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.

'letting them get away with sulky behaviour' is victim-blaming language. Men choose to behave like that. Women aren't the gatekeepers of their behaviour. It is exhausting, demoralising and ultimately fruitless to pick up on emotionally abusive behaviour every single time. But that's how abuse works. Its the drip drip effect that eventually wears the victim down. It doesn't happen because of the behaviour of the victim, it happens despite it. Not everyone is equipped to see emotional abuse for what it is, certainly not when you are in the middle of it. Victims often speak of the "fog" lifting because when you are in the middle of it is confusing and complicated (by design).

"If you are straight then it comes down to either have a relationship with a man or have no relationship. As sex and companionship is a fundamental human need then it seems harsh to imply that radical feminist women are somehow betraying their feminist principles by having relationships with men." Hmm. I agree to a certain extent but I think as feminists we can look at our choices in the context of feminist principles. Having said that a lot of radical feminists I know became radical feminists whilst in long-term relationships with men. They made the choice beforehand. Why fix what ain't broke? And we can only work with what we've got in terms of sexuality!

But if the world wasn't geared up to be so heteronormative would more people be gay - especially women? Personally, I see sexuality as a spectrum and societal norms has an influence on that.

Yy Bertrand (if I start a post with 'yay' it's my bloody autocorrect!!)
I'm tempted to become a lesbian separatist if it means no more wasted effort in other women's straight relationships!!
it's okay, dh can identify as a woman without changing anything so he can come too

"'letting them get away with sulky behaviour' is victim-blaming language. Men choose to behave like that. Women aren't the gatekeepers of their behaviour"

"Up to a point, Lord Copper"

There are many relationships which aren't abusive in which women enable men to behave in a sulky entitled way.Not every woman who says "it's like having four children, not three" is being abused. Or who says "I blame his mother"

Vestal

Thanks for the PIV summary. Will google.

But sulking is abusive behaviour. And if that happens regularly then it is systematic. It may be at the milder end of the spectrum (although I would disagree with that having lived with a sulky father and walking on eggshells all the time). Saying that women allow it to happen takes away the choice the man makes about his behaviour.

And don't get me started on "I blame his mother" but I suspect we are in agreement with that !

As sex and companionship is a fundamental human need

Is it, though? Companionship, yes. But sex? I just don't buy that. There's tons of happy nuns and monks. (I don't count priests, we all know what they say about priests).
There's also tons of unhappy, yet surviving singles. Sex is something we want, not a fundamental need.

And there's the question what we should sacrifice to get it.

I am a stubborn person, and I absolutely refuse to support sexist men's choices by becoming their partner. Out of principle. Maybe a relationship with a man who likes to profit from male privilege without being an active misogynist, would net me more happiness than being single, but I just refuse to put up with even the tiniest bit of sexism. Even if that makes me less happy than I could be.

If more women were like me, I think men would feel more of a pressure to change.
I understand why most women opt for a less than perfect relationship instead, it has many advantages, but ... it will not contribute to a change.

I agree that you cannot say "women allow it to happen". You cannot change a man that easily. You can only leave.
Sulking can be abusive behaviour, but if the man who does it is not a skilled emotional manipulator, nor at all physically abusive, then I'd say it is a choice to stay with him.

"As sex and companionship is a fundamental human need then it seems harsh to imply that radical feminist women are somehow betraying their feminist principles by having relationships with men."

Can I just check- are we all talking about the same thing when we say "radical feminist?"Because this "letting the side down by having relationships with men"stuff sounds separatist to me. In this context "radical" does not mean "extreme"

I think it's a case of separatist being in a radical group and claiming that radical are doing it wrong by not doing it the seperatist way, while claiming that the seperatist way is what radical actually is and others are doing it wrong??

God knows

Thanks for that , Beyond. When my head stops going round and round I might manage a more measured response..........

Posie I know exactly what you're talking about. While I think there are many interesting discussions to be had, some of the things directed at heterosexual women with male partners and/or children are about as unfeminist as you can get imo.

Eight- where do you see these things? On here?

I think if you are judgemental of feminists in relationships with men and children, what are you saying about the general population of heterosexual women?

There are issues with PIV I think. The fact it means sex to most and other acts that may be more pleasurable to many women get overlooked often. The fact it is used by as a weapon and the fact even enjoyable piv presents risks to women it does not to men. But it can also be pleasurable for women in healthy partnerships and it should be able to be discussed with no insults thrown.

No in other feminist groups online Bertrand.

It's funny how feminists and Muslims seem to be the only people automatically held accountable for the actions and words of everyone else who say they belong to the same groups.

Islamic Feminists have the easiest time Bertrand! ;-)

Beat me to that!

Yes but I and some of my female friends, would sulk as easily as much, be unwilling and even feign incompetence if they were asked by their other half to plaster a wall or get up on the roof and replace some lose tiles. I still think it's a bit nasty to have a go at the way people negotiate their lives together. I think it's a bit bigoted in fact.

"Yes but I and some of my female friends, would sulk as easily as much, be unwilling and even feign incompetence if they were asked by their other half to plaster a wall or get up on the roof and replace some lose tiles."

Yep. Because these are daily occurances in all homes........

Exactly comparable to putting a meal on the table, changing a nappy, washing up a cup and a plate or supervising bath time.

And anyway, why would you sulk and feign. Incompetence if asked to plaster a wall? Wouldn't you just say "I'm sorry, I don't know how to do that"?

OP and other posters here with male DPs, do you think that you put more into your relationship than your DP does?

They still need doing though... So who are these men being so awful then? Do you have names and examples we can look, at or is it just your default position that – when there is no evidence of blame for what happens in other peoples relationships ~ then men being terrible is always the deciding factor?

I knew contributing to a thread in 'feminist chat' was going to end up like this. It's my own fault..

Can I just say that I'm not saying radical feminists in relationships with men "are letting the side down". Far from it! But I do recognise that withdrawing labour and PIV from men is are (IMO valid) radical feminist view points. I initially responded because some of the posts seemed to be around how mad or extreme these views are. Whereas they are tackling the root of the problem i.e. women's oppression; male entitlement; male privilege; even male violence and sexual violence. And tackling the root of the problem is what radical feminism is all about.

I don't think women necessarily have to agree with that or live by those rules but neither do I think these ideas should be ridiculed and written off as 'bollocks'. They aim to move the Overton Window. It's all too easy to write off ideas by women as being bollocks or questioning women's sanity. It's been done for centuries.

I think my DH is awesome, sometimes he does annoying stuff but sometimes I do too. I think we are pretty equal at home, work and in our relationship. Sometimes I think I was lucky to find him and sometimes I think our relationship wouldn't have worked if he was more traditional as I just don't do a lot of "wife work" do of he wants it doing he does it himself

" or is it just your default position that – when there is no evidence of blame for what happens in other peoples relationships ~ then men being terrible is always the deciding factor? "

No, of course it's not! But don't you ever read the relationship boards? or AIBU or Chat? They are packed with threads about fathers of families not being able/willing to do the most basic things necessary to keep the family running smoothly- not being able to cook, or put children to bed.....there are hundreds of them. Things that anyone would be able to do- like making beans on toast without creating an enormous mess and failing to clean it up. Not like tiling or plastering, which are specialist skills, which, frankly, most men probably can't do either!

My default isn't that men are to blame, but I look at my friends and colleague and there is a definite theme of the men being crapper at home and with the kids than the women.

Perhaps my circle is wildly unrepresentative, but I see nothing in popular media, MN chats, sitcoms etc to think that actually it's all the people I know who are unusual