Not feminist enough if you're heterosexual.

"Yes but I and some of my female friends, would sulk as easily as much, be unwilling and even feign incompetence if they were asked by their other half to plaster a wall or get up on the roof and replace some lose tiles."

Yep. Because these are daily occurances in all homes........

Exactly comparable to putting a meal on the table, changing a nappy, washing up a cup and a plate or supervising bath time.

And anyway, why would you sulk and feign. Incompetence if asked to plaster a wall? Wouldn't you just say "I'm sorry, I don't know how to do that"?

Yes but I and some of my female friends, would sulk as easily as much, be unwilling and even feign incompetence if they were asked by their other half to plaster a wall or get up on the roof and replace some lose tiles. I still think it's a bit nasty to have a go at the way people negotiate their lives together. I think it's a bit bigoted in fact.

Beat me to that!

It's funny how feminists and Muslims seem to be the only people automatically held accountable for the actions and words of everyone else who say they belong to the same groups.

No in other feminist groups online Bertrand.

I think if you are judgemental of feminists in relationships with men and children, what are you saying about the general population of heterosexual women?

There are issues with PIV I think. The fact it means sex to most and other acts that may be more pleasurable to many women get overlooked often. The fact it is used by as a weapon and the fact even enjoyable piv presents risks to women it does not to men. But it can also be pleasurable for women in healthy partnerships and it should be able to be discussed with no insults thrown.

Eight- where do you see these things? On here?

Posie I know exactly what you're talking about. While I think there are many interesting discussions to be had, some of the things directed at heterosexual women with male partners and/or children are about as unfeminist as you can get imo.

Thanks for that , Beyond. When my head stops going round and round I might manage a more measured response..........

God knows

I think it's a case of separatist being in a radical group and claiming that radical are doing it wrong by not doing it the seperatist way, while claiming that the seperatist way is what radical actually is and others are doing it wrong??

"As sex and companionship is a fundamental human need then it seems harsh to imply that radical feminist women are somehow betraying their feminist principles by having relationships with men."

Can I just check- are we all talking about the same thing when we say "radical feminist?"Because this "letting the side down by having relationships with men"stuff sounds separatist to me. In this context "radical" does not mean "extreme"

As sex and companionship is a fundamental human need

Is it, though? Companionship, yes. But sex? I just don't buy that. There's tons of happy nuns and monks. (I don't count priests, we all know what they say about priests).
There's also tons of unhappy, yet surviving singles. Sex is something we want, not a fundamental need.

And there's the question what we should sacrifice to get it.

I am a stubborn person, and I absolutely refuse to support sexist men's choices by becoming their partner. Out of principle. Maybe a relationship with a man who likes to profit from male privilege without being an active misogynist, would net me more happiness than being single, but I just refuse to put up with even the tiniest bit of sexism. Even if that makes me less happy than I could be.

If more women were like me, I think men would feel more of a pressure to change.
I understand why most women opt for a less than perfect relationship instead, it has many advantages, but ... it will not contribute to a change.

I agree that you cannot say "women allow it to happen". You cannot change a man that easily. You can only leave.
Sulking can be abusive behaviour, but if the man who does it is not a skilled emotional manipulator, nor at all physically abusive, then I'd say it is a choice to stay with him.

But sulking is abusive behaviour. And if that happens regularly then it is systematic. It may be at the milder end of the spectrum (although I would disagree with that having lived with a sulky father and walking on eggshells all the time). Saying that women allow it to happen takes away the choice the man makes about his behaviour.

And don't get me started on "I blame his mother" but I suspect we are in agreement with that !

Vestal

Thanks for the PIV summary. Will google.

