Of course, we can't all be the bloody underdog so, as is tradition, rather than attack the alphadog the self-professed underdogs go for each other. It's better than biting the hand that's feeding you all crumbs from their overladen table.
Yesterday in the New Statesman Glosswitch (stay with me here Statesman sceptics) wrote about how, in 2014, boys are still growing up into men who hate women. The only way to combat this, says Glosswitch, is with feminism: "I watch the pro-boys movement, tracking feminist progress and launching one bad-faith countermove after another, and I know it will not spare my sons the misery of hating. Only feminism can do that."
I agree, but to use feminism as a method to promote equality and prevent misogyny we must all understand what it is. More shocking than boys still hatin' on girls in 2014 is everyone still thinking feminism is simply misandry with legitimising books.
This is to treat teenage boys as you might a dog. A nervy puppy dog that doesn't realise its new intimidating size.
As Glosswitch points out Biddulph refrains from using words such as 'objectification', instead saying "creepification" which is oddly cute, oooh creepy. Biddulph writes that: "if boys donât get much chance to talk and share with real girls, the more likely they are to start to fantasise about control and domination"
This is to treat teenage boys as you might a dog. A nervy puppy dog that doesn't realise its new intimidating size. Just let the big nervy dog sniff you for a bit. Give it a sniff so its not so scared and doesn't attack you out of fear. Like monkeys in a breeding programme being introduced at a zoo that have to be separated by a flimsy cage until they are used to each other. After which they are expected to mate, ideally with no biting.
Glosswitch reads this as Biddulph asking that we make women and girls more accessible to boys. The thing is, in feminist based parenting, we have to acknowledge that girls are just as curious. There's also the weird issue that goes unaddressed that unless you have sent your child to a single sex school...they've probably seen a member of the opposite sex before, gee. Can we stop painting the opposite sex as such a mystery? At 13 I knew what a boy was, but I needed to be taught that he was nothing to fear. Likewise for the boys.
This also only deals with hetero-normative children. Which is where we come to intersectional feminist parenting. The language of intersectional feminism, with it's desire to include rather than disqualify those who don't come under the second wave feminism umbrella, is arguably the most suitable for boys and girls. Recognising sex workers as people who work for a living rather than, oh just to pick an example from the air "orifices for sale". Acknowledging different people have a different struggle that you don't have lived experience of.
The, perhaps alarming, fact is that it is impossible to know what your boy is going to grow up to be. They might not grow up to be a man but a woman. Or not fit the heterosexual binary. Or become a columnist. And all this should be fine, and a parent's responsibility is to help give their child the tools to realise this.
But I agree with Glosswitch, it would be rubbish to accidentally bring up a misogynist.