Lots of things come down to weighing up rights on a scale of commonly accepted principles where one right might override another in certain circumstances. Not always an easy choice.

"So how do we all begin to feel equal, and comfortable in accepting equal responsibility, without feeling insecure about being too feminine, or not enough so."

Runner, your question fits in with what I was asking. Is femininity or masculinity defined by what we do or how we behave or how we look? Does gender equality at some level mean some of our more traditional perceptions of femininity and masculinity have to evolve? Is this a good or bad thing or neutral?

Pelican, I suspect runner won't countenance abortions on any terms, though runner, if I'm wrong, I'd be fascinated to hear what constitutes an acceptable abortion.

To wade into this thread (I'd been staying away for similar reasons to those CJ put forward earlier), from my perspective, I can only wholeheartedly endorse the notion that successful couples are capable of challenging one another intellectually. In fact, the most attractive women I know and those I tend to pursue are the ones that are smarter than I am.
I don't know how any man with a brain in his head could prefer having a submissive, empty-headed 1950s (stereotype) style housewife.

I don't accept it at all reasonable that a man could have a problem working for a woman, unless said woman didn't know what she was doing, in which case it's an issue of experience or intelligence, not gender. If your boss is a good one, to hell with gender.

There will be instances where a woman is unlikely to be experienced - certain trades, for instance. However, if a woman has risen to a position of authority in such a field, chances are she's had to be even better than a male equivalent to get there.

Though I guess I'd be annoyed if a female boss who was clearly incompetent, was only there by dint of her gender. I've been fortunate to have good employers, so I guess I can't really comment there.

Frankly, I don't think I'd be at all interested in a woman who didn't have some kind of feminist streak in her. Of course it's attractive. Feminism is so broad, that I think of it as a woman who is willing to stick up for themselves - which goes hand in hand with a certain level of self-confidence and intelligence. It's only when it becomes a tool for bullying, that it becomes a problem. So my answer to the thread question, is a resounding 'of course.'

Vanilla: “That's really interesting. Do you mean should men get a say if women want to have an abortion?”

No that’s not what I mean. Neither gender should have power over the other in forcing their sexual partners into unwanted or incompetent parenting - financial, social, emotional, or whatever. Men’s parenting roles should be treated with equal respect and allowed similar rights, and unless we want a society of drones, we must resist deeming fatherhood inconsequential. But if that is what we really DO want after all, then let’s at least have some decency to accept common responsibility and stop victimising individuals who are given no say in the matter.

Pelican: “Runner
You ask a difficult and interesting question regarding reproductive rights. I understand it as Vanilla has restated it in her post - unless we have misunderstood your meaning.”

Yes, thanks to Vanilla for rephrasing it, and yes, that is what I meant. Difficult question I know, but it is not likely to be resolved by talking about who has responsibility for contraception, who instigates sexual contact, or has more fun participating.

I'm not sure that we are actually just talking about feminism here.

Yes, o.k. the original question was asked in terms of feminism - but behind it maybe the issue is broader? Reading the posts here, isn't what most of us are objecting to simply being categorised at all? Our personal choices being compromised because of other peoples (societal?) expectations.?

I don't know about anyone elses head-space of course, but when I am considering a question I don't consciously consider that I am viewing it from a particular perspective. I get quite a jolt when someone comes back at me and says "Oh, all you....(insert whatever is applicable) think that".

I have repeated over and over again that I have no political, religious affiliations. I have never even applied the term feminist to myself! Yet I get told I am expressing a "soft left" or "anti-patriarchal" stance and judged/reacted to repeatedly along those lines. I/we are seen as representative of some narrow or limited paradigm instead of as individuals.

So maybe what we all want is an end to being categorised at all? Which then obviates the need/expectation for us to behave in certain ways. Gender is visual and a primary category and those of us called feminists object most to that, but aren't we objecting fundamentally about being forced?.. coerced?.. expected? to behave in any way that doesn't take into account our own uniqueness?

