Do you think (your) sexuality changes how you relate to women-only spaces?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I was wondering how much sexuality is influenced by, or influences, how you interact socially with other women. I don't mean 'is sexual orientation determined by nurture' because that's offensive bullshit, I mean the more nuanced stuff about how you are sexually and what kind of sexual relationships you like to form.

I would like to think more about it without getting into that tedious 'oh, you are a feminist, you have to hate men/love women/mistake 'equality' for 'having no personal preferences amongst people'.

What I've been noticing is, I'm valuing women-only spaces more and more. And this is despite (because of?) the fact I naturally end up in groups with lots of women because a lot of my work is female-dominated. I was thinking about how much I just plain enjoy women's company. And I wonder how much this has to do with sexual identity (I'm rather vapidly and theoretically bisexual but have been married for a short time). And yet, although we're all enthusiastically discussing feminism, and separatist feminism, and all sorts of exciting theories, most of us are married or in monogamous relationships with men. Is there a correlation?!

MN seems also to be full of women who're pretty clued up on how to have a good sex life, and I wonder if that's because we're a majority-female community who get a lot of time to talk 'woman to woman'?

Yes lots of theory has been written by women who were with male partners, but most of them did eventually leave those male partners. Not because anyone told them to, but because the cognitive dissonance of believing a particular set of beliefs and doing something different in their personal life, became too much.

I understand this feeling.

I'm in a heterosexual relationship that I don't want to end on a personal level. However if the relationship were to come to a natural end I don't think I would choose to be with a man again.

Rhubarb - Feminism is about how to fight the way men as a class oppress women as a class. That means men are raised to be oppressors. A very very few men manage to be allies instead to feminism. But the vast majority yes are oppressors. So of course they oppress women in Het relationships.

How much they oppress of course varies enormously from individual to individual.

Hully - Most radfems who have been on mumsnet while I have posted here have not been lesbians. The vast vast majority are Het.

Beach - I have heard radfems who are Het and not in any relationship say they decided exactly the same thing. So when their relationship ended, they did not pursue another relationship with a man.

what's that got to do with anything??

EBAL i agree that no-one needs to be cured of being lesbian or gay, by the same token surely no-one needs to be cured of being heterosexual?

Logic again

bah!

The issue isnt being heterosexual. Its not even being with a man. It is being with a man under patriarchy.

That's a separate issue from the social conditioning one.

Without patriarchy we wouldnt be socially conditioned to be Het. So women could discover their own sexuality without that conditioning. And if it was Het, fine

But some rad feminists as a poster early on stated, view women in Het relationships as traitors to the cause - is this correct?

Does anyone here think that if you are in a het relationship that this is in direct conflict with your position as a feminist?

I really don't think I can understand my sexuality in such stark terms.

I would like to think that I can differentiate how I've been 'socially conditioned' and what my true feelings are despite this, ie. being a Feminist in the first place.

But not only as a Feminist, but a woman, who was born heterosexual (I don't believe we choose our sexuality, in the same way we don't choose our gender) I understand that I have wants and needs that I choose to have met within the constructs of a marriage, which again I choose to define on my own terms within our adult and consenting relationship. I don't see it as opression or patriarchy, I see it as a choice I have made for myself.

I believe everyone has the choice to do what is right for them.

That's bollocks, eats.

Peopel know if they like manana, minge or both no matter what society says.

Whether they act on it or not is a different matter.

Does anyone here think that if you are in a het relationship that this is in direct conflict with your position as a feminist?

I think that is a really interesting question Rhubarb.

I can only answer it for myself, obviously, but I do find the two contradictory/conflictual. I don't think I'm a traitor to any cause, and nor do I think that of anyone else, but I find it difficult to reconcile being in a heteronormative set up with my politics.

I wouldn't stop my relationship but I won't change my politics either. And so I am in a state of cognitive dissonance.

I often joke to DH that he doesn't need to worry about me having an affair

I don't (for me), BUT I think you have to be a very self-aware and strong person not to feel conflicted...

I don't mean I'm all great and sorted, just that I'm mindful and having been in a more strugglesome r'ship when younger, I know what I expect, want etc and it is all negotiated.

Someone one linked to this article on here and it really helped me get my head around the issue.

Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence Adrienne Rich

Hully yes, I agree with you. I'm clear about what I expect and what I want and I've always been like this. My husband and I discuss our relationship and situation constantly and we're always upfront about stuff. It's not always perfect, and I don't always get things my way, but it doesn't keep me awake at night because I understand I have a choice.

I do sometimes wonder about other life choices I've made, and been forced to make despite not being comfortable with them, which says a lot about gender inequality and our social expectations of women rather than my sexuality and choice of marriage.

I don't feel conflicted at all. I don't see my relationship with dh as a political commentary. I see it as a close bond between two people who complement each other as individuals and not as part of any societal influence either way.

I have strong opinions that he either agrees or disagrees with but my views on feminism is reflected throughout my life including my relationship. It is completely equal.

Another question then: not all lesbian relationships are equal, there may be a dominant partner and a submissive one. So if someone is the submissive partner in a lesbian relationship, presumably they are also contradicting their role as a feminist?

Kash, what about men who are forced to accept their role as breadwinner when actually they may want to stay at home and be with their children? I think it is much easier for women to accept the primary carer position than men and whilst you may see that as oppressive for women, it also oppresses those men who want that role for themselves.

dh says he was put under pressure at school to be macho and get involved in fights to 'prove' himself. He did do but he regrets it now. He was also forced to get involved in his father's farm when he saw his sisters go off to college. But he was the son and therefore he had a role to play in maintaining the tradition. When he finally told his father that he was to start college and study, his father sold the dairy herd without telling him, effectively cutting him out of the farm.

Interestingly enough the farm has now been split very unequally, with dh getting hardly anything and his sisters getting land and buildings.

So I don't think that oppression works only against women, although culturally we have had to fight more injustice and intolerance.

Does anyone here think that if you are in a het relationship that this is in direct conflict with your position as a feminist?

I certainly don't. I've never had a moment's doubt about my heterosexuality or the fact that my marriage puts me in conflict with feminism.

THERhubarb That IS a good question.

The premise of the question kind of relies on the assumption that both women in the relationship are Feminists. The submissive, may not be, in which case, no.

If she is then not really either, unless the dominant was behaving in a typically patriarchal way and reinforcing all the usual inequalities we as Feminists fight against. If it was the latter situation, then yes.

Did that make sense?

I guess I'm trying to say, in the same way I believe a man can be a Feminist, a woman who behaves in a way that a patriarchal man would and upholds those unequal gender stereotypes is just as bad as a man doing it.

Still not making much sense I'm afraid!

THERhubarb I totally agree. Gender inequality works both ways and neither is fair or just.

There's the ideology and the practicality, though, right?

I've been in het relationships where I felt it was in direct contradiction with me being a feminist. The problem is, I didn't know at the time this was to do with my partner being, well, a twit, not to do with heterosexuality.

I think in certain situations, where you know a lot of men who are not very nice, probably practicality starts shading into ideology.