I always feel this fits in this kind of topics. This is an interview with a poet and author some years ago :
During the '60s, another sort of male appeared the waste and anguish of the Vietnam war made men question what an adult male really is. And the women's movement encouraged men to actually look at women, forcing them to become conscious of certain things that the '80's male tended to avoid. As men began to look at women and their concerns, some men began to see their feminine side and pay attention to it. That process continues to this day, arid I would say that most young males are involved in it to some extent.
Now, there's something wonderful about all this - the step of the male bringing forth his own feminine consciousness is an important one - and yet I have the sense there is something wrong. The male in the past twenty years has become more thoughtful, more gentle. But by this process has not become more free. Re's a nice boy who now not only pleases his mother but also the woman he is living with.
I see the phenomenon of what I would call the "soft male" all over the country today. Sometimes when I look out at my audiences, perhaps half the young males are what I'd call soft. They're lovely, valuable people - I like them - and they're not interested in harming the earth, or starting wars, or working for corporations. There's something favourable toward life in their whole general mood and style of living. But something's wrong. Many of these men are unhappy. There's not much energy in them. They are life preserving, but not exactly life-giving. And why is it you often see these men with strong women who positively radiate energy?. Here we have a finely tuned young man, ecologically superior to his father, sympathetic to the whole harmony of the universe, yet he himself has no energy to offer.
Thompson: It seems as if many of these soft young men have come to equate their own natural male energy with being macho. Even when masculine energy would clearly be life-giving, productive, of service to the community, many young males step back from it. Perhaps it's because back in the '60s, when we looked to ,the women's movement for leads as to how we should be, the new strong women wanted soft men.
Bly: I agree. That's how it felt. The women did play a part in this. I remember a bumper sticker at the time that read: "Women Say Yes TO Men Who Say No". We know it took a lot of courage to resist, or to go to Canada, just as it also took some courage to go to Vietnam. But the women were definitely saying that they preferred the softer receptive male, and they would reward him for being so: "We will sleep with you if you are not to aggressive and macho'?
So the development of men was disturbed a little there: non-receptive maleness was equated with violence and receptivity was rewarded. Also, as you mention, some energetic women chose soft men to be their lovers - and in a way, perhaps, sons. These changes didn't happen by accident. Young men for various reasons wanted harder women, and women began to desire softer men. It seems like a nice arrangement, but it isn't working out.