THE FEMINIST MAN

I am not sure how to navigate this topic because it seems contradictory to the ideals of feminism to allude to the importance of a feminist man but maybe that is the intrigue with opposing ideas, the ability to hold parallel truths with equanimity.

I know you must have encountered the use of words such as masculinity, femininity, masculine energy, and vice versa, ying and yang but somehow we seem to interpret this flow as constant, unmoving and singular. Pertaining to one gender specifically and in continuity but this may not be the accurate position. I am not ready to expound on this as this is not the focus of my diatribe.

Who is this nameless feminist man? Is he a fiction of my imagination? my fantasy? or a meeting from reality that cohabits with my imaginary world?

prior to becoming a feminist crusader, I was a staunch individualist who maintained the position that we exist genderless in our minds. Of course, this is not a holistic perception.

My interpretation is that our individualism is stronger than our generic gender bias and as such we must be accountable for our actions irrespective of our proclivities influenced by gender orientation.

Notwithstanding, I was perceptive enough to understand that the female and male energy is needed to exist in equilibrium. One is not superior to the other, the same as the other, equal to the other. Instead, they are similar in their differences. That is the irony.

Yet, we exalt our differences in such a manner that obliterates our similarities, yearnings, and need for connection.

The energy was never meant to be pitted against the other rather, to stand complimentary. It is a dynamic alliance in that each weakness and strength tend to make up for the other both making the other better but yet insufferable.

My point is we make each other better. Masculine traits, feminine traits, and approaches to life are nothing more than what they are- traits.

Growing up, I usually got offended when I heard men mock women for being emotional, attached, wanting security, beauty, and ease… especially the fact that these qualities were highlighted in a way that supposes women as the “weaker sexes” stupid, and incapable except to the extent of domesticity.

At the time, I thought the best thing to do was prove that I could do better than a man. In hindsight, I find my approach quite laughable and undiscerning. There simply is nothing to prove, one gender isn’t superior to the other merely more adaptable either by training or by biology.

Instead, I started to focus on understanding my sovereignty as a woman. The domains where I can lead effectively without question, subversion, and competition because it is in fact, my turf.

I stopped being embarrassed by my femininity, I stopped seeking validation and approval to be inherently female with all the pitfalls society has attached to it. I began to discover that all that mattered was finding the yang. The right yang is the equilibrium.

Am I with this paragraph suggesting an amorous, romantic, and long-term partnership with a man for every woman? No, I couldn’t care less what you decide to do with your life. I mean that is your purview. On the contrary, I use the word yang loosely to mean masculine energy including but not limited to the amorous context.

This brings me to the subject of the right yang or in this case the feminist man. This can be interpreted as a man made for a feminist (female equality activist) or a man who is also a feminist.

It is with the latter I am preoccupied but not in the sense that he has feminist ideals but that by being secured in his masculinity, he is able to inspire a feminist lite. My focus is also to highlight that feminine and masculine traits are interchangeable by association because they need to interact fluidly to always find equilibrium and before you ask me why I am invested with equilibrium, it is simply because chaos cannot have been the grand plan for existence.

This man is the right balance because he is as vulnerable as he is assertive, as giving as he takes, as subservient as he leads (if you cannot tell, my chain of thought has shifted to the heterosexual sense of romanticism). He is not a creature of ill intention ready to plunder the unwitting female, to objectify her for his vain fantasy.

Neither is he willing to place her on a pedestal of perpetual weakness wherein she is ever so incapable of being responsible for her pitfalls and inactions.

Rather he is convinced of her strength, ready to point her weakness. Her frailty is not the basis of his strength in fact, he has nothing to gain from putting her down.

He is ready to hold her up and help her stand if she needs help but he does not think his help is why she stands. He is not ignorant of her capacity he sees it and respects it. She is an equal because he does not treat her less than she demands.

Is this idealistic? Maybe, but the good thing is I am just expanding my vantage point.

Till my next piece, stay giddy.