Since I launched my book, "Wander Woman," this year, I have been asked to speak and write for many groups that tout feminine power. When I look into the message that forms the foundation of each group, they define this power very differently. Some of them stand for ideals I can align with. Others make my unwanted hair stand on end.
Does accepting my femininity mean I like wearing nice shoes and getting my nails done? I do like this. Does it mean I like to nurture others? To be honest, I don't ... I like to challenge people more than nurture them. Does expressing my femininity mean I will make a better leader in today's interconnected, collaborative workplace? This is possible, but in most cases my success would still be determined by patriarchal men. So I work for myself and include no one in my work decisions.
Am I feminine? Am I too much like a man? Should I care?
In a recent interview by The Women's Media Center VP Jamia Wilson, musician and activist Ani DiFranco said feminism could be a tool for men to move our country away from violence and inequality. In DiFranco's view, feminism is the expression of connection, inclusion and the sense that "we are one." Masculinity is steeped in autonomy and independence. DiFranco said, "More and more I realize feminism will save the world." Was she talking about women rising up in power or a mindset both men and women can hold?
I equate this view of feminism as my preferred definition of femininity. I think it paints a strong picture of a perspective anyone, including men, can cultivate and cherish. And the flip side -- the self-reliance, self-sufficiency and personal success fueled by a masculine drive -- can coexist with the ability to value and include everyone who desires to contribute to a common goal.
In short, I like the definition of femininity as a mindset that venerates both the individual and the community.
What I don't like is anything that says women are better than men. We may have tendencies to see a bigger picture than men, as Sally Helgesen discovered in her research for the "The Female Vision." Yet men tend to focus better. We may create a stronger communal foundation than men. Yet men have a strong loyalty to "the team" and may be more steadfast than women. We may have a better ear for emotions, making us more empathetic and possibly more persuasive when we tie emotional need to the goal. Yet men are seen as more willing to take the time to build critical business alliances.
As our tendencies seem to shift with each new generation, with women being more decisive and and men being more empathetic, the "who does what better" arguments will and should fall away.
In the end, I'm inclined to say that being feminine means I am okay with who I am, no matter what type of girl I am, what clothes I like to wear, or what life path I choose. I am inclusive of myself as well as others, including what appears to be my masculine side.
Being feminine then also means I respect the choices other people make for themselves. No one should define femininity for me. I should not define it for them. If expressing my femininity means I am being inclusive, then I accept others for who they are and the choices they make as long as they aren't blocking mine.
Therefore, any politician who calls herself a feminist but is working to block choice and inequality is a farce in my eyes. They may be women, but they are not standing for feminine principles. And any man who stands for choice, equality and inclusion is using feminism to help save the world. BRAVO.
What does femininity mean to you?
Does being feminine relate to feminism in your mind? Or are the two concepts totally different to you?
I do think it is good that women are rising in power in the world. As women gain in economic and political power, there are corresponding increases in world health and education. Companies who promote their top talent women do financially better than those who don't. Is this about femininity or equality, or are they intertwined?
My desire is that we look each other in the eyes and with a lovely sense of curiosity, seeking to know the person standing in front of you. Who is the person beyond the labels? What strengths, gifts, talents and perspectives does he or she bring to this moment right now? When we truly honor each other as humans, we are feminine in the sense of community and masculine in the sense of creating one human tribe. In this world, no one is better. We are one.
So I guess I'm feminine after all.
Marcia Reynolds, Psy.D., is president of Covisioning, a leadership coaching and training organization working with a variety of people and organizations around the world to increase emotional intelligence and collaboration.
Follow Marcia Reynolds on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MarciaReynolds
Marcia Reynolds: What Do Your Photos Say About You?
Katherine Marshall: Where Are Women's Voices for Peace? A Conversation with Sister Joan Chittister
Humans, let alone males and females, are different, period. Not superior or inferior, just different. We were created alike, born only with spit in the mouth, and all other accidents of birth notwithstanding, what works in us is more or less the same. We do possess different personalities, and that's valid, but human history shows the race getting carried away by differences rather than focusing on similarities.
