Rules For Dating My Son

There has been an image of a t-shirt making the feminist rounds. The shirt features the text:

Rules for dating my daughter
1. I don’t make the rules
2. You don’t make the rules
3. She makes the rules
4. Her body, her rules
Feminist Father

This is typical feminist propaganda, and it reveals a basic flaw in feminist thinking. The comment implies that the daughter gets to make all the rules, including the rules for what she gets to do to the boy. As ballgame noted on Feminist Critics:

With this kind of piss-poor understanding of the importance of male consent on the part of the movement avowedly dedicated to educating people about sexual respect, it seems little wonder that the rates of female-on-male sexual violation are so shockingly high.

I agree with ballgame. However, in this instance I do not think pointing out the lackluster understanding will cut it. The only way to deal with this level of ignoring male consent is a counter argument. I created a counter t-shirt:

For those unable to see the image, the text reads:

Rules for dating my son

1. You don’t make the rules
2. Feminists don’t either
3. He makes the rules
4. His body, his rules
Males Survivor

As I mention on the store page, I will donate all the money received from the sale of the shirt to 1in6. The organization helps abused men and boys, and I think that is a good place to send the money. Feel free to spread the word. The more shirts people buy, the more money I can donate.

I think this is what people need to do to combat this kind of misandry. We can complain, but we also need to act.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Rules For Dating My Son

  1. Pingback: Rules For Dating My Son | Manosphere.com

  2. I honestly don’t know if action is required on this one. If feminists want to champion such thinking they only cut themselves off from male attention. Let them, we don’t want them around.

    Also, it should be re-worded, as the male body is sacrificial, but male attention is not.

    Rules for keeping the attention of my son

    1. You don’t get the attention for free
    2. All relationships are voluntary, I taught him this.
    3. Time is money, what is listening to your blather worth?
    4. His time, his rules

  3. I must admit, as someone who’s just finished watching Jonathan Taylor’s “Overprotective Fathers” video, I think you’re completely barking up the wrong tree on this one.

    The feminist father shirt is based off the meme of fathers being threateningly or violently protective of their daughters’ sexualities, where the threats and violence are aimed exclusively at the daughter’s boyfriend and no censure or accountability is leveled at the daughter for any romantic or sexual acts that she is willingly complicit in or even sought after or initiated. Any and all behaviour between the couple that the father doesn’t approve of is considered to be predatory or coercive behaviour on the part of the boyfriend, where the girlfriend is simply a passive sexual object who cannot either encourage it or consent* to it.

    This meme is bad because it teaches men and women that women are passive sexual objects who have no control over, or responsibility for, their sexuality or sexual behaviour. This relegates men to the role of either patriachal protector of women who can’t or won’t turn down unwanted or unwise sexual overtures from other men, or predators (as women can’t consent either). Being on either side has the capacity to get these men hurt. This unhealthy dynamic can get women hurt also if they fail to set up their own standards and boundaries around their sex life.

    The feminist father shirt message is a giant step FORWARD because at the VERY least it assumes that the daughter has an active role in the sexual activity and that it IS possible for the couple to have had sexual contact that is not classed as predatory male behaviour. More ideally, the acknowledgement that the daughter has the power to “set the rules” in regards to her own body and her side of the relationship is also the acknowledgment of her responsibility to “set the rules” i.e her boundaries**, without needing to engage a male proxy for enforcement.

    While I would not be too optimistic that someone calling themselves a feminist is necessarily for increases in female responsibility to match increases in female freedom, “she sets the rules” is still a huge step forward from “if you touch my daughter I’ll shoot you, irrespective of if she wanted to be touched, asked to be touched or initiated the touching”.

    * The viewpoint I have just offered does not purport to address age of consent concerns. Please assume that either daughter is past the age of consent or boyfriend is equally underage.

    ** I am assuming that while the shirt doesn’t address male boundaries or consent, it doesn’t explicitly mean “she sets the rules for both of them” but merely that “she sets the rules for her boundaries”. Yes, even with the undertone of “men don’t respect women’s boundaries”, this is STILL better than “all men are predators or protectors because women CAN’T set boundaries”. It’s not good but it’s better.

  4. “The feminist father shirt message is a giant step FORWARD because at the VERY least it assumes that the daughter has an active role in the sexual activity and that it IS possible for the couple to have had sexual contact that is not classed as predatory male behaviour.”

    Yes, it is a huge step forward. And it is still grossly sexist piggery.

    Treating women and girls right is not the fullness of gender equality. He is still acting like a father of daughters.

