The word feminist in dictionary means the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Like most of the causes it also started out as a noble cause to make sure a large amount of work force doesnot goes untapped and could be payed equally.

The question how ever remains is with the multiple waves of feminism and the militant form of feminism emerging (which consider “all men as pigs of worst kind”). How will a boy be raised by women with such ideology in comparison for a girl ?

Will he be subjected to same “atrocities” as a chauvinist does to a female child or like “true feminist” say they will become “real balancers” for gender equality ?

A Quote which must be seen carefully, stating the feminist ideology :

We need to politicize motherhood and to recognize the work that mothers do – we need to claim that work for feminism, to learn its strategies, so that we might convince mothers that as much as feminism needs motherhood, mothers also need feminism. (Quoted from Hirsh 367 on page 254)

Can a feminist do justice to being a mother of a boy child by not making him a feminist by not influencing him(or not allowing her husband to make him a chauvinist) but rather letting him become a true chivalrous gentleman with traditional ideologies ?

In most of the debates that I have seen online and in live audiences either the woman stops being a feminist (out of protectiveness for the male child) or makes the life of the male child worse, by being extra strict.

I can’t help but notice a very similar type of behavior pattern for feminist of today and chauvinist who they are trying to “uproot”. If you would listen to their lectures and watch them talking you can get a sense of how they want the world to be: A matriarchy (as though that will set everything right). No wonder there are faults being “discovered” where men are “running the show“. It is but all “fair” if they fight the “so called oppressors”. The problem arises when they target the future generations and their desire to cripple the other gender and particularly target young boys, so that they can “balance” the world.

The case where the apparent feminist might have a son and a daughter, the question is how much she would “cut the boy to right size” and “upgrade the girl enough” so that she feels it equality has prevailed ?

Additionally can a mother of “daughters only” give an expert opinion on how boys should be raised and treated by her girls ?

Shouldn’t that be a bastion best left to people who actually have a male child or those with no real experience of raising a male child be experts in pointing to the way a male child must be raised(since she believes that she is  an expert after receiving a bad relationship from her male relatives) ?

The whole idea of feminism revolves around the fact of woman rights only ( as many scholars have time and again said that woman rights and child rights are two separate topics completely as women are abusive towards kids, in this case the weaker of the two lot ), so for a mother obsessed with woman rights, will the rights of a boy be considered equally and given paramount importance ?

The big question however is that feminism always say men are exploiters but will they become exploiters themselves so that they could “nullify male superiority” for the future female generations ?

A girl child might be allowed to do things which a boy child might be refused (citing the behavioral pattern that the feminist mother might feel about boy and thereby “training the animal right”). A boy might be disallowed to talk to girls or be friends with them, go out at nights or even go for adventurous trips (if they don’t follow the code of conduct prescribed by their feminist mother) but certainly a girl might be allowed to interact with the opposite sex and allowed to “find herself“. The girl might be allowed to do all the “wild” things men are suppose to do/have done and boy child would be made to sit at home getting lecture at how bad men are.

How can a feminist mother keep “true” to her feminist ideology and at the same time be “true” to her son as a mother,since he will be at the receiving end or a combination of innovative approach with a mix feminist-Traditionalist ideology (which many people also term as humanity) be a new outcome of raising a boy child by her. In this process the father’s role is being subverted throughout . By keeping in dark or just using  a male’s sperm to get impregnated not becoming an act of “use and throw” approach which the earlier feminist use to abhor deeply ?

In order to address such situations feminist have been having their intense debate within and some women with the good hearts have undoubtedly said that feminist have made young men confused at to what they should do( and in reality bit overdone this victim-hood non-sense), as most of them wanted to convert their society into feminist one( with everything coochi coochi). In this process extincting the “male masculinity” and “machoness”. Eventually then getting bored and disliking the “tamed and well groomed metrosexual man(beast)” that they have created.

The point being the boys feeling subverted/manipulated to “groom” him right and girls feeling “enraged” to empower her. Can these simple act not be classified as abuse of    the right of boy in the process of being a man ?

Feminism in developing world usually take a leaf out of the “developed” world (as they can teach the “right” thing and not visa versa) , but do these developing world feminist are willing to understand what boys feel or is it too out of the world for them( and additionally accept their flaws too). It has been widely understood that woman become feminist out of oppression of themselves in the hands of their male peers of elder males in the families since they cannot understand their “feeling”. It may be so that in process of being a man in order to not get affected by emotions in decision making ,they needed to subvert their feelings. A phenomena which has been successful to men for thousands of years.(but how can a man expect a feminist to understand this feeling, after all it is always other way round)

After reading the question many feminist would say that they can be good mothers and provide their male child with the right education, but who decides what the right education for being a man is, someone who is not even a man ?

These question though insignificant to some but are relativity important in terms of parenting and specially parenting a male child by a hard core feminist or at least feminist sympathizer . The pink male population might give it a pass by not getting involved in order to get married to “set” of women who “looks beautifully right” but has a underlining agenda for a matriarchy dominated society is just ridiculous. Using young boys as guinea pigs to “realize” their dreams by such “beautiful women” is equally ridiculous.

I watched a lecture once where a “ex-feminist” was saying that rather being a feminist and chauvinist first movement, it should human rights movement at whole as the whole idea is so misplaced. Since if you propagate human values then “everything” should come under rights and if someone wishes to be complacent in this approach then, morality in asking or telling what is “right” is certainly lost.

In this war against boys concept where a feminist is picking on a young boy rather than fight a man(to settle their scores), so that she may protect a better future for a girl is completely despicable.