I will have a look at the artical, sinse it did sound interesting.

I think due to the way that over here "feminism" has a vastly different meaning, I'd myself prefer to attack the problem at it's source rather than adopt modes of language and expression that could too easily be served to fuel the interests of one group or another.

My own belief is that even in a society characterized as patriarchal, both sterriotypes are equally damaging but in different ways.

For the feminine lack of personal power, dependence, lack of expression or freedom outside domestic relationships and a sense of self wortth attributable only by relations to others and how someone is perceived by others, eg, fashion, status, personal appearence, and worth gained from husband and chidlren.

For the masculine lack of emotion, enforced competitiveness, any personal expression limited only to power over others, and a sense of self value attributed only to what can be possessed.

Both also have their own forms of shallowness and arrogance as well, which differ slightly in tone but are similar in their effect, --- -for instance the well dressed woman looking down on the well dressed woman or man looking down on someone not of their social standing, though for the feminine this is based on appearence where as the masculine tends to base it on personal power.

So, just as it's wrong to assume for instance that "a woman's place is in the home" assessing a man only by what wage he earns (the good old provider idea), or by who he knows is equally wrong.

Of course, in both sterriotypes there also are possitive traits.

From the masculine confidence, self reliance and freedom, from the feminine compassion, emotional expression and empathy.

I'd actually prefer myself to remove this language of feminism and patriarchy, and talk instead of gender equality vs traditional values.

In practical terms this would mean attacking both sets of sterriotypes and holding freedom of personal choice and expression irrispective of gender as the core value, with the belief that any differences betwene genders bare only as much significance as individuals themselves want to give them, ---- so that for a woman who doesn't want children the fact that she could have children doesn't have any baring on her life and it's choices, eg, she is paid as much as a man doing the same job.

likewise, a man is not automatically thought of as threatening to those around him without good reason, and if a man does not possess great physical strength or wish to compete in sports or other such activities, that is not held against him.

Unfortunately, male sterriotypes are as I said not recognized as wrong over here, so while I certainly believe both are wrong, the fact that men can! be the victims of sexism just as much as women needs emphasizing, ---- albeit under the proviso that this is not as you said yourself a case of opposition.

A really good example in fact of this sort of view is the statement about abuse on male surviver and the existance of the ms website and organization itself.

it is not that on ms there is a belief that women's victimization in abuse is less important than that of men, still less a refusal to acknolidge that it happens, however ms exists primarily to support male victims of abuse simply because so many other groups in society do not.

if there was no such sexist belief about abuse, there would be no need for specific! organizations aimed at one or other particular gender of victim, ---- though of course for reasons of triggering, comfort etc there would probably still need to e gender specific areas for those who wished, (though of course that is a much different motivation than the women like my nasty lecturer who argue men are all potential abusers so abuse of men doesn't happen).