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.