*I do find it hard to ignore the big issues, though the ladies seem to easily reduce everything to the local, the domestic and the personal.*

Well Squeers, in this case I'm going to stick up for the ladies,
as I don't think it is just them. I think its a whole huge chunk
of society, both men and women.

For a whole lot of men its "my footy team, my mates, my family, my
car, my shed."

I have a whole lot of affluent friends, quite educated, who are
mainly interested in how they went at golf that morning. If I go
the local pub, nobody wants to talk world affairs. Its all local,
them, their family. It seems for alot of people, their world
revolves around them and they don't have much interest beyond that.

Fair enough, each to their own, but personally I find it all kind
of boring after a while

Lexi,
this seems simplistic to me: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_white.gif
I doubt people "unquestioningly behaved as they were
supposed to", they probably had a more realistic estimation of life and made the most of it--or became alcoholics.
And what makes you think you're not choosing what you're supposed to by the market, indeed that your choosing at all?
"Today there are many alternative lifestyles and roles that
are acceptable for both men and women".
Doesn't sound very spontaneous. Are you really fulfilled by these anticipated "lifestyles"?
"I supported my husband when he struck out on his own and
decided to freelance - work wise.
He supported me while I undertook some post-graduate studies".
Domestic bliss.
"Our society is
individualistic and open to change and experimentation - and in
it is possible for men and women to explore a wide variety of
roles".
I can't imagine a male saying that, let alone falling for it. Sorry, role-play's not acceptable to me, but whatever rocks your boat, Lexi.

I have to say I'm fascinated at the turn this conversation has taken.

Lexi, what better "alternatives" and "roles" are available to me that weren't available 20, 30 or 40 years ago? I'm a heterosexual man with 2 children. I have no desire to become homosexual, or dress in drag, or to be a "house-husband". If I want to buy a house, I can't do it on one income. If I apply for a white-collar job, I have to face the fact that if a woman with similar or even somewhat lesser qualifications applies, I will not be considered. I could go on...

What's your "Brave New World" got in it for me?

squeers, you gazumped me.

Lexi,

Anti (and Squeers) makes a pertinent point. The core investment for most men in their lives has usually been their working effort toward purchasing a house - which now requires two incomes and, therefore, two working careers to attain.

If we replace the word "people" in the first paragraph of your last post with the word "women", it's probably more representative of the state of play.

"The point I was trying to make is that we have fewer
constraints today than "women" in the past under the
"old system" where "women" knew what their roles were,
and most "women" unquestioningly behaved as they were
supposed to. The system constrained "women", but it freed
them from the need to make choices."

After all,let's call a spade a spade.

Dear Poirot,

I was referring to the restrictive times of the past
when both men and women did what was expected of them
Traditional gender roles continued largely unchanged
for quite a few decades. The era of the 1950s
established the stereotypes that some people still regard
with lingering nostalgia: the father as a dutiful
provider to his wife and family, playing his daily part in a
booming economy; the mother as contented housewife,
cheerfully doing the laundry and making peanut butter
sandwiches for the kids.

Women were treated much like children - they were not allowed
to make contracts of even own property. The system did
constrain people.

Men, after some
hesitancy, have generally reacted positively to the growing
equality of women. In fact their own roles, being
complimentary to those of women, are inevitably in some flux
also. Men are new permitted a more gentle and expressive
personality than would have been considered appropriate
a few decades ago. The 1950s "John Wayne" image of
American manhood today has less and less appeal to both sexes.

As I stated earlier - like the feminine role, the masculine
role is now more ambiguous, more flexible, more subject
to interpretation by the individual. Resolving this kind of
ambiguity is part of the challenge of social and cultural
change.

Sexual equality does not necessarily mean gender similarity or
a "unisex" society. It does not necessarily mean that women
will gradually adopt the characteristics of men or that
the two existing genders will converge on some happy medium.
The most probable pattern is one in which many alternative
lifestyles and roles will be acceptable for both men and
women. I tried to point out that our society today is
individualistic and highly open to change and experimentation
and it is one in which it is likely that men and women will
explore a wide variety of possible roles.

cont'd ...

BTW ; I apologise that I've actually drifted off course
from the subject matter of your thread - I think I was
inspired by something Squeers posted. So back to the subject...

I guess the major reason why I'm still here and still posting
is that I enjoy discussions that challenge my assumptions,
and beliefs. I enjoy reading alternative perspectives that
demonstrate a degree of reflection - and I do
find quite a few posters that provide just that. I won't
list them here (don't want to be accused of being too
"personal" or self indulgent - which I realise I am currently
being - but what the heck).

Humans are the most extraordinary creatures, and a big part
of me still wants to reach an even greater understanding about
who we are. Not because I need to know more, necessarily,
but because I am drawn to the process of discovery.

Sorry if I've made you cringe - but there you have it.