"My liberation as a man is tied to your liberation as a woman."

[ted id=1031]

Trend Piece Tuesday: Men Are Scary

Since trend pieces -- particularly of the New York Times variety -- tend so be so laughably presumptive and over-generalizing, I think we ought to dedicate Tuesdays to making fun of, ripping apart, or hell, even expressing enjoyment for them. If you see one that you'd like to see highlighted, feel free to send 'em our way at ethecofematgmaildotcom. Today's Trend Piece Tuesday will be dedicated to yet another manifestation of the belief that all men should be viewed as a potential danger to children.

Nicole Sprinkle, a guest poster on the New York Times parenthood blog, used an entire article to relay a story about how she discriminated against a young man for being a male. In Seeing All Men as Predators, Sprinkle explains that she was searching for a part-time babysitter or nanny for her small child, a 3-year-old girl. There were few candidates available for part-time work, but she had found the perfect candidate:

...[T]here was also this 23-year-old young man who responded to my ad on our neighborhood’s Listserv. He was well spoken and exuded a quiet friendliness over the phone. He was studying to become a paramedic (great to have around in case of emergencies), lived his whole life in the neighborhood, had a mother who owned a local daycare, and worked as a summer camp counselor at the very preschool my daughter was now attending – and got rave reviews from his supervisor there.

She's afraid, though. Because he's a male. And males abuse and rape children.

Wait, what?

Sprinkle makes it clear that she knows better, that she knows deep down inside that it's rather ridiculous to assume this of all men, but that her emotional reaction, rather than her intellectual one, was the driving force behind her ultimate decision not to hire this young man, who was, as she said, the best candidate for the job.

I also told him that I felt really awful about having to feel this way, and that it was such a shame that society forced us to discriminate against kind, competent men as caregivers for our kids. Yes, I know that statistically a man is far more likely to molest a child than a woman but, really, what is the likelihood of it happening to your child when the potential caregiver comes replete with recommendations that you trust and a personality and career path you admire? I told him I needed to think about it for a day or two.

He very kindly told me he understood and would wait for and respect my decision. Two days later I called him to tell him I was so sorry but I was going with the local mom. Again, he pleasantly told me he completely understood but to feel free to call him if it didn’t work out. I hung up the phone feeling sheepish.

(emphasis mine)

The young man was incredibly understanding of her hesitation to hire him due to his gender. This is very kind of him, considering that he was actively being discriminated against by a potential employer. And I know guys just like that, who are kind and understanding about our society's widespread belief that children are dangerous when left with men. My husband and I live in a townhouse complex with a bunch of families with small children. A couple months ago, we were watching our niece (who we live with, along with my sister and mom) at the playground in the courtyard, playing with other children between 3 - 5 years old, and a 4-year-old girl asked Jesse to help her reach a horizontal bar-thing that she was too short to reach herself. In order to help her, he'd have to lift her up. He told her that he wasn't sure if that would be okay with her parents. She went and asked, got the OK, and helped her. Of course, if it were me, I'd have just lifted her up, and no one would have been suspicious of anything. But as we'd just moved in, he wasn't sure if the little girl's parents might freak about a "strange man" touching their daughter.

On the one hand, I understand the concern. A stranger of any gender in close proximity to a child without visible caregivers can look suspect, and since men are primarily the gender who gets the (public) bad rap for being child abusers and molesters, it's easy to see why many women (and even many men) might be more afraid of seeing their child with an unknown male than female. On the other hand, when my husband and I have kids, I don't want him to get suspicious looks, or have people questioning his right to be alone with our children simply because of his gender.

Which brings me to my next point. Sparkle's confident and un-cited statistic that she whipped out of nowhere about men being "far more likely" to molest a child than a woman isn't even accurate. For one thing, recent studies have shown that women are more often the perpetrators of violence against children than men are, and the majority of the cases of child abuse (80%) are perpetrated by parents of the children. While Sprinkle admits that she acted in an unfair manner and felt "sheepish" after turning the young man down for the job and that, as a result, her daughter may have "missed out on a chance to have a great caregiver and our family a friend," she maintains that she acted in a way that made her feel more comfortable.

Additionally, she tries to give herself an out by saying that it's a shame she has to feel this way, and that society forces us to discriminate against men like him. Here's the problem: she is a member of society. She feels bad about the way that the society that she is a part of discriminates against men in this situation. What is she waiting for? All the other mothers to stop treating them this way first? Ending this kind of discrimination is her responsibility, too. How many other parents in her circle of friends and elsewhere will read this article or hear her story and feel a renewed dedication to discriminating based on gender? How many more children will grow up afraid of males alone with children because this message is drilled into them growing up? And how will women ever stop being expected to be homemakers and full-time parents if we as a society refuse to allow men the same opportunity?

I want to give Sparkle credit for being frank about her prejudices. It's difficult to admit a bias against and generalized group of people, and she risked a great deal of pushback and criticism, which she has thankfully received in the comments on the post, and elsewhere in the gender-thinkers section of the blogosphere.

But, credit for candidly admitting her prejudice against men and admission of guilty feelings about said prejudice aside, this is seriously problematic. We as a society, and we as feminists and people committed to equality between men and women cannot continue to turn a blind eye toward discrimination against men in the domestic sphere. As Archivist of the False Rape Society blog wrote in response to my comment on his post,

Women have made a lot of progress breaking down barriers that once confined them to the domestic sphere. Women will never be able to truly "have it all" unless men are freed up to move from the work world to the domestic sphere. Right now, there is a terrible social stigma for men to adopt a significant role as nurturer. (A woman who tells her fiance that she wants to take time off from work when they have children is called a normal woman; a man who tells his fiance he wants to take time off from work when they have children is called "an ex-fiance.") This sort of thinking is scarcely consonant with the notion that women can do what was formerly considered men's work, and men can do what was formerly considered women's work.

While the priority of any parent is surely on doing everything in their power to keep their children safe, the idea that men are inherently more likely to molest and abuse children is false, and, just as I'm not about to go around telling people it's totally okay for me to be afraid of black men who walk past me or get into elevators with me (or men in general who talk to me, period) and expect sympathy and understanding, it shouldn't be okay for her to feel justified in making decisions based on an unsupported and demonstrably irrational fear of the entire male sex. We can't expect to gain equality to men in all areas of life, but save domesticity for ourselves. This isn't fair, it isn't right, and it's damaging to everyone involved.

It does seem, though, that her piece, sympathetic as it was, has gotten a lot of attention and sparked necessary discussions. For this, perhaps it was a good piece for the Times to post.

h/t Jim.

What's a Boy to Do?

by Kristi 

This is one of those times when I’m looking to all of you out there to help me with a problem over the word “faggot.” I’ve run out of sage advice to give my eleven-year-old son, who has hit a life-altering stalemate over this word. I thought perhaps there may be some silver-bullet solution that I’ve missed. As a mother, I cling to the ridiculous idea that there is a solution out there, even though over 21 years of motherhood has taught me dozens of times that believing there’s an answer, is often a delusion. No, this is not directly about bullying, it’s more about friendship, family, and loyalty. Obviously, you need to know more.

My youngest son, who I’ll call “Joe” to protect his anonymity, has two best friends. One of them, “Alex,” lives only two houses away, which means if they’re both home at the same time, they’re together. Even to our extended family, Alex is not considered “company” anymore. If we’re going out to lunch, it’s not a question of if Alex will come too, it’s if “the boys” are coming, because no thought is ever given to them voluntarily separating…even for lunch. In most ways, they are regular eleven-year-old kids who just enjoy each other’s company. They play football in the yard, basketball in the driveway, video games, computer games, build Lego towns, they look at Selena Gomez pictures on the internet because she’s beautiful, they run outside if a fire truck, cop or ambulance goes by with its sirens on, they burn leaves with a magnifying glass, and they fart on each other. The only time they don’t play together is when they can’t because of schedules imposed by adults. All that changed last week. Feeling like he had no other choice, my son stood up and walked out of his best friend’s house, saying, “That’s it, I’m leaving,” because yet again, the word "faggot" was used as a weapon.

Keep this in context. A young boy saying that he will not go to his best friend’s house is a big fucking deal, a really big fucking deal. His best friend, Alex, is not using the word faggot, Alex’s 13 year old big brother is, and this is, above all things, a brother issue. My oldest son, Joe’s big brother, is gay. In a recent autobiography Joe had to write for his first week of 5^th grade, he indicated that the person he admired most in the world was his sober, gay, 21 year-old big brother.

