the paddling pool

[Alameda]

get your flotation aids here (don't look at me though, I genuinely can't swim)

But I am a beginner (I think), and it's an interesting new idea for me

• that we need to think about the nature of sex in our relationships in these sort of ways

Yes - I have never engaged in BDSM myself, but had no idea that it was problematic in feminist terms until reading a thread on here. Then I realised that the only friend of mine who I know is into it is very much the submissive partner... and she is quite submissive to men in her behaviour anyway... and her then boyfriend was an arsehole... and I began to think, Hmm.

(I'm not criticising people who engage in BDSM here; I really don't know enough about the whole thing. But I do hate books like Fifty Shades of Shite that eroticise male control of women.)

Thank you for being patient with me and for those links, eats. I will have a thorough look at them at some point when I have time! The room explanation makes perfect sense although I am asking myself how far one needs to go with putting women at the centre - if there's a totally egalitarian society does that change?

I'm glad someone else has admitted to not understanding the Patriarchy. I feel less dense now!

Can you bear with me while I asked more newbie questions about the List and how it relates to day to day life?

1. Seem logical. I understand where this is coming from now but I'm not sure how one starts changing it?
2. I'm confused by tbh. Is this historical significance? Is it a generalisation or does one evaluate on a case-by-case basis as it were? How can relationships be renegotiated? Is an equalist position valid here? What if I want to take a position which is typically associated with being oppressed because I hate it when DH cooks And is DH a banned acronym?!
3. Ok. I get that.
4. That too.
5. Socially constructed, yes, but do away with gender how? By not labelling activities associated with specific gender or not having outward signs of gender or not publicly referring to gender?
6. Ok
7. You've lost me.
8. This is where I think I struggle with feminism which is maybe my faulty understanding of it. I am on board with being pro-women in general, and accept that women are under-aided and under-defended in general but I feel uncomfortable with dedicating myself solely to the defence of women on the grounds that men have enough advocates. Or can it be as simple as questioning everything and asking 'what about women, how does this in particular affect them?'
9. Yes, if you understand what you're talking about! Or does stuff like Guiding count where women and girls have that safe space?

I'm sorry if these are really silly questions! Some of it is probably linked to radical feminism rather than the general movement but I'm realising just how lacking my knowledge of basic feminism is, which isn't good really.

I don't know what BDSM is

Reminds me of when I was a kid (teenager) and didn't know what 69 was !
I thought it was a sexual position eg. from Kama Sutra, and there must be at least 68 other ones ....

Sadly my sex life has turned out to be slightly less imaginative !!

No problem with asking questions, that is what this thread is for.

There are radfems with men who do not do PIV ever and have been with their partners for years. So yes it is possible, although I don't know how common it is.

I haven't read any books around PIV and RadFem issues, although probably should. The link hagocrat.wordpress.com/resources/ takes you to a list of resources. In there is a link to a free download of Andrea Dworkin's books. She has written one called Intercourse that deals with this.

If we lived in a society without patriarchy we wouldn't have to be pro woman. We would just focus on individuals whether they were women or men. It is not about being a female supremacist as anti feminists allege.

I keep losing long posts so will do second post now.

I can never remember what BDSM stands for either .

I think bondage, domination, sadism and masochism. Basically it is all of those types of sexual practices. And yes it is problematic.

1. Seem logical. I understand where this is coming from now but I'm not sure how one starts changing it?

A - I'm not totally sure how we will eventually bring it down either! There isn't a 10 point plan. Basically though it is doing actions that challenge patriarchy. So on a day-to-day basis challenging sexist attitudes, being pro woman, challenging rape myths, supporting campaigns to end abuse of women and girls. It is the putting into practice bit.

I often read about "challenging rape myths" and I'm not sure what this would encompass really.

The main one I've come across I think is blaming the victim by criticising her choice of clothing (or I guess her behaviour)

I guess another one could be that rapists are often thought of as strangers, whereas actually often by a person the woman knows.

Am I on the right lines thinking "rape myths" means these sort of ideas ?

