The myth of the stereotypical feminist
Mon, 2007-10-15 21:56
#1
The myth of the stereotypical feminist
Mon, 2007-10-15 21:56
#2
Here's an interesting tidbit I found. According to the linked study, feminists have a better sex life than non-feminists. Enjoy:
[b]Feminism and romance go hand in hand[/b]
[i]Study reveals that feminism is healthy for intimate relationships[/i]
[url=http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/s-far101507.php]link here[/url]
Mon, 2007-10-15 22:14
#3
They needed a study to figure this out? [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-10-16 09:44
#4
quote:
They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.
This fits perfectly with my anecdotal experience. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img] [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2007-10-16 09:53
#5
N.Beltov
quote:
A. Kitty: They needed a study to figure this out?
Given the endless anti-feminist propaganda and stereotypes, the study was probably a useful public service for women, and many men, everywhere.
Tue, 2007-10-16 12:02
#6
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Given the endless anti-feminist propaganda and stereotypes, the study was probably a useful public service for women, and many men, everywhere.[/b]
Doubt it. People who cling to stereotypes will dismiss this as liberal propaganda -- if they actually ever hear about it.
And I find it fascinating that people assume that a big percentage of men don't already know it. A bit of reverse sexism to assume they don't, at any rate.
Tue, 2007-10-16 18:30
#7
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]This fits perfectly with my anecdotal experience. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img] [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
Absolutely.
[img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
There has to be a T-shirt slogan in this.
How 'bout "Once you go feminist you never go back?"
Tue, 2007-10-16 20:03
#8
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:
[b]
There has to be a T-shirt slogan in this.How 'bout "Once you go feminist you never go back?"[/b]
Love it!
Tue, 2007-10-16 23:25
#9
[b]Feminist heterosexuals are so by choice.[/b]
[ 16 October 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Wed, 2007-10-17 07:03
#10
thanks for stating the obvious
any women in your group, Martin?
any method whatsoever for getting input on your activities from women?
when was the last time you spoke to a woman?
Wed, 2007-10-17 09:42
#11
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:
[b]thanks for stating the obviousany women in your group, Martin?
any method whatsoever for getting input on your activities from women?
when was the last time you spoke to a woman?[/b]
Let's not jump to conclusions. Are you even sure Martin is a guy? Cuz I know there is someone else out there with the exact same name as me and the person is a he. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2007-10-17 09:59
#12
quote:
Originally posted by Alexandra Kitty:
[b]They needed a study to figure this out? [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
I have many friends who have as a life goal the desire to get a research grant -- to go prove the obvious.
Wed, 2007-10-17 15:18
#13
Re: Feminist heterosexuals are so by choice.
Minkepants went: "thanks for stating the obvious"
Oh yeah? Try this line around various folks. Biological determininism still rules for most, IMHO. And the notion of choice in sexual orientation raises almost everyone's hackles.
Wed, 2007-10-17 17:06
#14
Do you think sexual orientation is a matter of choice, Martin?
Wed, 2007-10-17 17:52
#15
I always thought (and still do) that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice. But, believe it or not, on another message board there were several lesbian women that say homosexuality *is* a choice.
Wed, 2007-10-17 17:53
#16
[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2007-10-17 17:54
#17
blank
Wed, 2007-10-17 18:15
#18
(Back edited for clarity and documentation)
Sineed asks if I think sexual orientation is a matter of choice.
Hmmm... It seems to me that the very notion of "orientation" somewhat begs the issue, no?
Also for something to be "a matter of" X (be it choice or biological "hard-wiring") eludes any model that would acknowledge BOTH influences, if such is the case.
Empirically, my own experience is that of having been attracted to both genders. So some choice had/has to be involved -- if one dismisses the (unverifiable and therefore useless) hypothesis that one is "really" het or gay "deep inside", a view that can be validating but that can also cause suffering to people confronted with lack of respect for their feelings and choices.
Empirically again, I have known many friends to cross over from one deeply held sexual preference to another, because of people they met and felt a deep attraction for or that they chose because of their qualities.
Other folks identify or as labeled as "bisexual" or asexual, casting some doubt on how hard and fast is the notion of "sexual orientation" in the first place.
But one can certainly understand how alleged or perceived LACK of choice has been used as a defense by gays and lesbians in a deeply homophobic society.
Here is how this relates to the thread subject:
quote:
They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction.
it feels to me as if these data validate a certain modicum of choice. If one can be feminist or not and make one's het partner more or less happy, one can presumably choose soulmate(s) for good reasons, including among either gender group, where most het people feel that they have no choice in this matter... and often feel "stuck with" suffering with a non-feminist, non-loving partner, for instance.
It just seems to me intuitively that there is something both empowering and appreciative of one's partners in wearing a T-shirt that would state HETEROSEXUAL BY CHOICE or LESBIAN BY CHOICE or GAY BY CHOICE.
On the political level, I wonder to what extent something like a "HET BY CHOICE" T-shirt would highlight and problematize (or, counterproductively, infirm) Adrienne Rich's conceptual breakthrough when she first identified "compulsory heterosexuality" in our society - a notion that has led to that of "heteronormativity"?
(Just thinking aloud, as you see, and eager to hear your own feelings about these issues, Sineed and folks.)
A tremendous essay: [url=http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm]Adrienne Rich: Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence[/url]
[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Wed, 2007-10-17 18:18
#19
for some people its a hoice, for some it aint, IMHO. I asked a v. good friend who had just come out of the closet whether it was a choice once. He said, basically "are you kiddin? Why would I choose this? IE to be mocked, derided, insulted, etc., which is not to say he wasnt proud and activist about his orientation once he realized prayer and denial and wishing wasn't going to change reality or nature.
I've also heard it said by gay friends tha, regardless of whether it is a choice or not, they are horrified at the prospect of science PROVING it is a matter of biological determinismfor some people. Such proof, they rightly fear, could be utilized by less enlightened souls in the service of selective eugenics programmes.
On the other hand, of course, shitheads like Anita Bryant would say that its all a coice and, ergo, a sin.
And then I've known radical lesbians, who, in their twenties, went so far as to advocate for sexual seperatism, and were furious at the thought that anyone would dare to suggest that they weren't "born that way." or that they were just "waiting for the right man." The catch is, some of these same militant women are now maried to men.
So I would say "sometimes."
But I still have no clue where Martin's non-sequitur comes from or its connection to the preceeding thread.
Hey Martin. You highlighted these questions but never answered them:
any women in your group, Martin?
any method whatsoever for getting input on your activities from women?
when was the last time you spoke to a woman?
and
Wed, 2007-10-17 18:25
#20
No, I didn't highlight these "questions" and I won't honour them with answers. Get serious, please. The rest of your post is right on the issues, fortunately. I was still editing my post when you replied, so I trust that you'll find us in general agreement about the complexity of the pressures involved.
[ 18 October 2007: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Wed, 2007-10-17 18:30
#21
Why? You post from other strictly fraternal "feminist" organizations, belittle womens arguments in a feminist forum, yet give no indication you have any contact with the female half of the species whatsoever.