"'letting them get away with sulky behaviour' is victim-blaming language. Men choose to behave like that. Women aren't the gatekeepers of their behaviour"

"Up to a point, Lord Copper"

There are many relationships which aren't abusive in which women enable men to behave in a sulky entitled way.Not every woman who says "it's like having four children, not three" is being abused. Or who says "I blame his mother"

Yy Bertrand (if I start a post with 'yay' it's my bloody autocorrect!!)
I'm tempted to become a lesbian separatist if it means no more wasted effort in other women's straight relationships!!
it's okay, dh can identify as a woman without changing anything so he can come too

'letting them get away with sulky behaviour' is victim-blaming language. Men choose to behave like that. Women aren't the gatekeepers of their behaviour. It is exhausting, demoralising and ultimately fruitless to pick up on emotionally abusive behaviour every single time. But that's how abuse works. Its the drip drip effect that eventually wears the victim down. It doesn't happen because of the behaviour of the victim, it happens despite it. Not everyone is equipped to see emotional abuse for what it is, certainly not when you are in the middle of it. Victims often speak of the "fog" lifting because when you are in the middle of it is confusing and complicated (by design).

"If you are straight then it comes down to either have a relationship with a man or have no relationship. As sex and companionship is a fundamental human need then it seems harsh to imply that radical feminist women are somehow betraying their feminist principles by having relationships with men." Hmm. I agree to a certain extent but I think as feminists we can look at our choices in the context of feminist principles. Having said that a lot of radical feminists I know became radical feminists whilst in long-term relationships with men. They made the choice beforehand. Why fix what ain't broke? And we can only work with what we've got in terms of sexuality!

But if the world wasn't geared up to be so heteronormative would more people be gay - especially women? Personally, I see sexuality as a spectrum and societal norms has an influence on that.

"I remember one of these separatists explaining how fed up she was of supporting straight women because ultimately that was putting energy into men"

I'm not a lesbian separatist, but I actually can identify with this point of view some extent. Surely we all have friends in real life and have contributed to threads on here where women are in relationships with men who constantly put them down, or abuse them physically, emotionally and financially, or who use them as nannies and housekeepers and are determined to stick with him despite the damage being done to herself and her children? It can be very exhausting, and sometimes you have to decide on your priorities.

If I came across as mocking my friends or looking down on them, that isn't my intent. I understand their choices, even though it isn't what I'd choose for myself.

I think many of the men in question are wankers though.

Vestal - the sulkiest person I know is a lesbian! One her main sulks is that other women don't always agree with her and don't consider every minor misdemeanour to be a reason for divorce and "becoming a lesbian".

She's far sulkier than any man I've ever met!

Hmm - 'letting them get away with sulky behaviour' - I don't know, sure, it's not your role to control or change people, but I can see the argument that if you don't at least protest something, if you tolerate it, then you are, to a certain extent, making your own bed. I still don't think it's mocking, or really a put-down - although it is a judgement. We all have different things that really annoy us, and yes, it's up to each couple to determine what those things are, but, (and I could be biased, what with being a woman) - I see a lot more men being pandered to than women, when it comes to the daily grind.

Can someone link to the online feminist spaces where people are saying things like that women "spew kids from their arses"?

That phrase sounds more like something you would see on a forum where people discuss fanfiction. There's this thing in fanfic where male characters get pregnant. Which doesn't make any sense at all, and of course, they'd have to give birth through their arses ... not that the pregnancy itself is explained, anyway.

Women give birth through the vagina, that's an obvious fact.

Even "sulky behaviour" - women aren't "letting them get away with it". They may be choosing to accept it that aspect of the man's personality, that's not the same thing.

Those women will still have to accept that lesbians may not want anything to do with them for that exact reason:

I remember one of these separatists explaining how fed up she was of supporting straight women because ultimately that was putting energy into men

You make your choices, and then you live with the consequences. And if you put more energy into a man than he gives back, that extra energy has to come from somewhere.
Lesbian separatists prefer that it not come from them. That's their right.

I think that we have lost the ability to debate and discuss and disagree. Any dissent seems to be classifies as belittling, silencing, minimizing or bullying.

Yes, of course, sometime it is all of those things- but it must remain possible to disagree with each other, and disagree robustly.