Future misogynist It might be a little tiresome, occasionally unhelpful, often kind of amusing when feminists on twitter use the hashtag #WhatAboutTehMenz. It's usually employed when a feminist writes about an issue and how it impacts on women, in which they do not once state that the chosen issue doesn't affect men in anyway. A man (usually) will respond noting that this is not exclusive to women. Or point out something completely unrelated that involves male suffering. Here's the thing: we aren't dismissing male suffering, or refusing to recognise it - we don't literally exist in separate spheres. It's just there seems to be a lot of things that people don't appear to have noticed when it comes to living as a woman. As a woman one looming issue is that of victim blaming. Many attempts are being made to show that what's needed is not more modesty among ladykind, but more education for the boys.
This has manifested itself in various ways. One is peculiarly to teach the boy he is the victim of matriarchy or feminism. Rather than wonder if patriarchy simply doesn't work for everybody and perhaps a new model (not matriarchy) should be built in which neither gender gets preferential treatment, some plump for a 'masculinity in crisis' theory.
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."
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 a mother to boys Glosswitch is aware of the current literature circulating regarding bringing up boys to be confident men (not men suffering from masculinity in crisis). Using Steve Biddulph's theories on navigating boyhood Glosswitch notes that: "...what it really offers is an entrenchment of male entitlement, albeit with touchy-feely justifications... It is snide and sneaky, suggesting to mothers that if their little boys are allowed to "feel good about themselves" then they can’t possibly grow up to hate women. As ever, women bear the greatest responsibility for men not despising them. Funny, that."
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 don’t 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.
Squeamish Kate
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 don’t 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.
Squeamish Kate
RSS Feed