« Tables Turned On Would-Be Rapist/Killer | Main | Xodtica's January 2005 Issue Is Out »
January 17, 2005
Recommended Reading: Feminists Raising Boys
I found a wonderful article about feminists raising boys. It squelches all of those stereotypes about feminists supposedly being respondible for the "war on boys" that ostensibly exists in this country.
Contrary to what some critics are saying, boys raised by feminists are growing up just fine.
Written by Patsi Bale Cox / Arrington, Tennessee
Published Monday, October 4, 2004
[via comments by the article's author, Patsi, at Feministing]
Here's an excerpt:
In the past several years we’ve seen a glut of magazine articles, talk shows and books like The War on Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Boys and The Decline of Males demonizing a simple term: feminism. How silly. Feminists are people who believe women deserve the same opportunities and compensation as men.
The anti-feminist deluge seemed to fall even harder in the wake of the Littleton High School tragedy, where on April 20, 1999, two teenagers committed the largest mass school killing in U.S. history. Everyone agreed that something was going wrong with today’s society, and many pundits placed blame squarely at feminists’ doors. Time after time I watched, listened or read that we activists were to blame for a breakdown in family values in general, and for the dehumanization of American boys in particular. Nevermind that none of the young men involved in school shootings, so-called “wildings” or other violent acts so widely publicized seemed to have been raised by feminists.
I contend it is just the opposite, that feminists gave their children strong values. My parents not only encouraged but also expected their daughters to see themselves as equal with men, to work to their potential and to facilitate others to do the same. And I believe the great majority of women’s rights activists of my generation, the meat and potatoes feminists, single or married, have done a spectacular job of raising their sons, sons who view the world far differently than those raised in strictly patriarchal households.
There are lessons I believe we imparted both in word and action that will affect great change in society as our sons take their places in today’s workforce. We taught our daughters the same values, but we always knew that any significant change required males also working against prejudice and intolerance.
I believe feminists by their very nature imparted questioning minds to their sons, encouraging them to question stereotypes including those existing within our school system: jocks, nerds, freaks and snobs. They learned from us that name-calling is a critical part of alienation. We taught them to appreciate differences, not disdain them, to neither be nor seek victims.
We taught them to be discerning, to carefully evaluate influences, ranging from peer pressure to media input.
For feminists active in the business and political community, sons learned to interact with a myriad of individuals, from the powerful to the disenfranchised. They carried those experiences with them, and, I believe, profited as adults. I also think we imparted a sense of purpose in our sons, the knowledge that every life is part of something bigger and does make a difference.
Children of feminists know that every stand they take may not be popular. They may be subjected to ridicule or contempt as a result of their beliefs. But through the examples of their mothers, they know a worthy stand is worth the price.
I can’t even imagine what my feminist grandmother would have thought had she lived to see a picture of a urinal shaped like a woman’s open mouth. But she wouldn’t have been surprised that it was feminists who got the project flushed.
Posted on January 17, 2005 at 02:39 PM | Permalink
Comments
This reminds me of the excellent chapter on the presecution of witches in Charles McKay's *Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds*. The account is depressingly exhaustive in describing the complete collapse of rational thought in scapegoating certain people--usually women, of course--for often-trivial calamities. That the woman accused might not even have been nearby at the time was no alibi.
It is beyond absurd to attribute such turmoil to feminism. It's even sillier than blaming the Enron implosion on Communists (I have seen this done, incidentally). Politically, it is death in most districts to run as a self-identified feminist, whatever one's opinions may be. It displays the same mass psychosis as McKay described.
Posted by: James R MacLean at Jan 18, 2005 1:34:14 AM
persecutions, not "presecutions"--alack!
Posted by: James R MacLean at Jan 18, 2005 1:35:31 AM
Text of "The Witch Mania" from EPD&tMoC, Charles MacKay, 1841:
Florimond, in his work concerning the Antichrist, lets us fully into the secret of these prosecutions. He says, "All who have afforded us some signs of the approach of Antichrist agree that the increase of sorcery and witchcraft is to distinguish the melancholy period of his advent; and was ever age so afflicted as ours? The seats destined for criminals in our courts of justice are blackened with persons accused of this guilt. There are not judges enough to try them. Our dungeons are gorged with them. No day passes that we do not render our tribunals bloody by the dooms which we pronounce, or in which we do not return to our homes, discountenanted and terrified at the horrible confessions which we have heard. And the devil is accounted so good a master, that we cannot commit so great a number of his slaves to the flames, but what there shall arise from their ashes a sufficient number to supply their place."
