….. by calling the article mansplaining. That’s right – parenting is women’s work and when man says anything about, including complaining about obstruction by the mother, it’s “mansplaining”. How’s that for mommy-blocking? Thanks, Katie McDonough, for settling that so fast.
McDonough starts out superficial and stays there. Here’s one:
“And really, Bruce Feiler? You’re comfortable giving men a pass on parenting because “When a mother criticizes her partner’s child-care efforts, it causes him to lose confidence and withdraw?” That’s the best you’ve got?
Yeah, I didn’t think so.”
That’s not thinking, McDonough, that’s just snark. Mommy-blocking is behavior – constant criticism, surveillance and second-guessing, a directive approach to inter-parental communication – that comes out of a sexist attitude about a father’s place in his child’s life. It’s going to take more than adolescent snark to deal with the issue.
McDonough elides all the enforcement tactics at a mother’s disposal to back up her mommy-blocking behavior – specious accusuations of domestic violence a la the VAWA-approved “I’m afwaid! He fwightens meeeee!!!” to get him out of the house, to baseless but oh-so-believable accusations of sexual abuse to get him more permanently out of the way.
Then she moves on to irelvancies, in this case the idea that mothers get judged more than men about parenting (…so supposedly this justifies mothers taking control of all of it. More self-refutation.)
“Now, let’s ignore how Feiler goes on to tell Dell’Antonia that she is only imagining being judged more harshly as a parent than her husband, (“So the next time you hear (or imagine) those whispers or see (or invent) those raised eyebrows…”)
Why not ignore it, since you are so ready to tell Feiler he’s only imaging the scope and depth of maternal gate-keeping?
McDonough writes generally good stuff. This was just an off day probably. Or maybe this just looked so obvious to her that she didn’t think it required any thought or research. Well, everyone is entitled to a stinker now and then.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
by 
The New York Times parenting section is called “Motherlode”.
Anyway Salon and Slate have both become rags IMO.
Slate lets Amanda Marcotte defile their site. Salon improved its standing with me when it got rid of Broadsheet. I rememebr one comment on a thread at Broadsheet where someone whined about how it no longer was a a safe space for women – so that was thier claim to being a grown-up publication. Anyway, that’s all gone now. The final straw was a nitwitted post on the I-Pad, saying the term was offensive to. women [like he writer Tracy-Flory-Whatever – young, princes and the pea types) Glenn Greenwald himself came in, this one time, to say the column had become an embarrassing joke and this particualr article was about as trivial as it could get. apparently trivial enough to get the whole gig cancelled for her.
But Katie McDonough has written, and continues ot write, some pretty good stuff.
“Motherlode”. What a load….
All these site should just save time and write “Men are wrong no matter what they do.”
A little nitpick: The term “mansplaining” doesn’t come up in the article itself, only in the headline … and usually, the headlines are written by another person than the articles’ authors.
EW, correct, the term comes up only in the headline. But the article is loaded with the accusation. When, ironically, the whole article is in fact femsplaining.
Gingko:
Is there any way for me to propose an article to be posted on this site?
I want to do something or see something here (if I don’t do it) on the many social forces (mostly feminists and traditionalist religious types) that are waging war on straight male sexuality in general and on people’s rights (because this stuff doesn’t just affect straight men) in general.
Sorry, but the insanity of the EU vote on a resolution about a study that called for banning porn (and such resolutions almost always result in legislation) has just got to me.
This site has explored many issues but the various legal and sex discriminatory effects of much modern sexual laws hasn’t gotten much play here.
“Is there any way for me to propose an article to be posted on this site?”
You just did. And oyur proposal:
“This site has explored many issues but the various legal and sex discriminatory effects of much modern sexual laws hasn’t gotten much play here.”
is interesting.
As a suggestion, you might explore this angle in some depth:
“on the many social forces (mostly feminists and traditionalist religious types)”
I am starting to see articles identifying tradcon “woamn’s rights” types as wolves in sheep’s clothing when it comes to men – basically they want to retain the old gender roles with damseling, male disposability and all that, and all they have to offer is anatgonism towards feminism. Maybe a comparison “Can you tell the difference? Me neither” kind of thing.
Two ways you can do it. One is to email it to us. The other is to post it as a comment that I cna lift into a post. I’ll run it past the others and we’ll see.
Gingko:
While I’m willing to do something on tradcons (hey, I’ve hung out with a few over the past few years) I’m hardly going to merely bash them. Indeed, they’d be more interesting to me as one of the two main interest groups involved in the sorry spectacle of our sex and domestic violence laws. Said laws being what I mostly want to focus on:
A. Theories as to why they exist and are passed and WHAT specifically these laws are.
B. What their implications are in terms of both normal het sexuality (esp male) and for the law and the larger control nexus they form for those in bureaucracies and on top the political/social totem pole in the western countries in general and the US in particular. Some of this is going world-wide as the current crap in India shows but I can’t speak to their legal or social histories with any real reach unlike the US and parts of Europe.
I’ll send something your way Sunday or Monday of this coming week 🙂
“Indeed, they’d be more interesting to me as one of the two main interest groups involved in the sorry spectacle of our sex and domestic violence laws”
Now you’re cooking. Bashing tradcons is a waste of ammunition. Instead use the tradcons as ammunition against those smug idiots who fancy themselves the opposition to the tradcons.
You seem more motivated to fire on puritanism. Go for it.