Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

'Man-hating feminism'

443 replies

MisterDarsey · 16/05/2011 10:06

There's an article about this in the Times today by Libby Purves, provoked by Lionel Shriver's portrayal of the boy in 'We need to talk about Kevin'

Just thought you'd like to know Smile

OP posts:
TrillianAstra · 17/05/2011 10:36

The article wasn't suggesting that this is what feminism is about at all, or that a large number of feminists hate men.

Apparently in the book/film "We need to talk about Kevin" the mother seems to belong ot that group.

TrillianAstra · 17/05/2011 10:37

Yes it would Mitchiest.

Msot individual men are just as good as most individual women.

TrillianAstra · 17/05/2011 10:38

OK, I know I'm not supposed to do this but:

The nightmarish son in the film that?s exciting Cannes is a toxic caricature women are too ready to believe in

We need to talk about We Need to Talk About Kevin. The film of Lionel Shriver?s novel about a high-school massacre has excited Cannes, and is spoken of as a Palme d?Or winner. My gender should, I suppose, rejoice: here is a woman novelist, a runaway bestseller voted Britain?s favourite winner of the Orange Prize, made by a woman director into a film starring the superb Tilda Swinton: a regiment of brilliant women storm the literary and cinema world. Why, then, the frisson of unease? It?s only a movie, and less graphically violent than many.

The novel, narrated by the mother of the killer, relates her disgust at the child right from his birth. It is well written, a sophisticated page-turner. School shootings do happen in the US, and such things must be addressed by creative artists to help us all to think about them. Moreover, motherhood is universal and not always easy, and Ms Swinton ? after prudently praising her own ? breezily says that this hymn of hate to a growing child is ?not that far from the everyday experience of being a parent ... a bloody business, having a family?.

The Times critic also found the film?s depictions of maternal frustration to be merely ?exaggerations of the ordinary hell of parenting, only a few steps away from ourselves?. The director Lynne Ramsay, herself contemplating a family, says: ?Sometimes a child is born and you just don?t know who he is.? (Well, duh ... who didn?t work that out? Is it not half the fun of being a parent this greeting of a fascinating stranger?) Clearly, it all strikes a nerve. So in the interests of fairness I read the book straight through over the weekend, and now I see why. Women are oddly prone to identification with novel heroines, however awful. I have long been mystified by the cult of Bridget Jones: the original book was terrific, a clever and horribly perceptive satire on a modern kind of overgrown girliness. It is quite clear why this self-obsessed airhead can?t keep a boyfriend or commit to her job. Yet tens of thousands of women cried: ?I am Bridget!?

Men do not do this. Reading The Diary of a Nobody, they do not bounce delightedly, saying: ?It?s my story! Mr Pooter, the pompous suburban clerk, c?est moi!? They do not instantly identify with Mr Bean or Hannibal Lecter. They just laugh or shudder and move on. But when Kevin came out, most female comments online and by critics expressed identification with the narrator, Eva, mother of the killer. One typically wrote that she too ?agonised over the impact of having a child, felt invaded by pregnancy . . .?

Eva?s character is well realised and quintessentially modern: a successful travel-book writer, she is arrogantly bohemian, snobbish about decor and food, vain and touchy. She nurses a sense of entitlement and ? despite an American upbringing and considerable wealth ? a conviction of victimhood because of her Armenian roots.

She is a mass of unreflective liberalism: against capital punishment, pro abortion. She hesitates about getting pregnant, wondering what the point is, now that children no longer ?till the soil and take you in when you?re incontinent?. She insists on the child taking her name rather than her longsuffering husband?s, sneering:

?I should get varicose veins, for a Plaskett?? During amniocentesis she despises him for being prepared to accept the ?martyrdom? of a Down?s syndrome child, and jeers repeatedly at his ?Norman Rockwell? ideas of family life.

Eva despises most things about her compatriots: she is pitiless about the dull, the fat, the ordinary, the untravelled. Bullied children are dismissed as ?wallowing in their tiny suffering?. She seems to have no friends and despises the neighbours.

The baby repels her from the start, and here the novel departs from realism into cartoonish, almost psychotic, exaggeration: beady-eyed and angry, Kevin has no redeeming features whatsoever, even in babyhood. Eva extends postnatal depression to lifelong resentment: even her child?s failure to potty train early is a plot against her. But note this: she hated boys even before pregnancy, wanting a girl. She says that any woman who does not avert her eyes and quicken her step when passing a group of lads is ?zoologically? unwise because ?boys are dangerous?. Kevin?s dull-eyed sadistic malice, displayed from baby years, is only what she expected. When his sister is born, naturally the girl-child is graceful, gentle and loving. And gets maimed by Kevin.

So the loudest echo from the book is not just about modern women?s fear of giving up independence and a life of narcissistic self-satisfaction. It is about the horribleness of boys: all boys. This is what bothers me. Feminist writers in the 1970s started on this tack: I recall being shocked by the hateful way The Guardian?s Jill Tweedie (?most crime is committed by men?) wrote about her own teenage sons. Jenni Murray, a feminist but happy mother of sons, remembers a friend who commiserated with her at the birth, saying ?poor you, having to raise one of the enemy?.

