A Male Feminist
Feminism is a label generally associated with punk rock chicks, nature worshipping hippies or businesswomen in power suits. Being a relatively clean-cut suburban white male, I am not that. However, I am a feminist.
I find it unfortunate that other males feel the need to fit into the gender role society has constructed for them. While I am a male with distinctly masculine characteristics (sports, aggression), I am also brave enough to embrace my feminine side (crying at movies, being sweet). I do not seek to renounce my gender, but rather to pursue gender equality. When I look at the American congress, I see an unrelenting masculine clash. The problem is they all think they need to be right, and are not willing to compromise for the greater good. It goes to the point where you stop fighting for what you believe in and start fighting for the sake of winning the argument. I wonder if we had a more feminine government, would there be so much irrational fighting? Would we have entered Iraq? Would we have lost 4500 US troops? We try to ignore it, but every troop is someone’s child. I have a feeling that if we had more feminine leaders in government, we would be more responsible and less trigger happy.
At a previous job of mine, my female boss told a fellow female co-worker that she had to be stronger and more aggressive. The co-worker agreed, reconciling how this will be helpful over time. I find this a little bit upsetting, as she was essentially telling my co-worker to be more masculine. The reality is that business was established by and for men. I am still trying to comprehend the implications of this, but one clear example is the highly vertical nature of organization structure. Vertical business structure caters to the benefits and drawbacks of male aggression. Males seek victory, and have trouble working together. By having a vertical structure, it allows for decision making to override the never ending arguing. What if we started incorporating more teamwork and horizontal orientation into business? This would allow more feminine employees to thrive in business environments. I think these things are occurring in business now and one could argue this is happening as a result of the integration of women into business.
This country is extremely male oriented, and this needs to change if we're to progress or if we want to make our delusion of a sexism-free society a reality. It's quite unfortunate to see another election go by without a strong female candidate. When will we reach the point of having a society where we effectively utilize femininity instead of considering it a weakness? I imagine this will not happen in my lifetime, but hopefully I can help begin the shift.
Edward Hotel
5:00 pm on Tuesday, January 10, 2012
To your point of stating “I wonder if we had a more feminine government, would there be so much irrational fighting? Would we have entered Iraq? Would we have lost 4500 US troops?"
I can think of two women in history which have led large and important countries and they acted very "male".
We had Indira Gandhi, a War with Pakistan in 1971 and she was behind the Indian Nuclear weapons program.
Then we have Gold Meir with "Operation Wrath of God" retaliating after the Munich Olympics, she ordered the Mossad to hunt down and assassinate the Black September and PFLP operatives, oh yeah and the Yom Kippur War.
So it is not so much about male vs. female but about strong people willing to protect their national sovereignty.
Ed
Brandon Isaacson
8:13 pm on Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Not sure I agree. It's about masculine vs feminine, not man vs. woman. Men can be feminine and women can be masculine. I don't know about Indira Gandhi, but Golda Meir was certainly a strong person, displaying masculine characteristics.
And there's a major difference between being careless or relatively so, and not protecting yourself. Many would argue that we weren't protecting anything by invading Iraq, since we didn't seem to have any reliable evidence that they had WMD's. Sadam was irrelevant to 9/11.
Joanne Smythe
12:18 am on Thursday, January 12, 2012
You have the burden of proof backwards -- the burden was on Saddam to prove WMD disarmament, not the UN or US to prove his WMD armament. It's a basic fact Saddam had WMD, as he used them on his own people.
Try reading UNSC 678, 687, and 1441 which was voted unanimously by the UN Security Council as Saddam's "final chance" to comply.
Saddam was only irrelevant to 9/11 if you believe terrorists acquiring WMD is not a problem. Post 9/11, answering "I don't know" to a question such as "Where is that 1,000 tons of missing VX nerve agent, Saddam?" is not going to fly.
