Some men really hate women being single don't they?

[solidgoldbrass]

inspired by a couple of other threads including the separatism one. Have you ever noticed that if a man you don't like or know or fancy is trying to persuade you to date him or spend time with him or even just talk to him, the only really effective way to make him fuck off is to tell him that you are another man's property. Just saying No, leave me alone, no thanks, actually I am having a conversation with my female friend and am not interested in talking to you, never seems to work until you throw in My Boyfriend or My Husband.

Drippy feminism that which seeks to analyse normal behaviour from a feminist perspective?

I see.

Welcome to the sisterhood Wamster.

This is just getting too berserk for me, I'm off to look at dishwashers....

What are your feminist principles then, Wamster?

Drippy feminism which talks about how some men impose themselves on women, even when the women tell them that they don't want to be with them.

Drippy feminism that thinks about how some men are so happy to ignore a woman's "no".

Yes how drippy.

All of these things, women are told that they should either laugh it off, or not make such a fuss. Unwanted attention, catcalling, random gropes, street harrassment. Only a "drippy" woman would take any notice of such stuff, just ignore it.

Right up to serious sexual assault and rape, when suddenly it's all terribly serious, and people ask how the woman "got herself" into the situation where she "allowed" it to happen. One reason might be that women are taught to ignore it when men behave in dodgy ways, right up to the moment it's too late, and everyone is taught that it is normal when men over-ride women's wishes in more minor ways.

And people wonder why there is a problem.

Sorry, please elaborate on Drippy Feminism? I think I may be a member of that group...

Good girl, HerBeX, off to the kitchen where you belong. Wamster will be pleased... please note the sarcasm

I hope she's looking them up on the internet, not going out to a shop without an escort.

Actually, HerBeX... Isn't a dishwasher a bit... Well... Washing the dishes, that's your job? Haven't you heard about the benefits of Fairy Liquid for your hands? It's your responsibility to have soft hands for your DP.

oooh, I could have fun here...

Oh I see, just because another feminist does not subscribe to one sort of feminism, it follows that she thinks women belong in the kitchen.

Wamster

Why do you think I never got approached by men when I was out for a drink with my dad, but often when I was out for a (quite obviously quiet, private) drink with a friend, or sitting by myself quite clearly waiting for someone to arrive?

Why do men not approach when I am with one woman and one man, but often if I am with two women?

How does that tie in with you "already chosen someone else" explanation?

OK, you ask for what I think drippy feminism is. Here is my viewpoint so don't complain, you did ask for my definition.

Drippy feminism: a group of women talking about really trivial stuff that nobody else considers that important to women's rights as a whole. The important stuff being, for example, the right not to be raped, to have same pay for same job/s as men, to have it recognised that rape can exist inside marriage (a success story because it has been recognised since 1991). Generally speaking, (note: generally) these women have had a comfortable, fortunate lives where they have been lucky not to have had anything really bad happen to them but have to invent/ pick up on any aspect of male behaviour and diss it in order to feel that they are continuing the feminist cause.

There. You asked for my personal interpretation of drippy feminism so I have given it.

Well, y'know...

"He was just persistent and arrogant... She agreed to talk to him in the end"

Lets replace "talk to" to "sleep with" and we have coercion into sex. Also known as rape.

Do these persistent and arrogant men seem so innocent now?

In that case, I'm not a subscriber of Drippy Feminism, nor do I feel any of the regulars are. The scenario is important to me, as it does, in my mind, set warning bells off if a man will not accept I don't want to talk to him.

To me, those men are not respecting my choice as a woman.

To me, those men are not likely to respect my choice to decline sex.

To me, those men are a threat.

The excuses you are coming up could easily be adapted as rape apologetics. Do you not see the harm this could do?

To belabour the point mercilessly, "already chosen someone else" is problematic in itself. As a proudly divorced woman I reserve the right NOT to choose anyone at all, nor to feel myself obliged to pretend I had (I've never been comfortable with lying). It's none of the approacher's damn' business whether I'm not receptive because I'm already happily settled with a man, because I prefer women, or am really a soulless android from the planet Zog.# "No thank you" should be the end of it. I just don't get that there can be any other point of view as long as you believe in the individual's right to self-determination. I trust we do all believe in that? Any dissenters?