  5. The feminist father shirt is based off the meme of fathers being threateningly or violently protective of their daughters’ sexualities, where the threats and violence are aimed exclusively at the daughter’s boyfriend and no censure or accountability is leveled at the daughter for any romantic or sexual acts that she is willingly complicit in or even sought after or initiated.

    The message does not acknowledge the daughter’s complicity. It only says that she, and only she, gets to make the rules.

    Any and all behaviour between the couple that the father doesn’t approve of is considered to be predatory or coercive behaviour on the part of the boyfriend, where the girlfriend is simply a passive sexual object who cannot either encourage it or consent to it.

    Again, the message does not challenge that idea. Instead it argues that the daughter should be the one making the rules, not the boyfriend.

    This meme is bad because it teaches men and women that women are passive sexual objects who have no control over, or responsibility for, their sexuality or sexual behaviour.

    Again, the message does not argue that women have any responsibility for their sexuality or sexual behavior. It specifically dictates that men do not get to have control.

    This relegates men to the role of either patriachal protector of women who can’t or won’t turn down unwanted or unwise sexual overtures from other men, or predators (as women can’t consent either).

    The message does the same thing. It presumes that boyfriends making rules are doing so from a nefarious position, either to assault or control the daughter.

    The feminist father shirt message is a giant step FORWARD because at the VERY least it assumes that the daughter has an active role in the sexual activity and that it IS possible for the couple to have had sexual contact that is not classed as predatory male behaviour.

    No, it is not. It gives the daughter the active role by declaring only she can make the rules, which allows for predatory female behavior, which the message never recognizes as most feminists do not believe women can be sexually violent.

    More ideally, the acknowledgement that the daughter has the power to “set the rules” in regards to her own body and her side of the relationship is also the acknowledgment of her responsibility to “set the rules” i.e her boundaries**, without needing to engage a male proxy for enforcement.

    It also strips the boyfriends of their power to set the rules in regards to their own bodies and their side of the relationship. As is typical of the feminist position on consent, there is no need to engage a male proxy for enforcement. Whatever women want to do is allowed.

    The viewpoint I have just offered does not purport to address age of consent concerns. Please assume that either daughter is past the age of consent or boyfriend is equally underage.

    That only worsens the situation as legally it is doubtful that the girl would be charged if she violated the boy.

    I am assuming that while the shirt doesn’t address male boundaries or consent, it doesn’t explicitly mean “she sets the rules for both of them” but merely that “she sets the rules for her boundaries”.

    That is not what it says. The shirt says, “You don’t set the rules. She sets the rules.” That implies that the moment the male wants to engage in any sexual activity with the daughter, the daughter gets to decide for the both of them.

    Yes, even with the undertone of “men don’t respect women’s boundaries”, this is STILL better than “all men are predators or protectors because women CAN’T set boundaries”. It’s not good but it’s better.

    No, it is not. “Men don’t respect women’s boundaries” is just a nicer way of saying “all men are predators.”

  6. “No, it is not. It gives the daughter the active role by declaring only she can make the rules, which allows for predatory female behavior, which the message never recognizes as most feminists do not believe women can be sexually violent.

    It also strips the boyfriends of their power to set the rules in regards to their own bodies and their side of the relationship. As is typical of the feminist position on consent, there is no need to engage a male proxy for enforcement. Whatever women want to do is allowed.”

    I am sorry, but I really cannot see how you can reasonably extract such a strongly virulent message from the shirt provided. The concept that anyone even slightly reasonable or moral would advocate for anybody to “make rules” regarding anybody ELSE’s body or boundaries is completely alien to me. Even misandric feminists who downplay or erase the importance of the man’s consent usually do so by arguing that men are in a permanent state of consent or that women do not have the weakness of character to commit rape. It would take a misandric nutjob even by misandric nutjobs’ standards to attempt to argue outright that men should not or do not get to have boundaries or the option to consent.

    I read, watch and follow quite a lot of men’s rights material and I do not recall having ever seen them highlight anyone making any significant attempt to argue this.

    I can certainly understand – in the greater context of feminism ignoring, erasing, covering or downplaying predatory and violating female sexual behaviour and male sexual victimisation – how you may have reached this conclusion, I just really don’t think that this message specifically was likely intended to convey that men shouldn’t be allowed to have boundaries – more importantly, I doubt it will be RECEIVED that way by many people either. Especially since the “her body, her rules” line gives the overall message the implication that it refers exclusively to HER body. Again, assuming that the argument of her making the rules extends to HIS body doesn’t seem quite reasonable.