Florimond here spoke the general opinion of the Church of Rome; but it never suggested itself to the mind of any person engaged in these trials, that if it were indeed a devil, who raised up so many new witches to fill the places of those consumed, it was no other than one in their own employ -- the devil of persecution. But so it was. The more they burned, the more they found to burn; until it became a common prayer with women in the humbler walks of life, that they might never live to grow old. It was sufficient to be aged, poor, and ill-tempered, to ensure death at the stake or the scaffold.
Posted by: James R MacLean at Jan 18, 2005 12:11:49 PM
"This reminds me of the excellent chapter on the presecution of witches in Charles McKay's *Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds*. The account is depressingly exhaustive in describing the complete collapse of rational thought in scapegoating certain people--usually women, of course--for often-trivial calamities. That the woman accused might not even have been nearby at the time was no alibi."
Actually I read somewhere a while back that most of the people burned at the stake as witches ultimately winded up being men...although maybe that was more mens' rights propaganda...
Not sure...
Posted by: NYMOM at Jan 18, 2005 2:36:42 PM
I'd like to opine that the article does NOT "squelch all of those stereotypes about feminists supposedly being respondible for the "war on boys" that ostensibly exists in this country". It shows ONE case history and the rest of the piece is supposition. It certainly does not address all the agendas that claim the word feminism as motive nor dispell the existance of misandrist child rearing.
How ironic that presecutions of witches be brought to comparison. The Salem Mass. which trials that many of us in the US resulted in no females burned at the stake and indeed, one man put to death.And it wasn't even in Salem.The most popular- The Crucible was a matter of malicious false accusation of the most horrid offense of the day-disrespect of the church via practiced devil worship-by a group of rabid young girls desperate for peer acceptance,led by a vindictive alpha, to exonerate their own misdeeds. They knew exactly the potential sociotal outcome and their own immunity from examination by mere outlandishness.
And, of course, The Crucible was a modern (at the time) commentary addressing MaCarthyism and the red scare. Yet another situation that history has shown to be over demonized by myths and pseudo-intellectual inflamation. Not to deny the innocent victims of it, there was a threat to the reigning Republic and association with the dupes of the day was, well, not good.
To deny that there are factions bent on malicious damage to gain personal and unentitled tolerance, that hide behind the more altruistic objectives of what many call feminism, is to live in the same blind denial desperately held by those young ladies in Salem and the fear that the unrightious blacklisters held by association with popular opinion.
Posted by: at Jan 19, 2005 8:19:14 AM
*sigh* DAMN!also- persecution not presecution (hurumph).Feel free to ignore any other typos as well.
Posted by: CaptDMO at Jan 19, 2005 8:23:59 AM
"...To deny that there are factions bent on malicious damage to gain personal and unentitled tolerance..."
Well this true and God knows that we understand that MORE on this site then many others, since mens and fathers rights advocates are constantly attempting to gain personal and unentitled tolerance by posing as victims all the time...
Now from the benefit of ALL your experience and historical knowledge, how best would YOU advise to handle this situation...
Posted by: NYMOM at Jan 19, 2005 12:19:12 PM
The Salem Mass. which trials that many of us in the US resulted in no females burned at the stake and indeed, one man put to death.
You're partially right--no females were burned at the stake in the Salem witch trials. Nor males, for that matter. They were hung (with the exception of Giles Cory, who was pressed to death). Burning at the stake was the method of execution in Europe.
The people who were falsely accused and convicted were overwhelmingly women.
If you had half a clue about the history of the Salem witch hunts, you'd know that plenty of women were hung as witches. In fact, they were the overhelming majority of the accused, imprisoned, and killed.
In fact, you will see that Giles Cory, one of the accused, had also testified against his wife Martha during her trial. He was later charged, and was pressed to death because he would not offer a plea (the typical action for not copping a plea at the time). Five men and twelve women were hanged for witchcraft; one man and three women died in jail--the infant of one of the women also died in jail. Far more were imprisoned and released.
I suggest you not go around making these wild claims unless you research them. The Peaboy Essex Museum in Salem houses the original documents of the witch trials. Read them. Though I will say, if you do that, you would have to admit that the drivel in your past post was horseshit.
Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jan 19, 2005 1:37:14 PM
The Salem Mass. which trials that many of us in the US resulted in no females burned at the stake and indeed, one man put to death.
You're partially right--no females were burned at the stake in the Salem witch trials. Nor males, for that matter. They were hung (with the exception of Giles Cory, who was pressed to death). Burning at the stake was the method of execution in Europe.
The people who were falsely accused and convicted were overwhelmingly women.
If you had half a clue about the history of the Salem witch hunts, you'd know that plenty of women were hung as witches. In fact, they were the overhelming majority of the accused, imprisoned, and killed.
