Aren't women more "liberated" than men?

I don't know about the "more" part, but you are right about a lot of things. Men should be able to express themselves without silly labels. If a man is well dressed and has a sense of style, that doesn't automatically make him gay.Good points with the other things, too.

In the process of redefining roles, it also releases men from having to adhere to strict behavior protocol.

I don't Know that this is how ''Society interprets'' what you are explaining here at all! I have to say that I have never ever considered there is a difference in the genders when you write > "Respect men" vs. "Respect women". To me it is ''Respect'' of or towards another person ...irrespective of their gender. I've yet to have a chat with ''Society'' or hear speech given by it. ~ and I'm not being flippant here, I just have not take on what 'Society' actually thinks, just what different segments of it seem to say about it a great deal ~ usually with a great deal of self interest. Sash.

There are three major problems with the argument that women are more liberated than men.

The first argument is that even though women basically have every social and legal right that men have and more, there is very little legislation that expressly gives a woman her rights, most of a woman's legal defense is implied.

The second argument is that women are still experiencing growing pains in terms of their equality to men. Many (if not most) women feel belittled and that it is harder for them to climb the corporate ladder and gain the respect that they see men given much earlier. For example, many women enjoy sports just as much as men, but in order for a female sports reporter to be taken seriously, she has to know her stuff better than her male counterparts.

The third argument is that women will ALWAYS be judged by their looks... perhaps even more so by each other than by men. If you have ever seen a strong female leader, she will always be referred to as "beautiful" before anything else. Her looks and elegance will forever be referenced before her intellectual or social achievements. You hear a whole lot of very physically appealing empowered women posting their beliefs because the simple fact is that their less attractive fellow feminists are just not taken as seriously.

Connect Now: Nice math buddy, 30 years = 1968-2008?

Perhaps you need to pay attention in 3rd grade math.

and to answer the original question.

Societal pressure is definitely a factor in choices, however, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from ordering the cosmopolitan at the bar, or from dressing in a man thong.

Or from crying when you grandpa dies.

But i do agree with you about these people talking about "liberating" women. I really dont see whats left to be done.

Pay discrepancy is a myth, pure and simple. The statistics that feminists rely upon to state this have been proven to have factual errors.

Hell, even the creators of the study admitted that they overlooked many factors.

I mean come on, it says that men make almost double what women do just because were men, in the SAME position.

you get 9 bucks and hour at mcdonalds? i'm making 18$/hr according to the stats.

I call bullshit lol.

Women rule the world through traditional means in that they do most of the rearing of children and expose the children to their belief system. Traditional women have more power than those that seek to be liberated but become slaves to everything that is less fulfilling in the long run. Now you have women like Megyn Kelly who wants equal treatment but do not want men to talk to women as they do with men.

The funny thing is when feminists start labeling the great responsibilities brought on by giving them the benefits they desire as patriarchal. So, basically, liberty is feminism. Responsibility is patriarchal. They want to give moms the freedom to set their newborn babies on fire, because the law governing the murder of a helpless baby is written by men. Get it?? It's ALL BULLSH!T.

I think men are brought up by their fathers to be stoic for the most part; my ex's father was military. You could be crude as hell, but you could never be caught upset or crying - it wasn't "manly" to him.

I think you are right though on your other points. I think men are confused as to what their role should be in this world, and put a lot of pressure on themselves either because of their environment or because of just trying to be considered a "good guy".

I don't think guys have it easy. I just don't like the bashin' stuff.

All very good points. The simple fact of the matter is that we men allow ourselves to be 'oppressed' in order to play the game called "Life, Family and Fatherhood".

I never hear anyone talking about (American, anyway) women need to be "liberated" -- I wonder where you live, or whether you've been asleep for, oh, 30 years or so.

It's feminists, not the anti-feminist women, who oppose enforcement of the "no emotions" thing.

It's simply not true that men who have fashion sense or color-coordinate are considered "not real men" -- I've never heard this.

And as far as I'm concerned, men can wear whatever they want.

That's all I can see in this screen (which is why it's not good to include long passages in this site -- I can't see most of what you wrote).

It's not true that women have the same opportunities as men economically -- it's gotten much better than in my childhood, but that battle is not won. Rape victims are still blamed for the crimes committed against them; sexual harassment still exists.

And women are dismissed when they express anger -- they're told that it must be "that time of month" (meaning that the real reason for their anger is completely ignored). Women aren't supposed to be tough or competitive -- or they aren't "real" women or are, uh, female dogs (you know the word). So it's not true that women are "allowed" to show any emotion. (Just as men are accepted when they're angry, not dismissed or dissed -- thus they ARE allowed to express that and many other emotions.)

There are also many countries where women are severely opressed -- which feminists are also fighting.

All genuinely HUMAN people are fighting for fairness for ALL (including not condemning men for caring for their children, showing the full range of human emotions, and generally being who and what they are).

As long as people who don't really care about fairness whine about how being fair toward one group hurts them, we'll never make progress.

If people who are genuinely concerned with fairness would consistently attack unfairness -- even when THEY aren't the victim -- we'll make progress.

As long as those who DON'T genuinely care about fairness go on and on about how everyone else has it perfect, and they are the only oppressed ones, we'll never get anywhere.

So, which are YOU?

(For instance, when someone posts "When will women realize they exist only to take care of husband, home, and off-spring?" will YOU speak out? Or will you post "Yeah, brother!")

If you want to argue that men are oppressed by society as well, then that's fine. But it is possible to make this argument WITHOUT belittling areas where women have a more difficult time than men.

As for feelings-- I agree, men are encouraged to repress their feelings more. However, your assessment of stoic women is rather off. If a woman is stoic, she is labeled as a frigid b*tch, Ice Queen, heartless, etc.

Fashion-- This all depends on where one lives. In my city, men are expected to dress well. Granted it is as a status symbol or the likes, but well dressed men are far more valued where I live then poorly dressed ones. In fact, plenty of straight men wear some version of pink where I'm from (to sort of claim the color for themselves. Usually done tastefully). These men aren't considered "metro" (metro has a different meaning here) but instead are considered well put together.

Alcoholic drinks-- true there. I don't agree with it, but few males are willing to be seen drinking them. HOWEVER, it has been my experience that this is a stigma reenforced by other males--not women.

Homosexuality-- again, depends on where you live. Men who come out of the closet are accepted just fine. The only place sexual orientation differs is that a group of men will cheer on two women kissing but not two men (again, reenforced by the male group, not so much the females. I wouldn't mind seeing two men kiss ^_^).

Career-- you claim the "wage gap" is a myth and yet its not. So what if you're tired of hearing about it. It still exists (as I just recently found out). And it has nothing to do with being employed at McDonalds. The wage gap usually only exists in higher paid jobs and in higher up positions. For example, I just recently looked into a national study that reports that male full professors get paid, on average, $10,000 more a year than female full professors. Simply for being male. Now THAT is a wage gap. And I can have some man "sweep me off my feet"? Bull Sh*t! Few people can afford single income lifestyles and I will be making significantly more money than my man. And if he wants to be a SAHD, I would gladly and happily support him--if that is what he really wants (though in my state, like I said, its difficult to live comfortably on a single income).

Your last statement proves how sexist you are. "Women on average are also more likely to take more time off work, to use up sick days, etc... due to everything from periods, OB/GYN visits, pregnancies, and little minor "girly" complaints about minor ailments." Reeealy? Love to see where you pulled those statistics out of. Your @ss, perhaps? I don't take days off for doctor app'ts and when (if) I have kids, my husband is taking off days too if the kids get sick or need to go to the doctors. I will not shoulder the loss of work days alone.