“Girl power is a a wonderful way to help girls embody respect for the female gender and to embody a can-do attitude,” Finkelstein told me, “but it doesn't prepare them for the unfair experiences that they are going to encounter, and that they will internalize to some degree.”
There are so many great moments in this interview!
I loved the suggestions to call out gender bias within family discussion too, but also this re: how to talk about the election:
“You're pointing out to your little girls, to your teenagers, and to your kids all genders: “Look what's happening. They're not focusing on her policies. They're focusing on her gender, and they're trying to make you not like her because of their gender.
It’s to show them that the culture is broken, not them.”
I really thought this was such important language to have on hand — sometimes that’s the hardest part for me with addressing sexism — it can be covert and subtle, but corrosive.
Thanks so much for this David! I was just talking with a friend who was hoping this would be a book for all parents and all genders — and it really is! Practical and thoughtful and it offers information that helps all of us!
‘The more we can say, “Hey, wait a minute, can we let your sister have a chance to talk?” And talk to her about being assertive, and then talk to her about what might happen if she is assertive. That she may be seen as aggressive, but no, she’s not aggressive.’
And even here, we’re not quite assertive when we say “can we?”
Not: Can I say something? But: I have something to say.
I love this Emily! Doing away with asking for permission. Not, “Can I speak?” But “I am speaking.” Unlearning so much about “politeness” is a big part of this for me.
By policing the expression of your son you are not only impugning his right to self expression, but, from your perspective even more egregiously, you are teaching your daughter that she needs someone of greater authority to defend the integrity of her own right to self expression. You should be prioritizing the raising of children who have enough self respect to take responsibility for EVERY ASPECT of their own lives, instead the message you are sending is that the agency of women and girls DOES NOT belong to them but rather is beholden to the "patriarchy" (which is to be presumed to define the intentions of men and boys). This is the OPPOSITE of empowerment, this is DIS-EMPOWERMENT; you are teaching your daughter that she exists at the mercy of externalities like "the patriarchy", and you are teaching your son that his desire to express and articulate himself are invalid manifestations of his "privilege" as an agent of "the patriarchy". Your son doesn't naturally perceive himself as anything more than the INDIVIDUAL HE ACTUALLY IS, and that is exactly the expectation that he naturally maintains for EVERYONE (women and girls included), and that sense of agency is exactly what true empowerment consists of... I would highly recommend that you stop training your children to think of themselves and others as helpless products of their social environment, and that would certainly involve not teaching your daughter two of the most pathological things imaginable: one, that boys and men are essentially misogynistic and therefore contemptuous of her unique personality; and two, that she is powerless to confront, ON HER BEHALF, whatever challenges, and even unjust prejudices, she may encounter throughout her life. Furthermore, you are teaching your daughter that whatever challenges, criticisms, or even clearly well-intentioned lessons a man might present a woman with are essentially invalid and misogynistic. When a woman criticizes me I don't disregard it as a consequence of her contempt for men without considering what the substance of her criticism happens to be (even though it VERY MUCH happens, on occasion, that such criticism IS based upon prejudice against the male sex); I've read plenty of feminist literature in which I find constantly disagreeable, and not infrequently genuinely misandrist, notions put forward, that doesn't prevent me from learning and benefiting from such perspectives regardless of their malicious content.
By policing the expression of your son you are not only impugning his right to self expression, but, from your perspective even more egregiously, you are teaching your daughter that she needs someone of greater authority to defend the integrity of her own right to self expression. You should be prioritizing the raising of children who have enough self respect to take responsibility for EVERY ASPECT of their own lives, instead the message you are sending is that the agency of women and girls DOES NOT belong to them but rather is beholden to the "patriarchy" (which is to be presumed to define the intentions of men and boys). This is the OPPOSITE of empowerment, this is DIS-EMPOWERMENT; you are teaching your daughter that she exists at the mercy of externalities like "the patriarchy", and you are teaching your son that his desire to express and articulate himself are invalid manifestations of his "privilege" as an agent of "the patriarchy". Your son doesn't naturally perceive himself as anything more than the INDIVIDUAL HE ACTUALLY IS, and that is exactly the expectation that he naturally maintains for EVERYONE (women and girls included), and that sense of agency is exactly what true empowerment consists of... I would highly recommend that you stop training your children to think of themselves and others as helpless products of their social environment, and that would certainly involve not teaching your daughter two of the most pathological things imaginable: one, that boys and men are essentially misogynistic and therefore contemptuous of her unique personality; and two, that she is powerless to confront, ON HER BEHALF, whatever challenges, and even unjust prejudices, she may encounter throughout her life. Furthermore, you are teaching your daughter that whatever challenges, criticisms, or even clearly well-intentioned lessons a man might present a woman with are essentially invalid and misogynistic. When a woman criticizes me I don't disregard it as a consequence of her contempt for men without considering what the substance of her criticism happens to be (even though it VERY MUCH happens, on occasion, that such criticism IS based upon prejudice against the male sex); I've read plenty of feminist literature in which I find constantly disagreeable, and not infrequently genuinely misandrist, notions put forward, that doesn't prevent me from learning and benefiting from such perspectives regardless of their malicious content.
