Yet Another Mom of Boys Worried They Will Be Corrupted By Slutty Girls
The splashing headline goes something like this: I am so worried for the apes that I am creating that I will blame all girls for my boys’ future sexual problems, and it’s phrased like this: “I’m A Mother of 2 Boys and I Can’t (and Won’t) Support Feminism.” Because she is a mother somehow makes this woman an expert, or someone we should support, and because she is raising boys, well, let’s just applaud her and everything she says.
We all know it’s harder to raise boys what with those dangerous girls running around. We all know boys could be “tempted” by “flaunting girls” who will surely drag said helpless boys to their doom with the girls’ all-powerful breasts. But what, really, does a frightened and insecure mother of boys do? She blames girls for all of her sons’ future woes, and she blames other women for their judgment of her parenting choices in the way she teaches about gender. This woman is right to be wary of judgment, because she sounds like a lunatic. Let’s begin with her hapless boys hauled off by tits of doom scenario. Her argument is that it’s not her fault if boys want to look at breasts, and so girls should cover them. (Cue the birka argument.) Never mind that she is a woman with presumable breasts of her own.
#FreeTheNipples preaches to end “slut shaming,” yet what they are really doing is flipping the shame of “sluttiness” from the girls who expose their breasts (and bellies and butt cheeks) to the boys who look at them. TakePart.com supports teen girls spin doctoring age-old terms like “boys will be boys,” which is more about farting, burping, and falling out of trees than it is sexual harassment. They make claims like “dress codes are the result of boys not being able to control their sexual urges,” but how about encouraging all students to simply dress with decency in a public institution designed for education and growth, instead of focusing on elevating social status and hooking up?
According to this mother, shaming “sluttiness,” which is an amoeba-like term laden with pitfalls, is acceptable and should be a part of society. Girls’ bodies are for shame, and boys are at no fault for wanting to look at shameful bodies, check. Also, boys never supposedly perpetrate sexual harassment, and said boys who are victims of breasts are now only interested, truly, in “farting, burping, and falling out of trees.” Cognitive disconnect: check. Breasts are dangerous, and so are “easy” girls, also known as devils, from which boys must be protected. It’s a well-known fact, according to this woman, that we all know about “easy girls,” to which I might add that I don’t, at all.
Teaching my boys that they are somehow wrong, perverted or bad if they look at what is being flaunted in front of them is also making the job of parents a thousand times harder to have that conversation about steering clear of “easy” girls. And, let’s not assume for one second that there aren’t plenty of them.(italics added to support my idiocy argument)
Let’s not assume that vaginas won’t eat a man whole, or that they aren’t waiting in dark alleys to consume little boys that happen by a la Little Shop of Horrors. I have never known anything “easy” about girls, women, or gender relations at all; however, there is supposedly a large waiting reservoir of so-called “easy” or sexually open, maybe even sexually active women/girls ready to consume said helpless boys with their vagina dentata waiting, hungry, predatory…
Here is this woman’s greatest fear, that her boys will be rejected by women: “I don’t want my sons to ever have to submit to the anger of a woman who believes she is justified in treating him with disrespect based on the feminist movement.” So the author of this post I have quoted just attacks all women, and feminism in particular. This mother assumes that she is raising her boys to be above reproach, attacking all women of daughters as guilty of allowing their daughters to ensnare her almost-idiot sons who are vagina slaves. Strange how that fear transforms a woman, isn’t it? I notice throughout the whole article decrying feminism for it’s possible turning against her precious boys, this woman seems ill-equipped to recognize that she sounds as if she is trying to create the perfect partner for herself.
You see, I’m kind of psyched to be raising my boys as gentlemen. I am proud to raise them to be hard-working and dedicated providers. I am raising them to treat the women in their lives like princesses, and to make eye contact with, and say hello to, everyone they meet. I am raising them to appreciate the beauty in a person based on what that person believes and how that person makes my boys feel, not on what that person is wearing or how much of their skin is exposed.
I am always leery of women who equate their gender with the word princess, as in, the same way I would be facing down the barrel of a loaded gun. Women who believe in royal treatment for their gender assignation are frightening people indeed, because with the concept of royalty comes the concept of “protection” and pretty soon follows something along the lines of “for their own good…” Royalty means limits, and talk of princesses equates to men ruling women, because there is no princess without a king.
I notice in her fearful diatribe that this mother never talks about her own relationships, how she might model the kind of relationship she wants her sons to have with her own partner. She talks about her own all-consuming needs to interact with her sons, to the exclusion of all other women, and other breasts being slutty things that need shaming, from which her boys deserve protection. It’s strange, really, that this woman anticipates losing her sons to another woman’s breast allure before her sons are even grown, and even as this realization hits, she laments about how any woman might reject her sons, and so is lashing out.
Arguably this woman’s partner saw her breasts and lived to tell the tale. One might also argue that her father’s children didn’t suffer a vaginally-induced lobotomy as a result of relations with her. Why assume male sexuality includes a total loss of brain function for the remainder of a man’s life? Most likely her sons won’t require feeding tubes as a result of a basic sexual encounter, or even as a result of sexual thoughts.
What bothers me most about this rejecting feminism trash is that this woman rejects all element of her son’s choices with regards to picking partners, whom they might like, and any sort of independent sexual thought they might have. What if her sons choose to *gasp* bring a feminist home to dinner? What if her sons believe that there might be more to women than entertaining egomaniacal thoughts of royalty or expecting men to serve women as opposed to enjoying one another, even in the carnal sense? What if sons have their own viewpoints as to what constitutes proper gender roles and *gasp* double*gasp* reject their mother’s outdates sense of chauvinism? In lauding her own ability to shape her sons, this mother ignores the fact that her sons operate of their own free will, to a large degree. There is no male independence in a mother attempting to control her sons’ sexuality, and that has nothing to do with feminism.