Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today in Coffee and Internets | ELE »

Monday, February 11, 2008

Dangerous Toys

posted by on February 11 at 9:30 AM

Yesterday’s New York Times Magazine had a piece by Peggy Orenstein about two books for girls inspired by the best-selling Dangerous Book for Boys. Orenstein discusses the appeal of Dangerous (nostalgia for a lost form of boyhood) versus the appeal of The Daring Book for Girls or The Girls’ Book: How to Be the Best at Everything (pre-nostalgia for a new kind of girlhood). This graph broke my big, gay heart:

Whether girlie or girlist, girls, because they’re allowed more latitude in their identities, can still be girls: Boys, on the other hand, must be boys—unless no one is watching. In another study of younger children, Cherney and London found that if ushered alone into a room and told they could play with anything, nearly half the boys chose “feminine” toys as often as “masculine” ones, provided they believed nobody, especially their fathers, would find out. That made me question whether any more expansive vision of girlhood can survive without a similar overhaul of boyhood, which, apparently, is not in the offing. Learning to “create an amazing dance routine” (as suggested by “Everything”) is still far more Dangerous for boys than, as their own volume suggests, learning to juggle.

RSS icon Comments

1

I'm just not even sure where to begin. If I ever have a son, I'd want him to grow up without having to submit to gender stereotypes, but I don't want to set him up for a life of excessive pain and ridicule. He'd get shit from all groups ... men, women, girls, boys.

Posted by Gloria | February 11, 2008 9:48 AM
2

My mom, back in the early 80s, didn't bat an eyelash when my twin bro and I wanted Cabbage Patch Kids. Or when we used to put on her ice skating skirt and dance around the house. Or when we played Barbies with the girl next door and G.I. Joe with the guys on the other side of the house. Of course, perhaps my brother and I were a bit, um, exceptional, when it came to playing with "girl" and "boy" toys. At least we were never made to feel ashamed. Thanks, mom!

Posted by Michigan Matt | February 11, 2008 9:50 AM
3

One of the many things that annoys me about feminism is that men are expected to participate in expanding the social definition of womanhood in society by changing our language and assumptions (fire fighter rather than fireman, etc), but that women either refuse to participate in similar emancipation for boys, or approach the idea with a kind of emasculating "oh, how sad," attitude that's the epistemological equivalent of treating all young feminists like gender-dysphoric lesbians. I suspect this is related to internalized sexism on women's parts: women see "male" things as something valuable and therefore worth striving for, but disdain "female" things like dolls and dresses -- and therefore disrespect boys who are interested in those things. But the degree to which that bias is unexamined and uncriticized among feminists is still pretty galling.

Posted by Judah | February 11, 2008 10:09 AM
4

"I don't want to set him up for a life of excessive pain and ridicule" -- what does that mean, exactly? Wanting to be a, hmm, gimme a cliche here, hairdresser, or choreographer, is going to cause some pain in junior high, but EVERYTHING causes pain in junior high. In adult life, even the fruitiest men in the gayest professions, whether they themselves are gay or straight, are usually pretty happy in them.

Trying to force your boys to be BOYS without listening to what THEY want is child abuse. As an unmanly child who grew up to be straight but femme-friendly, I say STOP IT. If your kid doesn't want to learn to box, don't make him.

Posted by Fnarf | February 11, 2008 10:09 AM
5

@3: If you really think that tendency is unexamined in feminist thinking, you're not paying enough attention to feminist thought.

Posted by AnonymousCoward | February 11, 2008 10:12 AM
6

@5

Is that why? Good to know. Nevermind then.

Posted by Judah | February 11, 2008 10:23 AM
7

All I know is, if anyone ever tries to make me feel like less of a man again for liking Nancy Drew, they're asking for trouble. I read every one of those fucking things when I was ten. Our neighbors had a special bookcase with the complete set. She's still my dream woman.

Never had much time for Barbie, though. No nipples.

Posted by Fnarf | February 11, 2008 10:29 AM
8

I wanted to say something , but i dont know what to say....it's painful
I had alot of femanine intrests...when i was little i wanted an easy bake oven, I liked musicals, and cute cuddely things

my father defenitly discuraged that....you'd think my name was faggot growing up, my mother wasint there...if any thing she encuraged it..wanted me to be "manly" I'll admit, I was a little pansy...with a high a voice, walking on my toe's with an intrest in jewlery and off key singing......
Maybe i should thank my parents for shameing me, my peers for beating me up and excluding me
I cant admit certain softer sides in public
I no longer openly act like a pansy....

except alone behind closed doors,

I hate being around others who arent stoned passive hippies, inclusive punk rockers (not in seattle) or flaming gay men
even then I'd rather be alone, in my bathtub...where i can be as shamful as i wish... I used to keep an easy bake oven
I can also out drink and drug a drag queen
dak sludge, ozzing in my head, where do I drain it
am I makeing a point? no

Posted by linus | February 11, 2008 10:38 AM
9

@4: I think I would have been happier in elementary school, for example, if my mom had showed me how to fit in more than just letting me obliviously do all my nerdy things that got me teased and crying every day. By the time I got to high school, I was ever more determined to conform because all I had ever been taught as a kid was that my natural self was wrong and awkward.

