Email
So Prince Charles would like a granddaughter. I can understand that: as a mother of two sons who have conditioned me to the idea that normal life is a lively battle with testosterone, it was a surprise and a thrilling revelation when my daughter-in-law had a girl.
I am a woman and a feminist who has led my sons to do their own washing (a pair of tights seeping colour into the wash guaranteed I was forbidden to touch their clothes again). But what startles and warms me with my granddaughter is the strong female bond we have forged in three years. That and a feistiness and determined spirit (“Don’t contradict me,” she tells her father fiercely) that I see as a legacy of the feminist struggles for equality that we wanted to give new generations of girls.
I wonder, however, whether this is what Charles wishes for: a diminutive force of her own nature who will rattle the royal cage, or a wee sweetie straight out of Mabel Lucie Atwell to dandle on his knee? It is not an idle thought, for when senior members of the royal family express a preference it tends to be hugely influential. Witness the army of infant Georges in our midst.
And that is where the trouble starts: the children we are so blessedly lucky to have become less the human beings wanted for whoever they are, than children who will please or disappoint, who will be the ultimate successful achievement or a second best, depending on their gender.
And although minding too much sounds the wilder shores of pathology, surely most people fall in love with their kids and quickly put aside any vestiges of disappointment. In our consumerist culture, a little girl dressed up is deemed cuter than a little boy. A girl all done up can greatly enhance the appeal of the mother.
Girl preference seems to be on the up – I keep meeting women who gaze yearningly at their distended stomachs and murmur:“I do hope it is a girl.” And one reason may be that for a woman who feels best able to identify with women, or who wonders how she would parent a boy, wanting a girl seems obvious.
Does it matter? Well, yes, if we look to past centuries, when men wanted sons and heirs and when punishment – including the odd beheading and plenty of emotional abuse – was harsh for women who couldn’t deliver and for their daughters. Nor, of course would girls get much chance to organise their own lives in times of entrenched patriarchy, a situation hideously clear for girls and women in so many cultures. What was it that charming preacher Abdullah el-Faisal said? That women and girls being seized by Islamic State (Isis) to use as slaves were “the spoils of war”.
Women in Britain have achieved an invaluable shift (though not total) since the 1960s in the way women can live, be valued and have equality with men. Seeing girls as superior to boys cannot be helpful when it is vital that men and women have equal value.
So, Charles, kindly lend me your substantial ears, and let me bid you rephrase your wish to something like: “I long for a healthy, happy, second grandchild.” You can have your private thoughts. Just don’t create a gender meritocracy for the masses.
;
Comment from the paper
Steve Bell on RBS – cartoon
John Harris: It’s not just Scotland where politics as usual is finished
Gaby Hinsliff: Fat-shaming: how the slim and sanctimonious help to cause our obesity crisis