What's the feminist take on affairs?

Ooh, I was vaguely googling around the topic of second wave feminism and infidelity - as I think the second wave feminist movement was fairly open to sexual liberation in all its forms - when I found this BBC treasure trove.

www.bbc.co.uk/archive/second-wave-feminism/zdhw382

Mmmm, interesting point. You could support every demand of the women's liberation movement, and every feminist action currently being taken, including those that don't personally benefit you.

But if you mistreat other women, eg by having affairs with their husbands, how much of a feminist are you?

I suppose it comes back to our old slogan "The personal is political". I would never knowingly start a relationship with another woman's partner because it's a shit thing to do to another woman.

I love this quote (which I think is from Andrea Dworkin) which really sums up what feminism is for me:

"Feminism is a political practice of fighting male supremacy in behalf of women as a class, including all the women you don't like, including all the women you don't want to be around, including all the women who used to be your best friends whom you don't want anything to do with anymore. "

So basically, I don't think your question is really anything to do with what being a feminist is - if we only "accept" perfect feminists then hardly anybody would be a feminist! You can still strive for feminist ideals while falling short of them yourself, just as there are plenty of doctors who advocate healthy lifestyles but who are actually overweight smokers themselves.

There are certainly feminist issues around marriage, divorce on the grounds of infidelity, remarriage, child maintenance.

So for instance, a woman who's given up her career for children gets shafted in the divorce settlement as the man swans off into the sunset with his OW then stops paying child maintenance as soon as his new woman produces children "because he can't afford both" , and the child maintenance agencies turn out to be as much use as a chocolate teapot.

There are huge feminist issues there - but to my mind they're systemic ones about marriage, financial roles within marriage, the fact that our society still sees children as a woman's responsibility and tolerates men reneging on their financial obligations to their own children.

None of these systemic issues are down to the individual OW. Though actually I think I would argue that a second wife who encourages her new husband to welch on his obligations to his first wife and children is anti-feminist, because at that point she's choosing to support a political/institutional framework which allows women to be shafted.

It's a feminist issue because women often seem to get blamed for affairs (even if the woman is otherwise unattached) whereas the men often seem to get away with it (even if they are in a supposedly committed relationship). It's double standards.

None of us are perfect human beings or perfect feminists. Because we live in a patriarchal society, sometimes we'll make decisions that aren't particularly "feminist" ones. Sometimes we'll just make mistakes or bad decisions. So yes, feminists might have affairs. It doesn't mean they can't be "feminist" when it comes to other issues. And I don't think it's particularly "feminist" to focus on blaming the women and not the men.

If a man had an affair with a married woman, would anyone question whether he was betraying the "brotherhood"? I doubt it.

I believe that more men cheat than women do, too. Which is a result of male entitlement and privilege. The fact that men often feel entitled and can get away with spending time outside the home pursuing their own interests while the women are left looking after the home and children.

I suppose it depends whether you see feminism primarily as about "sisterhood" as a PP puts it or whether you see it as a political movement.

Having an affair makes the married party a betraying shit. Arguably the unmarried party is complicit in helping the betrayal along (though I still think the bulk of the guilt lies with the person who actually made promises to be faithful).

So there's a strong case that knowingly being the OW makes you a bit of a shit.

But - would this make someone less of a socialist? Or less of a campaigner for, say, minority rights of one sort or another? Or less of a campaigner for women's rights taken as a whole as a political need?

A woman could, for instance, do vital work campaigning for equal pay (a lot of workplaces still don't have this - I speak as someone who was involved in an equal pay claim), and yet be a shit in her private life. Do feminists have to be morally perfect in all areas of their lives in order to be feminists? And if so, is this same requirement for moral perfection applied to men engaged in political activism?

Do women who have affairs with married men ever describe themselves as feminist?

There are lots of different types of ‘feminist’ and lots of differing individual opinions within each ‘type’. I don’t think there is a consensus on the subject.

Arguably, the ‘other woman’, if she knows that her affair partner is married, is betraying the sisterhood. However, she is (presumably) a single woman, free to choose her sexual partner. The man is the one who has made promises to his wife, he is the one having the affair.

Well, an affair really a sort of lie, isn't it. Which in itself is not a feminist issue, it's a human issue. Some people think it is ok in general to lie, and I don't suppose being a feminist or not has much to do with that.

Also people often know and believe something to be wrong, and do it anyway. That's also a human issue, and feminists are not particularly different than anyone else on this either.