.

A Male Feminist

A clean-cut suburban white male's perspective on feminism and gender inequality in the workplace and government.

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.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Kevin January 11, 2012 at 04:00 PM
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 January 11, 2012 at 07:34 PM
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.
Joanne Smythe January 12, 2012 at 04:51 AM
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.
Joanne Smythe January 12, 2012 at 05:18 AM
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
Adam Kraemer January 15, 2012 at 06:49 PM
To quote Henery Kisinger "no one is ever going to whin the battle of sexes thier is just to much fratinizing with the enemy"

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »