Kimberly Hall: Raise your sons well, don't chastise others' daughters

Mom Kimberly Hall's open letter to teen girls – placing responsibility for her teen boys' sexual desires on provocative teen girls – is off the mark, but it does provide a good starting point for discussion about self-sexualization, body image, and our toxic culture.

AP Photo/Nikki Anderson
This combo image of six undated images shows self-portraits taken by Nikki Anderson, 19, of Massachusetts. The practice of freezing and sharing our tiniest slices of life in "selfies" has become so popular that it has made its way into the Oxford Dictionary. One mom chastises her son's female friends for posting sexy selfies on their Facebook pages in an open letter to teen girls that has been making the rounds on social media.

FYI (if you’re a teenage girl)” came up in my Facebook news feed a lot this week. It’s being shared with such enthusiasm that I was eager to read it. I hoped its advice for teenage girls about their Facebook activities would live up to the hype.

But instead, when I read it, my heart sank. Although the post is well-intended, the author, Kimberly Hall, makes a tremendous error: She places the responsibility for her teenage boys’ sexual desires on teenage girls, rather than on the boys themselves.

For example, addressing her sons’ female friends, she writes: “Did you know that once a male sees you in a state of undress, he can’t ever un-see it?  You don’t want the Hall boys to only think of you in this sexual way, do you?”

Well, no. I’m sure that her sons’ female friends don’t want to be thought of only in a sexual way, considering that they are complex human beings with a range of feelings, ideas and interests. So why ask these questions? Doing so places the blame for her sons’ thoughts and desires squarely on the shoulders of the teenage girls they know–dodging the fact that boys are responsible for how they choose (yes, choose) to think of the girls in their lives.

I suspect that Hall’s post has gone viral because so many people are concerned with teenage girls’ self-presentation on facebook. We’ve all seen it: teenage girls trying to mimic the scantily-clad celebrities and models plastered on billboards and magazine covers. And naturally, people want to do something about it. After all, the implications of our media culture’s sexualization of girls is serious: As the American Psychological Association has noted, when girls learn that our culture values their appearances above all else about them, they may in turn learn to sexualize themselves – and the impact of self-sexualization on girls’ self-esteem and self-image is devastating. The damage of thinking of oneself first and foremost as an object can take a lifetime to undo.

Furthermore, once a photograph is online, it’s essentially impossible to remove it from the internet. So when girls place sexually provocative “selfies” of themselves to facebook, it’s a huge issue. For example, the photos can be used by bullies to shame the girls–and they can resurface years later, too, causing myriad problems in their lives.

But these are not problems that would affect Mrs. Hall’s sons. They would affect the girls themselves. Furthermore, the sexual double-standard in our society is so pervasive that any “sexy” photos the boys may post of themselves are unlikely to cause them similar harm.

We are living in a post-Steubenville world (which I wrote about here). We have seen graphic evidence of the results of the sexual objectification of young girls, and of the victim-blaming mindset – that a girl who presents herself in a sexy way “deserves it.”

Therefore, for parents like Mrs. Hall who are concerned about their sons’ well-being, their best course is not to focus on shaming girls and controlling their behavior.

Instead, we must teach our sons compassion. Help them understand that girls’ self-sexualization is prompted by a toxic culture.

We must teach our sons to always respect girls. Help them see girls as complex human beings, like themselves– never simply as sex objects.

Our boys MUST be taught these lessons. They must know that when a girl engages in sexually provocative behavior, her behavior does not give boys a “pass” to dwell exclusively on the girls’ sexuality. Nor does it entitle them to expect sexual favors from girls, or to pressure them sexually in any way.

Contrary to popular opinion, boys are not animals. They can practice self-control. And yes, it takes practice. But if we focus on raising our sons, rather than chastising other people’s daughters, it’s possible.

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best family and parenting bloggers out there. Our contributing and guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor, and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. Rebecca Hains blogs at rebeccahains.wordpress.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.