No, I wouldn't stop my boy from growing up the way he wants, but I guess I'd feel guilty if he suffered for it -- as if I should have at least let him know what he was in for, except I'd also worry he'd think he was making a lesser choice somehow.

Which is why I don't really want kids at all. There's no way I'd raise a kid smart and adjusted enough to overcome my neurotic parenting.

Posted by Gloria | February 11, 2008 10:41 AM
10

@1: They learn it from other children—you can't free them from social stereotypes unless you keep them from being social... which sounds far more damaging than a fear of being thought to be girly.

Posted by Carollani | February 11, 2008 10:44 AM
11

and how about circumcision? Most will agree that for females it is WRONG. I think it's also cruel to circumcise an male baby, but my feminist friends don't see any parallel. Some even say uncircumcised cocks are "gross". What's up with that?

Posted by the bloop | February 11, 2008 10:50 AM
12

Jesus, linus @8: get some help. You're not alone, and you don't have to be afraid to be yourself.

You might want to graduate to a full-size oven, though.

Posted by Fnarf | February 11, 2008 10:50 AM
13

an male baby?
I think I was distracted by typing circumcised so many times.

Posted by the bloop | February 11, 2008 10:52 AM
14

I don't have an opinion about circumcision one way or the other, but it is completely misleading to compare female genital mutilation with mail circumcision. The equivalent operation on a male would be removal of the glans head, not just the foreskin.

Posted by Fnarf | February 11, 2008 11:42 AM
15

Cruel to circumcise a male baby? Certainly not as cruel as female genital mutilation. As Fnarf says, they're not on the same level. Male circumcision may often be misguided and unnecessary in this country--those who do it for looks, because an uncircumcised penis looks "gross," are doing it for the wrong reasons, I think. But there are religious, cultural and reasons that I think validate male circumcisions in a way they can't female genital mutilation.

Posted by lymerae | February 11, 2008 12:01 PM
16

female circumcision is actually labial & clitoral EXCISION. if those societies could cut out the G-spot, they'd do that, too.

that's how scared of pussy they are.

but you're right; some women are freaked by foreskin & freaked by testicles. hell, many are grossed out by their own vulvas.

which is wierd - not many boys are taught to think their cocks are gross.

Posted by max solomon | February 11, 2008 12:06 PM
17

When I was ten, I was told that I had to stop doing embroidery (which I really enjoyed), because it was something that boys didn't do.

It made me feel horrible.

I've never pressured my children, of either gender, about how they can behave.

Posted by Mike | February 11, 2008 12:08 PM
18

sorry...that was inexcusable
now that i've collected myself
what i meant to say was that although forceable repressing your childs yearnings and teaching him to be ashamned of himself may lead to a life of off and on substance abuse and self-esteem issues it can be benificial...outside of a few isolated pockets america truely is a savage wasteland....and if you want to survive let alone thrive you have to learn to buck up and always look over your shoulder, throw a fist, swagger,
or else be prepared for violence

people will want to hurt you for the slightist infraction

you better be tough if you want to be soft

besides what kind of woman wants a guy with a femanine aspects

sorry, it's a cruel world outside the this bubble (and given the recent attacks...that bubble may not be around for long)
If I could spen my life in an isolated neaborhood I would, but I have wanderlust...I love this whole country

be prepaired to fight or stay low if you want to be your self

Posted by linus | February 11, 2008 12:09 PM
19

Dan, the fact that you need to emphasize the "gayness" of your heart when discussing this is one of the reasons it persists. Break the association between effeminate interests in boys and homosexuality and there'd be less such repression in the world.

Posted by A. | February 11, 2008 12:33 PM
20

yeah well good luck meeting straight women if your not mister masculinne.

Posted by frede | February 11, 2008 12:45 PM
21

I don't know about that.

I don't think I'm speaking only for me, but I tend to find myself attracted to guys I later find our are gay precisely because they don't act all macho and masculine. The are not afraid to say tha they like the ballet or baking, or whatever. They have more interests than just sports or cars or other things that are deemed acceptable for a man to be interested in.