    Or maybe I’m just giving far too much benefit-of-doubt to the creator of the original message. Maybe I’m just assuming that there won’t be a double standard when I really should be assuming there will, and that “her body, her rules” doesn’t necessarily dovetail with “his body, his rules”. I concede that this is possible.

    I completely agree that the issues of women ignoring men’s boundaries, women being predatory and violating, men being viewed as predatory by default and women not being held responsible for their behaviour need to be addressed, I just don’t think that attacking what is a mostly positive message on the sovereignty of women over their own boundaries is conducive to that, especially when that message is attempting to displace a meme entailing men being violent toward other men to facilitate female hypoagency.

    Also… I don’t think I can say this in a way that won’t sound combative, but it really does need to be said: You have seen a t-shirt with a message that you consider to be misandric and encouraging or permitting women to behave in violating ways and ignore men’s consent/boundaries. The portion that seems to carry the most weight, “[He] don’t make the rules/she makes the rules”. You have made a shirt that carries, verbatim, the same message with the genders swapped. Having read your blog for quite some time, I honestly don’t believe for a second that you think encouraging or permitting MEN to behave in violating ways and ignore WOMEN’s consent/boundaries is an appropriate response to any amount of misandry, therefore your actions don’t seem to match up with your words.

  7. Blackshirt, maybe you would be surprised as to how widespread the misandrist nutjobs – as you call them – really are. In my experience, they are by no means rare, and the non-nutjobs in the feminist movement have an impressive ability to pretend that they don’t exist at all.

    I and a few of my acquaintances reacted to this shirt as well, and the responses from feminists have either been along the lines of “I didn’t even think of that”, which is scary in its own, because not even considering the existence of the male partner’s boundaries sure as shit would explain the number of female-on-male assaults. Or they have been along the lines of “The male doesn’t matter.” Quite literally. And these are not in anyway extremists in the movement.

    Some time ago there was some talk about a young man who published poetry in which he describes sex with his social worker. Even in feminist circles a lot of feminists see this as “just a young man getting what he wanted”, and as I wrote in those debates: I sure a shit hope that he was just a boy, who actually did want what he got. I hope to every God you can think of that that’s exactly what he was. But it doesn’t change that the woman was a social worker, and he was her client, and it was literally illegal for her to have sex with him. And about half the feminists in the mainstream forum where I engaged in the debate they were upset that she was fired for her indiscretion.

    While I agree with you that the shirt alone does not necessarily carry quite the strong message Toy Soldier sees in it – it can be interpreted in at least two directions – I have to point out, that this interpretation does not happen in a vacuum, as so many feminists love to point out, when there’s something they don’t like. And this not-vacuum the shirt exists in, is a place where the consent of men is assumed as the baseline of their existence, and where any kind of boundaries they might have definitely aren’t relevant for women, nor can they be violated by said women. And when this shirt makes the round in that culture? Well, feminists are fond of the concepts of rape culture and micro aggressions – let’s just say it’s no stretch of the imagination that the very same things apply to men.

  8. I am sorry, but I really cannot see how you can reasonably extract such a strongly virulent message from the shirt provided.

    The message is right there on the shirt. The boy or man does not get to make the rules. The shirt does not specify what rules, only “rules” in general. When taken in context to the feminist position on consent, it is easy to see what the message is: the female gets to make the rules; the male gets to obey them.

    It would take a misandric nutjob even by misandric nutjobs’ standards to attempt to argue outright that men should not or do not get to have boundaries or the option to consent.

    I agree. That is why feminists generally code it language about women’s sexual autonomy. Rather than flat-out say “men don’t get the option of consent” feminists will say “men must get enthusiastic consent from women.” This never applies in the reverse. Feminists never argue that women must seek enthusiastic consent. The implication is clear: male consent is either a given or not required.

    Maybe I’m just assuming that there won’t be a double standard when I really should be assuming there will, and that “her body, her rules” doesn’t necessarily dovetail with “his body, his rules”. I concede that this is possible.

    I cannot think of a single example in which feminists ever combine the notion of “her body, her rules” with “his body, his rules.” To that point, I cannot think of a single example from prominent feminists arguing the latter at all.

    You have made a shirt that carries, verbatim, the same message with the genders swapped. Having read your blog for quite some time, I honestly don’t believe for a second that you think encouraging or permitting MEN to behave in violating ways and ignore WOMEN’s consent/boundaries is an appropriate response to any amount of misandry, therefore your actions don’t seem to match up with your words.

    I am aware of the contradiction. However, I still think making a counter shirt is a more effective challenge to the original shirt than only complaining about it.

  9. He may think of himself of a feminist father, but the end result of his parenting style is young men getting access to sex.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s