What can feminism do for men?

[C T]

... for gods sake ... grow a backbone ... stand up for yourself and start acting like a man ... if you know what that means !

You'd be a little surprised how many wives vocalise this to their partners each and every day of their relationship. Even in the husbands' absence, their thoughts will be kind of circling around, preoccupied by the lack of potency of the man of the house (wouldn't go as far as to use the word 'impotency', but that as well). And, from experience, i know that behind every one of these wives, there will be at least a handful of confidants who will lend their support to the 'poor' wife. Am i mistaken here?

 

Its not the fault of feminism so much as a failure in communication, one brought about thru lack of proper education and fundamental appraisals where successful relationship-building is concerned.

 

This basic ignorance needs to be addressed before proper balance can be restored.

[Marblehead]

Correct .... I will edit my post accordingly

Not needed. You have not said anything unacceptable.

[dawei]

Maybe there should be a working definition of feminism... and what it is supposed to do for females... and for males...

 

I don't think most people doubt equality ideas are important.

 

But I am not sure that the answer to 1 million pushy, egoist males... is 1 million pushy, egoist females.

 

That is not proper equality or balance... well, unless some think that is...

[mike 134]

lol i rustled some jimmies eh ??

Edited June 23, 2014 by mike 134

[Sloppy Zhang]

?

 

Is that good ... or does it immediately mean a bad thread ?

 

There were a couple of feminism threads a while back, and things got pretty heated. A lot of the posts in the thread really cut down to the bone, and a lot of people were offended, and the threads were moved to varying corners of the forum (still some heated discussion, though, and that eventually lead to some changing of some forum rules).

 

As people keep asking for, I think a definition of feminism is needed before conversations proceed. Often what will happen is 2+ people will say the same thing but define it two different ways. So they fundamentally agree in principle but since the surface names are different they get all in a tizzy.

 

For instance, in his post above Mike states:

 

It seeks to make equal what is inherently unequal.

 

Now, on the SURFACE I disagree. I would say men and women are and should be considered "equals," though I would also say that men and women are and should be considered as "different" (different thought processes, values, etc). So just because men and women think/act/value different things doesn't mean one is inherently "better" than the other. The scales should weigh evenly on both ends, even though different things are on the scales.

 

But see, that's just on the surface.

 

On a deeper level, I think Mike and I agree on a lot of things (and disagree too, but we've had similar trains of thoughts in previous threads).

 

And I agree, what "Feminism" has become, both in some mainstream segments and in some extremist segments, is not the correct way about addressing the problem. It encourages women to act like men (focus exclusively on a job, hook up with lots of guys/girls, be hyper-competitive) and it encourages men to act like women (don't say anything offensive to the group dynamics, women aren't objects to be slept with, help out with the chores).

 

Which is ironic because both camps on an instinctual, physical level, WANT what feminism, on its face, is denying.

 

Women want guys who are masculine, take charge, show mastery and competence in any given situation, aren't afraid to state their position even if it does rock the boat, etc.

 

Men want women who are pretty, feminine, peace brokers, not always "in your face" (this doesn't mean "seen but not heard," but having social graces).

 

Now you can take these two approaches and give equal rights to the people who practice these approaches. And i think that any movement which supports that is good.

 

But people, and feminism is a movement of people, tend to grasp the surface level stuff, and that's its ultimate downfall.

 

IMHO.

[gendao]

... for gods sake ... grow a backbone ... stand up for yourself and start acting like a man ... if you know what that means !

So, do you mean that

with a backbone (like against feminist "attacks") = acting manly? As opposed to what...girly?

 

Isn't attributing certain attributes to certain genders sexism? And if so, does that make it automatically untrue?

Edited June 23, 2014 by vortex

[tyler zambori]

CT said:

Interesting proposition indeed.

 

In your own words, what do you think feminism can do for men? Prior to this, perhaps it would also be meaningful to give some idea what your thoughts are regarding what feminism can do for women, for comparative purposes, so that we may be allowed some insight into your mind in relation to this topic and its prospective course should a respectful, open debate/discussion or exchange were to develop. Looking at past trends, it probably will capture interest, maybe not. Time will tell.

 

I just hope that in the event it does begin to gather momentum, that whoever chooses to participate do so in a spirit of kindness and empathy, and not use this platform as some sort of personal axe-grinder.

