Is being the other woman feminist act?

[BubbleNotPeak]

You are being unreasonable - No

You are not being unreasonable - Yes

Can it be considered somewhat a feminist act in some way?

There's not following rules and conventions, and then there's straight up knowingly being a bad person. That is not feminism.

I would say it's feminist to reject a married man, out of respect for his wife.

Your personal view is that this is the moral thing to do, but it’s not feminist ( nor anti-feminist). Feminism has a specific meaning and this is not it.

And the idea that women are responsible for men’s sexual behaviour is actively anti-feminist.

It only takes one person, the husband, to say No To remain faithful though.

Er yes, but if the other person is a married/partnered woman exact same. If not partnered then not very sisterhood

Marriage and monogamy are social constructs/creations of the Patriarchy. Most feminists want to destroy the Patriarchy. What better way to destroy marriage than to sleep with a married man.

The fact that marriage and monogamy generally benefit women and not men is irrelevant. Nor is it relevant that the Patriarchy was predominantly looking after women when it constructed the western model of monogamous marriage. Monogamous marriage is a creation of the Patriarchy and must be destroyed.

I don't believe women are responsible for men's sexual behaviour, I can sort of see how you got there from my comment but that's not what I meant.

The op's question involved feminism and I'm not sure if they are trying to justify cheating or what, but I don't see how it could be feminist to sleep with another woman's husband and if anything, feels the opposite of feminist to me.

No. Being the OW isn’t bold, it’s just selfish and inconsiderate. Since it is most likely to hurt another woman, it’s not a feminist act.

Eh? There's a considerable amount of research showing marriage benefits men more than women.

Regardless, enabling a man to lie to and hurt his SO and potentially his children is not a feminist act. I suppose MAYBE I can conceive of a situation where a woman seeks out to find married men willing to cheat in order to provide evidence to wives who can then seek a divorce on the grounds of adultery, she could have the feminist intention of liberating women from cheating husbands. I'm just trying to think of a situation where this might be benefitting the sisterhood, but it's a bit tenuous.

@Sayitaintso33

Marriage and monogamy are social constructs/creations of the Patriarchy. Most feminists want to destroy the Patriarchy. What better way to destroy marriage than to sleep with a married man.

The fact that marriage and monogamy generally benefit women and not men is irrelevant. Nor is it relevant that the Patriarchy was predominantly looking after women when it constructed the western model of monogamous marriage. Monogamous marriage is a creation of the Patriarchy and must be destroyed.

That's a very simplistic interpretation. It's true that marriage and monogamy were originally inventions of a patriarchal society and to some extent benefit men. But that misses several critical things:

a) Plenty of feminists get married (and presumably require monogamy in their own marriages in most cases)
b) Marriage generally speaking benefits a woman financially, at least when she is the lower-earning or non earning partner in the marriage. Doing something which has potential to destroy a marriage potentially destroys that woman's financial security. Deliberately damaging another woman's welfare is definitely not a feminist act.
c) Most feminists reject the idea of centring their life choices around a man, certainly one who is married to someone else
d) Most feminists are not completely arseholes and would not deliberately do something to harm another woman just for fun.

As I said before, being an OW is nothing at all to do with feminism. Feminism has a specific meaning and this is not it.

What is very definitely anti-feminist is the obsessive focus on OW rather than the cheating husband as is, with dull repetition, shown in the many threads with this OW focus. This thread, and the many like it, show the deep cultural misogyny that focuses on women’s sexual behaviour, leaving men’s as a side issue.

@Thepeopleversuswork ’s work post is a classic example of an anti-feminist stance which centres the woman as the one causing the harm, leaving the husband without mention or responsibility. It is a perfect example of the cultural misogyny I was talking about.

Sounds like looking for an excuse to justify being a twat.

Sorry where's the "cultural misogyny"?

Is it because I'm not saying a man is wholly to blame and an OW is blameless? Of course a married man is primarily to blame for the breakdown of his own marriage if he cheats. That's a given.

But it doesn't follow from that that woman who knowingly cheats with a married man is absolved of any moral responsibility.

The question in the OP was "can being an OW be a feminist act?"

I'm explaining why I think a woman who knowingly damages another woman can't describe what she does as "feminist". I'm not trying to apportion blame and definitely not saying that any affair is automatically the fault of the OW.

What is very definitely anti-feminist is the obsessive focus on OW rather than the cheating husband as is, with dull repetition, shown in the many threads with this OW focus.

I agree it’s the married/ partnered person who’s most to blame.

But it’s natural that a cheated wife may have complex feelings towards the man she loved and trusted for many years. No matter how angry, she may not be able to switch off her feelings of love and connectedness like turning off a light. A mix of love and hate is very natural, as well as longing and bereavement-like grief and even residual feelings of sympathy and concern.

Whereas the OW means nothing to the wife, except when she’s a supposed friend, in which case I’d hate her even more. There’s no reason why the wife should feel anything except hostility to the woman who collided in hurting her.

It may not sound fair, but it’s obvious and natural.

The cultural misogyny is in your focus on the OW. These threads always do. And people always say, 'yes, yes its a given the man is an arse to but..' and then write a lengthy post on the blame attached to the OW.

