But this is my rant, from my side of the divide. I'd love to publish a counterpoint to this rant here - if any women out there would like to have a crack at the other side, let me know. (I tried writing one myself, but it came out terribly - since I haven't lived that experience, I just couldn't get my head into it thoroughly enough.)
Those of you who know me will also know that I play with these boundaries sometimes. I want to be able to claim as much of being "woman (the good parts version)" as my heart desires - though in the real world I'm constrained by the need not to completely alienate the people I care about. I also encourage women to claim as much of being "man (the good parts version)" as they want. My ideal world will have everybody being "free to be you and me" - free to actualize all the aspects of their selves without fear of societal disapproval.
Finally, I'm ranting about mainstream straight society here. I know full well that queer society is different - that's why I spend as much time there as I do, despite the fact that I have never had a same-sex encounter. (Which isn't to say that I don't want to - but that's another story.) Fortunately, the queer people that I know mostly seem to enjoy my company, and don't dismiss me as a "wannabe". I suppose in a certain sense you could say that I am, though - I want the whole world to become more like queer society.
Subcultures like the SCA and science fiction fandom are also different, and I spend a lot of my time there as well. In fact, the only big parts of my life that I really spend in mainstream culture are working life and family visits, and now that I work for Harrison & Troxell, work life isn't really mainstream either.
So, enough disclaimers already - on with the rant!
I'm jealous of the freedom women have to play with their self-image. Women's clothing, makeup, and jewelry offers a lot of opportunity for self-expression, and quite a lot of different images are acceptable in most mainstream situations. (Yes, I know that things are much more constrained for executive women. But they're constrained even more severely for executive men.)
I'd like it to be fun to dress up. (I'm talking about weddings, funerals, formal dances, mundane parties, and the like; the SCA and costume parties are another thing altogether.) The bottom line is that men's dress clothing is boring. The whole idea is that we're supposed to achieve a single ideal - in other words, we're all supposed to look the same, aside from trivial differences like tie color. I'm sorry - I did my stint in uniform in Catholic grade school, and I have no interest in going there again.
I'd like the ability to be a sex object. Any reasonably attractive woman can get a lot of attention in social settings by choosing suitably attention-gathering modes of dress (or undress) and behavior. There is nothing comparable that men can do (except in gay gatherings, and that still won't get you attention from women if that's what you're craving) that has the same effect - and even the closest approximations are wildly unacceptable in mainstream settings.
I'd love to have the freedom of social touch that women have. For starters, they get to hug twice as many people; men rarely get to touch each other, unless they're immediate family members. And they don't have to have the same caution about contact with social contacts. If a woman touches a man she met recently, he'll probably be flattered. If a man touches a woman he met recently, he has to worry about being accused of sexual harassment. Women don't seem to have the same fear of intimate touch with each other that men do, either; things like trading massage comes more easily in women's society.
I'd like to be taken care of once in a while - have somebody take me out to dinner, choose a movie, rub my back, whatever. The burden of being supportive, decisive, and strong seems to fall on me much more often than on my partners; I'd be happier if it were shared more equally.
It's fun to be able to let go and follow somebody else's dance lead. Trust me on this one - leading in the waltz is the short end of the stick; following is much more fun. When you're leading, you have to stay aware of the room and the other dancers, so as to avoid bumping into them. When you're following, you can completely abandon yourself to the sensation of dancing and being near your partner; it's a much more dizzying and exhilarating experience. (I will qualify this by adding that following a bad partner is agony.)
I resent the fact that women get the interesting moves in so many forms of dance. Look at swing, for example; they get all the lifts and twirls. (Yes, physics sometimes dictates this. But not always.) The women also get to wear the interesting clothes, further reinforcing the distinction. The man's role in these forms is basically to act as a foil for showing off his partner. I want my turn to show off, or even to be shown off by my partner.
I wish I had women's more limitless sexual ability. True, finding the ability to have orgasm at all can be elusive for some - but once it is discovered, women can take it to lengths and heights that men can only long for. Multiple orgasm is a real experience, and for women is achieved by letting your mind go (so your body can follow). The closest male equivalent (as documented in Tantric literature, or in westernized versions like The Multi-Orgasmic Man) involves control - that nasty word again. My greatest heights of pleasure come when I can completely let go of control and get carried away by my passions, but I can't get to multiple orgasm that way; gypped again.
The degree of sexual power that women have over men scares me sometimes. Men are prone to such strong sexual obsessions, and women can (and sometimes do) use that obsession as a powerful method of control. Men really can be led around by the slightest promises of sex - you don't even necessarily have to do it, just make them feel like you will someday. I don't really want to manipulate people that way - I'd just like to have the power to be able to do it, and then choose not to.