In April, author Rebecca Hagelin appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and commented on Don Imus's firing after his racist and misogynistic comments towards the Rutgers Women's basketball team. She pondered what would have happened if the target of Imus's jokes had been white males. The answer was 'probably nothing.' At most, people would have laughed along with him. Hagelin uses the term "politically correct discrimination" to describe the general bashing of men as oafish, beer-guzzling, crotch-scratching morons who are only interested in ogling women. Judging by the response to her appearance on O'Reilly's show, she has hit a nerve.
I've spent a fair amount of time blogging about my concerns for Maureen, growing up in a society that hassles women who breastfeed in public, equates self-esteem with appearance, and sends the message that to be considered beautiful she also needs to be thin. Whole shelves in bookstores are filled with materials devoted to helping mothers teach their daughters how to take care of themselves in a world filled with inequality and how to avoid becoming the victim of men, whether it be via an abusive relationship or an uneven pay scale.
I've spent a fair amount of time blogging about my concerns for Maureen, growing up in a society that hassles women who breastfeed in public, equates self-esteem with appearance, and sends the message that to be considered beautiful she also needs to be thin. Whole shelves in bookstores are filled with materials devoted to helping mothers teach their daughters how to take care of themselves in a world filled with inequality and how to avoid becoming the victim of men, whether it be via an abusive relationship or an uneven pay scale.
But what about our boys?
I think Hagelin has a valid point. Wouldn't it make sense to raise our sons to become men who don't victimize women? Wouldn't it make sense to challenge the definition of what it means to be a man? So much energy has gone into raising strong, independent women who are confident in their decisions. We have told our girls that they can do anything they want, be anything they want, as long as they believe in themselves. We have told them that women are just as good as men, and they deserve the respect that comes along with being a human being.
As great as this is, unfortunately the boys have been shunted to the side, and the myth of the ideal man perpetuated.
I place a lot of the blame on radical feminism. Chauvinistic, abusive men do exist, but painting the entire male population as evil does no favors. The "I can do anything I want to do, and men are stupid idiots and I'm going to prove it" mantra, coupled with the revenge factor has resulted in a distorted view of what men are and what men are expected to be.
Before Maureen was born, I wanted to get Johnny a baby doll of his own, so he could get used to the idea of having something to take care of. I ended up not getting one because I couldn't find a doll that wasn't either trashy looking or completely girl-centric, complete with pink dress and her own hairbrush.
Same thing with the kitchen set. There are some really cool looking play kitchens available now, should you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars per piece, through Pottery Barn Kids but ToysRUs doesn't carry anything that isn't completely feminine. In fact, the closest I could get was a pretend sushi set at aMuse in Fell's Point. While I find girls toys seriously lacking, I was able to find a pink golfing set, a pink basketball and a pink baseball mitt.
What's up with that? Girls are "allowed" to play with "boys" toys, but the opposite isn't true? You know what a boy who played with a pink baseball mitt would be called, don't you? Why the double standard?
JK Rowling used initials when the first Harry Potter book was published because her editor felt that boys wouldn't want to read books written by a woman. Considering the popularity of the series, I wonder if the editor isn't giving boys enough credit.
I say enough is enough. There is no "pig gene" that makes men "act like men," those ideas have to come from somewhere. Isn't it obvious where they are coming from?
I'm still going to raise my daughter to believe in herself and her abilities, regardless of what her body looks like or what other people say about her. But I'm also going to do the same thing with my son.
Posts
4 comments:
Good for you! I think there is a huge double standard that exists in our society. Whenever one group has been opressed in some way, there seems to be a backlash against the group that opressed them as a whole. Women are just as good as men and should be seen as such, but the feminazis of the world would have us believe that women are far superior. Having two boys myself I've been thinking about how to raise them to be kind, thoughtful, sensitive individuals, who appreciate women for the beauty within and not just their pretty face or impressive physical attributes. I'm not sure exactly how I'm going to do this, but its my goal.
