I just have to say, I love this framing: "Feminism is a complex, multi-faceted movement with the sole purpose of supporting women and upending inequity. It is not a religion. You do not owe feminism anything. Feminism exists to serve you, not the other way around. That doesn't mean feminism creates no moral obligations, but if you're worried that your life is somehow an affront to feminists or feminism, you're looking at this through a lens of self-blame and guilt--exactly the sorts of emotions patriarchy creates in women."
Women ask sheepishly “is it feminist” when they are doing something they know is demeaning and degrading to women, but for whatever reason they want to do it anyway. And then they want a kind of “feminist priest” to come along and absolve them of this contradiction by using mental gymnastics to prove how this degrading, demeaning and/or subordinating practice is empowering. Relationships with men are reconciled with feminism when the woman is getting the same or more than she puts in, which is virtually never. The relationship structure doesn’t matter, men will make damn sure they are getting more out of it than their efforts would dictate. Men will not do one iota more than what’s necessary to keep the woman from running off screaming and tearing her hair out. And there’s not a single liberty they won’t consider taking.
Knowing that, what choice seems most empowering for women?
There is a fine line between blaming oneself unnecessarily for the actions of others (especially men), and seizing upon one’s own personal power to control one’s own life circumstances. So often as women we want our cake and to eat it too. We want to be in relationships with abusive, inadequate and deranged men, and we want those men to treat us right and make us happy. How are we going to make that happen? How can that work? We can’t, it can’t, and we refuse to accept it. We waste time arguing and “communicating” and setting up token economies / chore charts and reading books (eg Fair Play) and going to seminars to fight against basic 1+1=2 reality, while the men in our lives sit back, relax, and enjoy all the benefits they can wring out of us. Like this guy who essentially has two wives, or a wife and a girlfriend. AND A KID! He is living a silverback gorilla fantasy and he has no problem with it, because why should he curb his own pleasure for the sake of someone else? He’s gonna get his.
We take responsibility, but for the wrong things. We act, but on the wrong person’s behalf.
As an aside I wonder how much of the confusion in this situation comes from this new attachment theory based advice of “your partner can’t be everything for you, get your needs met by other people.” I wonder how the boyfriend would feel if the writer moved in with a male friend and got her “practical needs” (unclear what that means) met by him. Chances are he would be out of there ASAP, and maybe even dish up some violence before or after.
I just have to say, I love this framing: "Feminism is a complex, multi-faceted movement with the sole purpose of supporting women and upending inequity. It is not a religion. You do not owe feminism anything. Feminism exists to serve you, not the other way around. That doesn't mean feminism creates no moral obligations, but if you're worried that your life is somehow an affront to feminists or feminism, you're looking at this through a lens of self-blame and guilt--exactly the sorts of emotions patriarchy creates in women."
Women ask sheepishly “is it feminist” when they are doing something they know is demeaning and degrading to women, but for whatever reason they want to do it anyway. And then they want a kind of “feminist priest” to come along and absolve them of this contradiction by using mental gymnastics to prove how this degrading, demeaning and/or subordinating practice is empowering. Relationships with men are reconciled with feminism when the woman is getting the same or more than she puts in, which is virtually never. The relationship structure doesn’t matter, men will make damn sure they are getting more out of it than their efforts would dictate. Men will not do one iota more than what’s necessary to keep the woman from running off screaming and tearing her hair out. And there’s not a single liberty they won’t consider taking.
Knowing that, what choice seems most empowering for women?
There is a fine line between blaming oneself unnecessarily for the actions of others (especially men), and seizing upon one’s own personal power to control one’s own life circumstances. So often as women we want our cake and to eat it too. We want to be in relationships with abusive, inadequate and deranged men, and we want those men to treat us right and make us happy. How are we going to make that happen? How can that work? We can’t, it can’t, and we refuse to accept it. We waste time arguing and “communicating” and setting up token economies / chore charts and reading books (eg Fair Play) and going to seminars to fight against basic 1+1=2 reality, while the men in our lives sit back, relax, and enjoy all the benefits they can wring out of us. Like this guy who essentially has two wives, or a wife and a girlfriend. AND A KID! He is living a silverback gorilla fantasy and he has no problem with it, because why should he curb his own pleasure for the sake of someone else? He’s gonna get his.
We take responsibility, but for the wrong things. We act, but on the wrong person’s behalf.
As an aside I wonder how much of the confusion in this situation comes from this new attachment theory based advice of “your partner can’t be everything for you, get your needs met by other people.” I wonder how the boyfriend would feel if the writer moved in with a male friend and got her “practical needs” (unclear what that means) met by him. Chances are he would be out of there ASAP, and maybe even dish up some violence before or after.