As regular readers know, one text I’ve relied on a lot in recent semesters in my women’s studies classes is Lynn Phillips, Flirting with Danger. A sociology/psychology text, it’s a masterful study of young women’s profoundly conflicted feelings about sexuality, gender roles, and power. Like many social scientists, she talks too much about "discourses", but that’s forgiveable.
In any event, it was in the process of teaching Phillips that I realized something about a great many of my students. One key reason why many of the young women whom I teach remain reluctant to embrace feminism is simple, sad, and profound: they are convinced that living a feminist life will leave them lonely. As tempted as they are by a vision of themselves as empowered, active, assertive agents, far too many of my students are genuinely convinced that to live as feminists will make it nearly impossible for them to find and sustain a loving relationship with a man.
When I first started teaching women’s history, I figured my main obstacle to getting my students to embrace the feminist label was the set of negative stereotypes about feminists as "angry, hairy, and man-hating." This doesn’t mean that I refuted all of these stereotypes directly; after all, teaching young women to get in touch with their righteous anger is an important feminist task. And questioning the cultural norm about women and body hair is also important, even as we acknowledge (as we’ve been doing in the blogosphere this week) that feminists can have different views on personal grooming! But for the most part, I figured that students were anxious not to associate themselves with what they saw as these unattractive, unpleasant stereotypes.
But I’ve come to see — more and more in recent years — that for so many of my community college students, the real fear is not of the feminist label. The real fear is that embracing feminism will make it impossible for them to find and sustain a lasting relationship with a man. What they are hungry for — and what a male professor can’t offer them, regardless of his marital status — is female feminist role models who blend successful heterosexual relationships with their activism. Obviously, this is heterosexist. But while a certain small percentage of my students are sexually and romantically drawn to other women, the clear majority are "straight." And even among the most ambitious, it is not patronizing to point out that for a great many of my female students, a major life goal is an enduring, fulfilling, satisfying relationship with a man. (I often have students admit this apologetically, as if they are "letting down the side" by expressing romantic longings.)
The dilemma for feminist professors is obvious. On the one hand, if we spend a great deal of time reassuring our female students that a commitment to feminism is easily compatible with heterosexual romance, we end up reinforcing the questionable notion that sexual relationships are the ultimate source of human happiness. On the other hand, in a fiercely anti-feminist world, we may be tempted to down play the very real consequences of embracing a feminist life. The fact is that some men, maybe even a great many men, will be put off by a woman who is an authentic feminist. To pretend otherwise, and promise an endless supply of thoughtful, egalitarian, hot men just looking for a true feminist woman would be, well, a colossal misrepresentation of reality.
Yet if we try to dissuade our students from focusing on relationships and romance, we end up invalidating their very real fears and desires. Too many women I’ve taught have heard the line "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle", and said to themselves "Damn, there must be something wrong with me for wanting a bicycle so badly!" Yes, we feminists ought to question the centrality of the heterosexual discourse in young women’s lives. Yes, we ought to challenge many of their preconceptions about romance, sex, love, and marriage. But we must do so without dismissing or shaming the very real desires that so many of these young women have for these very basic things.
In recent semesters, addressing the fear of loneliness has become a chief priority in my women’s studies classes. It’s vital work because it meets the concerns of many of my students — who frequently come to the course with a great deal of ambivalence (and ignorance) about feminism and women’s liberation. One articulate student wrote in her journal this semester:
I am not sure I want to be a feminist. I believe in feminist ideals, but I’m terrified that claiming the name of feminist will doom me to ending up as an old lonely "cat lady"! I want to be an independent, strong woman. I want a career and I want to be a mom. I’m scared that if I’m too feminist, I will end up alienating a potential husband. What I want to know is, can feminists really have it all? Or is it about choosing between either a great relationship with a man or having this amazing single feminist life? Because honestly I know I’d rather have the first one, even though that is hard to admit. But I really want both.
Bold emphasis mine. One thing we can all do better as "public feminists": blog more about how we mesh our politics with our marriages and romances and partnerships. Gay or straight, monogamous or polyamorous, we need to set examples for how we reconcile our beliefs and our private lives. With all respect to my lesbian sisters and gay brothers, this is a particularly important task for those who are heterosexually partnered. It is not that single men and women can’t be good feminist role models! And it’s not that singleness and loneliness always go together. But when so many of our aspiring feminists admit that the fear of loneliness is a chief factor in their reluctance to embrace the feminist label, we’ve got to meet that problem proactively and publicly.
I know this is only anecdotal, but among the straight women I know, those who have the most fulfilling personal relationships are the feminist women.
I don’t believe that is accidental - the feminist women I know ask that their needs be met, negotiate with their partners to make the relationship healthy and fulfillng for both of them. These women are able to openly discuss gender roles and expectations with their partners in ways that are empowering for both.
It’s funny. In my list of the five things feminism has done for me, one of the biggies was:
Feminism has given me the opportunity to be happy as a married woman and to enjoy all my relationships with male friends and colleagues, knowing that I interact with them from a position of equality.
One point that a lot of feminist bloggers note is that non-feminist women are often more likely to resent men than feminists are. Non-feminist women are more likely than feminists to be in unequal marriages. Inequality breeds resentment. Resentment is divisive and is bound to make a marriage unhappy.
One way to think of it I suppose is in terms of cost-benefit analysis. Is it worth it to you to stifle your ideals and your desires for autonomy and equality in order to be with a man who doesn’t value those things?
I seriously doubt that an arguement that feminist heterosexual coupling is MORE important in society is showing “all respect to my lesbian sisters and gay brothers.” But I do believe it is more important to you.
How about we go back and reposition these assumption to say that a lot of women want a lifelong partner, one who respects thier feminist views, regardless of thier orientation. Is the nature of “partner” one who not only compliments but challenges us? As for models, hasn’t there been married feminists; activists; suffragists for the last 200 years. Do we not stand on the shoulders of our mother and grandmothers?
This is a different age than 40 or 20 years ago, and I think men know that, as much as you feel that male-kind is not up to the challenge of having a life partner with a functioning brain. Men know when dating that telling a woman she will be “cared for” and “homemaking will be her life” isn’t going to make a big impression on either his date OR his date’s parents. True, couples may not always agree, but, hey, I’m assuming they are both human. People in love learn to repect each other’s positions, and often, particularly for those students who are at university, dating those at university, they degrees of seperation just aren’t that extreme.
Have a little faith in the potential of people to grow, individually and collectively, and while you’re there, realize that having a prominant feminist gay couple may be equally inspiring to the idea of love, commitment and growth in companionship as a heterosexual couple.
I can’t say those fears aren’t real. Even among men who I would describe as liberals that I know, the term feminist, when applied to women, is a real romantic turn off - it’s really hard to sustain the devotion to someone whose philosophy in life is dedicated to their independence from you.
I would say a feminist heterosexual marriage is not so much about the woman wanting to be totally independent from the man. It is about rejecting the old model of female dependence in favor of a new model of mutual interdependence. Also, in a feminist marriage, the form that mutual interdependence takes is not dictated by gender roles but by the individual qualities (strengths, weaknesses, needs, and predilections) of the parties.
Here’s my uninformed $0.02.
Feminism, to me, is not about independence from men, hatred of men, rejection of men, repulsion by men, or ‘ew ew men are icky!’ It’s about me. Or rather, being treated as an actual human being rather then, say, a cow, a bauble, a blow up doll, a punching bag, or an extremely slow child.
This simplifies the issue greatly (again, perhaps only for me.) I don’t want to be with *anyone*- man, woman, hermaphrodite- who does not treat me like a human being. *If* it is true that the VAST majority of men refuse to treat women like human beings, then I won’t lose much sleep over not having one of them clutched to my breast. Who the hell needs someone who’s just going to treat you like garbage? What am I missing in that case by not having one? Aggrevation? Stress? Abuse? Woo, big loss.