Most of the guys I've dated have been like that, too. That kind of self-awareness and self-assuredness is really attractive.

Posted by shelyn | February 11, 2008 1:16 PM
22

luckaly I have a loveing women who understand my effeminate ticks.....tolerates them...I"m all man in the bedroom, on th table, over the kitchen sink, in the tub, on the balcony, in the van and in the ally

but yeah...it's a bitch trying to show intrest when you lack confidence in your self image

Posted by linus | February 11, 2008 1:17 PM
23

Well said, #19.

Posted by gfish | February 11, 2008 1:30 PM
24

Judah, did you not notice that this post refers to a feminist who is addressing the very issue you criticize feminists for ignoring?

If it's anyone's turn to take the big risk of addressing the hyper-masculinization that is imposed on boys, it's men. Sure, feminists could do more, but where are the men's voices? Where are they fighting for their sons' right to be more "feminine"?

This is the number one reason why I am glad Savage is such a loudmouth. While he occasionally rubs me the wrong way with his views about women, the fact is, he's out there challenging straight culture's hysterical defense of masculinity. Sounds like a feminist to me.

So to accuse feminists of failing to address this issue is extremely ironic. What's truly "galling" about the bullsh*t our culture puts boys through is not that feminists aren't saying enough about it, it's that men--especially straight men--are saying so little.

Posted by Irena | February 11, 2008 4:07 PM
25

I was going to say exactly what Irena @30 just said in response to Judah.

Judah, I am very, very glad to hear a man saying he wants to hear discussion about masculinity. However, feminists can no more start a movement to reexamine concepts of masculinity than men could have created the feminist movement. If this is truly something you are concerned about, it is up to YOU to do something about it! Start speaking up! Start reading! Start writing! There are lots of feminists out there to back you up.

I urge you to read more into this: it is absolutely something feminists are discussing. A good book to start with is, "Boys will Be Boys," which is about breaking the link between masculinity and violence (she has some rather offensive views about homosexuality, but most of what she says is sound). I can also provide links to a lot of articles I've come across over the months discussing exactly these issues.

I am most seriously, as a feminist, excited to hear a man express what you express (well, except for the blaming feminism for it). You are a rare, rare bird; I keep my eye out for your type, believe me. Please do some research and make some noise.

Posted by exelizabeth | February 11, 2008 5:08 PM
26

Well, I must be doing something right, because I love going to musicals with my wife, and driving sports cars too. I can bake, and decorate, and build stuff with tools. I can sing and dance, and fly remote control airplanes. I'm also married to the coolest girl on the planet, so that nonsense about straight girls only being attracted to "masculine" guys is, well, nonsense.

I don't think discussions about what is and is not masculine are very interesting or productive. I am a man, and I do a lot of different things. I don't really care what anybody thinks about the masculinity of those things. I fully intend to teach my children (of either gender) the same sorts of values, and teach them to spit in the eye of anybody who disparages whatever roles they might wish to embody.

(Well, I'm interested in what my wife thinks, but she's pretty much cool with whatever I'm in to, and vice versa.)

Posted by Lee Gibson | February 11, 2008 5:44 PM
27

15:

So, because male circumcision doesn't remove as much of the sex organ as female circumcision, it's just fine? Would it be okay if we cut off the last finger on every baby's right hand because, hey, in Sudan they cut off the last two?

And what are those valid religious and cultural reasons to cut off part of a baby boy's penis? In America, the two main cultural reasons for the practice among non-Jews are 1) that (originally) it was thought to curb masturbation, and 2) that it is so common most people don't think much about it. These are seriously fucked-up reasons.

Posted by Greg | February 11, 2008 6:46 PM
28

Actually, now male circumcision is thought (by WHO) to help prevent transmission of HIV. (Not that that's a cultural or religious reason).

Posted by ED | February 11, 2008 7:54 PM
29

Well said #26, you must've been raised right!

I have a little boy who has both masculine and feminine interests. When he was younger he liked dressing up in girly clothes and he still wears nail polish (albeit in "boy" colors like black or green) sometimes. He loves to cook and do "house-keeping" and also to play at sword-fighting. He has expressed having crushes on both boys and girls. I don't know what his orientation will be, but my husband and I both just want him to be happy and successful.

He's never been frightened of showing the different sides of himself around us or friends. He's a friendly and well-liked kid at his (admittedly very liberal) school.

I think we're making progress as a culture on this, but it's going to take awhile yet!

Posted by snoozn | February 11, 2008 8:37 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).