From: Renee Perry <rrp1@cornell.edu>
Subject: re: Gender Differences
X-Xxdate: Sat, 19 Dec 92 16: 59:03 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: rrp1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:56:24 GMT

Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
From: Geezer, dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:01:38 GMT
In article <1560@ozz.oasis.icl.co.uk> Geezer, dvp@oasis.icl.co.uk writes:
 (Some editing here....)

>Why is masculinity such a dirty word these days? Excesses of
>masculinity, as excesses of anything, is not a good thing, but
>masculinity is, in itself, nothing to be ashamed of. Masculinity
>implies a determination not to be disheartened when things get tough,
>not to be discouraged by physical pressure, not to be dissauded when
>your chances of success seem slim. It's about showing those who may
>think otherwise, that you can't be walked on and it's not a good idea
>to try (OK, real Clint Eastwood stuff I know), but with restraint,


I don't quite see how these are exclusively, or even primarily masculine
qualities, with the exception of '.. not to be discouraged by physical
pressure....'  Many women (in this culture)don't have the experience of
physical contact from sports etc that men inthis culture) do [but those
women rugby players.... :-)]. But the rest seem to me simple 'adult '
human behaviors.

( A bunch more editing at work...)

>My perception of radical feminists is that they want to remove man
>as a 'threat' or 'obstacle' and the way they hope to achieve this is
>too turn them into feminine men - make them ashamed of their
>masculinity and their male-bonding etc. Neuter them in effect.

 I guess I'd need to know what radical feminists  you have in mind here. 
Some of the *most* radical don't want anything to do with men at all , so
neutering seems a bit of a moot point.

>Feminists say that a woman should have the right to be a high flier
>if she wishes, or to stay at home and raise kids if that's what she
>wants. If she wants to be a hard-nosed go-getter fine. If she wants
>to have a more traditionally feminine character, also fine. I would
>ask then that they also extend that right to men. If a man wants to be
>a 'macho' man that should be his right and he should not be condemmened
>or ridiculed for being so.
>
>Do I sound paranoid? Just another chauvanistic nutter with an axe to
>grind? Think that if you will. All I'll say is that a few years ago
>the word was that men should not put women on pedestals, now it seems
>that there's those who, in the name of feminism, are trying to place
>them on higher pedestals than they ever were before.

Again, it's far from clear who you're refering to  when you say feminists
.  I don't necessarily think that you're a paranoid chauvinist, but your
perceptions of what's masculine and what's feminine  (or at least how
you've laid them out here), don't seem to have that much to do with
biology or even the range of behaviors I see in the women and men I know.


>Why can't we have equality for all without dictating role models >for
people? 

 Sounds like feminism to me !

None of us are perfect or will ever come close.(another
>profound statement :-) ).
>
>Dave
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------              Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year          -------
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Same to you.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6307 alt.dads-rights:3037 soc.men:21519 misc.legal:21574