Hi! Author here. I talk about this in the book. Of course, holding a door can be respectful, especially if it goes both ways, especially if it makes sense because the man entered first, etc. But much of this sort of "benevolent sexism" is still sexist even if on the surface, it seems perfectly courteous b/c it perpetuates a sexual narrative where a man’s in control and a woman adopts a passive role. Chivalry is based on the ideal knight, ready to help the weak. Having dinner paid for, for example, may sound appealing but if money is power (and it is), then paying is a way to exert that power. I’m not suggesting we instruct our daughters to never let a guy pay. I’m saying it shouldn’t be about gender. Maybe the person who pays is the person who extended the invitation, or they take turns, or the person who makes more money pays. Cultural ideals of who men and women “should be” powerfully shape heterosexual romantic partner preferences, which promotes the gender status quo and upholding traditional gender roles. Also, benevolent sexism puts women on moral pedestals. It’s based on stereotypes of women as more compassionate (read: don’t be assertive), intuitive (you lack logic and rational thinking), nurturing (you take care of the kids), tidy (you’re better at chores, and your house and body should be neat), and beautiful (no wonder we objectify your bodies). Of course, these qualities in and of themselves aren’t bad, but they’re used as a stranglehold on women and disguised as benevolence. Behave in these particular ways or you’re aberrant. Hope that makes sense!
“Of course, these qualities in and of themselves aren’t bad, but they’re used as a stranglehold on women and disguised as benevolence. Behave in these particular ways or you’re aberrant.”
What's wrong with being aberrant? You don't think becoming the president necessarily makes a person "aberrant"? You have a PhD, which makes you, by definition, UNUSUAL; you seem to be implying that there is something intrinsically WRONG with BEING exceptional in some respect... which, I should think, is PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of the message a feminist should be sending to young girls.
By policing the expression of your son you are not only impugning his right to self expression, but, from your perspective even more egregiously, you are teaching your daughter that she needs someone of greater authority to defend the integrity of her own right to self expression. You should be prioritizing the raising of children who have enough self respect to take responsibility for EVERY ASPECT of their own lives, instead the message you are sending is that the agency of women and girls DOES NOT belong to them but rather is beholden to the "patriarchy" (which is to be presumed to define the intentions of men and boys). This is the OPPOSITE of empowerment, this is DIS-EMPOWERMENT; you are teaching your daughter that she exists at the mercy of externalities like "the patriarchy", and you are teaching your son that his desire to express and articulate himself are invalid manifestations of his "privilege" as an agent of "the patriarchy". Your son doesn't naturally perceive himself as anything more than the INDIVIDUAL HE ACTUALLY IS, and that is exactly the expectation that he naturally maintains for EVERYONE (women and girls included), and that sense of agency is exactly what true empowerment consists of... I would highly recommend that you stop training your children to think of themselves and others as helpless products of their social environment, and that would certainly involve not teaching your daughter two of the most pathological things imaginable: one, that boys and men are essentially misogynistic and therefore contemptuous of her unique personality; and two, that she is powerless to confront, ON HER BEHALF, whatever challenges, and even unjust prejudices, she may encounter throughout her life. Furthermore, you are teaching your daughter that whatever challenges, criticisms, or even clearly well-intentioned lessons a man might present a woman with are essentially invalid and misogynistic. When a woman criticizes me I don't disregard it as a consequence of her contempt for men without considering what the substance of her criticism happens to be (even though it VERY MUCH happens, on occasion, that such criticism IS based upon prejudice against the male sex); I've read plenty of feminist literature in which I find constantly disagreeable, and not infrequently genuinely misandrist, notions put forward, that doesn't prevent me from learning and benefiting from such perspectives regardless of their malicious content.