 

I intend to give both my own words, and thoughts I find elsewhere, because feminism is not something I think about all the time - not until I find myself face-to-face with the issues of feminism. . And I have found myself face-to-face with that here on this fourm. So far I've posted the thoughts of other people, because I agreed with them, and also because they are more informed about it than me. Rest assured I don't paste in something something somebody else wrote unlesss I agree with it and have thought about it, and think it's valuable.

 

My thoughts about what feminism can do for women are basic - equal rights and conditions for women (as Aetherous put it). We've come a long way, but still haven't quite achieved it - and in many ways the situation is now going backwards. By equal rights and conditions, I define that as basically equal pay for equal work, and basic respectful treatment.

 

Atherous said:

 

The type of feminism where equal rights and conditions for women is sought, is a great thing. A lot of the time I think it goes far beyond that, though...and then there are people seeking unequal power, seeking to destroy the opponent (men and "the patriarchy"...which doesn't exist), coming from a place of fear and hatred, etc...rather than just seeking equality for the oppressed and justice for all. Of course this corrupted kind (which I prefer to call feminazism) is no good at all, and is destructive to all. As mike123 said, it destroys both men and women.

Just as the false kind of feminism is destructive to all, true feminism (seeking equality or basically proper treatment of human beings) is constructive for all. It's important to differentiate between simply seeking proper treatment, and seeking greater power than others.

 

Wow. In my opinion, the term Nazi should only be used for self-professed fascists. Perhaps you are referring to the Radical Feminist movement of the 1960's and '70;s, which has now faded. I was too young to be involved in that, in the 1960's and '70's.

 

"The Patriarchy" most certainly does exist, unless you mean it in the sense that this plane of existence is all MAYA.

 

So here are some thoughts about femininazism:

 

why I hate the term ‘feminazi’

http://lipmag.com/opinion/why-i-hate-the-term-feminazi/comment-page-1/

 

 

Here are the main reasons why my blood curdles every time I hear the term:

 

1. Calling someone a feminazi is intended to shut them up. By saying this, you are negating their words, and disparaging their thoughts as being oppressive, fundamentalist, and over-the-top. Rather than addressing whatever outrageous thing they’re actually saying (once again, probably that you’re sexist), you’re choosing to instead downplay their point and accuse them of being uptight instead.

 

2. Comparing feminism to Nazism is just offensive. There are no two ways about this – feminism is a movement for equality. Nazism was the exact opposite. There is nothing dictatorial about feminism – the view that men and women should be equal is not oppressive. I can’t say this in any other way. By using a term like ‘feminazi’ to describe feminists, you’re turning the movement on it’s head, and making it about the oppression of men rather than the freedom of women. Until feminists start using war machinery and gas chambers in our quest for equality, I don’t think this comparison will ever be fair, or inoffensive.

 

3. Claiming that feminists are ‘feminazis’ is really just a way of saying that they’re uptight and need to loosen up. Any feminist who has said a single thing against sexism in public has undoubtedly had some smartass respond with something like ‘hey, loosen up’ or ‘live a little’ or ‘don’t you believe in fun?’. Actually, I do believe in fun – I just don’t think it’s particularly fun to be sexist, or believe sexists things, or respond to someone pointing out that you’re being sexist by being more sexist to them. Actually you’re right – I am just one boring bitch, clearly.

 

4. The term feminazi is obviously a patriarchal construct, designed to create a view of feminism as being extreme, threatening to the status quo, and generally ridiculous. There’s no better way to negate the power of a movement than to create a view of it as being both unnecessary for society, and generally ludicrous. If every feminist who dares to speak out against sexism is treated as if she is being a hysterical woman speaking out of turn, then of course the legitimacy of what she may be saying is negated. It’s a clever move, patriarchy.

I mean, let’s face it. After reading this article, the average person might call me a feminazi. And I think that’s the actual biggest reason why I hate the term so much – it makes people less likely to advocate feminist thought because they don’t want to be called a nasty, derogatory name.

 

I personaly certify that I have read the above, and agree with what the author is saying. I feel confident that I can post her thoughts because I agree with what the author is saying.

 

Now on to something I find more interesting:

 

The Feminine and the Tao: An Interview with Le Guin

http://ekostories.com/2013/04/30/feminine-and-the-tao-le-guin/

 

What I find most interesting is the last post in the comments section, by "sistertongue":

 

 

One of the most important things NOT discussed in current Taoism is its true history. Everyone quotes from the Tao Te Ching or Lao Tzu, the form and distortion of the Tao that was written down about 2,000 years ago. The first evidence of Taoist symbolism (a symbol vastly different from the “yin yang” one we see today), is noted in 18,000 B.C. It consisted of concentric rings, each half either black or white and each ring opposite the one inside it.