That explicit, daft feminism may be in decline, but its legacy is how boys are demonised ? often by mothers, and immensely in the education system. They are stereotyped as exhausting, messy, sexually rampant vandals, uncouth in the classroom, idle in the home, mini-Clarksons behind the wheel.

Unlike Shriver?s Kevin they are quite approved of while they remain sweet toddlers ? but the moment they become ?louts? we are told to shrink from them in disgust, until by some miracle they emerge as polite young men. In this legend, little girls grow shiny hair and adorable smiles, do their coursework and shop with Mummy. Boys grow huge feet and growly voices, leave things to the last minute and wear ridiculous clothes. Boys! Ugh! Nasty!

I hardly caricature. And I hate it. It?s a lie. Boys have energies and interests and sensitivities and (sometimes) inarticulacies that can make them hard for women to empathise with. But they have virtues, greatnesses and generosities too. They deserve respect and humour and understanding, scope and structure. It is a prissy, toxic feminism that tries to make them grow like us: and this resurgent, woman-born legend of Kevin the Irredeemable does not lift my heart.

MitchiestInge · 17/05/2011 10:39

I admire her extraordinary generosity there. If men don't want to be hated why do they give us so much ammunition?

SardineQueen · 17/05/2011 10:40

problem is most of us can't access the actual article!

Never stopped MNers taking a view though Wink Grin

SardineQueen · 17/05/2011 10:41

ha massive xpost

will read

dittany · 17/05/2011 10:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TrillianAstra · 17/05/2011 10:42

I'm not saying I agree, just giving you the article to actually discuss.

Longtalljosie · 17/05/2011 10:43

Now you see, I didn't read the book that way at all.

dittany · 17/05/2011 10:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dittany · 17/05/2011 10:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TrillianAstra · 17/05/2011 10:52

Because no-one is allowed to write a coment piece about a book/film when there are bigger issues in the world?

MisterDarsey · 17/05/2011 10:54

Gosh - everyone seemed to be ignoring my thread & then suddenly it kicked off

I've not read the book so can't say much - However she does have a point about Bridget Jones...

OP posts:
dittany · 17/05/2011 10:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SpringchickenGoldBrass · 17/05/2011 10:59

I haven't read the book but I have read about it - and I wonder if Libby P isn;t missing the point. I always thought that the 'truth' of the book was that the narrator is as much of a self-obsessed monster as her son.

Mindyou I have just finished reading Delusions of Gender so have an even shorter fuse than usual with anyone spouting bollocks about how males and females are inherently and irrevocably different WRT to their minds.

SpringchickenGoldBrass · 17/05/2011 10:59

Oh and I get called a man-hater too - Dittany I don't know if that will infuriate you or amuse you...

SpringchickenGoldBrass · 17/05/2011 11:01

Mr D she certainly is bang on about Bridget Jones. Actually that's the main reason why the second BJ book was such a crock of shit - the first one was a fun satirical smackdown of a recognisable type (silly woman with head up arse) and the second tried to turn the narrator into some kind of heroine and seemed to be plugging all her worst qualities as virtues.

SardineQueen · 17/05/2011 11:02

That article is such a pile of tosh I don't know where to start.

Does anyone know why she might think the characters bridget jones and hannibal lecter are comparable?

TrillianAstra · 17/05/2011 11:04

Even as a teenager (when the first film came out) I was shocked at friends saying "Oh I'm so like Bridget". Are you? I wouldn't be boasting about it if you are.

"worrying about man-hating boy hating is ridiculous when you look at what women and girls go through at the hands of men every day in this world."

I disagree entirely. All hatred should be opposed. Anything that suggests that there is or should be a "battle" between the sexes is wrong.

flyingcloud · 17/05/2011 11:08

I agree with ScGB: the 'truth' of the book was that the narrator is as much of a self-obsessed monster as her son.

But I think she does make an important point. It's the conditioning of boys into the slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails and girls into sugar and spice and all things nice that is damaging from the beginning. It would surely have a positive impact on feminism to recognise that this happens and to try and educate people, particularly parents, against it.

dittany · 17/05/2011 11:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Ormirian · 17/05/2011 11:11

"a deep rooted sense of female superiority"

Ooh where do you get one of those from? I think every woman should have one. To match the 'deep rooted sense of male superiority' that all men have. Life would be much better for everyone.

Ormirian · 17/05/2011 11:13

I hated the book btw. And felt sorry for the boy. But I don't see Shriver as a feminist.

SardineQueen · 17/05/2011 11:16

I don;t understand this conversation. This is an imaginary character in one book. Why is it being taken as an absolute truth about the world? As proof that men and boys are vilified? It's not real life, it's a story?

MisterDarsey · 17/05/2011 11:17

Probably the most significant thing about this article is the title - 'We need to talk about man-hating feminism'

A lot of people will just read that, agree with it & then move on without even reading (or thinking about) the article. Thus are stereotypes reinforced.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread