eep!
I just posted the following to my class discussion board. We will see if everyone - my prof included - thinks I am a crazy feminazi or not.
“What Does 'Will Boys be Boys' Really Mean” attempts to interrogate sexist attitudes towards boys, sex, and responsibility. Disappointingly, the article fails to question the underlying assumption that sexism is a struggle between men and women. Despite the plethora of literature available that defines sexism as a system of assumptions and privileges, not a battle of the sexes. This keeps it from giving this topic the appropriate care and attention.
Rothman contradicts herself in an attempt to convince her readers that boys have it as bad under sexism as girls. Instead of simply recognizing that girls and boys are being disrespected in different ways, she focuses overmuch on who is being harmed the most. In doing so she asserts that it is less disrespectful and dangerous to be assumed to be deserving of abuse than to be being assumed to be naturally abusive.
This argument is so devoid of logic it makes my teeth itch.
When discussing the superbowl fiasco from several years ago, and the greater blame placed on Jackson’s shoulders, she says: “I understood it paradoxically as a twisted kind of compliment to women and a hidden and powerful indictment of men.”
I’m having a hard time getting past this sentence in particular. Rothman is arguing that society is complimenting girls by telling them that we expect responsible behavior from them, to the point that we blame them when other people hurt them. This is such an incredibly irresponsible assertion; it’s far too close to the more typical argument that even unwanted, aggressive, and/or abusive sexual attention should be considered flattering. It also contributes to the cycles of self blame most victims of sexual assault go through. In addition, Rothman is completely silent on the cultural implications of a white man treating a black woman’s body as his property on national television.
No amount of acknowledging that the compliment is “twisted” can undo the way this argument is dismissive of sexual assault, racial stereotypes, and the point of view of the victim. All of this in turn feeds the idea that “boys will be boys,” the concept that Rothman is arguing against. If it’s a compliment, then it's not that bad, and boys aren’t being bad, they are just being boys. It also does nothing to help the countless boys who are sexually abused themselves.
Perhaps she is trying to argue that there are fewer resources for adults who wish to help boys question the narrow definition of masculinity presented in the media. I believe that we are further along as a culture in questioning enforced and performative femininity than we are in questioning enforced masculinity. She spends the latter part of the article talking around this idea, but never actually articulates it. The closest she gets is “Yet from my perspective, these same adults aren't nearly as clued in about how destructive these ubiquitous images and messages can be for boys."
I do think this is true, and I desperately want more resources that are critical of media’s definition of masculinity myself.
This is not the same, though, as “it was [boys] who were really being demeaned [on The Family Guy]” or “I've always understood [culture] to be fundamentally more disrespectful of boys and men.” The latter confuses the number of people who believe in a stereotype with the extent to which that belief has harmed the persons being stereotyped. The former implies that girls are not being demeaned as well.
That? That has me seeking out Joanna Russ reviews and FEMINISTHULK’s tweets for solace, not admiringly passing Rothman's article along to others.
huge thanks to hawkwing_lb for helping me with my hw. Disclaimer: any stupidity above is wholly mine.
“What Does 'Will Boys be Boys' Really Mean” attempts to interrogate sexist attitudes towards boys, sex, and responsibility. Disappointingly, the article fails to question the underlying assumption that sexism is a struggle between men and women. Despite the plethora of literature available that defines sexism as a system of assumptions and privileges, not a battle of the sexes. This keeps it from giving this topic the appropriate care and attention.
Rothman contradicts herself in an attempt to convince her readers that boys have it as bad under sexism as girls. Instead of simply recognizing that girls and boys are being disrespected in different ways, she focuses overmuch on who is being harmed the most. In doing so she asserts that it is less disrespectful and dangerous to be assumed to be deserving of abuse than to be being assumed to be naturally abusive.
This argument is so devoid of logic it makes my teeth itch.
When discussing the superbowl fiasco from several years ago, and the greater blame placed on Jackson’s shoulders, she says: “I understood it paradoxically as a twisted kind of compliment to women and a hidden and powerful indictment of men.”
I’m having a hard time getting past this sentence in particular. Rothman is arguing that society is complimenting girls by telling them that we expect responsible behavior from them, to the point that we blame them when other people hurt them. This is such an incredibly irresponsible assertion; it’s far too close to the more typical argument that even unwanted, aggressive, and/or abusive sexual attention should be considered flattering. It also contributes to the cycles of self blame most victims of sexual assault go through. In addition, Rothman is completely silent on the cultural implications of a white man treating a black woman’s body as his property on national television.
No amount of acknowledging that the compliment is “twisted” can undo the way this argument is dismissive of sexual assault, racial stereotypes, and the point of view of the victim. All of this in turn feeds the idea that “boys will be boys,” the concept that Rothman is arguing against. If it’s a compliment, then it's not that bad, and boys aren’t being bad, they are just being boys. It also does nothing to help the countless boys who are sexually abused themselves.
Perhaps she is trying to argue that there are fewer resources for adults who wish to help boys question the narrow definition of masculinity presented in the media. I believe that we are further along as a culture in questioning enforced and performative femininity than we are in questioning enforced masculinity. She spends the latter part of the article talking around this idea, but never actually articulates it. The closest she gets is “Yet from my perspective, these same adults aren't nearly as clued in about how destructive these ubiquitous images and messages can be for boys."
I do think this is true, and I desperately want more resources that are critical of media’s definition of masculinity myself.
This is not the same, though, as “it was [boys] who were really being demeaned [on The Family Guy]” or “I've always understood [culture] to be fundamentally more disrespectful of boys and men.” The latter confuses the number of people who believe in a stereotype with the extent to which that belief has harmed the persons being stereotyped. The former implies that girls are not being demeaned as well.
That? That has me seeking out Joanna Russ reviews and FEMINISTHULK’s tweets for solace, not admiringly passing Rothman's article along to others.
huge thanks to hawkwing_lb for helping me with my hw. Disclaimer: any stupidity above is wholly mine.