 

What was written down and now used was written when patriarchy and hierarchy were already firmly in place – structures that are actually the antithesis of the Tao. This is easily apprehended by simply looking at the most popular form of the I Ching (and it’s progeny – those interpretations that have come since), which is “The King Wen” version. The signifier of “King” and the environment in which the Tao was written down reveals that, already, 2000 years ago, the Tao had been distorted to fit the needs of the political/social/economic/psychological environment. This is not the true Tao at all. And, those using it as their foundational basis for elaboration of the current Tao are in serious error of its original, pre-historical (pre-HIStory simply signifying the time before the male brain began disseminating it’s ideas to the masses through print media) meaning and subtleties. Those using these more modern texts (2000 years ago to the present) do not know the Tao at all.

They continue to use the yang, left brained paradigm for practice. This will not help us restore the feminine to her rightful place.

This is not a criticism of Ms. LeGuin, just pointing out a blind spot under which we have all operated for millenia. I call it a case of “spiritual/philosophical cataracts.” I am, in fact, a huge fan and avid reader of any and all of Ms. LeGuin’s works and prize my collection of her books. This is a brilliant writer and theoretician, to say the least.

 

However, in service to the very basic principles of DISCERNMENT as the highest practice in Taoism (which I have actually studied and practiced for 25 years), I must point out that there is no questioning, nor setting in context, the material written down 2000 years ago on her part. Truth is contextual and, yes, the current Tao and it’s interpretations were set down in a particular context which, it appears, no one is questioning. Questioning is the heart of the Tao – to decide for ourselves.

 

We must begin to conduct our own archeological digs of the vast and expansive understanding of the world that pre-existed the male, yang paradigm of existence which, as we all know, has been engaged in the destruction of the power of the feminine for about 7,000 years. Those digs can be undertaken in the very modern texts themselves, through the exercise of listening to the cognitive/emotional/kinesthetic dissonances and disconnections contained within them. When one sits with them and lets them land, when one actually practices (this means DOING tai chi, ba gua, hsing-yi, chi gung for many years), then one accesses the wisdom of hearing those disconnections and distortions in a very profound way. Through the solar plexus and through the cellular transmission of the wisdom of the Tao – NOT through intellectual, left-brained activities. The lessons of the tao MUST be engaged with kinesthetically – which has, unfortunately, become a serious lack in our current society of reliance on the conveniences of “technology,” which has resulted in physical obesity and cognitive/emotional/spiritual lassitude.

 

The cultivation of discernment allows one to “know” in a way that can understand, encompass and, ultimately transcend the myopic view of the yang principle, which has far too long dominated our relationships. Restoration of the true partnership between the yin principle as the guide and the yang principle as that in service to the yin is required.

 

Einstein understood this. I know this quote has been sliced up, used and abused by the yang principle for a very long time. Those still inside the box usually quote it as such:

 

“We will not solve the problems of the world from the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”

And then they (mostly males) proceed to show us the “new way,” still from their fragmented, distorted viewpoint (just like christians who do the same things with the bible to further their heirarchical viewpoints).

 

The actual, full quote from Einstein was this:

 

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former. The intuitive mind is a sacred gift (YIN – my addition) and the rational mind (YANG – again my addition) is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. We will not solve the problems of the world from the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. More than anything else, this new century demands new ways of thinking: We must change our materially-based analysis of the world around us to include broader, more multi-dimensional perspectives.”

 

I do not know if Einstein ever read the Tao, but what he is doing here in this FULL quote, is pointing out the distortions our western brains have wrought regarding the place and power of the feminine. The sacred yin has been turned up side down and made the hand maid of the very limited rational yang brain. This is why we now, all, stand at the brink of devastation. Recovery of the sacred is essential. We have no more time to stoop to the lower levels of the yang brain, whose rightful place is to serve the wisdoms of the female principle. So far, we haven’t even come close and following these archaic, male-dominated interpretations of the Tao is not going to help us.

 

Brilliant. I am no expert on the history of the Tao Te Ching, but this rings truer to me, than the simplistic idea

that women are yin and men are yang, and therefore men are the superior ones, and therefore women must be
guided by men.

 

I guess I would offer this to you all as what I think feminism can do for men, within the context of Taoism.

Perhaps it's not that great to separate men and women out by yin and yang principles.

 

[tyler zambori]

mike 134 said:

 

 

I can write pages and pages on this, but in brief, feminism is a leveling. It seeks to make equal what is inherently unequal. It's one thing if men are above women, or vice versa, and the leveling is an average. But there is no above or below. Men and women are totally different, like apples and oranges. They are not on the same scale to begin with. The only way you can level the two, and put them on the same plane, is to feminize the man and masculate the woman. BOTH are therefore dragged down.

 

 

Translation, going by this and by the photos posted:

 

Men are superior to women, therefore it's not possible to make them equal, and therefore feminism as an activist activity is a waste of time, and only ugly women would be interested in that anyway.

 

Ok, I don't think this thread has anything to offer you, mike, nor do you have anything to offer to this thread.

However, I would welcome discussion by more informed and intelligent people of either gender.

[tyler zambori]

And here's something else I find interesting:

 

Tao Te Ching 6

http://www.taoistic.com/taoteching-laotzu/taoteching-06.htm

 

The whole thing is interesitng but here's the last part of it:

 

 

Tao as a mother of all, like the Greek Earth goddess Gaia, is a returning theme in the Tao Te Ching. Although ancient China was indeed a patriarchal society, Lao Tzu praised the traditionally female qualities repeatedly. Since the nature of Tao resembles the female much more than the male, so should people behave. Giving instead of taking, humble instead of proud, yielding instead of forcing, and so on.

 

This preference must have been very radical in the days of Lao Tzu. Actually, it still is.

 

In the last line of this chapter, Lao Tzu leaves the metaphor of the womb, although he still talks about Tao. He moves on to another aspect of it, another way of looking at it. The essence of the Way is as vague and fine as cobweb, because it's a principle, a natural law, with no substance of its own. That's why it lasts, no matter how much it is used. Like a formula.

 

It's interesting that Lao Tzu would have people, both male and female, behave in a more yielding (yin) manner.

 

Again, I'm no expert on the Tao te Ching, nor on Lao Tzu, I just find this interesting. And perhaps I find a correlation

between what Taoism might have to offer the supposedly mostly yang men, and what feminism might have to offer

them.

 

Interesting.....

Edited June 23, 2014 by tyler zambori

[Bearded Dragon]

Feminism as a term just serves to create more of a divide in my opinion. We should just award each person based on their merits and there would be no issues.

 

It has swung the other way in some cases that I've seen though. I have seen government departments that HAVE to give a certain number of positions to women. This is highly unfair if all women applicants are less capable of doing the particular job than the male applicants.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

 

I can write pages and pages on this, but in brief, feminism is a leveling. It seeks to make equal what is inherently unequal. It's one thing if men are above women, or vice versa, and the leveling is an average. But there is no above or below. Men and women are totally different, like apples and oranges. They are not on the same scale to begin with. The only way you can level the two, and put them on the same plane, is to feminize the man and masculate the woman. BOTH are therefore dragged down...

 

Have you ever seen a good looking feminist?

...

The physical appearance of a woman is irrelevant to the quality of her arguments.

 

Men and woman are both humans, the differences are significant but not to the extent that it's a perversion of nature if women are allowed to vote, drive cars, get equal pay and so on.

 

Feminism is an imperfect movement in the West, but do you seriously believe women shouldn't be allowed to work? That husbands should still be able to rape their wives legally? That women should have no access to higher education? Because these are some of the things that feminism has sorted out in the West.

 

Personally I don't like some points in recent times (like the quota thing BD says ^, jobs should be on merit with gender irrelevant), but the larger picture in the benefits for the economy and society of female workers and voters, the ethics of women not being an underclass, and the benefits for men of being able to relate to women as people rather than fragile decorative cleaning/sex robots makes me hope feminism really takes hold in countries that need it.

 

Mike, you need to find a view of masculinity that is about your true values rather than 1950's gender roles. If you need to be telling a woman what to do to feel like a man than that's sad. A real man knows he's one, whether the women around him are cooking him steak in the kitchen all day or researching autoimmune disorders in biochemical labs.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Seeker of Tao

[Yascra]

.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Yascra

[Yascra]

.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Yascra

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I can write pages and pages on this, but in brief, feminism is a leveling. It seeks to make equal what is inherently unequal. It's one thing if men are above women, or vice versa, and the leveling is an average. But there is no above or below. Men and women are totally different, like apples and oranges. They are not on the same scale to begin with. The only way you can level the two, and put them on the same plane, is to feminize the man and masculate the woman. BOTH are therefore dragged down...