But *is* it true that most men are hostile to treating women with genuine respect? I don’t know.
I would also say that any reasonably intelligent person, while they may have a negative kneejerk to an incendiary term (she’s a SWINGER! She’s a DRUGGIE! OMG she’s a PAGAN! AAAAH! She’s a FEMINIST!) can still usually begin to see past that when they get to know the other person on an individual level.
I don’t know if that would comfort your students, but that’s my take on it.
What would comfort my students most (and I’ve asked them about this) is concrete examples of succesful feminist marriages, particularly among folks from their ethnic backgrounds. (My students are overwhelmingly first-generation college students and non-white.) I think feminist bloggers who are in romantic relationships need to blog about how their feminism is lived out.
Then there’s the other perception, that most feminist men are white and middle or upper-middle class. That complicates things for those of my students who want to embrace radical egalitarianism in their personal relationships while marrying someone from within their own ethnic group.
I can’t stress enough how powerful and real this fear of loneliness is for so many of my students, and we mustn’t ignore or dismiss it.
I’m lucky enough to be in a heterosexual relationship with a young man who was raised by a radical feminist, just as I was. However, I always get the subtle message from friends and family that he’s “special” and “different” — this is often chalked up to his being European — and that it’s far-fetched to assume that any other male, especially one raised in the U.S., would be attracted to me based on the way I look.
I’ve done a lot of work on my own confidence, and I reject most traditional “feminine” grooming, perfuming, etc… yet every time I am attracted to a male, I do find myself wondering if, just this once, I should try to make myself look “better” in order to attract him. Yikes.
Sounds like some of the more radical, non-grooming, non-perfuming types need to ask the age old question, “would your rather be right or would you rather be happy?”
Thechief, that’s too simple and it’s a cheap shot. I’m not talking about giving into culturally mandated expectations for appearance. Really, this post isn’t about grooming or perfume. It’s about selling out your most basic sense of yourself in order to make a relationship work — and too many women fear that’s what they will have to do.
Which is why I started my post with “some of the more radical” etc, etc. Personally speaking, I don’t have much of a problem dating a woman with convictions different from mine as long as she’s amiable about it. Not meaning to take the thread some place you didn’t mean for it to go, but women who reject “traditional feminine grooming–as Bianca put it in the post above me–yeah, I think many are going to have a choice to make.
Most faith-based discourse on marriage begins by insisting that partners in truly authentic and fulfilling marriages have to begin by letting go of some of their more exaggerated expectations of romance — like the expectation that a heterosexual union will be enough to ward off all feelings of loneliness all the time.
Please don’t mistake what I’m saying as being dismissive of your students’ fear of being lonely. That fear ABSOLUTELY has to be heard.
What I *am* saying, is that very conservative discourses that are very pro-marriage address that fear by pointing out that marriage alone will not actually keep you from being lonely, and that once you grasp that fact, marriage itself becomes more workable. Why is it wrong for feminism to say the same thing?
I am concerned not so much with the idea that guys won’t want a feminist girlfriend, as with the idea that I won’t be able to put up with a non-feminist guy–does feminism raise my standards to unrealistically high levels? Is my generation going to spend our youth waiting for guys to catch up with more enlightened views of women (as seems to be happening in Japan–see the recent book “Shutting Out the Sun”)? On the other hand, I’m sufficiently homely and ornery that I’m glad feminism has given me the notion that I will be okay if I’m single forever.
As for, the chief’s question: would you rather be right or would you rather be happy?
Personally, I care far more about my dignity than I do about my happiness (although as one of the feminine feminists, I am not talking about personal grooming in particular). But I don’t think it is at all an either/or dichotomy. One of the points I was trying to make above is that a person can’t be happy if she is compromising her ideals or her sense of self-worth. So, in my view, stifling one’s feminism in order to be with a man will likely lead to no good. But there are plenty of men who are more attracted to the confidence and independence that feminism inspires in women.
As for the grooming issue, I can’t quite speak to that as my grooming habits are conventional. But most non-feminine women I have known (including those who forego shaving) have done quite nicely in the romance department either with men or with women. Perhaps the pool of interested men may be smaller, but it is there.
Great comment, Emily H. I remember feeling so disillusioned when I broke up with my college boyfriend. When I first met him, he seemed so fun and with it. But over the course of our relationship, it became increasingly obvious that he had deeply misgoynist and sexist views that led directly to a fundamental lack of respect for me.
My concern as a feminist was not “How can I get men to like me?” My concern was: “Oh my god, what if all men are like that?” Thank goodness, they’re not all like that.
Being single (whether you’re happy about it or not) is *always* better than being unhappily married.
I agree with both Happy and prefer not to say. I am happily married to a man who knew I was a feminist long before we even started dating (we were friends for 8 years). And marriage doesn’t solve loneliness–that’s going to happen off and on all our lives. I had decided that I’d rather be single than in a bad marriage, and I was single for 36 years. For the most part I loved being single just as for the most part I love being married. Just as there were times I wished for the intimacy and companionship of marriage, there are now times I wish for sole control of the checkbook and the remote. ;) I think if you know what you want in a man (or partner) and are realistic about what marriage is and is not, then you’ll be fine. I knew I wanted a man who was intelligent and supported me in my calling as a writer and pastor and respect me. He also had to like cats. When he told me I was “intellectually sexy” I knew I’d spend the rest of my life with him. :)
Oh, yes. An old friend of mine always says “It’s better to be lonely than to wish you were”, which seems silly until you’ve actually been in the latter position.
Hugo,
Please remind your students that there are plenty of men out there that desire a positive relationship with an equal. I can’t think of any of my buds that have said to me, “R, I want a woman that will be completely dependent on me.” One that I will have to carry the rest of my life. ”
Honestly, we want women that will be our partners, in raising a family, in business, in life. Someone that has common compatible goals with us. We don’t want helpless or dependent or some weak subservient woman. And there are lots.. yes, lots of us out there like that.
What I believe most men don’t want, is a woman that will filter every thing men do, every action they take through a lens of feminist ideology, which to many men, amounts to distrust. Yes, I realize that not all feminist woman do this, but perception is everything.
does feminism raise my standards to unrealistically high levels?
I have always tried to act under the assumption everyone is feminist until proven otherwise - realistically, many men may be sexist, but I don’t expect them to be on first meeting, any more than I expect them to be thieves or liars; I expect them to behave like decent human beings. And in terms of dating, this expectation seems to filter out almost all of the ones who don’t, long before we approach a serious relationship.
Logically, you shouldn’t be able to wish feminist men into existence by assuming they exist, but in practice, it does honestly seem to work that way. The best advice I can ever offer a feminist my age or younger who’s worried about het romance is this: don’t ever listen to anybody who tells you you’re “lucky” to have a feminist boyfriend, or that he’s “special” for not being a misogynist. Hopefully, he is special - but not because he’s not sexist, or because he doesn’t beat you, or because he takes you seriously. That’s the bare minumum anyone deserves. The more convinced you are of that fact, the easier it is to find guys like that. Take feminism for granted, and you attract more feminists. It’s not exactly fair that it works that way, but in my experience, it does.
(And when you find him, resist the urge to brag about him to other women. Not that I’m not tempted, myself, but really, Hey, my boyfriend is totally feminist! ought to be like, Hey, my boyfriend doesn’t cheat on me! Yes, it’s nice, but treating it like it’s exceptional is not wise. Even if it is - don’t reinforce it.)
it’s really hard to sustain the devotion to someone whose philosophy in life is dedicated to their independence from you
Wow, that’s kind of sad.
