Are you talking about male feminists? They would seem to be the exception that proves the rule, especially as I made a distinction between males (who are largely masculine, by definition) and females (who aren't). Given that feminism - as much as the party line is that it's for everyone - is, certainly of late, solely for promoting women's interests without regard to or at the expense of men and boys. The notion that masculinity is toxic is not something that comes from men, after all.
Perhaps, given that there is a bimodal distribution of masculine and feminine traits across males and females, I could reformulate my statement and make it more precise: those that are of a more feminine expression of being might require or feel they require prior representation in order to give younger people in the same group the confidence to try for such a position. Males (in general, due to masculinity) do not, which is why they do not see the need for any representation (humans tend to think everyone thinks like them).
The real problem is in how both views could be reconciled - that of needing representation versus the more male view of acquiring position through competition (and thus implied competence). Hence, we have the DEI/affirmative action debate.
My own view is that competition should win over representation, but that everyone should be shown how they can compete effectively. Doesn't the history of sport - of competition - show us that every shape or skill can provide a competitive advantage in different contexts, so the key is to get a team to make those contexts arise more often and thus improve one's chances of winning?
In short, show girls how to compete and remove the need to patronise them as women. Maybe that's me being male, but I at once believe in merit and competition, and in women's ability to be effective in most roles (as I believe about men).
Perhaps, given that there is a bimodal distribution of masculine and feminine traits across males and females, I could reformulate my statement and make it more precise: those that are of a more feminine expression of being might require or feel they require prior representation in order to give younger people in the same group the confidence to try for such a position. Males (in general, due to masculinity) do not, which is why they do not see the need for any representation (humans tend to think everyone thinks like them).
The real problem is in how both views could be reconciled - that of needing representation versus the more male view of acquiring position through competition (and thus implied competence). Hence, we have the DEI/affirmative action debate.
My own view is that competition should win over representation, but that everyone should be shown how they can compete effectively. Doesn't the history of sport - of competition - show us that every shape or skill can provide a competitive advantage in different contexts, so the key is to get a team to make those contexts arise more often and thus improve one's chances of winning?
In short, show girls how to compete and remove the need to patronise them as women. Maybe that's me being male, but I at once believe in merit and competition, and in women's ability to be effective in most roles (as I believe about men).