Do you think (your) sexuality changes how you relate to women-only spaces?

I don't know if I'm on the right track here, but the thread has made me think about a couple of different, perhaps interlinked things.

From my own experience, I don't feel I can generalise about whether women-only spaces are automatically good and mixed spaces not good, or other way round. So much has to do with whether the people involved have shared values, agreed ways of interacting, commitment to agreed goals, willing to act in an open and transparent fashion (no hidden agendas,), there is a commitment to inclusion and where there may be differences in levels of power or influence, these are acknowledged and there is a commitment that all will seek not to perpetuate privilege.

So, on the face of it, a feminist group would seem more likely to have those "ingredients" than say a mixed gender group or a group gathered for a different purpose that say just happened to be all women. And, in my life, I have been part of some amazing, supportive, productive, creative groups of feminists where all those ingredients WERE in place.

To be fair, I've also been in a few that were ghastly - not because they were women only, not even because the focus was feminist, but because some of the people involved weren't genuinely signed up to those shared goals, values and commitment to working together. Some of the worst examples involved very painful in-fighting, often centred around a few individuals who perhaps did have their own agendas and others either felt forced to take sides or perhaps got blown out in the blast wave.

But again, to be fair, I've seen just the same thing happen with mixed gender groups (and not always polarised along gender lines,) or groups focussing on other subjects where there was a shared interest or goals. I'm thinking of a particularly bloody battle in a very small local conservation group and a couple of similar situations.

I think there may be higher than usual expectations amongst some women when getting involved in a feminist or women-only group or campaign. Perhaps the expect not only to "get the thing done" that they are gathered for, but also that their personal, social and emotional needs will be met - that they will feel nurtured. They expect the values that underpin feminism to permeate the way the group interacts and functions and how people treat each other. When that happens, it's great, don't get me wrong. But, it doesn't always happen, and I think women can feel even more let down by that than they would in a mixed group or one that's not specifically feminist. That disappointment and pain can morph into bitterness and anger, then on to arguments and personal power struggles.

I do want to emphasise that I don't think this is inherent in women's groups or something that women are more "prone" to by any stretch. I think it is something common in values based organisations, groups or campaigns - where people are involved because they feel passionate about something, and that passion may make it more difficult to hang on to "professional" boundaries, so a criticism can be perceived as a personal one when that's not meant.

That's a bit of a long prattle, but just some thoughts that came to mind.

Well then, Eats, it just comes down to, if society didn't teach us all to be Het, more women would be gay than presently.

Which is possibly true (and for men too).

But IME those people tend to be v unhappy and it all comes out (haha) in the end, usually when they walk out of a miserable marriage leaving devastation in their wake.

And that is because they deny their borned sexuality.

It depends on your background. As I say, mine was very working class and women had their specific roles which were firmly underneath those of the men. If you did anything that was seen as different, then you were labelled as a lesbian.

It's interesting that you say that some of the pressure comes from girls themselves complexity. I hate to say it but I do agree to a certain extent. The pressure at secondary school to wear the right clothes and to have a boyfriend largely came from a female peer group, but you have to wonder who pressurised them?

Now that my dd is in Year 8 at secondary I can see how different the genders are. She is bullied and teased because she doesn't wear the "Miss Sexy" trousers they all wear, because she doesn't dye her hair or wear jewellry and interestingly enough she's been called a lesbian too.

I don't have the experience of being a teenage boy or having a teenage boy to compare, but it's disheartening to know that the pressure to conform to what is perceived as gender roles goes on still.

Ah ok hully, makes sense.

That's interesting complexity. I find that adults do police the girly thing as much as the boy thing though but I agree that girls themselves police it too.

Hmm, actually it's different policing isn't it?

e.g. random adult: You can't let him wear that (insert: hair clip/princess dress/anything pink) He'll turn out gay!

same random adult: aw, she's (insert: rough and tumble/a 'tomboy' ) , I bet she grows out of it, like you did

I think we are all taught to be Het. Even if our parents dont do this, wider society certainly does. Programmes, films, fairy tales, books children see/read may feature marriages or relationships between men and women. How many feature the same between women and women or men and men?