There are so many great moments in this interview!
I loved the suggestions to call out gender bias within family discussion too, but also this re: how to talk about the election:
“You're pointing out to your little girls, to your teenagers, and to your kids all genders: “Look what's happening. They're not focusing on her policies. They're focusing on her gender, and they're trying to make you not like her because of their gender.
It’s to show them that the culture is broken, not them.”
I really thought this was such important language to have on hand — sometimes that’s the hardest part for me with addressing sexism — it can be covert and subtle, but corrosive.
Book sounds amazing. I’m raising a daughter and just preordered. Thanks for this interview.
Thanks so much for this David! I was just talking with a friend who was hoping this would be a book for all parents and all genders — and it really is! Practical and thoughtful and it offers information that helps all of us!
‘The more we can say, “Hey, wait a minute, can we let your sister have a chance to talk?” And talk to her about being assertive, and then talk to her about what might happen if she is assertive. That she may be seen as aggressive, but no, she’s not aggressive.’
And even here, we’re not quite assertive when we say “can we?”
Not: Can I say something? But: I have something to say.
I love this Emily! Doing away with asking for permission. Not, “Can I speak?” But “I am speaking.” Unlearning so much about “politeness” is a big part of this for me.
By policing the expression of your son you are not only impugning his right to self expression, but, from your perspective even more egregiously, you are teaching your daughter that she needs someone of greater authority to defend the integrity of her own right to self expression. You should be prioritizing the raising of children who have enough self respect to take responsibility for EVERY ASPECT of their own lives, instead the message you are sending is that the agency of women and girls DOES NOT belong to them but rather is beholden to the "patriarchy" (which is to be presumed to define the intentions of men and boys). This is the OPPOSITE of empowerment, this is DIS-EMPOWERMENT; you are teaching your daughter that she exists at the mercy of externalities like "the patriarchy", and you are teaching your son that his desire to express and articulate himself are invalid manifestations of his "privilege" as an agent of "the patriarchy". Your son doesn't naturally perceive himself as anything more than the INDIVIDUAL HE ACTUALLY IS, and that is exactly the expectation that he naturally maintains for EVERYONE (women and girls included), and that sense of agency is exactly what true empowerment consists of... I would highly recommend that you stop training your children to think of themselves and others as helpless products of their social environment, and that would certainly involve not teaching your daughter two of the most pathological things imaginable: one, that boys and men are essentially misogynistic and therefore contemptuous of her unique personality; and two, that she is powerless to confront, ON HER BEHALF, whatever challenges, and even unjust prejudices, she may encounter throughout her life. Furthermore, you are teaching your daughter that whatever challenges, criticisms, or even clearly well-intentioned lessons a man might present a woman with are essentially invalid and misogynistic. When a woman criticizes me I don't disregard it as a consequence of her contempt for men without considering what the substance of her criticism happens to be (even though it VERY MUCH happens, on occasion, that such criticism IS based upon prejudice against the male sex); I've read plenty of feminist literature in which I find constantly disagreeable, and not infrequently genuinely misandrist, notions put forward, that doesn't prevent me from learning and benefiting from such perspectives regardless of their malicious content.
By policing the expression of your son you are not only impugning his right to self expression, but, from your perspective even more egregiously, you are teaching your daughter that she needs someone of greater authority to defend the integrity of her own right to self expression. You should be prioritizing the raising of children who have enough self respect to take responsibility for EVERY ASPECT of their own lives, instead the message you are sending is that the agency of women and girls DOES NOT belong to them but rather is beholden to the "patriarchy" (which is to be presumed to define the intentions of men and boys). This is the OPPOSITE of empowerment, this is DIS-EMPOWERMENT; you are teaching your daughter that she exists at the mercy of externalities like "the patriarchy", and you are teaching your son that his desire to express and articulate himself are invalid manifestations of his "privilege" as an agent of "the patriarchy". Your son doesn't naturally perceive himself as anything more than the INDIVIDUAL HE ACTUALLY IS, and that is exactly the expectation that he naturally maintains for EVERYONE (women and girls included), and that sense of agency is exactly what true empowerment consists of... I would highly recommend that you stop training your children to think of themselves and others as helpless products of their social environment, and that would certainly involve not teaching your daughter two of the most pathological things imaginable: one, that boys and men are essentially misogynistic and therefore contemptuous of her unique personality; and two, that she is powerless to confront, ON HER BEHALF, whatever challenges, and even unjust prejudices, she may encounter throughout her life. Furthermore, you are teaching your daughter that whatever challenges, criticisms, or even clearly well-intentioned lessons a man might present a woman with are essentially invalid and misogynistic. When a woman criticizes me I don't disregard it as a consequence of her contempt for men without considering what the substance of her criticism happens to be (even though it VERY MUCH happens, on occasion, that such criticism IS based upon prejudice against the male sex); I've read plenty of feminist literature in which I find constantly disagreeable, and not infrequently genuinely misandrist, notions put forward, that doesn't prevent me from learning and benefiting from such perspectives regardless of their malicious content.
