Our culture is undergoing a slow, decades-long paradigm shift as women gain equality with men, and it is only fair that men also have their say in the terms of this shift. After all, though women had less financial and political power and faced more egregious forms of discrimination, the rigid gender roles of previous generations also restricted the individual freedoms of men. While feminism has been successfully struggling to eliminate the gender restrictions faced by women over the past century, many of the restrictions faced by men persist to this day. Having gained such necessary and basic rights as the right to vote, to forego childbirth, to divorce, to not be beaten and raped by a spouse, and to have financial independence, we have reached point in western society where the restrictions faced by men are just as and in some cases more dire than those faced by women (nonconsensual male circumcision, custody courts perpetuating the perception of male as paycheck and female as childcare provider, and male rape in prison is accepted as inevitable and even humorous in mainstream cultural media).

So we find that feminism must address the needs of men and women simultaneously in order to achieve successful gender equality and allow individual freedoms and opportunities to truly thrive. I wouldn't suggest reverting to a previous, irrelevant cultural model, but some valuable insight can be gained by studying it; instead of rejecting it outright, maybe there are some positive elements that can be incorporated into the new social model that we are creating. I don't see anything wrong with many of the traits traditionally associated with masculinity; I just think it's a misnomer as much as feminism and femininity are misnomers, because "feminine" and "masculine" traits are found in all individuals to varying degrees, and because feminism by necessity is a struggle for equal freedoms and opportunities regardless of gender.

As far as the article's findings and some of the responses here, I find it hard to sympathize with men who hate feminism because they married domineering women, as much as I find it hard to relate to women who make jokes denigrating men because they married thankless patriarchs. It just sounds like a personal problem, to me. Is the fact that women have the ability to earn money for themselves really hurting these men's relationships? It seems to me that if it's important for a man to play house a certain way, he shouldn't marry a woman who wants to play house in an incompatible manner. It also seems to me that some of these men just need relationship counseling (wanting a wife to stay at home and then whining that she runs the household?), or maybe a huge knock to the head that makes them realize that women are just men with vaginas.. i.e. the desire for power and money among women in their workplace is just as legitimate as that of the men and shouldn't be regarded any differently (I'm reminded of this current cultural disparity everytime I read or hear anyone say that they won't vote for Hillary because she is "power-hungry," "too ambitious" or "only cares about winning" ... AS IF!!!)

I love to read the letters of people who have something meaningful to say or legitimate points to argue, and they're not always all in the editor's choices, but it's hard to do that when 90% of the letters are all responses to and from trolls. :(

It is not hard to realize that the letter you're reading is inflammatory tripe and just skip it. Half the time you can just look at who wrote it and skip it without reading one word of it! These people are either mentally disturbed and/or intentionally trying to bait you; you are not going to change their minds with your responses. If everyone could stop having a compulsive need to respond to these imbecils, imagine the possibilities! The letters page would be full of your insightful commentary with occasional little troll poops, instead of being a huge pile of troll poop with occasional insightful commentary! :D

It is not true to state that the women scored "not better but same as" the men. In some cases they did score "better" than the men who took the same tests:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1301400

In response to above comment:

It wasn't NASA that made this determination but a man in charge of screening candidates for the space program in 1959.

He said that women would make better astronauts because the women he tested could pass all of the same physical tests as men, and in addition they had lower centers of gravity, required less food, water and space (due to smaller size) and, emotionally, were better at enduring extended periods of isolation.

This pdf describes the inclusion (or exclusion) of women in NASA from 1958-2004: http://web.mit.edu/murj/www/v11/v11-Features/v11-f2.pdf

My favorite quote:

"How will a girl keep her hair curled in outer space?"

Do these videos have to have music, or can it be at a significantly lower volume than the speaker? Maybe I just can't hear too well because these shoulder pads are muffling the sound.

The rhythm method can be used with the same failure rate as the birth control pill, but you'd have to fork over $600 for a LadyComp. It's completely worth it, to me, as I always had problems with my sex drive when I was on the pill. Sorry for the plug, but this little computer/alarm clock/thermometer has really improved my sex life! Anyway, encouraging people to use natural methods, educating them about how to do it properly and assisting them with the expense of at least a basal thermometer and a chart or calendar (if not one of the sophisticated new analysis/database computers) are all prerequisites for moving a society towards less reliance on chemicals and barriers. Simply cutting off access to birth control, instead, is asking for disaster.