How to Ignore Feminist Parenting Advice

Women who hate children want to tell you how to raise your kids

Do these women look like a helpful source of parenting advice to you?

The feminist movement has always been anti-marriage and anti-motherhood. The family is the source of “patriarchal power” (Andrea Dworkin, 1974), married women are victims of “forced motherhood and sexual slavery” (Alison Jaggar, 1988 ) and therefore the liberation of women requires “the abolition of marriage” (Sheila Cronan, 1970). From the beginning of modern feminism in the late 1960s, a fundamental goal of the movement has been “Abortion on Demand and Without Apology.” The true source of the controversy surrounding federal funding of Planned Parenthood (the largest U.S. abortion provider) is the feminist belief that abortion should be “free,” a government service available at taxpayer expense.

Given their fanatical determination to prevent women from becoming mothers, it is remarkable that feminists consider themselves fit to dispense parenting advice to the rest of us, who actually love our children.

“Raise Boys and Girls the Same Way” is a popular feminist T-shirt slogan and I have explained at great length what’s wrong with that idea. This slogan “presumes that a gender-free androgynous childhood will eliminate inequality (‘the subordination of women as a class’) by eliminating differences between men and women,” but in practice, the feminist experiment of “gender-neutral” parenting will “prepare children for failure as adults.” Why do I say this? Because feminism is inherently anti-motherhood, most feminists are not mothers, and most mothers are not feminists. Therefore, most children will be normal — masculine boys and feminine girls — and “gender-neutral” parenting will result in children becoming misfits and oddballs, unable to adapt or compete in the social roles necessary to successful adulthood.

Isn’t it just common sense that, if you’re looking for advice on how to raise successful kids, you should ask someone with experience as a parent?

A few recent photos from the McCain family album.

Excuse me for bragging on my kids, but if “the personal is political” (to quote Carol Hanisch’s famous feminist slogan) then my experience as a parent of six children ought to count for something in such arguments. Even if you consider that my wife deserves nearly all the credit for our children’s success, at least I can testify as a witness to her motherhood methods. And she would laugh out loud at advocates of “gender-neutral parenting,” because this ignores the indisputable fact that boys and girls are different.

Are you going to let the New York Times tell you how to raise your son?

Claire Cain Miller of the New York Times “asked neuroscientists, economists, psychologists and others” the question, “how can we raise feminist sons?”

Of course, this question presumes (a) that the reader belongs to the category “we,” i.e., parents of boys, and (b) that having given birth to a boy, the reader actually wants to raise a feminist son. As a matter of sociological research, it would be interesting to discover how many children the average New York Times reader has, and I’d wager $20 that this number would be substantially below the overall U.S. average. But while we’re suggesting research topics, try this: How many sons has Claire Cain Miller raised?

Because I’m pretty sure the number is zero, I will therefore object to her use of the first-person plural pronoun “we.” If Ms. Miller ever has any children, she can raise them however she wants, but the true purpose of her article is to tell the rest of us how to raise our children. Here’s how she starts:

We’re now more likely to tell our daughters they can be anything they want to be — an astronaut and a mother, a tomboy and a girlie girl. But we don’t do the same for our sons.
Even as we’ve given girls more choices for the roles they play,
boys’ worlds are still confined, social scientists say. They’re discouraged from having interests that are considered feminine. They’re told to be tough at all costs, or else to tamp down their so-called boy energy.
If we want to create an equitable society, one in which everyone can thrive, we need to also give boys more choices.
As Gloria Steinem says, “I’m glad we’ve begun to raise our daughters more like our sons, but it will never work until we raise our sons more like our daughters.”
That’s because women’s roles can’t expand if men’s don’t, too. But it’s not just about women.
Men are falling behind in school and work because we are not raising boys to succeed in the new, pink economy. Skills like cooperation, empathy and diligence — often considered to be feminine — are increasingly valued in modern-day work and school, and jobs that require these skills are the fastest-growing.

