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.

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

Some radfems overlap with the anarchist movement, some with eco-warrior culture, some communism, etc

That's not really selling radical feminism for me.

Whereas saying, heterosexuality ISN'T your only choice, asks all sorts of questions and opens all sorts of doors

Does it ? What choice does it offer women who are not sexually attracted to women, other than celibacy/being single? I could imagine perhaps sharing a house in my later years as a friend with a woman but never as a sexual relationship.


[FuzzyEyes]

Lass
You asked if patriarchy was smashed and women were liberated from it - what would replace it - right?
"I'm sure I've asked that several times on other threads - not had an answer."
The reason I think you aren't getting a satisfactory answer is because your idea of what Patriarchy is isn't very clear - and possibly at odds with what most other people think.
It seems to be something vague and sweeping like Patriarchy=the current liberal economic model, or Patriarchy = secular politics, or Patriarchy = Capitalism.... So when you are asking what would replace Patriarchy, its not obvious what you are actually asking.

"those who would otherwise be sexually exploited in a patriarchy, I imagine their fate may be replaced by meaningful work- no?"
No. Sorry that just sounds like a soundbite.

I personally used the term 'meaningful work' as one of the many options available to someone who is currently sexually exploited in male-sexual-entitlement-servicing industries. I don't have a particular bee in my bonnet about everyone having a meaningful graft. I could have equally used a different possible future. Eg- with the end of sexual exploitation there will be healthier self-image for those women.

[FuzzyEyes]

Some radfems overlap with the anarchist movement, some with eco-warrior culture, some communism, etc

"That's not really selling radical feminism for me."

I have zero interest in selling radical feminism to you . I am just saying that different radfems have different overlapping ideas and lifestyles, eg - Civil Rights or whatever. They are not a homogeneous group with one clear agenda - well - apart from the agenda to liberate women and girls from male domination.

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

The reason I think you aren't getting a satisfactory answer is because your idea of what Patriarchy is isn't very clear - and possibly at odds with what most other people think

I have idea of what "the patriarchy " is. I have little interest in the "patriarchy" I don't feel oppressed by the patriarchy and I don't think my life choices have been constrained by the patriarchy. No doubt someone will be along soon to tell me I'm deluded.

I see references on here to it being smashed. No one seems to be able to say what happens when it's smashed beyond the odd poster ( in the sense of rare rather than peculiar )who is in favour of some sort of Marxist utopia.

[FuzzyEyes]

"I have idea of what "the patriarchy " is."

Please tell ....

The fact that you put 'the' in front of it shows you have reified the concept.... why do you put a 'the' at the front? What do you think Patriarchy is? Do you think it is some kind of self-contained concrete thing?

[FuzzyEyes]

"in favour of some sort of Marxist utopia."

I suppose most radical politics criticising systemic inequalities is fairly Marxist in theory.

[FuzzyEyes]

"I have little interest in the "patriarchy" I don't feel oppressed by the patriarchy and I don't think my life choices have been constrained by the patriarchy."

Because it makes it a bit of a nonsense the way you say 'the patriarchy' - I am going to replace it with 'male domination'...

"I have little interest in male domination I don't feel oppressed by male domination and I don't think my life choices have been constrained by male domination."

Well lucky you lass - maybe spare a thought for the billions of women and girls around the world who are oppressed and constrained by male domination eh? Its not all about YOU is it!?!

[FuzzyEyes]

"I have little interest in the "patriarchy" I don't feel oppressed by the patriarchy and I don't think my life choices have been constrained by the patriarchy."

Because it makes it a bit of a nonsense the way you say 'the patriarchy' - I am going to replace it with 'male domination'...

"I have little interest in male domination I don't feel oppressed by male domination and I don't think my life choices have been constrained by male domination."

Well lucky you lass - maybe spare a thought for the billions of women and girls around the world who are oppressed and constrained by male domination eh? Its not all about YOU is it!?!

[FuzzyEyes]

apologies for the double post

[SomeDyke]

"Does it ?" Yes. Next question please.............

"What choice does it offer women who are not sexually attracted to women, other than celibacy/being single?"
The very way you have phrased the question assumes that 'sexual attraction' is something innate or fixed. Exactly what people are sexually attracted to (apart from simple probably biologically determined things like symmetry, youth etc) is almost infinitely variable. So why assume that the sex you are attracted to is less flexible? There is actually a whole load of work and experience from women and feminists on this issue, which I obviously can't reproduce (hah, good pun potential there!) here.

Framing it is a 'choice', or lack of choice...........Well, there are plenty of women I have known who chose celibacy. There are plenty of women throughout history who chose celibacy, and literally took the veil as the only way they could pursue a more meaningful existence (it wasn't just a matter of religious belief to enter the cloister).

Single women can still have babies. Single women can still have a set of female friends/companions with whom they can have significant emotional (but not sexual) relationships. There are lots of other possibilities for women who choose not to invest their time and energy in pursuing sexual and/or emotional relationships with men, but instead focus their energies on women.

Look at it this way. If it wasn't for their reproductive function, and for 'sexual attraction', why seriously would you advise any supposedly straight woman to bother with men, given the state of society?

As we might have expected, the movements of the 70s and 80s seem to have regressed back towards the mean, where the nuclear family is still the norm, and many gay men and lesbians are fitting in to the same mold.

[Amaia10]

SomeDyke - yes but the "sexual attraction" thing is not something that any amount of theorising is ever likely to dispel - let's face it!