It's never a competition, and the earlier we can ever figure that out the better for all concerned. What we lack most of all is honesty in dialogue. An interesting read to me.
If I could, when on an official form I had to fill in a space marked "Gender: ____", I'd write "Cat". :-)
1) If you pay close attention to the feminism(s) of past and present, you will find a utilitarian ethic and ethic. Which has provided some good and some bad...as might be expected of such.
2) Belief systems suck-- people are just not well-equipped to handle them... People are arrogant in holding their own view as unbiased and unjaded and that they obviously have the perspective and prescription of choice. But we know from psychology and behavioural economics that people- as individuals and in groups (group think)- in general fail at gaining perspective in describing the world accurately- and then at follow-on decision-making. It takes hard work and scientific rigor to really gain something resembling balance and then achieve things without utilitarian fail.
So, feminists fail in assuming every social context breaks down on gender: first we lump all men and women into separate groups- and then we start to describe things, collect stats, etc. (by the way, this lumping together is the very act of sexist generalization --and is hypocritical). By baselesly and unscientifically assuming this is always a good starting point, inaccurate framing in describing the world in the way humans actually socialize in groups/tribes occurs-- and then the different configurations and dynamics that do exist. And then fail to place and prioritize all the other factors that go into social status and expectations and belief systems, etc....
In summary, feminism(s) is not objectivity-seeking. Only something like well-informed social psych and/or sociology will achieve (with the least downsides) in gender because it will overcome here and be soundly structured and well-equipped to describe and solve problems. I would hope going forward, that those who are the most listened to on the subject of gender will be credentialled as scientist before/instead of feminist-- wouldn't you?
Even the prayer form Jesus taught is not correct in the beginning address as translated from the Hebrew "abba," in English, "Father. Jesus actually spoke in Aramaic -- using a term that doesn't translates well into English, "abwoon" meaning Parent/Creator/Thou from whom all life comes.
It is ridiculous to cite two religions which worship the same God to show similarity of their views.
"The authors of the New Testament took for granted the existence of the God of the Old Testament. They believed in Yahweh, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," whom the Jews worshipped as the one true God (Ac 13:32; Ro 3:29, 4:3)"
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/god.htm
Logic means nothing without some force giving it direction and purpose.
Logic as such can even be more corrupt than some States I could name here....
...since, psychologically, there is something called "secondary rationalization", meaning that you are consciously/unconsciously looking for justifying reasons for doing something that you would do anyway.
To all involved; If you can, try to use a little less ego, and a little more love... (wo)mankind's continuity might hinge on you.... ;-)
Feminism in itself is on one side necessary but on the other nothing but a struggle for women to rise despite men fighting teeth and nails to prevent that.
The real problem is not feminism though. The real problem is something we lack in all areas of life: respect.
A man who actually respects a woman would not stand for her getting less money for her work than he dioes. just as a white man who respects humans would not stand for coloured people getting less than he does. The only reason we have this problem is lack of respect and the fanatic belief that some of us are better than others.
Nothing could be more wrong.
Only respect for other nations can make us find peace with them. telling them they have to do what we want never will.
Only respect for our fellow man and woman - for their work and sweat can make us stop believing our job has to be better paid just because we wear a tie doing it. - Or because we have that organ in our pants most men use to carry their brain.
Only if we rediscover respect for ALL other humans will we be able to get rid of artificial differences that destroy peace at home and with other nations equally.
Fanned.
she was very feminine, yet very strong.
when i was growing up, i never saw my mother as ..feminine, because she was a judge.
she had to strong.
all the men loved her.
i look back at her photos,
now, that i am older. i remember hearing her crying sometimes.
i have an article, the buffalo news referred to her as a 'tomboy."
not until my mother died, did i realize how feminine she was, because she had to be so strong..
