Not feminist enough if you're heterosexual.

[TheRealPosieParker]

This is something I've found repeatedly lately. Frankly I'm fucked off with it. In last few weeks I've been called a breeder, that I have shitty kids, that I spewed my kids from my arse, that I'm a handmaiden.

FFS. I may as well just abandon feminism as actually men so treat me better, on a personal level, than many feminists.

What sort of feminism decides that heterosexual women are deserving of this vitriol? That mothers are all a bunch of handmaidens? That wearing make up is more anti feminist than telling a mother her kids are shitty?

Every time it happens I am genuinely shocked.

" only mention it because it's something that I do not imagine would characterise a same sex relationship."
Except I feel very protected by my wife, but I also feel very protective of her. So, a mutual protectiveness! Which sounds better to me. After all, unless you really want to go down the road of thinking that men are stronger than women, hence their natural position is that of protector/defender (a line that many men seem to feel is their role)........

"He just has a totally different energy about him and it is a male energy so this makes me more aware and in touch with my own female energy. " Sorry, not trying to be offensive, but this just sounds like meaningless, pseudo-magical nonsense to me. YES, males and females are indoctrinated to be very different in our current society, which has a lot invested in the different but equal, natural and complementary, yin-and yang supposed explanation for heterosexuality. But I don't see that as anything to celebrate.

Also, you seem to assume that lesbians are somehow, by being female, going to be 'the same' in some sort of essential and stifling way. Most lesbians I know don't fit into conventional notions of femininity, don't act the way females are supposed to. Nor do they fall into into some butch-femme aping of heterosexuality. Even if you do believe in some sort of balancing of traits in a successful pairing, doesn't mean that that can't be two females. The problem isn't that you're both females, the problem is if you expect one has to be male/masculine, and the other has to be female/feminine. I think that given a chance, females can have as wide a range or personality traits as any other human being -- just that if you insist on squashing all females into the feminine box, suddenly you have a void that needs filling.

Actually, I'm really quite insulted and annoyed by this old idea that females together don't fit, either sexually or emotionally, as friends or lovers, that it is somehow stifling! That some sort of magical maleness is needed to stop a disaster.

"the part of male/female psychology where these instincts reside" AH, there's yer problem, assuming that these 'important' differences are natural and innate...................

Who on earth is suggesting that women don't fit together?! Obviously they do in a lesbian relationship. I'm sure if you had to put into words your reasons for not wanting to pursue a sexual relationship with a man, you would be able to say so in no uncertain terms. I certainly don't mean to imply that lesbians stifle each other (how on earth would I know) - just that I, as a straight woman, suspect I would feel like that in a relationship with another woman. But that's because I'm not lesbian.

Of course I have amazing female friendships and connections which mean the world to me - but that's different.

You asked the question - why given the patriarchy and all the problems that befall women as a result, women should bother with hetero relationships at all and just have relationships with women instead. I made it clear that I was only speaking from a personal perspective.

Of course I'm not saying that same sex couples do not feel protective towards each other. Actually, what I was trying to say is what you put better just now - that in a hetero relationship the physical protection element tends to be more one-sided (emotional protection is obviously mutual as in any relationship). So I was suggesting this as a possible difference. You may find the notion of the male as protector as appalling, but those in male-female relationships may feel differently and it should be ok to acknowledge that.

I have lesbian friends who frequently tell me that the emphasis on POV in a heterosexual relationship means that there can never be equality between DH and I. They see the the roles we have taken as our relationship has progressed as evidence of the imbalance of power which stems from POV. Obviously this doesn't leave me feeling great, but I don't get vitriolic about it either. All perspectives have validity.

And please don't think for one minute that I haven't experienced more than my fair share of abusive men and total s*heads throughout the 37 years I have spent on this planet!

Sorry piv (not sure why phone switched to the o).

I honestly don't understand how men are supposed to physically protect women in relationships. Most men are just not capable of doing so.

I'm not appalled by the idea of man as protector. I just find it embarrassing when people say that kind of thing and generalise to heterosexual relationships because I interpret it as them unwittingly revealing a kind of sexual fetish.

Almond so if you don't get something it's a fetish?

I'm not generalising about hetero relationships. I'm saying that this is one way that there MIGHT be a slightly different dynamic in hetero compared to lesbian relationships.

On a basic level - say there's s noise in the night. I think in most relationships the DH would go down. If I was with a woman, I would probably go myself.

Quite basic stuff - not street warfare or anything.

Of course all men are very different as I said.

Also, to SomeDyke, why would I put women into a "box"? Of course women have the full spectrum of female personalities, energy or whatever you want to call it. The point is, it's not going to be a male personality because they don't exist in a male body. I feel like I'm stating the obvious here.

And, in any case, why should people in a fetish relationship be any more "embarrassed" than anyone else? Why would you feel uncomfortable about that? Each to their own, surely?

There's nothing embarrassing about stating a fetish.

I get secondary embarrassment when somebody makes a generalisation and inadvertently reveals something personal.

You do keep generalising. Saying in most heterosexual relationships the man would go down to investigate a noise is a generalisation.

Although I'm now maybe thinking that I have given my dogs the role you're assigning to straight men.

Ok well I'm sorry if I sound as though I am generalising. But is saying "most men are not capable...." not also a generalisation?

Could you say more about the personal thing that I have inadvertently revealed though?

Yes, it is a generalisation. I believe that in general most men and women could not physically defend another person against someone intent on attack. My son, for example, is probably physically fitter and stronger than most humans, but he has never fought anyone and has no defensive skills, so is unlikely to be any use whatsoever in a genuine attack.

I just mean your understanding of male/female dynamics is personal to you (although there are definitely some other women who like the same kind of thing). But I don't believe that understanding of men and women is generally shared by most people.