[almondpudding]

I don't think there are anywhere near as many people living in nuclear families as there were in the seventies.

I don't think sexual relationships are as important to many women as some posters on here are making out.

Once women were given the opportunity to be single without major consequences, very large numbers of them chose to do so.

[LassWiTheDelicateAir]

I don't think sexual relationships are as important to many women as some posters on here are making out

I agree with that. What I don't agree with that sexual attraction is as flexible as some would make out.

So why assume that the sex you are attracted to is less flexible?

Well it is not for me. I have no attraction sexually to other women. The points SomeDyke you mention are all perfectly valid grounds for being single but have nothing to do with sexual attraction.


Look at it this way. If it wasn't for their reproductive function, and for 'sexual attraction', why seriously would you advise any supposedly straight woman to bother with men, given the state of society?

Yes, let's just not bother with 50% of the population or our sons, fathers, brothers, male friends. Sorry, but I find that question ridiculous and divorced from reality.

Well lucky you lass - maybe spare a thought for the billions of women and girls around the world who are oppressed and constrained by male domination eh? Its not all about YOU is it!?!

In the context of this thread , apart from OP's original posts, there are several posts which strike me as little more than whinging about "wife work" and "unpaid labour" involved in rearing "husband's" children from which a SAHM gets no benefit. If that is what you think how do you propose addressing it? What are you going to put in place?

[Amaia10]

Almond - I agree with you, however choosing to be single, or even celibate, is a totally different thing to reassessing your sexual orientation.

For me, there are definitely aspects of relationships with men than I simply could not see myself getting in a relationship with a female, even if I could become sexually attracted to women. I would rather be single than be in a destructive relationship with a man though - of course.

[almondpudding]

I don't really have an opinion on how easy or difficult it is to change sexual orientation.

I'm just not convinced sexual attraction in general is a particularly Important part of many women's lives. So much of relationships seems to be about social approval, companionship and support networks. All three of those needs can be met through other social relationships that are not about sexual attraction at all.

[almondpudding]

Although I am now intrigued! What do you get out of a relationship with a man but not a woman that is not about sexual attraction?

Both being genetic parents of one child I suppose.

[FuzzyEyes]

there are several posts which strike me as little more than whinging about "wife work" and "unpaid labour" involved in rearing "husband's" children from which a SAHM gets no benefit. If that is what you think how do you propose addressing it? What are you going to put in place?

What are you asking here?
Are you asking - what do you propose to address/ what will you put in place of a) women doing an unfair share of domestic drudgery, b) women being disadvantaged in their careers by taking time out to raise children, c) women being financially abused by their male partner d) cultural sexism setting an expectation that men won't have to consider childcare because it is automatically seen as a woman's responsibility?

It is obvious to me that there is no one way of addressing these things all at once- they are ongoing problems - however a lack of easy answers doesn't mean the problems don't exist and is not a reason to not to try to resolve them, and it doesn't mean that it is difficult to imagine an alternative to each.

Or are you simply asking whether SAHMs can be happy with the 'traditional' sex roles?

I would say a lot of SAHMs can be happy - unless the husband at some point abuses his position and she finds herself hugely disadvantaged (eg- abandons her).

[WilLiAmHerschel]

I know loads of feminists, myself included, who think that should their current relationship with a man end for whatever reason, we wouldn't be that fussed about finding another. Given that attaining any sort of equality in relationships takes such hard work. Some kind of FWB arrangement would suit me fine in those circumstances. Friendship and sex, no domestic labour for anyone but myself.

I've often thought this myself. I feel exactly the same. Not because my relationship is bad but because I know it's hard to come by.

[Amaia10]

almond - oh god, now you're making me rack my brains

Obviously I can only speak for myself and it's quite hard to put into words, but I suppose it's a kind of "otherness" if that make sense? Of course men vary hugely and there's little point in generalisations, so I'll try and describe how DH and I relate. 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. Also, because we have quite polarised perspectives and motivations (eg. he's very driven, straightforward, goal-focused where I'm more intuitive etc) it means that things don't get too claustrophobic, emotionally and psychologically because we balance each other out. I think in a relationship with a woman (even one with a very different personality to my own), all the intuitiveness or "sameness" would be too intense and suffocating for me because I could empathise with her too much. Also (and not all men have made me feel like this) he does make me feel protected in a physical sense. I know a lot of women don't like to admit this (and I get the point that it's basically other men who create the threat towards women that exists in the world anyway), but it is what it is and another woman would not make me feel like that. It's hard to unravel the part of male/female psychology where these instincts reside, I suppose.

Does this make any sense? I'm sure there are many other things too

[almondpudding]

Well, I can relate to absolutely none of it whatsoever, but you did explain it clearly.

Have you considered that the reason other women don't admit it is because none of that is actually true for many of them?!

[sorenofthejnaii]

If you are in a same sex relationship and you have children, do people find that the sharing of house / family work is shared more evenly - or does one person still do more of that kind of work?

[Amaia10]

Well I've no idea - as I say that's a personal perspective and I've never really canvassed opinion!

[almondpudding]

It was just that by saying women didn't like to admit it, that implies other women feel the same way!

[Amaia10]

Oh I see what you mean - sorry I was driving. That was specifically about the protectiveness thing - it can be hard to admit to if it exists within a hetero relationship because it can Sound like an admission of "weakness" or something like that. I only mention it because it's something that I do not imagine would characterise a same sex relationship.

I should also say we have 3 kids and I've been a SAHM for 12 years - so please make if that what you will