I will try to present two different arguments in this thread which both arise from the same basis, but come to different conclusions. What strikes me about these, is that I have seen both of them multiples times in different web articles and I can´t really make out which one is more valid.

"Women have emancipated over the years, so they are allowed to be "manlier" then in earlier times. Contrary to that, men have for the most part stayed "manly" and are generally less accepted when acting "girly" than females who act "tomboyish"."

Conclusion A: Men are still not "strong" enough to emancipate, thus Women have had the superior developement. From this perspective, men are of the weaker gender. It is most likely used in the context of promoting "unisex".

Conclusion B: Being male puts you in a higher valued position. Manly things have more value to society than the other way around. Therefore, Man do not need to emancipate from Male -> Female, but there might be women who would want to go from Female to Male. This argument puts the male gender above the female one, it is most generally used to relate towards cases of women being put at a disadvantage.

Male power over women, children and other men seen as weaker is a valuable commodity among males and they see themselves as not only superior in physical strength but superior in intelligence as well. Nothing could be farther than the truth. A man and woman of the same height, weight, age, and defense training will have a 50/50 chance of winning a fighting match. Women are as strong as they need to be, and men don't see it that way. When women have a weapon, they place unarmed men at a terrible disadvantage. I remember the news story of a 3 year old girl playing with a loaded gun and critically wounding her 300 lb. father.

Silliness aside, I'd like to see males and females respecting their own sex, and respecting the opposite sex equally. We're living in a terribly lopsided world of male violence out of control. To find world peace and end poverty, men and women need to lead counties together, not one on a self proclaimed God-like pedestal, while another is in some kind of stoning pit.