My personal ethos is composed of different and eclectic bits and pieces of knowledge, experiences etc.some in agreement and some in opposition to prevailing streams. Whether I prance around in Docs and baggies or in false eyelashes and silk lingerie I am still being true to who I am...why should my femininity or politics or religion have anything to do with that?

Oh damn. Its exam time..I'm probably either being stultifyingly obvious or not making sense at all. Forgive.

:) no problems Romany. I am starting to think I should not have started the whole thread as I am not sure I have expressed myself as well as I might hence other posters taking on board the most obvious interpretations. No excuses - my fault entirely.

Seeker
Apologies for mistaking your name with runner. It must be the 'er' ending.

"Difficult question I know, but it is not likely to be resolved by talking about who has responsibility for contraception, who instigates sexual contact, or has more fun participating."

Not sure I was attempting to solve the issue just discussing contraception as one of the associated factors (where did you got the other two aspects from??). But you will perceive it as you based on your own view and experience of life I guess.

What is your solution Seeker? How can we resolve these issues fairly and equitably?

*Men and Women alike will no longer feel the pressure of having to conform to some stereotype image.*

That already applies now Foxy. Its just that some people are far
more concerned what others think, then other people. Some people
have a low self esteem, others a high self esteem for instance.

One day it will hit you that if you wear the green dress going down
the street, they will criticise and if you wear the red dress going
down the street, they will also criticise.

Eventually you get wise and stay "stuff em" and do what you think
is right and what makes you happy.

pelican, "How can we resolve these issues fairly and equitably"

I doubt that with current tecnhology and biological realities we can solve those issues fairly and equitably. At best we take steps to remove those inequities that we can remove.

From my perspective men who have had no say in the continuation of an unplanned preganancy (or may not have even known about it for years after) copping a bill from C$A seems very unfair. Especially so when the mother has a number of points where she can opt out of further responsibility.

Assuming that termination is an practical option and is common enough that the moral/ethical objections some hold are not widespread enough to be an overriding factor then I suggest the following.

The likely father be given the opportunity early enough during the pregnancy to determine if he wants to take on the role of father should the child be carried to term.

If the answer is no them at most his responsibility is a share of the costs of the termination if the mother does not wish to carry the child to term.

If the answer is yes then he shares the responsibility for raising the child with the time and financial obligations that implies as well as the joys of a child should the mother proceed.

The mother can make her choice regarding carry the foetus to term or termination knowing what the commitment of the father is.

Unless or until we find a viable way of bringing a foetus to term in a healthy state away from the mothers womb the final decision regarding carry the foetus to term or termination lies with the mother.

R0bert

Dear Yabby,

I can't say, "stuff 'em!" I wish I could, but it's not who I am.
The way that I was raised was to always consider other people.

But Foxy, in that case your problem is you and not the system.

Considering people whom you care about, or whose opinions you
respect, fair enough. But then, if there is a problem, you can
also sit down with those people and discuss the issue.

Other people, why worry? Go into any large organisation,
Govt, business, etc, they are full of bitchiness, backstabbing,
people jockeying for positions, fighting, arguing, etc. etc.

That is just people for you. They might be jealous of you,
you might make them feel insecure, whatever, they will rationalise
away things and try and put you down, to make themselves feel
better about themselves.

If you let it get to you, you are the one who suffers, nobody else.

Take note of the people whom you respect and you would respect them
for good reasons. The rest simply don't matter.

Dear Yabby,

Thank you for your insights.

My situation is a bit more complicated.

I don't want to derail this thread - nor bore you with the details .

Suffice to say that for me - it's still very much a learning experience as I travel along life's highway - the old cliche is so true... The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.

But one good thing, life's never dull.

RObert your last line really says it all. But you are right sometimes the realities are not always 'fair' and we all do have different views at times on what constitutes 'fair'.

Foxy, a cliche' but very true nevertheless. I agree, we can always learn more and become better people.

The nice thing about being older is that there is less desire to be popular with people nor to have to agree for the sake of politeness or fear of being ostracised. In this Yabby you and I for once agree.

This does not mean we can temper that freedom with respect for others as well or in the way we might interact with others. Though recognising that none of us are perfect. :)