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
-- President Clinton, February 17, 1998
Jon
9:11 pm on Tuesday, January 10, 2012
This is the most backwards article. What are you trying to say? Men and women are different and have been for thousands of years and will continue that way. And yes, there have been women in power, Queen Mary (Bloody Mary), Queen Elizabeth and others that have killed thousands of people. It's not men vs women or masculine vs feminine. Men and women are different but both capable of evil.
And why do you keep talking about Iraq? What is the point and how is that connected to your article? Do you not know about UN Resolution 1441 and the reports from other countries? Or maybe your point is how women like Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein voted for the Iraq war. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
Anyway, it is articles like this that actually draw lines and divide rather than treat everyone equally.
Joanne Smythe
11:51 pm on Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Jon hit the mark on all counts.
Forget worrying about skin color, ethnicity, and gender, and instead focus on the content of one's character.
Alexandra Birnbaum
10:15 pm on Tuesday, January 10, 2012
It's refreshing to see a man proudly declare his feminism (which, to be clear, just means one is for equal rights, not that you wear Birks and hate men).
I don't believe though, that aggression is simply male or female. Yes, women who are aggressive are often labeled as 'bitch' instead of being recognized as a strong leader, and ruffle the tail-feathers of the stereotypical American societal male, but that's the societal training and reaction - not that aggression is male.
Avail yourself of your university's Women's Studies classes, you'll get a lot out of them - and keep talking, listening, learning.
John Fonseca
11:47 pm on Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Women can be just as irrational as men. All humans are fundamentally flawed and neither gender is exempt from that. Women just haven't had a crack at running things yet. I say let them have at it. What's the worst that can happen? We end up where we are now?
p. s. I'd like to see the 465 words you'd write after a divorce.
Rev. Susan Gillespie
8:39 am on Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Actually, I think you're mixing up a few valid points here. Yes, there are constructs called "masculinity" and "femininity," which, in their extremes, are negative - and particularly so when they constrict frameworks like family and business and government. I agree that many women, in order to be successful, have had to adopt a more "masculine" way of being at work - but, to tell the truth, so do many men.
Then there is the problem of privileging as a mindset, "needing to win." I can assure you lots if women are like this, too - it just doesn't usually get physical! I agree that Congress, business board rooms and families would do better to be cooperative, rather than competitive.
And then there is the "feminist" - it would it be "post-feminist"? - perspective that is pro- women AND pro-men, insisting that neither men nor women are constrained by "masculinity" or "femininity" but share humanity and can rise above those constraints and work together. If we think about it that way, we can select leaders who choose cooperation and problem-solving over winning and creating losers. I sure would like to see that.
bbbnto
10:00 am on Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Your article is all over the place...and it started off wrong:
"Feminism is a label generally associated with punk rock chicks, nature worshipping hippies or businesswomen in power suits"
Huh? Maybe in this generation. You are obviously very young, and/or, you didn't do research before you wrote this.
In 1972 - yes 1972 - feminists were trying to get an Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution passed. It didn't pass the required states by 1982 or so. Your characterization is not accurate.
I won't bother going through it all, just use google.com next time...start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
Also, by the way, this country has come a long way in feminine rights compared to 1972. There's still more to go, but compare 2012 to 1972...or 1912.
Kevin
11:00 am on Wednesday, January 11, 2012
After reading the first few lines of this article, I honestly thought that this was one of those "Onion" type spoof articles. Sadly it wasn't.....
Nicole Z
2:34 pm on Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Hi Brandon, Kudos on the article. What you have pointed out is that ours is a deeply male oriented society and you see a lack of equality between the genders. Yes it is sad and true. I agree, if most of the leaders of the world were female, there would be far less strife and more peace in the world. We await more enlightened male feminists like you to bring about a positive transformation of equality at all levels in the society.
I congratulate you for your views and your courage to stand up for what you believe in.
Adam Kraemer
1:49 pm on Sunday, January 15, 2012
To quote Henery Kisinger "no one is ever going to whin the battle of sexes thier is just to much fratinizing with the enemy"