Feminism accepts all despite the neo's attempt to rebrand and tear apart the early feminist movement which gave us privacy rights and access.
In 2010 feminism is about embracing diversity, rejecting power and profit as a moral code; pushing forward civil rights for gay, lesbian, bi, trans people.
And, like it or not, femininity is bound by stereotypes. Femininity is defined by societal expectations, not personal opinion.
We have no desire to emulate patriarchy: we need to return to a mentality that allowed early cultures to thrive and survive" matri-centric society where community was put first - shared resources; tolerance and compassion. We don't need "things" to be human: we need only what sustains us - the 80's are soooo over. Materalism is sooo over - yet you want to blame women. Nope - facts are facts.
Lisa, but you really havent addressed the issues and you have not given real support for your claims. What about women who obsess on gender unfairness and will always be unhappy and find a male scapegoat? Why not expect a writer to prove that gender is the prime issue in a specific context rather than making broad swath claims about large regions where patriarchy msy not be 100% present? We tried 'waves' of feminism- and it really hasnt worked-- why should we expect your grandiose statements to be any different (and not expect you to prove things)?
I mean we can have this cheerleading contest all day long, but its pretty worn out isnt it?
I'm curious Rik, what is your definition of 'American culture' and an 'American family?' Is it one where women are forced to endure abusive husbands and stay in abusive marriages for the sake of the children? No, it's not a Dr. Phil moment but neither is it 1950 anymore.
For the record, feminism means equality, not power, and especially not material things.
By the way, it does translate to materialism/power when it becomes about stats on salaries and positions or mgmt positions- as it has for many believers. And inequalities occur when the two state of affairs described above coexist- its just that the inequalities benefit women to the detriment of men. But that wont show up in the stats for those who are generalizing.
David Sloan Wilson on the bias of Individualism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN3ETSifRJM
and Jeremy Rifkin's TED talk: The Empathic Civilisation: http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_rifkin_on_the_empathic_civilization.html
Other problems arise with the emphasis or overemphasis on individualism in a society like ours is that we face a world that is full of tribalism: ethnocentrism, racism, nationalism, etc. and we need to recognize this as we interact cross borders so that we realize our perspectives on these things are not necessarily shared. We need to remove the blinders of multiculturalism and encourage perspective re: the true nature of tribal dynamics- and what does or does not work.
Before Christianity many cultures existed in this way. Once Christianity became the dominate force, patriarchal became the norm. Matriarchy was viewed as a threat, radical if you will, and often brutally stamped out.
Point is, feminism is nothing new, it has been around for thousands of years. For some people, (like me) it is a way of life/culture. Women and men are equal.
So I guess that makes me feminine and feminist at the same time.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Not-Women-Biblical-Leadership/dp/1576581837/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286468245&sr=8-1
My initial comment was based on my Alaskan Native culture (and some American Indian cultures as well) and the historical trauma experienced within the tribes at the hands of patriarchal Christians. To go from equal footing to be told that man is head of the house household is quite a leap. One that, thankfully, did not take in many families. Those that were able to hold onto their culture anyway. Perhaps we should blame the Greeks then? ;) J/K
Again, thanks for the book suggestion. I enjoy learning about different culture interpretations.
I enjoyed your post and agree completely with your ending (your desires). In fact it reminded me somewhat of the ending to my post on Monday. We're on the same wave length.
I think that femininity and feminism are two different things. Feminism for me is about equal rights/opportunities for women and men. I include reproductive choice as one of those issues but can understand where some women, for religious reasons, are ant-choice. I believe if they are pro-women's rights in every other area they fall under a feminist umbrella, but stretch the definition to what I think most people subscribe.
I want to see more and more women on leadership positions and I want to see collaboration with each other and with men. But we both know that some men will collaborate and some won't, just as some women will collaborate and others won't.
Wish we could all let go of expectations based on gender and just wait and see the behaviors and traits of the individual woman or man we're dealing with. Thanks again for a well written, and thought-out post. Cherry