1. I'm confused by tbh. Is this historical significance? Is it a generalisation or does one evaluate on a case-by-case basis as it were? How can relationships be renegotiated? Is an equalist position valid here? What if I want to take a position which is typically associated with being oppressed because I hate it when DH cooks And is DH a banned acronym?!

A - No DH isn't a banned acronym. Just most RadFems aren't married, but some are like beachcomber. Everyone is affected by being brought up in the patriarchy. This means that men are socialised into a higher status and with behaviour and attitudes that are commonly referred to sexism. All men are sexist. Of course there is a very wide spectrum.

This means for those with men that are most sexist/oppressive they get beated - DV, emotionally abused, controlled, etc. But even for women who are with nice men, their men will still have attutudes and behaviour that may be much more subtle. For example, they may dominate conversation in company, they may have slightly more say over large purchases, they may not do the nastier household jobs. So all men in Het relationships oppress the women they are with - although often unconsciously.

Men who are allies, and there are some, acknowledge this and try to work on it.

1. Socially constructed, yes, but do away with gender how? By not labelling activities associated with specific gender or not having outward signs of gender or not publicly referring to gender?

A- There is a difference between sex and gender. Sex is the biology and of course there are differences. Women give birth for example. We do away with it by challenging the idea that biology is destiny i.e. you may be a woman, but you can love/hate pink, love science, DIY, or shopping and wine. It is challenged in camapigns e.g. pink stinks; stopping the gender division of toys and clothes; promoting "men's" hobbies, interests, jobs as suitable ones for girls and women to consider.

Marking place to come paddling later

1. You've lost me.

A: PIV sex means penis in vagina. This places women at harm because being pentrated puts you at a greater risk of STD's and unwanted pregnancy as well as the risks of using birth control such as the pill. Lots of women have unwanted pregnancies and then have to decide whether to have an abortion -n these are actually pretty common, or continue with the pregnancy and have a baby.

PIV is a male centric form of sex: Women are biologically designed to enjoy sex that stimulates the clitoris. Although some women orgasm for example through PIV alone, most don't. There are large surveys of women to show this is true.

In fact most women orgasm through activity that directly stimulates their clitoris. And yet we are brought up to think of PIV as "proper" sex and everything else as foreplay or extras.

This is male centric because as women we are asked to put up with the harms of PIV - stds, the pill, unwanted pregnancy, abortion - when it is not the form of sex that most woman enjoy most. Instead it is the form of sex that men enjoy most. So PIV is generally about putting men's needs first.

Marking my place. The waters feel calm and restful.

Eats - yes, that is what BDSM stands for. I am quite into it, go to clubs and stuff. It is, of course, problematic from a feminist stance, although it has a lot of positives from that angle too (there's absolutely no feeling on the BDSM scene that you need to be young/pretty/thin to fit in and that's great).

Anyway, I'll be back later this weekend. Been working all day and need to nap.

Sorry - just a lot of questions to answer.

1. This is where I think I struggle with feminism which is maybe my faulty understanding of it. I am on board with being pro-women in general, and accept that women are under-aided and under-defended in general but I feel uncomfortable with dedicating myself solely to the defence of women on the grounds that men have enough advocates. Or can it be as simple as questioning everything and asking 'what about women, how does this in particular affect them?'

A: How you put into practice is up to you. But practically it means when campaigning on issues such as rape, you don't put energy into services for men that are raped. Not that they don't suffer. But there men and other women who are not RadFems can and do do work on this.

1. Yes, if you understand what you're talking about! Or does stuff like Guiding count where women and girls have that safe space?

A: I don't mean you have to go out and expound RadFeminism. You might volunteer at your local DV shelter or camapign against local newsagents having porn mags in full view and reach of kids. Guiding can count if activities and the way it is run, is structured to help girls try out new things that aren't traditionally feminine. If just doing nail art and make up lessons, then it would be reinforcing gender stereotypes.

Juggling - Yes they are rape myths. Rape myths basically encompass anything that says woman can avoid or be responsible for rape through their actions. We are sold the idea that it is woman who wear mini skirts and high heels who get raped by strangers.

As you already said, most rapists are people women know and trusts - realtives, partners, friends - sadly.