The absolute only reason why any man in the world in space should have an interest in whether I am "spoken for" or not, is if I have either approached him myself or accepted his advances but he (rightly IMO) has scruples about being a party to cheating - just as I would not myself want to pop to the bike sheds with someone else's boyfriend. If I have NOT made myself available, why on earth is my relationship status of any interest at all? And the answer is: because if I am single I am, by definition, available.

NO I'M BLOODY NOT ACTUALLY

the right answer is, of course, No 3.

Wamster have you read the threads on rape and sexual assault on this topic?

You will notice that many of the people on these threads also contribute to threads which you would find more "worthwhile".

To demand that women in this topic only talk about the very worst examples of maltreatment of women is ridiculous. To insist that women ignore behaviour that they find unacceptable because it doesn't bother you personally is ridiculous.

You will notice that everyone on this thread disagrees with your perspective. Have you considered that rather than this being because there is some kind of conspiracy against people who go against the (non-existent) "party-line", that you might actually just be wrong?

That you might be wrong when you insist that women should put up with men they don't want to talk to pestering them. If that means they don't get to have the conversation with their close friend about their sister being ill, so what. If that means they don't get to have a girly catch up with their friends, so what. If that means they don't get to do distance-flirting with the bloke they actually do want to cop off with, so what. Cobblers. Of course it matters. Women should be allowed to go about the place unhindered. At the moment often they can't. That is a problem.

That sounds more like an ignorant person's attempt to minimize feminism to me, Wamster. If you had ever heard people who have been raped, who have fought for equal pay or fought to get rape within marriage recognized as rape, you would not dismiss as 'trivial' the other things you mention. So I find it very hard to believe you are really committed to these things. I may be wrong and I'm certainly being impatient, but you sound much more interested in destroying feminism than in supporting it.

I think we can apply Wamsters thinking to other civil/human rights movements- I mean, that Rosa Parks, what was she complaining about? She was allowed on the bus, wasn't she? She didn't have to walk so surely it was just a trivial complaint about where she was allowed to sit on the bus.

I don't see that just because people on this corner of mn disagree with me that I am in the wrong. I suspect that the views expressed here are not typical of the nation as a whole.

I am trying to be patient, now, LRDTheFeministDragon, and I find you deeply insulting. How dare you tell me that I don't know people who have been raped!!
I'll tell you this: their attitude -and I am not saying all people who have been raped have this attitude, just them- is that getting chatted up by a guy in a bar who is a bit mouthy but, when all is said and done, is just talking after you've told them to go away, is NOTHING nothing compared to being raped.

No-one said it was like being raped.

I know a fair few people would have jumped on them straight away if they had...

We were comparing the attitudes. And explaining why some women would see these men as a threat.

Wamster: Read this for an understanding of why you are talking bullshit and people are getting annoyed with you.

Yes, so it may be on the same continuum, so what? Until it reaches the point of assault or abuse, so what?

If I look hard enough, I can interpret almost every action as being an action that could lead to rape. The 'giving away' of bride to groom by father, the giving of a garter to the bride-because, of course, you will be having sex on honeymoon.

With a bit of imagination, every action could be said to be on the continuum that leads to rape, I am not joking when I say the only way to avoid this is not to engage with other human beings. Which may be a reasonable option and one that I would not criticise another person for.

I don't understand why you keep insisting that unless someone is acting illegally, there is no problem.

Haven't you heard of courtesy, manners, that sort of thing?

Why let anything reach the point of assault or abuse in the first place?

If you don't like the way someone is acting, why would you tolerate it?

If it scares you, why tolerate it?

Oh wait... Us women aren't supposed to say no to men, are we. We should be the obedient, dutiful wives.

Or ... instead of drippy feminism, you could call it "broken windows" feminism, based on the idea of Mayor Giuliani, that if you tackle the small issues, the bigger issues start to be taken care of. So, if a window gets broken in a building and left, then people give up, and the building deteriorates. But, if you fix that one broken window, then everything stays fine.

challenging the assumption that a woman in a bar is fair game for every man is starting on a small level. Think global, act local.

Sorry, that sounds really victim blamey of me, doesn't it?