You might notice a lot of presumptions packed into those four paragraphs, including (a) the assertion that men — in general, as a collective group — “are falling behind in school and work,” and (b) the claim that male failure is due to a lack of skills “often considered to be feminine.” Well, my son-in-law is a successful young lawyer, one of my 24-year-old sons is an Army sergeant, his twin brother is an enterprising home-improvement contractor, their 18-year-old brother will be attending the University of Alabama this fall, and my youngest son, age 16, is president of his high school class. So while some men may be “falling behind in school and work,” my sons and son-and-law aren’t. (And, for the record, my two daughters are also eminently successful.) However, now let’s notice something else in Ms. Miller’s argument, namely the quotation from Gloria Steinem, who uses first-person plural pronouns — “we” and “our” — in discussing how “we” raise “our” children.

How many children does Ms. Steinem have? Zero.

If I had one piece of advice to offer my sons, it might be, “Stay away from any woman who makes a habit of quoting Gloria Steinem.” Also, avoid associating with anyone who majored in English at Yale University, as did Ms. Miller. The annual cost of attending Yale is $64,650 ($49,480 tuition plus $15,170 room and board) and even if your parents are rich enough to spend that kind of money, why would anyone waste more than a quarter-million bucks in order to get a degree in English? You can get a liberal-arts diploma at any state university, and not have to worry about offending the tender sensibilities of the Special Snowflakes™ who attend Ivy League schools.

Students at Yale are angry and confused, as might be expected of kids whose parents are foolish enough to pay $64,650 to send them to Yale. Did I mention that their football team sucks? Last year, Yale’s football team went 3–7, with lopsided losses to Colgate (55–13), Lehigh (63–35) and Penn (42–7). If the New York Times wants to lecture us about how “men are falling behind,” maybe they should ask Ms. Miller to write an article about the pathetic failures of the football program at Yale. But I digress . . .

What kind of sons do you want to raise? If you are actually a parent, you might answer by saying that you want your son to be a winner. You want your son to be successful and happy, not a whiny miserable loser. Ideally, you would want your son to be “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent,” to quote the famous Scout Law I memorized as a boy. If your son grows up to be a man devoted to such principles, no woman would ever have any reason to criticize his behavior. But feminists don’t need a reason to criticize men — nothing a man can do will ever satisfy feminists, for whom the worst thing a man can do is to succeed and be happy. Feminism requires male failure:

The basic error of feminism is its conception of men and women as functioning as collective political classes, pitted against each other in Marxian class struggle, a sort of zero-sum-game mentality where nothing any man possesses is rightfully his. Every dollar in his pocket is viewed as proof that he has “expropriated” a dollar from a downtrodden woman somewhere. Whatever he has in terms of career achievement and social status is similarly delegitimized — the more successful and influential a man is, the more the feminist must be convinced that he is a beneficiary of male supremacy. . . .
Feminism is a political movement that seeks to create “equality” by depriving men of opportunities for success. Every time a man succeeds — getting a good job that enables him to support a wife and children — his success oppresses women, according to feminists who believe (a) the only way any man gets a good job is through discrimination against women, because (b) a woman is always more qualified than any man for any job a woman would actually want, and (c) marriage and motherhood are inherently oppressive.

This is why parents should ignore advice from feminists. If you have a son, feminists want him to fail in life. They want him to be a loser, because in their warped anti-male ideology, your son is an evil oppressor. If you have a daughter, it is equally important that you ignore feminist parenting advice, because man-hating monsters want your daughters to be monsters, too.

Teach your children — sons and daughters alike — to avoid feminists, because if it were up to feminists, you wouldn’t even have children. Feminism is a satanic death cult, advocating infanticide in the name of “social justice.” Nothing could be more dishonest than pro-abortion fanatics using first-person plural pronouns to speak of how “we” should raise “our” children, when they don’t have any children. We have good reason to doubt that if such fanatics ever did become parents, they would raise better children than we do. Besides which, “male feminists” have a very shabby record, as witness the case of Aleksandr Kolpakov, charged with murdering his girlfriend.

Feminism is an ideology of irrational hatred, and the feminist movement attracts women who are selfish, dishonest and cruel. We must therefore ask, what kind of men are attracted to such women? Not the good kind. One reason that feminists have such a low opinion of men is that no decent and intelligent man would ever knowingly associate with a feminist.

For the final word, let’s quote The Gods of the Copybook Headings:

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

Trust me. Don’t take advice from feminists, don’t send your kids to Yale, and never bet against the Gods of the Copybook Headings.

FOLLOW The Patriarch Tree on Twitter