Well who knows really?

I only ever claimed to be speaking from a personal perspective because you asked me a specific question. My DH is an ex-commando and boxing / martial arts instructor if that helps understand where I'm coming from.
I don't think we are weird or a fetish relationship particularly.

I kind of feel that between us we have hijacked this thread.

Anyway, yes, I did ask you for your personal perspective and you've explained it very clearly.

But your personal perspective includes multiple generalisations about what the dynamics are between men and women, not you and your husband.

Ok well let's quit the hijack

Reading this, I don't think you went off topic too much as the thread asks if you can be too hetero to be feminist.

Denying men's tendency to see themselves as "protectors" is to also deny a central tenant of the concept of patriarchy. Within reason, male protectiveness towards a female partner is not necessarily a destructive instinct. The problem is that it can so easily merge into other desires such as the need to control, to "own" or restrict the partner - the kind of male 'entitlement behaviours" that are seen to be at the core of patriarchal systems.

If a woman is in a relationship with a man who identifies himself in the "protector' role, then this is going to be implicit to the woman in the way he responds to her. She would no doubt experience this as something different to the type of dynamic she has in relationships with other women. This is because it is a manifestation of the patriarchy.

I would argue that many, if not, most men would identify with the protector role to some degree in hetero relationships as the concept is so insidious within society, despite the fact that they may never need to act on it.

To deny that men have no advantage over women in terms of physical strength or the ability to defend themselves is clearly ridiculous. Yes some women may be stronger than some men, but this is not the point. You can't really argue that men oppress women through rape or other forms of violence if you don't acknowledge the physical differences that enable them to do this.

Of course men have a physical advantage over women. Men are generally stronger than women.

I didn't read anyone suggesting otherwise.

The rest sounds like religious drivel.

Patriarchy just refers to male domination in society. It doesn't have some sort of creed people can either profess or deny.

"Of course women have the full spectrum of female personalities, energy or whatever you want to call it. The point is, it's not going to be a male personality because they don't exist in a male body. I feel like I'm stating the obvious here."
except it is far from obvious! you seem to think there is a fundamental difference between males and females as regards allowed personalities, that men and women are inherently different in the head. which I reject. we are trained to be very different, to believe in this difference. I want to get rid of it, you seem to want to keep it cos you like it. hence the tension. simples!

There are such high numbers of women in abusive relationships with men that the whole man as protector thing sounds like absolute nonsense to me.

Dp and I are protective of each other. If there was an actual physical risk I think we'd still both be protective of each other. He's physically stronger than I am, I'm usually calmer and more quick thinking in an emergency...both useful skills if we ever needed them.

Hi SD - While I totally agree with you that the effects of socialisation are huge, I do think there's more to it than that. I'm not trying to "keep" gender differences, I'm just speaking as I find really. I think our personalities are also driven by the way we experience the world physically. How can a man "learn" a woman's experience of puberty, periods, childbirth, breastfeeding and so on?

I generally find conversations with women more interesting than men and the reason for this is simply that I relate to them better.

When I tried to describe the dynamic between DH and I, there was nothing unwitting about it at all actually and I was fully aware of how some aspects of what I said could be interpreted. But I said it anyway because I can't be bothered to try and quash everything into the politically- correct box and I just wanted to be honest about how people may relate differently in a hetero relationship.

I partly agree with you Amaia.

I believe that overall group differences in behaviours between men and women are due to a mix of socialisation and psychological responses to having a male or female body.

I also agree that there are women who are sexually attracted to the idea that men physically protect their families and men who are sexually attracted to the idea that women will not physically protect their families.

There are other posters on here who will go on about the importance of gender neutral parenting, and when challenged about being anti men will reply, oh but my DH is a six foot four rugby player. That is the equivalent of saying something feminist and, when challenged, saying, 'oh but I'm really pretty and have big breasts.'

It would be utterly bizarre behaviour if we did not understand that some women want a big strong man to 'protect' them and think that is what the best men are and do. At least you're being honest about it and don't have some kind of weird cognitive dissonance about it, which is what You're getting at when you say some women won't admit it.

But I still believe that it is a minority of women. I don't see my great uncle, my father, my brother, my husband or my son as people who have more of a responsibility to physically protect my family than the women in the family, and I don't think the damsel in distress thing is more than a minority interest among men and women. But it is definitely a sexual attractiveness thing for that minority.

Sure almond. Btw I never intended to present DH as some kind of lunatic! I was just trying to be honest that he does have certain attitudes (ones that I've become more aware of recently since hanging on these threads ), that I could not imagine that any woman would ever hold - or want to hold for that matter. So this is one way in which my relationship with him would be different to any relationship I could have with a women. That's it really.

DH and I have been together for 15 years. All couples have their own dynamics and I don't give much thought to these kind of issues on a day to day basis. I do understand though how some of his behaviours are the result of a particular kind of upbringing and the experiences he has had in life. He has had some extreme experiences. We are very open with each other, I think, so I just accept him for what he is.

He does seem to have a fair few friends that carry on like him, but I suppose that's to be expected.

I accept you viewpoint, of course.

"While I totally agree with you that the effects of socialisation are huge, I do think there's more to it than that. "
Whilst I ten towards feeling that although there may be innate differences, the effects of socialization are so HUGE, that we haven't got a hope of seeing that at the moment. Plus I am quite used to seeing a lot of camp gay men, who show what a wider range of male personalities are available once you change the 'socialization' in effect (in that amongst gay men, there is a fairly well-defined 'how to be a camp gay man' thing going on!).

I suppose one of the important things for me is how much the supposed cognitive sex differences (mental rotation and girls can't do maths, all that stuff) have disappeared once we looked carefully enough.