Perception is indeed everything–prominent feminist bloggers who have male partners are derided as worthless sluts, public feminist figures have their relationships ignored. Andrea Dworkin had a life partner for over two decades, fercryingoutloud.
I certainly make it clear that feminism is about learning to be both independent and capable of “interdependence”. Interdependence, as any MFT will tell ya, involves the ability to make commitments and experience intimacy without a loss of identity or self. To quote Rilke: A good marriage is that in which each appoints the other guardian of his solitude.
Not sure if old Rainer was a feminist, but he “got” it.
Good straight men, who see their partners as equals and understand there’s negotiation that must go on, are not in my experience all that rare. They, perhaps, don’t choose the label feminist; which for me is sort of irrelevant. I’ve heard misogynists use the label feminist to insist on their right to sleep with you… (monogomy is so patriarchy, baby).
My husband doesn’t call himself “feminist” (frankly is a little confused by what the label means, and even though I’ve been reading feminist sites for 2 years now, and books forever, I cannot really help him. *g*) Yet if feminism is the radical notion that women are people, he walks the walk to make sure that women are at the table more than any other person I’ve met, including myself. So, I dunno. What’s in a label?
Most of my friends identify as feminist and it’s never scared our partners off - we’re all in happy long term partnerships, too. (And before that, dated.)
If Gonz were correct that those of us who identify as feminists spend our whole lives trying to create distance between ourselves and the men in our lives, I am very sure we would have more issues with dating. But we don’t, and so it’s not.
Dunno. I’ve never noted feminist woman I know go unpartnered for long. The women in my life tend to be pretty clear on their own life goals, and there are fewer games than when we were young and unsure of ourselves and society. I’ve had guys who wouldn’t have called themselves feminists say to me that they’re bloody relieved to be spoken to without games; the gender role games also cause a lot of weird shit regarding men. Like “girls” are supposed to check out a man’s shoes, or wait for him to call, or not initiate sex, or demand the guy pays for the coffee. With me it’s pretty WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get); the mystery part is in the presentation, not the message.
I don’t say such gender role classics such as: “You know what you did…” or “If you really loved me you’d…” because I have more *power* than that. My partners have always known that I can in fact take care of myself, and will.
I don’t need my parter, I WANT him. To many of men, feminist or not, being WANTED, not needed, is way more awesome. I am not tied with chains of dependence and economy, so every day I’m here, and every night too, I’m here because I love and like and respect my partner. I choose. That’s an awesome thing for anyone to have: I wouldn’t want a partner to be with me just because they needed ME, either.
All of that being the case, and I imagine no one wants to go on a date where their partner is on a soap-box the whole time; whether that be feminist, economic, sports-related, religious, political, environmental, or whatever. I think I’m hearing the idea that feminists will be one-dimensional. Certainly there are such people. There are also one-dimensional sports fans. One dimension is hard to cope with.
You know, I can tell you exactly why I don’t work out in “relationships” and why I am pretty clear to those women I date that if they are looking for one to move on and look elsewhere - I’m pretty set in my ways, and unwilling to compromise myself or my independence to be in one. What I actually demand is really radical equality, and independence. Dates, laughs, weekends -great. Give up my lifestyle, my financial independence, my ability to come and go as I please - to answer to someone? Pass. Just not me. I’ve raised my kids, for the most part. What time I have left is mine.
As far as the radical equality goes, - well, I will be dipped if I will be involved with a woman who requires me to support her. Just won’t do it. Have a job - have a house - and pay your bills, because I ain’t helping out if you can’t make the car payment except in a few extreme circumstances, ones in which I might be inclined to help out anyone. I don’t want to make anyone else’s decisions - I have my own life to run, thank you very much. I want to be told what someone wants directly instead of reading hints. I don’t want a mother - I’m grown up. I can clean my own house, wash my own clothes, and do my own dishes, and you will have to look long and hard to find someone who cooks better than me.
There is give and take on that. A few really nice women have walked down the road - and well and good they did, too. I’d have made them miserable, as some of the women who figured they could “change” me, and lied to us both, found out. Of course, I’ve dodged a lot of bullets that way too, so things even out. But, all in all, I behave like a feminist in a lot of respects. I decide what is good for me. I don’t compromise on things. I maintain a fierce independence, making it clear that the other person is not needed, and a part of my life that may be disposed of at any time - perhaps with regret, but still disposable.
I can’t tell you what makes a lasting marriage or relationship. I have had three divorces. I’m pretty sure, though, that I am qualified to speak of how NOT to conduct relationships, though, or marriages. So understand, I ain’t bustin’ chops - I am no damn better. But I admit it.
Now, if you really think you can sustain such mutually contradictory positions as independence and interdependence, compromise and integrity, and other such things - go ahead. I won’t begrudge anyone the right to practice or believe six impossible things before breakfast every day if they want. I just don’t see it happening.
I maintain a fierce independence, making it clear that the other person is not needed, and a part of my life that may be disposed of at any time - perhaps with regret, but still disposable.
Is this one of those things you think constitutes behaving like a feminist? Because that’s a new one on me.
I’ve personally always found being a feminist to be an asset in my own relationships. I think that there is a fairly strong social pressure on women not to be overly demanding in relationships, lest they drive away all the men, but it all depends on what’s considered “overly demanding”. The fact that my fiance takes me seriously, respects me, and doesn’t hit me aren’t high demands on my part. They’re actually pretty basic, and I am continually horrified by the idea that anyone would think that wasn’t the rock bottom minimum.
Also, my experiences have been a lot like sophonisba’s: if I assume other people share my ideas on equality, they seem to act accordingly.
And one more little thing: Hugo, I second the idea that it’s much better to be lonely than to wish you were. I’m going to go have a stiff drink and wince at the thought of my sixteen-year-old self now.
Gonz, you know, some of the time I think you and I are similar. Even though I don’t think it’s contradictory to have both independance and interdependance - if you find someone who is going the same general direction that you are.
You’ve eloquently stated here your love and loyalty for some of your male friends; I imagine that you know very much what it takes to find and work a relationship under those parameters. It’s not so different for me, with my husband (and other close friends). We’ve got each other’s backs: but we choose that loyalty, you know? It doesn’t mean that we’re not our own people.
I sort of understand what you mean about people being “disposable”: although I think I’d probably frame it differently. Or maybe even not so much so: in the years before we got married, if we bought something together I’d happily work out with my husband what we’d do with it in the event of seperation. *g*. Always equitably, mind you - okay, if you get the bed, I’ll take the couch and pay you an extra $50. Hilarious. I was entering the waters of trust slowly, as I do with everyone. (Hey, ho, introversion!) Now I don’t do that anymore, but we’re both very much clear that we’re individuals who are choosing to be together.
I don’t need my partner in my life, I want him in my life; and if for some horrible reason it sucked to be together and we couldn’t get it back on track together, then we’d split up. So, yes, our relationship is disposable in some way. We’re both capable, fully grown adults who need to be who we are. If our relationship was preventing him from being himself, I’d want to try to make it work and negotiate space for him, within certain dealbreakers (that have been there the whole time), and if that didn’t work, I’d *want him to leave*. The same goes for me: if I needed to be or do something, we’d work out how I could do that in a way that respected his feelings, or I would leave - so that he could move on.
I don’t want to be with anyone who is doing it out of some societal expectation. I’ll fight for this relationship: *because* it’s not written in stone, it is breakable and temporal and fragile, I will do everything in my power to protect us and so will he. That means a lot of things; but it comes from the fact that we fundamentally see each other as people whom we’d fight to protect. What our relationship IS is, “I’ve got your back.” That means even when we’re pissed at each other.