In fact, you will see that Giles Cory, one of the accused, had also testified against his wife Martha during her trial. He was later charged, and was pressed to death because he would not offer a plea (the typical action for not copping a plea at the time). Five men and twelve women were hanged for witchcraft; one man and three women died in jail--the infant of one of the women also died in jail. Far more were imprisoned and released.
I suggest you not go around making these wild claims unless you research them. The Peaboy Essex Museum in Salem houses the original documents of the witch trials. Read them. Though I will say, if you do that, you would have to admit that the drivel in your past post was horseshit.
Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jan 19, 2005 1:37:17 PM
One point was it didn't happen in Salem but the neighboring town, and that fact turns to myth as quick as a gqme of "telephone"
My main point was the same crap happens throughout time, the popular evil of the day only dictates the script.
Next time I will include the dates,individuals involved,moon cycle, and prevailing weather of the time. And no what I said in the post wasn't horseshit. Thank you.
Posted by: CaptDMO at Jan 19, 2005 6:53:13 PM
"Next time I will include the dates,individuals involved,moon cycle, and prevailing weather of the time."
You do that not just next time, but EVERY time you attempt to distort history...
Thanks so much Sheelzebub for clearing that up...
Posted by: NYMOM at Jan 19, 2005 7:58:54 PM
Capt DMO:
Please read what you're attempting to rebut. That's all you need to do! If you get the dates wrong, make typos, or even get the wrong country, it's not a crime. Merely respond to the post, and you'll be taken seriously.
I was talking about MacKay's chapter on witchscares generally. He writes about the persecutions in Europe, not the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
My point has nothing whatever to do with the gender of the alleged witches. And considering that you mock Sheelzebub for being pedantic ("Next time I will include the dates,individuals involved,moon cycle, and prevailing weather of the time"), it is really silly for you to nitpick about the means of execution--which was, in fact, usually immolation in Europe.
While I'm on the topic of correcting your "corrections," I might add that the modern town of Salem is near to the old town of Salem, which was called Salem in the 17th century. The old town is now called something else, but I was talking about the witchscare in Europe, not North America, so thanks for wasting out time.
Now, as to this atrocity:
Yet another situation that history has shown to be over demonized by myths and pseudo-intellectual inflamation. Not to deny the innocent victims of it, there was a threat to the reigning Republic and association with the dupes of the day was, well, not good.
I have an idea: why don't you bother to find out something about the subject? "There was a threat to the reigning republic," you silly jackass? Normally I deplore rudeness by temperament and by principle, but your remarks represent the 2nd most odious tradition in American political life. You are strolling down a public thoroughfare with your pants missing and your buttocks improperly wiped, and you don't have the sense to be ashamed.
Good day, Sir!
Posted by: James R MacLean at Jan 20, 2005 4:25:30 AM
NYMOM: "Actually I read somewhere a while back that most of the people burned at the stake as witches ultimately winded up being men...although maybe that was more mens' rights propaganda..."
Some here have already mentioned it, but the Salem, Mass. witches were hanged, not burned. The burnings took place in Europe. Most tried, imprisoned, and killed as witches were women, not men. Sheelz already mentioned Giles Corey being a man who was pressed to death.
CaptDMO: "One point was it didn't happen in Salem but the neighboring town, and that fact turns to myth as quick as a gqme of "telephone""
I have special interest in Salem since I live near it. I visit Salem a lot to shop in my favorite comic book store and New Age/Witch shops. Quite a bit of what was happening in Salem also had to do with fighting over land. It wasn't as simple as "false allegations." That fact doesn't get out as much as the witch hysteria does. The Salem today is not the Salem of yore. It happened in Danvers, which used to be part of the town of Salem. The town of Salem was reluctant to allow Danvers to govern itself because of the valuable farmland it held. The other towns around the town of Salem such as Marblehead and Beverly, which used to also be part of the town of Salem, had already gone their separate ways. Danvers was the only one left that was still under Salem's rule, and it was reluctant to let it govern itself. The witch trials were greatly affected by this land fight.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jan 20, 2005 4:48:40 AM
I've never really thought of myself as a feminist raising a boy, but I am one. He has certainly learned from me to "question stereotypes including those existing within our school system: jocks, nerds, freaks and snobs." I agree with James MacLean that scapegoating feminists for problems with boys in school is not only flat out wrong, but completely inaccurate. If anything, feminists raising boys teach them good ideals. We give our children strong values. We open their eyes to the ways of the world, and we teach them to trust their own judgement.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jan 20, 2005 4:53:55 AM











[ekm]100x100[ekm].jpg)


