I haven't had any time to post lately, but I couldn't let this column by John Tierney, What Women Want, pass by. I think we are on the final two frontiers of feminism: 1) childbearing and 2) recognizing women's limited appetite for fighting, just for the fun of it. Tierney explains the appetite part, and joins my growing sample set of men, left and right, hinting they're ready for a female prez. (Ironically, it is no coincidence these sentiments are sprouting in the first year of Bush's second term. I think it's a latent desire for President Mommy.) In Tierney's case, he's talking about a CEO instead of a US president, but the slant is the same: "The result is not good for the bottom line, as demonstrated by a study
from the Catalyst research organization showing that large companies
yield better returns to stockholders if they have more women in senior
management."
The childbearing part has to do with the urgent career interruption that is a woman's limited window for bearing children. Women with plans for no children are affected indirectly, by the mere perception that she may quit mid-track to start a family. But we're approaching the edge of this limitation too, as I learned at one of Sylvia Paull's Gracenet gatherings a few months ago. With advances in fertility and engaged fathers, we clear that hurdle.
What do we do then? Actually, there's a third frontier. We all know they're not going to do it on their own. It'll be up to the feminists to launch...manism. Masculinism? SNAGism. Item one on the agenda for that project is to find a name. Because this will be neither macho nor metrosexual. This field of study will allow guys to reclaim their maleness in a way that both sexes embrace. How do I know all this? Egotistical intuition. If you know anybody with a large corpus callosum, they'll tell you I'm right. Bwoaahahahaaaa!!!