Since I’ve read your posts about your friends with some head nodding, I don’t think we’re that far apart.
For me, feminism is a win-win situation since if you’re married then you get to be in a mutually satisfying relationship with someone who treats yu like an equal. And if you don’t, then you have the personal resources to be okay too, since you’re not being primarily defined by your relationship status. finding a life partner is hard in general, and ya the loneliness thing is SCARY even if it’s all in your head. don’t think it’s harder for feminists though.
“Then there’s the other perception, that most feminist men are white and middle or upper-middle class. That complicates things for those of my students who want to embrace radical egalitarianism in their personal relationships while marrying someone from within their own ethnic group.”
Maybe they should explore the works and lives of non-white middle class feminists, for example Indian/Hindu feminism. Though personal role models help better i guess. It must be hard to be a “first generation” feminist.
This is an important point. In my experience feminism does make it very hard for a lot of women to tolerate the sexist and misogyny of most men. If they do it makes the compromises they make even more painful, becuase they have to look that misogyny in the face. I don’t think you do your students any good from stepping back from that fact.
In the sexual world that I swim in, the three most important words are “Communicate, communicate, communicate.” Never assume anything. If you’re talking about something important (finances, household chores, expectations for children or your life together) and especially anything involving emotions (sex, kids, religion, marriage) you have to listen to the other person. Repeat and/or paraphrase their words so that you both know what they’re saying; have the other person repeat/paraphrase your words so that both of you understand what you’re saying. Before (and after, but before is very important) you legally and/or fiscally bind yourselves together, know what you’re getting into, and go into it with a clear mind and accept in sound mind what you are getting into.
Thing is, I don’t think that this sort of honesty and openness occurs without feminism. Feminism allows a woman to have resources to walk away if she decides that this isn’t what she wants. Feminism allows a woman to have the self-worth that she is a human being, gosh darn it, and the work in a relationship (which I throughly believe is work, though rewarding work) must be shared equitably. (Not equally, notice, but equitably.) Feminism has changed the world into a place where a woman can negotiate with her partner.
Being a white, middle-class woman engaged to a white middle-class man, I can’t provide a personal anecdote that would be helpful to your students. Maybe looking abroad, as another poster suggested, to memoirs written by women who are also dealing with first-generation feminist issues would help. And, making mistakes will also help. You may be given them the foundation from which they can leave when/if they find themselves in an unequal relationship and they find that they want more.
The notion that we (i.e., Western First World cultures) live in a “feminist-hostile world,” one where the vast majority of men are “misogynist” and see women as somehow “less that human,” etc., is utter nonsense and IMO one of the biggest problems here. Hugo, if this is what women’s studies programs are teaching then you’re not only promulgating myths and untruths, you’re your own worst enemy re. the topic of harmonious male/female relationships. You and some others here are once again painting all men with a broad stereotype based on an extreme, radical fringe; just like the people who see all feminists as ‘hairy, man-hating dykes’ do, and thus you’re no better than they are. I mean really, teaching women to embrace “righteous anger” is counterproductive - I know of not one single man (or woman for that matter) who wants to be in a relationship with a woman who is angry at him and his kind. Besides, women in First World nations have very few real issues to be righeously angry about anymore, thanks to First and Second Wave feminism, and certainly no more than men worldwide have. In fact, I’d argue that the scales have tipped and if any gender deserves to be “righteously angry,” it’s men.
Most men see and treat women as “fully human,” but like any “fully human” person they also have wants, needs, etc., and thus rightfull sees a woman who wants to “have it all” as someone who is completely self-absorbed and unwilling to share. Relationships are give and take, but people who need to “have it all” are very good at taking and not at all good at giving. And under those conditions why the heck would any man want to commit to a relationship with a woman who would be a slavemaster and who has the full weight of the mechanisms of society (e.g., the justice, law enforcement, and legislative systems, etc.) at her disposal to wield the whip at her evey whim.
Shawna wrote “Just as there were times I wished for the intimacy and companionship of marriage, there are now times I wish for sole control of the checkbook and the remote.” and I couldn’t agree more: Marriage should be give and take and is neither a guarantee against lonliness nor a sentence of complete dependence of one partner on the other. I don’t subscribe to “interdependence” as much as I do the concept of complimentarity; partners should compliment each other, not compete with, dominate, exploit, abuse, etc. However, when it comes to domination, exploitation, abuse, etc., the fact is that women have always given as good as they’ve got, however, now they have the full-force of society supporting and enabling them to do so. Thus, it is any wonder why men avoid partnering with women who they percieve will exploit the system that enables them to indulge in such things? This ain’t rocket science folks.
I’m pretty set in my ways, and unwilling to compromise myself or my independence to be in one.
So this is OK when it’s your philosophy, but bad when it’s a woman’s?
In my experience feminism does make it very hard for a lot of women to tolerate the sexist and misogyny of most men. If they do it makes the compromises they make even more painful, becuase they have to look that misogyny in the face. I don’t think you do your students any good from stepping back from that fact.
This is what we call a jerk filter. :)
Arwen, even though I use “disposable” as a shock word, and anti-euphemism - it is an accurate term.
Off, damn italics!
So this is OK when it’s your philosophy, but bad when it’s a woman’s?
Much as I hate to quote myself - from the exact same post, but:
“So understand, I ain’t bustin’ chops - I am no damn better. But I admit it.”
Helps to read the whole thing and not just what you want to hear.
The problem is not the belief that romantic relationships are important. The belief that is problematic is that romantic relationships are the primary source of happiness in female lives. As far as I know, there’s no notion that men are completely fulfilled by women as vice versa. Maybe that’s a teaching moment for those students—point out that women are led to believe that “get a man/keep a man” is their primary goal in life, which is an insult to them.
My heart breaks for your students, because the source of the notion that non-submission runs off men comes from a paranoid, male-dominated society. It’s insulting to men—that some embrace the insult (like in this thread) that they are too weak to partner with someone who has a mind of her own doesn’t change the fact that it’s insulting. As I see it, the patriarchy exploits ordinary concerns to oppress women. It’s like advertising—we can get that it’s exploitative of an ad to show the burger in slow motion without having to sign onto the idea that hunger is wrong in and of itself. Simply move that analysis to how ordinary sexual desire is exploited to make women unhappy.
Why do women think men can take us or leave us but we don’t have that opportunity? Men dominated sexual relationships because they had things other than sex and companionship that women needed—food, shelter, social status. If you can get those things on your own, the question isn’t how to get a man. The question becomes, you find out, how men can impress you without dangling dependence over your head.
I think feminist bloggers who are in romantic relationships need to blog about how their feminism is lived out.
I can’t help but joke that I did that and one better—I lured my man into blogging and he writes about feminist politics. One sticking issue that may cause this issue of the invisibility of straight feminists in happy relationships is very few of us actually show off our status. Our society needs constant reassurance of a woman’s marital status, so we have the “Mrs.” honorific, the name change, big honking diamonds, all sorts of ways to tell if a woman has a man. Feminists rightfully avoid this sort of thing—a lot of us get married but we don’t take on our husband’s names and we certainly don’t go by Mrs.-Not-A-Real-Citizen. It was mentioned upthread that the most notorious of the “hairy loud feminists” Andrea Dworkin had a partnership most of us would envy for the love and durability of it. But this truth is concealed for the reasons I mentioned, and the fact that the stereotype overwhelms it. And he’s a writer, too!
Sounds like some of the more radical, non-grooming, non-perfuming types need to ask the age old question, “would your rather be right or would you rather be happy?”
