Is sexual orientation a choice?

[WidowWadman]

Julie Bindel seems to think so.

Is it just me or is that actually fairly offensive?

"So my female partners are more likely to have less confidence, to give way to men trying to dominate, etc."

Not even picking up on the sexist generalisation of women having less confidence, why is lack of confidence a quality you're looking for in a partner?

Eats - Your analogy only works up to a point. If large numbers of white people were not made to realise that apartheid was wrong, it would not have been able to have been overthrown without a civil war, and due to the power differentials, that was a war that black South Africans may not have won.

Also, look at things like the Truth and Reconciliation hearings - they wouldn't have happened without the input of white people.

Every social justice movement needs allies to succeed, IMO.

I think you'll also find some men have less confidence and give way to women who try to dominate. I know plenty of men like that.

I think a personal relationship should be based on the person you are attracted to - at whatever level be it physical or emotional.

I don't think it did need white people - white people in general, were forced to accept the changes.

In terms of educating men - how long have women been trying to do that? And yet still 1 in 4 women are raped, many more are sexually assaulted, etc etc. If we rely on educating men we will still be having the same discussions in 10,000 years. Yes education can bring about changes, but they are so bloody incrementally small.

Eats - Your analogy only works up to a point. If large numbers of white people were not made to realise that apartheid was wrong, it would not have been able to have been overthrown without a civil war, and due to the power differentials, that was a war that black South Africans may not have won.

Also, look at things like the Truth and Reconciliation hearings - they wouldn't have happened without the input of white people.

Every social justice movement needs allies to succeed, IMO.

Black South Africans didn't need white people to overthrow Apartheid? So what about white Western countries that imposed economic, cultural and sporting embargoes? You really think that if we in Europe and the USA had not pressurised the whites in power, black people would have succeeded? It changed because even white people could see it was an evil, flawed philosophy.

All the major changes that have happened e.g. votes for women, DV being seen as a real crime, equal pay act, etc, have happened almost exclusively because of the work of women. Yes men may have passed laws, but it si womenw ho have believed passionately in the cause they fought for and who have put in the work to change things.

Yes its a choice to follow through with your feelings
No its not a choice on what feelings you get :)

E.G Its not my choice I am atracted to men the way i was made
But it is my choice to take action to be with men :)
Simple as that really

Agreed sunshine

How do you change men's attitudes without change taking years?

I think if a woman came to 21st century England, she would be amazed at the changes and attitudes that have happened.

But new problems have arisen - such as porn and body image which were probably not a big problem 400 years ago.

Then if you look at the rest of the world - attitudes still lag a long way behind.

How to bring about the desired changes in the world is the basis of feminism.

I do think it needs men to be on board. I think a lot of things need to change. I can see the changes but I have no idea how change comes about.

Although it might not be the way you were made, but socialisation. The nature versus nurture debate.

eats - but how where these changes effected - through separatism or moderate means and working together with men?

From my reading the suffragists were the ones who won the right to vote, and the suffragettes often hurt their own cause. Both groups were (mainly) women, but used totally different approaches.

Enim - My point was that change has come about through women. it was the suffragettes taht fought for the vote - not a group of men and women together. It was women who set up the first DV shelters and campaigned against the general beliefs about DV not mena nd women together.

That doesn't mean taht I think men can't get involved in these campaigns - they can. But the truth is that every major change i can think of has been fought for and won by women.

WW - Changes come about by working with others to bring about these changes. Nobody can fight everything, so we all prioritise what we fight for. I prioritise women. Very very few men do the same

True - but I think that an example such as childcare responsibilities. There was a big thread on this recently. If men started to decide that they would work part time so they could pick their child up / go shopping / appointments etc then that would have an effect on how women and men are perceived at work and their career might not be as affected as much because men also face the same problems.

I think something like that needs men to change their attitudes towards work and childcare. Women can make a big point about it but it needs men to alter their attitudes. It also needs companies to change their policies.

Just an example. It's different from setting up DV shelters or the right to vote - it's an attitudional shift. The momentun can certainly come from women but it does need men.

But nobody's argued about what to fight for, but how to best achieve the goal.

The suffragette/suffragist thing is a great example really. Suffragette actions such as setting fire to letterboxes, or throwing yourself in front of the king's horse brought more people up against women's right to vote, whilst suffragist campaigning, such as Millicent Fawcett's achieved to be heard without alienating opponents as much. This explains why the NUWSS had over 50,000 supporters compared to the 2,000 or so suffragette followers.

Fawcett understood that it was important to work within the system, and with those in power rather than doing violent publicity stunts.

So why hasn't it happened then if all it takes is an attitudinal change of men?

Now that is a good question :)

WW I think any large change within the system has taken a group working within the system and a more radical group working outside. If you are talking about change within the system, it seems to need both approaches at once. But my point was that it was in the main women who fought for these changes, whatever method was used.

I think the priority is getting more women to recognise patriarchy and to work to fight it and for the benefit of girls and woman.

I think that is an important priority - to recognise how society treats women and to encourage girls and women to recognise what is wrong with this.

Then of course - you get the battles of defiining the issues. What attitudes should women be fiighting to change?

And you get the infighting. And nothing changes.

Enim - We may disagree with things here, but every feminist should be fighting in real life for girls and women. It may be challenging sexist jokes, or raising money for the local DV shelter, or another many varied ways. But there is imo no excuse not to do this kind of stuff in rl even if we disagree about details on here

I agree with that :)

Great, so we do agree on something that is really really important

And just to go back to an earlier point. Men and women are different under patriarchy. Men are sexist - yes all men, to varying degress. women's attitudes and behaviour are affected by the patriarchy, but in a different way.

And personally I don't want to deal with sexism and the inherent power imbalances that you have in a relationshiop between a man and a woman

'So why hasn't it happened then if all it takes is an attitudinal change of men?'

Well, if you were a man, why would you want anything to change?