I can't really accept that you aren't apportioning blame when your entire post talked about the blame on the woman, not the man.

I can't really accept that is it not misogynistic when you focus on the OW, not the man.

Saying, 'well the post is about that' is not an excuse as if you were responding through the lens of feminist analysis you would maintain a clear focus on the harm the man is causing by cheating and you recognise that it is ONLY the man who can prevent the cheating and the harm that causes. He has that responsibility and no-one else. You may not like women who have sex with married men, but at the end of the day it is not their responsibility that the man cheated, it is the man's. And so the outcome of the cheating is the man's responsibility.

Not seeing what you are doing when you write posts like this IS the unconscious cultural misogyny.

I'm explaining why I think a woman who knowingly damages another woman can't describe what she does as "feminist" Blaming a woman for the outcome of a man's choices in an area of his responsibility is anti-feminist. Its misogynistic.

The correct response to the title of this thread is, 'being an OW is not a feminist issue'.

I understand this. And for wives in that situation, especially if it is recent, I get why they feel like that.

But the obsessive focus on OW and sheer bile towards them does not just come from cheated on wives. It is far wider than that.

This entire thread sums up all of the reasons why I'm not a feminist, and proud of it, too 😂. Just, wow. Some people's mindset...

How would this absurd thought even enter your head?

No.

Being a feminist is uplifting, encouraging and supporting other women.

A FEMINIST would match straight over to the wife and inform her of what her scummy husband is doing.

A feminist doesn't have sex with someone else's husband.

Sure it can, if you're oblivious to sophistry.

@Hopefulatlunchtime

I can't really accept that you aren't apportioning blame when your entire post talked about the blame on the woman, not the man.

I can't really accept that is it not misogynistic when you focus on the OW, not the man.

But the question specifically related to the about the woman's role and whether being an OW was compatible with being a feminist. If the question had been posed about the culpability of the man I would have addressed that, but it wasn't. I'm not "focusing on the OW" with respect to culpability, I'm just addressing the question was asked. I've gone out of my way to say I don't think the OW is any more culpable than the man.

By the way I don't accept that a feminist position is to say that ONLY a man can be culpable in this situation. If the man is married and the woman with whom he is cheating is not then obviously the primary culpability is with him, not her. That doesn't absolve her of any moral responsibility, though, why should it? Implying that a woman can never have any agency in an affair is patronising: it implies that women are totally passive in relation to sex and love and that men are the only real actors in the game.

It isn't the entire thread, by a long chalk. The vast majority of posters on here are saying that being an OW basically makes you an arsehole.

That's a deliberately selective interpretation of what's been said.

My point, and I am not sure how much more clearly I can say this, is that the thread is bloody always about the OW. As I have said, the feminist response is to refuse to engage in that misogynistic focus on the OW. Focusing on the OW, not the husband, benefits men.

Implying that a woman can never have any agency in an affair is patronising

This majorly misses the point. The point is not that women don't choose the have affairs with MM. The point is (1) that having an affair is not a feminist issue. at least not in the terms outlined here and (2) the woman choosing to engage in an affair does not make her responsible the the impact on the H's marriage for the very simple and obvious fact that the man did not have to engage in the affair. Only he can cheat on his wife which means that only he can have responsibility for the impact of the affair. No women can stop him having an affair as there are many other women he can shag and no woman has any moral responsibility for his sexual behaviour. Its misogyny 101 to say that women are responsible for men's sexual behaviour. Only he can choose to behave in a moral way within his marriage and only he can cheat on his wife.

@Hopefulatlunchtime

My point, and I am not sure how much more clearly I can say this, is that the thread is bloody always about the OW. As I have said, the feminist response is to refuse to engage in that misogynistic focus on the OW. Focusing on the OW, not the husband, benefits men.

The thread is what the thread is. I didn't start the thread and I didn't orient it towards the OW: someone else had done that already. I simply posted on it. The premise of the thread appeared to be "Being an OW can be feminist because patriarchy is misogynistic so anything that undermines this is by definition a feminist act." With the clear emphasis on an act by the OW. I disagreed with the premise and said so. You seem to be berating me for misogyny because I didn't answer a question you wanted asked.

I don't disagree with you that the emphasis on the role of an OW in an affair is inherently misogynistic but in a thread that is explicitly asking about the role played by an OW, answering to the man's culpability is an irrelevance. Of course if a man chooses to blow up his marriage by having an affair that's primarily on him. But that's not the question that was asked.

I also think that a feminist has to look at the practical application of the behaviour on other women, not just the theoretical position. If, as a woman, you choose to have an affair with a man which could have dangerous consequences for that man's marriage (and potentially destructive consequences for his wife's financial security), that's not compatible with feminism.

It doesn't mean that its your fault that a man chooses to cheat or that you are the primary agent of the affair. The moral obligation is primarily on him. But that doesn't mean you're completely off the hook. Affairs don't take place in a moral vacuum: they have consequences which are often far reaching. For a woman to stand back and say "not my problem, guv, I wasn't the one who was married, I didn't start the fire", doesn't really cut it.

the woman who collided in hurting her.

the woman who COLLUDED in hurting her.

Where did the Edit function go?