Viking wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2005 09:47:58 -0700, "bluesmama"

> wrote:
>
> >I'm truly interested in what you think, dissenting or not.
>
> To me, this line from the URL both best defines masculism and is part
> of the problem:
>
> "A more encompassing view of masculism is that it is a movement to
> empower males in society, and to redress discrimination against men."
>
> To redress discrimination against men, yes.
>
> To casually call men "males," a dismissive term that has gained great
> currency in the media over the last thirty years, no.
>
> Frankly, my opinion is that there is increasing anger among men, even
> if not consciously directed towards anti-male sexism, and that the
> fine ideological distinctions made in the article are way behind the
> times. No one really seems to care about that any more.
>
> It's rather a confused article, but has some merit in the "Masculist
> observations" section. Thanks for posting it.

You're very welcome; I thought it was an interesting read. I guess fine
ideological distinctions still interest me, at this point anyway. You
know how many women can talk about something in exceedingly fine detail
- mind you, my husband can talk about sports the same way. Maybe it's
not so much of a sexual difference than it is a difference in what
interests us enough to make it worth our while to slog through the
detail.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/4/05 1:01:02 PM ---