Hi! Author here. I talk about this in the book. Of course, holding a door can be respectful, especially if it goes both ways, especially if it makes sense because the man entered first, etc. But much of this sort of "benevolent sexism" is still sexist even if on the surface, it seems perfectly courteous b/c it perpetuates a sexual narrative where a man’s in control and a woman adopts a passive role. Chivalry is based on the ideal knight, ready to help the weak. Having dinner paid for, for example, may sound appealing but if money is power (and it is), then paying is a way to exert that power. I’m not suggesting we instruct our daughters to never let a guy pay. I’m saying it shouldn’t be about gender. Maybe the person who pays is the person who extended the invitation, or they take turns, or the person who makes more money pays. Cultural ideals of who men and women “should be” powerfully shape heterosexual romantic partner preferences, which promotes the gender status quo and upholding traditional gender roles. Also, benevolent sexism puts women on moral pedestals. It’s based on stereotypes of women as more compassionate (read: don’t be assertive), intuitive (you lack logic and rational thinking), nurturing (you take care of the kids), tidy (you’re better at chores, and your house and body should be neat), and beautiful (no wonder we objectify your bodies). Of course, these qualities in and of themselves aren’t bad, but they’re used as a stranglehold on women and disguised as benevolence. Behave in these particular ways or you’re aberrant. Hope that makes sense!
“Of course, these qualities in and of themselves aren’t bad, but they’re used as a stranglehold on women and disguised as benevolence. Behave in these particular ways or you’re aberrant.”
THIS! Thanks for this language !
What's wrong with being aberrant? You don't think becoming the president necessarily makes a person "aberrant"? You have a PhD, which makes you, by definition, UNUSUAL; you seem to be implying that there is something intrinsically WRONG with BEING exceptional in some respect... which, I should think, is PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of the message a feminist should be sending to young girls.
By policing the expression of your son you are not only impugning his right to self expression, but, from your perspective even more egregiously, you are teaching your daughter that she needs someone of greater authority to defend the integrity of her own right to self expression. You should be prioritizing the raising of children who have enough self respect to take responsibility for EVERY ASPECT of their own lives, instead the message you are sending is that the agency of women and girls DOES NOT belong to them but rather is beholden to the "patriarchy" (which is to be presumed to define the intentions of men and boys). This is the OPPOSITE of empowerment, this is DIS-EMPOWERMENT; you are teaching your daughter that she exists at the mercy of externalities like "the patriarchy", and you are teaching your son that his desire to express and articulate himself are invalid manifestations of his "privilege" as an agent of "the patriarchy". Your son doesn't naturally perceive himself as anything more than the INDIVIDUAL HE ACTUALLY IS, and that is exactly the expectation that he naturally maintains for EVERYONE (women and girls included), and that sense of agency is exactly what true empowerment consists of... I would highly recommend that you stop training your children to think of themselves and others as helpless products of their social environment, and that would certainly involve not teaching your daughter two of the most pathological things imaginable: one, that boys and men are essentially misogynistic and therefore contemptuous of her unique personality; and two, that she is powerless to confront, ON HER BEHALF, whatever challenges, and even unjust prejudices, she may encounter throughout her life. Furthermore, you are teaching your daughter that whatever challenges, criticisms, or even clearly well-intentioned lessons a man might present a woman with are essentially invalid and misogynistic. When a woman criticizes me I don't disregard it as a consequence of her contempt for men without considering what the substance of her criticism happens to be (even though it VERY MUCH happens, on occasion, that such criticism IS based upon prejudice against the male sex); I've read plenty of feminist literature in which I find constantly disagreeable, and not infrequently genuinely misandrist, notions put forward, that doesn't prevent me from learning and benefiting from such perspectives regardless of their malicious content.