 

With a slight change:

 

"I can write pages and pages on this, but in brief, civil rights is a leveling. It seeks to make equal what is inherently unequal. It's one thing if whites are above blacks, or vice versa, and the leveling is an average. But there is no above or below. White and black are totally different, like apples and oranges. They are not on the same scale to begin with. The only way you can level the two, and put them on the same plane, is to black up the white and white up the black. BOTH are therefore dragged down..."

 

Think about it.

[Yascra]

.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Yascra

[Yascra]

.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Yascra

[GrandmasterP]

Just out of curiosity, what kind of men then did feminists and their mothers cherry-pick when exercising their individual powers of choice (sexual voting) in their own personal lives? And what about the majority of women? The http://www.tuckermax.com/]stereotype[/url] they are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference]complaining[/url] about...or "smart, decent and wonderful ones?"

Nice cardigan on that guy in the last piccie, you have my wardrobe of choice right there.

I always suspect threads with 'feminism' in the title.

With the best will in the world no doubt, even if they aren't begun to have a pop at women then pretty soon that's how they all seem to end up.

Before she retired my first Doctoral supervisor was Prof Miriam David who wrote 'Personal and Political: Feminisms, Sociology and Family Lives'.

( She was retiring anyway, it wasn't my doing! ).

Miriam came up with the idea of 'waves' of feminism hence 'feminisms'.

She was part of that 'first wave' and acknowledged that early feminism was white, middle class, university educated and tended to exclude women of colour and working class women whilst, along the way; alienating men.

Second wave was better, early battles were won and women no longer had to give up a career path when they married.

Third wave is about where most of us, hopefully; are now - treating with people irrespective of gender.

Everyone is acknowledged to have the self same rights and responsibilities.

Post- feminism is great fun but maybe still too fluid and baggy to be easily defined.

"Feminism" as a bare descriptor is a bit like the term 'Political Correctness' in that whenever you hear anyone using either term you can pretty much guarantee that the next thing out of their mouth will be disparaging.

All they are doing is situating themselves whilst saying nothing at all of merit on the subject in hand due to insufficiently thoughtful definition of terms.

Edited June 23, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Marblehead]

Maybe there should be a working definition of feminism... and what it is supposed to do for females... and for males...

 

I don't think most people doubt equality ideas are important.

 

But I am not sure that the answer to 1 million pushy, egoist males... is 1 million pushy, egoist females.

 

That is not proper equality or balance... well, unless some think that is...

And that is why I so much prefer speaking in terms of yin and yang as opposed to male and female.

[Marblehead]

I can write pages and pages on this, but in brief, feminism is a leveling. It seeks to make equal what is inherently unequal. It's one thing if men are above women, or vice versa, and the leveling is an average. But there is no above or below. Men and women are totally different, like apples and oranges. They are not on the same scale to begin with. The only way you can level the two, and put them on the same plane, is to feminize the man and masculate the woman. BOTH are therefore dragged down.

Okay. Point made. But yes, I have seen some really beautiful, sexy feminists.

 

That phrase "dragged down" just rubs me the wrong way. I don't look at it this way at all. Of course, I'm looking at this perhaps from a different perspective than you are.

 

But your mention of equal (equality) is part of what I'm speaking to and I do agree that the dirrerences between man and woman are like those between apples and oranges.

 

However, here again I will mention that to speak to this subject can best be done with the terms yin and yang instead of man and woman.

[Marblehead]

Brilliant. I am no expert on the history of the Tao Te Ching, but this rings truer to me, than the simplistic idea

that women are yin and men are yang, and therefore men are the superior ones, and therefore women must be

guided by men.

 

I guess I would offer this to you all as what I think feminism can do for men, within the context of Taoism.

Perhaps it's not that great to separate men and women out by yin and yang principles.

But then if one were to consider that Yang is Earth and Yin is Heaven one would have to say that women operate at a higher level than do men. Remember Earth follows Heaven?

[Marblehead]

It's interesting that Lao Tzu would have people, both male and female, behave in a more yielding (yin) manner.

