Quote:
Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian  Ahh whats with all this support for androgony, "Its manly to let others lead"? Thats a phenomenal fallacy of a statement! Its incredibly manly to lead, its incredibly weak to abdicate that control. |
What makes leading "Manly" versus "Womanly"? And what makes abdicating control less manly than less womanly? Nothing. The fallacy lies in attributing some gender ideal to a Universal concept. It's not androgony I'm supporting; it's looking at how we apply certain labels to behaviors and limit our thoughts about those actions by virtue of the words that we choose that I'm fighting against.
Leadership is neither manly nor womanly. It simply IS in and of itself. A leader's gender has nothing to do with their efficacy in such a role. And being a leader does not make one more manly or womanly. It also does not make one more dominant or less submissive. These are the fallacies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian White light you sound like me, a man who knows what he thinks a man is, but when you look outward all you see is this opressive adrogony, saying its manly to give up, its manly to make yourself acceptable to others, have you ever thought maybe it IS manly to lead, maybe its manly to be in charge, whats so wrong about that? |
What's wrong with it is that by labeling something "manly" you make it inaccessible to over half the world's population. Not only that, it's inaccurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian Or even better, whats so wrong about having your own damn opinion about what it really means to be a man? Without the input of so-called enlightened thought. |
If one wanted to have their own opinion without "enlightened thought" there'd be no need to post anything on a forum such as this. One could simply sit in a cave and have whatever opinions they wished with no fear of being challenged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian Just something for you to think about. |
One other thing to think about since I'm ranting about labels and proper vocabulary: there is a difference between leading and controlling/manipulating. People get pissed off when they think they're being controlled or manipulated. People are happy and excited when they think they're being led.
White Light, in a customer service position, you do not have the ability to LEAD anyone. You do, however, have a great deal of opportunity to control a situation by manipulating someone into doing or even feeling something you want them to. That's not leading.
Inspiring action from others towards a common goal is leading. Keeping someone from being pissed off about a faulty product or service is control.
Organizing a group of friends to participate in a charity event when many of them never have or hadn't even thought about it before is leading. Or even better, doing the same with a group of total strangers.
Leadership seldom feels empowering. If anything, a true leader wears their leadership as a burden that must be upheld for the benefit of others. A true leader feels an obligation to those they support, not an obligation from those they lead.
Control, on the other hand is very enticing. It makes one feel powerful and important. It strengthens the Ego and makes us feel good. This is how I am interpreting this "Manly" thing you seem to talk about.
If I'm missing something, please correct me.