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.