Joe has done and said everything he has in his eleven year old arsenal to stop the use of the word faggot. He explained why using the word faggot is offensive. He explained why it’s personally offensive to him. He explained that it’s not just offensive, it’s hurtful. He’s asked that the word just not be used when he’s around. None of this has curtailed the use of the word in his presence. Important note: yes, the word is used with the full knowledge and in continuous witness of the boys’ father. This is Oklahoma, so in more than half the homes down here, it would not be considered an obscenity, or something to be reprimanded for. If the kid is allowed to tease his sibling with the word dork, or idiot, then the word faggot is likely, equally acceptable.

The main thing Joe’s father and I have tried to get him to understand, is what his limits are. The main one being, he can’t make other people change. He can only know that he did everything possible to try and create a change. Sometimes, you have to find peace in knowing that you did your very best, but the rest is not up to you. We’ve told him that nobody, not even his big brother, expects him to give up going to his best friend’s house. Hanging out there is not a betrayal of his brother, or condoning what Alex’s brother says.

He’s at a “wait and see” point right now. He’s hopeful that the walk-out worked. After all, it did put an abrupt end to a really fun game. Joe was particularly happy with what he heard as he was walking out the door. He could hear Alex screaming at his big brother, “LOOK WHAT YOU DID! THAT’S MY BEST FRIEND AND THE ONLY FRIEND YOU STILL HAVE, AND YOU RUINED IT!” Interesting news, but I’m not really shocked that this young man doesn't have anyone who will still play with him except his little brother’s best friend. Unfortunately, I think the fact that he’s friendless probably illustrates this kid’s inability to consider others at all.

So, I’m wide open to hearing your ideas, or suggestions, just in case I missed some little known tool in dealing with a semi-sociopathic, Baptist, bigoted, redneck, preteen who is allowed to get away with damn near everything.

Disengagement.

Over the last several... weeks... months... I suppose that I am not really sure exactly how long. I have been disengaging from political and social news and discourse. My radio spends less and less time tuned into the local public radio news channel and more time on the local school district's Jazz station. I've been reading more literature and less non-fiction. I've been getting healthier... nearly 50 pounds lighter, eating nutritiously, and riding my cool new beach cruiser bicycle.



What's the problem you ask? I don't feel guilty about being so disengaged. But some how I feel like I should? Don't get me wrong... I still hold the same values, in fact I've started doing some honest to goodness volunteering... so am I nuts? Should I be guilt stricken that I have not read the 2000 + pages of the health bill that just passed? Or that I still haven't finished another complete feminist book since the Bell Hook's Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center?

Where do you all find the balance between keeping your center and being engaged in the world? What ways do you asses these things in your life?

Registering "family units"

I wonder what would happen if we abolished marriage and replaced it with "family units." Any 2 or more persons can enter into a single family unit. Two men, two women, a man and a woman, an adult and child, two adults and one or more children, three generations of people.

It sounds like it could get complicated quickly. What if we added tax benefits? For every person registered with a family unit, they would get a tax deduction or break or... whatever. Whatever the benefits to being married currently are. Including, of course, hospital visitation rights and other things.

If someone wanted to leave a family unit, and join another one, for example, they could "divorce" their current family unit-- leaving the stigma of what is currently known as "divorce" behind. A family unit could dissolve because everyone started to head their own family units, or a family unit could dissolve because of irreconcilable differences. Two family units could merge after a wedding, too, rather than separating.

This would resolve the issue that anti-gay marriage people have with the "meaning of marriage" being something about a family unit, anyway, because no one can deny that nowhere near all of our current families has a mom, a dad, and 3 biological children. It would automatically allow for polygamous relationships to be legally recognized.

What are some of the inherent flaws of this sort of proposal? I'm sure a lot of people would be annoyed with the idea of getting rid of the concept of marriage = man + woman, but seeing as how one man and woman can still be considered a legal unit, they aren't being prevented from anything by being "traditional." And perhaps currently married folks would be "grandfathered in" to the change and not be required to re-register or obtain a "family unit license (?)" unless they wanted to register additional people with their unit.

Hmm.


Update: Looks like this is already being considered in other forms. The difference is just how many people can be included in a "union" or "unit."