"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 My husband comes from a family with these outdated views and he struggles daily with the fact that I wont "act like a wife" (this is despite the fact that I look after the kids, do 90% of the housework and hold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.