Posted on | February 16, 2017 | 1 Comment
The idea that mothers can unilaterally prevent their sons from displaying misogyny if they just put in the requisite amount of effort to “raise them right,” is such a slap in the face to women who have raised sons for millennia.
Would misogyny no longer exist if all the women before us had just tried a bit harder? Were they somehow deficient, too ignorant or ‘backwards’ to figure misogyny out? Because that’s the logical conclusion of that argument: you can prevent your son from exerting any oppression if you just work hard enough, so you’ve failed if he exhibits the misogyny which characterises male socialisation. If you don’t somehow shield him from all the societal influences teaching him to hate and devalue you and everyone like you, you’re responsible because you could have prevented it, you layabout.
It’s just another way to blame women for misogyny.
Let us ask, “What does she mean by ‘misogyny’?” Or what do the words “oppression” and “societal influences” signify in this discourse? Feminists have a way of throwing around words as if there were universal agreement about what constitutes “misogyny,” a word that often means nothing more than a tendency to disagree with feminists. As to Sarah’s argument about whether mothers are responsible for their sons’ “misogyny,” this raises the question: “How is she qualified to judge?”
What does this 24-year-old woman know about child-rearing? Or what does she know, for that matter, about “male socialisation”? What is the basis of her expertise, that we should accept her assertions?
One of the essential problems of feminist discourse in the 21st-century is that so many of the participants are women who are simply too young to speak with experiential authority on the subjects they address, and who refuse any counsel from those who do possess such experience.
This typical feminist impudence — “Shut up and let me lecture you!” — expresses an attitude of disrespect which the feminist herself would consider “misogyny” if a man did it to her. And we may surmise that this know-it-all sense of superiority among young feminists has a lot to do with why their interactions with males are so unpleasant.
Because I know a thing or two about child-rearing, and also about how “male socialisation” actually operates, I’m disinclined to be lectured on these subjects by this woman who is younger (and, I would bet $20, less accomplished) than my three oldest children. While I prefer not to waste time arguing with fools, Sarah’s comments about “male socialisation” raise an important point that feminists tend to overlook when judging male behavior: The man who succeeds in life must do so in competition with other men, and his success also requires him to work in cooperation with other men. Think of a football player, for example. He must compete to gain a spot on the team, and he must cooperate with his teammates. His success in this requires him to be accepted as “one of the guys,” to live up to the standards of behavior expected by his coaches and teammates.
Now, is the professional football star likely to be a “misogynist”? Yes, in some sense of the word — he esteems masculine values and male camaraderie, and is likely to view women primarily in terms of their desirability as romantic companions. He may not be rude or overtly “sexist” in his behavior toward women, but he is always “one of the guys,” an attitude that is necessary to his success.
This attitude is perfectly simple to understand, and there is no reason why women should be offended by it, except . . “equality.”
Damn that foolish idea that everything must be 50-50 or else women are suffering from patriarchal oppression. Go back to the silly controversy Martha Burk provoked about the Augusta National Golf Club’s all-male membership. Is it wrong for all-male organizations to exist? Why?
This absurd feminist resentment of male institutions has real-world consequences which require serious attention from serious adults:
Feminists don’t give a damn about America’s defense capability. The feminist movement arose within the radical anti-war New Left of the late 1960s, and feminists have always been against the U.S. military. Were it up to the leaders of the feminist movement, the American military would be no more powerful than Sweden, France or Denmark. Feminists refuse to confront the reality that there are evil forces in the world which wish us harm. The protection of our interests abroad requires America to maintain a force capable of deterring aggression: “Peace Through Superior Firepower.”
Feminists hate the U.S. military because feminists hate America, but beyond that, feminists simply fail to understand male psychology. Aggression and violence are an inescapable reality of male existence, as every schoolboy knows. There is always a bully looking for some weakling to pick on, and bullies will form gangs to prey upon the weak. A boy must demonstrate his ability and willingness to defend himself against aggression, and he must make friends with other boys who will assist in his defense against any gang attack. The gang warfare that plagues America’s inner cities (there have already been 122 people shot in Chicago so far this month) is what happens when grown-ups fail to suppress the violent tendencies of young men. . . .