Not only did I get married at 21 to someone who would probably be very concerned if I started shaving, perfuming, wearing make-up, growing my hair past 1″, etc, but I’ve been happily married for 8 years. (Not that I consider my grooming stuff to be right or wrong, it just seems like most of that stuff is a huge bother.) And for that matter, the 4 or so years that I was romantically active before getting married certainly suffered from no lack of interesting interested males. It never occured to me that ‘feminist’ is a scary word to anyone but old people (which at the time probably meant anyone above the age of forty, child that I was). But I spent most of those four years in a cosmopolitan large city - I’ve certainly been given the impression that it can be a lot different elsewhere.
Okay, I was intrigued by the discussion, so I wrote a rambling post on it.
Amanda M.: “some embrace the insult (like in this thread) that they are too weak to partner with someone who has a mind of her own doesn’t change the fact that it’s insulting.”
I agree it’s insulting. Furthermore, I have re-read this thread, and I haven’t seen *anybody “embracing” the insult. If you think that’s what Gonzman’s after, for instance, then you didn’t read the same posts I did.
I really doubt that any even remotely half-sane man in the developed world is looking for a partner to be absolutely dependent upon him. Most men would flee that trap like Bambi from a forest fire. (Now, if we’re talking about some men looking for a surrogate Mommy, then maybe we’re on - *that pathology is rather more common.)
“Feminism” (please note scare quotes) is only a problem to the extent that it is perceived to be a rigid, puritanical ideology. Ironically, Feminist in-fighting only serves to *reinforce that perception, rather than to offer an image of multiple Feminisms. Nobody, and I mean *nobody*, wants to have their life measured by a hostile, reductionist mind-set. I have not experienced Feminism to be such a thing, but the stereotype is there, and real enough, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
For the record, I, and *every man I know personally, desires a partner who is clear about what s/he wants, independent-minded, forthright, unmanipulative, understanding, and *into us.* While we fully expect that we will grow in a relationship, *none of us* are wanting a drill-sergeant, a task-master, a parole officer, or judge, or inspector to shape us into *their model. This is the fear (I’m leery of potential partners with certain sorts of religious or political commitment for the same reason).
Oh, and wasn’t Andrea Dworkin’s relationship supposed to be asexual?
Please correct me if I am wrong in this instance.
Oriscus, I think you’re projecting onto Dworkin. I don’t know much about their sex life, but my guess is it was typical enough of any long marriage—hot sometimes, not so others. Thing is, conservatives promote an ideal of a sometimes celibate marriage to us, and rightly for once. Dworkin and her partner probably weren’t like hot and horny a lot as she was crippled and dying, but isn’t that part of the “in sickness and health” part of traditional marriage vows?
The funny thing is that most men in my life have openly said they are attracted to feminist women because they are wary of dependence. For Hugo’s request, my ex came from a traditional Hispanic family (he lived in Mexico for a long time) and he opposed female subservience. His open was, simply put, that male dominance was only a benefit in the relative sense, but he didn’t really like relative benefits. Who cares if you’re on top of women if you’re still knee deep in shit? So the notion that these ideas are white-only is not true in my direct experience.
And of course, there’s a big difference between being attracted to a feminist because you want an equal, interdependent relationship, and saying “I want to be with a feminist because I am fundamentally unreliable and the thought of anyone actually needing me freaks me out.” I once knew a young man who said exactly that, many, many years ago…
I was pretty sure that Dworkin was lesbian and Stoltenberg is gay. They were “life partners” but I too was under the impression that sexuality wasn’t a part of that relationship.
I might be a bit new to this party, but I think, for all the detailed, enumerated posts on this subject, a very important point may be getting overlooked: maybe men are deciding that if women are saying they don’t need/want men, that they are simply happy to go their own merry way and not give the matter a second thought.
I hear a lot of women here saying that they won’t abide by a guy who won’t let them be free, independent, and autonomous. However, the reverse never occurs to them, that a guy doesn’t want a woman who won’t let him be free, independent, and autonomous. Indeed, there are whole industries built around deriding and ensnaring guys who are “commitment phobic,” guys who won’t grow up, and throw away all their old hobbies and habits for a woman. Whole movies, stories, and magazines are devoted to “changing” men, and breaking them in for marriage. If this were a post concerning men’s love of, say, sports, or fishing, or car maintainace, eventually the majority (if not all) of women would say “it’s choice time: hobby or you.” However, make it a post about women who say “I want it my way all the time and if you don’t like it you can walk (and considering that I’m talking about feminism, I’m really being quite kind: I’m not in the swear filter testing mood tonight).” If, lo and behold, the guy reads the terms of the contract, and says “ok, see ya,” suddenly he’s deficient somehow?
The problem here is that 1) feminism has never ever been about equality, it’s been about female superiority. It’s been about punishing men for being born male, and making females a privliged unquestionable class. Every bad thing in the world that happens is either a male act of comission or omission. If two men rape a woman, then men are guilty for having created a culture which allows rape. However if a third guy drives by the alley where it’s happening, and doesn’t notice, then men are also guilty for making a society where he doesn’t leap out of the freakin car like superman and start beating the crap out of said rapists. Since men are always guilty, men can never be allowed to have any substantial power. This includes in relationships and marriages.
2)There’s no such thing as a truly equal relationship. Ok maybe there is, but it’s a rare rare thing. Most of the time, someone is calling the shots, and someone is following in some fashion. Even if two soldiers in the army are of the exact same rank, one might be a little stronger, a little smarter, or a little more experienced than the other one, and thus emerge as the leader. Most of the time, this is not a problem beyond finding team identity. When someone is my professor, I’m not trying to usurp his title as professor over me. If someone knows more than me on a subject, or is more experienced, then I’m glad to listen and gain knowledge and ability. If I’m driving somewhere with someone, and they know where the place is better than I am, I have no problem with letting them give me directions. However, when it comes to a feminist in a relationship, things are different: men are always guilty of something somewhere, and you can never ever allow a man to be in any position of power over you at all ever. However, someone has to be the decision maker in the relationship. Not because of any power trip or “masculine ego” or anything like that, but because two people sitting around just discussing stuff never got anything done. Someone has to say “ok we’re doing this, and that’s final.” If it can’t be the man, then it must be the woman. But wait! In the name of equality, if a woman won’t put up with a man putting his foot down for any reason regarding affairs which she is involved in, then why should any man put up with a woman putting her foot down in affairs which he is involved in?
Once again, the hypocrisy of feminism rears it’s ugly head: equality in a relationship is the word of the day, as long as the woman gets the last word with weight. Any relationship with the man getting any power at all over the woman is imbalanced somehow, she’s being oppressed, and he’s the oppressor. Add to this ugly mix of social status quos the facts that most women initiate divorce, most cities and states have “must arrest” laws in place with respect to Domestic Violence calls, executed with bias toward the man, that most women marry up (IE someone worth more than them), and most divorce laws favor women, and you can see how any man has a hard time taking a feminist at her word when she says “I just want to be independent.” In reality she wants to run the show and you’d better shut up if you don’t want John Law’s boot up yer back.
I agree it’s insulting. Furthermore, I have re-read this thread, and I haven’t seen *anybody “embracing” the insult. If you think that’s what Gonzman’s after, for instance, then you didn’t read the same posts I did.
Thank you, Oriscus, for reading.
See, my problem with being in a committed relationship of a permanant kind is that I am fundamentally too selfish a person to compromise; but if you want that kind of relationship, that is precisely what you have to do, and on many levels, and frequently. I am perfectly capable of doing things to please someone when it is easy, but to put them and their needs above my own, where it would cost me something? I do that for my kids, yeah, but I just don’t have that in me elsewise. I don’t know if it has been burnt out, beat out, or was never there to begin with, but it just isn’t something I even have the desire to do. It is just not worth it - I would rather be independent and alone than dependant on anyone for anything; and I feel like I’d be whoring myself out to compromise that just for the sake of companionship.
