This column will turn the tables around and talk about men. We have had enough discussion about women of late: how women should dress, what types of jobs women should do, how a woman should behave so on and so forth.

Now what about men? Should men also dress in a prescribed way, undertake only certain employment and display a certain norm of acceptable demeanor? Or are they free to live as they think appropriate? Can men do anything they want?

Apparently not. To say that men are not subscribed to any forms of pressure to conform would be false. While women are forced to be feminine and have their acceptability restricted to that of a child-bearer, men are alternatively required to be macho. Their roles are often merely extensions of some archaic notion of the "hunter".

To illustrate some common viewpoints: a man is attractive by his ability to generate wealth and display it, whether through the latest Mercedes Benz or job title. He does not have to be tall, dark and handsome - though that would be a bonus - but he must be able to take care of the family, sometimes more than one. Strength and courage in a man are so essential that it is almost a given fact. Men are "natural" leaders, so much so that a woman boss is subjected to so much bad press its amazing she's still sitting on her chair. In terms of the public arena, it is best to let the men talk, isn't it? They are much better equipped for the great outdoors. After all, weren't all men once hunters? Now that we have destroyed the natural habitat of wild animals to conquer, domesticated our food and put the rest behind bars, civilised society has invented sports to quench our natural thirst for competition and triumphs.

Which brings us to football, where Star Sports generously informs us through bumper stickers that it's "purely for men". What about wrestling? Where those wonderfully bicep-bulging (mostly) men in costumes throwing insults - and quite frequently chairs - at each other trying to outdo the level of aggression displayed.

Drollness aside, what does this mean to a man who not comfortable with playing the role of a macho man? If he is instead a gentle person who prefers dancing to boxing, does that make him in some way, "unnatural"? What about a woman who is outspoken, confident and who likes to play rough? Is she too somehow abnormal? Do we then have a collective problem as a society when men and women irresolutely refuse to stay put in their preordained gender roles? But are the roles really that invariable, and who comes up with them in the first place?

Try this. When we think of a man, what adjectives spring readily to mind? Could it be strong, aggressive, macho, leader, chauvanist, egoistic, violent etc.? What about women? Maybe sensitive, gentle, loving, emotional, meek or understanding. Now, swap the adjectives around. Are men not also able to be gentle and emotional, and are women not also capable of violence and aggression? As can be seen, these adjectives translated into roles are not definitive and are interchangeable. What makes us think one gender is more suited to a particular set of adjectives springs from our skewed perception of the unbreakable link between a person's biological makeup and what they can do. In example, a woman should be caring and loving because she can give birth to babies. On the other hand, a man should be strong and aggressive because of his more muscular physique.

This however is a premature limitation of what a person - man or woman - is capable of. A man's desire to be a househusband is thwarted through derision by others. Boys are encourgared to "be a man" and restrain any natural urges to cry as a release of emotion. Playground bullying and using force to resolve conflict is condoned through one blind eye with a reason that "boys will be boys".

These roles affect not only the individual but also relationships between one another, and ultimately how we arrange our civil society. In a partnership, a husband may feel completely legitimate in using physical violence against his wife if she is not as submissive as he thinks she should be. Rapists may feel completely justified in his use of force because women are seen as sex objects. Women may think that men are completely controlled by their lust and have limited rational capacity when it comes to sex. Men may become emotionally stunted and face the pressure of being valid only if he can bring home the bread. The list goes on.

Bottom line is, it defines humans as one dimensional beings, regardless of the undesirable outcome. Gender stereotyping benefits no one simply because individuals are essentially different from one another. After all, what one person deems as acceptable masculine behaviour may differ from another. The capacity to develop into one's fullest potential - to the eventual advantage of everyone - requires freedom to be, wiithout fear of judgement or moral persecutions. Isn't it about time to shed our archaic and rigid perceptions of what makes a man and a woman?

Jaclyn Kee
10th August 2003

Fortnightly Column by WAO on Sunday Mail (Reprinted with permission from Sunday Mail)