And if society didnt expect us to be Het why wouldnt all women - Het, lesbian or bi have to "come out". Because the assumption is that we are Het. If we are not we have to declare that.

I grew up then too, sexuality has never been a big issue in my life (mine or other people's). In my world, some were straight, some were gay, some both, some changed sex...they were all pretty convinced of the way they felt and accepted by the rest of us.

I think sexual orientation is a social construct.

I don't. That's where we differ!

cake - should have said: women that speak ONLY of those things...

I wasn't having a dig at you there rhubarb, sorry if it sounded like that. I wasn't really directing it at anyone especially.

I just find it perplexing that the ability to be interested in/talked about beauty shizzle and feminism/intellectual stuff is often seen as mutually exclusive... My experience really isn't that some women are only able to chat about the former whereas it's a whole different group who talk about the latter. Although I'm sure these 'binary' women exist, I'm not denying they do - it's just not something I've personally seen much of.

hully That's not been my experience - i know intellectuals who are interested in moisturiser, i know (plenty of) intelligent people who don't think and I know not-especially-intelligent people who think a whole lot :)

Perhaps I'm lucky/unusual in that my RL experience of women mirrors the diversity of women on MN.

Sorry gorn off topic here...

I reckon I could be a political lesbian if I saw the 'need' (iykwim?) but I say that as someone who's a bit bi-leaning anyway, praps.

Have read on.

If you can brainwash women into being hetero, why doesn't it work with gay peopel?

Not logical.

For this criticism to make any kind of sense then the assumption that we are ?born? with an inherent ?natural? sexual attraction to one gender or another or both must be upheld. It entirely fails to recognise the compulsory nature of heterosexuality which Rich first outlines (followed by Sheila Jeffreys and others) where women are not free to choose their sexuality under patriarchy. We are coerced, controlled and forced into heterosexuality.

My difficulty with this would be the feelings of those who know from a very young age that they are gay, and yet despite coercion and the mainstream being heteronnormative, remain gay. I think the same holds true for heteros.

will read on

If we're doing a blog promotion shall I promote some of mine?

Why does lust have to be physical? You can lust for internal satisfaction.

Gawd I've found myself fancying the most bizarre set of men simply because they made me laugh or provided intellectual stimulation. I suspect if I just met them in a bar I wouldn't give them a second look.

God sorry I am losing the thread a bit here, too slow at typing on me phone.

I couldn't have sex without there being an emotional tie either. I could never be a prostitute (although who knows unless you find yourself in that situation?). I never did see the appeal of one-night stands.

Intelligence and humour often makes the most unappealing of people attractive so perhaps that is what a political lesbian is? Someone who is turned on by brains?

I don't think EBAL was exactly "discussing" the concept now were they?!

I agree that it is depressing the number of people who have experienced women-only groups / conversations as "shoes and cupcakes" only.

I think this is a product of the way women are socialized in a sexist society rather than an innate need to debate shoes and cupcakes.

My first real experiences of "women-only" spaces all centered around becoming a mother. Just because the vast majority of primary carers for babies tend to be mothers (again, because of the unfair laws around ML etc, not necessarily just because the daddies are too busy being masters of the universe and the mummies love babies more "naturally")

I feel that motherhood gives you something in common that is far more meaningful than the sort of fake "interests" women are meant to subscribe to. A discussion about motherhood can easily encompass politics, feminism, economics, emotions, etc in the way that a discussion about handbags cannot. So women that prior to having kids I might have struggled to find common ground with, I have more opportunities to find that with now.

And of course motherhood has also had a massive impact on my sexuality too on account of being way too tired to have sex any more

Hully, perhaps desires are more restrained and adapted by society than we understand or admit?

Because, as you said earlier, in single sex environments, sexuality is much more fluid.

So maybe manufacturing desire from politics isn't as hard as you'd imagine.

I know two elderly women who both had a bad marriage in their youth, decided they'd never be with another man, even though they previously identified as straight, and then chose to turn gay.

That was a practical decision, so why would it be harder to make a political one?