In the continual intake of media which I (a mildly HULU obsessed person) partake in, I have observed that powerful women frequently rule with either the iron fist of increased masculinity or the slippery net of sexuality. While it seems to me that the more "feminist" answer in this scenario would be enhancing what are only "perceived" as masculine characteristics and therefore embracing them as female and powerful. This view point would also look down on the effectiveness of sexual prowess in manipulating others (often the cornerstone of any attempt to gain power).
However, I disagree. The intricate relationship between attraction and power cannot be so simply dismissed as petty or dishonorable. Traits the women frequently identify as attractive in men are similar if not identical to ones that can qualify a good leader: confidence, eloquence, persuasiveness. As I am not a man, I cannot positively state the qualities that men might find attractive but I have a feeling the above mentioned traits might be high on the list for them as well. This means that attractiveness and leadership ability have significant crossover. Therefore a woman perceived as more attractive (a notion frequently if not universally attached to some sort of sexual notion) could also be a better leader. In other words, sexuality is not the source of power, but a signifier of a person who would handle a leadership position well.
I would like to just add that I recognize that I based this argument on the idea that the majority of men and women have straight sexual preferences. I think that the same principles could be applied to gay leaders but the argument would be significantly more nuanced. Who is the audience of this leadership? Are the majority of these people also gay? I also feel less confident addressing the subject as there are significantly less openly gay leaders than straight ones. I therefore have less examples to mentally draw from.
No comments:
Post a Comment