Women are raped in their 80's and 90's, wearing "dowdy" all encompassing clothes, in their own homes, etc. Sadly you can not do anything to avoid the attention of a man who is going to rape.

Juggling - forgot to answer your question about what if you want to do traditionally female things in your relationship like cooking. Thats fine. Its up to you. Not such an issue with cooking, but maybe an issue if you make excuses to take on all the traditionally female stuff e.g. I do all the housework and childcare because I enjoy it. That does seem problematic to me.

re: PIV there's a good blog post here written in response to Dworkin's Intercourse.

I read it a few weeks ago and have been giving it some thought. I'm in a committed het relationship and personally enjoy PIV among many other sexual practices, although I never orgasm through PIV alone (actually I think quite a lot of women do enjoy it, otherwise we wouldn't be at all concerned about penis size) ... nevertheless I think it's a really valid thought experiment. PIV is inherently risky for women in all sorts of ways that it's not risky for men.

I'm not about to give up PIV and I do think that women, as actual human beings, have the right to choose to engage in risky behaviour but for me, the article brought home the absolute wrongness of a man ever coercing, cajoling, nagging or persuading a woman to participate in PIV, let alone forcing her.

Hi Eats - actually it wasn't me that said "what about if you want to do traditionally female things" - though a good question.

I do do a lot of the raising of my own children because I have a very close relationship with them - & they are very important to me. But I wouldn't necessarily describe it as "childcare" and I wouldn't put it after "housework" in any sentence. I also dispute that it would be problematic for a feminist if that's what she chooses and what is, quite reasonably IMHO, important to her !

I also work with young children and think it's interesting to what extent this can be a feminist choice of work - lots of interesting issues there !
If done in the right way there's lots of room for challenging stereotypes for girls and boys at an early stage in their development (ie addressing no's 5 & 9)

re: rape myths - as part of MN's recent 'we believe you' campaign, MNHQ put together a really useful myth busting page here.

Yes of course women can choose to engage in PIV, but it is understanding that women are taught to accept PIV in spite of the potential harm and in spite of the fact that for most women although they might enjoy it, it is not the kind of sex they most enjoy. Personally I have found understanding and agreeing with various RadFem analysis, has made me rethink things in my personal life and has led to me making changes. But it is up to each individual.

Sorry Juggling. I think if it really is a choice, fine. I do think as women we are so socialised into doing most or all of looking after children, that for many, it is not really a choice. But it is really about thinking things through and then deciding from that.

Because of course without patriarchy, some women would want to spend a lot of time with children, just as some men would want to as well.

women are taught to accept PIV in spite of the potential harm

Yes, I think this is a really important point, as is the idea that PIV is 'proper sex' and everything else is foreplay. It's an incredibly male-centric view of sex - a het male-centric view at that.

And lots of women who have sex with men when they realise this analysis, will say that when they first started having sex with men, they didn't think they had a choice about whether to do PIV. They had a choice about whether to have sex - but sex equalled PIV in their mind.

Wow. Lots to think about. Once again thank you for your patience.

I'm still struggling to get my head around the idea of the patriarchy as a blanket force though. Is there room for cultural differences and attitudes to male hegemony? That society (or most if not all societies) is designed for men is quite clear but given the different reasons given for elevating men and oppressing women does labelling it as the patriarchy really work? And if it's not one force then does that change anything?

No problem Frak.

Patriarchy isn't like one set of rules that a group of men have sat down to work out. Yes all or nearly all societies currently, are designed for the benefit of men. They oppress women and give men a higher status. How that is actually done varies round the world. From killing baby girls in China, to FGM in the UK.

Patriarchy is a shorthand for how societies and its institutions oppress women and give men a higher status and male privelege.

Sorry should have said when you talk about different reasons - the reason is to oppress women and benefit men as a class i.e. group. That is the uniting factor. How it is enacted does vary culture to culture.But unless you see that it is a uniting factor and that institutions, law, education, etc all reinforce this, it becomes hard to understand what is actually happening.

I thinkw omen who do recognise sexism but don't recognise the patriarchy, end up seeing oppression as dwon to some "bad men". The situation is much more complex than that.

FGM ?