|
mangapuppy -> RE: Masterful Leadership Qualified or not? (7/25/2010 3:37:25 PM)
|
I think the real social question -in our post modern era, is not whether a man or woman can be a leader, but is a leader expressing a masculine position? Do we associate female leaders as being in the 'masculine power role'? Do female leaders only get to be leaders by asserting themselves in a masculine way, within masculine associated values?
In terms of actual gender; Does female masculinity itself differ from male masculinity (Judith Butler)?
I think the main issue is connecting leadership with masculine associated qualities: instinct, such as action driven, logic, determination, external physicality. Rather than feminine associated qualities such as: empathy, intuition, adaptability, communication, subjective honesty, internal emotions.
Masculinity is alligned with the law and the 'status quo' while femininity still represents the 'other' and transgression.
Good leadership for me, is knowing how and where to balance power. To use power in fact to challenge systems into confronting a changing, complex and subtle reality, rather than protecting old value systems at the expense of others (minorities).
Psychologically i think that because masculinity has alot of unquestioned social power, we associate it also with security and protection. while often i think men can't live up to the image we project onto it. They want the freedom of masculinity without the responsibility, no matter how gloriously we mythologise that responsibility.
Growing up, in my experience, girls are taught to take on more social and moral responsibility than men.
A woman who chooses freedom above her social responsibility of being a moral beacon to others, can become a leader. As can a man who rejects social freedom to take on the responsibility of protecting minorities.
Leaders are ultimately individuals who can function beyond the social roles imposed on them.
Its quite a complex issue... we're less free thinking and conceptually open than we think we are.
In terms of BDSM, it's better for me to think of submission as receptivity and Dominance as drive and energy, both with their own inteligence and purpose that they are individually responsible for developing and evolving.
I find it hard when a Dom wants me to give up my intuition or discredits my thoughts and feelings, because it interferes with his image of himself being the Dom and myself being a toy that boosts his importance, energy level, etc.. I like it when a man can teach and open me up to new experiences.. and make me feel supported in vulnerable moments. That is a real exchange.
But I still think I know how to be a woman, and myself, better than he can. Likewise I don't like to interfere with the self expression of another. So I don't like Dominance when its a form of suppression. That's too easey in a way.
|
|
|
|
