Writing on the trend of feminist mothers’ fear and loathing of their newborn sons (because they’re boys, obviously), Mark Tapson observes:
This is not to presume that Jones or the writers of the aforementioned articles don’t love their sons deeply; in fact, Polly Dunning concludes her piece by stressing that her son is her “sun, moon and stars,” and that her “love for him swells my heart.” That is as it should be. And most parents believe it’s important to inculcate the values and beliefs that are meaningful to them in their children. Christian parents, for example, naturally want to raise their children to be good Christians.
But if you see child-rearing primarily as an extension of your ideological mission, if your fervent dream for your children is to weaponize them in the service of your utopian political ideals, then you’re not parenting, you’re indoctrinating. This is unhealthy for everyone involved and for society at large.
The most well-known instances of mothers “weaponizing” their children “in the service of [their] utopian political ideals” are, of course, the mothers of Palestinian suicide bombers. Government-sanctioned religious fervor actually makes mothers grateful to hand over their children to the sick ideological cause of murdering Israelis in the name of Allah. These mothers have declared pride in encouraging their sons to become martyrs in the name of political and religious idealism.
Of course, Western society would gasp at the notion that feminist boys and little jihadists in training should have anything in common. But, the reality is that both sets of children are being raised, in Tapson’s words, “as an extension of [an] ideological mission.” He cites Mad Men actress January Jones declaring that she’s going to “surround her son, like a defensive moat, with strong women” (go ahead, Don Draper fans, laugh at the irony) joining in the modern feminist declaration that children don’t need fathers. He also cites other feminists who’ve laid out action plans to address their sons’ presumed “white privilege” by “immersing” them in feminism, in order to “do feminism a great service.” In this case, it would seem Allah and feminism are two sides of the same coin.
Branding is the only thing that makes this cultural revolution palatable to a Western audience. Feminists have so carefully and intricately associated themselves with the gay rights and transgender movements that any idea slapped with the “feminist” brand will automatically be associated with total cultural acceptance – and complete legal legitimacy. Just as gay marriage opened the door for incestuous and polygamous couples to “come out” and obtain full legal rights, feminism’s anti-man agenda has paved the way for a generation of boys to be raised fatherless, feminized, guilty and weaponized with rage.
It’s easy for female celebrities who can afford it to preach the joys of single motherhood. The reality is that children in fatherless homes are four times more likely to be living in poverty, are at a “dramatically greater” risk of becoming drug addicts, and are twice as likely to commit suicide. The answer isn’t universal pre-K or better quality public education (both sources staffed largely by women), the answer is that every child needs an involved father to improve their chances of having a successful adult life. Contrary to feminist belief, no amount of money or politically correct programming can replace a male figurehead in the household.
But, that’s not a loving thing to say. After all, that’s what feminist ideology is rooted in, right? Promoting the idea that “love is love” and demanding social change in the name of “love.” They aren’t telling boys to put on suicide vests and kill themselves. They’re just removing enough proof-positive influences to push them in a suicidal direction in the most loving of ways.