I just don’t have a need for that. I am very content being alone, and very comfortable with myself as company. I don’t feel “incomplete” without a woman in my life.
And if people feel like that, I say more power to them and go and do it - just be honest with yourself and others about it. I don’t waste the time of women who are looking for life partners. I am not equipped to give that to them, and I don’t even encourage them by having so much as coffee with them.
It’s a strange thing. Most of the feminist women I know actually *like* men, and have good relationships with men in their lives, despite the stereotype that feminism makes women bitter man-haters. Most of the anti-feminists I know, whether male or female, don’t actually like women.
Actually I was catching the “embracing the insult” as referring more to Mr. Bad’s comment than to anything by Gonz.
Reckless Ronin - you sure have a screwed up notion of male/female relationships. Of course in any given pairing there’s likely to be one partner who’s more forward or dominant, and one less so. If each is secure in themselves, it’s not a problem. My husband is definitely the dominant personality in our pair. This is not the equivalent of saying he dominates me. We each get a say in any decision that involves us both. We each maintain our independant hobbies - he goes off to do astronomy, or go to conventions, I go off to karate and competitions. Some things we do together. It’s the give and take of a relationship with an actual thinking/feeling person, instead of a cardboard cutout of the opposite sex.
The idea that a woman’s life is incomplete without a lifetime partnership is pervasive, but way overblown. As many have noted before, it’s lots better to be alone, than to be with someone that makes you miserable. Actually, as much as I love my husband, if I were suddenly not married for some reason (be it divorce, or death, or whatever), I seriously doubt I would ever partner up again. Even in the best of relationships there’s some serious give-and-take and compromise, and I can’t see doing it again, even if I don’t regret doing it the once.
Oh - and Gonz? I find your general hostility to things feminist puzzling, given that you’ve pretty much stated outright in this thread that the only woman you would consider for a relationship would have to be pretty fiercely independent - and probably feminist.
“Most of the anti-feminists I know, whether male or female, don’t actually like women.”
—Raincitygirl.
While it’s only personal experience, I’ve known women who have claimed to be feminists and openly stated there were other women that they didn’t like. Including Kristi, Gina, Holly . . .
Food for thought.
Yeah, you can say that they weren’t ‘real’ feminists, but try to convince THEM of that in person.
Sociopathic Revelation,
Gee, because being a feminist automatically means that one has to be everybody’s best friend.
Amanda Marcotte wrote: “Oriscus, I think you’re projecting onto Dworkin. I don’t know much about their sex life, but my guess is it was typical enough of any long marriage—hot sometimes, not so others. Thing is, conservatives promote an ideal of a sometimes celibate marriage to us, and rightly for once. Dworkin and her partner probably weren’t like hot and horny a lot as she was crippled and dying, but isn’t that part of the “in sickness and health” part of traditional marriage vows?”
Amanda, you don’t need to be insulting to Oriscus, who was in fact correct. At least get your facts straight if you’re going to attempt a low blow. I thought that Oriscus was correct so I took 2 minutes and checked.
From Wikipedia: “In 1974, she met pro-feminist writer and activist John Stoltenberg when they both walked out on a poetry reading[26] in Greenwich Village over misogynist material. They became close friends and eventually came to live together. Stoltenberg wrote a series of radical feminist books and articles on masculinity. Although Dworkin publicly wrote “I love John with my heart and soul”[27] and Stoltenberg described Dworkin as “the love of my life”,[28] she continued to publicly identify herself as lesbian, and he as gay. Stoltenberg, recounting the perplexity that their relationship seemed to cause people in the press,[29] summarized the relationship by saying “So I state only the simplest facts publicly: yes, Andrea and I live together and love each other and we are each other’s life partner, and yes we are both out.”
Dworkin and Stoltenberg were married in 1998; after her death, Stoltenberg said “It’s why we never told anybody really that we married, because people get confused about that. They think, Oh, she’s yours. And we just didn’t want that nonsense”.[30]
Not exactly the “typical” sex life you allude to above.
Cynthia Wood said:Actually I was catching the “embracing the insult” as referring more to Mr. Bad’s comment than to anything by Gonz.”
Really, what insult is that? Do you mean here:
Amanda Marcotte:“It’s insulting to men—that some embrace the insult (like in this thread) that they are too weak to partner with someone who has a mind of her own doesn’t change the fact that it’s insulting.”
The only insult I see here is the shaming tactic of Amanada, who plays on the tired old riff that any man who doesn’t want to partner with someone who acts more like a drill seargent than an equal partner is somehow “weak,” “afraid,” etc. Yet at the same time this whole thread is about the fundamental principle that women should not tolerate being with such men, or even feel pressure to do so. Oriscus nailed it: Like so many other issues, when it comes to relationships feminism isn’t about equality, it’s about female dominance and privilege. Femninsts have no problem with women being dominant in relationships but if a man is dominant - even by mutual agreement - then somehow the relationships is abusive, exploitative, insulting, etc.
I agree that women shouldn’t have to partner with men who don’t fit their ideals vis-a-vis relationships, but I’m willing to go one step further and accept - and even encourage - men to do the same. In this day and age men should not have to tolerate a woman who is out to change him to fit her mold of ideal hubby and provider. Sheesh, in this day and age men should be the ones “marrying up” or at least ‘marrying sideways’ and not even consider partnering with a woman who might become financially dependent, is weak willed (i.e., ‘needy’ and/or ‘high maintenance’), etc. Gonz demonstrates nicely the difference between men and women in this regard: Most men don’t worry and fret to their pals and classmates about being the old ‘dog men’ when they get old, they accept the fact that is the way they are and just do it; and most are relatively happy about it. So hey, maybe you could learn something from your brothers - if you want to be completely in charge, not play the give-and-take that is required for successful marriage, etc., I say go for it. Be you own person, be true to yourself.
And enjoy a rich and fulfilling life with your cats.
Oh - and Gonz? I find your general hostility to things feminist puzzling, given that you’ve pretty much stated outright in this thread that the only woman you would consider for a relationship would have to be pretty fiercely independent - and probably feminist.
Only relationship I would consider at all is - in the final analysis - temporary and/or short term. And you’d almost think so, but in the circles I run in, I don’t really find many feminists at all - at least socially, and I never mix business with my personal life.
I love how liking cats is supposed to be an insult. It doesn’t surprise me one bit that hateful misogynists loathe furry animals. You probably hate rainbows, music, and pretty much everything else that makes life good. Not all men hate cats, Mr. Bad, just as not all men hate women.
But you did prove my point, by the way, Mr. Bad, by equating a woman who doesn’t hate herself with a “drill sergent”. Anything but cringing self-loathing in a woman scares you like a man screaming in your face. I often wonder what would happen to such cowardly men if they had to live in a society where women aren’t taught to hate themselves.
“But you did prove my point, by the way, Mr. Bad, by equating a woman who doesn’t hate herself with a “drill sergent”. Anything but cringing self-loathing in a woman scares you like a man screaming in your face. I often wonder what would happen to such cowardly men if they had to live in a society where women aren’t taught to hate themselves.”
Happy October; straw men are in season.
Amanda provides an excellent example of why I (a single man) would tread cautiously around a self-described feminists: many are clearly paranoid and delusional, and I prefer people with a grasp on reality.
My world is filled with confident, achieving women. My state representative, state university president, US senator, governor, and US secretary of state are all women. Confident, achievement-oriented women are close to or above 50% of law and medical schools, and are earning a HUGE majority of academic degrees on every level. Cringing in self-loathing indeed!