 

Again, I'm no expert on the Tao te Ching, nor on Lao Tzu, I just find this interesting. And perhaps I find a correlation

between what Taoism might have to offer the supposedly mostly yang men, and what feminism might have to offer

them.

 

Interesting.....

You likely find this interesting because it stands true to reality.

 

And yes, many men should be more YIn and many women should be more Yang.

 

And true, when we "return" we are returning to Yin, the place of rest and peace. To the Valley Spirit, if you will.

[Marblehead]

Nice cardigan on that guy in the last piccie, you have my wardrobe of choice right there.

 

Yes, that is (was, he has passed) Mr. Roberts. A very fmaous child psychologist in the US and the host of the long running series of PBS TV program "Mr. Roberts".

 

To me, he sometimes came off as being a bit too Yin but in reality he himself was very balanced Yin/Yang wise.

[Brian]

Ummm...

 

Rogers.

 

Fred Rogers.

 

Fred McFeely Rogers.

 

 

 

 

Seemed like a nice guy.

[Marblehead]

Ummm...

 

Rogers.

 

Fred Rogers.

 

Fred McFeely Rogers.

 

 

 

 

Seemed like a nice guy.

Thanks for the correction. (Sometimes my mind operates properly.)

[C T]

CT said:

 

I intend to give both my own words, and thoughts I find elsewhere, because feminism is not something I think about all the time - not until I find myself face-to-face with the issues of feminism. . And I have found myself face-to-face with that here on this fourm. So far I've posted the thoughts of other people, because I agreed with them, and also because they are more informed about it than me. Rest assured I don't paste in something something somebody else wrote unlesss I agree with it and have thought about it, and think it's valuable.

 

My thoughts about what feminism can do for women are basic - equal rights and conditions for women (as Aetherous put it). We've come a long way, but still haven't quite achieved it - and in many ways the situation is now going backwards. By equal rights and conditions, I define that as basically equal pay for equal work, and basic respectful treatment.

Your intentions are very much appreciated, Ms Zambori. Thank you for making it clear what they are.

 

There are overwhelming evidence of women being given the short end of the stick in a lot of matters surrounding their status in society. I agree that women's rights have to be given a voice in any setting, but do you agree there is such a thing as appropriate and inappropriate approach to raise such a voice?

 

The reason im asking is based on my own observation of women's behaviour in the workplace and also out of it, and i have noticed time and time again that some strong, feministic women are superbly skilled in negotiating cooperation among peers and colleagues. These individuals know when and how to use their natural gifts to eke out the best possible leverage to get a job done, to close a sale maybe, and all this without the men having the slightest clue the hidden conviction well in check behind the face. To the keen observer, it can even be said that some of these women are cold, ruthless and immensely intelligent, they have to be in order to always remain one step ahead of their male counterparts. What is quite amazing, i have found, is that these same women were/are extremely mindful to leave their persona tucked away safely in the bottom drawer of their desks as the work day ends.

 

At home, they naturally adopt the role of doting mother, the loving, supportive wife/partner, the strong heart that observes and listens with patience and understanding to family issues, and last but not least, become an equal giver and taker in the love arts. Many times, i have also observed these women happen to have very maternally stable, caring, non-aggressive mothers who somehow unconsciously transfer certain qualities to the children, especially the girl or girls in the nest.

 

In my opinion, what epitomizes a true feminist is their ability to adapt to situations in such a way where the potential of intimidation and inequality are addressed even before these get a chance to rear their heads. It takes a very special set of skills to be able to carry this out, and i feel the majority of those who claim to be feminists have a long way to go in understanding the real meaning of what true feminism represents, and i am saying this because its an observable fact that a lot of so-called feminists are more concerned with making a statement (for one of many eg, retaining underarm hair, and proudly showing it off) than making the effort to develop their natural talents and gifts to the point that they can drop a man, and still get the man to kiss their hand while falling, figuratively speaking.

 

Im only basing these observations on what i have personally observed over a period of about 30 years in the corporate world, many of these spent hopping between East & West. As far the West is concerned, i feel a little disheartened because it seems the women back home (im not a Westerner, btw) fare much better when it comes to getting what they want without having to sacrifice or suppress their charm and natural gifts. On the contrary, some of them have honed these god-given qualities to such an extent that men automatically feel intimidated in their presence, even though there is no apparent reason to justify such a reaction.

 

Your thoughts?