Tweet
You know, I always used to recommend men read "The Will To Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love" by bell hooks. There's a lot of good stuff in it for guys. But frankly 10 years worth of internet and things like the behavior of this mother and frankly it should be required reading for anyone that wants to "do things" on behalf of feminsim. This obsession with punishment some people have, ultimately "activates" the very patriarchal systems they're trying to dismantle.
I'm joking of course regarding required reading. But this mother is such a textbook case of a certain behavior of some women of whom hooks basically lays bare in that book that basically "activates" patriarchal behavior in her boys by their own behavior. It goes roughly: "Experiences prejudice and injustice on account of being a woman", "lacks ability to act out revenge on other men", "takes said injustice out on male child who is vulerable to it." It basically nurses the seed that becomes hatred. In context, she also discusses how this plays out in things like women's behavior towards crying male children (a different tangent but why so much male socialization includes psychological mutiliation in terms of cutting off of emotional experience which most men are familiar with if they ever made it through school.) And bell certainly isn't like Camille Paglia.
I think the wrong way to look at it is, "well MRA's will love this." The correct way to look is, "certain behaviors create and certain behaviors undermine patriarchy." Guess which one this actually is? It's authoritarian, casts the mother (in relation to the child) as an enemy, and its vindictive. Any defense of the mother other than, "perhaps overreacted because she was angry" is misguided.
So yea, go ahead and feel free to feel fully grounded in feminism when roasting the mother. No need to offer her up to MRA's because frankly they have no business being the first line of her critics. It's a very bad sign if/when they are.
I'm joking of course regarding required reading. But this mother is such a textbook case of a certain behavior of some women of whom hooks basically lays bare in that book that basically "activates" patriarchal behavior in her boys by their own behavior. It goes roughly: "Experiences prejudice and injustice on account of being a woman", "lacks ability to act out revenge on other men", "takes said injustice out on male child who is vulerable to it." It basically nurses the seed that becomes hatred. In context, she also discusses how this plays out in things like women's behavior towards crying male children (a different tangent but why so much male socialization includes psychological mutiliation in terms of cutting off of emotional experience which most men are familiar with if they ever made it through school.) And bell certainly isn't like Camille Paglia.
I think the wrong way to look at it is, "well MRA's will love this." The correct way to look is, "certain behaviors create and certain behaviors undermine patriarchy." Guess which one this actually is? It's authoritarian, casts the mother (in relation to the child) as an enemy, and its vindictive. Any defense of the mother other than, "perhaps overreacted because she was angry" is misguided.
So yea, go ahead and feel free to feel fully grounded in feminism when roasting the mother. No need to offer her up to MRA's because frankly they have no business being the first line of her critics. It's a very bad sign if/when they are.
Comment