Even in areas that women generally have no interest in (and therefore few enter the profession), such as aviation and high technology, women are in leadership positions, including the last 2 FAA Administrators (neither of whom were pilots, unlike all of their male predecessors) and HP executives Carly Fiorina and Patricia Dunn.
Where are women “taught to hate themselves?” Is it during “Take our Daughters to Work” day? Or is it the “Boys are Stupid, Throw Rocks at Them” t-shirts? Maybe it’s the “Grrrl Power!” stickers?
As far as “hating themselves,” and “cringing in self-loathing,” the bottom line is that men commit suicide at a 4:1 ratio to women.
I’m not saying it’s bad that women are achieving so much, but only that, under these conditions, it seems that subscribing to some branches of feminist ideology (men=oppressors=bad, women=victims=good) requires a significant detachment from current reality. I would consider a relationship with a feminist (after all, there are many branches of feminism, some of which I might agree with), but only one who seemed to grasp reality.
To save someone from taking the time to will provide statistics and such to refute mine: my point is that feminists and non-feminists live cognitively in two very different worlds. It’s not just about “women are people” or “women are equal,” just like most religions go beyond simply “the difference between good and evil.” And, like religion, feminists seem to run the gamut from really nice, kind-hearted people who run nursery schools and sponsor ice cream socials to angry suicide bombers (though feminists generally not physically violent).
Any time people live in such different worlds, it becomes difficult for people to coexist. It’s like an outspoken atheist marrying a missionary.
It seems that people like Amanda are convinced deep inside that the most fundamental truth about the world is that men are oppressors and women, except feminists, are self-loathing victims (or that feminists are also victims, but they’ve taken the magic pill and are aware of it), and their understanding of the world flows from that.
People who (like me) aren’t completely convinced that this exists to such an extreme degree in every society throughout history including our own have a hard time relating to people who are.
And, while Mr. Bad was responding rather roughly to someone else’s rough comments, it’s true that some women can be quite domineering in the home. But I’ve actually observed this mostly among very traditional non-feminist women.
But Amanda’s writing comes across very argumentative, angry, and irrational (as does mine on other forums sometimes), all of which are undesirable traits in a relationship partner of either gender. I think some feminists are not so abrasive. This whole thread seems to have degenerated into a group of schoolchildren calling names and throwing poop at each other, frankly, and I don’t know why I am posting in it.
Let’s keep this civil, folks. And I agree, nothing wrong with cats. As a dog, bird and rodent lover, felines are not my favorite pets — but I honor those who feel differently.
Umm - Mr. Bad? I’m married. Have been for fifteen years. And I’m allergic to cats. Besides, my basset would probably eat them.
My husband seems to have no problem with the non-submissive, non-dependant wife - in fact the few times I’ve done it he’s responded with “stop that!” pretty quickly.
Gonz - I do realize you’re saying you only want temporary relationships. What I’m saying, is that your descriptors of a woman you would consider such a relationship with are all ones that would apply to feminists disproportionately - leaving me to wonder what you’re arguing about. Your only gripe seems to be why a man would be interested in a woman devoted to her independence from him. Which is exactly where I think you get it wrong. Most feminists are devoted to maintaining their own integrity, even in the face of a relationship. It’s not about the guy, it’s about the state of her own soul.
Back to Mr. Bad. Your longer post is agreeing with Amanda point for point at the end - you’re just not seeing it. Girls and women frequently get sold on the idea that men will not like them if they’re feminist, and therefore they should compromise their integrity and values in order to catch and keep a man. Amanda is saying a) that’s not true, and b) not catching a man is better than catching one who will require you to compromise yourself (note: this is different than compromising over externals) in order to keep him. Which seem to be exactly what you’re saying.
Plus: independant woman =/= drill sargeant. Also noteworthy that I know a female drill sargeant (Marines). She’s very happily married, thank you.
Gonz - I do realize you’re saying you only want temporary relationships. What I’m saying, is that your descriptors of a woman you would consider such a relationship with are all ones that would apply to feminists disproportionately - leaving me to wonder what you’re arguing about. Your only gripe seems to be why a man would be interested in a woman devoted to her independence from him. Which is exactly where I think you get it wrong. Most feminists are devoted to maintaining their own integrity, even in the face of a relationship. It’s not about the guy, it’s about the state of her own soul.
I’m not arguing - I’m just saying. And I actually actively avoid self-identified feminists like I am sure they would avoid an MRA if they knew what he was, too. I think you’d be amazed how many women are out there who fit that bill who are not only not feminists, but would probably feel insulted if you called them one. (Though it is odd in a ironic to almost the point of perversion way that the converse is also true - I’d be an almost ideal match for what many feminists prefess to want.)
I’m not griping - it’s common sense. In my devotion to my integrity - my independence - any woman who wanted “forever” - house, Minivan, white picket fence, etc. - would have to be an idiot to seek it with me.
It would be possible, I suppose, if all kinds of things lined up right to be in an LTR with me, but it would be “in spite of,” know what I mean? Criminy, Cynthia - I’m not about to inflict myself on a woman looking for such things. I’m not fit for such things. If there was a successful relationship, I don’t see where it could be deep or meaningful - I reserve too much of myself, and for myself. It’s not in me to share of my life - maybe share what is left over after I take my “me time” out, but that isn’t the foundation for a mating of souls.
I don’t disbelieve in such things, either. It’s just not in my stars or my self - there may well have been a point in my life where it was, but we never connected, and such things are past. I don’t live in the past. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, might haves, and maybes don’t pay the bills, keep a roof over my head, or keep body and soul together.
I don’t see anything wrong with it, either. Other people do, and I get the patronizing “How sad for you” and of course the “You just need to find a good woman to complete you” (As if I am incomplete as a person as a single man, without a female keeper). It is just as aggravating. I actually sympathize with ya’ll on this, honest to God. And it took me a long time to see this, and making a lot of mistakes, and making me and several women miserable in the process. Society told me I was incomplete without a wife. HEcck, even my own daughter thinks that there is “someone” for me, though she has, thankfully, given up on trying to fix me up these past few years.
And if someone had told me this years ago, I’d have been equally as horrified, convinced that anyone could have worked things out and had a relationship, and so on. Heck, I married 3 times. I never intended to be a three time loser - I never went in there with the caveat “for now.”
Why be afraid of being single? Of not “catching a man?” So? There is life in singleness. There’s also a long and hard road if you try to be something you’re not - like I did. I’m 3 divorces, and half a million dollars poorer for banging my head against the wall trying to be a husband. I’ve left a string of disappointed and heartbroken women behind who have said “You are impossible to love!” and who haven’t thanked me for being so indepedant and reserved of myself. I wasted over twenty years of my life doing it, to boot.
I’m not setting myself up as a good example. I am a terrible warning. Don’t be a Gonz! (or at least the female version.)
I repeat, marriage (and I use the term in more of a spiritual sense rather than a sterile and legal contract, mind you) is about compromise, and on so many levels. Putting your mate first is very easy, but only easy to say. In practice it is simple, but far from easy. It is not for everyone. And no shame should incur to someone who can’t.
I’m not arguing it at all that people CAN do it - even feminists and MRA/FRA types can. But if you are examining yourself to see if it is for you, you have to open yourself to the possibility that it might not be. Feminism per se has nothing to do with it - you have an outside passion. An external goal, avocation, whatever term you wish to use. Can you put that marriage FIRST? It may not be a guarantor of a successful marriage - but I know of none that are successful that do not have that present.
If you can’t honestly answer “yes” totally and unequivocally - I wouldn’t reccommend it for you.
And since I can’t say “yes” to that, I’d be silly to fault anyone else who couldn’t.