First of all, there is no slur that exists in our vernacular that carries the same implications about men that negative comments toward women & minorites do in our society. It doesn't exist, and if it did, it would still carry little weight because words are less likely to be hurtful to those who are at the top of society. Slurs against those who have historically been discriminated against is more of kicking them while they are down. Insults toward white men basically boils down to petty humour & possibly jealousy.
However, I do believe there is a certain degree of "acceptible" male bashing in our society in the name of humour that is completely inappropriate. Watch an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond or according to Jim. Yes, its completely sexist against women that these beautiful, witty ladies have no choice but to be with dumb loser husbands. Buuuut...why do they have no choice? The implication is that a husband who isn't a neanderthal doesn't exist. Yes, its a slam against men. Yes, its inappropriate. But its nowhere near the same level of hurtfulness as the virgin/whore split expectation of women, and I have yet to ever see a man in a speedo holding a briefcase on Deal or No Deal.
I've seen tons of kitchen sets that are not feminine, that are even masculine, with rock backgrounds and the plastic is green & maroon. Ours is pretty ambiguous, its gray & green. And stores carry plenty of "child transport systems" for dolls that are masculinized as well. Whether pink toys are inappropriate for boys is subjective-in our home we've never assigned colors to sexes, and pink shirts are the rage here for boys right now. But, not allowing boys to play with "feminized" toys is a slam against women, not men. It's sending the message that girl's things are beneath the boys and therefore boys are too good for them, or gay if they do use them, which then carries the subsequent slam against homosexuals.
It's not secret that the first stages of feminism not only hurt men but women as well in some ways. Fourth & fifth stage feminism are centered on principles of feminism that is good for both boys & girls, not centered on ideas of reparation or subjugation of men.
People need to move on & realize that when men put down women, it hurts both men & women. When women put down men, it hurts both men & women, period.
I am right there with you sister! You should have seen the glares I got last February when I was in the Disney store, he fell in love with a stuffed animal and I bought it for him. When I say "Fell in love"- he grabbed the entire shelf and was cuddling them squealing, "AWWWWWWW!!!!". I had to actually get staff to help me distract him so he could only get one. Anyway, it was a pink kitty cat (Marie from Aristocats), complete with mascara, eye shadow and bows. He loves cats and this one really got to him. I wasn't going to let a little social taboo stop my kid from being happy!
The Toad, as a child, had a bald Cabbage Patch Kid whom he named "Baby". I still have it--the Howler has no interst in a baby whom she cannot name herself, and the Toad, at 15 was pretty adamant that the doll's name was "Baby".
We found picnic sets of play dishes in bright colors that HE liked, so that's what he had.
We don't *do* pink for the Howler unless it's something SHE chooses, and, if truth be known, the Toad, as an infant/toddler, sported rosebud onesies and the Howler wore boys' overalls because they were in a color she looked good in.
I'm annoyed by the *pinking* of tools and toys to make them feminine, but that's because I find them to be more cheaply made and less useful or long lasting.
I'm aware of the stereo types and don't set my kids up to be made fun of, but the reality is this: Children can be dreadful little beasts and will berate and tease their peers mercilessly regardless of political correctness or the color of their baseball gloves.
The bottom line for me is this: It IS a "man's world" and, as such, it will be harder on women in general. It's easier to raise boys in a male-dominated culture simply because they've already got an "in" and tempering the undesirable characteristics is easier to do. Girls are harder because they are more vulnerable to our own unspoken and less-than-desirable prejudices and preconceived ideas of what a woman or a lady should be.
I find myself doing it--and I am not a weak willed or weak minded "typical" woman.
I think raising well-adjusted, independent, strong girls is more about being aware of our own cultural biases and working to correct them--for ourselves AND our daughters. Not being aware of--or ignoring--the unspoken memes we had modelled for us is, in my opinion, is like paying lip service to the whole extreme feminism man-bashing culture.
Woman and girls CAN be strong, and independent, and all that goes with that without man-bashing/hating. It's just harder to do if you're fighting against the unspoken cultural bias that seeped in around your parents words.
Post a Comment