Lexi, I defer to R0bert's excellent summation.

Antiseptic,

It is always important to question.
And RObert has learned to do that through
his life experiences. In the past men
used to have greater access to wealth and
power and prestige. They could earn more
money, experience a range of career
and other opportunities that used to be beyond
the reach of most women. But of course the
stress associated with a life of competition,
repressed feelings and fear of failure had
dire consequences. The statistics tell the
story:

Compared to women, men had three times the
suicide rate, three times the rate of severe
mental disorders, and six times the alcoholism
rate. Men committed over 80 per cent of all serious
crimes and constituted over 90 percent of all
person inmates. They were far more likely than
women to suffer stress-related diseases such as
ulcers, hypertension, and asthma. The bleakest
statistic was life expectancy. The average male
died seven years sooner than the average female.
It is hard to believe today that this catalogue
of woes applied to the group that was supposed
to be in the upper stratum in sexual stratification.

Of course today, gender roles are in a state of flux,
with some people adhering to the traditional patterns
of the past and others exploring new and sometimes
radical alternatives.

The sociological research of the past two decades has
revealed an astonishing amount of family violence -
between spouses, between parents and offspring and among the
offspring themselves. Leading researchers on violence
among family members have observed that:
"Some families and homes are perhaps as or more violent than
any single institution (with the exceptions of the
military, and only then in time of war)."

This of course does not constitute that all families are
violent.

Returning to the OP, gender theory is rot. But there are some who make a jolly good income from the lie.

Are gender 'roles' in a state of flux? No, I don't believe there is evidence for that either. Most men and women want children and a family arrangement formalised by marriage to do it. Raising children alone is tough. Raising children with a job and a demanding boss, male or female, is even tougher.

But women especially want children and women especially want to nurture them. To assert otherwise is simply not believable. It is nature, so look around.

The difference now is that there is pressure on women to work and work a lot longer. In fact towards a self-funded retirement age that is further off and could be even further off in the near future if government keeps spending on other things.

It is also true that some women and men are hooked on materialism and consumption. Interestingly, conspicuous consumption is a persistent theme of editors of women's mags and columnists who claim to be feminists. That is the ideal of feminist careerism isn't it? Women wearing extravagant and ridiculously expensive clothing and accessories to show off to their friends. Hermes and the rag top Beamer? She waves a hand towards the walk-in robe packed with shoes, "You can't put a price on something that makes you feel that special".

Next minute lecturing young women that they owe feminists everything. Then berating other women for breastfeeding or indulging in the practical and enjoyable crafts associated with home and family. Women have no harsher critics than the feminists.

However women do go through many transitions in life, which is not something accepted by the feminist push in Australia. It will never come to pass that women will eschew the joy, fulfillment and honour of having a family and raising children.

Of course there are some who aren't interested or want the State to do it for them. So what and honestly who cares? It is always too much information. Their choice and they are very welcome to it.

Dear onthebeach,

Of course gender roles are in a state of flux,
with some people adhering to much more
traditional patterns and others exploring new
and sometimes radical alternatives. One size
no longer fits all. Generally speaking,
the lower a person's social class, the more
likely he or she is to conform to traditional
stereotypes. The reason is probably that
lower-class people have less freedom and
effective choice in their lives, and so are
slower to change established patterns. For
example - Hispanic-Americans tend to conform
more closely to traditional ways, partly because
they tend to be relatively conservative on family
issues and partly because a good deal of "machismo:
is still entrenched in their culture.

Black Americans on the other hand are the least
male-dominated of the racial and ethnic groups in
the US because so many family bread-winners in the
black community are female.

But despite such variations, the prevailing patterns
generally provide the standard against which all others
are measured.

For their part, most men in Australia, 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 now permitted a more gentle
and expressive personality than would have been
considered appropriate a few decades ago - the 1950s
"John Wayne" image of manhood has less and less appeal to
both sexes.

Like the feminine role, the maasculine role today is
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.

John Wayne is not OK. But Wonder Woman is OK.

In fact the characters played are creative inventions and despite the myth-making and patronising authoritarianism of feminists, the public can distinguish between the screen and reality.

John Wayne the man exhibited the sensitivity, strength and positive virtues that are equally applicable to both men and women. He was a good father and a good citizen. Here he is,

http://www.tonymedley.com/Articles/Patrick_Wayne_Reflects_on_John_Wayne_as_a_Father.htm

Whereas some would like to imagine that sexual ambiguity is becoming prevalent and boys can be turned into half-decent girls, the truth is otherwise as demonstrated by the documentary that is the subject of this thread.

Just as an observation of how people have not changed in their needs, expectations and hopes for a good life and future, is there a child who wouldn't want and obtain the most benefit from a happy family with mum and dad? What too about the passion of women for finding 'the one' and moans about alleged 'lack of commitment' of young men?

Be careful what you wish for and accept that it is your choice, and your responsibility later.

Dear onthebeach,

Sexual equality does not mean gender similarity or a
"unisex" society. It does not 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.

Postindustrial modern societies are individualistic
and highly open to change and experimentation, and
therefore it is likely that men and women will
explore a wide variety of possible roles. As I stated
earlier - true liberation from the restrictions of
gender would mean that all possible options would be
open and equally acceptable for both sexes.
Then a person's individual human qualities, rather
than his or her biological sex, would be the primary
measure of that person's worth and achievement.

As for my citing the "John Wayne" image in my earlier
post. This wasn't meant as a criticism of Mr Wayne as
a person - merely the image that he represented of
American manhood - which today is more flexible.

BTW - My husband and I lived and
worked in Los Angeles for close to
ten years and I got to meet Mr Wayne on several occasions.

I worked in the Reference Department of the Edward L. Doheny
Memorial - University Library, University of Southern California.
Mr Wayne along with many other celebrities belonged to
the "Friends of the University Library," and attended
quite a few of the Library's functions. He was a very charming
man.