More to my original point - sorry, I did ramble - the fact that many men are turned off by feminism is due, in a large part, to the fact that they percieve themselves as being second place to it. The fact that it is “feminism” is coincidence - it could be “Stamp collecting.” Nobody likes to be second fiddle.
Gonz, your post at 1:26 p.m. actually makes sense to me except for the part about feminism being an outside passion. I used to think I would remain unmarried for very similar reasons.
But this I don’t get:
More to my original point - sorry, I did ramble - the fact that many men are turned off by feminism is due, in a large part, to the fact that they percieve themselves as being second place to it. The fact that it is “feminism” is coincidence - it could be “Stamp collecting.” Nobody likes to be second fiddle.
Do you think this is a double standard? Do these men also think that it would be reasonable for women to not want to be second fiddle to the man’s interest or ideology?
For me, this is a bizarre view. Until I starated blogging, feminism was just a term for how I lived my life, not some enormous outside interest that took up all my time. As it is, it’s not like feminism and marriage are in conflict.
Amanda, you claim a lot of personal knowledge about me considering you know exactly Jack and shit about me.
FYI, I’ve been married for well over a decade to a strong, independent, self-sufficient woman who by no means identifies as a feminist but who in fact is more of a true feminist than any Third- or post Third-Wavers I’ve ever met. She’s strong, gracious, successful and most certainly not stuck in some paranoid fantasy that puts the blame for all the evils in the world at the feet of a dopey conspiracy theory called “the patriarchy.” And you? Do you even have a boyfriend at this point? I’ll put my record for successful relationships up against yours any time. Further, I love cats - and dogs, cows, sheep, birds, etc. The only donations I ever make any more are to our local Humane Society. The only reasons we’re talking about cats is, well, because that’s the title and part of the subject of Hugo’s post. Or didn’t you read those parts? You take offense at my characterization of an angry, controlling woman as a “drill seargent.” So noted. So what? Ask me if I care. You come out with your rhetorical guns blazing and then get miffed when people stand up to you, firing back with equally-sharp rhetoric; just like a schoolyard bully. Fine - I’m not impressed, nor am I moved.
Cynthia Wood said: “Back to Mr. Bad. Your longer post is agreeing with Amanda point for point at the end - you’re just not seeing it. Girls and women frequently get sold on the idea that men will not like them if they’re feminist, and therefore they should compromise their integrity and values in order to catch and keep a man. Amanda is saying a) that’s not true, and b) not catching a man is better than catching one who will require you to compromise yourself (note: this is different than compromising over externals) in order to keep him. Which seem to be exactly what you’re saying.”
Cynthia, yes I am agreeing with part of Amanda’s post and I am seeing it. However, I’m not agreeing with the tired old feminist shaming canard that it’s ‘weak, insecure’ men’s fault as she is claiming. Many men find feminists to be undesirable because for a variety of reasons - issues regarding (percieved or not) control, intransigence, anger, selfishness, etc., being among them - they’re unpleasant to be around. I believe that men should have the choice to accept or reject a woman based on her behavior, just like a woman. This has nothing to do with “fear of strong women,” etc.
I agree, women shouldn’t compromise their integrity just to land a man, unless of course they want to make that sacrifice to meet the man in question halfway, which is what successful marriages often require. However, if they decide not to make the required sacrifices to compromise for the sake of the relationship, then please don’t blame ‘weak, insecure’ men for their own inability to change, compromise and grow. IMO they should be happy with their situation and enjoy life with the cats.
I didn’t lay claim to knowing anythng about you except that you’re a misogynist coward, Mr. Bad, which isn’t information that you make private.
Mr. Bad, characterizing a woman for being “selfish” because she’s independent, and particularly leveling cowardly stereotypes about scary “drill sergents” is classic “fear of strong women” behavior. I mean, c’mon, a “drill sergent”? The word was used to provoke a fear reaction.
Mr. Bad’s posted before about his marriage of many years and, if I am not misremembering, I believe he has two grown children. He’s “in academia” now. Hope that fills in on the jack-shit front.
Gonzman, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to be independent. Putting yourself down for liking the way you live isn’t particularly better than criticizing feminists for liking the way they live.
I was pretty sure that Dworkin was lesbian and Stoltenberg is gay. They were “life partners” but I too was under the impression that sexuality wasn’t a part of that relationship.
I find it hard to call someone a lesbian or a gay man if they’ve been in a decades-long exclusive, loving, mutually dependent relationship with a member of the opposite sex, regardless of how often they do or don’t screw.
But Amanda’s writing comes across very argumentative, angry, and irrational (as does mine on other forums sometimes), all of which are undesirable traits in a relationship partner of either gender. I think some feminists are not so abrasive.
I must agree with this sentiment. Amanda’s blog post was pretty interesting in several ways. I found it difficult to believe that she actually read though the comments, especially Gonz’s posts. Her observations of this thread were very skewed to be mild. I’ll resist the urge to play armchair psychologist, but some of the ways she interpreted what has been said here was colorful to say the least, but sadly inaccurate. She cherry picked statements, and changed their meaning in a somewhat dishonest way. It was quite sad in a way. I can’t help but wonder at the bitterness in the comments.
I mean, after reading Gonz’s post about relationships, I had to go drink a beer and take a breath. It seemed kindof empty. Amanda’s comments about relationships made me want to jump off a building. Very sad indeed. The sheer anger, hatred and distrust in it.
The replies in the comment section were much the same. It was obvious most hadn’t even read the post here. But, gee it’s sure fun to bash those “anti-feminists”. Especially the ones that dare to post here (and most especially that dastardly Gonz). It was a lot more of the same bitterness and hatred over and over.
The thing is, I’ll bet that most every man here on this blog supports a large percentage of Feminist goals. Certainly most every post was supportive of independent women as equals, including Gonz’s and Mr. Bad’s. I don’t think most would engage here, as long as they have been coming here, if they didn’t truly believe that. But to her (and others here and there) we are all trolls and woman haters and want women to be our doormats and it always will be so. That is simply not true no matter how many times they repeat it.
I hate to see it, because I know what I see in some of these feminist blogs like Amanda’s is not true of the wider feminist movement and of most of the women in it, but Amanda’s outlook on men and life in general, her irrational conclusions, and her anger are exactly the stereotype that men and women, that have never been exposed to Feminism 101, think of when the word feminist is mentioned. Who would want to try to go out with someone that has already formed such opinions about men or that make such judgments of other women’s lives. Life is just too short. It’s tragic, but this stereotype turns both men and women (like Hugo’s students) off to Feminism, which is overall, a worthy goal.
But unfortunately, for men and worse for Feminists, the stereotype is not Happy Feminist, it’s the Pandagonians.
Okay, who wants to start a betting pool on when Amanda gets called a hairy-legged dyke? We’ve already gotten through the “bitter shrew who can’t find a man” nonsense.
Could we maybe NOT get to that point on this blog? Detente, please, on the name calling.
Hugo, c’mon, let the dinosaurs clomp around.
It’s true that I’m “argumentative” (so bad in a woman!) but apparently not enough, if you guy by my man’s statements on it. He’s always begging me to speak up more. ;) “Angry” of course is a word that’s supposed to hurt but I don’t see why—if something is anger-inducing, then it’s good to get angry. Sexism should make women angry. Men who make unlikely claims on the internet about how they “wouldn’t” date feminists, aka women who wouldn’t have them, are particularly maddening. “Irrational” is just the sexist word for “female”, and it’s sort of circular to ask, “Is it sexist for men to insinuate that women are somehow lesser than them?”
I am a Happy Feminist and a Pandagonian.
Oh heck, me too. I’m a